Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 114 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 114 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5600-H5653]
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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of New Jersey). Pursuant to House
Resolution 363 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2584.

{time} 1316

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
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, with Mr. Rogers of Alabama
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
July 26, 2011, the bill had been read through page 56, line 22.
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. Clarke of Michigan.
An amendment by Mr. Dicks of Washington.
An amendment by Mr. Tonko of New York.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Amash of Michigan.
An amendment by Mr. Dold of Illinois.
Amendment No. 44 by Mr. Reed of New York.
An amendment, as modified, by Mr. Scalise of Louisiana.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Clarke) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 251, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 651]

AYES--173

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Rogers (MI)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--251

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant

[[Page H5601]]

Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--8

Bachmann
Buerkle
Costa
Giffords
Hinchey
Landry
McCotter
Stark

{time} 1340

Messrs. CONNOLLY of Virginia, MORAN, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Messrs.
ROHRABACHER, and McINTYRE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BECERRA, DUFFY, Ms. WILSON of Florida, and Ms. LEE 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. Dicks

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) 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 is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 202, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 652]

AYES--224

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
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.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stearns
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--202

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

NOT VOTING--6

Bachmann
Costa
Giffords
Hinchey
McCotter
Stark

{time} 1345

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Tonko) 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 238, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 653]

AYES--184

Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn

[[Page H5602]]

Hanna
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Renacci
Richardson
Richmond
Roskam
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--238

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keating
Kind
King (IA)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Bachmann
Crenshaw
Giffords
Hinchey
McCotter
Schrader
Smith (WA)
Stark
Terry
Waters

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1349

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

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Amash

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Amash) 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. 654]

AYES--131

Altmire
Amash
Bartlett
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Bono Mack
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Canseco
Carney
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Costello
Denham
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Hall
Hartzler
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Thornberry
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yoder

NOES--294

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush

[[Page H5603]]

Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sullivan
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
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Johnson (IL)

NOT VOTING--6

Bachmann
Becerra
Giffords
Hinchey
McCotter
Stark

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1353

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dold

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Dold) 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. 655]

AYES--137

Ackerman
Altmire
Baldwin
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Chabot
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Denham
Dent
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Engel
Farr
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Hahn
Hanna
Heinrich
Higgins
Hochul
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Lance
Landry
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Manzullo
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Moore
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Nunes
Owens
Paulsen
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Roskam
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shimkus
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Stivers
Sutton
Tiberi
Tonko
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)

NOES--291

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Kingston
Kissell
Labrador
Lamborn
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tipton
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Walden
Watt
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--4

Bachmann
Giffords
Hinchey
McCotter

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1356

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

Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Reed

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reed) 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. 656]

AYES--237

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Cohen
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Engel
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling

[[Page H5604]]

Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Holden
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shuler
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Webster
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--189

Alexander
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boustany
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Burgess
Butterfield
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleischmann
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
King (IA)
Kingston
Lamborn
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Lynch
Markey
McCaul
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Olson
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schiff
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Speier
Stark
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tipton
Towns
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Bachmann
Emerson
Giffords
Hinchey
McCotter
Meeks

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1402

Messrs. PERLMUTTER and CLEAVER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. RIGELL and WITTMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) 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. 657]

AYES--215

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

NOES--213

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall

[[Page H5605]]

Rangel
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rogers (KY)
Ross (AR)
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
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Bachmann
Giffords
Hinchey
McCotter

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

{time} 1406

Ms. BERKLEY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thornberry). The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

yukon-charley national preserve

Sec. 116. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Secretary of the Interior to implement or
enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities
on or relating to waters located within Yukon-Charley
National Preserve, including waters subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, pursuant to section 3(h)
of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-2(h)) or any other
authority. This section does not affect the authority of the
Coast Guard to regulate the use of waters subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States within the Yukon-Charley
National Preserve.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

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

Page 56, beginning on line 23, strike section 116.

{time} 1410

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. Section 116 would prohibit the National Park Service from
carrying out boat inspection or safety checks on the Yukon River within
the Yukon-Charley National Preserve in Alaska. This provision was put
in at the request of Mr. Young from Alaska who is upset with the
National Park Service law enforcement at the preserve.
Last summer, two park rangers arrested a 70-year-old following an
altercation during a boat safety inspection. This case is still before
the courts, but it has stirred considerable local anger, especially
when it was learned that the rangers had handcuffed but later released
another local resident who refused to speak to rangers when approached.
Mr. Young of Alaska is a long-time friend of mine, and I am very
hesitant to offer this amendment to strike his provision, but I think
he has already won the case. The people there, the two rangers, have
been reassigned to another duty, and the Park Service does have
jurisdiction. I have discussed this with Chairman Young, and the Park
Service always has jurisdiction within the national park.
Now, the gentleman from Alaska suggested that the Coast Guard had
jurisdiction or the State had jurisdiction, but we have checked this
carefully. The Park Service has jurisdiction within the national
preserve to look at safety on the river. I think it is wrong to
prohibit a safety inspection for people whose lives are at risk up
there.
I have been to Alaska many times. These rivers can be very dangerous,
and to make sure that the people who are being conveyed--this is a
commercial endeavor--the people who are being moved around in these
boats are safe, the people who own the boats are safe, whether it is
commercial or not.
So I would like to yield to the ranking member and discuss this
amendment and the importance of it.
Mr. MORAN. Well, first of all, I would like to ask my good friend:
Why is this not an earmark? Why is this not an earmark for one
particular national preserve?
While we are considering that, perhaps Mr. Young can come up with an
explanation. And I share the ranking member's great affection for Mr.
Young. He is a good friend. But this also creates a precedent. Any time
something happens on a national preserve or park land, they could come
to the Congress and say, all right, no more inspections, and we could
get a proliferation of these kinds of things specific to individual
national reserves or parks.
The fact is that if the Park Service has jurisdiction, then they have
responsibility. And I'll bet you anything that if we were to say there
were to be no boat inspections, something's going to happen and some
serious accident is going to occur, and then people are going to ask
why in gosh name wasn't the Park Service there to do inspections? And
it's going to go back to this, where we set a precedent of not allowing
any boat inspection or safety check.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, the thing is this has happened before.
I can remember one of our colleagues putting in a provision in one of
these bills, I think it was the Merchant Marine and Fisheries bill
years ago, about one of the boats that was going up to Alaska to fish
in these very dangerous waters. This wasn't in the river; it was in the
ocean. And that boat went down, and there were many questions raised
about why that Member had prohibited boat and safety inspections of
that boat.
Now, I think the gentleman is completely right. This is a bad
precedent. The gentleman from Alaska has already won. He has already
gotten his view across with the Park Service. They have taken these
rangers away. It's time to leave this. We're doing this amendment in
the best interests of Mr. Young. And if Mr. Young would like to get up
and explain this, I would like to hear his explanation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, Members of the body, with all due
respect, this is about the State's rights. This bill does not preclude
the State of Alaska, the Coast Guard, or any other entity from
enforcement on the Yukon River. The Park Service can still move on the
river. But it does not allow them to enforce inspections of boats on
the river that are private. Not in business, but private.
And I have to tell you a little story about this. This is the reason
I'm very adamant about it. The Park Service is for the people; it's not
for the Park Service. The Park Service in Alaska has become, very
frankly, I'd say, like an occupying army of a free territory. To give
you an example, this man that was arrested was 70 years old with his
wife, who happened to be from Germany--I'm going to bring that up a
little later--and a couple. So 70 years old, 69 years old, 68 years
old, on a cruise on the Yukon River in a very seaworthy boat, Coast
Guard inspected. And there was another boat on the river and there was
a distress signal given by the Park Service. Being a good Samaritan,
they went over to help them out. As they approached the boat, they
flashed their badges and said: We're the Park Service. We're going to
board your vessel and inspect you for safety and registration.
Think about this. A distress signal, and then: We're going to board
your boat.
And maritime law says you will not board a boat on a moving river.
You have to put it to shore.
And the guy said: Up yours; I'm going to go to shore. And that's what
he did.
And he gets to shore, he gets out of the boat. The rangers have
already got a shotgun on a 70-year-old man, and carrying a pistol out
of the holster. And as the guy walked toward them, they started to say
something. He turned around and walked back. They tackled him and
rolled him in the mud, a 70-year-old man. These are two young bucks--
cowboys--and handcuffed this man, this 70-year-old man, and made him
sit on the shore. And they took him a great distance down the river to
a village and flew him to Fairbanks--drove him to Fairbanks--
handcuffed.
This is your Park Service? This is not my Park Service.

[[Page H5606]]

Well, it did go to trial and the judge hasn't rendered his decision
yet. In the first place, the State never gave them the authority to do
any inspection. In the second place, they never gave them the
authority--by the way, the Coast Guard did not give them authority. And
they do not have jurisdiction over that water; that's State water. In
every State in this Union, it's the State's water. To have the Park
Service act like that is dead wrong.
So I'm asking you not to support this amendment. This is an amendment
that shouldn't be adopted because we have agencies today who are
acting, very frankly, like occupiers. The lady I brought up was from
Germany. And during the trial they asked her, the prosecution: Did you
ever have a gun pointed at you? And she said: Yes, by the SS troops.
Now, that gives you an idea. A 70-year-old lady and have them point a
shotgun. Now, that's wrong.
You say it sets a precedent; yes, it sets a precedent because it's
State's waters. This amendment should not be accepted. We should leave
it in the bill as it is. It's the right thing to do.
I say vote down the amendment. Think about the little people. Quit
thinking about these agencies. These agencies aren't God. Think about
the little people. People are abused by agencies, and you're paying for
them.
And by the way, the one ranger, the one ranger, had a record longer
than my arms, and they hired him to enforce the so-called park
regulations.
So I'm asking you to think about this a moment. It's the wrong
amendment. This is the right thing to do. It's time we start telling
these agencies: Think of the people, not the parks themselves.

{time} 1420

This is about parks and partners. And they're certainly not partners
in Alaska. They say: We're going to educate Alaskans about Alaska. Now,
this is a 70-year-old man that had been living there all his life. And
to have that happen is dead wrong.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, in response to my very good friend, it
appears that the conduct--it appears--the conduct of these park rangers
was wrong. So they have been reassigned. And I'm sure that whoever has
responsibility now in that jurisdiction has been told you don't do
this.
Now, these kinds of things happen all over the country, if not all
over the world, clearly. Some people in authority abuse their power. It
happens with local police departments. It happens with State police. It
happens with other people with a badge. And so they get disciplined.
Sometimes they get taken to court. But normally we don't change
national policy to deal with misconduct, if that's what it was, on the
part of certain individuals. We don't change national policy. And
that's what you're trying to do.
Let me put into this discussion and deliberation the fact that they
had to go through national park land to get to that State water. They
do. And the National Park Service runs the concessions. So the National
Park Service does have responsibility for some of the vehicles on this
water. They don't know if there's contraband stuff coming. They don't
know what's on the vessel.
My guess is--I don't know for sure--my guess is it's very seldom that
they're going to stop and board any boat. They would probably have to
have some reason. I'm sure now, after this incident, they have to have
very substantial reason. But it's entirely conceivable that at some
point in the future they're going to have very substantial reason to
stop and board a boat. And we have precluded their ability to carry out
their responsibility.
So that's why we're concerned about the precedent. We're not
concerned about the fact that if there was misconduct, that these folks
have been reassigned. We're sure that the instructions that have been
given by superiors have changed now to ensure that this incident is
never repeated. But we really don't think that the solution is to
change national policy, which would have repercussions for other
national preserves around the country, and it might have very serious
ramifications on this particular one in the future. We can't tell right
now.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Again, I plead with my friend from Alaska. You have made
your case. You have gotten the relief for your constituents. The
rangers have been reassigned. Accept victory and don't give us an
amendment that would undermine boat safety inspections. That's what
this amendment does.
Let me read this amendment: No other funds made available by this Act
may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to implement or enforce
regulations concerning boating and other activities on or relating to
waters located within Yukon Charlie National Preserve, including waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Pursuant to section
3(h) of public law, or any other authority.
Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time, it's clear that's not just the
waterway. That includes all of the land. The entire park on this
national preserve, they can't carry out their responsibilities. We're
not just talking about the water.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It is not their responsibility. This is the
State waters.
Mr. DICKS. It's within a national park.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has the floor. Members
will yield time appropriately to each other.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. MORAN. I yield to my very good friend from Alaska to try to
clarify what seems to be inextricable.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again, this is Yukon Charlie, the Yukon River
that was used by the Gold Rush people, has been used by Alaskans all
these years without the Park Service. The State has authority over the
waters. The Coast Guard has the authority for inspection. The State has
the authority for registration, not the Park Service. This is navigable
water that is our water. Now, the land is there on one side. But this
is our water.
I have not won because I may have won a temporary battle, but there
can be another park ranger--rangers. There can be another park
superintendent that does not listen to anyone. Then where are we?
Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time, the language is clear it applies to
all waters, not just navigable waters.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The only navigable water is the Yukon.
Mr. MORAN. It's possible if the language was more specific, we
wouldn't have quite the trouble with it.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Again, relating to waters located within Yukon Charlie
National Preserve, including waters subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Hastings of Washington, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Moran was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. MORAN. I would be happy to yield to the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate my friend from Washington
reading the section, but he left out the last sentence of that section.
I think this is a pertinent part and this is the point that the
gentleman from Alaska is making, and it regards safety inspection.
I will quote the last sentence: ``This section does not affect the
authority of the Coast Guard to regulate the use of waters subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States within the Yukon Charlie
Preserve.''
I would interpret that as saying the safety part of that is taken
care of. But the gentleman from Alaska certainly is right on the part
that these are State waters.
I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H5607]]

Mr. MORAN. I was happy to yield.
Reclaiming my time, I would respond to the gentleman, the Coast Guard
really doesn't spend much time on rivers. It's normally coastal waters.
It may have responsibility, but the fact is the Coast Guard normally
doesn't apply much in the way of resources.
I would like to know how large is this national preserve, because I
suspect it's a very expansive national preserve that we're talking
about. Do we know?
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. If the Park Service doesn't have jurisdiction, how does
the Coast Guard have jurisdiction? That's another Federal agency. The
gentleman changed his story and told me it was the State that had
authority. I wonder who in the hell has authority.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Will the gentleman from Washington yield?

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Again, the Chair requests that Members use proper
yielding to each other for time. The gentleman from Virginia has the
floor.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the Chair.
I think a number of very good questions have been raised by the
ranking member of the full committee--Appropriations Committee--and we
are concerned about this precedent. We're also concerned about the
safety of people who use this national preserve. We can understand Mr.
Young's angst, but nevertheless we have a responsibility not to
establish precedent that may come back to haunt us.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to point out that the staff clearly researched the
language here and applicable laws that relate to these waters. That's
what we do when we put this language in here.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. To answer the gentleman, the Coast Guard has all
the authority for enforcement on all waters, including all rivers. In
fact, sometimes the Coast Guard is too active on the river, as far as
I'm concerned. I have been on that river. Like I say, I'm a tugboat
captain, a licensed mariner, and my biggest challenge to this is
excessive use of the Park Service.
Now, you say I won that battle. Like I said before, that doesn't keep
them from trying to enforce this again over the State's objection. The
State didn't give them the right to register the boats or check
registrations. The Coast Guard didn't give them the right to inspect
the boat.
And remember this now: Here are two guys giving a distress signal and
a good citizen tried to help them and they flash a badge. This sounds
like you know what to me. That's not a good thing. I get very
frustrated. Leave this in the bill. Let the Park Service know they no
longer can trod over the people of Alaska because they are part of the
Federal Government. They are the Park Service--You better listen to
us--when this man was breaking no laws. This is wrong.
Now, you say I have won the battle. Maybe I have. But it took a lot
of effort to do it. But I haven't won the war. And they will come back.
So I'm suggesting this stay in the bill as it is. It's very, very
important.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1430

Mr. MARKEY. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. I rise in support of the amendment.
We understand that this is a huge 2.5 million-acre park and that what
we're talking about here is a 158-mile-long river in the middle of this
park, so we're talking about a huge area.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The river is 2,800 miles long. This is one
little tiny section. This is a river that's 5 miles wide and 2,800
miles long. It's the third largest river in the United States of
America that carries transportation.
Mr. MARKEY. I reclaim my time to say that the 158-mile area is a
portion of the inside of the park, of the 2.5 million-acre park. So it
seems to me what the gentleman is suggesting is that he believes--and I
understand--that the National Park Service or that an individual
officer made a mistake here, that they abused their authority, and I
understand that.
When I was a boy, my favorite television show when I was 9, 10, 11
was ``Sergeant Preston of the Yukon.'' He had his faithful horse, Rex,
and his dog, Yukon King. Each week at 5 o'clock on Friday, he would
come out to patrol the Yukon. He worked for the Canadian Royal
Mounties. I would like to think that, if he ever made a mistake--if he
ever overstepped his boundaries, if he ever improperly treated anyone
he was in the process of arresting--that the punishment wouldn't be
that the Mounties could never again, any of them, go into the Yukon,
because that would seem to me to kind of result in a less fully
implemented set of law enforcement principles in that area.
What we're learning here is that the punishment to the National Park
Service for potentially something that one or two officers engaged in
is that none of them can continue their policing, which the Coast Guard
says they need. In fact, this is, in many ways, such a remote part of
the Yukon that the Coast Guard right now relies upon the Park Service
police to police these areas.
The answer which we're getting from the gentleman of Alaska--and I
understand the example that he's trying to make of this one particular
incident--is that you're using this as something that, I think, is
illustrative--okay?--and perhaps just the highlight, but I don't think
you really want the result to be a reduction in the overall enforcement
of the laws inside of the park, because that's what would result here.
The partnership between the Coast Guard and the Park Service on this
river and all that abuts the river is something that is seamless and
has worked for generations, and it is something that everyone seems to
support.
Perhaps you could target this a little bit more narrowly but not
punish the entire Park Service and every officer in the Park Service.
It's like every person who works there is now going to suffer as a
result of this amendment, and I don't think that's what you intend.
So I will support the amendment of the gentleman from Washington
State. It will, I think, make it possible for us to come back to maybe
take another look at but not in a way that undermines this partnership
that has existed up there for a generation, which has worked. By the
way, if there is an exception in any police department, the action of
that person who did something wrong should not lead to that entire
police department never again being able to enforce the laws. That
would be an indictment of everyone; okay?
I think, to the extent to which the Dicks amendment seeks to delete
the provision which is in the bill, it doesn't mean that you can't come
back and talk about something that might be more specific.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Again, what I worry about here is we're talking about
safety. We're talking about inspecting boats that may be unsafe. I
think that is an important issue that we should not deal with in an
across-the-board way here in this bill.
I think the gentleman from Alaska has made his point. I think he
should support our amendment to strike this in order to make sure that
the people of Alaska are protected. I know he cares about them.
Mr. MARKEY. Reclaiming my time, the effect of this amendment could
be, because the Coast Guard relies upon the Park Service, that we wind
up with an entire area without any law enforcement. Because the Coast
Guard does not reach that area, the Park Service is there. If you take
out the Park Service, it becomes much more of a dangerous place for
everyone, and I don't think that's really what the gentleman intends.

[[Page H5608]]

I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. It has been a fascinating debate to listen to the
gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Virginia tell the
gentleman from Alaska how it works in Alaska. I will tell you that he
knows more about Alaska than any of you ever thought of knowing. The
problem is, you say you're trying to save Mr. Young from himself by
offering this amendment. We're trying to save the Park Service from
itself and the actions that it has taken.
Now, logically, your argument says if people have problems in their
own areas, then you might see other amendments come up like this and
we'll be setting a precedent. Exactly. If we can't have oversight about
what goes on and about what the Park Service does, why are we even
here?
You heard the story, which I won't repeat, of what happened to this
gentleman, Mr. Wilde, on the river. We all agree that it's a problem.
In fact, when the Park Service stops the gentleman in the middle of the
river and tells him to shut down his boat, to shut down his motors--and
as they testified in court, they refused to shut down theirs because it
was unsafe--who is being protected? That's the point. The safety
inspections of these boats will not stop. The statutory authority is
given to the Coast Guard. That's who has the statutory authority, not
the Park Service. That's the debate that's going on here.
This language is intended to only limit the Park Service's authority
to engage in boater safety checks on the Yukon River within the Yukon
Charley National Preserve, the only non-ocean navigable waterway within
Alaska's national parks. It is important to note that this language
will not have any effect on the ability of the Coast Guard to conduct
the statutorily granted power of conducting boater safety checks. It is
intended to avoid similar incidents between the Park Service and the
public.
Yes, when Mr. Young brought this up originally, the manager of the
Park Service could have said, ``You're right. There is a problem there,
and I'll get rid of these people.'' They didn't do that. It took this
to bring about the actions that have finally occurred: that they've
been dismissed from that region. We're trying to prevent the Park
Service from harming itself.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Just keep in mind that the Coast Guard has its
authority. As soon as this happened, I called the Coast Guard because
the Park Service said the Coast Guard had granted them that authority.
The Coast Guard said, No way. That's our authority.
Secondly, they said, with registration, only the State has the right
to register a boat--that's the same thing in your State--not any
Federal agency.
Remember, this is the highway of Alaska. The highway of Alaska has
been used for hundreds of years, and we've gotten along very well
without any Park Service all these years. By the way, I don't think
there was a drowning because of a boat accident on that section of the
river--in history. So why all of a sudden you're wanting me to protect
the Alaskan people who do not like this, I do not understand.
Very frankly, I think you're meddling. You're meddling in something
that a State has a great interest in, that has said before, This is our
waterway. We have a right to traverse it from Canada through Alaska,
all the way down to the Bering Sea. By the way, it had an illegal boat.
According to the Coast Guard, the boat they were driving was
overpowered. So just leave this in the bill as it should be.
I ask all of my colleagues to think about this very carefully. Do you
want an agency that does not respect the rights of individuals because
they work with the government or an agency that does not respect the
rights of history? I don't think you do.
So I'm asking for the amendment to be defeated, and I'm asking for my
colleagues to understand this is a big issue in my State. It is very,
very important, not only to me, but to my people--the people of the
State of Alaska, who have been using that river for centuries. So let's
just leave it in the bill.

{time} 1440

So let's just leave it in the bill.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. We have people in the law enforcement area who make
mistakes, but we don't get rid of law enforcement. We don't say we're
no longer going to protect people, the other people. We go through a
process to see what that officer did. I think the gentleman gets the
gist.
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, we're not getting rid of law
enforcement here. The Coast Guard will still do the safety inspections
which they are statutorily authorized to do. The Park Service is not
statutorily authorized to do that. They say they have been given that
authority from the Coast Guard. I don't think that's the case.
So we're not getting rid of anything. What we're doing is clearing up
a jurisdictional problem here.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. I would hope we could clarify this. There seems to be a
misunderstanding here. I hope that we can, if my amendment doesn't
prevail, that we could try to work together to clarify this before
conference.
Mr. SIMPSON. I'll guarantee there is a misunderstanding here.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would again remind all Members that they
should direct their comments to the Chair, not to others.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. There is no doubt, Mr. Young, that you are
the renowned expert on Alaska. So I don't rise to counter that. And in
fact, I come from the other open, wild State that likes their own self-
determination, and they just associated you with the State of Texas.
I remind my colleagues that there is water in Virginia, there's water
in Massachusetts, and there's water all along. But I rise to support
the gentleman's amendment because frankly, the last time I talked to
the very important Coast Guard, they're short on money. Frankly, I want
the Coast Guard to be in the port of Houston doing their job as it
relates to protecting the coastline of America from terrorists. They
are involved in that. They are not, in essence, an agency that can just
expand its resources.
I would just raise the question. I think the gentleman from
Washington was very engaging and cooperative by saying how can we work
this out.
My interpretation is, in opposing the language that's in the bill and
supporting Mr. Dicks, is that we have, in essence, a legislative
earmark, and that means that all of us can rise up and try to solve our
problems in that way.
I would like to get back to regular order.
And I cite for all of you just another example. We've got a
legislative earmark when one of our Republican colleagues has decided
to shut down the FAA. That's an example.
And lost in the doing of that is $2.5 billion in construction
projects, 87,000 American construction jobs, 3,000 FAA aviation
engineers furloughed, safety analysts, career professionals in 35
States and in my own city of Houston. I want to get on the floor and
put an amendment on the floor to get that Member out of the business of
stopping the FAA from doing its work--$200 million per week is being
lost.
Nobody is saying anything because we're also not doing regular order
by fooling around with the debt ceiling. Nobody can come together and
act like adults and say, Let's just raise the debt ceiling so the
American people can go on with their business.
Now we've got a Member that says ``my way or the highway'' and
shutting down the FAA. You can't run the government like this.
And I think the message of the amendment that is on the floor is not
that we don't respect Members' personal knowledge of their States, it's

[[Page H5609]]

just that we can't go willy nilly and change laws just for isolated
incidences.
And I apologize to Mr. Wild, but you can see I'm pretty agitated
about a situation where we're quietly allowing the FAA not to work. And
as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, who knows what danger
is around because the FAA is not functioning? Who knows what jeopardy
we're putting for seniors and students and families and people trying
to buy a home because we're fooling around with the debt ceiling?
So I just think we're in a pattern here. Do what you want to do and
forget the heck of the American people and forget that we live in a big
country and that we should be for all of the people. And if we need
safety on our waterways, we need to find a way to work through our
issues. I don't like the way individuals were handled. I agree on that
issue.
But I certainly don't like the way we're handling our business with
the debt ceiling when we are literally putting ourselves under
jeopardy. And I encourage the President to do anything he needs to do
to save the American people and to be able to move forward so that we
don't lose all of our resources and opportunities for the Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security recipients of America. And I hope he
stands up and recognizes this is a ridiculous position to be in when
the FAA is not even functioning.
And my Bush Intercontinental Airport can't even continue doing its
construction work, and the people who need the work are thrown out on
the streets because they can't work because one lone Member wants to
get up and talk about the FAA and foolishness about not protecting
small airports and not allowing our airport employees or our employees
such as air traffic controllers and others to be able to confer about
the quality of work issues.
So I would just suggest that you might be able to find a solution,
Mr. Young. I know you know all of the issues about that. We have a lot
of water from where I come from. I think Mr. Dicks has put forth a
perfect question and then an answer to the idea of whether or not your
amendment or language would have a far-reaching impact beyond Mr. Wild
and the unfortunate behavior of two individuals that I understand may
not be here.
Let's look at this holistically, as we need to look at this Nation.
Let's come together as adults representing the American people.
I thank the gentleman for the time. I ask support for Mr. Dicks'
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Members are again reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair and not to others.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. 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 Washington
will be postponed.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
underlying bill H.R. 2584, a bill which irresponsibly slashes funding
for many of our Nation's most important environmental and
infrastructure programs. If it's passed, the overall legislation would
cause grave harm to the health and safety of our communities and in
addition removes protections for our wildlife and environment.
I'll take a few issues at hand.
Clean water infrastructure. Ensuring our families have clean water is
under attack in this bill. It cuts 55 percent, almost $1 billion, from
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This program enables the States
to invest in much-needed repairs and improvements to aging water
infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, an estimated 25 percent of all treated water in the
United States of America is lost due to leakage from water systems that
are in disrepair--25 percent of the water that's already been treated.
What a waste of money in supposedly an austere Congress.
We're facing a $500 billion funding gap to bring aging water and
wastewater infrastructure back to par. Our pipes are literally
crumbling beneath our feet, out of sight, out of mind until the next
major water main break disrupts our lives and our towns.
This investment in water infrastructure has the potential to generate
thousands and thousands of American jobs since every $1 billion in
infrastructure investment supports 28,500 jobs.
Second issue: air quality. The bill that's before us takes us further
backwards to an era where polluters poisoned our atmosphere at will by
preventing the EPA from implementing two important air quality rules--
the power plant air toxics rule and the transport rule, irresponsibly
putting the health of our communities at risk. We're going backward
instead of forward.

{time} 1450

Air pollution disproportionately impacts the urban areas in my
district, such as Paterson, New Jersey, where we see much higher
incidences of asthma and other respiratory ailments due to the
concentrations of harmful pollutants. It is terrible. Go to our
hospitals. It is out of control not just in Paterson, New Jersey, but
across the United States. These pollutants can become lodged in the
tissues of the lungs and interfere with the respiratory system. This
needs to be controlled.
And the National Park Service itself, referred to in the last debate,
this proposed legislation would cripple the operation of the National
Park Service. This service takes care of our parks. We fought for this,
all of us, Democrats, Republicans in whatever State it was in this
Union. They want to slash this by $409 million from the President's
request. Our national parks are visited by 275 million people each
year. They come from all over the world to appreciate our country's
natural and historic wonders. In my district, the Park Service is hard
at work on the Great Falls National Historic Park right in my home city
of Paterson, the only historic park in the entire Nation that has
aesthetic value as well as historical importance, as it was the first
industrial city of the United States.
The investment we make in our parks pays for itself many times over
in economic development in the surrounding areas and the enjoyment and
education they provide to Americans of all ages. We must ensure that
the Park Service has the resources they require to ensure that parks
all over the country are properly operating.
How about the arts and humanities in this legislation? Besides the
huge cited cuts to our health, infrastructure, and environment, the
bill before us drastically cuts funding to the National Endowment for
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. As a former
teacher, as a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, as many of us
are, I have seen firsthand the positive impact that arts and humanities
education has on the success of our students. In my district, as a
result of the economic crisis, many schools have been forced to cut
back on arts programs and to lay off arts teachers. They're the first
to go.
In conclusion, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation
leaves a lot to be desired. We are seeing our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle attempting to legislate through the appropriations
process, selectively imposing deep cuts to programs which their special
interest constituencies don't approve of. The draconian cuts in this
bill are truly unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposing it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

direct hire authority

Sec. 117. (a) Direct Hire Authority.--During fiscal year
2012 and thereafter, the Secretary of the Interior may
appoint, without regard to the provisions of subchapter I of
chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, other than
sections 3303 and 3328 of such title, a qualified candidate
described in subsection (b) directly to a position with a
land managing agency of the Department of the Interior for
which the candidate meets Office of Personnel Management
qualification standards.

[[Page H5610]]

(b) Qualified Candidates Described.--Subsection (a) applies
with respect to a former resource assistant (as defined in
section 203 of the Public Land Corps Act (16 U.S.C. 1722))
who--
(1) completed a rigorous undergraduate or graduate summer
internship with a land managing agency, such as the National
Park Service Business Plan Internship;
(2) successfully fulfilled the requirements of the
internship program; and
(3) subsequently earned an undergraduate or graduate degree
from an accredited institution of higher education.
(c) Duration.--The direct hire authority under this section
may not be exercised with respect to a specific qualified
candidate after the end of the 2-year period beginning on the
date on which the candidate completed the undergraduate or
graduate degree, as the case may be.

review process for certain bureau of land management actions

Sec. 118. (a) Exhaustion of Administrative Review
Required.--Hereafter, a person may bring a civil action
challenging a proposed action of the Bureau of Land
Management concerning grazing on public lands (as defined in
section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e))) or an amendment to a land use
plan proposed under section 202 of such Act (43 U.S.C. 1712)
in a Federal district court only if the person has challenged
the action or amendment at the agency level and exhausted the
administrative hearings and appeals procedures established by
the Department of the Interior.
(b) Issue Limitation.--An issue may be considered in the
judicial review of an action or amendment referred to in
subsection (a) only if the issue was raised in the
administrative review process described in such subsection.
(c) Exception.--An exception to the requirement of
exhausting the administrative review process before seeking
judicial review shall be available if a Federal court finds
that the agency failed or was unable to make information
timely available during the administrative review process for
issues of material fact. For the purposes of this subsection,
``timely'' means within 120 calender days from the date that
the challenge to the agency action or amendment at issue is
received for administrative review.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

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

Page 58, beginning on line 13, strike section 118.

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 rise in support of my amendment. This would strike
section 118, which amends administrative appeals procedures for grazing
decisions on public lands to require parties to exhaust all
administrative appeals before they may file suit in Federal court.
This is a back-door attempt to curtail the use of court injunctions
to stop grazing decisions made by the BLM. Without the ability to seek
injunctive relief, opponents of a grazing decision are handicapped
because irreparable damage to a resource may occur while the
administrative appeals process is being exhausted.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking
member, to further discuss this amendment.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.
We hear from a number of people and organizations around the country
who are concerned about this because without the ability to seek
injunctive relief from the courts, opponents of a grazing decision are
very much handicapped. Meanwhile irreparable damage to a resource may
occur while the administrative appeals process is being exhausted. So
that's our concern. I know that's the concern of the ranking member of
the full committee.
But let me share another concern that I think underlies this whole
issue of grazing. Currently--I know the ranking member's aware of
this--the Federal Government charges $1.35 per month, per cow to graze
on federally owned lands. In the meantime, States like Idaho charge
four times that, $5.12; Montana, $6.12. Nebraska can charge up to $41
per acre to graze on State-owned land. Texas--I know the gentleman is
aware of this--Texas will charge $65 to $150 per acre per cow. But the
Federal Government charges $1.35.
Now that's the kind of Federal subsidy that we really think we ought
to go after. When we're cutting deeply into the bone programs for
people who are destitute, programs that are absolutely necessary to
protect our environment or needed infrastructure in this country, we're
giving this kind of a subsidy, $1.35 to graze on Federal land versus as
much as $65 to $150 that the great State of Texas charges to graze on
State land. And then private land is oftentimes even more expensive. So
that's the kind of subsidy that I don't think passes the test of
fairness, if the taxpayer was really aware of the kind of subsidy
they're providing some grazers on their federally owned land. It ought
to be rectified. But this particular issue simply rubs salt into that
wound.
Mr. DICKS. Again, I ask for support for my amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia's concern about
the cost or the subsidies or whatever he wants to call it, but it has
absolutely nothing to do with this amendment. It's a whole different
issue. Should the Resources Committee be looking at the prices charged
for cattle grazing, or mining, other things? Sure, they should be. It's
not the purpose of this bill. It's not the purpose of this amendment.
All this amendment says is that in the past, BLM regulations have
required that litigants exhaust the administrative review before
litigating in Federal court. That means they have to go through the
review process that's been set up administratively before they can go
to court.
Recently, numerous lawsuits over grazing have been filed in Federal
courts before the administrative review process had been completed.
That means they haven't gone through to find out whether they would win
or lose on the administrative side. This ties up the BLM field offices
because they must respond to both an administrative process on one side
and a litigation process on the other side. This provision simply
requires litigants to first exhaust the administrative review before
litigating grazing issues in Federal court. Litigants could still file
for temporary restraining orders, contrary to what you said. They have
to show irreparable harm, and they can still file for temporary
restraining orders. Nothing in this provision prevents that.
I would hope--and I know the ranking member of the full committee,
Mr. Dicks, because we've talked about this before--if we could spend
more money actually managing the lands rather than in court, we would
all be better off. All this says is, follow the administrative
procedures, and exhaust them before you go to court. You still have
that option after those administrative procedures have been exhausted.
As I said, you can still get a restraining order if there's irreparable
harm. This, I think, will cut down on the lawsuits, and I think this is
a good provision in the bill.
And I would hope that the gentlemen from Washington and Virginia
would recognize how well the underlying bill is written and would
withdraw the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I am told that the ability to offer a temporary
restraining order is very narrowly drafted. So irreparable harm, that
wouldn't do it.

{time} 1500

Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. It's only if a Federal court finds that the agency failed,
or was unable to make information timely available during the
administrative review, according to this language. So it's probably an
unreal situation.
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, that's the standard that exists now,
as I understand it. We're not changing that.
Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman again yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. I would like to make two points. One is that this is
clearly authorizing language on an appropriations bill. If we're going
to change the law, then it ought to be done by the authorizing
committee.

[[Page H5611]]

But, secondly, I know the gentleman is aware, you can only get an
injunction from a Federal judge if you can prove that you are likely to
win your case, or if there is imminent harm. So I don't know why the
gentleman is so concerned about the existing legal situation.
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, to answer your question, the reason
I'm concerned is the extraordinary amount of money that we are spending
in court instead of on managing public lands. That's the real issue
here. And we have a process set up where, if you have problems, you can
go through an administrative process. Go through it. At the end if you
don't like the outcome, go to court. That's all we're saying.
And is this legislating on an appropriation bill? Well, I guess
funding unauthorized programs is legislating on an appropriations bill
also, which we've done in several provisions in this bill which you
support. I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

gray wolves

Sec. 119. Hereafter, any final rule published by the
Department of the Interior that provides that the gray wolf
(Canis lupus) in the State of Wyoming or in any of the States
within the range of the Western Great Lakes Distinct
Population Segment of the gray wolf (as defined in the rule
published on May 5, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 26086 et seq.)) is not
an endangered species or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
including any rule to remove such species in such a State
from the list of endangered species or threatened species
published under that Act, shall not be subject to judicial
review if such State has entered into an agreement with the
Secretary of the Interior that authorizes the State to manage
gray wolves in that State.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

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

Page 59, beginning on line 16, strike section 119.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Section 119 exempts from judicial review any final rule of
the Secretary of the Interior that delists wolves in Wyoming or the
Western Great Lakes States, provided the Fish and Wildlife Service has
entered into an agreement with the State for it to manage the wolves.
The irony here is that the majority does not trust any action of
Secretary Salazar except if it involves the delisting of wolves. The
rider undercuts the public's right to petition a Federal court to
review an agency's decision and blocks the court's ability to carry out
its customer authority to review executive branch decisions.
Now, I have been a strong proponent of the re-introduction of the
gray wolf into Yellowstone and in other areas. This has been one of the
most successful operations in restoring a species that had been nearly
wiped out in our country. And today we're seeing all of the benefits of
this. So I don't think we should undercut the people's right to go to
court if they don't think the agency has done this according to the
law. And I have great respect for Secretary Salazar, and I'm sure he
would agree with me that there should not be a prohibition on judicial
review.
And I'd like to yield to the distinguished ranking member for any
comments he would have on this.
Mr. MORAN. My only observation is it's ironic that the majority
doesn't seem to trust anything that Secretary Salazar does, except if
it involves the delisting of wolves. This rider does undercut the
public's right to petition a Federal court to review an agency's
decision. So, we're establishing a precedent here with regard to
wolves. It blocks the court's ability to carry out its customary
authority to review executive branch decisions.
That's the way the system's supposed to work. The executive branch
makes a determination and, in our system, if there are individuals or
organizations that don't agree, they have recourse to the judicial
system. This says, no, we're going to suspend that part of the
Constitution. No, you don't, you can't go to the courts. The executive
branch is inviolate here. They make a decision, that's it. Permanent.
We like Secretary Salazar, and we support Secretary Salazar far more
consistently than the majority does, if the majority supports him on
anything. But we don't really see why we need to suspend the
constitutional process in this particular specific unique circumstance.
So I would support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Again, I ask for support for my amendment. I think it
corrects a flaw in this bill. And believe me, there are a lot of flaws.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose my
friend's amendment. I hope this isn't a pattern long term, but on this
particular bill it seems to be a pattern at any rate.
His amendment would strike the important language in H.R. 2584 that
addresses the administration's confusing policies involving Endangered
Species Act-listed populations of gray wolves nationwide.
As I mentioned on the House floor during a colloquy with Chairman
Simpson on Monday, the Obama administration has created a confusing and
impractical result with its recent announcement to delist the gray
wolves in some States, but leave other States, such as Washington,
Oregon and Utah with mixed management. H.R. 2584, as written, and as
clarified in my colloquy with the chairman, would help remedy this
flawed policy.
Problems with the Federal management of gray wolves are nearly as old
as the Endangered Species Act itself. Five years after ESA's passage in
1978, the gray wolf was listed as endangered or threatened in all of
the lower 48 States. In the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration
ordered an experimental introduction of wolves into the Yellowstone
area, central Idaho, and the Mexican wolf into Arizona, New Mexico and
Texas. It also established a new definition to identify the population
of listed species. As a result, wolves multiplied. But, unfortunately,
because they can't read maps, they moved into areas where they weren't
supposed to go.
In 2003, the Fish and Wildlife Service divided gray wolves into
geographical boundaries that made more sense. It included the entire
States of Washington, Oregon, Utah and other areas so that States would
eventually be able to develop their own State management plans to
remove wolves from the endangered species list.
Then, in 2009, the Obama administration reversed course and adopted
the theory that wolves should be delisted in Idaho, Montana, and only
parts of certain other States, but would leave other areas where wolves
likely populate still. This is under ESA.
As a result, in my own Fourth Congressional District in central
Washington, and I'll put up a map here, the wolves are delisted on the
eastern side of Highways 97, 17, and 395. Highway 97, Highway 17, and
395.
Delisted over here, listed over here. This makes absolutely no sense,
and it shows how the ESA is badly in need of updating and how
ineffective the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in managing wolves.
And I might add, this is true in Oregon, in parts of Oregon and parts
of Utah.
So I oppose this amendment because the colloquy that I had with the
chairman is one that sets the stage for properly managing these wolves
in the States that I associate with.
I just might add on a personal level, I live very, very close to
here. But I live in the listed area.
Now, we do fish marking. I know my friend is very well aware of fish
marking, and I'm not opposing the authorizing on this bill, as the
gentleman knows--this year, anyway. But there is no listing here for
the gray wolf. Now, I have no idea if a wolf crosses down here into my
area, if it is, in fact, a listed or a delisted wolf.

{time} 1510

But apparently Fish and Wildlife think that they know where Highway

[[Page H5612]]

97 ends, where 17 comes down here and connects with Highway 395,
because that's what their arbitrary rule says. It doesn't make any
sense at all.
And so as a result of this, the colloquy I had with Chairman Simpson
clarified this, that it includes the whole areas that are within that
geographic boundary. And for that reason, I oppose my friend's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I also rise in opposition to the amendment by the
gentleman from the State of Washington.
The best way to manage wolves is to let State experts do the job.
Now, that's true whether you want to increase the number of wolves in
your State, like the gentleman from the State of Washington wants to
do, or you want to maintain a recovered population, which is what we
want to do in my State of Wyoming.
Now, the truth about current wolf management is that if Washington
wants to try to increase the wolf population in western Washington,
they cannot do it under the current rules. And in my State of Wyoming,
when asked at our committee meeting whether the wolf was fully
recovered in the State of Wyoming, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
testified that, yes, the gray wolf is fully recovered in the State of
Wyoming, has been for a long time.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate that very much.
I think the problem is that the State of Wyoming, unlike Idaho and
Montana, has not come up with a plan where the State would protect the
wolf if it were delisted.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Reclaiming my time, I'm coming to that.
The State of Wyoming has a wolf management plan that was approved by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as adequate. And then subsequently,
through litigation upon litigation upon litigation, the courts changed
their mind, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service changed its mind, the
court changed its mind again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
changed its mind again. So this is a process that is driven by
litigation, not by science, because the science and the numbers both
say that the gray wolf is recovered in Wyoming.
Wyoming has a wolf management plan on the books. However, what we are
saying here with this amendment is that the State of Wyoming, through
its Governor, will negotiate changes to that management plan which,
when agreed to with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and submitted to
the Wyoming Legislature, will not then be subject to additional whipsaw
litigation--that will be the end of it--returning management of wolves
to the State experts that should be doing this job.
Wolf management is frozen, and it need not be. By trying to strip
this language, the gentleman from the State of Washington emboldens the
people who don't want Washington State--or Oregon or Wisconsin or
Michigan or Wyoming or any other State--to make its own decisions using
its own wildlife biologists. I believe that State wildlife experts, not
D.C. cube dwellers, have the expertise and the knowledge and the
passion to manage the wolf anywhere they roam.
It is the intent of this legislation as currently written to make
sure that the people who have the science, the background, the
knowledge to make sure that the wolf, which has admittedly been
recovered--admittedly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovered--
to be managed in a way that ensures that ongoing recovered status and
ensures it at the very level where you're able to do it, where the
boots are on the ground of the wildlife biologists and the paws are on
the ground of the wolf that is already recovered but that needs to be
maintained pursuant to a wolf management plan.
Let's trust our States, their wildlife biologists. Let's trust my
Wyoming Game and Fish Department that has been recognized as one of the
best wildlife management agencies in the country.
I'm stunned that people in Washington really believe that they can do
it better and make decisions for wolves they've never seen, in places
they've never been, and don't trust wildlife biologists they've never
met. It is much better if the people on the ground are where the
wildlife are on the ground, where the interaction is on the ground,
where the conditions are understood, where the geography is known,
where the life expectancy, where the birthrates, where the
survivability of the species can be witnessed and determined.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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'll be brief, Mr. Chairman, or as brief as I can.
I appreciate this discussion on wolves because it is something that
is near and dear to the people of Idaho.
I was the speaker of the house in Idaho when the gentleman from
Washington supported wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone and Idaho and
Montana and Wyoming--something that Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana frankly
didn't want but, nevertheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service said
that's what we're going to do and that's what they did. Since that
time, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have been doing the right thing in
restoring these wolf populations.
In Idaho and Montana, they came up with a wolf management plan that
was approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service--it was approved--but
then it was taken to court because it didn't include Wyoming. And a
judge said--not based on science. We're trying to get back to science.
But a judge said, You can't just delist in Idaho and Montana; you have
to include Wyoming, and Wyoming didn't have a State management plan
approved then. Since that time, I understand that the Fish and Wildlife
Service and Wyoming have come up with a plan in principle--and they're
still working out the details, but I believe that they will have a plan
by the end of this year--to delist in Wyoming.
All we're saying is that when they're delisted by Fish and Wildlife
Service, they have an approved plan, then it is not subject to judicial
review. Because, frankly, there are people who don't think we ought to
have any wolf management plan that would include, guess what? Hunting
wolves. I know the gentleman from Washington is astounded by that. Our
Governor has indicated that he likes to hunt wolves. The problem is
wolves have no natural predator out there except hunger. When they've
done away with the food supply, some wolves die; otherwise, they just
continue to grow in population.
Anybody that thought we were going to reintroduce wolves into the
Rocky Mountains and there wasn't going to be some type of control--a
hunt or whatever--were living on a different planet. But those same
people now that wanted the wolves reintroduced, that oppose any type of
wolf management, go to court to try to stop the delisting.
The gentleman from Washington has explained the problem that exists
when you have mixed management of wolves that get confused. They don't
know which side of the line they live on, whether they're protected or
whether they're not protected, whether they can go out and eat your
puppy dog or not. So they're confused wolves. We're trying to clear
that up for them.
And in the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes have had a population that is
greater than in the Rocky Mountains and have been deserving of
delisting for a number of years but have just not gotten it done.
And contrary to what the gentleman from Virginia said, I actually
think the Secretary of the Interior is doing a good job. There are many
things I agree with him on. Many of my westerners would disagree with
that. I happen to think he's doing a good job as Secretary of the
Interior. I don't agree with everything he does, but you know what?
When I call him up and say we've got some real problems with this, he
listens--he might not agree after he listens, but he listens to us.
That's all I ask from a gentleman in that position.
So don't believe that we are critical of the Secretary. We do have
some differences of opinion, and I realize that he works in an
administration that

[[Page H5613]]

makes it difficult for him sometimes. He's from Colorado. He knows
western issues. But I have enjoyed working with him.
And I trust the Fish and Wildlife Service and the science that they
provide to delist wolves better than I do adjudge. That's why this
language is here. Wolves will still be protected in Idaho, Montana,
Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Utah, where they have expanded to, and in
the Great Lakes.

{time} 1520

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. As I recall, the fact was that Montana and Idaho had plans
that would protect the wolves if they were delisted, and then at some
point they would take further action if necessary to protect the wolves
if too many of them were killed.
The problem with Wyoming was Wyoming's plan didn't have credibility.
Now I understand that it does. But what the judge was saying is that
you have to protect the wolf throughout the area, which included
Wyoming. That's why they couldn't delist it without dealing with
Wyoming, and Wyoming wasn't ready. So, I hope that Wyoming will come up
with a credible plan at the State level to keep the wolf going.
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is right. If wolf
populations get below acceptable levels, then they go back on the
endangered list. Guess what. Wyoming and Montana and Idaho are not
going to let that happen.
I think this is a good way to go for proceeding with the Endangered
Species Act and making sure it does what it's intended to do.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Idaho has expired.
(On request of Mr. Hastings of Washington, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Simpson was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I asked the gentleman to yield because
this is precisely the point that this debate and discussion on the
Endangered Species Act is having.
If you recall in the CR, the Endangered Species Act was amended to
allow Idaho and Montana to delist, because the way ESA was written,
unless the whole identified population could have been managed, nobody
could manage, and that was the flaw. And that's what we have been
saying--as we had last night and we will probably have later
discussions on this--why ESA needs to be looked at in a comprehensive
way, because it was clearly a flaw. It was clearly a flaw. I'm glad
that the CR amended the Endangered Species Act to take care of this
provision.
The colloquy that we had regarding Washington, Oregon, and Utah was
simply to recognize these larger populations but recognize States are
moving in a direction of managing their populations.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I would just say to the gentleman from Washington that was supportive
of the reintroduction of wolves in Idaho and Montana and Wyoming that
put us in this situation, several wolves----
Mr. DICKS. I want to say to the chairman, if you would yield, I also
tried to reintroduce the wolf in western Washington, but the chairman
of the Interior Committee in the other body disagreed with me.
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, western Washington.
I just want you to know that there have been several wolves that have
come to my house, and they presented me with a petition that they would
like to visit the Cascades.
Mr. DICKS. We'd like to have them.
Mr. SIMPSON. You're welcome.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield real quickly?
Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. As a matter of fact, the gray wolves are
showing up in the Cascades now, the eastern side of the Cascades. So
you'll get them.
Mr. DICKS. The Olympics too.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. 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 Washington
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

trailing livestock over public land

Sec. 120. During fiscal years 2012 through 2014, the
trailing of livestock across public land (as defined by
section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)) and the implementation of trailing
practices by the Bureau of Land Management shall not be
subject to review under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

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

Page 60, beginning on line 6, strike section 120.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Section 120 provides that for 2012 through 2014, the
movement of livestock across public land shall not be subject to NEPA
review.
Proponents of this provision will argue that moving cattle from one
location to another shouldn't require a NEPA review. However, this
movement of cattle can be across wide swaths of public lands and take
weeks, not just days. The impact on water, plants and other wildlife
species, including bighorn sheep, can be significant.
I would like to yield to the ranking member to further discuss this
amendment.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Some on the other side may be thinking, well, what's a guy from a
heavily residential suburban area in the Washington area and with no
cattle in his district know? So I would have thought this would have
been a perfectly fine amendment: What do you need to have restrictions
for livestock moving from one place to another?
But upon further investigation, what is not immediately apparent
becomes very important. As the gentleman has said, we're talking about
very wide swaths of land that are covered by these livestock movements,
and they don't just take a few hours or a few days to cross. Sometimes
they can take weeks. When you've got very large herds of cattle, you
can cause quite a bit destruction to the soil, to the brush, to
waterways, to any number of environmental resources in the process of
major transfers from one area to another of very large herds of cattle.
There can be very substantial environmental destruction. That's why
those who are involved in this feel there ought to be a NEPA review.
The National Environmental Policy Act will review it, it will tell us
what the ramifications will be, what are the consequences, and then
based upon that information it empowers those who have land or
interests that would be adversely affected by large movements of cattle
from one place to another. That's why the NEPA review has an
appropriate place and role to play in this, and that's why I think the
gentleman's amendment makes a lot of sense and I would support it.
Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Referring my remarks to the Chairman, I've got to get
the gentleman from Virginia on a horse out with some cattle.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. ``Trailing'' is
the process of moving a livestock herd from one grazing area to
another. It generally doesn't take weeks. It certainly doesn't take
weeks in the same location. You're moving from one location to another.
Trailing has no significant impact on the environment, so

[[Page H5614]]

while in the past it has been generally considered part of the process
of grazing on public lands, the BLM has rarely conducted environmental
assessments on or issued permits for trailing itself, focusing instead
on the impacts of grazing.
Recently--and this is the problem and this is why this amendment is
before us--environmental activists that want to get cattle off of
public lands, and they have a right to try to do this--I disagree with
them--have focused their attention on trailing as a way to shut down
grazing on public lands.
Congress, not the courts, has the authority to determine public land
policies, and today responsible grazing is an important and legitimate
use of public lands. Unfortunately, because activists have tied local
BLM offices up in knots with litigation, judges are now determining how
public lands can be used in the West.
This provision--and this is the important part--attempts to get ahead
of this issue by exempting trailing from NEPA requirements for 2011
through 2014. The Forest Service on their grazing permits require
permits on trailing. The Forest Service does. The BLM has not in the
past. But, instead, these litigations are tying this up in knots. The
BLM is going through a process to include trailing when they issue
their grazing permits, so that the NEPA process on trailing will be
included. The problem is between now and when they get that completed,
we're going to be in court spending all our money in court rather than
getting this process moving forward.
We're not opposed to requiring NEPA process on trailing permits just
like the Forest Service does, but what this does is exempt this through
2014 while BLM, for lack of a better term, gets their act together.
That's all this does.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1530

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I rise to oppose the amendment as well, Mr. Chairman.
There is a gentleman who is a wildlife biologist by the name of Allan
Savory, and Allan Savory studied the way that the buffalo grazed on the
sweeping landscapes of the American West. Buffalo grazed in a manner
that cut wide swaths. Concentrated numbers of buffalo would move
through and graze literally everything down to the nubs, both the
weeds, the buffalo grass, and all of the very nutritious hard grasses
and the grasses of the Sandhills of Nebraska, very different, very
nutritious grasses that we call hard grasses. Some short hard grass,
and others the tall grass. But they'd take everything out. They would
at the same time, through their split hooves knead the soil in a way
that allowed those lands to regrow more healthy, stronger, more filled
in than they were prior to this intensive short-term grazing. That's
how buffalo grazed the plains of the United States before people were
here.
So Allan Savory took those same practices to Rhodesia and studied the
manner in which grazing occurred there, and created something called
the Savory system. The Savory grazing system is now used in a number of
places throughout the West, and it actually emulates the way that
buffalo grazed. And that is what happens when you trail cattle and
sheep across public lands in a manner which keeps them concentrated for
very short periods of time where they do very intensive grazing for
very short periods of time, and then get off that land quickly so grass
can regenerate so you don't have the type of runoff that happens when
you have some charismatic megafauna overgrazing repeatedly day after
day after day in the same place.
That's why these grazing practices are appropriate, these trailing
practices are appropriate, and actually create a healthier grazing
situation that carries a long-term, studier, stronger, healthier grass
resource to be used by wildlife and domestic animals.
That is why on a scientific basis there is great rationale for
relieving people who trail livestock across public lands from the
onerous, expensive obligations of the NEPA process. I appeal to the
desire to use sound science in the manner in which we approach these
issues and not the type of emotional arguments that are raised by
people who are just philosophically opposed to grazing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 121. The Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) log and track the specific reasons for the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement returning
to an applicant, without approval, any exploration plan,
development and production plan, development operations
coordination document, or application for permit to drill
submitted with respect to any oil and gas lease for the Outer
Continental Shelf; and
(2) provide quarterly reports to the Committee on
Appropriations and Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations
and Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate
that include--
(A) the date of original submission of each document
referred to in paragraph (1) received by the Bureau in the
period covered by a report;
(B) for each such document--
(i) the date the document was returned to the applicant;
(ii) the date the document is treated by the Bureau as
submitted; and
(iii) the date of final agency action the document.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

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

Page 60, beginning on line 15, strike section 121.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Section 121 requires the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and Enforcement to keep detailed records and
provide quarterly reports on any oil and gas permit or plan that was
not approved by the agency. They don't ask for the ones that were
approved, just the ones that were not approved.
This is the majority's attempt to try to speed up the approval of oil
and gas permits and plans, and I have no objection to that. Here we are
16 months after Deepwater Horizon, and the Congress hasn't enacted a
single significant safety reform. Despite the serious safety and
environmental shortcomings found as a result of the Deepwater Horizon
tragedy, the majority wants BOEMRE to return to the good old days of
lax reviews and quick approval of oil and gas permits and plans.
I think this provision should be stricken.
I yield to the ranking member for his comments on this provision.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman. Not surprisingly, I fully agree
with the gentleman that this language again is inappropriate in here.
It's punitive. It requires excessive record-keeping, and ironically,
because normally we are getting complaints there is too much record-
keeping. Well, now what we do is we're requiring in this bill even more
detailed records that are not now required. It is going to expand the
bureaucracy. They have to provide quarterly reports on any oil and gas
permit or plan that wasn't approved by the agency.
So in other words, the intention is to discourage the agency from not
approving anything even if they feel that the oil and gas drilling
operation might not be a safe one, that they don't have the requisite
rules in place to prevent a Deepwater Horizon tragedy.
It says for each such document that the bureau receives, they have to
provide the date the document was returned to the applicant, the date
the document is treated by the bureau, and the date of final agency
action, and on and on. More and more records that are not necessary.
We know what the intent of this is. It's to tell BOEMRE, the new
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement, it's in
your interest to just speed these along. Don't hold up any of these
permits because if you do, you're going to have this very burdensome
requirement on you. Here it's 16 months after Deepwater Horizon, and
the Congress hasn't enacted a single significant safety reform. And the
majority wants us to return to the good old days of very lax reviews,
quick approvals of every oil and gas permit and

[[Page H5615]]

plan. And if you don't, we're going to impose this very burdensome
requirement on BOEMRE. That's just not in the interest of safety. It
works against our resolve not to let a Deepwater Horizon tragedy occur
again.
I'm using this acronym BOEMRE. For those who don't know what it
means, it's the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and
Enforcement. It's the new agency that was set up to prevent any future
Deepwater Horizon tragedies. So here we're seeing language that is
intended to mitigate against BOEMRE being able to do its job. I
strongly support the intention of the ranking member of the full
committee in striking this burdensome language.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. 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. Mr. Chairman, you know, if a little green man from
outer space came and landed and watched this debate, he'd be puzzled.
If the gentlemen on the other side were so concerned about the
Culberson amendment, I'm puzzled why they didn't request a recorded
vote in the committee. This was adopted in the committee, full
committee markup, by a voice vote.
But beyond that, nobody wants another Deepwater Horizon. But this
language that the gentlemen are objecting to says that this new agency
will report quarterly to Congress on the status of permitting and why
permits were rejected. Now why would the gentleman not want to have
transparency and oversight over an agency to which we appropriate
dollars?
Now this wouldn't puzzle me if we just hadn't come off of 4 years of
a majority that was preaching to us about transparency and oversight
and openness. Why wouldn't you want some report issued by the agency
that tells us what they are doing with the money that we appropriate to
them and what's the status and why a permit was rejected. That's a
reasonable question.

{time} 1540

Just to move to a different agency--you may not know this, Mr. Moran.
I've lived in Mr. Moran's district for a period of time when I'm here
in Washington, D.C., and I never saw anybody grazing and I never saw
anybody moving livestock. But in my area, I will tell you that we're
the nursery capital of the world. We are very much concerned with the
guest worker program.
Under this administration, applications for guest worker applications
have been denied at an alarming rate. When we ask the Department of
Labor how many have been denied and how many have been appealed and how
many appeals have been successful, they keep those records. You know
why? Because that's a reasonable inquiry by a Member of the Congress, a
member of the public, a guy who's growing arbor vitae in Perry, Ohio.
So to describe this as somehow burdensome and crippling and somehow
going to lead to a another Deepwater Horizon disaster is just
ridiculous.
The guys on the other side, Mr. Chairman, are great Members and great
advocates for a lot of things, but this argument doesn't even pass the
straight face test. And I would respectfully urge that it be defeated.
Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to my former Congressman, the gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Thank you.
You have this deep-seated concern about why we did not ask for a
vote; so I can clarify that. The reason is we were overwhelmed with
more than 40 amendments and we were trying to look to the welfare of
the rest of the committee. There's only so many of these issues that
you can call a recorded vote on, so we tried to be reasonable.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Reclaiming my time, I can appreciate the pressure
that the gentleman found himself under. There are over 200 amendments.
We're approaching 200 amendments on this particular piece of
legislation.
I recall sitting in another full committee markup where the gentleman
asked for a recorded vote on whether or not we could use Styrofoam
containers in the House cafeteria. So clearly, the gentleman has to be
as concerned about knowing what it is this new agency is doing relative
to permits as he is about Styrofoam containers in the cafeteria.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. This year, I'm sure the gentleman has noticed, we've been
trying to reestablish regular order--having a subcommittee markup and a
full committee markup and amendments on the floor, which is welcomed by
our side. So we have to kind of make a decision: Are we going to ask
for a vote on every single issue? We never do that. We try to
cooperate. This is comity, something that the gentleman from Ohio
understands quite well.
So I would just remind him that we're trying to get through these
bills, and that's why we try to not ask for a vote on everything. We
wanted to save this one for the floor so the American people would hear
about what's going on.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate it. I know the
gentleman said ``comity,'' not ``comedy.'' I think it's comedy with a
``d'' that reigns here. I trust that the gentleman has had his tongue
firmly implanted in his cheek as he made that observation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLEMING. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I hail from Louisiana, which of course is a very big part of what
this section 121 is about and certainly what the amendment is about.
Just bringing everyone back, we had the Deepwater Horizon spill, which
was a tragic situation which has hurt Louisiana in several ways, one
being, of course, oil in the water. That's obvious. But then, of
course, the many jobs that have been lost.
Going back over history, what we found is that in response to this
the President brought together 10 experts to determine whether or not
drilling should be stopped in deep water off the shores of Louisiana--
in the Gulf of Mexico, in fact. This board of experts came together and
said, no, that should not happen. We should continue forward. We can
solve this problem. We can prevent it from happening. Nonetheless, the
President came out and said, no, let's shut down drilling.
Well, when that didn't work, the President and Secretary Salazar
slapped a moratorium on drilling. Then there were lawsuits. Then we had
a de facto moratorium. Then we had a permitorium after there was a stay
placed by a judge. Today, we have what I would call a ``slowitorium''
on permits and leasing in the Gulf of Mexico.
So it's very clear what's going on is the fact that even though the
administration can't get the courts to stop drilling in the Gulf of
Mexico, even though the other side can't advance legislation, they're
trying to do it administratively by slowing the process down. So all we
ask, the people of Louisiana, is some transparency on this issue.
Section 121 does some very simple things. It just says the Secretary
of the Interior shall log and track the specific reasons for BOEMRE
returning to an applicant without approval any exploration plan,
development and production plan, development operations, coordination
document, or application, et cetera, et cetera.
We're getting reports continuously from drillers, from contractors
who are out there trying to drill, that they put in applications.
Weeks, months go by; they hear nothing. Finally, they get it back and
an ``i'' was not dotted, so now they've got to start the process all
over again.
So all we're asking is that integrity be brought back into this
process, that there be accountability back into this process.
And the gentleman is absolutely right. We do want to get drilling
back up in the Gulf of Mexico. We were at a peak of 1.7 million barrels
a day before this incident. It has dropped now to 1.59 million barrels
a day. And it's going to continue to drop because we have a process in
which permits and leasing are still way off track. They're not back to
the levels they were. And production is going to net down. As a result
of that, we're going to continue to see oil and gas prices going up.

[[Page H5616]]

So despite what is coming out of the Secretary of the Interior,
drilling and production is not up; it's down. And it's continuing down
and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future until we get the
permits and the leases back up.
I certainly suggest, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues and I should
oppose this amendment. We do need to have transparency and
accountability in BOEMRE when it comes to offshore drilling
Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLEMING. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. The gentleman is quite right that there are now 1.6
billion barrels per day being drilled. Today, 67 new shallow water well
permits have been issued since the implementation of these new
standards. They're averaging six per month. The average before the
disaster had been eight. So they're catching up. Just three of these
permits are currently pending. Eight have asked for more information,
have not been denied.
In terms of deep water, 75 permits have been issued. There are 25
pending. Twenty-two have been asked for additional information. Mostly,
that information is with regard to containment, which is exactly what
we instructed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to do: are they
sure, can they assure us that they can contain any spill.
So things are not quite as dire as you might believe.
Mr. FLEMING. Reclaiming my time, I would just suggest that we're
still well off pace. And accountability is not going to be a factor in
that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, in the 7 months before the blowout,
there were 49 deepwater permits issued. And in the 7 months since the
moratorium was allegedly lifted, there's only been seven deepwater
permits issued. We in the committee adopted this amendment, which I was
proud to offer, simply to shine sunlight on the process. All the
language in this bill requires is that the agency report to the
American people and report to Congress the reasons why a permit for
exploration or for drilling has been slowed down or delayed.
We're all committed to transparency. We all want to know where and
how our tax dollars are being spent. And the slowdown in drilling in
the Gulf of Mexico has had a catastrophic effect on employment. We've
lost 60,000 jobs since 2008 in the Gulf of Mexico area. If we would get
back to the levels of drilling, of permitting, both shallow and
deepwater, that we were before the blowout, it's estimated that as many
as 190,000 jobs could be created in the Gulf of Mexico in about 18
months, with about 400,000 industry-supported jobs across the United
States supplying equipment to the offshore oil industry.
No one has a stronger stake in protecting the environment than we
have that live there. These folks that work for these great companies
are my friends and my neighbors. I'm proud to represent so many of
these companies. Houston, Texas, is to the oil industry what Silicon
Valley is to the computer industry.

{time} 1550

These are engineers. These are the scientists. These are people who
live and work in and around the Gulf of Mexico, who fish there, whose
kids play on the beaches. Being a Houstonian and growing up along the
gulf, I remember tarballs were common on the beach in Galveston. You
just don't see it anymore.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I just wanted to say that the gentleman and I have worked
together, and I have great regard for him. I just wanted to mention a
couple of facts and that, if we take up time, I'll try to get you extra
time.
``To date, 67 new shallow water well permits have been issued since
the implementation of new safety and environmental standards on June 8,
2010. Permits have averaged more than six per month over the past 8
months compared to an average of eight permits per month in 2009. Just
three of these permits are currently pending, with eight having been
returned to the operator for more information.'' Now, the question I
have is:
Why don't we ask them to give, when they're doing the report, not
just the ones that they've turned down but the ones that they've
approved? I mean, wouldn't the gentleman want to have all that
information instead of just the negative side of this?
Mr. CULBERSON. In reclaiming my time, as for the permits that have
been approved, of course that's a matter of public record; but as for
the permits that have been rejected and that are not yet a matter of
public record, we want to see those and know why they've been rejected,
why they've been delayed. That's all this language requires is that
they shine sunlight on every corner of the process. Many of these
permits have been rejected for reasons that are not directly tied to
the substance of the application. I've seen permits that are rejected
because the typeface wasn't, in the opinion of the permitter, correct.
It is clear that there has been a slow-down and that this
administration overreacted to the spill. It has deliberately slowed
down the permitting process and has made it more difficult for
Americans to find American oil and gas.
We are committed to drill here and drill now in a way that is safe
and clean, that protects the environment but yet takes advantage of the
natural resources that God has so abundantly blessed this continent
with. The Gulf of Mexico demonstrated that it can be done cleanly and
safely; and there is no quicker way to generate high-paying jobs than
to open up drilling in the continental United States, particularly in
the Gulf of Mexico. Those rigs are gone, by the way, Mr. Dicks. Once
those rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico, they don't come back.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
The reason that this is the greatest deliberative body in the world
is that sometimes during the course of a very intelligent discussion
the truth and facts come out. Now, both the gentleman from Washington
and the gentleman from Virginia have been able to cite chapter and
verse of how many applications have been applied for, where they are,
and what has happened to them. So, to suggest that somehow this is
going to create some additional burden, you've got to add a line: ``We
denied it because . . . ''
So I trust that, based upon the sunshine that has now been brought
forth to the good facts by the distinguished ranking member, perhaps we
can get past this amendment, in the interest of comity, without a
recorded vote as we did in the committee.
Mr. CULBERSON. I thank the gentleman from Ohio, and I urge the House
to defeat this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield again just briefly?
Mr. CULBERSON. I would be happy to yield to my friend from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Now we get to deepwater: Since an applicant first
successfully demonstrated containment capabilities in mid-February of
this year, BOEMRE has approved 75 permits for 21 unique wells, with 25
permits pending and 22 permits returned to the operator with the
request for additional information, particularly information regarding
containment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Culberson was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Now, we want them to do this safely. We don't want to go
through what we went through, which was one of the greatest disasters
in the history of the country.
Mr. CULBERSON. Cleanly and safely.
Mr. DICKS. I just hope that we can have reports not only about the
ones that are turned down. As you say, it may be that the other ones
are part of the public record, but I think the report should come back
with both of these if it's going to come to the Congress. You know how
this place works. Not everybody sees these public

[[Page H5617]]

records. If these reports are going to be used by the committee, we
ought to have both sides of the equation.
Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, I couldn't agree more. We find
ourselves in agreement that sunshine is a healthy thing, and that's the
purpose of the language in the bill.
With all due respect, Mr. Dicks, it is important that the House
reject this amendment so that we can have sunlight in every corner of
the permitting process and so that the public and the Congress can know
why these permits have been delayed or denied so that we can open up
the Gulf of Mexico to drill here and drill now--cleanly and safely.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I feel, I guess, like a lot of Americans in
that I just can't act like it's business as usual. I am very upset that
the FAA has shut down. Let me just tell everyone that H.R. 2644, by
Representative Costello, was filed yesterday. It is a clean
reauthorization of the FAA bill.
Saturday morning at midnight, following 20 previous clean extensions,
funding for the Federal Aviation Administration was allowed to expire.
Why did this happen? Simply because the Republican Party's lack of
leadership over the debt ceiling debate is the same as their position
with the FAA. Over 4,000 people have been laid off and over 3,000 in
Florida--good construction jobs.
Just last night, I spoke with a single mother of two children, a
woman from Kansas, who received an eviction notice at her apartment
because she is not going to be able to pay her bills because of this
impasse. These are real people. I repeat:
The reason the FAA extension has not been renewed is because the
House Transportation Committee chairman inserted language in the FAA
extension bill that would end a program that provides subsidies to
rural airports.
So, yes, this is another example of the Republican Party's, ``if you
don't do it my way, then we'll just shut it down, shut it down.''
Let me be clear. There are people here in the Capitol who flew up.
They paid, let's say, $500 for their tickets. The aviation still
charged the $500, but the money that goes to fix up the airport, that
money is going now to the airline industry. In fact, they have raised
the ticket price. This is an example that, if we don't do our job, the
people get hurt, and that goes back to what everybody is so nervous
about as far as what we should do about raising the debt ceiling.
I spoke to the longshoremen on Monday. I asked them: Have you ever
heard of it before? Not one person. Do you know I voted for it seven
times under President Bush? They didn't know that. Four times under
President Clinton and 19 times under Ronald Reagan? Yet, we've got
people who will bring down the United States Government if they don't
have their way:
It's our way or not at all.
I was here under President Bush when we had 8 years of what I call
``reverse Robin Hood''--robbing from the poor and working people to
give tax breaks to the rich. We did the same thing in December. We gave
$70 billion to the millionaires and billionaires, and now people are
calling my office, wanting to know whether or not they're going to get
their Social Security checks. There is something wrong with that. There
is something wrong in the people's House that we are having senior
citizens worrying about whether they're going to get their Social
Security checks or whether they're going to get their veterans' checks.
We can include the billionaires and millionaires, and we've got people
over here from Louisiana to whom we've given billions of dollars; yet
we want to close the opportunities to help other areas when we have
disasters. That's what a budget is about. The budget determines your
priorities.
It's a sad day in the people's House when we have people in this
House who do not care about the American people; they only care about
the next election. I can truly say that you can fool some of the people
some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
So the people who have lost their jobs at the FAA because of politics,
wake up. The people who think that it's okay to rob Social Security,
Medicaid, Medicare--education--wake up.

{time} 1600

You know, elections have consequences, and we are going to have
another election. And the people in this country are going to wake up,
and they're going to realize that we're going to move forward or move
behind. And clearly we've got people in charge that are only interested
in pushing us behind.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANDRY. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANDRY. I find it very amusing that the gentleman from Virginia
and the gentleman from Washington would use an argument that we are
overburdening a Federal agency when it is that side of the aisle that
has a tendency to overburden and overregulate and demand reporting from
our private sector. They have no problem asking the private sector to
report things to the government so that they can discern whether or not
the private sector is conducting its business accordingly.
And when this amendment comes up--and we're simply asking for
transparency in order to see whether or not my constituents are being
disingenuous or whether it is the government that is being disingenuous
in the permitting process. That is simply all we're asking here.
This allows us to help separate fact from fiction as to whether or
not BOEMRE is rejecting permits for ridiculous reasons or legitimate
reasons.
And so, again, it just amazes me that when we have an opportunity to
shed a little light on a Federal agency that the party who has claimed
that it's all about transparency and open government is now trying to
shield that agency.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment should fail.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

lease authorization

Sec. 122. (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') may lease
to the Savannah Bar Pilots Association, or a successor
organization, no more than 30,000 square feet of land and
improvements within Fort Pulaski National Monument (referred
to in this section as the ``Monument'') at the location on
Cockspur Island that has been used continuously by the
Savannah Bar Pilots Association since 1940.
(b) Rental Fee and Proceeds.--
(1) Rental fee.--For the lease authorized by this Act, the
Secretary shall require a rental fee based on fair market
value adjusted, as the Secretary deems appropriate, for
amounts to be expended by the lessee for property
preservation, maintenance, or repair and related expenses.
(2) Proceeds.--Disposition of the proceeds from the rental
fee required pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be made in
accordance with section 3(k)(5) of Public Law 91-383 (16
U.S.C. 1a-2(k)(5)).
(c) Terms and Conditions.--A lease entered into under this
section--
(1) shall be for a term of no more than 10 years and, at
the Secretary's discretion, for successive terms of no more
than 10 years at a time; and
(2) shall include any terms and conditions the Secretary
determines to be necessary to protect the resources of the
Monument and the public interest.
(d) Exemption From Applicable Law.--Except as provided in
section 2(b)(2) of this Act, the lease authorized by this Act
shall not be subject to section 3(k) of Public Law 91-383 (16
U.S.C. 1a-2(k)) or section 321 of Act of June 30, 1932 (40
U.S.C. 1302).

self-determination demonstration project

Sec. 123. The Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
shall reinstate the Demonstration Project that was in place
from 2004 until 2008 for the Indian tribes within the
California Tribal Trust Reform Consortium, the Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, and the Chippewa
Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boys Reservation; shall thereby
ensure that the participating tribes shall be able to
continue operations independent of the Department of the
Interior's trust reform and reorganization; and shall not
impose its trust management infrastructure upon or alter the
existing trust resource management systems of the above
referenced tribes having a self-governance compact and
operating in accordance with the Tribal Self-Governance
Program set forth in title IV of Public Law 93-

[[Page H5618]]

638 (25 U.S.C. 458aa-458hh): Provided, That the California
Trust Reform Consortium and any other participating Indian
tribe agree to carry out their responsibilities under the
same written and implemented fiduciary standards as those
being carried by the Secretary of the Interior, including
complying with section 102 of Public Law 103-412 (25 U.S.C.
4011): Provided further, That participating Indian tribes
shall timely transfer funds and supply sufficient data to
enable the Secretary of the Interior to comply with section
102 of Public Law 103-412 (25 U.S.C. 4011) for accounts that
are maintained by the Department of the Interior when funds
are being collected by the Indian tribes: Provided further,
That such Indian tribes demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Secretary of the Interior that they have the capability
to do so: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Interior shall provide funds to the Indian tribes in an
amount equal to that required by section 403(g) of Public Law
93-638 (25 U.S.C. 458cc(g)(3)), including funds specifically
or functionally related to the provision of trust services to
the Indian tribes or their members.

wild lands funding prohibition

Sec. 124. None of the funds made available in this Act or
any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or
enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of
the Interior on December 22, 2010.

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 64, beginning on line 15, strike section 124.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, as the amendment states, I seek to strike
section 124 of this bill because section 124 prohibits expenditures for
the Bureau of Land Management to carry out its lawful duties under the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
Secretary Salazar issued an order appropriately. It was called 3310.
It stated the policy that BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, should
act consistently with the law. Section 201 of the law, the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act, requires that the Interior Department
maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction and that it
identify within that inventory of land the resource values including
wildernesses of those lands.
Now, section 101 of the Federal Land Policy Act also says that
certain public lands should be maintained in their natural state. Now,
that's the law, the law since 1976. Secretary Salazar is simply
attempting to implement that law.
Despite what some have claimed, Secretary Salazar's order does not
create any de facto wilderness. One of the reasons that I would strike
section 124 is that it will then return BLM wilderness policy to the
way that it has operated for 27 years until it was unilaterally changed
by then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton in 2003 in the Bush
administration.
Now, the order that Secretary Salazar has issued directs BLM to
develop recommendations to the Congress regarding wilderness land
designations. And it directs public involvement in the development of
those recommendations. Now what could be wrong with that--make
recommendations to the Congress and have public involvement?
But section 124 of this bill removes the requirement for public
involvement. Why are we afraid of public involvement? And it also
removes the requirement for the Bureau of Land Management to provide
recommendations to the Congress.
Why does this bill want to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from
making recommendations to the Congress and for having public
involvement?
It's not going to prevent the Congress from designating wilderness.
What it does do is to prevent the Congress from being properly informed
before we can consider those designations.
The Secretary's order is the kind of good government process that
encourages public involvement and forward thinking. As a demonstration
of that forward thinking, Secretary Salazar reached out to the Congress
in June, just a short while ago, and asked for Members' input into the
wilderness characteristics of lands within their districts. Isn't that
what we want them to do, reach out to the Congress, ask for our input?
I don't know what more we can ask from the Secretary or from the
Bureau of Land Management but an open, public process with
congressional input.
But this section that I think should be struck, this section 124,
wants to foreclose that process, foreclose that open, public process
with recommendations to the Congress.
It was a process that the majority and the committee report
applauded.
Let me say further that wildlands do have real benefits. They have
economic, they have environmental, and they have aesthetic benefits.
It's important that we protect not only public land in its natural
state but that we protect our ability to make informed decisions about
which areas should or should not be designated as wilderness areas.
I do think we need the secretarial order so that we can be informed
so that we can make the right decisions with regard to those
designations. Wilderness areas are important, but it's also important
that we maintain our responsibility. The Secretary makes
recommendations to us for us to make these designations within the
context of a public process.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate very kindly the gentleman from
Virginia and his explanation of this particular provision that's in the
bill. Unfortunately, it's not quite that way. Your recommendation of
this is that in June the Secretary asked for our input as to
wilderness, which is indeed exactly what he should do if he wants to
obey the law. That is the proper course. Only Congress has the ability
to designate wilderness areas.

{time} 1610

You said that the provision that's in the bill would foreclose that
process. In fact, you're arguing the exact opposite. This provision in
the bill does not allow the Secretary to go around that process but
insists that he does come and work with Congress to do any kind of land
designation as it is written in the law.
Secretary Salazar and Deputy Secretary Hayes and BLM Director Abbey
have all assured us that they have no plans to implement this ill-
advised policy they established just before Christmas, a Secretarial
order that usurped congressional authority and congressional
responsibility. I'm going to take them at their word. Unfortunately,
though, the order has never been withdrawn officially. It has been
superseded.
The Solicitor General's opinion to clarify the legal status of that
superseding of the opinion has been promised us. It was promised to the
chairman, promised to the chairman of the authorizing committee.
Yesterday at a hearing we asked where that was, and we were told once
again, well, it's on its way. What was said at that hearing, obviously,
is what they will do is nothing contrary to the provision that was
placed in the CR. Therefore, if we are going to take their word for
it--in the old Reaganesque form, ``Trust, but verify''--continue this
language in here and make sure that what they claim they will do will
be done and there is no legal way of getting around it.
Now, I say that legal process for a purpose. Even if I trust the word
of the Secretary--and I do--if this provision is in some way legally in
doubt--now, once again, until the Solicitor General's opinion is clear
with us, it is in doubt--in a litigation-prone society like we have,
any kind of radical activist may ask a renegade judge for political
purposes to contravene what the policy states it's supposed to be.
That's why I support Congresswoman Lummis' inclusion of this language
in here. It would oppose any kind of roundabout process of going around
Congress and allowing the administration to go around NEPA and around
FLPMA, which is actually what the original order did.
It is not that we don't have confidence in this process; it's simply
that we want to make sure it is very clean. And if, indeed, we all
agree and believe what the Secretary is saying, then this language in
here has no impact whatsoever. It should be accepted by all of us. If,
though, you want to try to have some kind of dangling aspect out there
so that somebody can sue someone

[[Page H5619]]

somewhere and maybe change the entire process, then create doubt and
actually withdraw language that was in the CR that was approved by the
House and the Senate and signed by the President.
What we're asking for is consistency so that what the gentleman from
Virginia said will indeed happen, that if wilderness is designated, it
will be done by Congress--it is our legal responsibility to do it--and
that no one can do these evaluations, which are legal under FLPMA, with
only one criterion. That, once again, was admitted by Director Abbey in
our committee that that is not the way the law is written, and indeed
if you do that, that is abrogation of the law.
Now, once again, you have a process here. If you leave the language
in there, it's no harm, no foul. It is consistent with the law, and it
is consistent with what the Department of the Interior said their
policy will be. You take this language out, and all of a sudden you
have created a doubt. Find somebody who has a good attorney, and all of
a sudden that doubt creates a major problem for the Department of the
Interior, and especially for us in Congress.
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. The amendment that's being offered is perfectly
appropriate. It's the duty of the Department of the Interior to carry
out the law. The law requires the Secretary to review, from time to
time, the status of public land.
All too often, I hear my colleagues on the Republican side say that
this is government land. No, no, no, this is not government land. This
is our land. This is the land of the American people, owned in common
for the common good. And the Secretary, carrying out that
responsibility, reviews the attributes of the land. Is it good for oil?
How about gas development or coal development? Or maybe it's useful as
grazing land, or perhaps it should be wild and scenic land and
preserved for the purpose of remaining in its most natural state. So my
Republican colleagues come up and say, No, you can't look at the land.
You can't study the land. We just won't want to know anything about the
land, except to allow for the destruction of the land.
This particular amendment doesn't come in a vacuum. This amendment
leads to the House floor another bill that is likely to move out of the
Resources Committee and soon be on the floor, which would take the
previous work done over the last 30 years that would quantify the
values of the land, scenic, natural, wilderness, and push all of that
aside and say, Open all the land, all the land to what was
euphemistically--I hope euphemistically--called mechanized
conservation. Hmm, ``mechanized conservation.'' Sounds to me like
bulldozer, drilling rigs, a stampede of cattle and the like over any
and all land.
Understand that this particular line in this appropriation bill goes
hand in hand with a piece of legislation that went through, that was
heard in the Resources Committee just yesterday, that would take all of
the land that has been designated as wild and scenic some 30 years
ago--some of which is said, no, it's not perfect for a wild and scenic
designation--and take all of that land and open it for development. We
ought not do that.
Therefore, this amendment that's been brought forward by the ranking
member is appropriate in that it allows the Department of the Interior
to upgrade some 30-year-old studies, taking into account new scientific
information, new information about the land, and making that
information available to us in Congress so that we can make an informed
decision about whether land should or should not be wild and scenic or
whatever designation might be appropriate, including opening some land
for development. But I suppose it's best to know nothing.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I would love to yield briefly to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I understand the gentleman's comments. And I know the hearing
yesterday addresses the issue, which is separate from this. Listen, we
should have that debate; we should have that discussion.
This issue is an administrative Secretarial order that, to the credit
of Secretary Salazar, they withdrew. It was confirmed, by the way, to
be withdrawn because of the CR we passed that takes us through
September 30. The Secretary, to his credit, said, I'm going to abide by
that. As a result, the order has not been withdrawn.
This debate here is about next year's funding. So until we get
clarification on that order or the order is withdrawn, this language is
appropriate. And that's simply all we're saying.
Now, we can get into a discussion of whether wild lands is, in fact,
a designation or not. And as a matter of fact, wild lands has no
definition whatsoever administratively. So there's a question on our
side, obviously, if they can even do that because wild lands may be
synonymous with wilderness, but wilderness can only be designated by
the Congress.
And that is the concern that we have. And that's why I think the
language that was put into the appropriation bill takes care of next
year. And I say, to the credit of the Secretary----
Mr. GARAMENDI. Reclaiming my time, sir, my apologies for interrupting
you.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Hastings of Washington and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Garamendi was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you for that accommodation.
I think the underlying problem was well described by you, and that is
that the language prohibits the Secretary from going forward with the
study of the wild lands. I think that's wrong. I think it's appropriate
for us to always update our studies, always to understand what has
changed and what is appropriate as we go forward.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

{time} 1620

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman remembers, because he
was in a committee hearing, under direct questioning, I think it was
Director Abbey said that there is no authority to make any designation
under law of wild lands because that was a made-up term. There's no
designation.
Can they inventory? Yes. Nobody argues with that. But you can't make
up administratively a new designation, and that's what the issue was.
And he testified that he had no authority to do that.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I think you're down to parsing words here. The study
that was attempted to be undertaken by the Secretary was to study the
lands for their wild land values. He obviously could not designate a
wild land that doesn't exist. But that study could give us information
that we would need to open land to more drilling or other purposes, or
to hold it aside for scenic and other values.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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. Mr. Chairman, this debate is always fascinating. I've
got to tell you, if rhetoric were fast food, there'd be golden arches
over all these doors because I've never heard so much rhetoric in my
life. And I hope that the gentleman from California actually read the
report. Maybe he did and maybe these pages got stuck together. I don't
know.
But if you look at the report--he said that we don't care about the
lands and the designations, that we just want to use them up and all
that kind of stuff.
Let me read, for the Record, what the report says: As mentioned in
the introduction of this report, the committee lauds the Department of
the Interior for its significant changes in wild lands policy and notes
that the Bureau of Land Management has, to this date, been in
compliance with the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution prohibiting
funds for the use of Secretarial order 3310, which was to designate,
and as the gentleman said, he couldn't designate wild lands because

[[Page H5620]]

that policy didn't exist, and he can't. And he's in compliance with
that.
It continues: While the Department is now rightly requesting the
input of Members of Congress, Senators, and the public, the committee
is concerned about the internal direction given by the Bureau of Land
Management regarding the inventory of lands managed by the Bureau. As
the Department has stated, inventories of bureau lands are required
under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, FLPMA, and
the committee agrees. The committee agrees with this reading of the
act.
The committee points out that inventories should, however, cover all
land uses, multiple use, not just lands with wilderness character. The
values to be assessed include wildlife, fish habitat, nonmotorized and
motorized recreation, hunting, fishing, grazing, conventional and
renewable energy development, mining, wilderness character, forest
management, and aesthetics. All of these values are important, and one
value does not supersede the other.
The committee also directs the Bureau to use the definition of
wilderness as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act, as directed by
section 603 of FLPMA. The committee will continue its oversight of this
issue.
The Secretary has done the right thing by withdrawing his policy of
wild lands designation, a designation that he made up. Only Congress
can designate a new land designation. That's what Congress does. The
Secretary agreed with that, withdrew it.
We have no problem, and encourage them to go on with the inventories
for all of the characteristics of public lands. So the gentleman's
comments relative to oh, all we care about is mining and flattening the
land, or whatever he said, is just rhetoric.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The reality is, if the
Secretary carries out what he says he's going to do, this amendment
probably isn't necessary. If they decide to reverse course, then it was
necessary. If they do what they said they are going to do, it
absolutely won't have any effect, as the gentleman from Utah said.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. When I was the Deputy Secretary at the Department of
the Interior, I thought that the Department of the Interior should do
what it needed to do. Now that I'm here I would agree with you that
they should do what we tell them to do. Just a change in jobs.
However, the point here is that the language that you have put into
this bill would preclude the Secretary from moving forward, even to
carry out the words that are in the document itself. And I did read the
document.
We need to know what is on the land, and we need to know its
potential uses. As I understand the amendment that you have put forward
that is in this bill, it would deny the funding for those purposes to
do the study. Now if I am wrong about that intent and effect of the
amendment, then we've had a wonderful debate in which we all agree that
the Secretary and the Department of the Interior should continue to
always study the land and to take into account new information, new
science, new knowledge, new GPS or satellite photos of the land. So I
think, as I understand the amendment, and the intent of the amendment,
it is to stop the Department from continuing to study these multiple
attributes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, the Secretarial order which is in
question needs to be withdrawn, and then he needs to issue a new one
which doesn't include this new designation of wild lands because that
still stands out there even though he says he's not going to designate
any new wild lands.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Is it not true that the ability to designate and
study and do these inventories comes under FLPMA regulation which is
not changed by this amendment?
Mr. SIMPSON. That's exactly correct.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This amendment only deals with the category that
was called wild lands, which is a made up category that has nothing to
do with any kind of law.
Is it not true that the Secretary and the Interior Department can
still do inventories on any consequence, but they are not allowed only
to do inventory for one characteristic. They can inventory for all
characteristics they're supposed to, and that comes in FLPMA.
Mr. SIMPSON. The amendment deals with the Secretarial order, not just
wild lands.
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. Section 124 prohibits expenditures for the Bureau of Land
Management to carry out its duties under section 201 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Secretarial order 3310 states a
policy that the Bureau of Land Management should act consistently with
section 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and maintain
a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction, and identify within
that inventory the resource values, including wilderness, of those
lands.
Despite what some have claimed, it does not create de facto
wilderness. It returns BLM wilderness policy to the way it operated for
27 years before being unilaterally changed by then Interior Secretary
Gale Norton in 2003. It directs the BLM to develop recommendations to
Congress regarding wilderness land designation, and it directs public
involvement in the development of those recommendations.
Section 124 removes the requirement for public involvement and
removes the requirement for the BLM to provide recommendations to
Congress. Section 124 doesn't prevent Congress from designating
wilderness; it just prevents us from being properly informed before we
consider these designations.
Secretarial order 3310 is the kind of good government process that
encourages public involvement and forward thinking. As a demonstration
of that forward thinking, the Secretary reached out to Congress in June
asking for Members' input into the wilderness characteristics of land
within their districts. I'm not sure what more we can ask for from the
BLM and the Secretary but an open public process, as Mr. Moran has
stated.
Section 124 seeks to foreclose that process, a process that the
majority in the committee report on H.R. 2584 applauded. These wild
lands have real benefit--economic, environmental, and aesthetic. It's
important that we protect not only public land in its natural state but
our ability to make informed decisions about what areas should or
should not be designated wilderness. We need the Secretarial order, and
we need to be informed.
I yield to the gentleman from California if he would like to make a
final comment here.
Mr. GARAMENDI. It's useful to read, and the characteristic of order
No. 3310, which is the subject matter, was well described by the
gentleman from Washington--if one were to read the order, the order
basically directs the Bureau of Land Management to continue to do its
studies for the purpose of identifying those lands that have wilderness
characteristics. This is exactly what I was talking about when I raised
my first point, that this particular section that is in this
appropriation bill, section 124, fits directly with the piece of
legislation that was authored by Mr. McCarthy and was heard in the
subcommittee yesterday, and that is to terminate efforts to create
wilderness areas in the United States. That's what this is all about.
This is about opening lands to development, and to prohibit the
Department from exercising its authority under the law to continue to
investigate and to analyze our land for the value of its wilderness
characteristics.

{time} 1630

Therefore, this particular clause, 124 in the appropriation bill,
runs directly counter to the requirement under the existing law that's
been there for more than three decades for the Department of the
Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, to carry out its
responsibilities.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H5621]]

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished chairman, who I just heard a
few minutes ago praising Secretary Salazar for the way he conducts
himself, that he's a good man. And now 3310 is like the Communist
Manifesto.
Mr. SIMPSON. Part of the reason I was praising him is because he came
over and sat down and listened to us and realized that there was a
problem with Secretarial order 3310.
Mr. DICKS. Well, then why don't we trust him?
Mr. SIMPSON. I trust him.
Mr. DICKS. Well, then why do we have this amendment?
Mr. SIMPSON. What does it hurt? It doesn't hurt a thing.
What the gentleman is suggesting is because we are essentially saying
you can't follow Secretarial order 3310, that means you can't follow
FLPMA, which requires the inventory of these lands. They still have to
do the inventory of the lands under FLPMA whether or not there is a
Secretarial order 3310.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Washington has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman from Washington and our
colleague on the other side.
It's useful to read the Secretarial order rather than all of the
hullabaloo of what this is all about. The Secretarial order follows the
law. It says that the BLM shall do an analysis as to the wilderness
characteristics. That is in FLPMA; that's the law. And so it says
that's what it's doing.
Mr. DICKS. Are you suggesting that this provision says that he
shouldn't follow the law?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I believe that's precisely what they're trying to do
is tell the Secretary not to follow the law.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. SIMPSON. It is absurd to think that repealing a Secretarial order
which does not supercede Federal law somehow changes the underlying
Federal law. It does not. FLPMA still exists whether the Secretarial
order is there or not.
Mr. DICKS. Secretary Norton did it.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. In fact, the Secretarial order does follow the law. It
precisely follows the law.
Mr. DICKS. Let's vote on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I didn't want it, but thank you.
Let me just simply try and come up with this one last time. The idea
of inventory is covered in FLPMA; that doesn't change. The Secretarial
order that established wild lands is a new policy. That has been
superseded by another Secretarial order. It doesn't have an impact on
this, which is one of the reasons why the administrative policy says it
is unnecessary, given the Department's policy that includes
collaboration with stakeholders, to identify public lands that may be
appropriated.
The administration is not fighting this thing; they're on board with
us. All we're saying is the reason you want to keep this language in
here--until the supersession has taken place and the entire thing is
repealed and you go back to FLPMA--is in case someone wants to litigate
outside of it and try and force the Department of the Interior to do
something it has said it will not do. That's what we're about here.
All these other arguments are extraneous. Its relationship to other
legislation. It does not have any impact whatsoever. This is simply
saying what the policy is, and the policy they're going to continue
will be substantiated in the statute in case someone else wants to play
around with it.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, so the point is this:
The administration does not object, as I understand it, to the language
of my amendment. The executive order, if it were repealed, would allow
FLPMA to function as it is designed in the law. The problem that has
been called to my attention is that the executive order has not been
repealed. Secretary Salazar communicated privately with Chairman
Simpson and Chairman Bishop that he did not intend to enforce the wild
lands order, but the order is still in place. So until the order is
withdrawn, this amendment is necessary.
Democrats strongly opposed including this language in the committee
level. They've offered this amendment today. And then the President has
threatened veto because this language might be in the bill. Now given
that development, my initial skepticism on including this language is
long gone. I'm not even skeptical anymore. Clearly, there are those who
still want the Secretary to operate outside his legal authority and
declare wilderness or wild lands areas without Congress. Only Congress
can do that.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I'm glad the gentleman brought up Secretarial order 3310 because
that's what we're talking about here.
Now the first sentence under section one, Purpose, it says: The
Secretarial order affirms the protection of wilderness characteristics.
Nobody is arguing about that at all. Then you go to page 2 of the
Secretarial order, section 4, Policy, and it goes on through the
process of inventorying and so forth.
And the last sentence is the problem where we have our heartburn. It
says: ``Where the BLM concludes that protection of wilderness
characteristics''--which nobody argues about--``is appropriate, the BLM
shall designate these lands as `Wild Lands.' ''
Now that is a made-up definition. Nobody argues about the inventory
part, but now all of a sudden they're superseding and suggesting that
there should be a new designation called wild lands. That is what the
problem is. They have no authority to do that. And they affirmed that,
by the way, in testimony in front of our committee. This part of the
Interior bill simply says we're not going to fund that. And until the
Secretarial order is withdrawn--this one here that says wild lands--
once this is withdrawn, you're right, there's no issue. But it hasn't
been withdrawn. That's why that language needs to stay in there. It's
nothing more complicated than that.
I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Reclaiming my time, this issue is not just an academic
discussion on this floor. People in the West are terrified that the
Department of the Interior is going to create a new category of lands
called ``wild lands'' that will be managed differently than the law
provides.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I want to speak in favor of Mr. Moran's
amendment to strike an irresponsible provision in the underlying
spending bill.
Sec. 124 puts our wild lands in harm's way by prohibiting funds from
being used to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial Order 3310,
or the ``wild lands'' policy.
This policy is a reasonable, well-grounded approach that will
facilitate public participation and will restore balance to our public
lands management policies.
Most importantly, it will protect cherished natural icons from
development.
I commend the Secretary on his Order to resume the Interior
Department's compliance with Wilderness Act and other existing laws
that guarantee wilderness preservation.
The Secretarial Order overturns a flawed decision made by former
Interior Secretary Norton during the Bush Administration to halt all
assessment or new protection of public land with wilderness
characteristics.
In effect, the Bush Administration stopped complying with the
statutory requirements of the Wilderness Act and other laws.
The Salazar Order reverses that decision.
As a Member of Congress who understands the value of preserving wild
places I fully support Salazar's decision to restore balance to public
land management and any other measures taken to ensure the protection
of ecologically important spaces.
Clearly, some of my colleagues do not agree with me.
Once again, the majority is trying to block BLM's and Congress'
ability to manage public lands for the people.
They are breaking with years of bipartisan tradition of protecting
these important spaces.

[[Page H5622]]

But we've witnessed these same tactics before with H.R. 1 earlier
this year.
Blocking funds for the ``wild lands policy'' will have the immediate
effect of despoiling thousands of acres of wild lands.
Destroying what could have been a legacy for future generations.
It allows the American people, through their elected representatives,
to decide which lands should be permanently preserved as wilderness.
It is supported by the millions of Americans who are committed to the
preservation of our wilderness heritage.
Without the policy, many of our nation's pristine wild and public
lands remain at risk.
Don't take nature away from the American people.
Vote ``yes'' on Mr. Moran's amendment to strike this irresponsible
provision from the Interior spending bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE II--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Science and Technology

For science and technology, including research and
development activities, which shall include research and
development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related costs
and travel expenses; procurement of laboratory equipment and
supplies; and other operating expenses in support of research
and development, $754,611,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2013.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
occurring on page 65, line 5. I actually have three amendments all on
the same subject, but one amendment touches line 21 and one amendment
touches line 73. In the interest of comity, I would ask unanimous
consent that I be permitted to offer all of those amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to considering all three
amendments en bloc at this point in the reading?
Hearing none, the Clerk will report the amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 65, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $20,000,000)''.
Page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $13,000,000)''.
____

Page 65, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
____

Page 73, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

{time} 1640

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the Chair.
There's a lot going on in Washington, Mr. Chairman, and I would tell
you that people back home think we can't get along, but this is a great
example of how we're going to get along, and I'm going to become the
second member of this subcommittee to say something nice about a member
of the Democratic Party, and that's the President of the United States,
Barack Obama.
President Obama became the first President of the United States in
history to recognize that we needed to put real money into Great Lakes
restoration. Those of us who live in the region selfishly know it, and
those around the world know it as about 20 percent of the world's
freshwater.
We've nickeled-and-dimed and sort of moved along with some nice
legislation in this House, some of it written by one of our former
colleagues, Mr. Ehlers of Michigan, the Great Lakes Legacy Act, but it
wasn't until President Obama, and I suspect that his then-Chief of
Staff, the new mayor of Chicago, Mr. Emanuel, was whispering in his ear
because he was certainly conversant with these issues, that we need to
address the Great Lakes as an ecosystem and make sure that we deal with
it appropriately.
So President Obama proposed $475 million a couple of years ago for
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. However, as so many things
occur around here, that went from 475 to 300, and now in this bill we
find it to be $250 million. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is
designed to mitigate toxic substances in the Great Lakes, to reduce the
impact of invasive species, to improve nearshore health and reduce
nonpoint source pollution, improve habitat and reduce species loss, and
improve information engagement and accountability in the program
overall.
I just want to focus on one of those, and that is the invasive
species, and not the invasive species that come in ballast water. This
is an invasive species that is swimming up the Mississippi River, the
Asian carp. The Asian carp and I have something in common: The Asian
carp can eat 20 percent of its body weight a day, and this Asian carp,
if it is successful in breaking through the electronic barrier and
getting into the Great Lakes, will devastate that entire ecosystem.
This is important.
I know that there are some Members who are going to say, well, I love
the Great Lakes; I love the fact that the President made this
designation; you're right, we need more money, but what doesn't need
more money in this bill, and the account from which I'm taking it,
climate change, but if we don't take care of the Great Lakes, 20
percent of the world's freshwater, we're not going to have to worry
about climate change because we're all going to be dead. We need to
make sure that we protect this valuable resource. And on this instance,
Ms. Jackson, the administrator at the EPA, has been really a great
partner in implementing these programs. She has over 300 projects under
way at this current time.
I know this is a heavy lift, I know that it's selfish, but I would
tell you that it's not selfish because the Great Lakes continue to be
the treasure of the world, and there's going to come a time when water
is the new oil when it comes to an important resource. I urge Members
of the House to please support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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. This is really hard, Mr. Chairman, but given our
allocation, we had to cut many EPA programs, including programs we
support like the clean water and drinking water State revolving funds.
In the base bill, we reduced nearly every EPA geographic program below
the 2011 enacted level, in addition to providing none of the requested
increases.
Despite the cuts, restoration of the Great Lakes remains a committee
priority as demonstrated by the fact that the Great Lakes program is
the largest recipient of funds in the geographic programs. It's the
largest geographical area, also, so you would probably expect that.
While I appreciate the intent of the gentleman's offset, where he
offset this from, we cut EPA's climate budget by $23 million--and it's
easy to vote against funding for climate change or the increased
funding that we have put into climate change--in the chairman's mark,
and, believe it or not, there are some EPA programs we support under
the climate change heading, including research and development of new
automotive technologies, including the hydraulic hybrid technology for
trucks, carbon capture and sequestration, and initiatives to increase
methane transmission.
The reality is that over a period of time, because ``climate change''
is now kind of the key phrase, that if you want to get money for your
basic science, you call it ``climate change.'' Just like after 9/11, if
you wanted money for some program, you called it ``homeland security.''
That was the key phrase. Now ``climate change'' is the key phrase. A
lot of the requests from the administration have been basic science
programs that have been going on for a long time but have been shifted
over and called climate change.
While we looked at the funding for climate change and the increases
that had occurred in this budget over the years and that have been
substantial, the fact is, when we looked at them, many of them were
just basic science that needed to be continued. So we couldn't just go
out and eliminate all the climate change or reduce it, I believe, any
more than we did, and climate change took an $83 million hit in this
bill.
We see the same thing happening in the Department of the Interior,
where base programs have been reclassified as climate change. So we
really need to be

[[Page H5623]]

careful about what we are using as an offset under the administration's
classification of a ``climate change program.''
In addition, funding for the Great Lakes restoration efforts grew
from $60 million in 2009 to $475 million in 2010. Therefore, at the
chairman's mark of $250 million, funding for the Great Lakes is still
four times above its historical levels. And, again, it continues to be
a committee priority as evidenced by the fact that the Great Lakes
program is the largest recipient of funds in the EPA's geographic
programs.
If I felt we could fund the Great Lakes at a higher level within our
allocation, then believe me, I would have done so. I would have done
anything to avoid this debate with the gentleman from Ohio, but,
unfortunately, even though the gentleman makes a good point and I agree
with him and if we had more money in the allocation I would be more
than happy to do it, it's the offset and where it comes from that
causes me some concern.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Will the distinguished chairman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I would be more than happy to yield.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. If I seek to amend my amendment to say ``Great Lakes
Restoration Fund/Climate Change,'' will the gentleman give me my 50
bucks?
Mr. SIMPSON. Well, that would be one of the overall problems with the
title, Climate Change, but I would have to oppose the amendment and
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to speak
against the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his work on the
Great Lakes.
I represent a Great Lakes region in Minnesota. As the chairman
pointed out, the climate change has been cut, Great Lakes have been
cut, and I'm here to tell the gentleman from Ohio, I think we can have
a win-win even without supporting your amendment. The reason being is,
by leaving the dollars where they are in the climate change, I think we
can count on and, through our work, make sure that what is happening to
the Great Lakes is documented and proven so that the facts are out
there about what we need to do about climate change, and I'm going to
refer to two examples. One is from a local paper of mine, the Star
Tribune, from July 13:
It talks about how, with climate change, that they're seeing that
Isle Royale in Lake Superior used to be too cold for deer ticks, but
not anymore. Scientists are watching the effects of climate change and
what is happening to the Great Lakes region. The ticks that carry Lyme
disease have been found for the first time on the island off the coast
of northern Minnesota. At the end of the century, nesting loons may
disappear altogether from most of the Great Lakes. These are findings
from a report on the effects of climate change on the Great Lakes. It
talks about, also, its effect on five of the largest national parks and
public waters that we share in our region.
The series of studies has concluded that the current and future
effects of warming, global climate change on national parks from
California to Virginia and the consequences of it. But if people think
that that is not hard enough to really kind of get, to make sure that
we do climate change, that we look at what is going on in the Great
Lakes, let me speak from another report that dealt with shipping on the
Great Lakes.

{time} 1650

I will enter for the Record which reports I use, but let me quote
from this. It says: ``The expected higher temperatures of climate
change are predicted to increase evaporation, lower runoff, reduce ice
formation, and raise surface water temperatures in the Great Lakes,
resulting in a fall in lake levels. The increased precipitation will
not be sufficient to completely offset the reduction in lake levels.
``For international commercial navigation in the Great Lakes, the
impact of lower lake levels will be restrictions in vessel draughts and
tonnage carriage, thus increasing the number of trips and the total
costs to move a given tonnage of cargo.''
In other words, climate change on the Great Lakes has an effect on
the economy.
I know that the chairman did not have, in my opinion, sufficient
allocations to address many issues I care passionately about, like
climate change, including the economic consequences of climate change,
as well as do some of the funding that the gentleman from Ohio and I
both sought for the Great Lakes.
But I think the gentleman from Ohio could actually see benefit to the
Great Lakes in research by not having his amendment move forward and
keeping the dollars that we do have for science and climate change.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. McCOLLUM. As the chairman says, with great risk, I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. No, no, no, you're going to like this. Actually, the
deer tick is misnamed because it really doesn't come on deer. It comes
more on the little gray mouse because the gray mouse is closer to the
ground. And if you treat a cotton ball with an appropriate substance,
you can relieve the deer ticks not only in Minnesota but here in
Virginia and also in Ohio.
Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for sharing that. I know how to
remove leeches, deer ticks, fish hooks. Yes, I've been out there. But I
really do think the Members should reject this amendment and leave the
dollars where they are. We need to work harder to put more dollars into
our environment, not only for its natural beauty and to leave a valued
treasure to our children, but also because it has a direct impact on
the economy of many of our States.

[From the StarTribune, July 13, 2011]

More Deer Ticks, Fewer Loons: Climate Change on the Great Lakes

Isle Royale in Lake Superior used to be too cold for deer
ticks. But not anymore.
The ticks, which carry Lyme disease, have been found for
the first time on the island off the coast of northern
Minnesota. And by the end of the century, nesting loons may
disappear altogether from most of the Great Lakes.
Those are some of the findings of a report on the effects
of climate change on the Great Lakes' five largest national
parks.
It was the latest in a series of studies they have
conducted on the current and future effects of a warming
global climate on national parks from California to Virginia.
The report, the authors said, provides an early look at
what's to come if the Republican-led Congress continues to
thwart federal efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Republicans this week tried and failed to repeal new
standards for more energy efficient lightbulbs, and are
resisting the new federal rules regulating greenhouse gas
emissions expected later this summer. They say the rules are
unnecessary intrusions on freedom, and job-killers.
``We have an increasing partisan divide on this,'' said
Stephen Saunders, president of the Rocky Mountain Climate
Organization and a former national parks official with the
Department of the Interior. ``If people pay attention to how
the places they know and love respond to climate change, I
hope that makes people aware of what we should be doing
differently.''
The authors analyzed a century's worth of temperature
trends for the Great Lakes area drawn from two weather
stations on Lake Michigan, and found that both show more
rapid change than the global averages. The one near the
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, near Chicago, showed that
in the last decade average temperatures have increased by 1.6
degrees, and the one near Picture Rocks National Lakeshore in
Michigan showed an average increase of 2.7 degrees.
Lee Frelich, a University of Minnesota researcher who
studies the effects of climate change in the Upper Midwest,
said the analysis used widely accepted climate models and
data, and the findings are right on the mark.
``Climate changes are more extreme in the mid continents,''
said Frelich, who was not involved in the report. ``If you
are fairly far north you will see bigger magnitudes of
climate change than other places.''
Water temperatures in Lake Superior have increased 4.5
degrees between 1979 and 2006, twice the rate of land
temperatures, the report found. Between the 1970s and 2009,
winter ice cover over the lakes shrunk 15 percent.
The report also documented a 31 percent increase in rain
falling during big storms, and a 12 percent increase in wind
speeds. Combined with less ice during the winter, those
changes lead to faster erosion along the shores, putting
fragile landscapes like the Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes in
Michigan at risk. Frelich said that he's already seen the
effect on his family's cabin in Door County, Wis., where
winter storms have taken out trees on the edge of his
property.

[[Page H5624]]

The report found that temperature changes are having a
sometimes dramatic effect on wildlife. A growing number of
botulism outbreaks, linked to higher water temperatures, have
killed hundreds to thousands of birds in recent years in the
Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes. Meanwhile, Isle Royale used to be
free of deer ticks, which can only survive in average winter
temperatures of 19 degrees or higher. But a park service
employee this year reported finding a deer tick on his body
after he'd been there for a month, meaning he had picked it
up while on the island.
The report projects that average temperatures at Isle
Royale and the Apostle Islands would increase by an average
of 3.6 and 4.6 degrees by 2040 to 2069, depending on the rate
of future air emissions--warm enough to squeeze nesting loons
into the northwest corner of Lake Superior.
Mark Seeley, Minnesota state climatologist, said it's
difficult to make projections about Lake Superior using data
from two weather stations in Lake Michigan. But he said the
report accurately documented the extreme upward shift in
minimum temperatures in the winter. ``The winter season is
showing more dramatic increase in temperatures than
summer,'' he said.
The authors said that the five parks in the study draw 3.7
million visitors per year, generate $200 million in spending
and support close to 3,000 jobs. ``We face the financial
reality that climate change may bring tremendous economic
challenge,'' said Larry McDonald, the mayor of Bayfield,
Wis., a tourist town on the edge of the Apostle Islands. He
joined the authors of the report in a telephone news
conference. ``We need to respect and protect Lake Superior,''
he said.
____

[From the Transportation Research Board Special Report 291, May 2007]

Great Lakes Shipping, Trade, and Aquatic Invasive Species

(By Frank Millerd, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario)

SUMMARY

The possible impacts of climate change on Great Lakes
international shipping and on nonindigenous species are
examined. The expected higher temperatures of climate change
are predicted to increase evaporation, lower runoff, reduce
ice formation, and raise surface water temperatures in the
Great Lakes, resulting in a fall in lake levels. The
increased precipitation will not be sufficient to completely
offset the reduction in lake levels.
For international commercial navigation in the Great Lakes
the impact of lower lake levels will be restrictions in
vessel draughts and tonnages carried, thus increasing the
number of trips and the total costs to move a given tonnage
of cargo. Estimates of these impacts are derived from a
simulation of international cargo movements from and to the
Great Lakes in a recent year. In other words, climate effects
the economy of the Great Lakes.

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. I must agree with the chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee and object to this amendment. I want to make a number of
points. One is that the amendment adds funds for what are called
geographic programs. That is a pretty broad category. It includes the
Chesapeake Bay, the Puget Sound, the Great Lakes, and other water
bodies that need restoration projects. So if the amendment passes, I
trust the gentleman understands that the funding will be and should be
divided up amongst all of those programs.
Now, I do support the efforts of the Congress to clean up the Great
Lakes and to deal with these invasive species. Clearly, it is a very
serious problem. Asian carp is horribly destructive. But I think it is
worth pointing out that it was during Democratic leadership in the
Congress that the Great Lakes Restoration Project received its largest
increases. In fiscal year 2010, the program received $475 million, and
this current year they're getting $300 million. With all due respect,
it would seem that the funding level of $250 million, which is in this
bill, that cuts far more dramatically many other programs, would be
seen as something of a success. I think if anything, Mr. Simpson should
be thanked for protecting this program.
I will let Mr. Dicks speak about Puget Sound--but the Chesapeake Bay
was funded at $17 million below the request, and it's only getting $50
million. Now, I understand the gentleman's frustration that more could
not have been done in this bill for all of the geographic programs.
But the reason why we are in this position of underfunding these
admittedly critical water programs is because of two actions. I know
the gentleman will remember those two actions because he supported
them. One was the so-called Ryan Republican budget resolution that the
gentleman voted for; and the second was the 302(b) allocation to the
Interior Department. I think that set the stage. It really set
parameters that were far too tight to be able to provide the kinds of
funds for many programs, including Great Lakes restoration, that are
needed.
Now, another point that needs to be made is that the GAO reported to
the committee, and I quote: ``Progress remains slow as the program has
delisted only one of the 31 areas of concern.'' EPA officials said that
the program set less ambitious goals for fiscal year 2012 because it
has had such trouble in meeting past goals. The agency did set lower
goals in 2012, and so it does seem to make some sense that reduced
funding might be appropriate in view of those lesser goals.
But I also want to point out that the offset is really untenable. It
reduces EPA's science account and environmental programs with what I
think is the express intent of cutting additional climate change and
clean energy programs.
Now, I also want to point out, and I know that the gentleman offering
the amendment may not be excited about this, but it does seem a bit
hypocritical, the gentleman offering this amendment, to add funds for
the Great Lakes restoration also offered language which was put in the
bill to defund the Great Lakes restoration over the ballast water
standards. That amendment would save----
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I will yield when I'm finished.
If we want to help the Great Lakes get the kind of money they need,
it doesn't seem to me that we should be offering amendments that would
completely defund all EPA programs for the States bordering the Great
Lakes if they don't meet adequate ballast water standards, which is the
amendment that the gentleman put in the bill.
So I think that is a sufficient number of points to urge defeat of
the amendment.
Now I will be happy to yield to my very good friend from Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman very much. I wanted you to
yield because you mischaracterized the other part.
What the other piece of language in the bill does, it says to the
State of New York----
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has
expired.
(On request of Mr. LaTourette, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Moran
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank you. You know there are eight States that
border the Great Lakes. One State in particular, New York, has imposed
ballast water exchange in innocent passage that can't be met by any
technology that exists today. That set of standards will cripple, will
literally cripple and bring to a halt all waterborne commerce in the
Great Lakes. My amendment says, listen, if you want to impose that kind
of standard, you're not going to get any money until this thing gets
sorted out when the EPA and the Coast Guard come up with a uniform
ballast water exchange.
But let me just tell you, since you're talking about the regional
programs, the Great Lakes are unique. The Great Lakes were unique in
the world. And I can remember a couple of years ago, Senator Dodd, he
wanted to have Lake Champlain become a Great Lake. And I said to the
distinguished Senator at the time: Lake Champlain is a good lake; but
it's not a Great Lake. The Great Lakes are the five Great Lakes that
every grade schooler learns on how to identify them. It is 20 percent
of the world's fresh water. And if we don't take care of them, as the
President of the United States recognized we needed to do in a big way,
we're going to be in trouble in this country. I thank the gentleman for
his courtesy.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of transferring $50
million in funding from EPA climate change programs to support the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. While I have serious concerns about
the offsets used in Mr. LaTourette's amendment, I strongly believe that
we need to continue to restore the Great Lakes to preserve its many
rare environmental attributes and to strengthen the American economy.

[[Page H5625]]

The Great Lakes are vitally important to the American manufacturing
industry. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, nearly 200
million tons of cargo travel through the Great Lakes each year. The
Corps reports that the Great Lakes saves manufacturers and other
industries approximately $3.6 billion per year in transportation costs.
Studies undertaken by the University of Michigan show that more than
1.5 million jobs are directly connected to the Great Lakes generating
$62 billion in wages. The Great Lakes help provide nearly 1 million
manufacturing jobs, over 200,000 jobs in tourism and recreation, nearly
120,000 jobs in shipping and more than 118,000 jobs in agriculture,
fishing and food production.
The University of Michigan study also states that the 83 million
people living in the Great Lakes area helped produce 27 percent of the
Nation's gross domestic product and 24 percent of the country's exports
in 2009. The basin is home to 38 percent of Fortune 500 companies.
Moreover, the region's colleges and universities award 32 percent of
the nation's advanced science and engineering degrees resulting in a
stronger American workforce to compete against nations such as China
and India.
Furthermore, the Great Lakes are an environmental treasure containing
nearly 20 percent of the world's fresh surface water. The lakes also
support over 200 globally rare plants and animals, and more than 40
species that are found nowhere else in the world according to the U.S.
Department of the Interior.
In addition, the Great Lakes provide one of the best areas for
fishery and other recreational activities in the world. It is estimated
that 180 species of native fish, including small and large mouth bass,
the northern pike and lake herring all reside in the Great Lakes. A
study conducted by the Great Lakes Commissions reports that there are
4.3 million boats registered in the Great Lakes states, which is nearly
one-third of all registered boats in the United States.
The many environmental and economic benefits generated by the Great
Lakes are in danger because of its damaged ecosystem and numerous
environmental conditions. Despite recent improvements, there is much
work still to be done such as eliminating toxic substance pollution,
controlling invasive species, reducing nonpoint source pollution and
protecting against habitat and species losses.
Recognizing the importance of the Great Lakes, the Federal Government
developed the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan to
implement solutions to the many environmental challenges facing the
Great Lakes. The Initiative has been focusing on ecosystem protection,
enhancement, rehabilitation, and remediation within the Great Lakes
Region.
According to a study by the Brookings Institution, fully implementing
the Great Lakes restoration strategy would not only protect various
rare fish and wildlife it would also generate $50 billion in long-term
economic benefits and $50 million to $125 million in reduced costs to
municipalities.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to support protecting our
environment and our economy by voting to transfer funding for the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative--so vital to restoring fresh water
resources for the next generation and beyond.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendments offered by the gentleman from Ohio will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment
at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 65, line 5, insert ``and fellowships'' after
``development''.

{time} 1700

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, my amendment would
simply highlight the longstanding role of EPA in supporting the
education of our Nation's top environmental scientists by inserting the
word ``fellowships'' after research and development in the Science and
Technology Account. EPA currently awards the fellowships, and thus my
amendment has no scoring impact and does not authorize a new activity.
I realize that my Republican colleagues will surely not agree to this
amendment, but they have to agree that science is the underpinning of
great and good environmental policy. As the scientific arm of EPA, the
Office of Research and Development supports world-class research and
development activities to protect man's health and the environment.
Supporting the next generation of scientists and engineers through
fellowships is just one way the government supports the kind of
critically important research that private industry and academia alone
cannot and will not do.
With no real justification or detail, the committee's report language
for this bill specifies that funds are not provided for the fellowship
programs, amounting to a substantial $17 million loss to this field.
Lab equipment cannot operate itself. They cannot publish important
papers or make groundbreaking discoveries, which creates jobs. That
requires people. And EPA has a history of fostering some of the
Nation's top young researchers that have gone on to apply their talents
across government, academia, and industry. For instance, since 1995,
EPA has awarded approximately 1,500 STAR fellowships.
Turning our backs on the next generation of academic researchers,
governments scientists, science educators, and environmental engineers
all but ensures that we are doomed to make bad, uninformed
environmental decisions for the future.
I realize the gentleman's point of order. I do not agree with it. But
I'm sure he will be upheld by the Parliamentarian. So I simply would
ask that if we could work together to try to preserve some of this
talent that we have already put in place and some of the equipment
that's already in place to continue groundbreaking research, that is
going to be one of the few ways that we're going to develop good sound
jobs for the future.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate what the gentlelady is
trying to do, and actually agree with what she's trying to do, I must
insist on my point of order against the amendment because it provides
an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates
clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part:
``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an
expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an
earmark that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause
2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I accept that point
of order, but I would like to appeal to the chairman of this committee
to work with us and see if we can't preserve some of the investments
we've already made and some of the talent that is in place.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment expands the eligible uses of appropriations in the
pending paragraph to include ``fellowships.'' As such, it proposes to
appropriate for that purpose.
The proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of
persuasion on the question of whether it is supported by an
authorization in law.
Having reviewed the amendment and entertained argument on the point
of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of
appropriation in question is authorized in law.
The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order
under clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, as somebody who has spent many, many
years working in my community and around the country on the promotion
of livable communities, I am

[[Page H5626]]

frankly mystified to see included in this bill an end to the program
that provides technical assistance and guidance to communities who are
looking for ways to increase economic development, plan for economic
growth, and make their communities safer, healthier, and more
economically secure. It is mystifying.
The EPA Office of Sustainable Communities was established to provide
a resource for communities that need technical assistance to plan for
economic growth, to deal with development, to account for a changing
population and the demographics, to expand their economic development
options, and make communities more attractive to business and local
citizens.
Mr. Chairman, there are hundreds of examples from across the country
about the work that the Office of Sustainable Communities has
accomplished. Some of the most important projects were situations where
the Office of Smart Growth has helped in brownfield redevelopment.
These are very complicated problems for local communities where they
help turn unusable, polluted land into land that's ready for
development. This helps create housing and business opportunities and
provide cities with an important foundation for planning future growth.
This is precisely the sort of thing that we should be doing to help
communities leverage resources and prepare for the future.
In Iowa City, Iowa, the Office of Smart Growth recently approved a
grant to redo their downtown riverfront area after the 2008 flood
devastated that community. With the help of EPA, they created a plan
with input and support from local elected officials, business leaders,
and local residents that's helped regenerate the downtown business area
while preserving green space and recreational areas for families who
are moving into the newly redeveloped residential buildings. Closer to
my side of the continent, just picking at random, the communities of
Driggs and Victor in Idaho received a Smart Growth Implementation
Assistance Grant to help analyze the barriers and opportunities of
infill development in support of downtown revitalization efforts. This
small Federal investment helped communities take advantage of public-
private partnerships and redevelopment opportunities that helped
revitalize these small rural towns.
Hundreds of other communities across the country have received
similar assistance under the Smart Growth Program. But these
cooperative efforts would come to an end under this House legislation.
The services offered by EPA's Sustainable Communities Office are in
high demand. They've been able to assist only 9 percent of the
communities that are interested, due to existing budget constraints.
In addition to their technical assistance work, the Office of
Sustainable Communities is engaged in a partnership that we all should
be supporting and encouraging between HUD, the Department of
Transportation, and EPA. The Partnership for Sustainable Communities
enables these three Departments to work together to ensure that Federal
funds work in conjunction with each other, break down the silos that
frustrate us all to ensure that the Federal funds are spent as
efficiently as possible and eliminate duplicative processes.
Despite the obvious connections between housing, transportation, and
land use, we all know and have been frustrated that in the past the
three agencies have not always worked well together as we would like.
But Secretaries Donovan, our former colleague LaHood, Administrator
Jackson, and the agency have spent these last 2 years cutting down the
redtape and coordinating to meet multiple economic, environmental, and
community objectives while also cutting redtape and working to partner
better with local communities. The EPA's Office of Sustainable
Communities helps fill a critical need by providing assistance and
support to local communities.

{time} 1710

I find it ridiculous that at a time when this type of help is needed
more than ever, when there is nary a Member of Congress who hasn't been
frustrated about the lack of coordination and implementation, that the
House is now considering ending critical support to communities looking
for ways to jump-start their own economic recovery, looking to improve
the quality of life for their communities by making the Federal
Government a better partner. This is something for which there should
be no geographic, regional, partisan or ideological divide. This is an
outstanding program. It deserves to be supported, and I hope, as this
bill works its way through the process, that we find a way to retain
this valuable service.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HIRONO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, beside me is a picture of the Cuyahoga
River in 1952. The river is on fire.
The reason for this fire is that the river was heavily contaminated
with flammable industrial waste. This water was dangerous to drink,
needless to say, and to swim in. Fish and wildlife could not survive
here. Flooding in this river would have spread pollution onto the shore
and into neighborhoods. In short, this pollution was dangerous for the
health of the people and the communities that depended on this river.
It was incidents like these that helped raise public awareness of the
dangers of water pollution. Ultimately, that awareness became
government action, including the creation of the Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA, in 1970 and of the passage of the Clean Water
Act in 1972.
The EPA's purpose is simple: to protect human health and the
environment. It does this by ensuring minimum standards for water
quality nationwide while acting as a referee between the States.
Despite this important mission, this bill slashes the EPA's budget by
18 percent from current levels, so of course I rise to speak against
this underlying bill. It also includes a number of riders that will
prevent the EPA from carrying out the duties it is already legally
required to perform. I don't know why the majority is so keen on
undermining the vital mission of the EPA. I hear them talk a lot about
the costs of certain EPA regulations; but what about the cost of
getting rid of these regulations?
One serious cost that would go up is the cost of public health. The
impact of polluting our air and water isn't a speculative matter. We
know that it will make people and communities sick. More mercury in the
air we breathe means more deaths and debilitating illnesses. More water
pollution means families and communities will be subjected to a variety
of health risks. In short, more pollution means rapidly escalating
health care costs.
Another cost is the cost to our environment. Our rivers, coastlines
and wetlands are the places that we take our children to experience the
wonders of our country. This is where their interests in the natural
sciences and the outdoors are kindled. Polluted waters and coastlines
mean less wildlife, poorer fishing and a lot less beauty in this world.
We have to remember that we are merely stewards of our natural
resources and that the cost of polluting those resources isn't only
borne now; it will be borne by future generations.
Finally, the EPA helps to ensure a fair playing field for businesses.
This helps keep their long-term costs manageable. It's a simple fact
that a few dollars in prevention is far, far cheaper than expensive
cleanup costs later. For those who disagree or question that, I
encourage you to contact BP Oil. That company will--and should--be
paying for their damage for years to come.
So those are the costs the EPA helps to mitigate. That's why we need
the EPA. We need a referee that is empowered to make sure that everyone
plays by the rules and protects our natural resources. If we pass this
bill, we are essentially ejecting the referee from the game of calling
out misconduct on certain players, which will only encourage more
misbehavior in the future.
Take a look at this picture. Is that what we want?
This bill is so flawed, there is little hope for it. I hope that my
colleagues will reevaluate their approach to this legislation, will
pull it from the floor and go back to the drawing board.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5627]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. We should be here today passing a clean debt
ceiling and creating jobs; but in these challenging times of high
deficits and a fragile economy, when it is critical that our limited
spending priorities be focused on programs that can achieve results and
encourage the creation of jobs and economic growth, the majority is,
instead, bringing an unprecedented attempt to 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 H.R. 2584, the
House GOP is attempting to use a spending bill to make backdoor changes
to 40 years of important Federal laws.
H.R. 2584 makes drastic spending cuts to the Environmental Protection
Agency, as you've just heard, and to the Department of the Interior. It
fuels a multi-front assault on America's air, water, lands, wildlife,
and public health; and it severely undermines the environmental
integrity of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. In doing so,
this legislation cripples the budgets of key Federal agencies charged
with protecting American citizens and natural resources.
The bill is laden with contradictions and regressive reforms:
It slashes funding to the Environmental Protection Agency by $1.8
billion, yet restores $55 million in oil and gas subsidies;
It dramatically cuts the U.S. Fish and Wildlife budget by 30 percent;
It zeros out funding to list new endangered species;
It reduces the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget
by 18 percent from the President's 2012 budget and wholly eliminates
funding for NOAA's climate service;
It cuts the Land and Water Conservation Fund by 80 percent--a program
that has been critical to my district of the U.S. Virgin Islands and to
everyone's districts. H.R. 2584 renders this program's funding to its
lowest level in history;
It cuts $19.7 million from the National Endowment for the Humanities,
threatening support for teachers, community colleges, museums,
libraries, and archives of important historic documents and many
others, as well as the preservation projects that enhance local
economies and create jobs.
Another program that is affected is one that's near and dear to my
community. That's the National Heritage Area program. I have recently
introduced a bill to create a National Heritage Area on the island of
St. Croix, which we have been looking forward to, not only to preserve
and protect some of our local historical treasures, but as a badly
needed economic development tool that would create jobs. National
Heritage Areas are some of the most effective public-private
partnerships for resource conservation and heritage tourism supported
by the Federal Government. National Heritage Areas have matched every
dollar of Federal support with $5.50 of other public and private
funding, demonstrating a high yield of return on Federal resources.
I am appalled that this bill puts so much energy into tearing down
America's foundational environmental protections, especially as the
Representative of a place with some of the highest greenhouse gas
emissions per square mile in the country. Instead of working on the
bigger looming issue of our deficit crisis, this bill flies in the face
of decades of bipartisan support for the protection of public health
and environmental issues.
It does not put the American people first as it should. It further
endangers them by allowing for more dangerous air pollution. It does
not clean up urban and other critical waterways. It threatens clean
water that millions of our constituents depend on. It shuts the door on
endangered species, and ties the hands of our Federal agencies.
As leaders, we should not advance a budget that eliminates critical
protections that our constituents so desperately need. We should not
turn a blind eye to corporate polluters while holding the right of our
future generations to clean health and a clean environment hostage just
as the leadership is holding the well-being of the poor and middle
class Americans and the economic security of our country hostage to an
absolutely necessary lifting of this debt ceiling.

{time} 1720

I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the fiscal year 2012
Interior and Environmental appropriations bill and any antienvironment
and antipublic health and anti-American amendments that may be offered.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
bill which guts longstanding environmental policy. Unfortunately, this
is not the only thing that's wrong with America today.
Once again, Speaker Boehner and the GOP are putting the needs of a
few right-wing Members of Congress ahead of ordinary, hardworking,
everyday Americans, many of whom lit up the phone lines yesterday in
record numbers to express their disgust with Republican intransigence
that's holding our Nation and international markets hostage. Not only
did they call in record numbers, but 50 to 60 people came to my
district office yesterday to show their support for a balanced approach
to solving this debt ceiling issue. I also received a petition with
over 1,500 names begging that we protect Social Security.
But still, against the urgent pleas of international financial
institutions, Wall Street executives, and millions of Americans who can
ill-afford any reduction in their ability to borrow or an increase in
interest rates for a car, home, or student loan, Republicans continue
to show contempt for the American people by saying ``no'' to increasing
the debt ceiling.
Do you realize out there how many of us have adjustable rate
mortgages on our primary residence? Can you imagine what will happen if
this Nation defaults on its obligations to pay its debt and, as a
result, interest rates go up? That means your adjustable rate mortgage,
my adjustable rate mortgage rate goes up. Could I stand to pay $1,000
extra or $2,000 extra per month on my mortgage because interest rates
went up because we didn't do what we should have done here, which is to
increase the debt ceiling, something we've done 21 times, I believe,
over the last several--we did 18 times with Ronald Reagan as President?
But we can't afford not to deal with this debt ceiling issue.
Mr. Chairman, The Washington Post reports that House Republicans
watched a movie together about bank robbers to motivate members of
their caucus to stand firm in their solidarity against raising the debt
ceiling. What kind of example does this set for the American people?
What would they say if they knew that there is a concerted effort by
Republicans not only to prevent an increase in the debt ceiling, but to
impede economic progress, slow or stop job creation, cause the loss of
700,000 jobs, with the passage of cut, cap, and kill?
What about our seniors, our veterans, our students? What about our
credit rating in this country?
Mr. Chairman, just like bank robbers, it appears that Republicans
seek to threaten society as a whole, leaving a trail of destruction in
their wake. Republicans have now taken hostage of the U.S. economy,
threatening the livelihoods and well-being of Americans, young and old,
rich and poor. They can see the hands of the clock ticking, precious
seconds, minutes, and hours wasted.
Speaker Boehner and his cohorts say ``no'' to the President's request
for reasonable compromise, ``no'' to the desperate pleas of businesses
begging for a sense of certainty about the debt ceiling, and ``no'' to
the American people who have shouted at the top of their lungs for
shared sacrifice in these budget negotiations.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if Republicans are looking for some additional
inspiration in the debt ceiling negotiations, I'd recommend that they
watch ``Saving Private Ryan.'' It's about a man who makes the ultimate
sacrifice to save the lives of his fellow Americans. He was not a
survival-of-the-fittest-type guy, you're on your own.
We're all in this together.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5628]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this country is in the middle of a great
crisis, entirely an artificial crisis created by an attempt by one
political party to blackmail the entire country into adopting its
program of destroying Medicare and Social Security and food stamps and
unemployment and all of the things that many of our people depend on.
But why do I say it's an artificial crisis? Because the debt ceiling
increase is something we normally do--seven times during President
Bush's administration.
Some people think to raise the debt ceiling is to say we're going to
borrow and spend more. No, it's not. You raise the debt ceiling in
order to pay for bills you already incurred because of decisions made 2
and 3 and 5 years ago, mostly during the Bush administration.
Not to raise the debt ceiling is like going into an expensive
restaurant, having an expensive meal, and then getting the bill and
saying, Oh, my God. I've got too much money on my credit card. I don't
think I'll pay the bill. Well, if that's the case, you shouldn't have
had the meal.
If you don't want to pay the bill, you shouldn't have made those
budget decisions. You shouldn't have cut those taxes 10 years ago and
gotten into those wars 7 and 8 years ago and made the other decisions
that piled up the deficit.
If you want to have a debate, which we should, on how to change our
policies in the future, that's for the budget debate. We're going to
pass the budget at some point. We're going to debate tax levels,
expenditure levels.
But instead, what are they doing? They're saying, That's a nice
economy you've got there; pity if something should happen to it. And if
you don't do exactly what we want, we're going to destroy it by not
raising the debt ceiling and causing a collapse in credit so that
everybody's interest rates go up and that people have to pay a thousand
dollars more a month on their mortgage or whatever, because it's a
ripple right throughout the economy.
A default would be a real crisis for the economy, and it will cost
the economy probably a trillion dollars in extra deficit spending over
the next 10 years just in higher interest costs. But if we don't do
exactly what they want, to destroy Medicare and Social Security and the
other things they never liked in the first place, they will wreck the
economy by not raising the debt ceiling in order not to pay the bills
that they incurred.
Then we hear that we have a deficit crisis, that, after all, the
country is broke. We've got to cut the budget. Even the President says
the country is broke. We've got to cut the budget--a little less
savagely, but we've still got to cut.
Wrong.
The country is not broke. It is just that we are not taxing the
millionaires and the billionaires and the corporations the way we used
to.
In 1950, the corporations paid 6 percent of the entire economy of the
GDP in corporate taxes. Today, it's under 1 percent. Twenty years ago,
30 percent of all income taxes came from corporations; today, it's
under 6 percent. And that's why the middle class feels overtaxed,
because they are, because we don't tax the millionaires and the
billionaires the way we used to. We don't tax the corporations the way
we used to--the big multinationals, I'm talking about, not the small
businesses. Instead, we've shifted the tax burden to the middle class,
and we don't get enough tax revenue.
And the fact of the matter is, if you look at the budget of 2001 and
if you look at the budget of 2011, in 2001, the budget was $258 billion
in surplus. It was the last Clinton budget. How has it changed? Why is
this budget $1.2 trillion in deficit and that was a quarter trillion in
balance? What's changed?

{time} 1730

Well, adjusted for inflation and for population growth, nondefense
discretionary spending, everything they want to cut now, hasn't changed
at all. It was $369 billion then; it's $369 billion now.
What's changed? Well, defense spending and homeland security spending
have gone up 74 percent because of two wars and a lot of bloat, a 74
percent increase in defense spending. Mandatory programs, that is to
say, Medicare, Social Security, veterans, up 32 percent. And it is not
only those. There is also unemployment insurance, mostly because we're
in a recession, and you have to pay more unemployment insurance and
food stamps and so forth. Total revenues are down 24 percent. From a
bigger country, we're getting 24 percent less revenue today. Why?
Because in 2001, the taxes collected 20 percent of GDP, and today it's
14.5 percent of GDP.
So what should we be doing? Well, first of all, we should raise the
debt ceiling to recognize the debts that were already incurred, and we
should do it cleanly, so as not to throw the economy into a tailspin.
Then we should debate all of these issues in the budget. We should
raise taxes on the millionaires, the billionaires, the corporations;
cut defense; and try not to tamper with people's Social Security,
Medicare, and the things that they depend on.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Environmental Programs and Management

For environmental programs and management, including
necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel
and related costs and travel expenses; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft;
purchase of reprints; library memberships in societies or
associations which issue publications to members only or at a
price to members lower than to subscribers who are not
members; administrative costs of the brownfields program
under the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act of 2002; and not to exceed $19,000 for
official reception and representation expenses,
$2,498,433,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013:
Provided, That of the funds included under this heading, not
less than $346,280,000 shall be for the Geographic Programs
specified in the explanatory statement accompanying this Act.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Fleming

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

Page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $48,206,000)''.
Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $48,206,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLEMING. A little over a year ago, the GAO reported alarming
findings at the ENERGY STAR program, a joint EPA and DOE program
designed to save American consumers money on their utility bills.
Although well intentioned, I have concerns that the ENERGY STAR program
is leveraging hard-earned tax dollars and the trust of the American
people for a program that lacks oversight, could still be subject to
fraud and abuse, and one that would be better administered by the
private sector.
I have the report here in my hand. In March 2010, the report
indicates that the GAO released its report, documenting that the
program was mainly a self-certification program without much oversight
or accountability. In fact, according to the report, GAO created
several fictitious companies without any relevant products on the
market that easily became ENERGY STAR manufacturing partners. This new
status granted these groups unlimited access to ENERGY STAR logos and
promotional resources, and GAO was also able to obtain certification
for 15 bogus products, including a gas-powered alarm clock and a ``room
cleaner'' which was incredulously a feather duster taped to a space
heater. Prior to approving these items, EPA failed to review any
additional materials, including Web sites and self-incriminating
pictures.
My amendment will simply reduce the Environmental Programs and
Management account within EPA by $48,206,000, with the intent of
removing the EPA's portion of funding for the ENERGY STAR program. The
savings from my amendment will be added to the spending reduction
account.
Mr. Chairman, the ENERGY STAR program, created in 1992, enables
companies and manufacturers to voluntarily label qualifying and EPA-
approved household products and goods such as air conditioners,
refrigerators,

[[Page H5629]]

computers, and light bulbs, et cetera. ENERGY STAR also grants energy-
efficient labeling for home improvements and businesses. ENERGY STAR
labeling encourages consumers to purchase such products and make home
improvements in order to be more energy efficient, reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, and save money on utility bills, all very good value-
oriented ideas and concepts.
It is my belief that the Federal program should not be paying
anything for the ENERGY STAR program, however. Rather, this program
would be better served as a private entity, saving the taxpayers
millions of dollars each year. There are several good examples of well-
respected, well-run independent private sector initiatives, including
the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, an internationally
recognized green building certification system; Consumers Union, an
expert independent nonprofit organization which publishes the widely
acclaimed Consumer Reports; and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., UL, a
global independent safety science company offering expertise in five
areas, including product safety and environment.
These are just a few examples of nongovernment, nontaxpayer-funded
entities that understand that if you don't do a good job, they will
lose credibility. Not as much can be said for the ENERGY STAR program.
Americans rely heavily on this program and look to purchase household
products with the ENERGY STAR label. Companies use the EPA-approved
logo to market products. The Federal Government and several States
offer tax credits to those who purchase ENERGY STAR products, and
Federal agencies are required to use certain ENERGY STAR-approved
products.
The ENERGY STAR program continues to receive millions of dollars,
including approximately $300 million through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill, and $48 million in the underlying
legislation. It's time for the Federal Government to allow the private
sector to take over and to stop funding programs riddled with loopholes
that investigators need to point out before the EPA institutes
systematic changes.
So in summary, Mr. Chairman, we could well afford to save $48
million, and we have plenty of good models where private entities have
been doing a much better job for a much longer time. I ask others to
support this amendment. This is good for not only energy savings but is
a money-saving idea. Let's turn it over to the private sector. They do
a much better job.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate the ENERGY
STAR program, even though a great many American consumers rely on it to
choose appliances that meet Federal energy efficiency standards, such
as windows, refrigerators, dishwashers, and clothes washers.
The program has improved since an Inspector General report
highlighted flaws with the program. In response to the IG's report,
ENERGY STAR moved away from allowing manufacturers to self-certify that
they comply with efficiency standards, and now it requires third-party
certifiers. Well, I'm sure there's room left for further improvement in
the program.
As the gentleman from Louisiana has stated, many, many consumers have
come to rely on this program in their everyday purchases and would,
frankly, be stunned to think that this program is now being targeted.
Americans, with the help of ENERGY STAR, saved nearly $18 billion on
their utility bills last year alone and enough energy to avoid
greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 33 million cars.
Isn't that a good thing?
This is a voluntary program that works. We've heard so much railing
coming particularly from the other side about EPA's regulations, and
now the majority wants to attack a voluntary pro-consumer program. The
underlying bill already contains a very substantial cut to the ENERGY
STAR program, notwithstanding the fact that it has saved hundreds of
millions, if not billions, of dollars and has enabled consumers to be
much better informed as to what their appliances might cost them in
terms of energy requirements.
But the ENERGY STAR program has been funded in this bill at the 2008
level, 4 years ago. Since then, the population has expanded, the number
of appliances and things that use a great deal of electricity,
particularly computers, has expanded almost geometrically. People's
bills are going up. They want to know what are the most energy-
efficient products, so they rely upon the ENERGY STAR program, again, a
voluntary program and one that has been improved since the IG report.
They have third-party certification now as to what they are saying so
that we should have some confidence now in the ENERGY STAR imprimatur,
if you will, on appliances.

{time} 1740

It doesn't seem that this is the kind of thing that we should be
cutting. This is a pro-consumer, voluntary effort that works. So I
strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. FLEMING. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FLEMING. I don't disagree with the gentleman's comments. It's a
good program, although it has been a flawed program. Hopefully, it's
been improved.
My point is that this could be better done in the private sector, a
fee or whatever paid directly to whatever private entity out there that
would be nonprofit for this. Why should the taxpayers have to subsidize
it? That's really the issue here.
Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman, we have
things like the Better Business Bureau which, frankly, doesn't have
that kind of certification. Almost anybody can get designations.
Sometimes it's helpful. Other times it's less so.
I think the American consumer wants some level of credibility in the
organization that is certifying that an appliance is energy efficient.
The Energy Star designation means something. And if this was self-
policing, done completely in the private sector, you wouldn't have had
an Inspector General report. You wouldn't have had this corrective
mechanism that now says, you've got to fix this. You can't rely
completely upon self-certification, which is exactly what you'd have
under the private sector.
Mr. FLEMING. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FLEMING. There are plenty of private sector oversight
organizations. And again, UL: No appliance ever goes to market now
without a UL stamp, and again, that's done through a private entity.
So, again, it's a great program. Don't get me wrong. I just don't see
where taxpayers should be funding that. We can do much better through
the private sector.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has
expired.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. I appreciate the gentleman's shared desire to reduce
spending, however, I must oppose this amendment. As the minority
pointed out, to meet the 2012 302(b) allocation, we cut the Energy Star
program by $27.5 million, funding for the Energy Star program down to
$48.2 million, which is below the 2006 level. And we believe that
significant cuts took place in this program, as they should have been
taken. And with that we reluctantly oppose the amendment, and would ask
for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman. We agree with his
position on this, and we oppose the amendment as well.
Mr. CALVERT. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H5630]]

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $6,246,000)''.
Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,246,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying thank you to the
committee chairman for running a great piece of legislation. I think
this bill will go a long way towards creating a pro-growth economy.
We've done a great deal of work to reduce spending on this bill, and I
stand here this afternoon hoping to help out even just a little bit
more.
The amendment I offer I offered during H.R. 1. It passed. It passed
with votes from both sides of the aisle. The Senate failed to act on
it, so I'm here today again to offer this amendment one more time, and
I hope it will pass again with bipartisan support, and that we will,
once again, move towards a smaller, more humble Federal Government that
does only those things that it's intended to do.
The amendment I offer today seeks to reduce by $6.2 million the
amount of money available for the EPA's greenhouse gas registry
program. If I had my druthers, I'd probably prefer to see the program
go away. But I offer a more modest amount today.
This amendment only reduces spending for this program back to the
levels from 2009. Now, this is very consistent with the legislation
that we're acting on, the bigger bill which takes us back to 2009. This
is a program that currently stands, without this amendment, 95 percent
higher than the funding for the greenhouse gas registry in 2009. I
think we can all agree that we weren't spending too little money in
2009 regulating greenhouse gases in America.
We know the EPA says that this registry is just about data
collection. We'd just like a little bit more information. But those of
us in Kansas who are trying to operate businesses and make a go of it
know that there's an agenda far beyond that. This is an agenda that is
job-killing. This is an agenda that will destroy jobs, not only in
Kansas, but will drive up the cost of energy for every American. And so
I urge my colleagues today to support this amendment.
If we simply restore funding back to the 2009 level we will roll
back, I hope, again with bipartisan support, and we'll create jobs and
keep EPA doing those things it ought to be doing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I do rise in opposition to this amendment because it
attempts to strip half of the remaining funding for EPA's greenhouse
gas registry program. This amendment is part of an effort to ignore
what the scientists tell us is the most serious environmental problem
of our time, climate change.
Republicans have already passed a bill to repeal a scientific finding
that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health. The underlying
bill we're considering says that no stationary source, no matter how
large, or how lethal to human health, should ever have to reduce its
carbon pollution.
But this amendment goes even further. It says that we should not even
bother to find out how much pollution is being put into the air. I
guess you could call it the ``ignorance is bliss'' amendment.
What we should be doing is the opposite of what the gentleman is
trying to do. The bill already makes a 30 percent cut to the registry
program in order to cripple the efforts of EPA with regard to
greenhouse gases.
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program simply requires the largest
sources of carbon pollution, power plants, refineries, and the very
largest factories, to tell EPA and the public how much they pollute. If
we're ever going to deal responsibly with this pollution that is
costing us billions in health care and shortening thousands of lives,
we need to know where it is coming from and have some idea of how much
is being emitted.
This amendment is yet one more example of putting the profits of
industry, and particularly those industries that pollute the air and
eventually clog the water, that poison much of our environment, to put
their profits ahead of the public interest and the public's health.
We all know that pollution is dangerous to our health. The scientists
tell us that, certainly the reputable scientists. Let's allow EPA to
fulfill its core responsibility, which is to collect this information
and inform the public.
I know our friends on the other side hate regulations because they
believe that the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't understand the
impact of those regulations on businesses and on the economy and on
jobs and so on. EPA's job is to protect the public health, and in doing
so, and in encouraging cleaner sources of energy, we will not only
protect the public's health, but we will grow this economy, grow it in
a more competitive and a healthier way and a far more sustainable
manner.

{time} 1750

I oppose this amendment vigorously.
At this point, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas, who offered the
amendment.
Mr. POMPEO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be very brief.
I certainly care deeply about clean air, so do all the businesses in
Kansas, so do all the agriculture people. We want clean water, but we
know how to do it and we're doing it.
You said this was the ``ignorance is bliss'' amendment. I would
prefer to call it the ``jobs are a good thing'' amendment.
When things get mischaracterized--I'm not suggesting we abolish this.
There is still $6.2 million available for the Greenhouse Gas Registry.
That's as much as was available in 2009.
This is a simple, modest amendment that many on your side voted for
when I offered it before, and I hope many of them will continue to do
that.
I thank you for yielding.
Mr. MORAN. I was happy to yield.
Reclaiming my time, it just seems to me that more information,
accurate information, should not be a threat. Isn't it appropriate to
let the public know--in fact, to let lawmakers know who might need to
respond--how lethal is the pollution? How substantial is the pollution?
What's the composition of the pollution coming from the very largest
polluters? What are we doing to our people? What are we doing to our
environment? What are the sources of much of the billions of dollars
that we're spending in health care, twice as much as any other country
spends on a per capita basis?
So all we're trying to do here is to have a registry--information.
That ought not be threatening.
This amendment should be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, 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. A few years ago, the Supreme Court said that the EPA,
under the Clean Air Act, had to come up with and look at the
consequences of greenhouse gases and to create this registry, which is
a scientific document that allows us to know just exactly what the
various sources of these greenhouse gases are.
Now we hear a lot about climate change. I just want to point out
there is another more immediate problem. The gentleman from Kansas may
not be aware of this because it affects our oceans, and Kansas is in
the middle of our country. The oceans are now a sink for carbon
dioxide. And as we get more and more CO2 in the ocean, it
creates acidity, the so-called pH factor, which at normal range is
around 8.1, and when it goes down--we have places in Hood Canal, in my
home area, that are down at 7.3. At that level of acidity, it starts to
take apart coral. It takes apart oyster shells. It takes apart the
vital plankton, which are the food for salmon, 60 percent of the food
for salmon.
This is an incredibly important situation. So the more we can learn
about greenhouse gases and what their effect is not only on our
climate, but also on the ocean. We are poisoning the ocean. And again,
there is this ``let's not take time to work on this issue because
somehow it's going to cut away jobs.''

[[Page H5631]]

It may end civilization. Think about that.
Your grandchildren, my grandchildren--your children, maybe. Maybe
you're younger. I worry about them. I worry about what's going to
happen if we don't deal with this climate change issue. And we should
take this seriously. The best scientists in the world say this is
something that needs to be dealt with.
So, again, I think this idea of taking out the money for the
Greenhouse Gas Registry so that we will have a scientific underpinning
to know what these problems are and how much various sources produce is
the ``ignorance is bliss'' amendment.
Let's defeat this amendment and let the EPA do its job.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POMPEO. 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.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $41,099,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2013.

Buildings and Facilities

For construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of,
or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency,
$36,428,000, to remain available until expended.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Ms. Richardson

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 66, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 68, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 68, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak on
the Richardson amendment.
This amendment adds an additional $5 million to the Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act--also known as DERA grants--by cutting $10 million from
the EPA Buildings and Facilities account. The Richardson amendment is
about creating jobs, saving lives, and improving our Nation's air
quality.
Mr. Chairman, in the last Congress I introduced legislation that
extended DERA for 5 years. The DERA legislation received large
bipartisan support and was later signed into law by President Obama.
DERA is supported by a coalition of over 500 leading transportation,
environmental, and health organizations.
I represent a region that's home to the largest port complex in the
Nation and consists of some of the busiest freeways and railways in our
country. However, the area also suffers from poor air quality, which
has led to much higher rates of asthma and cancer than any other area
in the Nation. DERA improves our air quality by reducing the
CO2 emissions by up to 35,600 tons per year. It has been
estimated that nearly 2,000 lives will be saved over the next 5 years
through DERA by increased air quality.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today reduces the funding for DERA
grants by $19.9 million, which is well below the fiscal year 2011
levels. The EPA estimates that the DERA program averages more than $13
in health and economic benefits for every $1 we authorize in funding.
The EPA also estimates that DERA saves more than 3.2 million gallons of
fuel annually, which means that truckers and other diesel operators
will spend $8 million less on fuel. Mr. Chairman, that's less
dependency on foreign oil.
In these tight economic times, it makes sense that we invest in
programs that work and are cost effective. The CBO score on the
Richardson amendment showed that it will decrease the budget authority
by $5 million without creating any new budget outlays. Simply put, the
Richardson amendment saves money.
Since DERA funding began in 2007, more than 3,000 projects nationwide
have benefited from this program. In fact, there have been nine
projects in the Los Angeles County area, where I reside, alone.
Mr. Chairman, DERA projects have created jobs and improved air
quality in my district and across the country. The Richardson amendment
saves lives, saves money, and creates jobs, which is certainly what we
need and we should be talking about more in these dark hours.
I urge my colleagues to support the Richardson amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. I do this extremely reluctantly because I am very
supportive of the DERA program, but I can't support the offset.
The DERA program, as the gentlelady is aware, was not in the
administration's mark, and in this underlying bill, we provide for $10
million for the DERA program. As she well knows, throughout the country
this is a way to remove old diesel engines that pollute, and this is
something that actually works.
It's not a program; it's not a study; it's not some academic
exercise. It's actually something that cleans up the air, so it's
something I am very much supportive of. But right now EPA's Buildings
and Facilities accounts are cut by nearly one-third. We have cut back
these accounts substantially, and so we just can't support the offset
in the bill.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

{time} 1800

Ms. RICHARDSON. I thank the gentleman from California, which we both
serve, and it's my understanding that the account that the funds we're
requesting that it would be taken from do, with what we're taking,
still meet its outlay that's required, so I don't believe that this
would be a hurt to that account.
Mr. CALVERT. Reclaiming my time, the program has already taken a
substantial hit, a $20 million hit, as a matter of fact. Almost every
other program in our bill has taken substantial hits.
We're serious about reducing spending. If we had the additional
money, I'm sure the chairman would have added more money in the DERA
account in the first place if we had the extra money to do so, because
it's an extremely successful program, something that I certainly
support. I understand the gentlelady's conviction, but we just don't
have the money to take care of this offset, so we have to oppose the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the distinguished Member from
California. I know my colleague--and she's more than a colleague, a
friend--is very passionate about this program, and it has a sweet
acronym, DERA. As I said during the H.R. 1 debate, the diesel emissions
program is a good program. That's not the issue. Right now, with regard
to this amendment, the issue is whether or not we should be raiding
other EPA accounts to give this diesel program even more funding than
it actually has already gotten in this bill.
Chairman Simpson funded the diesel program at $30 million, even
though President Obama requested nothing for it. Now this amendment
would add a mere $5 million, but it would take $10 million from EPA's
buildings to pay for it. It may be politically attractive to take from
a buildings account, until you know what it funds.
The following facilities would have to give up funding to add this $5
million to the diesel program: the Ann

[[Page H5632]]

Arbor, Michigan, national vehicle and fuel emissions lab; the Andrew
Breidenbach environmental research center in Cincinnati, Ohio; the
Region 9 office in San Francisco; the Research Triangle Park main
laboratory in North Carolina. In that regard, the project in 2012 needs
to be funded so we can save future lease costs that would be in
jeopardy if we were to take this money away from the Research Triangle
Park lab. The Narragansett, Rhode Island, research lab would be cut,
and the air and radiation lab in Montgomery, Alabama.
All of these facilities have requests in this fiscal year 2012 budget
for needed facilities improvements. To cut those in order to increase a
program that was already plussed up $30 million above the request
doesn't seem to me to be the right thing to do.
In addition, we have an amendment filed from another Member--and I
see her here so I suspect it's going to come up right now--to take away
the $30 million that's already in the bill. I would hope my good friend
would stick around to strike the last word and address this amendment
that would zero out the diesel program. I don't want to zero it out,
but neither do I want to zero out money for six important EPA
facilities. So I hope the supporters of the diesel program will stick
around, will defend it against its elimination, which is an amendment
that's coming up very soon, but right now it seems to me that the
wisest thing to do is to try to protect the $30 million that's already
in the program, which is $30 million more than the President requested.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. RICHARDSON. 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 California
will be postponed.

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:
The first amendment by Mr. Dicks of Washington.
The second amendment by Mr. Dicks of Washington.
The amendments en bloc by Mr. LaTourette of Ohio.
Amendment No. 39 by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
Amendment No. 23 by Ms. Richardson of California.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 237, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 658]

AYES--174

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

NOES--237

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
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)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
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--21

Austria
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Broun (GA)
Cassidy
Chandler
Giffords
Harris
Hinchey
Honda
Lowey
McCotter
Richmond
Rogers (MI)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Schock
Schrader
Tiberi
Velazquez
Wu

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1829

Mr. BARTON of Texas, Ms. SUTTON, and Mr. ROONEY changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CARNEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 658 I was unavoidably
detained, and could not be present for the rollcall. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''

[[Page H5633]]

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) 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 174,
noes 250, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 659]

AYES--174

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

NOES--250

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
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
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
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
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
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
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
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 (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--8

Bishop (UT)
Chandler
Giffords
Hinchey
Mack
McCotter
Rehberg
Rush

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1836

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

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. LaTourette

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) 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 is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 206, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 660]

AYES--220

Adams
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Clarke (MI)
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Costello
Cravaack
Critz
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Holden
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Lamborn
Landry
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Woodall
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

[[Page H5634]]

NOES--206

Ackerman
Aderholt
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gosar
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kind
Kissell
Labrador
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Bishop (UT)
Chandler
Giffords
Hinchey
McCotter
Rush

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1843

Mr. ROHRABACHER and Ms. WATERS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendments en bloc were agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Pompeo) 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. 661]

AYES--235

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
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
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--191

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
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.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--6

Chandler
Giffords
Herger
Hinchey
McCotter
Rush

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1849

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

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Ms. Richardson

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

[[Page H5635]]

The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 662]

AYES--193

Ackerman
Aderholt
Altmire
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dent
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Engel
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hultgren
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lynch
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McDermott
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Posey
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richardson
Richmond
Rooney
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Upton
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOES--232

Adams
Alexander
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (NY)
Kingston
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Marino
Matheson
McCaul
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Serrano
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--7

Akin
Barton (TX)
Chandler
Giffords
Hinchey
McCotter
Rush

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1856

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Hazardous Substance Superfund

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3),
(c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611) $1,224,295,000,
to remain available until expended, consisting of such sums
as are available in the Trust Fund on September 30, 2011, as
authorized by section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and up to $1,224,295,000
as a payment from general revenues to the Hazardous Substance
Superfund for purposes as authorized by section 517(b) of
SARA, as amended: Provided, That funds appropriated under
this heading may be allocated to other Federal agencies in
accordance with section 111(a) of CERCLA: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated under this heading, $9,955,000
shall be paid to the ``Office of Inspector General''
appropriation to remain available until September 30, 2013,
and $23,016,000 shall be paid to the ``Science and
Technology'' appropriation to remain available until
September 30, 2013.

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program

For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground
storage tank cleanup activities authorized by subtitle I of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, $105,669,000, to
remain available until expended, of which $78,051,000 shall
be for carrying out leaking underground storage tank cleanup
activities authorized by section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended; $34,430,000 shall be for carrying
out the other provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
specified in section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, as
amended: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized to
use appropriations made available under this heading to
implement section 9013 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
provide financial assistance to federally recognized Indian
tribes for the development and implementation of programs to
manage underground storage tanks.

Inland Oil Spill Programs

For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental
Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, $18,274,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended.

State and Tribal Assistance Grants

For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance,
including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and
performance partnership grants, $2,610,393,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $689,000,000 shall be for
making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State
Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (the ``Act''); of which $829,000,000
shall be for making capitalization grants for the Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as amended; $60,000,000 shall be to carry
out section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended, including grants, interagency agreements, and
associated program support costs; $30,000,000 shall be for
grants under title VII, subtitle G of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005; and $1,002,393,000 shall be for grants, including
associated program support costs, to States, federally
recognized tribes, interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and
air pollution control agencies for multi-media or single
media pollution prevention, control and abatement and related
activities, including activities pursuant to the provisions
set forth under this heading in Public Law 104-134, and for
making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for
particulate matter monitoring and data collection activities
subject to terms and conditions specified by the
Administrator, of which $49,396,000 shall be for carrying out
section 128 of CERCLA, as amended, $9,980,000 shall be for
Environmental Information Exchange Network grants, including
associated program support costs, $11,300,000 of the funds
available for grants under section 106 of the Act shall be
for state participation in national- and

[[Page H5636]]

state-level statistical surveys of water resources and
enhancements to state monitoring programs and, in addition to
funds appropriated under the heading ``Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund Program'' to carry out the provisions
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act specified in section 9508(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code other than section 9003(h) of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, $1,550,000 shall be
for grants to States under section 2007(f)(2) of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 603(d)(7) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, the limitation on the amounts in a
State water pollution control revolving fund that may be used
by a State to administer the fund shall not apply to amounts
included as principal in loans made by such fund in fiscal
year 2012 and prior years where such amounts represent costs
of administering the fund to the extent that such amounts are
or were deemed reasonable by the Administrator, accounted for
separately from other assets in the fund, and used for
eligible purposes of the fund, including administration:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012, and
notwithstanding section 518(f) of the Act, the Administrator
is authorized to use the amounts appropriated for any fiscal
year under section 319 of that Act to make grants to
Federally recognized Indian tribes pursuant to sections
319(h) and 518(e) of that Act: Provided further, That for
fiscal year 2012, notwithstanding the limitation on amounts
in section 518(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
and section 1452(i) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, up to a
total of 2 percent of the funds appropriated for State
Revolving Funds under such Acts may be reserved by the
Administrator for grants under section 518(c) and section
1452(i) of such Acts: Provided further, That for fiscal year
2012, notwithstanding the amounts specified in section 205(c)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, up to 1.5 percent
of the aggregate funds appropriated for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund program under the Act less any sums reserved
under section 518(c) of the Act, may be reserved by the
Administrator for grants made under title II of the Clean
Water Act for American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas, and United States Virgin Islands: Provided
further, That for fiscal year 2012, notwithstanding the
limitations on amounts specified in section 1452(j) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, up to 1.5 percent of the funds
appropriated for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act may be reserved by
the Administrator for grants made under section 1452(j) of
the Safe Drinking Water Act: Provided further, That not less
than 30 percent of the funds made available under this title
to each State for Clean Water State Revolving Fund
capitalization grants and not less than 30 percent of the
funds made available under this title to each State for
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants
shall be used by the State to provide additional subsidy to
eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal,
negative interest loans, or grants (or any combination of
these), and shall be so used by the State only where such
funds are provided as initial financing for an eligible
recipient or to buy, refinance, or restructure the debt
obligations of eligible recipients only where such debt was
incurred on or after the date of enactment of this Act:
Provided further, That no funds provided by this
appropriations Act to address the water, wastewater and other
critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United
States along the United States-Mexico border shall be made
available to a county or municipal government unless that
government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or
other zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the
development or construction of any additional colonia areas,
or the development within an existing colonia the
construction of any new home, business, or other structure
which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary
infrastructure: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012
and hereafter, of the funds provided for the Clean Water Act
and Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund Tribal Set-
Asides, the Administrator may transfer funds between those
accounts in the same manner as provided to States under
section 302(a) of Public Law 104-182, as amended by Public
Law 109-54.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 68, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
Page 68, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to begin by
commending our Appropriations Committee for the extraordinary job that
they have done to claw back this money and to reduce spending below the
levels that we had last year or the levels in the CR.
They have, indeed, done an exemplary job. But I think during these
extraordinary and unprecedented times, we have to do more. And this
Diesel Emissions Reduction program is one of those areas of funding
that we can look at and say, indeed, this is duplicative, and because
of that, we can eliminate this $30 million and move that funding into
the spending reduction account.
Now, DERA, the program under discussion, is a grant program
administered by EPA. It seeks to reduce diesel emissions--that's a
worthy goal--by providing funds for technologies to retrofit existing
vehicles and infrastructure not subject to updated diesel air
standards. This is something that at one point in time, yes, it was
important and had a tremendous impact on some of our communities, and
they have done grants all across this country.

{time} 1900

Now I want to point out that President Obama's fiscal year 2012
budget recommends completely eliminating funding for the DERA grants,
and there is a reason that it has done that.
One of the reasons that they have done that is because since 2007,
new diesel engines have to comply with a much higher emissions
standard, therefore, it is decreasing the need for retrofits. There's
also other funding available for such retrofits through the Department
of Transportation Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program. They have about $45 million for diesel retrofits annually, and
through the EPA's Supplemental Environmental Project enforcement
agreements, where there's $7.1 million for that.
There are other programs with similar grants, the EPA's Smart Growth
Program, the EPA's Performance Partnership Grants, the Clean Fuels
Formula Grants. Indeed, the administration has not increased Federal
funding for this program above the $60 million level in place since
fiscal year 2009, when it received an additional $300 million in the
Stimulus Act.
This is a program that we can say, indeed, has been a helpful
program, but it is duplicative, it has outlived its usefulness because
there are emissions standards on diesel vehicles that have been in
place since 2007. There is less need for these grants.
Indeed, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as we
were debating the CR, had recommended that we use this program, an
offset with this program, and eliminate the funding for this program.
Mr. Moran had offered, at that point in time, that we do that, and one
the reasons he gave was because the President had eliminated it in
order to encourage the truck industry to increase its own diesel R&D. I
agree with that.
This is a program that we would save $30 million. I know that it is
duplicative. We need to save every penny we can possibly save of the
taxpayers' money. This is a step that we should take. I appreciate the
support of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. RICHARDSON. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that's
brought forward to us today. If you look at the history, actually, of
the DERA program, it's one of the rare programs in this House that has
enjoyed bipartisan support from day one. When you consider the
inception of the program and the continued amendments that have been
passed on this floor, it has garnered support. And let's talk about
why.
There is evidence to show that for every $1 of investment that's made
into this particular program, $13 is received back, $13 in economic
benefits, in terms of jobs and in terms of health savings. Why?
DERA is the diesel emission program. I would say, is there anyone
here who honestly believes that the American public that is driving on
the highways every single day and sees the spewing of smog and soot
coming out of trucks thinks that we no longer need this program?
There are thousands and thousands of trucks on our highways, and if
this program weren't needed, I would suggest, then why are we receiving
thousands and thousands of applications every single day? When the
trucks have been

[[Page H5637]]

replaced and we have reduced the emissions, then there will be the time
to reevaluate this program. But that time is not now. We are finally
making progress.
And let's talk about the benefits of the diesel emission program.
Yes, one, it helps us to reduce the old trucks that are on the
highways. But what does it also do?
By having diesel emission, it allows us to also save in terms of fuel
that's being used. And we all know our dependency currently on foreign
oil, so when we consider the ability to be able to reduce the amount of
oil that we have to purchase, that individuals are purchasing, that
truckers are purchasing, it reduces that cost of our dependence on oil.
It reduces the cost of what the end users receive when they're getting
the various products.
Now, let's talk about safety. When we look at the old trucks, if we
can incentivize truckers to be able to upgrade their equipment, which
would include filters, protection with diesel emissions, oftentimes
there are other benefits that they're gaining with those vehicles, and
so we're also saving lives.
I would say any suggestion of this amendment is shortsighted and ill-
advised. This is a good working program, and the maker of the amendment
agrees to that, and it garners bipartisan support.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and strongly urge that my
colleagues would all join us in opposition to this amendment. Let's
keep this program that is working in this country, and let's address
the desperate diesel emission that's impacting asthma and many health
issues in our country.
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. I rise to oppose the gentlelady's amendment. I think it's
instructive to point out, I offered an amendment to strike funding for
this program during H.R. 1, back in February, so that we could add
funds to the North American Wetlands Conservation Program.
Now my colleague from Tennessee, let me just check the record here,
voted ``no,'' so I'm a little confused that now, a few months later, 5
months later, she has changed her mind. It seems to me, my amendment
from February would have been preferable to the Members who have
anglers and hunters in their district, which I suspect the gentlelady
from Tennessee does. They rely upon healthy wetlands, which have been
very much endangered by what was an elimination of the North American
Wetlands Conservation Program in this bill.
This amendment simply throws away the needed funding. And I know the
chairman of the subcommittee understands how needed those dollars are.
So it does seem to me that our amendment to have restored money for
wetlands made more sense.
But, not only did I lose that vote, Mrs. Blackburn voted against
eliminating this diesel program. So we did not eliminate that money
largely because of the compelling argument that was made by Ms.
Richardson at the time. In the meantime, she has continued to lobby for
this program. I found some of her arguments convincing. So we're not
trying to take the money out that the chairman added. We can understand
why it was added to the bill. So we would agree with the chairman.
Let's leave it in the bill, even though it had been zeroed out by the
President.
So I think Ms. Richardson not only won that vote back in February,
but I think she should win this vote as well. The money should be kept
in the program--$30 million does seem to be doing some good things. And
so I would oppose the gentlelady from Tennessee's amendment to
eliminate the program, and not even to use the $30 million for any
other constructive purpose.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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 rise in opposition to the amendment.
When I first looked at the President's proposal to eliminate funding
for the diesel emissions reductions grant, I knew that there was a
budget gimmick that we would have to backfill when we did this budget.
This was an issue I addressed with the EPA administrator when she came
before the subcommittee to justify her budget.
The diesel emissions reduction program, or DERA, is a proven program
with known, quantifiable health benefits. The DERA program provides
grants to States to retrofit old diesel engines in order to reduce
pollution.

{time} 1910

These grants produce $13 of economic benefit per Federal dollar. And
the technology supported by DERA reduced black carbon emissions by 90
percent.
When I asked the administrator why she would propose to eliminate
funding for a program with proven technology that works in order to
fund new, nice-to-have voluntary initiatives that we have no idea what
they do, she responded that it was a tough budget choice. Well, it was
the wrong choice.
I think the committee supports this program, it has in the past. As I
said, it's a proven program that has proven results, and that's why we
backfilled the request--even though the President didn't request any
funding for this--to put $30 million in. It is $20 million below what
was funded at the current level. So it did have a reduction just like
every other program, but we did keep it alive at $30 million.
I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And, indeed, we are all for clean air; we are all for clean water; we
are all for a clean environment. I think that during these times we
have to look at how we're going to spend that money. And Mr. Moran is
right. I did vote against his amendment because the money was going to
wetlands and not into a spending reduction account.
This is a program that is duplicative. There are other programs on
the books. As we look at how to remove these redundancies and the
duplications that are in the budget, this is an area where we can do
it. We all want to make certain that we clean up the diesel emissions,
but I would remind you all, since 2008 there have been a total of 500
grants that the EPA has given through this program, and we have four
other programs that do this same work.
This is an area where we can go and achieve a savings. It is $30
million, but these are the types of steps in the right direction that,
Mr. Chairman, we have to be willing to take if we're going to get the
Federal spending under control.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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 Tennessee
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Richardson

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

Page 68, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 68, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 76, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak on
Richardson amendment No. 2.
This amendment would direct $5 million for clean air grants, which
were cut by nearly 15 percent in the current legislation.
Air pollution is a national problem. According to the EPA,
approximately 127 million people live in counties that exceed at least
one of the health-based national ambient air quality standards in 2008.
New health-based standards for ozone will likely increase this number.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a region that's home to the largest port
complex in the Nation and consists of some

[[Page H5638]]

of the busiest freeways and railways in the country. However, the area
also suffers from poor air quality, which has led to much higher rates
of asthma and cancer than the current national average.
Exposure to dirty air causes tens of thousands of premature deaths
each year and results in serious health problems, such as the
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, difficulty
breathing, increased susceptibility to respiratory infections, adverse
effects on learning, memory, IQ, and behavior, as well as cancer.
Improvements in air quality lead to greater productivity, fewer sick
days, and less money spent on health care to address air pollution-
related problems. State and local air pollution control agencies have
the primary responsibility to implement our Nation's clean air programs
that are required by the Clean Air Act. However, due to this current
recession, State and local governments are increasingly strapped for
resources and are finding it ever more difficult to carry the Federal
Government's share of funding this responsibility.
Because of the continuing adverse impacts of this recession on State
and localities, air agencies will continue to make more painful
decisions, such as reducing or cutting air programs that protect our
public health. So in other words, we took 10 steps forward and now
we're taking 20 back.
Mr. Chairman, I have seen firsthand that clean air grants are
effective, when you consider, in an area of mine that's home to 16.8
million people and is one of the smoggiest areas in the Nation, the
South Coast Air Quality Management District is one of the air pollution
control agencies for Orange County and Los Angeles urban areas,
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties as well. Clean air agencies also
assist companies in being able to help them to comply with Clean Air
Act regulations. This assistance has allowed many businesses to expand
and to create jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support clean air, support
public health, and support American jobs. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, a good friend of mine from Virginia once
said that he would hear this on the floor, and I guess this is probably
the first time that he's going to hear it; that is, the gentlelady
makes a good point. But given the allocation that we have and the low
funding level, frankly, we just don't have the money to do what she's
requesting.
Her offset is to take money out of the Capital Improvement and
Maintenance program. That's a program that has already been cut by $94
million in this bill. We've had to make some tough decisions. And while
we haven't eliminated the funding for this, obviously, we just don't
have that kind of money to put back into it.
Every program is going to have to suffer some cuts. I don't think we
should be taking money out of the Capital Improvement and Maintenance
program allocation that has already been cut by nearly $100 million. So
I would oppose the gentlelady's amendment and hope my colleagues will
oppose it also.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
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 gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Ms. EDWARDS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I didn't think I would be down here this
evening debating the Interior-EPA appropriations bill, in part because
of the number of hours that we have spent in this Chamber on this bill
when we actually should be facing the Nation's debt ceiling, giving the
President a clean debt ceiling and moving forward with rebuilding our
economy and creating jobs. Instead, we're debating yet another flawed
bill. It is the biggest assault on clean air, clean water, the
endangered species, and public lands that we've seen in our Nation's
history.
The bill's unprecedented funding cuts and polluter riders to benefit
rich and often reckless mining and oil companies will cripple the EPA's
employees, health professionals, and scientists' ability to do their
job protecting our Nation and its public health.
Rather than celebrating the advancements that we've made over the
last 40 years in air and water quality, instead, these Republican
``riders to ruin'' are driving us back to the sixties, a time when
Rachel Carson wrote ``Silent Spring'' to awaken the American public to
the man-made impacts on the environment. And I just want to take a few
moments to discuss a couple of them. There are so many that it's a
tough challenge, these Republican ``riders to ruin.''
The bill would prohibit funding for the Endangered Species Act
listings. Hundreds of animals have been protected under the Endangered
Species Act. The bill would eliminate the protection that leads to the
repopulation and revitalization of bald eagle populations in our
Nation. And for all the flag pins that we wear, we're about ready to
decimate the very act that protects our Nation's symbol, the bald
eagle.
Among other things, the bill also strikes out at ending regulations
to expand the storm water discharge program under the Clean Water Act.
The program prevents harmful pollutants from being washed or dumped
into our water systems. And as our cities and urbanized areas grow,
storm water runoff can become a threat if we're not able to better
manage the discharge waters and possible impact of toxins and
pollutants.
And here we are, something I can hardly believe. I recall taking my
son to the Grand Canyon and camping along the side of the south rim
many years ago. What are we going to do now? We can pitch our tents
next to the uranium mines at the Grand Canyon. This is insane.

{time} 1920

For the 5 million visitors a year who visit the Grand Canyon, we're
going to jeopardize the water quality of our Nation's most important
rivers. I can't imagine families visiting the Grand Canyon. I can't
imagine future generations pitching their tent next to the Grand
Canyon, next to a uranium mine, because of this senseless legislation.
It almost makes you breathless to wonder why it is that we've decided
that the Federal Government doesn't have a role anymore in protecting
our water and our land and our air and our air quality. The majority is
pushing a bill on the floor that blocks Clean Air Act regulations of
fine particles and soot and delays the EPA from limiting toxic mercury
pollution from power plants. Why don't we just break up all our
thermometers and dump them in the water?
I'm not sure who these riders are meant to help, but I know that they
don't help children in communities in my district and across the
country who are vulnerable to air pollution. Thirty percent of
childhood asthma is due to environmental exposures, costing the Nation
$2 billion per year. These riders add to the arsenal. They just add to
the arsenal. Low-income and minority children experience more doctor
visits and hospitalization due to asthma than the general population
and three times the rate of white Americans.
This is a really sad day, but it's most especially sad because we
should be doing the Nation's business. Today, we watched the stock
market plummet because of the uncertainty that we've created in this
body because of the recalcitrance of the Republican majority. I know
that we have to do this horrible EPA appropriations bill, but what we
need to do is fix this Nation's economy, get people back to work
building our roads and our bridges and our infrastructure, and
protecting our national parks. Instead, we're engaged in the silliness
of trying to play dice and chicken with the American economy.

[[Page H5639]]

It's a really sad day for the American public. Just a really sad day.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you.
The majority has been saying how concerned they are about future
generations, that we shouldn't be overburdening them with our debt. I
wholeheartedly agree. That's why I'm disappointed that, instead of
addressing the urgent debt crisis, we are on the floor debating a bill
that will gut pollution controls and public health protections in order
to boost profits, the profits of America's biggest polluters, the last
people who probably need a hand right now.
This bill does a number of things, Mr. Chairman. It blocks even
modest pollution control standards that could mitigate climate change;
the bill also erases 40 years of Federal laws that protect clean air,
water, lands and wildlife; and it cripples the budgets of the Federal
agencies we've charged with protecting our constituents.
As a mother and grandmother, I'm appalled that this bill signals a
willingness to leave our families a more unhealthy environment than we
have today. Isn't the idea always to leave things better than we found
them?
Instead of protecting our citizens and shorelines, this bill exempts
oil companies from complying with the Clean Air Act for offshore
drilling.
Instead of protecting our drinking water and waterways, it cuts
nearly $1 billion in funding for the clean water State revolving funds
and will, if enacted, compromise the ability to address urban
stormwater runoff, one of San Diego's greatest environmental threats.
And instead of supporting a cleaner, more efficient auto industry, it
blocks an improved fuel efficiency standard, jeopardizing a process
projected to create up to 700,000 new green jobs, cut fuel costs and
save 2.4 million barrels of oil every day by 2030.
It's alarming, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues who speak so
passionately about giving the next generations a clean financial slate
would so carelessly leave them a dirty planet. I suspect that the
grandchildren of some oil company executives can always jet off to
pristine resorts, but quite frankly that's not the situation for most
of my constituents. The grandchildren of the 85 percent of Americans
who just told The Washington Post/ABC News poll that they are, quote,
just getting by or falling behind will be stuck paying high gas prices
and worrying about their jobs and worrying about their health.
We should be leaving our children and our grandchildren a chance at
the American Dream of middle class prosperity and a legacy of
environmental responsibility and stewardship, not one of reckless
disregard.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and
getting back to bridging the debt divide so our constituents can focus
on their own jobs rather than being concerned about whether we're doing
ours.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In some respects, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. Can anyone
explain, when we are 144 hours from crossing the brink, from going over
the ledge, to have this country come to a screeching halt financially,
tell me why we are debating the appropriations bill for the Department
of the Interior? Why aren't we dealing with what the American people
want us to be dealing with right now, and that is the debt limit,
raising the ceiling on the debt limit? But, no, we're going to spend
hundreds of hours here over the next couple of days talking about the
Interior appropriations bill.
Let me tell you what I'm hearing from my constituents, and maybe my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle aren't getting phone calls
from their constituents, but I am, and let me tell you what I'm
hearing.
One woman wrote me and said:
``My mom is 79 years old, worked all her life in a factory and
retired. Her pension was handed to her on her very last day of work,
$25,000. The plant closed, moved the work to Mexico, and her husband
died 8 years later. That $25,000 didn't last long. Now her only source
of income is Social Security. She lives in a senior retirement center
that she loves. Last Thursday, she and my aunt, who is 83 and also
widowed, called me to pick them up and take them to the bank. They were
going to withdraw from their savings money to pay their rent, as they,
along with all of the other seniors they live with in that retirement
center, are convinced they will not get their Social Security checks
come August 1. My mom has a doctor's appointment on August 5, and she
wonders if the doctor will continue to see her if the government
doesn't pay for Medicare.
``I care deeply about them. I know for a fact that my mom is losing
sleep over this. Last week, I thought she was foolish. This week, I'm
beginning to think that I'm the fool. How do you look your mom and your
aunt in the eye and say with great certainty that the U.S. Government
will send them their Social Security?''
That was just one letter I received, and I've gotten lots of phone
calls. A 52-year-old woman who's self-employed as a court reporter paid
$13,000 into the Social Security system last year and she's calling me
saying, ``What are you all doing? The interest rate on my mortgage is
going to go up. Interest rates on my credit cards are going to go up.
Why aren't you fixing this problem?''
No, we're standing here talking about the Interior appropriation
budget.
A woman from Daly City, 68 years old, previously suffered a stroke,
has had seizures and relies on Medicare to treat her rheumatoid
arthritis. Her husband, a cab driver, will turn 70 in December, at
which point he will go on Social Security and hopefully go from working
5 to 6 hours a day to maybe 4 hours. If he loses his Social Security,
he will probably have to work longer hours again.

{time} 1930

They're all anguished. They all want us to do our job. They want us
to lift this debt ceiling, protect Social Security and Medicare, and
fix our attitude that we have here that somehow it's okay to just
stall. It's okay to just try and make points, make political points
while they're all wringing their hands and while they're taking money
out of their savings accounts because they can't pay their rent if they
don't get their Social Security check come August 1.
Well, for my colleagues who maybe haven't heard from their
constituents, I want the American people to call this telephone number.
Call this telephone number and call your Member of Congress and tell
them what you think we should be doing. Should we be debating the
Interior appropriation bill right now, or should we be fixing this debt
limit? A debt limit, I might add, which virtually every economist of
every political stripe has said: You have to lift it. President Ronald
Reagan said: It has to be lifted.
Why should Congress always take us to the brink before they act? It's
time for us to be responsible.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind all Members to address their
remarks to the Chair and not to the television audience.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I want to thank my colleague from California for
reminding all of us that there are consequences for what we do here.
This current wholly manufactured debt crisis has people very, very
nervous.
The women that Ms. Speier talked about, concerned and nervous about
their Social Security checks, whether they will be able to get their
medical care, and today's Wall Street Journal, the first five items on
what's news, various businesses around the world and financial
institutions being prepared for the first time ever in America's
history that our debt may not be worth a hoot. It may be worthless,
that

[[Page H5640]]

we're going to default. This is a totally manufactured, unnecessary
crisis. We didn't have to be here.
I want us all to step back a little ways, step back to December 2010,
when we had another manufactured crisis. It came time to fund the
Federal Government and to deal with some issues having to do with
unemployment. And the Republicans in the Senate held us hostage and
demanded that we extend the high-end Bush tax cuts, which created a
$700 billion deficit. We went ahead and did that, and rolled the issue
forward 3 months so that in February we would have yet another crisis,
the funding or the shutdown of the Federal Government.
Yet again another opportunity for our Republican colleagues to create
a crisis so that they could use it to force onto the American public
their policies, which became very evident what they wanted to do. They
wanted to reconfigure the entire American scene. They wanted to roll
back Social Security. They wanted to end Medicare for all Americans who
are not yet 55 years of age. They wanted to end the programs to support
higher education, to reduce research, to reduce funding for food safety
programs. They used these manufactured crises to shut down a
government.
And yet here we are again with the debt limit, first discussed back
in May, and then because of the Treasury Department's ability to
continue paying bills, we are now up against the final deadline of
August 2. Yet again a totally manufactured unnecessary crisis.
Previously, Ronald Reagan said: Don't do this. Do not put the good
faith and credit of the American government on the line. He told the
Republicans, his Republicans back in the 1980s, honor the debt. This is
not about new spending, this is about spending going back a century.
This is about the American bills that were paid or not paid years ago,
and that's our debt today.
We don't need to do this. There are options. We're putting forth, as
we did earlier, a clean debt limit increase. Get us past this. We are
also looking at the opportunity for the President to invoke the 14th
Amendment, the fourth clause of the 14th Amendment, that says America
will honor its debts. I believe he has the power, issuing an Executive
order to the Treasury Department: pay our debts. This is something that
is fundamental for America, and we must do it.
Put aside this manufactured crisis. It didn't need to be real, but it
has become all too real in these last few days as our Republican
colleagues are unable to get their act together, even to put forth a
proposal that would eviscerate necessary programs. Can't even do that.
The President has called for a balanced approach, one of taxes,
raising the taxes that should have been raised back in December and
eliminate some $700 billion of this problem, but let's do it now. Let's
go after the oil companies that are receiving our tax money at the very
same time that over the last decade they have created nearly a trillion
dollars of profit. They don't need our tax money. The poor in America,
the senior citizens in America, they are the ones that need help.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. I agree with the two previous speakers, my colleagues from
California. Here we are dealing with a flawed bill that would deny our
stewardship of our environment all while we're faced with an economic
consequence, with a default that stares us in the face.
For the past 200 days, the Republican leadership of this body has set
aside America's priority of job creation in order to talk about the
debt and to talk about the deficit. My concern is that as we face that
looming threat of default, my Republican colleagues aren't doing much
but talk.
After 200 days with no jobs agenda, after 200 days of voting to
destroy millions of jobs, after 200 days of saying that those hardest
hit by the recession should bear the burden of unbalanced cuts, after
200 days of rhetoric and walking away, my Republican colleagues have
forced this Congress and the American people to wait yet more hours to
see and vote on their plan.
As we all know, last night the Congressional Budget Office pointed
out that some of the cuts in the Speaker's plan weren't real.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party base said that Cut, Cap, and Balance is the
only plan they will support. We considered that plan last week, and it
has failed in the Senate. It is a plan that Bruce Bartlett--who was a
Reagan adviser and a Bush Treasury official--said was ``mind-boggling
in its insanity.'' Others have called it the ``most ideologically
extreme'' budget legislation to come before Congress in decades.
Governing is not always easy. There are extremists on both sides of
the political spectrum, and standing up to them takes strength. But our
advantage lies in the fact that however vocal, extremists are a
minority, a faction.
I have traveled my district extensively in recent weeks. I have held
town halls and meetings with local businesses, and here's what I've
heard: We have a spending problem in Washington. We have a revenue
problem in Washington. But more important than anything else, we have a
jobs problem in America.
So what are we going to do about it? Well, my constituents had an
easy answer there, too. First, cut what doesn't create jobs and
stability for the middle class. That includes wasteful government
spending. It also includes tax breaks for corporate jet owners,
millionaires and billionaires, and a system of kickbacks to the big oil
companies that even their CEOs say they don't need.
Second, save whatever actually works. That means investment in
education so middle class kids have a chance to get good jobs when they
finish school. That means boosting innovation so we can get American
industry booming again. And it means infrastructure so that we can
drive to work on safe roads and bridges and build them with American
materials and workers.
Finally, my constituents have told me that whatever talking heads on
TV say, they know fair when they see it, regardless of partisan
divides. We have an aging population. Nobody disputes that. But cutting
Social Security and ending Medicare in order to protect corporate tax
breaks and long-standing kickbacks for special interests puts us in a
position where ideas are replaced in government by ideology. We have
been asked in recent weeks to manipulate the United States Constitution
in order to enshrine this ideology. Where I'm from, we believe that the
only ideology that belongs in the United States Constitution is that of
democracy.

{time} 1940

In our democracy, if you want your ideas to become law, you don't
rewrite our history or change our foundational documents. You come down
to this floor. You tell your colleagues and your constituents what you
think, and you let us debate it, amend it, and vote on it right here in
front of the cameras and in front of the people we are sworn to serve.
But that's not what's happening today. After 200 days of talking
about little else, my Republican colleagues have forced this body and
the American people to wait yet hours to see their top secret default
plan. Exactly which principled stand was important enough for the
Republican House leadership to walk away from the negotiations for the
fifth time? More importantly, the clock is ticking. We need to get back
to work--and the American people are getting sick and tired of the
games.
Just based on rhetoric, we know that their call to end Medicare and
end Social Security plans would protect 2 percent of our population at
the expense of the rest of us, the 98 percent of us. I'm sure that
takes a lot of vote wrangling. But we've had a year to get this done.
No matter how much Congress cuts their classroom budgets, even our
elementary school children know that a due date is a due date.
Democrats support a balanced, bipartisan solution to reduce our
deficit, to create jobs, to grow our economy, and to expand the middle
class. My Republican colleagues say they share those same goals. So I
would invite them to come down here, join us, share their plan. Let's
get on with business. America is waiting and deserves better. We

[[Page H5641]]

need to solve this default crisis. It's staring us in the eyes.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

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

Page 68, lines 11 and 12, after each dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,411,000,000)''.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the
Clear Water State Revolving Fund by $1.41 billion, from $689 million to
$2.1 billion, the amount that was appropriated in fiscal year 2010.
All of us recognize the gravity of the financial situation facing
this Nation today, and we are struggling to emerge from the worst
economic recession since the Great Depression. Clearly, with the
national unemployment rate hovering still around 9 percent and the
unemployment rate for the construction sector at over 20 percent, we
are far from completing our work.
Christine Todd Whitman, the Republican EPA administrator under
President George W. Bush, estimated that the needs of our Nation's
aging water infrastructure topped $660 billion. Yet within the FY 2012
Interior appropriations bill, the Republican majority cuts the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund, the primary source of investment in our
wastewater infrastructure, by $1.4 billion compared to FY 2010. Coupled
with the severe cuts to the Clean Water SRF in H.R. 1, the FY 2011
continuing resolution, and the attacks on clean water in the Clean
Water Cooperative Federalism Act passed earlier this month, the
Republican majority has made it clear that they place no priority--
none--on preserving clean water or creating jobs.
In terms of job losses, the cuts in the FY 2012 Interior
appropriations bill when compared to FY 2010 funding levels would
eliminate over 39,000 direct construction jobs throughout the country
and countless additional jobs in the industries and small businesses
that support the wastewater construction industry at a time when many
small businesses and the construction sector are struggling to recover.
Furthermore, this cut undermines longstanding Federal efforts to
address our Nation's aging infrastructure systems.
Mr. Chairman, addressing the Nation's debt and deficit should
absolutely be a priority; however, we should focus our efforts on
finding a balanced approach that focuses on job creation rather than
slashing budgets that are proven job creators. We hear repeatedly from
our Republican colleagues that we should not tax our job creators. I
agree. However, in my district and in districts across the Nation, the
environment 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 small businesses in my district,
and it wouldn't help because they would have no income. And no income
means no jobs.
Mr. Chairman, the extension of the Bush tax cuts give the average
millionaire a $139,100 tax break in 2011. That's a tax break of $2,700
per week or $380 per day. Let me be clear: I'm talking only about tax
breaks for millionaires--not tax breaks for the middle class--and only
for millionaires, using not the $250,000, but the million.
If our Republican colleagues were to set aside ideology and agree to
eliminate the tax breaks for just those millionaires, we could
reestablish our commitment to clean water and economic development
within 12 days. The Bush tax cuts give millionaires across the Nation
such a deal that we could completely shore up the $1.4 billion deficit
in the Clean Water SRF and begin to address the needs outlined by
Administrator Whitman in less than 2 weeks.
Even if Congress gave the Bill Gates and the Warren Buffetts of this
world the Bush tax breaks for the remaining 353 days of the year, we
could put tens of thousands of men and women back to work, protect
clean water, and protect the economies that depend on clean water and
pristine beaches.
Finally, the Republican majority has included in this bill several
special interest policy earmarks to pull back on EPA's compliance and
enforcement capabilities, making it far more difficult for the agency
to identify and pursue serious violations impacting public health and
the environment in communities across the Nation. In my view, this
proposal stands in stark contrast to the EPA's efforts to increase
compliance in critical areas within a limited budget and suggests that
a weakened compliance and enforcement presence is somehow better for
our Nation. I strongly disagree with that suggestion.
Combine the lackluster funding for the Clean Water SRF and the dozens
of special interest policy earmarks, it's quite clear that Republicans
have abandoned the decades-long national, bipartisan commitment to
creating jobs, protecting public health, and preserving the ability of
local communities to grow their economies through clean water projects.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the
bill.
The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House
Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states:
``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
and is in violation of such section.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I fully expected that my friend
from Idaho would insist on his point of order. I fully expect the Chair
to sustain the point of order. But let's be clear: The underlying bill
violates House rules. There are 39, at least by my count, special
interest policy riders in the underlying bill, every one of which is
protected by a rule that waives all points of order. Each of these
policy riders are in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI. We all know
that.
I understand that the point of order will be sustained, but I do wish
we would adhere to what we were promised. We were promised an open,
transparent House in which regular order would prevail and in which the
House would work its will. This rule does not allow that to take place.
I will accept the ruling of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho makes a point of order
that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York violates
section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5.
Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from Idaho, the amendment
proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lankford

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

Page 71, lines 15 and 17, strike ``not less than 30
percent'' and insert ``30 percent or less''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANKFORD. As you may know, the Environmental Protection Agency
currently administers Clean Water State Revolving Funds and Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds to provide low-interest financing through
the States. These low-interest loans are a way for States and
communities to be able to use their own discretion in making much-
needed improvements to their water supplies and infrastructure. This
program was a grant program

[[Page H5642]]

years ago, but was transitioned into a loan program to save money some
25 years ago.

{time} 1950

When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in 2009, an
increase in funding for these accounts was coupled with a provision in
those two funds, requiring no less than 30 percent of the financed
funds issued to be used as principal forgiveness. It was a type of
grant program to them. This principal forgiveness changes the low-
interest loan program to a direct funding program. It's a hybrid
between a loan program now and a grant program.
Since the stimulus expired and funding for these provisions returned
to normal levels, unfortunately, the principal forgiveness provision
has remained. This bill rolls back to pre-stimulus funding levels, but
it doesn't roll back to pre-stimulus Federal strings.
So my amendment removes the Federal mandate of principal forgiveness
and allows the States to use their discretion on the amounts they'd
like to offer. States will be allowed to provide principal forgiveness
up to 30 percent. Communities rely on these funds to ensure their
infrastructure security and safe drinking water. By supporting my
amendment, you can empower your State to leverage their already limited
funds and ensure that communities all across our Nation receive the
much needed infrastructure assistance.
Not to put words in both parties' mouths on this one as well, but
there is a very bipartisan focus on this. This is one of the priorities
from President Obama. In his budget proposal, he requested the same
thing. Also, for conservatives and others, it gives back to the States
their rights to be able to make those decisions.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
What the amendment does is create the 30 percent language that we've
had in the past, which is a floor, and makes it a ceiling rather than a
floor.
The EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds
provide grants to States to capitalize on their revolving loan fund
programs. These programs offer low-interest loans to communities for
projects included on a State's Intended Use Plan. These low-interest
loans are usually below market rates and are used to finance water and
wastewater infrastructure projects.
Many small and disadvantaged communities with a low income base can
hardly afford to apply for these loans even with the low-interest
rates. Therefore, this provision in the base text, which we have had
for a few years, would offer zero-interest loans, which are loans that
forgive a portion of the principal, or grants, to these disadvantaged
communities that would otherwise be unable to afford a standard SRF
loan. The provision provides some relief to small communities across
the Nation that are tirelessly working to provide clean and safe
drinking water to their residents and bring construction jobs to their
communities, all at the same time as they balance their books.
Given the huge infrastructure needs facing this Nation and the
crumbling water and wastewater infrastructure, we should be providing
more of this assistance, not less. So, while I appreciate my
colleague's amendment and share his interest in preserving the
viability of the SRFs, I do not support this amendment, and I would
urge a ``no'' vote.
I would just say, we've talked about this in the subcommittee for a
number of years. One of the real problems we have is we have these
State revolving loan funds. We put the money out there, and there are a
lot of communities that can't even afford the loans, so it doesn't help
them rebuild their water systems or the wastewater treatment
facilities. With the standards that we have with arsenic and other
things, I have a lot of small communities in Idaho, and it doesn't help
them that they have a State revolving loan fund, because they can't
afford it. What this does is help them through that to meet some of the
clean water standards that they have to meet.
As I said, what we've carried in the bill before us is that a minimum
of 30 percent, or a floor of 30 percent, of those funds have to be used
for those types of things. What the gentleman's amendment would do
would make that a ceiling in which you could only use 30 percent of
that. I oppose the amendment, and hope my colleagues would also.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LANKFORD. 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 Oklahoma
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Administrative Provisions, Environmental Protection Agency

(including transfer and recission of funds)

For fiscal year 2012, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 6303(1) and
6305(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, in carrying out the Agency's function to implement
directly Federal environmental programs required or
authorized by law in the absence of an acceptable tribal
program, may award cooperative agreements to federally
recognized Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia, if
authorized by their member Tribes, to assist the
Administrator in implementing Federal environmental programs
for Indian Tribes required or authorized by law, except that
no such cooperative agreements may be awarded from funds
designated for State financial assistance agreements.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is
authorized to collect and obligate pesticide registration
service fees in accordance with section 33 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended by
Public Law 110-94, the Pesticide Registration Improvement
Renewal Act.
The Administrator is authorized to transfer up to
$250,000,000 of the funds appropriated for the Great Lakes
Initiative under the heading ``Environmental Programs and
Management'' to the head of any Federal department or agency,
with the concurrence of such head, to carry out activities
that would support the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement programs, projects, or
activities; to enter into an interagency agreement with the
head of such Federal department or agency to carry out these
activities; and to make grants to governmental entities,
nonprofit organizations, institutions, and individuals for
planning, research, monitoring, outreach, and implementation
in furtherance of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
From unobligated balances to carry out projects and
activities funded through the ``State and Tribal Assistance
Grants'' and ``Hazardous Substance Superfund'' accounts,
$140,000,000 are permanently rescinded: Provided, That no
amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were designated by
the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
For fiscal year 2012 the requirements of section 513 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1372) shall
apply to the construction of treatment works carried out in
whole or in part with assistance made available by a State
water pollution control revolving fund as authorized by title
VI of that Act (33 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), or with assistance
made available under section 205(m) of that Act (33 U.S.C.
1285(m)), or both.
For fiscal year 2012 the requirements of section 1450(e) of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-9(e)) shall apply
to any construction project carried out in whole or in part
with assistance made available by a drinking water treatment
revolving loan fund as authorized by section 1452 of that Act
(42 U.S.C. 300j-12).

TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

forest and rangeland research

For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as
authorized by law, $277,282,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the funds provided, $66,805,000
is for the forest inventory and analysis program: Provided
further, That of the funds provided, no less than $29,161,000
is for the forest products laboratory.

State and Private Forestry

For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing
technical and financial assistance to States, territories,
possessions, and others, and for forest health management,
including treatments of pests, pathogens,

[[Page H5643]]

and invasive or noxious plants and for restoring and
rehabilitating forests damaged by pests or invasive plants,
cooperative forestry, and education and land conservation
activities as authorized, and conducting an international
program as authorized, $208,608,000, to remain available
until expended, as authorized by law; of which $3,000,000 is
to be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
shall remain available until expended.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 76, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $20,860,800)''.
Page 158, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $20,860,800)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce State
and Private Forestry funding by a modest 10 percent, and it would
transfer more than $20 million to the Spending Reduction Account.
The State and Private Forestry funding sets aside money for
international forestry, urban and community forestry, and supports more
than 500 million acres of non-Federal forested lands. We are more than
$14.3 trillion in debt, and we need to be cutting areas of our budget
wherever possible. It is more than reasonable to request a reduction in
this program because the Federal Government has no business giving a
handout to private forestry landowners in the first place. This funding
would be better managed by the State and local levels of government.
We are broke, Mr. Chairman, as a Nation. We need to be doing what
businesses do when they get overextended. They lower their borrowing
level; they try to find out ways to pay off their debt, and then they
start cutting expenses. This is a mere 10 percent cut. So I urge my
colleagues to think about our massive debt, and I urge them to consider
sending part of this program back to the State and local governments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to ask if we could see the
amendment. It's pretty difficult to address it until we actually see
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is No. 18 in the Congressional
Record.
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.
This amendment would take $21 million from the Forest Service's State
and Private program and put it in the Spending Reduction Account.
While it's easy to stand here and say, ``It just reduces it by 10
percent. Who can't stand a 10 percent reduction?'' I'd like to note
that the State and Private Forestry program has already had a
significant cut in this budget--$133 million below that of FY11, and
despite its name, it is critical to managing the national forest
system.
The accounts we kept intact are extremely important: for example,
cooperative fire protection in rural areas. This helps rural
communities fight catastrophic wildfires. With such a large percentage
of public land and such a small tax base, many rural communities are
hard-pressed to pay for the suppression of large wildfires that start
on public lands.
Cooperative forest health: in other words, the prevention and
treatment of insects and disease. Improving forest health helps prevent
catastrophic wildfires. In the South, I know you're familiar with the
southern pine beetle. This program has helped to contain the spread of
southern pine beetle. I wish the same were true in the Western United
States where 20 million acres are dead due to the mountain pine beetle.
I understand the gentleman is standing on principle. So am I. I urge
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I simply rise to associate myself with the very
thoughtful, insightful comments of the gentleman from Idaho, the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We agree. The amendment
should be defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The amendCment was rejected.

{time} 2000

Amendment Offered by Ms. Hanabusa

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

Page 76, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 80, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to have funds
available to restore the Forest Legacy Program through the fiscal year
2011 level, as well as the fiscal year 2008 levels, of approximately
$53 million. This amount is $83 million less than what was requested by
the administration and $22 million less than what was authorized in
fiscal year 2010.
The reason for this amendment is we cannot let this very important
program in essence be eliminated by the present funding of only $3
million in the present bill before us.
The Forest Legacy Program partners with the States to protect
environmentally sensitive forest lands. It is a partnership program in
which States are permitted to accomplish this very important goal. It
is a voluntary program that encourages the protection of privately
owned lands and encourages the purchase of conservation easements
without removing the land from private ownership. The easements then
act to protect water, air quality, and habitats for threatened and
endangered species.
This particular program is important for the State of Hawaii. We have
more endangered species per square mile than any other place on the
planet. We claim 75 percent of the endangered plants in the United
States. We are the most unique archipelago.
One such project is called the Kainalu Forest Watershed, which is an
easement that was bought to preserve 614 acres of strategic watershed.
This was done in the year 2010. This area produces a large part of the
freshwater that contributes to the recharging of the aquifer through
the forests and the streams that are preserved and sustains the
residents of Molokai.
Molokai may not be known to many of you, but in 2009, this island was
made famous with the canonization of Father Damien, when he became St.
Damien. This is the island that he so loved.
But this is not a program that only affects Hawaii. It affects many
of my colleagues' States. For example, in Idaho, 720 acres called the
Bane Creek Neighbors project, which connects to important ecosystems
and critical wildlife habitats and important timberlands, were
preserved, and it preserved grizzlies' and gray wolves' habitats for
these in the future.
Also in Idaho, the McArthur Lake Wildlife Corridor, which basically
protects 3,727 acres of critical private timberlands.
Utah benefited from it through the Dry Lakes Ranch, which protects
not only the timberlands themselves but a beautiful scenic view and
keeps the area pristine and whole.
As of 2010, almost 2 million acres have been so protected.
Now, it is important to realize that it is not taken from private
owners, but it is in partnership with all the parties, including the
States, to preserve these important habitats for the future.
This is the kind of program that we are always talking about and
looking for, the preservation through partnerships--not just simply
government going in and buying things. This is making it possible so
some of the actual individuals and communities, the neighbors, for
example, in Idaho are able to get together with government to preserve
important easements.
It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that I ask for a vote in support
of this amendment.

[[Page H5644]]

I yield back the balance of my time.
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 reluctant opposition to the
gentlelady's amendment.
While the program that she seeks to increase funding for is a good
program, and I think most people support it and its intent and what it
does, the problem is is that it takes the money out of the Wildfire
Suppression Program.
Anybody that has been watching the news for the last 5 months
understands the wildfire problems we have in Texas, in New Mexico, in
Arizona. And as NOAA has told us, those wildfires are going to climb
into the Pacific Northwest later in the year this year. So I suspect
August, September, October in the Pacific Northwest is going to be a
huge fire suppression cost.
So I think we can ill afford to take the money out of wildfire
suppression and put it into the program. It would be nice to increase
the funding for those conservation programs to help protect those
things, but if they burn up, we're not really protecting them. So we've
tried in this bill to fund the wildfire suppression at the 10-year
average, which we have done, and I would be hard-pressed to support
taking money out of that given the fire situation we find ourselves in
this year. And I would oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

national forest system

For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and
utilization of the National Forest System, $1,546,463,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the funds
provided, $336,722,000 shall be for forest products: Provided
further, That of the funds provided, $30,000,000 shall be
deposited in the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Fund for ecological restoration treatments as authorized by
16 U.S.C. 7303(f): Provided further, That of the funds
provided, up to $122,600,000 is for the Integrated Resource
Restoration pilot program for Region 1, Region 3 and Region
4.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

Page 76, lines 10 and 13, insert after each dollar amount
the following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 80, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $16,600,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2584, the
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2012.
This summer, over a million acres of Forest Service lands, as well as
another 600,000 acres of Federal, State, and private lands, burned
throughout the American Southwest. Those fires are costing millions of
taxpayer dollars and immediate fire response, and will cost many
millions more in restoration and rehabilitation in the months and years
ahead. These fires reinforce the urgent need for landscape-scale
restoration.
My amendment ensures this body fully funds proactive, large-scale
treatments to our national forests that will reduce wildfire risk,
ultimately saving the Federal Government from having to use an
astronomical amount of money for fire suppression and expensive post-
fire rehab.
Specifically, my amendment increases the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program by $10 million, fully funding it at the
U.S. Forest Service budget request. Authorized in fiscal year 2009,
CFLRP was designed to encourage collaborative, science-based, large-
scale thinning and ecosystem restoration. The program recognizes that
future forest management will be most effective if it is planned and
implemented in a collaborative framework through private-public
partnerships at the landscape level.
As an offset, the amendment decreases a related funding account, the
Wildland Fire Management-Hazardous Fuel account, by $16.6 million. The
Hazardous Fuel account is funded at $334 million in the underlying
bill, $80 million above the President's budget request. The
Congressional Budget Office has confirmed my amendment does not
increase 2012 outlays.

{time} 2010

While forest treatments focused solely on hazardous fuel reduction
around communities may be appropriate in many cases, they do not
achieve the enduring fire protection and ecosystem restoration that are
urgently required. There are roughly 80 million acres of forest across
the West that are overgrown and ripe for catastrophic wildfire,
according to the Landfire multi-agency database. We simply cannot
afford the status quo, using taxpayer dollars for 100 percent of the
large-scale restoration work necessary to prevent unnatural fires like
the Wallow fire in Arizona and New Mexico.
If we are going to save what is left of our forests, we must change
our priorities and aggressively treat our forests at the pace and scale
these fires are occurring. Congress must fully fund proactive
collaborative large-scale forest restoration treatments if it truly
wants to reverse the degradation of our forests while simultaneously
reducing the risk of catastrophic fires.
The private-public partnerships facilitated through the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration program empowers private industry to do
important science-based ecological restoration work while minimizing
the cost to the American taxpayer. In 2010, 10 landscape-scale
restoration projects were selected for the CFLR program. These programs
are located in nine States: Montana, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington.
In the case of the Arizona project, the Four Forest Restoration
Initiative, known as 4FRI, calls for the Forest Service to contract
with economically viable, appropriately scaled industries capable of
restoring tens of thousands of acres per year. Once a contract is
awarded, it is estimated that the 2.4 million-acre project will be
completed at little or no cost to the Federal Government.
Because of this promise, the project has garnered bipartisan support
in the Arizona House congressional delegation as well as the support of
Senators McCain and Kyl, Governor Jan Brewer, leaders in the State
legislature, the affected counties and cities, and an unprecedented
range of environmental groups, such as the Center for Biological
Diversity and industry partners.
Full funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
program ensures that the 10 existing projects, which are urgently
needed, will continue to move expeditiously while allowing the CFLRP to
expand into more of the estimated 80 million acres of overgrown and
wildfire-prone Forest Service lands across the country that need to be
properly treated.
When the Federal Government partners with local government,
stakeholder groups, and private industry, together we can create much
needed jobs and a safer environment for our citizens. Landscape-scale,
fiscally responsible forest restoration treatments are the only way the
country is going to make real progress towards proper forest health.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Gosar Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration program amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Paulsen). The gentleman from Idaho is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to note that I support
the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program, CFLR. This bill
funds the program at $30 million. In the CR, it was funded at $25
million; and in fiscal year 2010, it was funded at $10 million. We've
supported it enough that we've increased funding for it from the 2010
level through the CR and in this bill. The funding for this program has
increased dramatically at a time when other programs are being cut. The
offset for this program is hazardous fuels; and because of the budget
authority and outlays, the amendment

[[Page H5645]]

has to cut $16.6 million to pay for a $10 million increase in this
program.
The hazardous fuels program has been extremely effective at reducing
the threat of catastrophic fire. I would also argue that hazardous
fuels funds get to the ground and actually make a meaningful impact
much earlier than the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
program, which can take years before a project is even implemented.
I understand and agree with the gentleman that in our bill report we
state over and over that the Forest Service needs more active
management at a much larger scale. But CFLR is not the only program
that does this. There are numerous programs and line items for
improving forest health and reducing wildfire risk. We funded all of
these at FY11 levels.
I am glad that the CFLR program is working well in Arizona, but it is
not working as well in other parts of the country. In some areas, other
buckets of funding are more effective at actively managing the forest.
As a result, I reluctantly have to oppose the gentleman's amendment and
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
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSAR. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

capital improvement and maintenance

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, $378,088,000, to remain available until
expended, for construction, capital improvement, maintenance
and acquisition of buildings and other facilities and
infrastructure; and for construction, reconstruction, and
maintenance of forest roads and trails by the Forest Service
as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205:
Provided, That $35,000,000 shall be designated for urgently
needed road decommissioning, road and trail repair and
maintenance and associated activities, and removal of fish
passage barriers, especially in areas where Forest Service
roads may be contributing to water quality problems in
streams and water bodies which support threatened,
endangered, or sensitive species or community water sources:
Provided further, That funds becoming available in fiscal
year 2012 under the Act of March 4, 1913 (16 U.S.C. 501)
shall be transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury and
shall not be available for transfer or obligation for any
other purpose unless the funds are appropriated: Provided
further, That of the funds provided for decommissioning of
roads, up to $9,000,000 may be transferred to the ``National
Forest System'' to support the Integrated Resource
Restoration pilot program.

land acquisition

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), including administrative expenses,
and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein,
in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the
Forest Service, $12,500,000, to be derived from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund and to remain available until
expended.

acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of
the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the
Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San
Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests,
California, as authorized by law, $955,000, to be derived
from forest receipts.

acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from
funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments,
public school districts, or other public school authorities,
and for authorized expenditures from funds deposited by non-
Federal parties pursuant to Land Sale and Exchange Acts,
pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16
U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended.

range betterment fund

For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection,
and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the
prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on
lands in National Forests in the 16 Western States, pursuant
to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as amended, to
remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 6
percent shall be available for administrative expenses
associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation,
protection, and improvements.

gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $45,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund
established pursuant to the above Act.

management of national forest lands for subsistence uses

For necessary expenses of the Forest Service to manage
Federal lands in Alaska for subsistence uses under title VIII
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(Public Law 96-487), $2,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

wildland fire management

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression
activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency
fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands
under fire protection agreement, hazardous fuels reduction on
or adjacent to such lands, and for emergency rehabilitation
of burned-over National Forest System lands and water,
$1,805,099,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such funds including unobligated balances under this
heading, are available for repayment of advances from other
appropriations accounts previously transferred for such
purposes: Provided further, That such funds shall be
available to reimburse State and other cooperating entities
for services provided in response to wildfire and other
emergencies or disasters to the extent such reimbursements by
the Forest Service for non-fire emergencies are fully repaid
by the responsible emergency management agency: Provided
further, That amounts in this paragraph may be transferred to
the ``State and Private Forestry'', ``National Forest
System'', and ``Forest and Rangeland Research'' accounts to
fund State fire assistance, volunteer fire assistance, forest
health management, forest and rangeland research, the Joint
Fire Science Program, vegetation and watershed management,
heritage site rehabilitation, and wildlife and fish habitat
management and restoration: Provided further, That the costs
of implementing any cooperative agreement between the Federal
Government and any non-Federal entity may be shared, as
mutually agreed on by the affected parties: Provided further,
That of the funds provided herein, the Secretary of
Agriculture may enter into procurement contracts or
cooperative agreements, or issue grants for hazardous fuels
reduction activities and for training and monitoring
associated with such hazardous fuels reduction activities, on
Federal land, or on adjacent non-Federal land for activities
that benefit resources on Federal land: Provided further,
That the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture may authorize the transfer of funds appropriated
for wildland fire management, in an aggregate amount not to
exceed $10,000,000, between the Departments when such
transfers would facilitate and expedite jointly funded
wildland fire management programs and projects: Provided
further, That of the funds provided for hazardous fuels
reduction, not to exceed $5,000,000, may be used to make
grants, using any authorities available to the Forest Service
under the State and Private Forestry appropriation, for the
purpose of creating incentives for increased use of biomass
from national forest lands: Provided further, That no amounts
may be cancelled from amounts that were designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended:
Provided further, That, before obligating any of the funds
provided herein for wildland fire suppression, the Secretary
of Agriculture shall obligate all unobligated balances
previously made available under this heading that, when
appropriated, were designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Agriculture may transfer not more than $50,000,000 of the
funds provided herein to the Secretary of the Interior if the
Secretaries determine that the transfer will enhance the
efficiency or effectiveness of Federal wildland fire
suppression activities: Provided further, That of the funds
for hazardous fuels reduction, up to $27,100,000 may be
transferred to the ``National Forest System'' to support the
Integrated Resource Restoration pilot program.

Flame Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses for large fire suppression
operations of the Department of Agriculture and as a reserve
fund for suppression and Federal emergency response
activities, $290,418,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such amounts are available only for transfer
to the ``Wildland Fire Management'' account and only
following a declaration by the Secretary that either (1) a
wildland fire suppression event meets certain previously-
established risk-based written criteria for significant
complexity, severity, or threat posed by the fire or (2)
funds in the ``Wildland Fire Management'' account will be
exhausted within 30 days.

administrative provisions, forest service

(including transfers of funds)

Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal
year shall be available for:

[[Page H5646]]

(1) purchase of passenger motor vehicles; acquisition of
passenger motor vehicles from excess sources, and hire of
such vehicles; purchase, lease, operation, maintenance, and
acquisition of aircraft from excess sources to maintain the
operable fleet for use in Forest Service wildland fire
programs and other Forest Service programs; notwithstanding
other provisions of law, existing aircraft being replaced may
be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in value used to
offset the purchase price for the replacement aircraft; (2)
services pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to exceed
$100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (3) purchase,
erection, and alteration of buildings and other public
improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) acquisition of land,
waters, and interests therein pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5)
expenses pursuant to the Volunteers in the National Forest
Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6) the
cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and (7)
debt collection contracts in accordance with 31 U.S.C.
3718(c).
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management
appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters
under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe
burning conditions upon the Secretary's notification of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that all fire
suppression funds appropriated under the headings ``Wildland
Fire Management'' and ``FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve
Fund'' will be obligated within 30 days.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for assistance to or through the Agency for International
Development in connection with forest and rangeland research,
technical information, and assistance in foreign countries,
and shall be available to support forestry and related
natural resource activities outside the United States and its
territories and possessions, including technical assistance,
education and training, and cooperation with United States,
private organizations, and international organizations.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service up to
$5,000,000 shall be available for priority projects within
the scope of the approved budget, which shall be carried out
by the Youth Conservation Corps and shall be carried out
under the authority of the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993,
Public Law 103-82, as amended by Public Lands Corps Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2005, Public Law 109-154.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $4,000 is
available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official
reception and representation expenses.
Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to
$3,000,000 may be advanced in a lump sum to the National
Forest Foundation to aid conservation partnership projects in
support of the Forest Service mission, without regard to when
the Foundation incurs expenses, for projects on or
benefitting National Forest System lands or related to Forest
Service programs: Provided, That of the Federal funds made
available to the Foundation, no more than $300,000 shall be
available for administrative expenses: Provided further, That
the Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of
Federal financial assistance, private contributions to match
on at least one-for-one basis funds made available by the
Forest Service: Provided further, That the Foundation may
transfer Federal funds to Federal or a non-Federal recipient
for a project at the same rate that the recipient has
obtained the non-Federal matching funds: Provided further,
That authorized investments of Federal funds held by the
Foundation may be made only in interest-bearing obligations
of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both
principal and interest by the United States.
Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244,
$3,000,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service may
be advanced to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in a
lump sum to aid cost-share conservation projects, without
regard to when expenses are incurred, on or benefitting
National Forest System lands or related to Forest Service
programs: Provided, That such funds shall be matched on at
least a one-for-one basis by the Foundation or its sub-
recipients: Provided further, That the Foundation may
transfer Federal funds to a Federal or non-Federal recipient
for a project at the same rate that the recipient has
obtained the non-Federal matching funds.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for interactions with and providing technical assistance to
rural communities and natural resource-based businesses for
sustainable rural development purposes.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, an amount not
to exceed $55,000,000 shall be assessed for the purpose of
performing fire, administrative and other facilities
maintenance. Such assessments shall occur using a square foot
rate charged on the same basis the agency uses to assess
programs for payment of rent, utilities, and other support
services.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service not
to exceed $500,000 may be used to reimburse the Office of the
General Counsel (OGC), Department of Agriculture, for travel
and related expenses incurred as a result of OGC assistance
or participation requested by the Forest Service at meetings,
training sessions, management reviews, land purchase
negotiations and similar non-litigation related matters.
Future budget justifications for both the Forest Service and
Department of Agriculture should clearly display the sums
previously transferred and the requested funding transfers.
None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be
reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in the joint explanatory
statement of the managers accompanying this Act.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Indian Health Service

indian health services

For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of
the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian
Health Service, $4,034,322,000 together with payments
received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b)
and 238b for services furnished by the Indian Health Service:
Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal
organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any
other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the
grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available
to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That $836,685,000 for contract
medical care, including $51,500,000 for the Indian
Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund, shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That of the funds provided,
up to $36,000,000 shall remain available until expended for
implementation of the loan repayment program under section
108 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act: Provided
further, That the amounts collected by the Federal Government
as authorized by sections 104 and 108 of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613a and 1616a) during the
preceding fiscal year for breach of contracts shall be
deposited to the Fund authorized by section 108A of the Act
(25 U.S.C. 1616a-1) and shall remain available until expended
and, notwithstanding section 108A(c) of the Act (25 U.S.C.
1616a-1(c)), funds shall be available to make new awards
under the loan repayment and scholarship programs under
sections 104 and 108 of the Act (25 U.S.C. 1613a and 1616a):
Provided further, That $16,391,000 is provided for the
methamphetamine and suicide prevention and treatment
initiative and $10,000,000 is provided for the domestic
violence prevention initiative and, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the amounts available under this proviso
shall be allocated at the discretion of the Director of the
Indian Health Service and shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That funds provided in this Act
may be used for annual contracts and grants that fall within
two fiscal years, provided the total obligation is recorded
in the year the funds are appropriated: Provided further,
That the amounts collected by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services under the authority of title IV of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act shall remain available until
expended for the purpose of achieving compliance with the
applicable conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and
XIX of the Social Security Act, except for those related to
the planning, design, or construction of new facilities:
Provided further, That funding contained herein for
scholarship programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That amounts received by tribes and tribal
organizations under title IV of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act shall be reported and accounted for and
available to the receiving tribes and tribal organizations
until expended: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, of the amounts provided herein, not
to exceed $573,761,000 shall be for payments to tribes and
tribal organizations for contract or grant support costs
associated with contracts, grants, self-governance compacts,
or annual funding agreements between the Indian Health
Service and a tribe or tribal organization pursuant to the
Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, prior to
or during fiscal year 2012, of which not to exceed
$10,000,000 may be used for contract support costs associated
with new or expanded self-determination contracts, grants,
self-governance compacts, or annual funding agreements:
Provided further, That the Bureau of Indian Affairs may
collect from the Indian Health Service, tribes and tribal
organizations operating health facilities pursuant to Public
Law 93-638, such individually identifiable health information
relating to disabled children as may be necessary for the
purpose of carrying out its functions under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq.):
Provided further, That the Indian Health Care Improvement
Fund may be used, as needed, to carry out activities
typically funded under the Indian Health Facilities account.

indian health facilities

For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and
equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities,
including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans,
specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase
and erection of modular buildings, and

[[Page H5647]]

purchases of trailers; and for provision of domestic and
community sanitation facilities for Indians, as authorized by
section 7 of the Act of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the
Indian Self-Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such
Acts and titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act
with respect to environmental health and facilities support
activities of the Indian Health Service, $427,259,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That no less than
$20,000,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds shall
be used in addition to amounts provided by this Act: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated for the planning, design, construction,
renovation or expansion of health facilities for the benefit
of an Indian tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land on
which such facilities will be located: Provided further, That
not to exceed $500,000 shall be used by the Indian Health
Service to purchase TRANSAM equipment from the Department of
Defense for distribution to the Indian Health Service and
tribal facilities: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated to the Indian Health Service may be used for
sanitation facilities construction for new homes funded with
grants by the housing programs of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development: Provided
further, That not to exceed $2,700,000 from this account and
the ``Indian Health Services'' account shall be used by the
Indian Health Service to obtain ambulances for the Indian
Health Service and tribal facilities in conjunction with an
existing interagency agreement between the Indian Health
Service and the General Services Administration: Provided
further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be placed in a
Demolition Fund, to remain available until expended, and be
used by the Indian Health Service for the demolition of
Federal buildings.

administrative provisions, indian health service

Appropriations provided in this Act to the Indian Health
Service shall be available for services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109 at rates not to exceed the per diem rate
equivalent to the maximum rate payable for senior-level
positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor
vehicles and aircraft; purchase of medical equipment;
purchase of reprints; purchase, renovation and erection of
modular buildings and renovation of existing facilities;
payments for telephone service in private residences in the
field, when authorized under regulations approved by the
Secretary; uniforms or allowances therefor as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; and for expenses of attendance at meetings
that relate to the functions or activities of the Indian
Health Service.
In accordance with the provisions of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, non-Indian patients may be extended health
care at all tribally administered or Indian Health Service
facilities, subject to charges, and the proceeds along with
funds recovered under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act
(42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) shall be credited to the account of the
facility providing the service and shall be available without
fiscal year limitation. Notwithstanding any other law or
regulation, funds transferred from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service shall be
administered under Public Law 86-121, the Indian Sanitation
Facilities Act and Public Law 93-638, as amended.
Funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service in this
Act, except those used for administrative and program
direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations
directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation.
None of the funds made available to the Indian Health
Service in this Act shall be used for any assessments or
charges by the Department of Health and Human Services unless
identified in the budget justification and provided in this
Act, or approved by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations through the reprogramming process.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
previously or herein made available to a tribe or tribal
organization through a contract, grant, or agreement
authorized by title I or title V of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
determination contract under title I, or a self-governance
agreement under title V of such Act and thereafter shall
remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without
fiscal year limitation.
None of the funds made available to the Indian Health
Service in this Act shall be used to implement the final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by
the Department of Health and Human Services, relating to the
eligibility for the health care services of the Indian Health
Service until the Indian Health Service has submitted a
budget request reflecting the increased costs associated with
the proposed final rule, and such request has been included
in an appropriations Act and enacted into law.
With respect to functions transferred by the Indian Health
Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the Indian Health
Service is authorized to provide goods and services to those
entities on a reimbursable basis, including payments in
advance with subsequent adjustment. The reimbursements
received therefrom, along with the funds received from those
entities pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act, may
be credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account
from which the funds were originally derived, with such
amounts to remain available until expended.
Reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or
services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain
total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead
associated with the provision of goods, services, or
technical assistance.
The appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service
may not be altered without advance notification to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

National Institutes of Health

national institute of environmental health sciences

For necessary expenses for the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences in carrying out activities set
forth in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended, and section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, $79,054,000.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

toxic substances and environmental public health

For necessary expenses for the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in carrying out activities set
forth in sections 104(i) and 111(c)(4) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended; section 118(f) of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as
amended; and section 3019 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, $74,039,000, of which up to $1,000 per eligible
employee of the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry shall remain available until expended for Individual
Learning Accounts: Provided, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in lieu of performing a health assessment
under section 104(i)(6) of CERCLA, the Administrator of ATSDR
may conduct other appropriate health studies, evaluations, or
activities, including, without limitation, biomedical
testing, clinical evaluations, medical monitoring, and
referral to accredited health care providers: Provided
further, That in performing any such health assessment or
health study, evaluation, or activity, the Administrator of
ATSDR shall not be bound by the deadlines in section
104(i)(6)(A) of CERCLA: Provided further, That none of the
funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for
ATSDR to issue in excess of 40 toxicological profiles
pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA during fiscal year 2012,
and existing profiles may be updated as necessary.

OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

Executive Office of the President

council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to
the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, and not to
exceed $750 for official reception and representation
expenses, $2,661,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section
202 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the
Council shall consist of one member, appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
serving as chairman and exercising all powers, functions, and
duties of the Council.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lankford

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

Page 98, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,661,000)''.
Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,661,000)''.

{time} 2020

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about eliminating the
wasteful duplication in our Federal Government, specifically dealing
with the Council on Environmental Quality. This amendment would
eliminate the funding for the Council on Environmental Quality and
transfer the savings to the spending reduction account. This amendment
will result in about a $2.7 million taxpayer savings.
Specifically, the Council on Environmental Quality, if people aren't
familiar with it, is a council of one person with a budget typically
around $3 million. Throughout the council's 40-year history, it really
has done little to demonstrate additional responsibilities other than
what already is being accomplished by the Environmental Protection
Agency and NOAA itself. Former Presidents, including President Carter
and President Reagan, have proposed reducing the budget for this

[[Page H5648]]

council. This council blatantly duplicates the efforts of other Federal
agencies, as I already mentioned, the Environmental Protection Agency
and NOAA, who are doing an excellent job in these same areas.
This an opportunity to be able to reduce unnecessary waste,
duplication, and streamline the bureaucracy and improve agency services
to Americans who fund these agencies.
At this critical point in our Nation's history, I recommend that we
need to eliminate agencies like this and be able to combine them with
existing agencies.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this is an organization that was established
by President Nixon. It was Bill Ruckleshaus who was the first head of
it. What it does is to coordinate the implementation of the National
Environmental Policy Act. That act, as I recall, goes back to 1976.
1969. It was President Nixon that put it into effect.
The Council on Environmental Quality does the National Environmental
Policy Act reviews, and it's a critical function. In addition to that,
it coordinates the environmental programs throughout the Federal
Government. If you didn't have CEQ, you'd have to invent it. I know if
we didn't have it, we'd be creating it in this appropriations bill
because this appropriations bill is replete with requests to the
administration to coordinate environmental programs, particularly those
related to climate change to avoid duplication. Well, that's the role
of CEQ.
The Council of Environmental Quality is very inadequately funded.
It's a relative handful of people. So the only thing that I can
interpret from this amendment is that it's meant to be punitive. You're
hardly saving any money, and what you're doing is eliminating the White
House's ability to coordinate environmental programs to continue the
same tradition that we have had since Richard Nixon. It's now been 40
years, and no one up till now has thought that the Council on
Environmental Quality was not performing an important and valuable
function.
I'm surprised that the gentleman would offer the amendment, but I
would certainly oppose it. It's one of these things that you're only
going to realize the full value of when it's gone. And though the small
amount of money to save, this is an organization that, person for
person, probably does as much as any other people, even in EPA or any
of the other agencies of the government in terms of maintaining a
consistent, focused policy on the environment.
I would really hope that this amendment would be soundly defeated. It
was funded in the bill. There was no criticism registered in the report
with regard to the Council on Environmental Quality.
I know they have been reaching out. They're more than happy to go to
any Member's office. They're one of the people that, when you have
local issues or State issues, they will respond. They'll explain the
intent and purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act. And they
want to ensure that the administration's actions are consistent with
congressional intent.
This is not the kind of constructive amendment that we would expect
to see, and I would really hope that this body would reject it. But I'm
stunned that this amendment would have been offered.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. I also oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Let me just give you a little more background on what the Council on
Environmental Quality does. Its focus is to make government more
efficient and more effective, and it does this by interagency working
groups and coordination with EEOP and CEQ. And it balances the
competing positions, sometimes, even within government coordination. In
other words, it makes everybody come around the table and figure out
how do we do this the most effectively for the American people.
It brings, as Ranking Member Moran pointed out, Federal agencies,
State and local governments to the table too to say how can we be most
effective collaboratively in making our environment work better for
America.
Let me give you an example of one of the projects that they're
working on, and it's solar energy. Solar energy is booming here in the
United States; and if we get solar energy technology right, we will be
the leaders for the next generation in how we can have energy
efficiency, energy independence through renewable energy.
The Solar Energy Industries Association works with this council. And
in the first quarter, the solar industry installed 252 megawatts of new
solar electric capacity, 66 percent growth from the same timeframe from
2010. That's 3,000 megawatts of solar electric installed in the United
States. That's enough to power 600,000 homes.
They worked with the manufacturing sector, the solar power sector.
They worked together, and they caused this 33 percent jump in panel
production. With the growth of solar energy, thousands of jobs have
been created. In fact, solar energy creates more jobs per megawatt than
any other energy source. And according to the Solar Foundation's
National Solar Job Census, 93,000 Americans were employed in the U.S.
solar industry.
The reason why I bring this up is that not only are they helping to
bring everybody around the table to figure out how to move America
forward with this; the next thing they do is they work, as I said, with
inter-government agencies. So they worked with the Department of Energy
to issue loan guarantees for solar projects and manufacturing
facilities. That's going to create 26,000 jobs.
They worked with the Department of Veterans Affairs to announce that
they will be installing solar panels in their systems in five VA
Medical Centers, one in Oklahoma; Temple, Texas; Amarillo, Texas; and
in California. Prior to this announcement, the VA had also been awarded
dollars for other solar panels in their facilities, and they're seeing
that they are being able to control costs and do good things for the
environment.
The Department of the Interior has approved solar permits for solar-
powered products on public lands that will provide enough energy for
730,000 homes.
The Department of Agriculture actively promotes the deployment of
solar energy on farms and ranches working with people and folks out in
the private sector. So the list goes on and on.

{time} 2030

Coordination is often the key to efficiency. And so I just really
think that the Council on Environmental Quality provides America a way
forward in making sure that our agencies are talking and being
effective with one another when it comes to collaboration on
environmental issues. It also reaches out to the local governments, but
more importantly, it works in the private sector to create
opportunities for jobs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma briefly to give
him a last opportunity to comment.
Mr. LANKFORD. This was a wonderful description that I'm hearing of
the responsibility of the Council on Environmental Quality. The problem
with it is it's the same responsibilities that EPA has, that the
Department of Energy has, that NOAA has. These are executive agencies
as well, and to say that you have to create a new executive agency to
watch over this executive agency is one of those prime examples of why
it's so difficult to be able to combine agencies for efficiency.
We have multiple bureaucracies that are standing out there combining
and doing similar functions, and it would save us money. Yes, this is a
very small agency, but it's another one of those prime examples why the
executive branch has all these multiple agencies doing the same thing,
and we have to be able to find ways to be able to combine these.

[[Page H5649]]

I understand that we're creating jobs per megawatt in the middle of
this, but the reality of this is we've got to be able to find ways to
be able to save money.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will point out that
the underlying bill reduces CEQ to 2006 levels and caps their full-time
equivalence, or their employees, at 2006 levels. So that means that
they will have a reduction in force. They will lose three employees.
I might also point out that when I was the general counsel for the
Governor in my State, I also ran the Natural Resources Subcabinet. We
were actually, at the State level, the mirror image, where I was, of
what CEQ does. We were in the position of responding to NEPA documents
that were sent to us by the Federal Government from Federal agencies.
And as a State, we were attempting to coordinate our responses to NEPA
documents for various State agencies--the agency that regulates water,
the agency that looks after State land, the agency that does
environmental quality in Wyoming, the agency that does State forests,
and on and on. And so our Natural Resources Subcabinet was the State
equivalent and mirror imagine in the responding avenue to what CEQ is
in Washington.
Now, let me give you an example of some of the things that CEQ has
coordinated here in Washington and why it makes sense.
We have seen in this debate, earlier, that fighting Asian carp is a
priority for the Great Lakes region. Over the past 1\1/2\ years, CEQ
has brought all the Federal agencies together with the Great Lakes
States to combine efforts to fight this invasive specie. So they have
coordinated on an interagency, intergovernmental framework. And without
the framework, it's hard to pull the Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of the Interior, EPA, and these groups together with the
States to have a shared response to a multi-State, multijurisdiction,
multilevel of government issue like the Asian carp. That is something I
believe that makes it appropriate for CEQ's existence to continue.
I understand the frustrations that some people have with it, but,
quite frankly, that type of coordination I think could, when managed
properly, allow the Federal Government to speak with one voice where
their own disparate agencies have different mission statements. So that
type of coordination is important.
Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, and for the cuts that have already
been undertaken in this bill, I do rise to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
I didn't plan on speaking, but I couldn't help after hearing the
comments, and I would gladly yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady if she
wants to explain further.
I have never heard this used as a measurement before, as a positive
measurement, the number of jobs per megawatt for solar power.
Now, I'm from Arizona. I like solar power. It's great. But since when
are we using, as a positive, the number of jobs it takes to create a
megawatt? Will it be seen as a positive in the future if it takes more
jobs to create a megawatt? Is that a good thing for the economy? Is
that a jobs program of some type? I mean, it just baffles me sometimes
at the arguments that are made as to why we should keep programs like
this going and keep spending.
I would be glad to yield time to the gentlelady if she wants to
explain that further.
Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman.
The point is is that we are creating jobs using less energy, and when
we do that, we save energy. But these jobs that are being created are
improving our economy, our ability to compete internationally. And
these jobs use less energy. So we're not investing in nuclear power
plants and we're not investing in coal burning, which leads to--I kind
of figured you would want your time back.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady, but that is precisely the opposite
of the number of jobs per megawatt. If nuclear creates more energy for
fewer jobs and less cost, that's the direction we should go because
it's nonpolluting as well. But this notion that we have to keep this
going because it just creates jobs and jobs per megawatt, it just
baffles me.
I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. We're borrowing 41
cents on every dollar. We ought to save money where we can.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LANKFORD. 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 Oklahoma
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant
to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
including hire of passenger vehicles, uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, and for
services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem equivalent to the
maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5
U.S.C. 5376, $10,000,000: Provided, That the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board (Board) shall have not more
than three career Senior Executive Service positions:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the individual appointed to the position of Inspector
General of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall,
by virtue of such appointment, also hold the position of
Inspector General of the Board: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Inspector
General of the Board shall utilize personnel of the Office of
Inspector General of EPA in performing the duties of the
Inspector General of the Board, and shall not appoint any
individuals to positions within the Board.

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531,
$7,530,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act
are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups
including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands
residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and
all others certified as eligible and not included in the
preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available by this or any other Act may be used by
the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any
single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985,
was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi
Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such
household: Provided further, That no relocatee shall be
provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided
further, That the Office shall relocate any certified
eligible relocatees who have selected and received an
approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a
replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the
land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development

payment to the institute

For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title
XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A),
$7,900,000.

Smithsonian Institution

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as
authorized by law, including research in the fields of art,
science, and history; development, preservation, and
documentation of the National Collections; presentation of
public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation,
dissemination, and exchange of information and publications;
conduct of education, training, and museum assistance
programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease
agreements of no more than 30 years, and protection of
buildings, facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000
for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and purchase,
rental, repair, and cleaning of uniforms for employees,
$626,971,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013,
except as otherwise provided herein; of which not to exceed
$20,137,000 for the instrumentation program, collections
acquisition, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum

[[Page H5650]]

of African American History and Culture, and the repatriation
of skeletal remains program shall remain available until
expended; and including such funds as may be necessary to
support American overseas research centers: Provided, That
funds appropriated herein are available for advance payments
to independent contractors performing research services or
participating in official Smithsonian presentations.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $55,624,000)''.
Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $55,624,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would revert the
Smithsonian funding back to the fiscal year 2008 levels. This is simply
asking the Smithsonian to tighten their belts, to pull their weight,
just like other agencies and departments within the Federal Government
are having to do.
Mr. Chairman, this country is broke. We have spent all the money in
our bank and then some. We have to prioritize where we can afford to
spend money and where we simply cannot afford to. I believe asking the
Smithsonian to simply scale back their spending to levels of 2008 is
more than reasonable. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the Smithsonian Institution is the world's
leading museum complex. People from all over the world come to
Washington, oftentimes with the principal intent of seeing the
Smithsonian, but it is invariably part of their trip to our Nation's
capital. It is something that every Member of the legislative branch
should be very proud of. In fact, we should spend more of our time in
those museums. They're extraordinary, every single one of them. They
tell the story of our Nation's origin. They reflect the evolution of
knowledge of the things that are relevant to our very existence.
In addition to the traditional museums along our National Mall, we
have a National Zoo--again, known throughout the world. But this
amendment that would cut $55 million would wind up eliminating 600
positions from the Smithsonian because 90 percent of the costs of
museums are personnel.

{time} 2040

We're told that given the existing costs that have continued to
increase over the last 4 years, not just personnel but particularly
energy costs, the costs of maintaining the world's finest museum
complex, that the Smithsonian would have to close at least one if not
two major museums, or the National Zoo. It doesn't seem to me that in
order to save a relative fraction of a bill--this bill is about $27
billion--in order to save--what is that, half a percent?--that we would
want to close one or two of the finest museums in the world.
If you did abolish 600 Federal positions at the Smithsonian, you
would also have to pay severance costs and create personnel management
turmoil for years. You would be saying to the Smithsonian, which makes
us proud for the quality and really the efficiency of its operation,
Sorry, but we don't think that you should be a priority. The reality is
if you were to ask the Federal taxpayer, not just the people in this
region but all over the country how important the Smithsonian is, it
seems to me they would make it a priority.
One of the last things we want, it would seem, is that our visitors
come from our constituencies, our congressional districts, to
Washington, and then we have a sign on the front door of one of the
major museums, Sorry, Closed Due to Short-Term Budget Cuts. Now, I
trust that that would not be the final reality, but if we were to pass
such an amendment when we vote on this, I think it would send a signal.
It's a wrong signal. Just as the uncertainty about the debt ceiling is
the wrong signal to be sending the rest of the world, for gosh sakes,
this is the wrong signal to be sending to the people who work so hard
at the Smithsonian to make us proud. It's the wrong signal to send to
our constituents. It's the wrong thing to do.
It's kind of shocking that we would have such an amendment, frankly.
The committee has looked at every line item, has cut every place they
could, with very few exceptions, and we've pointed out those
exceptions, but the committee, I'm sure, did not consider closing down
one or two of our major museums on the National Mall in order to save a
fraction of 1 percent of the cost of this appropriations bill.
So, I would very, very strongly oppose this misguided amendment, Mr.
Chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. To follow on the remarks of my good friend from Virginia, I
must say, this is almost incomprehensible. The Smithsonian as a
collection of museums and zoological park and so forth that my
colleague talked about is half the picture, and, indeed, if any of
those facilities are closed, there will be a lot of unhappy families
from Georgia and Tennessee and Montana and all the 50 States.
But it's a lot more than that. The Smithsonian is a collection of
research centers that goes far beyond biplanes and folk art and
portraits and jewelry and pandas:
The Smithsonian astronomical observatory, one of the finest
collections of research scientists in the world for understanding the
workings of our universe.
Barro Colorado Island in Panama, in the middle of the Panama Canal,
probably the principal research center for understanding the workings
of our biological world.
Oh, yes, there would be a lot of unhappy families if this amendment
were to go through, but among those 600 positions that would be lost no
doubt would be some of the finest scientists in the United States, in
fact, in the world, and there would be a lot of unhappy scientists
around the world who would wonder, what in the world were they thinking
of? What in the world were they thinking in Washington, D.C., when they
cut back on these research efforts?
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I would like to point out that the request for this
agency's appropriation under the President's budget was $110 million
more than is appropriated and that we as a committee did cut this
current budget by $10 million already.
I would also point out something that's more philosophically based
and that is my own personal view, and it's shared by many of my
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle: That we should be
funding Federal functions while we are here in Washington and
acknowledge that certain functions really can be handled as well or
better by the States and that the States created the Federal
Government, not the other way around, and so we should be deferring to
the States for everything that is not specified either in the
Constitution or is purely a Federal function.
The Smithsonian Institution is a purely Federal function. It is
something that was given to the United States of America, that the
Federal Government and the people of this country through us are
stewards of, and I believe it is appropriate as a purely Federal
function that we fund it adequately.
Now we have, as I pointed out, reduced its budget during these tough
fiscal times, but as something that is purely Federal in its approach
and the benefit to our Nation and indeed to the world that is provided
by this great gift that was given to the people of the United States of
America centuries ago, I do rise in opposition to the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.

[[Page H5651]]

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
This is truly one of the less-thought-out amendments, I think, that's
been proposed to this bill.
The Smithsonian is truly a gem in this country--ask the American
people--if you look at what they are doing and the important role they
play.
A lot of people think that it's not important if you don't come to
Washington. The Smithsonian doesn't do anything. They only operate some
museums here and a few things like that. That's not the truth. The
Smithsonian operates all across this country. If you look at what
they're doing in digitalization of the things they have in their museum
and stuff, and they're reaching out to schools and so forth, it is
making an amazing difference. Go on their Web site and see what they're
doing in terms of the applications for your iPhone and things like that
that are making a difference in people's lives, plus the research that
they do on a variety of things around this country is just amazing.

{time} 2050

If the gentleman wants to reduce this, and everybody can take a $58
million hit, I guess, but this is $100 million or more below what the
President already requested. Another $58 million hit on this would be a
substantial hit.
They also raise $158 million in private funds. That tells you that
private corporations and citizens all across this country love what the
Smithsonian does. And they do a fantastic job. If you want to get the
public outraged, slice the Smithsonian's funding so that when someone
comes here to visit Washington, maybe a trip that they planned on for
quite some time, and their kids want to see the number one thing they
came to see, guess what it is. The Air and Space Museum, and the other
things that occur here.
But the Smithsonian is so much more than that. Go look at what they
do at the National Zoo. Go look at what they do in their collections
that they have. This is an incredible organization.
I'm only sorry that in this budget climate, and I appreciate the
gentleman's desire to address the budget deficit that we have.
Everybody wants to do that. There are some things that we should
maintain. The Smithsonian is one of them. So I would hope that not only
would the Members of this body vote against this amendment, but that
they would vote hopefully unanimously against it and in support of the
Smithsonian and the work that they do for this country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say I'm the coolest
grandmother in this country as far as my grandchildren are concerned,
not because I'm a Member of the House of Representatives and have been
for 19 years, but because I live within walking distance of the
National Zoo. They come here, and they can't get enough of the National
Zoo that is sponsored by the Smithsonian. And then when they've had
enough of the National Zoo and know they can come back the day after,
they are on their way to the Smithsonian; and it depends on their age,
and they've developed over the years from wanting the simplest
entertainment at the zoo to being very curious and wanting to know more
and more.
My 7-year-old grandson who was here over the Fourth of July is
committed to be a scientist from what he experienced over his last week
and the few times he's been here before.
If you don't have grandchildren, maybe you don't get it. You don't
think this is important to the people of this country, but there is
nobody who comes into my office of any age who doesn't thank me for the
experience they have had at the Smithsonian. I remind them that it is
their entity. It isn't ours. They pay for it through their taxes, and
they are proud to do that.
I stand here against the amendment and in support of the Smithsonian
Institution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. 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 Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

facilities capital

For necessary expenses of repair, revitalization, and
alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the Smithsonian
Institution, by contract or otherwise, as authorized by
section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), and
for construction, including necessary personnel,
$124,750,000, to remain available until expended, of which
not to exceed $10,000 is for services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That beginning in fiscal year 2012 and
thereafter, any procurement for the construction of the
National Museum of African American History and Culture, as
authorized under section 8 of the National Museum of African
American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r-6), may be
issued which includes the full scope of the project: Provided
further, That the solicitation and contract with respect to
the procurement shall contain the ``availability of funds''
clause described in section 52.232.18 of title 48, Code of
Federal Regulations.

National Gallery of Art

salaries and expenses

For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of
Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and
administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by
the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the
public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9,
Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the
treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum,
and art associations or societies whose publications or
services are available to members only, or to members at a
price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances
therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for
protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance,
alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches,
and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and
repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by
contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms,
or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms
and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $112,185,000,
of which not to exceed $3,481,000 for the special exhibition
program shall remain available until expended.

repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and
renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or
occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or
otherwise, for lease agreements of no more than 10 years that
address space needs created by the ongoing renovations in the
Master Facilities Plan, as authorized, $13,938,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded
for environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior
repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of
Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded
on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.

John f. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

operations and maintenance

For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and
security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, $22,455,000.

Capital Repair and Restoration

For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration
of the existing features of the building and site of the John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $13,650,000, to
remain available until expended.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of
the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356)
including hire of passenger vehicles and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $10,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2013.

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

National Endowment for the Arts

grants and administration

For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, $135,000,000
shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for
the support of projects and productions in the arts,
including arts education and public outreach activities,
through assistance to organizations and individuals pursuant
to section 5 of the Act, for program support, and for
administering the functions of the Act, to remain available
until expended.

[[Page H5652]]

Amendment Offered by Mr. Walberg

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

Page 105, line 7, insert ``(reduced by $10,600,000)'' after
the dollar amount.
Page 158, line 25, insert ``(increased by $10,600,000)''
after the dollar amount.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, tonight I am offering an amendment that
would reduce funding for the National Endowment for the Arts to fiscal
year 2006 levels.
In February, during the consideration of H.R. 1, I offered a similar
amendment to cut NEA funding, which the House adopted. The underlying
bill funds the National Endowment for the Arts at $135 million which is
a $19.7 million reduction from last year's level.
I commend the chairman and the committee for recognizing that this
funding has precipitated at an unsustainable rate. Since 2008, the NEA
has received increases of over $10 million each year, including $50
million in funding from the stimulus in 2009. These spending increases
have coincided with annual trillion dollar deficits.
My amendment would take funding levels back to fiscal year 2006
levels at $124.4 million. If accepted, this cut returns $10.6 million
to the spending reduction account.
I want you to know I believe in the fine arts, and of course I know
that's defined by individual standards. In the past, I was privileged
to serve on a symphony board for a time as the chairman of the finance
committee. In my early years, I was brought to the Chicago Symphony
Orchestra by my parents, on school trips and otherwise, and appreciate
the impact the fine arts can have. Tramping through art museums is not
foreign to me as well, and I enjoy much of what I see.
But at a time when our government must cut Federal spending, at a
time when our taxpayers cut and fix and repair and alter their own
lifestyles and their spending, the primary source of funding for the
arts should be through philanthropy, not forcing open the taxpayers'
wallet without their choice.
The National Foundation for the Arts does provide benefits to our
country and helps fund our true fine arts. However, we are asking them
to only fund their true priorities, and they can make those priorities.
We know that the public asks questions about some of the programs that
the NEA has supported. I'm tempted to, but I will refrain from, giving
explicit illustrations of funded programs and projects that they've
undertaken with much taxpayer disapproval. But suffice it to say that
in recent years the NEA has funded exhibits that disparage religion,
promote pornography, and support Presidential campaigns. That is not
supported by the general taxpayer and should not be.
My amendment asks the NEA to only fund their true priorities. Now, if
they want to determine those priorities, so be it. But if they want to
determine priorities for youth concert series or young composers or you
name it, that will be a choice as well, and I think most taxpayers
would support those choices.
Our country is in financial hardship. The sponsors of the arts should
be sponsors of the arts, as I am. But taxpayers ought to know that we
will expect them, like the rest of the programs and certainly the rest
of society, to be efficient at this time. Our country is in a financial
hardship, and we're not taking programs like the NEA off the table;
we're just asking them to establish priorities with reduced funding,
yes, but an opportunity to efficiently convey to the taxpayers their
understanding of what we're going through as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.

{time} 2100

We're a great country. Great countries understand the importance of
the arts. They understand that it's important not only to communicate
with one another but to leave a lasting legacy for future generations.
The arts have the ability to communicate the most fundamental
aspirations of mankind. They have the ability to evoke compassion. They
have the ability to evoke the kind of spiritedness that causes
countries to show undaunted courage and to rise above the problems of
the day in pursuit of far more noble national objectives.
The value of the arts transcends anything that we can quantify in
terms of dollars and cents. We should be extraordinarily proud of our
National Endowment for the Arts. Denyce Graves, who is one of the
finest opera singers in the world, who can stir the emotions just by
hearing her beautiful, extraordinary voice, said that she grew up in
Washington, where the Kennedy Center is. But it could have been the
other end of the world if she had not been able to get into a program
funded by the National Endowment for the Arts.
There are any number of men and women, young, middle-aged, old, who
have come into contact because of the outreach that the National
Endowment for the Arts has provided. And there are any number of
communities across the country who, by use of the arts--by setting up a
theater, by pulling people together, by getting a small amount of money
from the NEA, which is far more an endorsement than it is financial
support--have been able to develop local economies.
We've heard from a number of big-name performers now who said they
got their entry, the development of their career through the NEA. Some
gave back by developing a theater in communities that they thought had
seen their best days behind them. And yet by uniting the community,
it's clear now their best days are ahead of them because young people
want to stay in that community. They're excited about the arts that are
provided.
This program does so much with so little. Yet the gentleman wants to
cut $10.6 million. That's 0.03 of 1 percent of nondefense domestic
discretionary funding. We had $174 million in the fiscal year 2011
bill. It was cut down to $155 million, ultimately, for FY11. Now it's
been cut another $20 million--down to $135 million.
I know my good friend from Idaho, the chair of the committee, wishes
and knows it should be more. I think most of us, when we reflect,
understand that if we continue to take money from programs that provide
so much to, really, the heart and the soul of this Nation, we will lose
those instruments we have to reduce the harshness and the rancor that
divide us. It's the powerful media of the arts that enable us to
transcend our differences, to appreciate real beauty, and the truth
that comes through the fine arts and the grace that ennobles the human
spirit.
NEA is a catalyst. It helps us create and sustain arts. It doesn't
really fund much. What it does is to spawn the arts. It generates
investment in the arts. In fact, the gentleman mentioned philanthropy.
There's a great deal of money out in this country. We're still the
wealthiest country in the world, no matter how much people would like
us to think that we're poverty-stricken, that we're seeing some of our
worst days. We're a great and powerful and wealthy Nation. Philanthropy
is the principal source of funding of the arts. But NEA shapes much of
that funding. It's a magnet for businesses. Almost 700,000 businesses
are involved in creation and distribution of the arts.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Moran was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. MORAN. I do think that it's important that we make this nominal
investment in the cultural lives of our citizens and in our children's
futures. I can't imagine how a Nation as rich and prosperous as ours
would not consider it a priority to provide funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts.
There's too much that divides us as a Nation. This is something that
should be uniting, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative.
Everyone can appreciate the arts because it inspires us all. It
inspires us to look past the parochial, the small-mindedness to see the
big picture and to appreciate greatness.
This amendment should be defeated, and in it we should send a message
that we understand what's important to the lifeblood of our national
community.

[[Page H5653]]

I yield back the balance of my time.
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 Walberg
amendment. First, let me associate myself with the words of my good
friend from Virginia and his comments on this. The Walberg amendment
would return the NEA funding to the 2006 levels of $126 million. The
National Endowment for the Arts--the NEA--is funded in this bill at
$135 million, which is a $20 million reduction from the fiscal year
2011 enacted level, a $32.5 million reduction from the fiscal year 2010
enacted level, and a $10 million reduction from the fiscal year 2008
enacted level.
I was asked earlier by a Member if I would support just going back to
the 2008 level. We could do that but we'd have to add another $10
million into it. And we, frankly, just don't have it. This would take
it back to the 2006 level, as I said. Overall, the committee has cut
$2.1 billion in this bill from the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. This
is on top of the $2.6 billion we cut from the bill earlier this year.
I think this amendment is excessive. But I will tell you that for
some people, voting against any funding for the arts is okay with them.
I'm not suggesting that that's what the sponsor of this amendment is
proposing. He's only proposing a reduction in this. But there are
Members who believe that the Federal Government or a State government--
no government--should be involved in the arts at all. I disagree.
When we ran into problems several years ago before I was here--maybe
it was when Mr. Moran was here; I can't remember--but they ran into
some controversies with the arts and the funding for individual artists
that they've done. Since then, the Interior Appropriations Committee
has done, working with the NEA, some reforms. So we don't fund
individual artists. We fund what the intent is, I think, of the
National Endowment for the Arts, and that is to get the arts out to the
rest of America. If you're sometimes in a large city and that type of
thing, you have access to arts. But when you're in Salmon, Idaho, you
don't have access to the arts like they do in some of the other areas.
So one of the things I've been focused on in working with Chairman
Landesman is making sure the arts get out to rural America so that they
have an opportunity to see these art performances, whether they're the
visual arts or the performing arts or other things. But we need to get
them out to rural America. If you want to come to Boyce, Idaho, you
will have missed Boyce, Idaho, in the summer if you don't go to the
Idaho Shakespeare Festival, partly funded by a grant from the National
Endowment for the Arts.

{time} 2110

Yes, they raise private funds and have sponsorships and other things,
but part of their funding comes from the National Endowment for the
Arts.
Chairman Landesman was out in Idaho last spring, I guess it was, and
we toured around Idaho and looked at some of the arts programs, at the
local arts agencies that receive some funding from the NEA, and we
looked at the impact it had on their operations. We also went to Jerome
High School where the actors who did their performances in Boise City,
at the Idaho Shakespeare Festival, toured the schools and gave
performances to students. Then they sat there afterwards and talked
with the students about what it was to be in the performing arts--how
you get into it, what the pluses and minuses of it were, and other
things. They helped educate these students in these communities. It's a
very important thing.
There are a variety of very popular programs in this bill which are
popular on both sides of the aisle. The American Jazz Masters program,
the Heritage Fellowships, The Big Read program, and Shakespeare in
American Communities have their funding maintained, not at the previous
levels, but at a level so that they can maintain these very popular
programs. The chairman has introduced a new program that we're working
with him on--exactly how it would work and what it would be--called Our
Town, which is how the arts can help transform local communities and
other things through a grant program, so we've been working with him.
I will tell you that the arts are important, and I think having a
Federal investment in the arts is an important thing to have.
Mr. WALBERG. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I just want to make it clear because, as I've listened to the
opposition to this, it appears one didn't catch my train of thought.
I'm not saying that arts or the NEA is wrong. I'm saying it's time to
make priority decisions.
Certain priority decisions, as recently as November of 2010, fund
programs such as Fire in the Belly--I won't go into the full
description of it--and Hide and Seek, which can be considered
pornography and which was, in fact, portrayed as that in an exhibit.
Those are things that are priority decisions.
So I'm saying it is time, if we're funding those, to give the
taxpayer a break and say, if you want to attend those or support those,
do it through philanthropy or do it through initial sponsorships
themselves but not through the taxpayer.
Mr. SIMPSON. In reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's
concern. The Hide and Seek program, as the gentleman mentioned, was not
an NEA program. It was not funded by the NEA, and that was not part of
the NEA.
We have a tendency to think that anything that's done in this country
or in this State or in this community that is done in the name of arts
is done by the NEA. That's not the truth. So, when we attack them
because of Hide and Seek, that's just not an accurate statement.
Again, there have been times in the past when there have been
criticisms of the NEA, mainly because of the individual artist funding
that went on. The committee has addressed that, and they have made
reforms in working with the NEA to make sure that those types of things
are not funded in this bill and that we don't fund individual artists.
The main funding of the program is to get the arts out into the rural
communities. Like I said, the American Jazz Masters program and The Big
Read program are all vitally important programs that, I think, the
American people like and that, I think, Members on both sides of the
aisle like.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
Reed) having assumed the chair, Mr. Paulsen, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state 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.

____________________