[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12190-12246]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.

[[Page 12191]]

  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
     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

[[Page 12192]]


     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
     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)

[[Page 12193]]


     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

  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 131, 
noes 294, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [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
     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

  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 137, 
noes 291, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [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

[[Page 12194]]


     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

  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 237, 
noes 189, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [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
     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

[[Page 12195]]


     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

  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 215, 
noes 213, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [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
     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.

[[Page 12196]]

  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. 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.
  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.

[[Page 12197]]



                              {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.
  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

[[Page 12198]]

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.
  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

[[Page 12199]]

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 
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

[[Page 12200]]

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.
       (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.

[[Page 12201]]

       (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. 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.
  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

[[Page 12202]]

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.

[[Page 12203]]



                              {time}  1510

  But apparently Fish and Wildlife think that they know where Highway 
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

[[Page 12204]]

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 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

[[Page 12205]]

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 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:


                     boemre reporting requirements

       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

[[Page 12206]]

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 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

[[Page 12207]]

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.
  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

[[Page 12208]]

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 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).

[[Page 12209]]

  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- 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.

[[Page 12210]]



                              {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 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.

[[Page 12211]]

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 
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.

[[Page 12212]]

  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?
  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.

[[Page 12213]]

  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.
  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 page 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.

[[Page 12214]]

  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 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

[[Page 12215]]

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.
       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)

[[Page 12216]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 12217]]


  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 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,

[[Page 12218]]

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.
  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

[[Page 12219]]

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. Chairman, 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.
  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

[[Page 12220]]

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, 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.

[[Page 12221]]

  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.
  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,

[[Page 12222]]

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.'' 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.

[[Page 12223]]

  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 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).

[[Page 12224]]

  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.''


                     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

[[Page 12225]]


     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)

                               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)

[[Page 12226]]


     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

  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 235, 
noes 191, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [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.
  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 193, 
noes 232, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 662]

                               AYES--193

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)

[[Page 12227]]


     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 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

[[Page 12228]]

     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

[[Page 12229]]

and thousands of applications every single day? When the trucks have 
been 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.

[[Page 12230]]

  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 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

[[Page 12231]]

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. 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.

[[Page 12232]]




                    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 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

[[Page 12233]]

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 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

[[Page 12234]]

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 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

[[Page 12235]]

     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, 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 amendment 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.

[[Page 12236]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 12237]]

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 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

[[Page 12238]]

     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: (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

[[Page 12239]]

     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 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

[[Page 12240]]

     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 
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

[[Page 12241]]

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.
  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

[[Page 12242]]

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 
     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

[[Page 12243]]

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.
  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

[[Page 12244]]

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.


                    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,

[[Page 12245]]

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.
  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

[[Page 12246]]

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.

                          ____________________