Amendment Text: H.Amdt.715 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (07/25/2011)

This Amendment appears on page H5445 in the following article from the Congressional Record.


[Pages H5437-H5470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

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

[[Page H5438]]

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

                              {time}  1420

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

[[Page H5439]]

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

                              {time}  1430

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

[[Page H5440]]

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

                              {time}  1440

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

[[Page H5441]]

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

                              {time}  1450

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

[[Page H5442]]

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

                               H.R. 2584

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

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Simpson

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

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

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

[[Page H5443]]

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

                              {time}  1500

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

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

                       Bureau of Land Management

                   management of lands and resources

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

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

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

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

[[Page H5444]]

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

                              {time}  1510

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

[[Page H5445]]

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Huelskamp

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

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

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

                              {time}  1520

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

[[Page H5446]]

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

                              {time}  1530

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

[[Page H5447]]

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cleaver

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

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

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

                              {time}  1540

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


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

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

[[Page H5448]]

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

                              {time}  1550

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

[[Page H5449]]

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

                              {time}  1600

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

[[Page H5450]]

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

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

[[Page H5451]]

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

                              {time}  1610

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

                              {time}  1620

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

[[Page H5452]]

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

                              {time}  1630

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

[[Page H5453]]

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

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

                              {time}  1640

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

[[Page H5454]]

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

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

[[Page H5455]]

                              {time}  1650

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

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

[[Page H5456]]

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

                              {time}  1700

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

[[Page H5457]]

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

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

                              {time}  1710

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

[[Page H5458]]

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

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

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

[[Page H5459]]

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

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

                          List of Signatories


                         National Organizations

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


        State, Local, and Regional Nonprofits and Organizations

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

[[Page H5460]]

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


                      Industries and Associations

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

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

[[Page H5461]]

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

                              {time}  1720

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

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

[[Page H5462]]

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

                              {time}  1730

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

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

[[Page H5463]]

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

                              {time}  1740

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

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

[[Page H5464]]

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

                              {time}  1750

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Richmond

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

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

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

[[Page H5465]]

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Richmond

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

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

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

                              {time}  1800

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

[[Page H5466]]

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


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Hochul

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

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

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

                              {time}  1810


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 632]

                               AYES--175

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

[[Page H5467]]



                               NOES--237

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

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

                              {time}  1837

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Huelskamp

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 633]

                               AYES--126

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

                               NOES--284

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

                             NOT VOTING--22

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

[[Page H5468]]

                              {time}  1844

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cleaver

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 165, 
noes 248, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 634]

                               AYES--165

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

                               NOES--248

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

                             NOT VOTING--19

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1850

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Richmond

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 221, 
noes 192, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 635]

                               AYES--221

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

[[Page H5469]]


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

                               NOES--192

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

                             NOT VOTING--19

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1856

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


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Hochul

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 141, 
noes 271, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 636]

                               AYES--141

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

                               NOES--271

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

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

                              {time}  1903

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

[[Page H5470]]

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

                          ____________________