Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany 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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 876 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only, Madam Speaker.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 876.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 876 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. The resolution waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The resolution provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Finally, the resolution provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motion, except for 1 hour of debate and one motion to recommit, if applicable.

This conference report makes available the necessary resources for the

Federal Government to protect our Nation's precious natural resources. It also provides to ensure clean and safe drinking water, to perform critical restoration work, and help Native American communities meet their needs.

It will help communities and public lands by focusing on five priority areas: water infrastructure and environmental protection; fire fighting and fuels reduction on Federal land; bolstering our public land management agencies; protecting public lands through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and helping the most vulnerable Native American populations. Together, these priorities and their attendant policies provide for effective Federal stewardship of our environmental and cultural treasures while also improving the lives of all Americans who depend on these resources for their health and well-being.

Madam Speaker, it's worth noting some of the critical investments that the underlying legislation makes in essential programs and agencies.

The Environmental Protection Agency receives over $10 billion to restore and protect the quality of our Nation's air, water and land, including over $3.5 billion to help nearly 1,500 communities improve their drinking water and wastewater systems. Improving our Nation's water quality will have a direct and positive impact on overall public health, making this funding crucial to the bettering of the lives of all Americans. The EPA is also provided with increased funding to protect important bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes, San Francisco Bay, and the Chesapeake Bay, as well as significant funding to clean up dangerous toxic waste sites around the country.

Important climate change programs are also funded in this legislation, including money to implement the Energy Independence and Security Act, which will help the United States produce 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Thousands of communities and millions of individual consumers will be able to receive assistance from the EPA to lower their emissions and adopt green technologies.

Native American and Native Alaskan programs receive hundreds of millions in increased funding from previous years, with an emphasis on supporting both federally and tribally operated health care programs, as well as bolstering law enforcement, education, and economic development programs throughout the country.

Recognizing the need for a dedicated, steady and predictable funding stream for wildfire suppression and firefighting activities, this legislation includes the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009. In light of recent increases in the length, severity and exponential cost of wildfire seasons, the FLAME Act includes a number of budgetary reforms to ensure that government agencies and local communities will have the necessary resources to handle large and complex fire events.

It is also worth noting that this legislation funds the Smithsonian to the appropriate level of support for the world's largest museum and research complex right here in our Nation's Capital. Here in Washington, we see the fruits of these efforts every day up and down the National Mall, as do our constituents when they visit us, and I am particularly pleased with the inclusion of $20 million for planning and design of the new National Museum of African American History and Culture, which will be built on the Mall.

Madam Speaker, this legislation also includes the continuing resolution to fund government operations through December 18. Although we completed our appropriations work during the summer, this resolution is needed to allow our good friends in the other body, the Senate, more time to complete their work.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to address this report's provisions regarding Guantanamo Bay. I spoke on this matter when I managed the rule for the conference report on Homeland Security Appropriations 2 weeks ago. This body seems fit to include language on Guantanamo Bay in every appropriations measure that comes before us. I appreciate that many of our colleagues have objections to the various aspects involved in closing the detention facilities at Guantanamo, which President Obama has promised to do by January of 2010. But as I have maintained before, the problem is the policy, not the place.

The debate over Guantanamo, in my opinion, is missing the larger picture, and that is the need to reform our entire detainment policy. Without a system of justice to deal with suspected terrorists wherever they are held, we are left with a broken system that has tarnished our image abroad and is used as a recruitment tool by al Qaeda and other groups which threaten our security. We need to deny them that image of America.

We need a judicial process that accomplishes three things: one, protects our national security by holding and prosecuting those who have committed crimes or who pose a threat to our country; two, upholds international standards of human rights by ensuring decent treatment and access to basic rights and resources; and three, strengthens our Nation's image as a country that upholds the rule of law. We must not resort to arbitrary justice, even while under threat. There is no reason why these three things cannot be accomplished, nor is there a reason to believe that American courts cannot deal judiciously with individuals suspected of criminal wrongdoing or acts of terrorism.

The appropriations season has so far brought forth a number of bills, almost all with language relating to Guantanamo. At some point, we're going to need to move beyond legislating this matter into appropriations bills and, instead, establish new policies and guidelines to bring our national security needs in line with our historic national values. This matter cannot be left only to the executive branch or the judiciary. Congress makes laws.

We have to put aside political posturing and ``gotcha'' on Guantanamo Bay and ``not in my backyard'' and, instead, work together to reform a broken system. To that end, I am pleased to have introduced H.R. 3728, the Detainment Reform Act, which I believe will move us forward on this matter. I urge my colleagues in this body to support this effort. And I might add, I have no pride of authorship. What I am talking about is trying to get past where we are in this ``not in my backyard'' and deal with the needed policy that will deal with people who will do harm to this country, whether they're in Guantanamo or Bagram or Leavenworth or wherever they may be held.

Ultimately, Madam Speaker, the conference report before us today provides the necessary funding to carry on our Nation's critical environmental protection efforts to ensure that all Americans will have access to clean water and safe communities.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before yielding to my good friend, the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Mr. Dicks, I want to make a couple of points segueing off of my colleague's comments, those of my good friend Mr. Dreier regarding the continuing resolution.

He and I have been in this back-and-forth process for a very long time. One thing I know that my good friend

knows is that the continuing resolution is necessary to keep the government operating until we're able to complete the appropriations process. It must be passed this week and including it in the Interior conference report is just the most expedient way to get it to the President's desk. It will merely ensure that government programs remain funded through December 18 while we move quickly to fulfill our congressional responsibilities to provide funding for the rest of the fiscal year.

In the meantime, the continuing resolution in this conference report is basically a clean CR with the addition of several vital programs to ensure that people do not lose their housing, so that people have mortgage origination, so that the market remains stable, and so that small businesses are able to get loans in this period of economic turmoil.

One of the most important responsibilities of Congress is to keep the government running efficiently and effectively. Even under the best of circumstances--and I've seen it now for coming up on 19 years--and with cooperation on both sides of the aisle, the annual appropriations process is a cumbersome and time-consuming process that must be completed with a relatively short lifetime.

Now, while I agree with my colleague from San Dimas--he's not on the floor. He is, but he's busy--his staff will tell him that we have, as he put it, a supermajority in the Democratic Party. We have the White House; we have the House of Representatives; and we have 60 votes, ostensibly, in the United States Senate. That is a good thing but I was here when the Republicans had the exact same thing and had control of both Houses. What they did not have was the 60 votes.

Now, what I want to make clear here for the American people so that we can get past this discussion, talking about 60 votes is not what is needed. You really don't need but 50 because the Vice President probably would vote with his party. Some would advocate that we do this measure this way because 67 percent, it seems, of the American public want us to move on the health care provision.

All things considered, what my colleague knows and what all of us in the House of Representatives know at every level is that the Senate is the other body, and each one of those Senators is an entity unto him- or herself. I refer to them as junior Presidents. They have enormous power. They have enormous independence, and it does not matter what party they're in when they are about the business of legislating what they want done. That's why the process has slowed down, not because of a majority. It has been slowed down forever, since I've been here--all of that time--for the reason that there is the other body that has their rules, their regulations, arcane though they may be, which make it difficult for us to do our business.

The House can pass stuff. The Senate has difficulty getting agreements to get to the numbers that are necessary to get past filibusters and the numbers to get the different things that each Senator wants for herself or himself in the measure.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, to one who has no peer in this body on the understanding of the Interior, the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Mr. Dicks from the State of Washington.

(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, by funding the EPA, the Department of the Interior, the Forest

Service and other related agencies, the conference report provides the resources necessary to protect the environment and our natural resources. The attached continuing resolution ensures that the government will continue to function through December 18th.

The increases in this bill over previous years are essential to maintain and improve current programs and activities, bettering the lives of all Americans and their communities.

As I discussed before, I hope that this body will move beyond the debate over whether or not to close Guantanamo and, instead, work to develop comprehensive detainment policies that uphold the Constitution, human rights and the rule of law.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I want to begin my extending my appreciation to my friend from Fort Lauderdale and thank him for his very thoughtful and powerful statement that he has just delivered to us.

Madam Speaker, for the second time this fall, we're considering a continuing resolution to keep the Federal Government operating as the Democratic majority fails to complete action on Federal spending for the new fiscal year. Continuing resolutions are not new. Congress has frequently, under both political parties, taken the action of having a continuing resolution to avert a government shutdown while the difficult appropriations process is finalized.

What makes this particular series of continuing resolutions so significant--and I say again, we're on the second one so far--is that it exposes this year's unprecedented--and I underscore unprecedented-- closed appropriations process for what it really is. It's an utterly hollow excuse, a hollow excuse because never before in the history of the Republic have we had the appropriations process shut down, as has been the case through this past summer.

Time and again, the Democratic leadership told us during the summer that they had no choice but to shut down the debate on the spending appropriations process because they had a

schedule to keep. In fact, they very solemnly spoke of the inviolable September 30, end of the fiscal year, and that we had to have the appropriations work completed by that September 30 date. There simply was no time for us to debate appropriations bills, no time for accountability or for the kind of scrutiny that has gone on under both political parties throughout the appropriations process. They were on a timetable and they just had to stick to it, regardless of the precedents and traditions that would be abandoned. In fact, Madam Speaker, as we all know, they were abandoned.

So what did the expediency bring about? Well, they completed one- twelfth of their appropriations work by that hard, fast, inviolable September 30 deadline. It's worth pointing out that the single appropriations bill that they managed to get done on time was, what? Congress' own funding bill.

The bill that funds the Congress was the only appropriations bill that's been completed. Not national security, not the very, very important issues, not the important issues that are addressed in this bill, I will acknowledge.

In fact, I thank my good friends Messrs. Dicks and Simpson. We had a lengthy discussion upstairs in the Rules Committee yesterday on the importance of the FLAME Act. Especially as a Representative from the Los Angeles area, we have gone through the worst fire in the history of Los Angeles County, the Station Fire, the loss of two firefighters, Ted Hall and Arnie Quinones, whom we continue to honor in southern California, and we've had other fires since the Station Fire. So the FLAME Act is a very important part of this measure, and I appreciate that.

We could have done this bill before we did Congress' own spending bill. So having taken care of their own funding needs, Madam Speaker, the Democratic majority turned to the rest of the country's priorities, and they gave themselves another month to finish the work.

Now the new deadline is rapidly approaching. Over the last month, we have inched forward, and we've completed three more appropriations bills. With the first extension about to expire, this Congress has now completed one-third of its appropriations duty--our constitutional responsibility. Remember, again, we had that inviolable September 30, end of the fiscal year, deadline we had to meet, and here we sit, approaching the 1st of November, and we've completed one-third of our appropriations work.

The underlying conference report that Mr. Dicks and Mr. Simpson are bringing forward here actually grants another extension. It's an extension to take us all the way to December 18. Now, despite the Democratic majority's penchant for making excuses, there are really no plausible excuses left.

Madam Speaker, I know that often the finger is pointed down this hallway to the other side of the Capitol, to our colleagues there. There are 60 votes that the Democratic majority has over there. We have the White House, as we all know, in the control of Democrats and a huge majority here in the House of Representatives. The majority is so ironclad that even their supporters are complaining about their lack of progress and empty excuses. We are hearing that from supporters of the Democratic majority.

In fact, the former staff member who was a Democratic strategist, David Sirota, told Congress Daily last week: Democrats decried their lack of 60 votes in the Senate as a campaign tactic between 2006 and 2008 as the reason why they couldn't get anything done.

Again, the fact that they didn't have 60 votes in the Senate was the reason that nothing could get accomplished and that things couldn't get done.

Well, Mr. Sirota, the Democratic strategist, goes on to say they got the 60 votes. He says: Mathematically, there are no excuses left. There are no excuses left.

Those are the words of the Democratic strategist, Mr. Sirota. Yet, Madam Speaker, here we are passing another continuing resolution because the Democratic supermajority still can't get the work done.

Again, these extensions are far from unprecedented. I know the continuing resolutions have taken place again under both political parties. What is unprecedented is the fact that an open debate of the Federal budget was completely abandoned for a deadline that has proven to be utterly meaningless.

We all have to acknowledge, Democrats and Republicans alike, that that September 30 deadline was utterly meaningless, and we were told constantly, having that calendar held up before us in the Rules Committee and here on the House floor, that it was absolutely essential that we meet that September 30 deadline. It was nothing more than a pretense for shutting out amendments for both Democrats and Republicans.

That's why, Madam Speaker, I argue that this is not a partisan statement because there were just as many, if not more, Democrats who were denied an opportunity to amend appropriations bills as Republicans. Rank-and-file Members of both parties were completely shut out and were refused the opportunity to freely offer their amendments to have a debate and to have an up-or-down vote.

That kind of open process had been the custom, as I say, for 220 years. An open amendment process is something that we all, again, under both political parties, were used to. Unfortunately, those days are now behind us. For what reason? So that we can end up right where we always are--passing a string of continuing resolutions.

The need for scrutiny of the majority's spending practices became clearer than ever with the announcement of the $1.4 trillion deficit. Even the continuing resolution that we're considering today includes a number of last-minute additions that further diminish the accountability of Federal spending.

For example, there is a provision that extends funding for organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are the very organizations that very heavily contributed to our current economic crisis, and those are extended until the end of next year. This is a very curious provision. The continuing resolution, itself, only goes, as I said, Madam Speaker, to December 18; yet this controversial funding provision is extended until after next year's election. It's very, very curious.

Another provision in the underlying measure provides a bailout for local housing authorities that intentionally issued vouchers that they could not afford. These agencies clearly believed that they could act with impunity because the Democratic majority would just bail them out. Clearly, Madam Speaker, they were right.

It is these kinds of practices that have driven up our deficit to unmanageable proportions and have destroyed public trust in this institution, and they are precisely why we need an open appropriations process. The American people want us to meet our priorities, but they also want us to rein in spending. Unfortunately, closing down that appropriations process denied Members the opportunity to scrutinize and then to, we hope, put together the votes to rein in spending.

The American people, Madam Speaker, have been deprived of their voice in this process, and they were promised timely action. Unfortunately, it just has not happened. With today's consideration of yet another continuing resolution, it's painfully clear that the American people have gotten neither the quick action that they were promised nor the accountability that they deserve.

So, again, I will say that there are items within the Interior Appropriations conference report that I support. I am concerned about the 17 percent spending increase that is there; but in light of the issue that I've raised and the fact that we've had an appropriations process that has been shut down for the first time in the history of our Republic, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to vote ``no'' on the previous question as well.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just close by responding first not to the very thoughtful remarks given by the subcommittee chairman. He didn't quite focus totally on the rule. We talked about everything from Watergate to California fires, and I appreciate his fine work there.

But I will say that as we look at the remarks that were offered by my friend from Fort Lauderdale at the outset, in which he talked about the 60 vote number that exists in the Senate and where we are, there are a couple of differences. We never had the 60 votes in the Senate, number one; and number two, we did not shut down the appropriations process, Madam Speaker. And that is what has happened throughout the past summer.

The American people had their ire raised on a procedural issue for the first time ever on June 26 of this year when early that morning, at 3 o'clock, while the motion was being offered in the Rules Committee to bring a special rule to the floor to consider the so-called cap-and- trade bill, my friend Mr. McGovern was offering the motion, and I had a 300-page amendment dropped on my place at that moment. People have said: read the bill, deliberate, think about the process. That message is resonating across the country. That did not happen with this appropriations process.

Unfortunately, on consideration of this measure, we are having a continuation of that because one of the waivers provided in this rule is for the 72-hour layover, the 3-day layover requirement, which the American people believe we should have.

I am going to ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the previous question so we will be able to make in order the very thoughtful bipartisan effort launched by Messrs. Baird, Culberson and Walden that will, in fact, require the 3-day layover for measures as they move to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment, along with the explanatory material, appear in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

First of all, I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida for his extraordinary summary of this legislation. I have been on this subcommittee for 33 years. It's the only subcommittee that I've been on and for which I've served throughout my entire career in the House, and I want him to know that we have not forgotten the great State of Florida in this legislation.

Madam Speaker, we have funded major restoration projects. One is the Great Lakes, where the President requested $475 million. There's $475 million in this bill for Great Lakes restoration. One of the other major projects is the Everglades. We're working hard to restore the Everglades--I think this is a national treasure--the Sea of Grass--and all of those wildlife species in Florida which need to be protected. There is the Chesapeake Bay restoration. The administration has put a new EPA official in charge there. They're taking more dramatic steps in the Great Lakes. Also, for the first time, we're recognizing that there are some great national treasures on the west coast--Puget Sound and Hood Canal where I come from. The Pacific Ocean has difficulties and problems related to ocean acidification and climate change, and it has other difficulties due to dissolved oxygen. We have a major restoration project going for Puget Sound. The San Francisco Bay is also another national asset that we need to protect.

So all of these major environmental concerns, these five major restoration initiatives, are critical in our bill.

I also want to tell my colleagues that I've served on this committee for 33 years. I served on this committee with Congressman Yates from Illinois. I believe this is the best Interior Appropriations bill we've ever passed.

Now, I know my good friend from California mentioned the fact that there was a 17 percent increase this year in this bill. Let me explain why that was necessary.

First of all, between 2001 and 2008, the Interior Appropriations bill--this was, by the way, during the previous administration--was cut by 16 percent. So, when you add 17 percent, it's a 1 percent increase. That's not very much. When you divide that over 9 years, it's just a fraction.

The other thing I'd point out is that the EPA budget over that same time frame of 2001-2008 was cut by 29 percent. This is the most important environmental agency we have, and their budget had been drastically cut. There was a cut of the Forest Service, if you take fire out, of 35 percent.

This appropriations bill had been hammered, and funding for our Native Americans had been particularly hard hit. So I felt this was a restoration budget by the Obama administration. This is their first budget on Interior, and I think it was justified in every sense of the word.

Let me go through some of the major items which are so important to the American people.

First of all, the Environmental Protection Agency: $10.3 billion, $2.7 billion above 2009, to restore and protect the quality of our Nation's air, water and land.

I want to mention the clean water and wastewater treatment plants, the so-called revolving funds. We had $3.6 billion to help nearly 1,500 communities improve their drinking water and wastewater systems, an increase of $2 billion above 2009.

EPA estimates, listen to this, a $662 billion construction backlog by 2019 for clean and safe drinking water infrastructure. Between our clean water and safe water infrastructure, if you took that and all of our highway projects, you would have well over $1 trillion in backlog. So infrastructure in America needs to be fixed. This $662 billion figure came from Christine Todd Whitman, the first EPA Administrator during the Bush administration. So this is a number that I don't think anyone can challenge.

Now, on this important infrastructure money, $2.1 billion is for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to fund local sewer improvements and help communities meet the goals of the Clean Water Act.

$1.38 billion for the Local Water State Revolving Fund to protect public health by improving drinking water systems. It has been proven that one of the most important steps in protecting the health of the American people and people around the world is having safe drinking water. This is a 99.9 percent issue with the American people. They care about safe drinking water, and this revolving fund gives money back to the States and the States then loan it out.

$157 million for direct grants to States for clean drinking water. That is way too low. I am talking with Mr. Oberstar about this. We need to have more grant money to help rural communities, local communities, who can't afford to borrow the money. Now, we put a provision in this bill this year that 30 percent of it can be forgiven. That has never been in there until the stimulus package came through. This is critical to rural areas throughout

the country so that it can be more of a grant program.

I talked to my good friend, Bill Ruckelshaus, a good Republican from Indiana, twice former Administrator of EPA. He also stood up during the Saturday night massacre and refused to fire Archibald Cox, to his great credit. He is now living in Washington State. He reminds me that during the Nixon administration, we had $4 billion to $5 billion in grant money to go out to the local communities on an 80-20 basis. Now, think about that. That was in the 1970s, $4 billion to $5 billion. That has been taken away, and now we have just a tiny amount of grants and everything else is loans. If we are going to really do something about this infrastructure issue, we have got to deal with that.

I mentioned the great bodies of water. That is something I am very proud of, especially the effort on Puget Sound.

Hazardous waste and toxic site cleanup, $1.5 billion, $25 million above 2009, to clean up dangerous toxic waste sites around the Nation.

Climate change, one of the most important issues of our time, $385 million, $155 million above 2009, for programs that address global climate change.

We have all heard about the Energy Star program, and now we have a program that we helped create for local communities to have their own climate change program; $17 million to continue development of a greenhouse gas registry, the first step in controlling greenhouse gases; $55 million for the Interior Department's on-the-ground monitoring and adaptation to climate change impact in national parks, national wildlife refuges, and other public lands.

There is no question in my mind that climate change is occurring. We have had hearings and we brought in the Federal agencies, including people from Florida, who are very concerned about the impact of global warming. Global warming could be devastating to the Everglades and to the State of Florida. If the seas rise, because they have so many low level areas there, they would be adversely affected. So this is a serious issue that has to be confronted.

We also created a National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center at the U.S. Geological Survey, and we are working together with the administration on that issue.

Most importantly, our trust responsibility for Native Americans and Alaska Native programs, $6.7 billion, $705.7 million above 2009 and $91 million above the request, for programs to support and improve health care, education, public safety, and human services for Native Americans and Alaskan Natives throughout our Nation.

On the Indian Health Service, a program that has been underfunded for many, many years, $4.1 billion, $17.8 million above the request and $471.3 million above 2009, to support both Federal and tribally operated national health care programs and facilities.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, $2.6 billion--$2.3 million above 2009 and $82 million above the request--for education, law enforcement, and economic development programs that will strengthen native communities.

I brought back the hearing where we allow the Native Americans to come in and testify, which was ended under the previous regime. We put that back in place so we can hear of the concerns out there.

There are very serious problems in Indian country, none more serious than the law enforcement difficulties there, including the fact that Native American women are more often the victims of rape and other violent crimes and there is only a 1-year penalty under our Federal court system. This is intolerable. We have to change this, and this is something we are working on.

I know this is something my friend from California is concerned about, $3.5 billion for efforts to prevent and fight wildfires at the Forest Service and the Department of Interior. We know the people of California have suffered some terrible fires out there, and I know that Mr. Dreier and Mr. Lewis have been very concerned about that. There is $1.855 billion for wildfire suppression, $526 million above 2009.

We got the FLAME Act created. We actually did the work in our conference committee with the Senate. We think this is a great FLAME Act that will give us extra money when we overrun our accounts. This is so important, because in the past money would be taken from the Forest Service accounts, from the Interior accounts, and they would never get that money paid back, in most instances. So this FLAME Act will give us a second account to help when we have these major fires.

I want to point out, as my ranking member pointed out yesterday in the Rules Committee, 98 percent of the fires are stopped: 98 percent. But the 2 percent, the mega-fires that get underway, do this enormous damage to our national parks, to our Forest Service lands, to our BLM lands, and we need very serious funding to help that.

The parks are better off, wildlife refuges are better off, the endowments for the arts and humanities are better off.

Yes, I will yield to my friend for a second.

Yes, we will be glad to discuss that. But this is the rule, as you know.

I appreciate the gentleman alerting us to his concern.

This is a great rule, a great bill. It is bipartisan. We do everything in my subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Simpson has been just a delight to work with, and the Republican members have been at every hearing. We couldn't have better members on our subcommittee on both sides of the aisle.