Recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month and celebrating the vast contributions of Hispanic Americans to the strength and culture of the United States.

I appreciate my colleagues yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my good friends, Chairman Norm Dicks and Mike Simpson, for a rather fabulous job of working together on this bill. While I am concerned about the volume of dollar increases, there is no doubt that this bill represents much of the most positive work on behalf of our country, especially the work of the EPA, I might mention. I want to say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) that you have reason to be proud of this bill. My wife tells me that she has gotten an inkling from your wife, Susie, that she is very proud of the work you have done here as well, and she welcomes you back home one of these days.

Anyway, moving right along, while I wish to suggest that the money allotted in this bill is more than adequate, I am very hopeful that in organizations like EPA that we will be able to not find ourselves just awash in funding and, thereby, begin to throw funding at programs. In the meantime, there is little doubt that there is plenty of work to be done. The Interior appropriations conference report is important, but it's only the fifth of 12 conference reports that we need to complete. We now find ourselves 29 days into the new fiscal year, and we have fewer than half of our bills done.

Sadly, the most important appropriations bills, the defense bill and the military construction and Veterans Affairs bills, are being put on the shelf, being held for a time and a purpose that causes us all to wonder. There is no better illustration of the misplaced priorities of this Democrat majority leadership than that fact. This leadership chose to send to the President the legislative branch bill for its first bill of the year. Imagine that. While the troops are awaiting our assistance and serious recognition of the challenges they face, the legislative branch bill was first sent to the President's desk--to make sure we've got enough money, I guess, to make sure they keep the lights on while we're talking to the public today. And what kind of a signal does that send to those who are in harm's way at this moment, protecting our freedom?

Mr. Speaker, what kind of signal are we sending, and what is our purpose for holding these bills on the shelf? The House passed the Defense appropriations bill. It contains critical funding for the men and women of our Armed Forces, including over 130,000 troops stationed in Iraq and over 60,000 troops currently in Afghanistan. The $128 billion provided for the U.S. warfighting efforts is essential to continue our mission overseas and to provide critical resources, as I have said. The defense bill is ready to go today, and it should be moving today. So Mr. Speaker, why the delay?

The military construction-Veterans Affairs bill is also essential. We have all talked about our commitment to our veterans. This legislation contains much-needed funds for military construction, family housing, pension payments for disabled veterans, widows and children, and the veterans medical care and treatment programs across the country. While the Senate has had

over 100 days to complete its work on this bill--that is the preliminary construction VA bill--this bill is still not in conference. Given the importance of each of these bills, why are they being delayed?

Well, reports have indicated that the Democratic leadership may use these bills to carry controversial legislation that could--at least they seem to think--could not be passed as stand-alone measures. What in the world does increasing the national debt limitation or the District of Columbia voting rights bill have to do with our national defense or providing for our veterans? Mr. Speaker, the House has wasted weeks and months on trivial legislative matters, as I have suggested. The Congress is setting a dangerous precedent by holding up these major pieces of legislation rather than acting in an expeditious way. Let's move forward quickly today, pass this bill. I intend to vote against it because of the dollar amounts. But in the meantime, I will listen with care to this discussion.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the gentleman a question, if I might, and I very much appreciate his responding to this line of questioning.

The gentleman knows that I worked with the EPA for literally decades, years ago, in writing that legislation which created the Air Quality Management District Act in southern California. They were extremely helpful as we did battle with the executives of our auto industry, as they thumbed their noses at us, as we tried to get them to improve the engines of our automobiles. The EPA was great to work with, so I am impressed by the increase in funding here for the EPA; but because of that, I can't help but ask a couple of questions.

Madam Speaker, I will continue this discussion, if you would not mind, with the chairman.

I mentioned the EPA. I worked with the EPA for years, particularly in the field of air quality, and I am a great admirer of their work. Within this legislation there is a very interesting line. It involves the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. I note that there is a 692 percent increase in that funding within this bill.

Now, frankly, the environment that involves the water of the Great Lakes deserves a lot of attention. I don't know just how much it really needs or can handle in a single year; but juxtaposed to that is a bit of language inserted in this bill, in the conference report, that was not in either bill that left the House or the Senate. That language specifically has an exemption for emissions coming from engines of ships doing business on the Great Lakes.

Especially because of my interest in air quality and because of the work that I've done to try to improve the American auto industry, it strikes me as ironic that we are not willing to really put pressure on including changes in emission requirements for those ships on the Great Lakes. There needs to be an explanation of this, and I would very much appreciate our understanding why we should allow these huge sulfur emissions, et cetera, to continue as they are in the Great Lakes Region.

That is the question I have. If the chairman would respond, I would appreciate it.

I appreciate my chairman yielding.

I must say I have worked with him many, many a year regarding EPA's work, particularly with the automobile circumstance. It took us years and years and years to get Detroit to even respond to this problem, the air quality problem in Southern California. It began to respond to improving engines once the Japanese produced a car that produced much better mileage.

There has been almost a revolution in Southern California. We have been successful with that in no small part because you have helped us raise that pressure, and I would suggest there is a need for pressure now on those who are using these engines that spew sulfur endlessly and are polluting the air in the Great Lakes.

I very much appreciate the exchange with my colleague.

I have a letter here from the American Lung Association that I would like to submit at this point in the Record, for it speaks to the very question you are asking here.

October 7, 2009.

Hon. Dianne Feinstein,

Chair, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related

Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Feinstein: We are writing to express our

strong opposition to any rider on the FY 2010 Interior and

Environment Appropriations Bill that will weaken, delay or

limit the ability of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency

to promulgate regulations that will reduce pollution from new

marine compression-ignition engines at or above 30 liters per

cylinder. Our organizations have long advocated for the

cleanup of these vessels because of the enormous impact they

have on air pollution.

EPA has conducted an extensive public process on marine

compression-ignition engines. This process includes a

November, 2007 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the

2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was announced on July

1, 2009 with public hearings in New York and Long Beach, CA

on August 4 and 6 respectively. The comment period closed on

September 28, 2009. All stakeholders have had ample

opportunity to participate in this rulemaking.

The need for these rules is urgent. EPA's analysis

estimates that the cleanup of these vessels will prevent up

to 33,000 premature deaths each year by 2030. Any delay will

postpone the health benefits. The impact of pollution from

these sources is not limited to communities surrounding the

ports but EPA's analysis shows that the impact is felt

hundreds of miles inland. We commend EPA for working to

address this problem through the pending regulations, but

also through the International Convention on the Prevention

of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI).

Chairman Feinstein, please oppose any rider that will

weaken, delay or limit the ability of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency to promulgate regulations that will reduce

pollution from new marine compression-ignition engines at or

above 30 liters per cylinder.

Sincerely,

American Lung Association.

Clean Air Watch.

National Association of Clean Air Agencies.

Natural Resources Defense Council.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

We are in the process of negotiating an international agreement regarding these huge engines that we are worried about. If we find ourselves as those negotiations are coming to a conclusion with an exemption laid out in the law for American vessels, it would seem to me, and I would ask you, don't you think it could put pressure in a negative way on our ability to establish those standards on those international carriers that are under consideration at this very moment?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Reclaiming my time for just a moment, I would read this first sentence from this letter addressed to Chairman Feinstein:

``We are writing to express our strong opposition to any rider in the Interior and Environment appropriations bill that with would weaken, delay or limit the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations that will reduce pollution from new marine compression-ignition engines at or above 30 letter per cylinder. Our organizations have long advocated for the cleanup of these vessels because of the enormous impact they have on air pollution.''

They are specifically expressing concern about these engines and the potential loss of life that results from not being able to successfully complete major change for the world of vessels.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I would like to just respond briefly by reading from a communique that came from a person that has been very actively involved in the air quality of the region for years and working specifically with the EPA addressing some of the health questions that somewhat were addressed by my chairman, Mr. Obey.

``The stakes for human health are enormous, huge, colossal. Weakening the domestic standards will have their own adverse effect, but it is crucial to recognize that doing so could also imperil International Maritime Organization's final consideration of the entire U.S. Emission Control Area application, which was favorably received by the IMO's Marine Environmental Protection Committee in June. The IMO is slated to make a final decision in March. Our nation will weaken the basis for its request that the IMO enable the most protective emissions standards under international law for foreign-flagged ships if we are including domestic vessels.''

So weakening standards for our vessels is going to threaten this effort internationally.

``As you know, the stakes for human health are profound--up to 14,000 premature deaths annually are to be prevented by 2020.''

It is very important that America speak with a strong and unified voice here. I think that the timing of this exemption itself is most unfortunate.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 876, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2996) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2996.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

It is my privilege and pleasure to present the fiscal year 2010 Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill to the House today. This very fine bill is the product of many hours of work, always with bipartisan input and excellent participation. I especially want to thank my friend and ranking member, Mr. Simpson, for the outstanding participation and cooperation he offered throughout this process.

I want to thank Chairman Obey for recognizing that the programs funded

through this bill have been chronically underfunded and for providing the allocation necessary to reverse that trend. From 2001 through 2008, when adjusted for inflation, the budget request for the Interior Department went down by 16 percent, the EPA went down by 29 percent, and the non-fire Forest Service accounts were down by a striking 35 percent. This bill invests taxpayers' dollars in our natural resources, and for this investment all Americans will see a great return.

This conference report also contains the continuing resolution which will keep the government running until December 18. It is vital that we pass the Interior conference report to avoid a shutdown of the Federal Government.

This agreement provides focused funding to protect the environment. Clean water and drinking water infrastructure receive $3.6 billion, enough to provide assistance for more than 1,500 communities throughout the Nation to improve public health and restore ecosystems. We include authority for subsidized assistance to those cities and towns that cannot afford conventional loans.

This agreement invests $641 million to restore major American lakes, estuaries, and bays. It fully funds the President's request of $475 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and makes significant investments to protect other great American bodies such as Puget Sound and the Chesapeake Bay.

To address global climate change, this bill provides $386 million for climate change adaptation and scientific study.

The agreement before us also represents a promising renewal in our Nation's trust responsibility for Native Americans. It provides a $654 million increase for health care, law enforcement, and education in Indian country for a total of $6.8 billion. The increases here will help these communities promote the health and safety of our Nation's ``First Americans.''

This agreement makes a major investment of $3.37 billion for Forest Service and Department of the Interior wildland fire activities, including the largest non-emergency increase ever for wildfire suppression. We also have included the FLAME Act, which reforms wildfire budgeting and will help create a steady and predictable funding stream for wildfire suppression. This agreement provides $90 million for the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation program to protect streams and water systems from damaged forest roads.

We have agreed to provide a $218 million increase for the National Park Service to invest in what Ken Burns has called ``America's Best Idea.'' The National Wildlife Refuge System gains a $40 million increase, to a level of $503 million, which will reduce critical staffing shortages, implement climate change strategies, and improve conservation efforts.

We have provided an increase of $82 million above 2009 for the cultural agencies supported by this bill. We recommend $167.5 million for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The endowments are vital for preserving and encouraging America's creative and cultural heritage. They are very important for education.

Finally, I want to thank the dedicated staff who have spent long hours over many months to prepare this bill. For the subcommittee staff, majority clerk Delia Scott, Chris Topik, Julie Falkner, Beth Houser, Melissa Squire, minority clerk David LesStrang and Darren Benjamin. And I also want to thank Pete Modaff and Ryan Shauers on my staff and Missy Small and Megan Milan on Mr. Simpson's staff. Additionally, I want to take note that we are losing Greg Knadle after 6 years of loyal service to the Appropriations Committee. We thank him for his work on the Interior Subcommittee and wish him the best in his new endeavors. I think we should give him a round of applause for his good work.

In closing, I am very proud of this bill. It funds programs that cover a wide range of issues: from our cultural and historic heritage to the water we drink and the air we breathe. These programs redeem our trust responsibilities for the First Americans, fight fires, protect public health, and conserve natural resources. The impact of this conference agreement stretches across the Nation and will make a difference to the well-being and the future of every citizen.

We should all be proud of this conference agreement and I urge the House to support it when the vote comes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, a person we worked very closely with on all aspects of the bill, my classmate and good friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the chairman of the Military Construction and VA Subcommittee, who I have enjoyed working with over the years and who is one of the best leaders we have in the House on military construction and VA matters. He has done a great job leading our subcommittee.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) who is also a classmate and someone who is known in the House of Representatives for his concern about Native Americans and his advocacy on their behalf.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Transportation and HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, also a very hardworking and conscientious member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman.

He was at every single hearing and was especially very helpful to all of us on the Native American issues.

As a Native American, we appreciate your contribution, and we thank you for your good work and for your participation. It made a big difference.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, again, on this question of how much is in this bill, I want to remind people that the Interior budget had been cut by 16 percent, the EPA budget by 29 percent, and the Forest Service budget by 35 percent. So the Obama administration made an increase here, but this is playing catchup. I mean these budgets have been really stressed over the last 7 or 8 years. We did good things on the Park Service, but many other agencies were cut, and because we didn't have the FLAME Act, we had to borrow money out of the trails and road repair and out of other things which are essential.

So I think this is just a catchup year, and I hope Members will take that into account as they make their decisions on how to vote. I hope that they will vote for this conference report, remembering that the CR is in this, and we don't want the government to come to a screeching halt on Saturday.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I just want to make it clear that what we tried to do in dealing with the Coburn amendment was to focus it on the very southern border, itself. We were concerned, that if it weren't focused on the fence area, it could overturn the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves Repatriation Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and many other laws. So we tried to focus this like a rifle shot.

I went out there myself to visit the border. I think the fence area is working pretty effectively, but I am concerned about the impact on other areas adjacent to the border.

So we have tribes there, and 700 miles of the border are part of Federal lands. This is a very significant problem, and we're taking it very seriously, and we want to make sure that Secretary Salazar and Secretary Napolitano work together.

I yield myself another 1 minute in order to yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished chairman of the full committee.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Moran of Virginia, who knows more about endocrine disruptors than any other Member.

I still have some speakers.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Holt from New Jersey, who is very concerned and one of our best environmental supporters in the House.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who has been a very hardworking Member and very concerned about the issues in this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

I again want to point out that over the last 8 years, Interior's budget has been cut by 16 percent. The EPA has been cut by 29 percent, and the Forest Service by 35 percent. This budget does provide a significant increase, but it's only catchup because these agencies have been severely damaged. The Forest Service has a huge backlog of work on infrastructure, on roads, on trails. The Park Service has billions of dollars of requirements. Christine Todd Whitman, the first EPA administrator under President Bush, said there is a $662 billion backlog on infrastructure for clean water and wastewater treatment in this country, which are fundamental to the health of the American people.

I am a little bit amazed to hear all this concern about the EPA when at the same time they are saying let's vote, give the EPA less money. That doesn't add up. That doesn't make sense. If you are concerned about the EPA, you need to know that they need those resources to do the enforcement work that's necessary.

This is an extraordinarily good bill. I have been on this committee for 33 years. This is the best Interior bill we have ever presented. The money here for Native Americans is long overdue. This is a catchup bill.

I urge the House to vote for it and to reject the negativity of the other side.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin my comments today by expressing my thanks to Chairman Dicks for the even-handed manner in which he has conducted the business of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee this year. While we may disagree about the need for a 17 percent increase in spending in this conference agreement, our work together has been a bipartisan, collaborative effort. While we certainly don't agree on every issue, when we do disagree, Chairman Dicks and I continue to work very well together.

Of the many things achieved by this legislation, I hope it will be remembered for the effort made to address the long-standing issue of adequately funding our country's fire suppression needs without bankrupting other non-fire accounts. From our hearings earlier this year, we know that almost 50 percent of the Forest Service budget is consumed by the costs of fighting wildfires. In past years, the Forest Service has had to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars from other accounts just to pay for fire suppression.

The President took positive steps this year by proposing a contingency reserve fund for fire suppression. The House and Senate also acted by approving the FLAME Act in each Chamber with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Working together, authorizers and appropriators have developed FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Funds, providing both the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service the additional tools they need to combat large, severe fire emergencies.

This conference report also provides needed attention to our Native American brothers and sisters. There are many unmet needs within Indian Country in education, health care, law enforcement, drug abuse prevention, and other areas, and this legislation does a great deal to address these issues. I thank Chairman Dicks for his attention to this important area of the budget.

However, while this conference agreement tackles many challenging issues, it also assumes that more money is the answer to every problem we face. I just don't believe that a $4.7 billion, or 17 percent, increase over last year makes sense. This additional spending comes on the heels of a 13 percent last year and an $11 billion infusion from the stimulus bill.

The Federal budget deficit is now a staggering $1.4 trillion, the highest deficit in history, and three times higher than that of the previous administration. Our current deficit is almost 10 percent of the gross domestic product, a level not witnessed since World War II. Remember, this is before Congress begins tackling the issue of health care, cap-and-trade, and other expensive pieces of legislation.

I believe a better approach would have been to create a balanced bill. This conference report provides a disproportionate level of funding to one agency, the EPA, and creates an imbalance that undermines what could be a very fine piece of legislation.

I question the need for a $10.2 million budget for EPA, a 35 percent increase from just last year. This is on top of the $7.2 billion the agency received in stimulus funding and the $7.6 billion it received in last year's Interior bill. Taken together, the EPA will receive more than $25 billion in this calendar year. That is about the size of the entire Interior and environment spending bill just 2 years ago.

This package also provides large increases in programs without having clearly defined goals or sufficient processes in place to measure results or the return on our investment. We are making rapid investments in water, climate change, renewable energy, and other areas, all of them worthy endeavors, but with relatively little planning and coordination across multiple agencies and the rest of government.

I look forward to receiving a detailed report from the administration on how and where climate change dollars are being spent, not just within this bill, but across all of government. Spending on climate change programs in this package alone has increased from $231

million in last year's budget to $382 million in this year's conference agreement. That is a 66 percent increase in 1 year.

As I said earlier, I have the highest regard for Chairman Dicks and look forward to continuing our work together. I would very much like to support this conference report, but regrettably, I cannot. The bottom line for me is that the conference agreement simply spends too much money.

In closing, I would like to thank both the majority and minority staff for their long hours and fine work in producing this conference report. On the majority side, this includes Delia Scott, Chris Topik, Julie Falkner, Greg Knadle, Beth Houser, Melissa Squire, Pete Modaff and Ryan Shauers. Of the minority staff, I'd like to thank my staff, Missy Small, Megan Milam, Kaylyn Bessey, and Lindsay Slater, as well as committee staffers, Darren Benjamin and Dave LesStrang.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), another member of the subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a valuable member of the Resources Committee, the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, might I inquire as to the amount of time remaining?

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Would the Speaker tell us how much time is remaining on each side?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I would inform the gentleman from Washington that I am ready to close whenever the gentleman is.

I will close. Again, I want to thank Chairman Dicks and the staff for the tremendous job they have done and the bipartisan way in which they have worked with us in trying to solve some problems.

Madam Speaker, I don't think there is anybody on this side of the aisle that actually disagrees with the various programs that are going on in this appropriations bill. The disagreement comes that we just believe it's too much money; a 17 percent increase on top of the $11 billion that was received during the stimulus package I think is too much, given these economic times and the hardship that is being felt by Americans all across this country.

I think that's where the main opposition comes. It's not about any particular program. We have done a tremendous job in a lot of different areas that I think all of us agree with. There are specifics that I think if I were king for a day would probably be a little different, and this bill would probably be a little different if you were king for a day.

We realize it's a compromise, and we try to work out those differences between both the majority and the minority and between the House and the Senate. I think Chairman Dicks has done an admirable job of doing that. In fact, I don't even disagree with the discussion that was going on here earlier about the Great Lakes shipping. I don't disagree with what Chairman Obey was trying to do here. I understand the impact that it would have on the economy in the Great Lakes and what is going on there.

All we ask oftentimes is that when we have those same types of issues relative to mining or timber or industries in our part of the country, that people will be sensitive to the impact that some of the regulations that are imposed by the EPA and other agencies are going to have on those, and we are only seen as trying to gut those regulations when, in fact, we are trying to do oftentimes the same thing that's being done here. I don't disagree with what you are trying to do, and I understand it. I support what you are trying to do.

While I would like to tell the chairman that I could support this bill, because I think we have done some good work here, unfortunately, I can't, just because of the spending level. I would encourage my Members to vote ``no'' on this appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 2996, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010.

This legislation provides a 17 percent increase over FY09 levels for critical programs that protect our public health and environment.

Among other provisions, the legislation provides $605 million for the Superfund program which will assist sites across the country clean up hazardous substances, including potentially the San Jacinto River Waste Pits site.

It also provides $3 million to fund four new centers of excellence to study toxin and chemical impacts on children.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to highlight two important projects I requested funding for in this bill, but unfortunately, did not receive mention in the final conference report.

The first is the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center to continue air quality public health research on air toxics in urban areas as directed by the. U.S. Congress. The Center is a 501(c)(3) institution authorized by Congress in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

The individual FY2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations bills approved by both the House and Senate included language recognizing the significant contributions made by the Center in the understanding of the human health effects due to exposure to air toxics. Further, the House legislation encouraged EPA to consider allocating funding for the Center in EPA's budget. The EPA has gone through a deliberative process during the past four months to review the qualifications and research contributions to-date made by the Center and as a result, has recommended that funding for the Center be included in the agency's FY2011 budget. Funding air toxics research through the Center is consistent with the congressional intent and supports the Administration's stated objective of expanding research and efforts to address the human health effects of air toxics.

I am concerned the final conference report did not reaffirm the importance of the Center's work to our country. Americans want to know whether they are at risk from pollutants in the air that they breathe. People who live near sources of air toxics such as major roadways, industrial facilities, or small businesses, are often especially concerned about their risk.

The Center is conducting The Houston Exposure to Air Toxics Study, HEATS, which is an ongoing project designed to study the relationship between personal exposures--the air

people breathe as they go about their daily activities--and fixed site monitored concentrations of air toxics by measuring personal, residential indoor, and outdoor concentrations.

Federal support for the Center is critical to ensure this research continues and I hope to continue working with the chairman, EPA, and OMB to get funding for this research in the budget as Congress intended when it created the Center.

We also sought funding funding for a 6-year Capital Improvement Project that will rehabilitate and upgrade the city of Baytown, Texas's wastewater and water infrastructure to comply with federal and state regulations, maintain its condition and reliability and save costs. The city has implemented an asset management program to assess equipment condition, optimize work practices and ensure funding remains in place to sustain infrastructure improvements over time.

The funding we requested under the State and Tribal Assistance Grant would help rehabilitate portions of the Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant to include elevation of redesign of critical components to reduce the storm surge impacts suffered during Hurricane Ike. These include the influent lift station, blower building, administration/ laboratory building, and grit removal process. The internal piping needs to be replaced to improve energy and operating efficiency, along with the chlorine contact basin and plant pumping/transfer systems. Installation of post-storm emergency power systems are also a part of this effort.

This is an important project to help Baytown recover from damage caused by Hurricane Ike, and overall to upgrade their wastewater system, and I look forward to working the Chair as we move forward to find assistance for this project.

I also want to express some reservation and guidance to EPA as it works to carry out a study in the bill ``on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information.''

I understand the concerns and desire to adequately protect the environment when developing our domestic resources. Hydraulic fracturing is a well-tested technology that has been used to develop energy for over 60 years.

First used in 1947, hydraulic fracturing has become a standard practice for improving the process of natural energy extraction. The practice involves the pumping of fluid into wells at high pressure to create fractures in rock formations that allow for complete production of oil. Hydraulic fracturing is responsible for about 30 percent of our domestic recoverable oil and natural gas. About 90 percent of currently operating wells use this technology. Hydraulic fracturing, as used to produce natural gas from shale formations, has created new opportunities for clean energy and employment without causing environmental damage.

Recent studies on fracturing conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2004 found no confirmed evidence of contamination of drinking water. The study concluded that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids poses ``little or no threat'' to humans or the environment, EPA. The EPA did not find a single incident of the contamination of drinking water wells by hydraulic fracturing fluid injection.

Just like EPA's prior study, the new study in H.R. 2996 should be conducted using a systematic, scientific approach that assures transparency, validity and accuracy. The study should be based on accepted quality assurance guidelines in order to ensure that the information on which the study is based is of sufficient quality to support the study's conclusions. It should be properly peer-reviewed by qualified experts in accordance with standard practices, and should also draw on the expertise of those both inside and outside the Federal Government who can contribute relevant information to a high quality study. These contributors should include the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey as well as the state regulators who have many years of experience with hydraulic fracturing. This study should eventually be made available for review and comment by interested members of the public prior to being finalized.

At the same time, since we have already studied hydraulic fracturing, it would be prudent for any proposed study to fully take into account other studies that have already been undertaken by Federal or State governmental agencies, councils, commissions or advisory committees. For example, given the significant effort associated with the Agency's prior 2004 study, it would certainly be prudent to fully consider this study in undertaking any further examination of hydraulic fracturing.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the study should be based on well-recognized principles of risk assessment to determine whether there is any realistic risk that individuals may be exposed to substances used in the hydraulic fracturing process at levels that could possibly be considered harmful.

Madam Speaker, I believe that a targeted study of hydraulic fracturing is the most efficient way to use our resources to accomplish the goals of this study. We need to continue to develop our domestic energy resources, including clean-burning natural gas. A focused approach to the study will allow us to address concerns about hydraulic fracturing while facilitating the continued use of this critical technology.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This bill will fund many vital activities over the coming year that protect our public lands and our environment and that support our cultural heritage and contribute to the vibrant artistic life of the Nation. This bill also will have a major impact on the future energy development for our country.

It is in the best interests of our Nation to become energy independent and to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. No country can remain a leading player in the community of nations if it must increasingly rely on other nations for one of the bedrock elements of its economy. We must do everything we can to effectively increase our domestic supplies of energy in the most responsible manner possible.

As we all know, there are many things that we can do to facilitate the production of domestic energy including tapping of vast resources of clean-burning fuels such as natural gas. According to recent reports, the United States now holds as much as 1,800 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, almost one-third of which is in shale reservoirs. This is perhaps equivalent to over 300 billion barrels of oil, more than even the energy reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Hydraulic fracturing is one key and very important technique to help us tap the potential of our domestic oil and gas resources. Since the first commercial hydraulic fracturing operation was conducted in 1948, the use of this technology has become routine and often essential in the production of oil and natural gas. In fact, over 95 percent of new wells in unconventional formations such as tight sands, shales and coalbeds are hydraulically fractured. Hydraulic fracturing has literally unlocked vast supplies of natural gas in our country and has allowed us to produce natural gas in areas where it was never before possible.

States have effectively regulated hydraulic fracturing for many years and are fully capable of continuing to do so without unnecessary federal oversight. The key state organizations with the most significant involvement in oil and gas regulation--the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC)--have both strongly reaffirmed the adequacy of state regulation of hydraulic fracturing. In fact, after analyzing the oil and gas regulations of 27 states, including the regulation of hydraulic fracturing by these states, the GWPC recently concluded that existing state oil and gas regulations were ``adequately designed to directly protect water resources.''

A number of studies have confirmed that these state regulatory programs are effective in protecting sources of drinking water. It was only a few years ago, in 2004, that EPA issued a report concerning its study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells on underground sources of drinking water. At the time EPA stated that its report was the most comprehensive study ever undertaken of hydraulic fracturing. The Agency concluded that hydraulic fracturing of CBM wells--which was thought to represent a worst case scenario since coalbeds tend to be shallower and therefore closer to drinking water aquifers than other types of formations such as shales--posed little to no risk to underground sources of drinking water. EPA also found that there were no confirmed instances in which hydraulic fracturing had contaminated a drinking water well, despite the fact that the technology had been in use for over 50 years and hundreds of thousands of wells had been hydraulically fractured during that time.

Since its publication some have sought to discredit this EPA report based largely on the allegations of a single EPA employee who disagreed with the methods by which the report was created. However, the study was and remains both valid and credible. In fact, since EPA issued the report state regulatory officials have reiterated on numerous occasions that they are aware of no instances in which hydraulic fracturing has contaminated drinking water supplies.

The evidence clearly indicates that there is no need for further study of hydraulic fracturing. Rather than spend additional resources, EPA's Office of Drinking Water should be addressing activities that actually pose a significant risk to drinking water supplies. Nevertheless, the conference report we are considering today calls for EPA to undertake another study of hydraulic fracturing.

Under these circumstances we must ensure that any further study is guided by some key, well-recognized principles. First and foremost, any new study should be conducted in a very comprehensive, scientific, credible and transparent manner. To achieve this goal, it would be extremely prudent for this study to be conducted in accordance with applicable Agency quality assurance guidance and should be guided by recognized principles of risk assessment that consider hazard assessment, exposure pathways, and exposure levels. This work also should be based on substantiated information that is developed in accordance with fundamental scientific protocols. This approach will allow EPA to conduct a high quality study that focuses on the actual risks to public health, if any, that hydraulic fracturing entails.

In addition, another key point is that this study should be based on a phased approach in order to conserve resources and to avoid undertaking investigative activities that are not warranted. As part of this approach, EPA should first review and consider any existing studies, particularly the studies by the Groundwater Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, who have already undertaken considerable efforts in this area, and other related information concerning hydraulic fracturing and its potential impacts and determine specific areas that might deserve further review.

In addition, the study should be conducted with the involvement of a variety of key participants. For example, the study should be conducted in consultation with the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey and should include the participation of key state regulatory officials as well as the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and the Ground Water Protection Council. Interested stakeholders should certainly be involved at key stages of the study, and the public should have an opportunity to comment on the proposed design of the study and should be allowed to review and comment on a draft of any study report. The study also should be subject to an appropriate peer review process consistent with standard Agency guidance.

Finally, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Any study by EPA should certainly take into account the Agency's prior 2004 study of hydraulic fracturing and the conclusions reached in that study. At the same time, the study should take into account the impacts of current state and federal regulatory programs covering hydraulic fracturing Finally, it might be prudent to give proper consideration to an appropriate role for the National Academy of Sciences, an independent body of distinguished experts, in developing the study.

Madam Speaker, I am confident that if EPA embraces these principles as it further studies hydraulic fracturing, this study will properly address this issue in the detail that it deserves. This approach will help us then move forward in developing our nation's energy resources in the most effective manner possible.