[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11875-11880]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2584, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
       ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 363 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 363

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for 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. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. Points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived. During consideration of the bill for further 
     amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill, as amended, back to the House with a 
     recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The amendment considered as adopted in the House 
     and in the Committee of the Whole is as follows: Strike 
     section 427.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 
5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides an open 
rule for the consideration of H.R. 2584. It allows any Member of the 
House to offer amendments which are germane and comply to the House 
rules. The rule allows priority recognition for the amendments that 
have been preprinted in the Congressional Record. I am pleased to 
support this resolution, which continues the record of our Rules 
Committee in this Congress of providing for as open and fair and 
orderly a process as possible.

                              {time}  1220

  I commend our chairman, Mr. Dreier, for continuing the record of 
fairness and openness in the formulation of this rule, which is in 
contrast to some rules that we have had in past years.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2584 provides $27.5 billion overall for programs 
within the Department of Interior and the Forest Service, Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service, and other agencies. But 
it is a bill that strikes a fiscally responsible balance between 
providing funds for ongoing Federal programs while also saving the 
taxpayers 7 percent over last year's enacted levels. It puts us back 
roughly to the 2009 levels.
  There are some who will claim that there are certain programs that 
have been hurt heavily. It is true, for example, that the Environmental 
Protection Agency has an 18 percent reduction in funding in this bill. 
Please remember, though, that this was made possible simply because of 
unprecedentedly high record appropriations for EPA in 2009, of which $3 
billion remains unobligated.
  In an era when 42 to 44 cents of every dollar that we spend goes for 
interest, it makes no sense in continuously overappropriating line 
items where money is not needed, not used, and sits there vacant.
  This is a bill that oftentimes for those of us who live in the West 
has been full of riders year after year after year. It probably makes 
no difference here, but I realize that some are going to be very 
sensitive to this issue. I know the gentlelady from New York is very 
concerned about these potential issues that may be on this bill. And 
why should she not be? If you include the military, 0.8 percent of New 
York is owned by the Federal Government. I will contrast that with my 
State, which has 64 percent owned by the Federal Government. And we're 
not the highest.
  This is an issue and a bill that is very important to those of us. 
And, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill; it is an extremely fair rule. It 
can't get any fairer than this one. I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Utah, my colleague, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in these tough times we must make choices that reflect 
our values and our belief that we solve our toughest problems through 
shared sacrifice and working together. Unfortunately, today we consider 
yet another bill that is devoid of these values.
  Once again, today's legislation places the burden on the American 
people while rewarding the special interests and the lobbyists who walk 
these halls.
  One of the many riders inserted into the bill will effectively open 
up a million acres of national forest and other public land around the 
Grand Canyon National Park because people want to mine uranium there.
  Democrats have great concerns about maintaining the integrity of the 
Grand Canyon and the effect of uranium mining on water quality, not to 
mention the spectacle that shows us auctioning off a national treasure 
with the proceeds going to mostly foreign-owned entities.
  Who is it that wants to drill for uranium and mine for uranium? 
Russia, their state atomic energy corporation, and South Korea's state-
owned utility. In other words, we will give up the Grand Canyon and 
potable water, likely, to benefit the Russians and South Koreans. And 
any mining that is included in this bill comes under a bill that was 
signed by Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. We have not raised royalties on 
anything that anybody takes from us, including foreign entities as they 
come here to mine our resources.
  At the same time, the majority proposes crippling cuts to the EPA 
that will cut programs that protect our air and water. There are few 
more important responsibilities in making sure when we go to the 
kitchen sink that the water coming out is safe. We know a human being 
may live as long as he or she may without food--four days without 
water. If our Nation can't protect these most basic of our life 
necessities, we have indeed fallen far.
  Today's bill would also prohibit the use of government moneys to add 
animals to the Endangered Species List but allows the use of government 
money to take species off the same list. This policy change threatens 
the Endangered Species Act and the environmental protections that come 
with it.

[[Page 11876]]

  The misguided priorities in this bill will directly impact my 
district, and my colleague is right about that, and the citizens I am 
elected to represent. But not just them.
  Twenty percent of the freshwater on this planet resides in the Great 
Lakes. Most of us who live around the Great Lakes believe it is our 
responsibility to take care of them and to pass it on to future 
generations. But in recent years, the Great Lakes have been damaged by 
pollution and invasive species carried on to our water by foreign 
vessels. We have allowed that.
  New York, of course, being closest to the Atlantic Ocean and the St. 
Lawrence Seaway, has enacted stronger laws against dumping ballast, and 
this bill punishes us for doing that.
  The invasive species are not damaging just an ecosystem but a way of 
life for the Great Lakes communities that line the shore, as well as 
endangering our freshwater. The EPA has come to the aid of these 
communities by dedicating funding to restore the Great Lakes. But 
today's bill would bar New York State from receiving any restoration 
funding from the EPA and leave the Great Lakes to be overrun by private 
polluters and the invasive species they have delivered from overseas.
  Any bill that stands up for foreign shipping magnates but won't 
provide a cent to help Americans should never see the light of day and 
will never receive my vote.
  Today's legislation also harms the arts. If today's bill takes 
effect, the National Endowment for the Arts will have lost 20 percent 
of its funding in 2 years. Now, these cuts target a program that works. 
In fiscal year 2010, we invested $167.5 million into the NEA--remember 
that number, $167.5--for the purpose of providing funding to non-profit 
arts organizations.
  The funding created $166.2 billion in total economic activity, 
supported 5.7 million jobs, and, for the $167 million, generated back 
$12.6 billion in tax revenue to the United States Treasury. And that 
does not count what happens to help improvements to States' treasuries 
and local treasuries.
  Today's legislation targets a program proven to create jobs and 
contribute to the economic and the cultural well-being of our Nation. 
You would think that people who are elected to the Congress of the 
United States would really want a program like that not only to survive 
but to grow. But, no, here they are cutting the budget once again.
  Our country is blessed with stunning natural beauty and a wealth of 
natural resources that are unparalleled anywhere in the world. But in 
one final swipe at our national interest, today's bill cuts the budget 
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by a whopping 78 percent. The 
Land and Water Conservation Fund ensures that our national treasures 
will be here for our children and our grandchildren, a mission that 
apparently deserves 78 percent less money than it did the year before. 
A cut like that says all you need to know about the priorities of the 
majority and the special interests that are being served.
  If getting our fiscal house in order is truly about shared 
sacrifices, this bill does not reflect it. We could have started by 
asking oil and gas companies to pay their fair share after profiting so 
richly from resources found on American soil. Instead, the majority 
rejected an amendment that would have asked oil and gas companies to 
pay a little more so the Nation can fund programs to clean up the most 
polluted lands in our country. The majority will not even allow this 
amendment to receive a vote on the floor.
  Today's bill asks nothing of the companies that are making record 
profits. Instead, cuts to programs and services and the agencies that 
serve the American people and protect our environment for future 
generations.
  Mr. Speaker, a bill like this does not reflect our values. It is not 
up to the standards the American people have come to expect and 
deserve. It puts special interests over our general welfare, and it 
fails totally to invest in our future. We can and we must do better.
  I am pleased to now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New York, 
the ranking Democrat on the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank my friend from New York for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. As 
every member of the Rules Committee knows, the Interior and Environment 
appropriations bill that we will debate today simply violates the rules 
of the House. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has waived all points 
of order against the bill, preventing Members from striking provisions 
that are clearly in violation of House rules.
  In particular, title V of the bill includes the Reducing Regulatory 
Burdens Act of 2011, H.R. 872, a bill that amends the Clean Water Act, 
which is solely within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee and the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member.
  Furthermore, the provision amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act, better known as FIFRA, that is under the 
jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee.
  As we all know, advancing authorizing legislation within an 
appropriations vehicle is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Appropriations, and it stands in stark contrast to clause 2(b) of 
rule XXI of the House rules, which states, in part, ``A provision 
changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriation 
bill''; and yet that is precisely what title V is: a change in existing 
law.
  Not only is the inclusion of title V in the underlying bill a 
violation of House rules, but it is also legislatively redundant. The 
House has already passed H.R. 872 earlier this year under suspension of 
the rules. The bill is now being considered in the Senate, where it has 
been reported out of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
  In my opinion, including H.R. 872 in the Interior appropriations bill 
will hamper negotiations between Senators and between the House and the 
Senate to get a final bill that everyone can be disappointed with--
frankly, that's what's at stake here--but that can pass both Chambers 
and be enacted into law before the court-ordered deadline of October 
31, 2011. Let me say that again: There is a court-ordered deadline of 
October 31, 2011, to resolve this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be offering an amendment to strike title V when 
it comes up during debate this week. However, I am deeply disappointed 
that the Rules Committee has blatantly ignored the rules of the House 
by eliminating the ability of Members to raise a point of order against 
provisions of an appropriations bill that changes existing law.
  There are approximately 39 policy riders included in the Interior 
appropriations bill. And let's be clear: These are policy earmarks, and 
these earmarks undermine the jurisdiction of authorizing committees and 
undermine the ability of the House and the Senate to work its will. It 
is unfortunate that the Rules Committee is protecting these new 
earmarks from the rules of the House.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We find that this particular bill is a great illustration of one of 
the problems that we have here in the House of Representatives and, 
indeed, with government. Our land policy in the United States is one 
historically that had no purpose or organization to it. It simply 
happened. But what happened happened disproportionately throughout this 
country, which is why 1 out of every 3 acres in America is now owned by 
the Federal Government.
  I defy anyone on that side to find for any a constitutional provision 
that would allow that ownership; but, nonetheless, it is.
  The unfortunate thing is it is disproportionate. One out of every 2 
acres in the West is owned by the Federal Government. That means 52 
percent of the area west of Denver is owned by the Federal Government. 
Four percent of the area east of Denver is owned by

[[Page 11877]]

the Federal Government, much of that in military installations.
  As I said, the State of New York has 0.3 percent of its land owned by 
the Federal Government, 0.8 percent if you include military. The State 
of Virginia has 8 percent owned by the Federal Government, almost all 
military. The gentleman from Massachusetts, who will be here as well, 
1.1 percent of his State is owned by the Federal Government.
  And so it means different issues for my State, which is 65 percent 
owned by the Federal Government; Alaska; Nevada, which is almost 90 
percent owned by the Federal Government; Idaho, which is over 60 
percent owned by the Federal Government. Things take place differently.
  That's why, for example, things like the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund is a nice fund if it were used to preserve what we already have. 
Unfortunately, that fund is used to buy more territory, with an 
administration decision and mindset that no land should ever be given 
back or given up; more should be accumulated. That's why it's the 
ability of this appropriations bill to try to put that money--not 
simply to cut it, but to move it into preservation as opposed to access 
to buying more land, which makes sense to us in the West because we 
recognize this heavy-handed tyranny that takes place.
  Let me just give you one simple example that was brought up here that 
deals with uranium mining in Arizona, one of the so-called ``riders'' 
in this particular appropriations bill. It takes place in what is 
called the Arizona Strip, which has led some people to mistakenly think 
that we were going to be strip mining around the Grand Canyon.
  The Arizona Strip is the size of the State of New Jersey. That is the 
area between Utah and the Colorado River. In that area in 1984, Morris 
Udall, who was at the time the chairman of the Resources Committee here 
in the House, created a wilderness compromise in which a wilderness 
area was to be created in the State of Arizona. In that, 56 percent of 
the State of Arizona was put off limits to any kind of mining endeavors 
whatsoever. In exchange, certain areas were put specifically for those 
types of mining areas, including areas in the Arizona Strip, this New 
Jersey-sized piece of the State of Arizona. The unfortunate thing is it 
was always intended to be used there for mining purposes because there 
is a great deal of uranium ore there.
  Unlike other kinds of mining, this ore is found in little pipes, 
strips within the ground that go up and down. And what you need to do 
is simply bore into the pipe, find the ore in the middle, take it out, 
and then replace all the stuff back in. So once you are done with that 
mine, no one ever sees that it was there in the first place. The ore 
that is taken out is not left in Arizona. It's actually going to be 
shipped for processing somewhere else. So there will be no tailings. 
There will be no wind pollution. There will be no dust issues 
whatsoever.
  Certain special interest groups said, well, it could change the water 
quality that goes through Colorado and then would eventually flow to 
Las Vegas and do something strange in Las Vegas, as if that were ever 
possible. Unfortunately, as stated by the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality, their mines and mining groups, there have been 
certain interest groups that have inferred, with no substantive 
supporting data, that groundwater in this particular area of the 
Colorado River may be contaminated by uranium mining. That simply won't 
happen, and it won't happen because of where the ore is. The ore is 
found 100 feet below the surface. There is only 12 inches of rain a 
year there. There is no particular kind of any runoff that will take 
place. It is also found 1,000 feet above the aquifer with clay 
underneath, so there is no way there can be any kind of leaching that 
goes into the aquifer.
  The bottom line is there will never, never be any kind of 
contamination on this water, which was the excuse used to justify a 
political reason for taking this land that had been part of the '84 
agreement off the table, and it could not be used again.
  Unfortunately, the EPA gets involved in this one again because they 
have determined that if the uranium--or whatever they call the 
uranium--gets into the water and it's more than 30 parts per billion, 
that's unsafe. Unfortunately, there are uranium pipes within the Grand 
Canyon itself which already erode into the water, and it creates a 
situation where, naturally occurring, there are 4 parts per billion. So 
they did some testing at existing mines up in the Kanab Creek area to 
find out what would happen if actually some of this uranium were to 
leach into the water, and it would increase that 4 number to 6 parts 
per billion.
  In essence, what they are saying is: You could take all of the 
tailings that could come from these potential mines and dump them into 
the Colorado River, and you still would not reach the level set by the 
EPA for drinking water. In fact, the uranium that naturally occurs in 
the Colorado River, even if you had a catastrophe, is still lower than 
uranium levels found in freshwater lakes in the desert area.
  Now, why isn't all that considered? Because the decision to withdraw 
that area from mining was not based on science. If it were based on 
science, then the Department of Environmental Quality of Arizona would 
not have testified that there was no scientific basis for it. The State 
of Arizona would not have passed a piece of legislation decrying the 
withdrawal of that particular area. The guy who was actually part of 
the National Parks Conservation Association as well as the Audubon 
Society and the Save the Redwoods League, who was actually the one that 
did the scientific study in '84 when the original design by Mo Udall 
was made, simply said there was no legitimate evidence to say there 
could be any contamination of that air, which basically means the 
withdrawal of this land was done for political purposes, not scientific 
purposes.
  So to put a provision back into this bill saying that if you're going 
to do this kind of stuff, it had darn well better be on a scientific 
basis and not a political basis makes sense. It's one of the right 
things to do in here.

                              {time}  1240

  I realize we have some other speakers here; so I'm not going to take 
all the time yet, but I would desperately like to talk about the clean 
water provisions, the navigable water provisions and what EPA does with 
those because it has a different impact on those of us in the West, 
where almost all of our land is controlled by them, versus those in the 
East, where almost no land is controlled by them and they have a great 
deal of freedom to develop the resources on their own.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond for a minute 
before I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  I have, from the Las Vegas Sun of July 22, an article saying that the 
previous allowing of uranium mining has caused great damage. This 
watershed gives water to 26 million people and provides 90 percent of 
the water used in southern Nevada.
  Let me quote from the paper:
  ``As it is, the Colorado River is already endangered by the uranium 
mines''--which the gentleman talked about has not hurt anybody at all--
``that sit in the watershed, some perilously close to the water. The 
moratorium also doesn't prevent existing mining claims from being 
developed. The Interior Department says there are about 3,500 claims in 
the area. Adding the potential for more uranium to enter the water 
doesn't make sense. Republicans in Congress should quit trying to 
repeal the moratorium and should instead work to protect the Grand 
Canyon and the Colorado River. It makes no sense to put millions of 
people's drinking water at risk.''
  I will put that in the Record, if I may, and a New York Times 
editorial of June 28, ``Mining and the Canyon.'' Absolute harm is being 
done.

[[Page 11878]]



                [From the Las Vegas Sun, June 22, 2011]

 Republicans Should Quit Trying to Roll Back Uranium Mining Moratorium

       Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in June issued a six-month 
     moratorium on new uranium mining claims on 1 million acres 
     near the Grand Canyon. The ban provides time for the 
     government to complete a study of the effects of uranium 
     mining in the area.
       A final report is due this fall, and Salazar said the 
     department is considering banning new mining claims in the 
     area for the next 20 years.
       The issue is important. Uranium mining threatens not only 
     the beauty and ecosystem of the Grand Canyon, but it also 
     poses a threat to the Colorado River, which is a key source 
     of water for about 26 million people in Arizona, Nevada and 
     California. The Colorado River, which forms Lake Mead, 
     provides 90 percent of the water used in Southern Nevada.
       Salazar cited a concern for water quality in announcing the 
     moratorium extension because the 1 million acres are in the 
     Colorado River watershed. Water officials worry that more 
     uranium mines could result in radioactive material streaming 
     into the river.
       The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River need to be 
     protected. The moratorium on new claims was put in place 
     because of an incredible spike in mining interest in the area 
     under the George W. Bush administration. The Grand Canyon 
     doesn't need to see any more mining around it.
       Environmental groups and Colorado River water users cheered 
     Salazar's decision, but in Congress, Salazar's announcement 
     was targeted by some Republicans who claimed it was a bad 
     policy.
       In a news release issued this month, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-
     Ariz., boasted about inserting a provision to block the 
     administration from enforcing the moratorium in the spending 
     bill that covers the Interior Department. The bill passed the 
     House Appropriations Committee this month. Flake claimed that 
     mining ``can create jobs and stimulate the economy in 
     Northern Arizona.''
       But Flake's argument is shameless. He is using the nation's 
     poor economy as an excuse to force a dangerous policy on the 
     country.
       Flake's argument is part of the larger Republican attempt 
     to roll back any sort of regulation. In passing the interior 
     spending bill from his committee, Appropriations Chairman Hal 
     Rogers complained about what he called the administration's 
     ``widespread regulatory overreach'' and pledged to cut it.
       But when it comes to clean water, Congress shouldn't be 
     cutting back. People need to be confident their water supply 
     is protected, and if the Republican plan moves forward, there 
     will be serious doubt.
       As it is, the Colorado River is already endangered by 
     uranium mines and tailing piles that sit in the watershed, 
     some perilously close to the water. The moratorium also 
     doesn't prevent existing mining claims from being developed. 
     The Interior Department says there are about 3,500 hard-rock 
     mining claims in the area. Adding the potential for more 
     uranium to enter the water doesn't make sense.
       Republicans in Congress should quit trying to repeal the 
     moratorium and should instead work to protect the Grand 
     Canyon and the Colorado River. It makes no sense to put 
     millions of people's drinking water at risk.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, June 28, 2011]

                         Mining and the Canyon

       The Obama administration has extended for six months a 2009 
     moratorium on new uranium mining claims on one million acres 
     around the Grand Canyon. This is good news; even better is 
     the promise from Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, that he 
     will soon recommend a 20-year ban on new claims in the 
     region. That is the maximum allowed under the 1872 mining 
     law.
       With uranium prices rising, the number of mining claims 
     have jumped sharply over the last few years. There have been 
     about 3,500 claims in the Grand Canyon-area alone. If 
     developed, they would generate toxic wastes that would 
     threaten the Colorado River--the source of drinking water for 
     roughly 27 million people--the aquifer and the Grand Canyon 
     ecosystem in general.
       Mr. Salazar said he could not cancel valid existing claims, 
     but there is likely to be little actual mining. The decision 
     to ``withdraw'' the land from future claims creates new 
     regulatory hurdles for existing claimants, who must 
     demonstrate, among other things, that they had discovered 
     actual mineral deposits before the 2009 moratorium. Only a 
     handful have been able to do so.
       There have been the usual complaints from mining lobbyists 
     and their Congressional allies. Representative Jeff Flake, a 
     Republican from Arizona, has threatened to use the interior 
     appropriations bill to block Mr. Salazar's plan. The 
     moratorium will have little effect on the country's uranium 
     supply, most of which comes from Wyoming and New Mexico.
       It will protect a treasured national park and the drinking 
     water for millions of people.

  I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the ranking member, the gentlelady from 
New York, for yielding me the time.
  I rise today to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have two children, ages 13 and 10, and one of our 
favorite things to do as a family is to go hiking. We have hiked all 
over this great country. We have a love and a respect for our open 
spaces and for our environment. Unfortunately, the Republicans' fiscal 
year 2012 Interior appropriations bill throws that into grave danger.
  This Interior appropriations bill represents an unprecedented 
departure from our Nation's decades-long bipartisan commitment to 
protecting our shared environment, magnificent natural resources and 
our cherished cultural treasures. It's a shame that my Republican 
colleagues prioritize tax breaks and incentives for highly profitable 
oil companies over the Grand Canyon, the Cape Cod National Seashore, 
State parks, and even public health.
  Mr. Speaker, I could be here all day talking about the harmful cuts 
and misplaced priorities that are included in this bill: from the more 
than 25 policy riders that do not belong in an appropriations bill, 
that do everything from gutting the Endangered Species Act to allowing 
uranium drilling by foreign companies alongside the Grand Canyon, to 
the harsh cuts in EPA funding that will result in millions of Americans 
being exposed to dirtier air and dirtier water.
  I give my Republican colleagues credit. They have left no stone 
unturned in their environmental assault. Unfortunately, though, that 
stone will be covered in toxic algae, coal ash, and polluted water if 
they have their way.
  One of the most egregious cuts in this bill is to the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been one of 
the greatest conservation success stories over the past 50 years, 
protecting thousands and thousands of acres of land at the Federal and 
State levels. States rely on this funding and demonstrate their 
commitment to its value by providing matching funding for State park 
and recreational purposes. Not only that, but the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has a dedicated source of funding derived from oil 
and gas leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf and is authorized to 
accumulate $900 million annually from its dedicated sources. 
Nonetheless, my Republican friends forget all of this and still slash 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund funding by 78 percent from the 
current fiscal year. This represents the lowest level of funding in the 
45-year history of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. What's most 
troubling is that, in the committee report, my Republican colleagues 
acknowledge the enormous value of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
but then go right ahead and decimate its budget.
  The bill also cuts clean water and safe drinking water grant programs 
by nearly 40 percent, threatening Americans' ability to access clean 
water and adding to the already significant backlog of safe drinking 
water infrastructure projects.
  Look, I know it's politically popular to demonize the EPA right now, 
and at times I've had my own strong disagreements with the EPA on 
certain issues, but this Interior appropriations bill is not the way to 
meaningfully address any of those disagreements. This bill puts the 
priorities of special interests and scoring cheap political points over 
public health and our natural resources. It's as simple as that.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize that these are tough budgetary times, but what 
troubles me about the Republicans' approach to this appropriations 
process is that so many of their cuts are aimed at programs that will 
lower the standard of living and lessen the quality of life for a 
majority of Americans. This appropriations process should be about 
lifting people up, not putting people down, and it should be about a 
decent respect for our environment, and certainly a respect for our 
environment over corporate special interests.
  When we talk about protecting our environment, we're talking about 
quality of life issues that impact every single person in this country. 
This bill undermines our historic bipartisan commitment to our 
environment.

[[Page 11879]]

  I would urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am once again appreciative that data from 
newspaper articles were put into the Record, because the newspapers 
have a tendency of quoting one another and also quoting environmental 
groups. Unfortunately, the data still says the same thing from those 
who know, the scientific community, that actually knows what they're 
talking about, who said:
  ``A few environmental groups claim, without providing any scientific 
supporting data, that the groundwater in the Colorado would be 
contaminated with uranium mining. We conclude that even the most 
implausible accident would increase the amount of uranium in the 
Colorado River by an amount that is undetectable over those that occur 
there normally.''
  Another said: ``I continue to view such activities as posing no 
credible threat of environmental harm to either the Grand Canyon 
National Park or the Colorado River that flows through it. I can see no 
credible justification for a 1.1 million-acre withdrawal from mineral 
entry of lands to the north and south of the park.''
  Another said: ``It is important to note that the research conducted 
by the United States Geological Survey and the preliminary findings by 
the University of Arizona confirm uranium exploration and mining pose 
no threat to the Grand Canyon watershed or the park.''
  This is the study. This is the scientific data. It would be nice if, 
for once, we used this data instead of quoting one another and quoting 
things that have no basis in science.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Benishek), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and final passage 
of the bill. In a time when government is borrowing over 40 cents for 
every dollar it spends, this bill makes needed cuts and puts forward a 
responsible and sensible framework for managing our Nation's natural 
resources.
  I represent a vast district in northern Michigan that includes 
Federal forests, national parks, and three Great Lakes. I am 
particularly pleased that the committee included language to boost and 
streamline timber harvests in Federal forests, similar to legislation 
that I introduced earlier this year.
  Right now on the Federal forests, for them to plan a timber harvest 
takes nearly 8 years to complete a harvest, from the beginning of the 
attempt to sell a parcel of land for timber and the actual harvesting; 
whereas, certified sustainable State forests take less than 2 years and 
certified sustainable county forests take a year.
  Basically it comes down to jobs in my district. We have a lot of 
Federal land in northern Michigan, and people in my district depend on 
the timber industry for jobs. Every little town has a mill, a flooring 
mill. Jobs, high-paying jobs, and the frustration that comes from 
having a forest full of timber and being unable to harvest it because 
of onerous regulations and rules result in a less healthy forest and 
less jobs for northern Michigan.
  We have a long way to go to responsibly harvest timber in northern 
Michigan and elsewhere in this country, but I believe this is a good 
start, and I am certainly looking forward to working with this 
committee in the future to continue to promote jobs in northern 
Michigan.

                              {time}  1250

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds before yielding 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  We're always being told what's junk science in here, but I will tell 
you right now, I really think that the science is very strong, and 
thank goodness there's a moratorium on this mining around the Grand 
Canyon.
  I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who will make it very clear.
  Mr. MARKEY. This spending bill represents one of the most egregious 
assaults on our Nation's environment in the history of our country. If 
this bill were to pass, our air will be smoggier. Our climate will be 
hotter. Our water will be more polluted. Our public lands will become 
more despoiled.
  Simply put, this legislation is so toxic, H.R. 2584 is so toxic, that 
you'd better handle it wearing a hazmat suit because there are so many 
future environmental crimes committed against the environment in our 
country that you have to handle this bill with extreme care.
  The actual title of this bill is Interior Environment and Related 
Agencies Appropriations for 2012. But it could be called the Have the 
Republicans Been Outside Act.
  It's hot, ladies and gentlemen. It is hot. The world is warming. All 
of the evidence has been pointing in this direction for decades, and 
people are living it on a daily basis.
  It's appropriate that this bill starts with the word ``interior,'' 
because only the House Republicans who have been cooped up inside for 
weeks debating whether to crater our economy could possibly ignore 
what's going on outside in our natural environment.
  The weather forecasters said we were trapped under a heat dome last 
week. Well, the Republican majority, under this Capitol dome, would 
commit us to even more dangerous heat if this bill passes.
  And believe it or not, this bill bans the Environmental Protection 
Agency from increasing the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which 
we drive in our country, which will basically put the brakes on the 
all-electric vehicle, plug-in hybrid revolution.
  Now, I know that's what the auto industry wants. I know that's what 
the oil industry wants. They don't want to see cars become more and 
more efficient so we don't have to consume all that oil so that we can 
tell OPEC we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand.
  But in this bill, they actually ban the EPA from improving the fuel 
economy standards of the vehicles that we drive, and they ban all 50 
States from improving the efficiency of the vehicles that we drive.
  And how else could you explain that this bill would increase smog and 
dirty air days if you didn't have the House Republicans living in their 
own world?
  When families are planning their summer trips to explore our national 
parks, how else could you explain a bill that allows for mining of 
nuclear fuel uranium near Grand Canyon National Park?
  Under this bill, when families go to enjoy the sunset across the 
canyon, it won't just be the sun that's causing the glow, but the 
radiation as well from the uranium mining.
  And when Americans are canceling vacations because they can't pay for 
gas, how else can you explain a bill that would tell auto companies to 
stop making more fuel-efficient cars and trucks?
  If you live in an air conditioned mansion with an indoor pool and you 
have your bottled water delivered, then this bill makes perfect sense 
to you, especially if you also work for the oil, coal mining, or 
chemical industries. For those industries, this bill represents their 
summer vacation from regulation. For the rest of us, it is a one-way 
ticket to a dirtier environment for the United States of America.
  House Republicans have a tough time raising the debt ceiling, but 
with this bill they are proving to have no reservations when it comes 
to raising the death ceiling with more pollution in our air, in our 
water, making us less healthy, making us more likely to be able to 
contract diseases that we would not otherwise.
  It is bad enough that the House Republicans want to take Medicare 
away from grandma, but now they want to make the air she and her 
grandkids breathe and the water they drink more polluted. This bill 
would cause more premature deaths, more asthma, more harm to children 
from toxins like mercury.
  Yes, they don't want to lift the debt ceiling, but they will be 
lifting the death ceiling because of the exposure to all of these 
chemicals, all of these pollutants.
  Vote ``no'' on the Republican appropriations bill.

[[Page 11880]]


  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I know that what we do here on the 
floor is often riveting drama for those who are watching on television. 
Let me, in some respects, not try to add to that drama and go back to 
facts, something we don't necessarily like around here.
  We've already talked about this so-called uranium issue showing 
facts. The chart that we just saw from the gentleman from Massachusetts 
was an interesting chart. The area of the United States that was 
colored on that chart is the area that there are those in this 
administration, indeed, on this floor, want to be owned by the Federal 
Government here.
  Let me talk to you just a moment--and I'll even grant some time to 
the gentlelady from New York if she could actually answer this one--and 
talk about what some of these issues do to those of us who live under 
what Nelson Rockefeller called the ``deadening hand of bureaucracy'' 
because, once again, in the East you don't have to deal with these 
situations; in the West we do.
  Let me talk about simply the Environmental Protection Agency and some 
of the brilliant things they do in the name of trying to clean up our 
water and our air and make life more livable for us. One of the suburbs 
of my community--and I call it a suburb simply because my community 
only has, what, 18,000 people in it; so I like calling it a suburb--has 
no rivers, no creeks, no streams, no anything. It does have irrigation 
ditches. Starting at the top of the mountain, the irrigation water 
flows down so it covers all the fields, as normally you would want to 
do.
  We passed legislation for the Clean Water Act allowing the Federal 
Government, especially the EPA, to come in and monitor water that is 
navigable water systems on interstate commerce. The Great Salt Lake in 
Utah is all confined in the State of Utah. There are no outlets. That's 
why it's salty. There is nothing more intra-navigable than the Great 
Salt Lake.
  But because in the 1880s some of the pioneers used to ship sheep over 
there for summer grazing on the islands in the Great Salt Lake, it is 
now part of the interstate commerce system and part of the navigable 
water system of the United States, therefore controllable by the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Now, let's see what they did in my particular community. In this 
community where there were irrigation ditches, the overflow from the 
irrigation ditches ran down, and the Environmental Protection Agency 
said the runoff from those irrigation ditches would eventually go into 
the Great Salt Lake; therefore, that runoff from a ditch was part of 
the navigable water systems of the United States and controllable as 
wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency, even though that 
irrigation runoff to get to the Great Salt Lake would actually have to 
run down the mountain, through a culvert for the city road, through one 
for the train tracks, through one that was the side road of the 
freeway, through the northbound freeway, through the barrel pit, 
through the southbound freeway, through another one of the adjacent 
roads to the southbound freeway, up a 3 percent grade to an area that 
had been previously determined to be not wetlands area, and eventually 
into the Bear River system which was stopped from going to the Great 
Salt Lake by the Bear River Bird Refuge.

                              {time}  1300

  They claim that could happen. And because of that, the water from the 
irrigation system was navigable waters of the United States and the 
Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over it, which 
meant that the citizens of that community could not expand their sewer 
system. Instead, they had to take money out of their pockets to ship 
their sewage either to Brigham City or Willard because the 
Environmental Protection Agency now controlled the navigable waters 
because we gave them the power to do that under the Clean Water Act.
  One of the things I am talking about here and one of the frustrations 
we have illustrated by this bill is, unfortunately, time after time 
these agencies funded in this bill do not consider what they do to real 
people. Real people in my community are being harmed time after time by 
decisions made from bureaucrats sitting here in Washington, and then we 
wonder why we rail against these environmental groups, why we rail 
against these agencies, and why we don't want to have some kind of 
control over this process. And the only vehicle we seem to have is the 
appropriation bill.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is used to buy more land to get 
more control; if it were not, we would not complain about it. The EPA 
is used to get more control over people's lives, and they hurt people 
in the process. If it were not so, we would not complain about it. The 
withdrawing of uranium mining on the Arizona strip was done, despite 
all the scientific testimony, for political reasons. Were it not done 
so, we would not complain about it.
  This is a decent bill, which moves us a step forward to try to 
control our spending habit, dealing with what is really the core issue 
and core responsibility of our agencies and trying not to harm people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May 
I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. May I inquire how much time actually remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 11 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. To the gentlelady from New York, I have a 
brilliant 11-minute speech welling within my bosom; but if you are 
willing to close, I will be willing to close as well.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank you for that, and I am willing to close.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just close with this: I think we have 
demonstrated that this bill contains an astonishing array of 
devastating cuts and special interest riders that jeopardize the water 
we drink, the air we breathe, and our country's national heritage.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I think we've also proven in this 
bill that we are moving in the right direction to try to control the 
excesses that continuously take place here and still maintain the core 
responsibilities that have to be there, and we have done it in a rule 
that is adamantly fair. It is an open rule that will allow anyone to 
bring anything down here to the floor until we do a UC agreement that 
stops it. It is a good rule, and I urge adoption of that particular 
rule.
  In closing, I will once again reiterate the fairness of this open 
rule. I urge its adoption, and I urge the adoption of the underlying 
legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________