Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the very distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee.

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

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, the minority would respectfully request of the majority that such colloquies, including the one that just transpired, as well as future ones, be shared with the minority. They are meant to be a clarification of language and funding in the bill. And they may very well prompt actions on our part to strike language if we don't fully understand what the intent was, and that may very well apply to the delisting of wolves. So we would appreciate, when the majority engages in colloquies, sharing that language with the minority.

Would the gentleman like to respond? I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Good. So we would like a copy of the colloquy that just transpired.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member of the Financial Services Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an extraordinary champion of the environment.

Mr. Chairman, the reality is that this is a bad bill. There may be some good people who have been involved in putting it together. I like the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, but the fact is that this would severely restrict our government's ability to improve the quality of our air and water. It would substantially cut programs that, I think, many of the American people take for granted. Our environment will be despoiled by this bill if it becomes enacted, so I would strongly urge that this body vote against it.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, as I noted previously, there are a lot of winners and losers in H.R. 2584.

Two of the winners are the oil and gas companies and the cattle grazers who use our publicly owned land. One of the losers is Indians who need Sanitation Facilities.

My amendment would do two things. First, it decreases funding from the increase in the bill for the BLM's oil and gas and grazing management programs. Second, the amendment would restore the Indian Sanitation Facilities Program by what it was cut below the current spending level. I find it ironic that the majority refused to allow the administration to collect an inspection

fee from the oil and gas industry but had no problem in providing more taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

The oil and gas industry gets about $4 billion in subsidies per year. Likewise cattle ranchers get about $400 million in subsidies per year by paying their ridiculously low fee of $1.35 per month per cow while States charge so much more. Texas, for example, charges $65 to $150 per cow per month to graze on State-owned lands, but the Federal Government charges only $1.35. Well, in this bill, they would see an increase in taxpayer resources devoted to grazing management from $75 million to $90 million, a 20 percent increase. Why not ask them to at least pay the cost of administering their grazing subsidy?

If our national budget is truly about shared sacrifice, how about starting with the oil and gas companies that have profited so handsomely from the resources owned by the American public and from ranchers whose use of the public lands is heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer.

The second part of my amendment provides an additional $18.6 million for the Indian Sanitation Facilities Program. It would simply restore funding to last year's level.

At the end of fiscal year 2010, there were about 230,000 Native American homes in need of sanitation facilities including 34,000 homes without running water. According to the Indian Health Service, Native Americans in these homes are at extremely high risk for gastrointestinal disease and respiratory disease at rates similar to Third World countries. Additionally, the Indian Health Service has noted that many of these homes without services are very remote with limited access to health care, which increases the importance of improving environmental conditions in these homes.

The least we can do is to provide the same level of funding that was provided this current year to the Indian Sanitation Facilities Program, which is an integral component of the Indian Health Services disease prevention activities.

I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, again, the chairman suggested that there were no special interests. Well, this disproves that. There are special interests. Oil and gas companies already getting subsidies from the American taxpayer of about $4 billion a year, they get increases in this bill. We're simply asking them to pay a little more towards the Federal Government's cost of managing the fees that they should be paying.

Just a little bit more, we're asking them to pay. And we're also asking the ranchers who, again, get special interest subsidies of about $400 million in this bill, more money for the ranchers, more subsidy, more subsidy for the oil and gas companies; and yet at the same time, we cut the money that would provide sanitation facilities for 230,000 Native American homes in need, and 34,000 of those homes are without even potable water. They are the losers. Oil and gas companies and the grazers are the winners in this bill. That's why I would urge support for the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts every environmental, conservation, and cultural program across the bill, totaling $3 billion in cuts, and then puts those funds in the spending reduction account.

The funding in the bill is already grossly inadequate, and this amendment would cut the bill by more than

10 percent. The amendment zeroes out U.S. Fish and Wildlife construction by cutting $12 million. It zeroes out U.S. Fish and Wildlife land acquisition by cutting $15 million. It zeroes out Forest Service land acquisition. It zeroes out the National Endowment for the Arts. It zeroes out the National Endowment for the Humanities. It cuts State and local water infrastructure by $770 million, 30 percent, even though the infrastructure needs across this country, as Mr. Dicks has stated, is $688 billion.

This amendment goes on to cut the National Park Service, the Office of the Secretary, Wildland Fire Management, EPA Science and Technology, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Mr. Chairman, we should all oppose these draconian cuts. They don't make sense. I don't think the gentleman proposing them necessarily knows what the full impact would be. I suspect, though, that if his constituents, let alone the American people, knew what was being attempted, they would agree with me that this amendment should be soundly defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I support the distinguished gentleman from Missouri. Mr. Cleaver's amendment would add a modest $3 million to the Environmental Protection Agency for the Urban Waters Initiative, which the subcommittee refused to fund.

EPA and the Department of the Interior announced the first pilot demonstrations of this program last month. They included Baltimore's Patapsco watershed, the Anacostia watershed in the District of Columbia and Maryland, the Bronx and Harlem River watersheds in New York, the South Platte River in Denver, the Los Angeles River watershed, the Lake Pontchartrain area in New Orleans, and the northwest Indiana area, all areas in drastic need of attention.

The subcommittee report chides EPA for reprioritizing funds to begin the program in fiscal year 2011 without the express approval of the committee. But my friends on the other side should know that when you fund the government under a continuing resolution, the agency has more flexibility. If we don't want EPA or any other agency to decide how to prioritize funding, then we should pass real bills. And, frankly, they did exactly the right thing in moving forward with this Urban Waters Initiative--that's where the need is.

Furthermore, denying funds to urban watersheds--where a majority of our population lives--because of a dislike for all things EPA does is simply unfair to these urban communities.

On a bipartisan basis, we have worked together to provide needed funding for rural water programs. We agree that should be a priority, but we should also show the same level of commitment for the Urban Waters Initiative.

This program will also capitalize on work being done through EPA's broader geographic programs, such as Chesapeake Bay and Lake Pontchartrain. These are two very critical water bodies that are endangered. I don't think I need to get into the extent of the endangerment for Chesapeake Bay and certainly not Lake Pontchartrain. Imagine, just think back to what happened in New Orleans just a few years ago. This offset is from the management account of the Bureau of Land Management, which is adequately funded in the bill.

So I really do support this amendment, and I would urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington State.

I very much thank the distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, at the beginning of the year, the House did away with the composting program that had been part of the Green the Capitol Initiative. It has been a success. People around the country were watching it and in fact following the example that we set. But at the beginning of the year, as I say, the House of Representatives instituted the use of polystyrene containers instead of clean, biodegradable material.

My amendment would limit the use of funds made available by this Legislative Branch appropriations bill to obtain polystyrene products in our food service facilities. We should show our commitment to the health of our visitors and our employees and to the future of our environment. We should lead by example. That's the program that we had in place until this January.

The House should be using recyclable and biodegradable products and should be avoiding polystyrene foam packaging. We should be a model institution for others to follow. As the gentleman from Vermont said, over 20 years ago, McDonalds and other fast food restaurants replaced polystyrene foam with recyclable and paperboard containers. Making that our standard is the least we can do.

The House of Representatives is the only member of the Capitol Complex to revert to foam packaging. Neither the Senate, the Library of Congress, nor the Capitol Visitors Center food service centers use polystyrene products. Congress should be setting the standard for sustainability in the 21st century. We should be leading by example.

And my amendment provides a way through which we can show that leadership to the thousands of constituents who visit our offices each year.

Polystyrene is practically unrecyclable. Most polystyrene containers end up in landfills or incinerators; and problems with polystyrene include cancerous chemicals that are used during its manufacture, minimal recyclability, enormous bulk during disposal, and toxic byproducts that are released during incineration.

A 1986 EPA report on solid waste named the polystyrene manufacturing process the fifth largest creator of hazardous waste, and toxic chemicals leak out of these containers into the food and drink they contain and endanger the human health and reproductive systems of the people who visit the Capitol and who work in the Capitol.

105 Members have sent a letter to House leadership asking that they eliminate polystyrene from House food service operations. My amendment would do just that by limiting the funds made available in this act from being used to obtain polystyrene containers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, with regard to the argument that the gentlemen makes, first of all it seems to me that we should set ourselves on record, and the appropriations bill is the ultimate source of funding for the Capitol complex. But the argument that this will save money it seems to me is deficient when we are talking about human health. I mean, we could choose not to spend money on purifying our water. We'd save a lot of money. Just let people drink out of the tap or get their water wherever. But we feel that the health of our employees and our constituents who visit us is important enough that we should spend that extra money.

Science is telling us that, in fact, toxics leak from this material into the food and the drink that our employees and our constituents are using. We may not be as fully aware of that, but we know that polystyrene is a toxic material. It seems to me we should err on the side of caution, particularly when the health of our employees and our constituents is concerned.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, first of all, the letter that was sent did not request polystyrene products by any means. It was referring to another product that was corn based. Certainly Mr. Brady was not recommending dangerous Styrofoam material.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Last night, we were asked to amend the Constitution, after two-and-a-quarter centuries, in a way that will permanently limit the ability of our government to foster competitiveness in a global economy, to generate greater equality of opportunity, to treat our seniors with dignity and respect, and to defend and define this great Nation as an ever-shining democratic beacon of hope and prosperity.

So I was proud to vote against the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. It is the House Republicans' vision for America's future. This is a vision in which the country turns its back on the achievements of the last century and chooses not to invest in meeting the challenges of the next century.

Republicans aim to use a crisis of their own making to hamstring future Congresses, limiting our ability to make necessary infrastructure investments, to care for the poor, aged and disabled, and to respond to national and international crises.

The 18 percent spending cap mandated by the bill would return the government to spending levels not seen since the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid. The impending retirement of more than 70 million baby boomers means that these spending levels are woefully inadequate, unless we condemn our grandparents to a severely diminished quality of life.

The Republican Party would enshrine constitutional protections for tax cuts and loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations, requiring an unattainable two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate for the government to increase the currently unsustainably low revenue levels of roughly 15 percent of GDP.

This would necessarily result in unprecedented cuts in student loans and grants, transportation, education, environmental protection, law enforcement--in other words, the physical and the human infrastructure of our economy.

The only budget plan that comes close to meeting the requirements of these constitutional amendments is the Republican Study Committee budget which eliminates 70 percent of nondefense discretionary funding by 2021, contains deep cuts to Medicare, cuts Medicaid, food stamps, supplemental security income for the elderly and disabled and poor in half by the end of the decade, and raises the Social Security retirement age to 70 years of age.

Yesterday's vote means that the Republican majority is demanding that in return for avoiding an economically disastrous default on our debt, we make $111 billion in immediate spending cuts. These cuts seriously increase the likelihood of a double-dip recession. It is estimated that they could cause the loss of more than a million public sector jobs just in the next year alone.

Last month, the economy added an anemic 18,000 jobs; but the private sector added 57,000 jobs, while 39,000 public sector jobs were lost in addition to the 49,000 public sector jobs lost in the prior month. This is a continuing trend. Half a million public sector employees have now lost their jobs, 200,000 of them teachers, while student enrollment has increased by 750,000. Firing more government workers will only decrease aggregate demand, making it that much harder to sustain the recovery.

We have witnessed this before. In 1937, President Roosevelt responded to similar conservative pressure by substantially reducing Federal spending before the Great Depression was fully in the rearview mirror. It drove us right back into economic depression. The economy wouldn't recover until the increased spending and hiring that accompanied the World War II armaments buildup got the country moving again. After the war, spending on education and housing for our GIs, the Marshall Plan for Europe, and the construction of the interstate highway system established a permanent middle class and sustainable prosperity.

This is not the time for the Democratic Party to sacrifice our values, values held by a majority of the American people, even in the face of opposition that has reached unprecedented levels of ideological radicalization.

We have to address our long-term deficits for the sake of future generations, but we must do so in a balanced manner, combining rational spending cuts and increased revenue. That's what has worked in the past. That's what we need to do now. We must not abandon the people that depend upon the government for a decent quality of life, but we must not let this great Nation become a second-class society and a third-rate economy. If the bill that was passed last night were to be enacted into law, that's the limited vision it would yield. That's why I was proud to vote against it.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I haven't read Ayn Rand for 45 years, so all I have as a reference point is what I've observed over the last 20 years in this body.

I remember when we were trying to pull out of the last recession in 1990. George H.W. Bush called the leaders of both political parties together. They came up with a compromise. They raised revenue, they cut spending, and they started to pull us out of the recession. The economy started rebounding.

President Clinton followed suit. In fact, he raised the top tax rates to 39.6 percent. Now we heard at the time all of the Republican arguments, that you should only cut spending, you can't raise new revenue because it's going to cost jobs, and so on. Not one Republican vote was cast for the tax increase, but what happened? We know what happened. Twenty million jobs were created. We had surpluses. We had the strongest economy in modern history. We reduced welfare. We grew the middle class. Homeownership increased. And we handed over a surplus, a projected surplus, of $5.6 trillion. In fact, this year we would have paid off our public debt. And what happened to those who paid at that highest rate of 39.6 percent? They brought home more after-tax income than at any prior time in American history. It worked.

And now your party comes in with this attitude we've been hearing about all day, you want to drastically cut taxes, shrink government, and ensure a permanent indebtedness. In fact just this spring you voted for a Republican budget that increased the deficit by $8.8 trillion, from $14.3 to $23.1 trillion over the next 10 years. But now you don't want to pay for it.

That's what happened during the last Bush administration. We didn't pay for anything. We didn't pay for tax cuts. We didn't pay for wars. We didn't pay for expansion of Medicare. That's why we're in the hole that we're in.

Alan Greenspan said, ``Restore the Clinton tax rates.'' Every Republican in 2001 and 2003 voted to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011. Do it. Be responsible. Pay off our debts. Let's get back to policies that work with a government that deserves the trust of its citizens.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, for decades our sons and daughters have been exposed to a chemical stew in water, food, fragrances, personal care products, children's toys, and household items. Unfortunately we do not know if this chemical stew is safe for pregnant mothers, their unborn babies, young children, or for that matter, anyone else. That is why I'm pleased today, along with Mr. Maurice Hinchey, Mr. Gerry Connolly, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mr. George Miller, Ms. Laura Richardson, Mr. Raul Grijalva, Ms. Jan Schakowsky, Ms. Nita Lowey, Mr. Bobby Rush, Mrs. Lois Capps, Mr. James McGovern, and Mr. David Price, to introduce the ``Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act of 2011.'' This bill is of enormous importance because it will arm us all with the information that we need to keep our families safe from these potentially harmful chemicals.

There are numerous alarming studies showing increasing disease rates unheard of generations before. Asthma rates have nearly tripled in the past three decades. The United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported this year that one of every six American children has a developmental disorder such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and mental retardation. A recent study from Korea shows that 4 percent of children have autism spectrum disorder--that is one in every 25 children!

Just this week an extensive University of Michigan study confirmed the correlation of phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) to thyroid disruption. Thyroid hormones play a vital role in many human physiological processes including fetal and child growth and brain development, as well as energy balance, metabolism, and other functions in the nervous, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and reproductive systems of children and adults. The study confirmed previous reports associating phthalates and BPA with altered thyroid hormones.

Phthalates and BPA are high-production chemicals commonly used in plastics and other applications, including fragrances in perfumes, children's toys, and body-care products. Exposure to these chemicals among Americans is widespread, according to the CDC. Recent studies show a decline in brain development related to phthalates and BPA exposure. Chemically-induced altered thyroid function may also be involved in increased waist circumference, insulin resistance, and diabetes among adults.

Cancer, after accidents, is the leading cause of death among children in the United States. Primary brain cancer increased by nearly 40 percent and leukemia increased by over 60 percent among children 14 years and younger in the last 30 years. Childhood obesity has quadrupled in the past 10 years. Type-2 diabetes has increased drastically. There is an increase in sexual abnormalities, particularly in newborn boys. An analysis of the umbilical cords of a test group of newborns found over 200 chemicals in the blood--chemicals to

which the mother had unwittingly transmitted to her fetus.

But these problems do not end with children. These chemically-induced changes linger into adulthood. Forty-one percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from that cancer. When we look at these trends, it becomes glaringly obvious that something in our environment is making us sick.

There is mounting evidence suggesting that these alarming public health trends are the result of chemicals in the environment that disrupt the endocrine system. Small amounts of these chemicals, or mixes of these chemicals, it has been shown, can have a huge impact on our health and ultimately American healthcare costs. As a result, health groups including the Endocrine Society, The Endocrine Exchange, and renowned scientific authorities like Dr. Fred S. vom Saal have all endorsed this bill.

The Endocrine Society, the world's oldest and largest professional organization devoted to endocrine research, found that ``endocrine disruptors have effects on male and female reproduction, breast development and cancer, prostate cancer, neuroendocrinology, thyroid, metabolism and obesity, and cardiovascular endocrinology.'' Based upon these findings they recommended that we increase ``basic and clinical research.''

In addition to these troubling human diseases, we're also seeing chemically-induced changes in wildlife. In parts of the Potomac River, 100 percent of the studied male small mouth bass are intersex--meaning that they are carrying both male and female reproductive organs. We are eating these fish and we are drinking the water that they swim in. Because of this, Trout Unlimited, one of the largest fisheries conservation organizations in the country, also endorsed this bill. As I said years ago when intersex fish were first reported, this discovery should serve as our early warning telling us that something is gravely wrong.

Close to 14 years ago, Congress enacted legislation requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish an Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. To date that endeavor has focused primarily on pesticides, to the exclusion of other chemicals. The agency has been hamstrung by its use of old science and interference by the chemical industry.

This bill will facilitate increased study and regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals. It will require that the government focus on the chemicals of most concern, to which people are exposed through drinking water, food, household items, toys, and personal care products. It will empower federal agencies with jurisdiction to consider a range of peer- reviewed scientific sources of information on toxicity, and to act quickly in regulating substances found harmful to human health.

Finally, for those chemicals that scientists overwhelmingly agree are the most hazardous, the bill will restrict them only to uses that ensure they cannot get into human bodies. Twenty-four months after scientists find that a chemical is an endocrine disruptor, that chemical will be banned unless the industry using that chemical can ensure that it will not enter our food, our water, or our bodies.

It is time to take action. It is time we increase research on these chemical impacts. And it is time for the most dangerous chemicals to be controlled. The Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Exposure Elimination Act of 2011 will do just that.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment by my colleague from Virginia and against this bad bill.

I am troubled that the bill we are considering today seems to move us backwards to a time when some advocated states should reign supreme and could opt out of federal laws.

We tried that system of government, it was called the Articles of Confederation, and it failed miserably.

Each state did its own thing, and there was no mechanism by which disagreements among the states could be resolved.

The issue today is whether states can opt out or even veto tougher, more stringent water quality standards to protect the public's health.

This bill returns us to a time when we had no uniform national minimum clean water standard and states had conflicting policies or no policies to protect the public.

That was a time when rivers were so polluted they caught fire.

The problem with this reasoning and with this bill is that responsible downstream states suffered the consequences of lax or weak upstream states' policies.

I am sure my colleagues, who seem so enamored with this proposition and this legislation, would raise objections if we were to apply a similar proposal to our immigration policy.

Employing this same logic, states would be granted full rights to disregard federal immigration policies and opt-out or set a different policy on which immigrants to accept or reject.

Water, like immigrants, crosses state lines; and immigrants like water should be governed by a single national standard.

The landmark Clean Water Act provides states full flexibility for meeting the federal standards, and it also allows states flexibility to set higher standards.

The amendment my colleague from Virginia is offering would at least allow Virginia and the other states that are part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and some of this nation's other great bodies of water--waters that are the primary source of millions of Americans' economic livelihood and drinking water--to proceed with their plans to reduce harmful pollutants that threaten to degrade these great waters and allow current restoration measures to proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Only 3 percent of the water on this planet is freshwater, but that's the water that we depend upon for drinking, for agriculture, and for much of our fishing and wildlife habitat.

If my amendment to strike section 109 of this bill is not accepted, critical headwater and wetlands, which ensure the quality and the quantity of our freshwater supply, will be lost--lost to the dumping of sewage, to toxic mining materials, and to unregulated in-fill for residential, commercial and industrial development.

Over the past decade, Mr. Chairman, two Supreme Court rulings have caused confusion about which waters and wetlands should receive protection under the Clean Water Act. As a result, important fish, wildlife, flood protection, and filtering waters now lack clear protection under the law, and businesses and regulators face uncertainty and delay as to which waters should fall under Federal protection.

The Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency developed draft guidance this spring to clearly show which waters should be protected, and this guidance does provide clear and predictable guidelines in accordance with the Court's direction, but this bill prohibits that guidance from moving forward this year and every subsequent year. The Supreme Court did remove some waters from Federal protection, but it left a great deal of confusion over which waters and wetlands should be protected. The EPA and the Corps of Engineers are using an open, public process to develop the guidance. Published in May and open for comment through July, the public, businesses and States have over 3 months to let the Federal agency know their views. All comments will be considered and made publicly available.

It is important to understand what the guidance does not do. This new guidance doesn't change any existing agricultural exemptions. All clean water exemptions for normal agricultural, forestry and ranching practices continue to apply. The guidance also clearly describes waters that are not regulated under the act, including isolated wetlands, artificially irrigated areas, stock watering ponds, construction- related ponds, swimming pools, and washes and gullies.

Failing to update the guidance, which is what this bill would do unless my amendment passes, is not only bad for the environment, but it's also bad for business.

American businesses need to know when the Federal Government has authority and when it doesn't. Without updated guidance, developers have little certainty regarding permits. This uncertainty could subject them to civil and criminal penalties, and surely will cost them extra money.

Some also claim that Federal regulation is unnecessary because States will protect the same waters under their authority. But State authority to regulate waters of the United States derives directly from Federal law. When Federal law is unclear, State authority based on that law is also unclear. States are still required to implement the law, but they need clarity to be consistent and to avoid lawsuits. Some States may adequately protect clean waters on their own, but not all do. The Corps and the EPA must be able to protect water quality irrespective of whether individual States do.

Sixteen different sportsmen's groups oppose the prohibition in this group, as

do over 100 conservation groups. When wetlands are destroyed and streams are polluted, sportsmen are often the first to be directly impacted. The economic benefits of hunting and fishing contribute more than $65 billion to the economy, breathing life into rural communities and supporting millions of jobs across the country.

But these benefits are in jeopardy with this bill. Since 2001, safeguards for headwater streams and critical wetlands have steadily eroded. Wetlands and tributaries that provide clean water for iconic systems like the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes that recharge aquifers, help retain floodwaters, and provide important fish and wildlife habitat are now endangered. These economic and environmental benefits will be lost without updated guidance and rules.

If this bill language stands, some critical waters will be subject to sewage dumping, to mining contaminants, and to industrial pollution. Some will be filled in for development. Bear in mind, much of the fresh water we depend upon is under the ground, but contiguous to rivers and streams that our fiscal health and the health of our economy is dependent upon.

That's why I urge a vote for my amendment to strike section 109.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I've explained what this amendment does. I believe that it is critically important to protect the headwaters and the wetlands of America.

Two Supreme Court rulings cast considerable doubt on what is to be considered navigable water. Clearly, some waters that may have been protected in the past are not now protected, but there is a great deal of confusion as to which waters do need to be protected. That's why more than 100 environmental groups, and more than 16 major sportsmen's groups have urged adoption of this amendment, which strikes section 109 because section 109 precludes the Corps of Engineers and EPA from issuing regulations that would clarify what waters do fall under Federal protection.

The original idea was that you would define waters that are contiguous, that you can see on the surface, that you can navigate across from one State into another as falling under Federal protection. The problem is that there are a lot of waters that part of the year may run under the ground but are still contiguous and supply water to navigable streams and to rivers that are absolutely important to our economy and to our environment.

So which of those waters should EPA and the Corps of Engineers regulate? During part of the year, the water flows under the surface, but it's still there; it's still important. If we don't enable our Federal agencies to clarify which waters are to be protected, many wetlands will be filled in, many habitats will be destroyed, many streams that run alongside mines will be filled with toxic material that will then subsequently run into rivers and water supplies that people need for their drinking water.

Some bodies of water will be filled in with sewage. Some wetlands will be filled in for industrial, commercial and residential development. Some of that doesn't need to be protected, but much of it does. And all of it needs to be clarified. There's no way we can clarify what can be used and what needs to be protected unless the Corps of Engineers and EPA are allowed to go forward with regulations and guidance that they issued this spring.

Now, there's still comments coming in. They're still listening to all the parties involved. But once they issue these regulations, private interests will know what can be developed and what can't; mining firms, farms will all know what water is under the jurisdiction of the Corps and what water isn't.

I believe that was the intent of the Supreme Court. Two very important decisions, SWANCC and Rapanos, certainly said some waters are not under Federal jurisdiction, but they clearly left open a vast amount of room for the Federal Government to then clarify which waters are under Federal protection.

So this legislation--and not only does it apply to this fiscal year, it applies to all subsequent years--this legislation is going to cast enormous doubt. It's going to generate millions of dollars of lawsuits all over the country. That's why I oppose it, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's in our economic interest or in our environmental interest for us not to clarify by allowing the normal guidance process to go forward.

I know that there is concern on the part of some farmers and miners and businesses, but the fact is the right thing to do is to move forward and strike section 109 of this bill.

I thank my very good friend, the ranking member of Energy and Water Appropriations.

Let me first address the points that were made by my very good friend from Montana.

First of all, there was a suggestion that there was sewerage dumped into the Potomac River. I think that's pretty much a quote. That's not accurate, I would say to my very good friend. It was not sewerage. It was clean, filtered silt that came from a drinking water reservoir that was put into the Potomac without any threat to the quality of the water or the habitat. The Corps of Engineers understood that. They don't now put it there. But I don't think it's quite accurate to describe it in the way that it was.

With regard to the Supreme Court ruling, even Justice Scalia made it clear that waters that are adjacent to navigable waters should be federally regulated and protected. So the statement that was offered in the debate is not entirely accurate.

I would also mention that EPA does have an office in Montana. And, in fact, the people who were adversely affected by the oil pipeline of late that put a considerable amount of oil into the Yellowstone River, they are saying that EPA was wonderful, tremendously helpful to them. That's what EPA wants to be now, not only to individual communities adversely affected, but to the businesses, to the mining interests, to the farming interests that need clarification on what waters are appropriately under Federal jurisdiction.

I thank the gentleman from Washington.

I am not going to belabor this, but I do think for the record we should clarify. Some of what the gentleman said is accurate except for the material. This was not sewerage. This was filtered silt that came from a drinking water reservoir at Dalecarlia that is operated by the Corps of Engineers. They did put it into the Potomac, after verifying that it would not jeopardize the health of the fish or any of the vegetation. And they did seek an exemption. They lost. And now that silt is put in a landfill.

There is no question that the Clean Water Act is responsible for the health, such as it is, of the Potomac River. There was a time when you could almost strike a match and light the Potomac River on fire, there was so much pollution in it.

They did that.

Bill Ruckelshaus.

Yes.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would underscore what the distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee has said: This amendment prevents guidance and rulemaking. It's that comprehensive.

What EPA and the Corps of Engineers have tried to do is to clarify where Federal jurisdiction extends and where it ends. There is clearly confusion on what constitutes navigable waters. The Supreme Court recognized that, even Justice Scalia said it's not just navigable waters; it's waters that are contiguous. And there are any number of water sources that are under the surface that you can't see.

Most of the water in this country is under the surface. It can be under land; it's under water.

Offered By: Mr. Moran

Amendment No. 33: Page 14, strike lines 3 through 11 (and

redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly).

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to mark a great day in the history of democracy, a great day for Africa, and a great day for the United States.

On Saturday, July 9th, the Republic of South Sudan becomes Africa's 54th country and the world's newest nation. This is an outcome that would likely have been inconceivable for most Sudanese only a few years ago. South Sudan's declaration of independence is a testament to their resolve and determination to be free.

The United States should also be proud of this momentous achievement, and I would like to congratulate the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration for maintaining the vision and unwavering commitment to stand with the people of this great new country through their struggle. I am thrilled that the White House has sent a high level delegation, led by Ambassador Susan Rice, to the burgeoning new capital of South Sudan, to celebrate with our newest ally.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell will accompany Ambassador Rice. I'm pleased that our colleague Congressman Donald Payne, a leader of the Sudan Caucus and a forceful advocate for Sudanese self determination, will be with the delegation, as will the senior diplomats Johnnie Carson and Princeton Lyman who have worked to make this day

possible, and Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of the U.S. Africa Command. Underscoring our past and future commitment to human rights and economic opportunity and development in Sudan, Donald Steinberg, Deputy Administrator of USAID and Ken Hackett, of Catholic Relief Services, are also part of the White House delegation.

As in so many struggles for democracy, the final joy of liberation emerged only after many seasons of pain and loss. We join the South Sudanese in honoring those who struggled, suffered and died over decades of conflict in the effort to celebrate this great democratic achievement. Two million of their brothers and sisters died in the struggle, and twice that number were forced from their homes. This loss is felt today, and will take a generation or more to recover from.

Indeed, we must recognize that our new ally faces serious challenges. South Sudan holds oil wealth, but is still extraordinarily poor. The new capital, Juba, is expanding at a fast pace, but the country is bereft of an infrastructure that can support commerce and development. This huge new country of more than 250,000 square miles has less than 50 miles of paved roads.

On average, a family in South Sudan must spend 30 minutes just to secure their water for cooking and bathing, and their water is often not safe to drink. This is no doubt one reason why South Sudan suffers a rate of infant mortality that is among the highest in the world. And Sudan is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a mother. In fact, a girl in Sudan is more likely to die in childbirth than to receive a primary education. We must recommit ourselves to a new independence for Sudan: independence from poverty.

And we must also recognize today that the people of both the new republic and the state from which it split continue to suffer the cruel and indiscriminate evil of conflict. Even now, so soon after the referendum in which nearly 99 percent of South Sudanese voiced their intention to be free, we have witness to a vicious armored assault on Abyei that displaced some 100,000 people in May, while destroying homes, churches and businesses. And in June, the Khartoum government unleashed a further assault on Sudanese civilians, this time in south Kordofan State. The people of this region largely identify with South Sudan.

And so we also must recommit ourselves to Sudan's independence from war. I know that the Obama Administration intends to stand with our new ally in these other, critical liberation struggles. I ask my colleagues to join me as we remind Juba and Khartoum that we are still watching, and we remain attentive to the cause of peace with justice in both countries, including in Kordofan, Blue Nile, Abyei and, not least, Darfur.

And as we learned with the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan, let us not abandon them after we worked so hard to help them secure their freedom.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to tell the story of all of the American people. Earlier this week we celebrated of our nation's 235th birthday. Here in Washington hundreds of thousands of people visited the National Mall, watched fireworks, took pictures of the monuments, and toured our national museums. The

story of our country's founding to our current status as the world's beacon of democracy and freedom, were on display.

But the full story of who we are as a nation and the many, vibrant ethnicities that make up the fabric of the American experience, remains incomplete. The story about the making of the American people--of all of the people--is missing and it needs to be told in the heart of our nation's capital.

That's why I am introducing a bipartisan resolution that calls for a Presidential Commission to study the establishment of the National Museum of the American People. A commission is the first critical step in the path toward the creation of a national museum that will highlight the diversity and richness of the cultures from which our ancestors came and will foster a sense of belonging to the nation by the waves of people who made us the leading economic, military, scientific, and cultural force in the world. The Museum's central theme takes its inspiration from our original national motto: ``E Pluribus Unum''--From Many We Are One.

The Museum will be America's only national institution devoted exclusively to telling the full story of how the world's pioneers interwove their diverse races, religions, and ethnicities into the strongest societal fabric ever known to modern mankind. Both Canada and Mexico have major national museums in their capitals telling the story of their peoples and they are the most visited museums in those nations. People from every ethnic and minority group will come to see their own story and learn how they joined together with ``the others'' in pursuit of a more noble national purpose. Foreign visitors will come to learn how natives of their countries helped create our nation.

I fully understand the current fiscal realities of the day. This proposal will involve no authorization of federal funds and will not require the need for any taxpayer money. It does, however, already enjoy broad support having been endorsed by more than 130 organizations representing virtually every major ethnic and nationality group in the nation.

For the different groups who became Americans, the Museum will tell who, where, when, why and how transformed our nation. Today's technology makes all of this possible.

The Museum of the American People will be like walking though a dramatic documentary delving into these grand movements of peoples. It will follow in the tradition of some of today's most successful story- telling museums such as the Holocaust Memorial Museum. The goal will be to tell our peoples' compelling story with force and clarity.

While there should always be room for other national museums in our nation's capital devoted to all manner of art, cultural and scientific accomplishments, this Museum, covering accurately and adequately each group's story in the context of every group's story should help stem the trend of groups having their own individual, specific museums such as the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Museum of the African American History and Culture, and the National Museum of the American Latino. All of their stories should be told, but the list is nearly infinite while the space, money and political will is not. In telling everyone's story, the National Museum of the American People would recognize the important differences that set us apart while celebrating the common purpose that has brought us together--E Pluribus Unum.

I encourage my colleagues to support this measure.

I thank my very good friend from California for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, the Middle East peace process is at risk of collapse, and I believe that only American leadership can save it. Both sides can and should do more to restart negotiations.

House Resolution 268, despite the fact that it has virtually unanimous support from this body and includes a laudable reaffirmation of the United States' commitment to a negotiated solution to the conflict, in fact falls short of the kind of leadership that I believe is needed. This resolution chastises the Palestinians for seeking to bridge the divide in their own community and for pursuing recognition of their state at the United Nations.

On the first point, I think we should give the Palestinian Authority, which has done an impressive job of developing institutions and its economy in the West Bank, some credit. They have tried to provide the leadership to pursue the goals that we have encouraged them to do; and they have, I think, done so in terms of developing democratic institutions in a way that we should be proud of because we had a role in that, a major role.

There is no indication they have any inclination to allow Hamas to jeopardize those gains that have been achieved in the West Bank. And thus far the reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah has yet to yield any progress on a unity government. In fact, at this point it is unclear that it really will. So in many ways, the purpose for bringing forth this resolution is moot.

Should Hamas be invited to join a Palestinian unity government without accepting the conditions of The Quartet, the European Union, the United Nations, United States, Russia, those are the internationally designated bodies that have come forward with an agreement we have agreed to, if they invite Hamas to join a coalition government without accepting the conditions that we insist upon, it will have very serious implications for our relationship. And that should be the reason why we should cut off financial aid.

In 2006, Palestinian elections, which in fact were advanced by the Bush administration, are what brought Hamas into power. In reaction, the United States, as well as The International Quartet, suspended assistance to the Palestinian Authority. And the Obama administration is continuing that policy. There is no aid going to Gaza.

We need to recognize that Palestinian unity is crucial to a long-term peace. Gaza's separation from the West Bank, though, has made it impossible to advance meaningful negotiations with Israel.

Madam Speaker, there is insufficient time to lay out the other argument.

Madam Speaker, there is insufficient time to lay out the other side to what has been presented. I don't particularly have strong disagreement with many of the points that have been made, but I do think there is another perspective to this. It ought to be advanced in this body.

I thank my good friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, we were asked to come into Libya by Libyans, by the Arab League, by the Gulf Cooperation Council, by the European Union, and by the United Nations Security Council. Today we are standing where we should be standing, with those who believe in freedom, in human rights, and in the rule of law.

But also today, as we debate this issue, Muammar Qadhafi's forces continue their merciless assault against civilians and combatants alike, not just in Misratah but in the western mountains and cities throughout central Libya. The Libyan Transitional National Council, which needs our support, is extraordinarily short of weaponry, money, and training. But they are the boots on the ground, fighting and dying to dislodge Qadhafi, who is a bad guy, who did oversee the killing of 189 innocent passengers on PanAm 103.

We need to be on the other side, not giving comfort to Qadhafi so that he can thank us for the resolution and this vote as he thanked Speaker Boehner for his resolution last week. We need to make clear we don't support him. We do support people who are fighting for the same values that define our country; 38 of those people were killed just this week. To cut off operational funding for the NATO operation is to side with Qadhafi against the forces who are fighting for those values which define us.

And, you know, the idea that this hasn't been explained sufficiently by the President is a bogus one. We have minds of our own. We know the facts. We can make a judgment. The right judgment is to side with the President and to continue this support to the Libyans until America shows all the people of the Arab world that it's true to its own values and principles.

Mr. Speaker, if this resolution passes, and we weaken NATO's mission, Qadhafi may very well prevail. His forces will then kill, rape, and torture all those Libyans who opposed him, as he has already tried to do. Qadhafi has reportedly kidnapped thousands of people, including young students to serve as human shields and march at the vanguard of his forces. If any of his own soldiers refuse to gun down unarmed innocent civilians, they're shot immediately.

Once he's done with his own people, he'll turn his attention to those NATO and Middle Eastern nations that attacked him and seek revenge. Remember, this is a man who is already responsible for the deaths of 189 innocent passengers on Pan Am 103.

Let's face it. This is not about whether the Obama administration has been thorough enough in explaining the Libya rationale to Congress. Members understand why the President intervened. We can read. We can think; we can decide.

The real question is, will we politicize this effort in the same way that the Republican Congress politicized President Clinton's successful intervention in a NATO-led mission in Bosnia 15 years ago? The limited action we're taking to support the NATO mission in Libya does not rise to a level of conflict meant to be governed by the War Powers resolution. Presidents of both parties have initiated similar actions in Grenada, Panama, Somali, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosova.

What this really is about, the transcendent purpose of this mission is to seize an opportunity to show the world, particularly the young majority of the Arab and Muslim world who are thirsting for economic and political freedoms, that we are on their side. We have the opportunity to show the Arab world and every nation on Earth who we are as a people. It shouldn't matter who's in the White House. We should be united in the cause of democracy. We should debate; but when the debate is over, politics should take a back seat to policy.

The legacy of America is that we will fight tyranny and defend innocent people as best and as forcefully as we can, in good economic times and bad.

This debate should come to an end. We know exactly what's at stake. If Qadhafi is allowed to violently suppress the uprising in Libya, it will mean many more years of despotic rule. Isolated by his repulsive acts of repression and buoyed by oil wealth, he'd have nothing to lose by aiding violent subversive groups in neighboring countries, including those with vulnerable fledgling democracies like Tunisia and Egypt. That would not only be a defeat for democracy in the region; it would be a death blow for NATO, the most important military alliance the world has yet achieved.

Imagine if, just 2 weeks after Secretary Gates excoriated some of our NATO allies for skimping on their commitments to the global security infrastructure that is a key to our economic system and the open societies that safeguard our prosperity and our way of life, imagine if now we turned our backs on NATO. What a global embarrassment.

Now is the time to stand together against a murderous dictator to give democracy an opportunity in a part of the world that has not experienced it, a part of the world which is vital to America's security.

That's why I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Madam Chair, I rise today to express my concerns about the Manager's

Amendment to the America Invents Act, H.R. 1249.

Specifically, I am troubled by language in the amendment that would weaken the ability of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to retain the fees it collects from inventors for use in improving the patent application process.

As reported by the Judiciary Committee, Section 22 of the underlying bill would establish a revolving fund at Treasury to collect all user fees from USPTO and restrict their use to only funding USPTO activities.

This section was necessary because Congress has habitually underfunded the Patent Office, siphoning more than $875 million over the past two decades from fees collected from inventors to fund other discretionary programs.

This fee diversion has severely hampered the ability of USPTO to promptly process patent applications, leading to a current backlog of 1.2 million applications and an average pendency time of 3 years.

This is entirely unacceptable and a direct result of our decision not to provide full funding to the USPTO. Delays in processing patent applications drive up the costs and risks for inventors, harm our nation's global competitiveness, and literally stall the creation of jobs.

While I appreciate the efforts of Director Kappos over the past two years to reduce this backlog, USPTO will not be fully successful in this goal unless they are provided with the proper resources...resources, remember, they collect from the users of Patent Office services.

That is why I have concerns about a provision in the manager's amendment that would undermine this dedicated funding source, instead leaving USPTO funding up to annual appropriations.

While the amendment creates a specific fund for USPTO fees and contains promises that this funding will be made available only for activities at the patent office, there is no guarantee this pledge will be honored in subsequent Congresses.

I am concerned this modified language does not give USPTO the predictability in funding and access to fees that are necessary to ensure it best serves the innovation community.

Now, I understand USPTO has reluctantly agreed to support this compromise language, and I therefore plan to support the Manager's Amendment.

But we cannot let jurisdictional concerns here in Congress undermine the efficient functioning of the patent process.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Manager's Amendment as a necessary compromise to move this legislation forward, but I plan to remain vigilant on this matter to ensure the promises made in this Manager's Amendment are kept and that USPTO has ready access to the fees it collects.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce, along with Representatives Frank Wolf, Shelley Berkley, and Alcee Hastings, the Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act of 2011. This legislation would, for the first time, authorize federal support for the prevention and treatment of problem and pathological gambling.

According to the National Council on Problem Gambling, approximately 6-9 million American adults meet the criteria for a gambling problem, which includes gambling behavior patterns that compromise, disrupt or damage personal, family or vocational pursuits. Over the past decade, gaming and gambling has grown in the United States and many states have expanded legalized gaming, including regulated casino-style games and lotteries. The recent economic downturn only compounds this situation as many states consider relaxing gaming laws in an effort to raise state revenues.

At the same time, the federal government and most states have devoted very little, if any, resources to the prevention and treatment of compulsive gambling. Problem gambling can destroy a person's career and financial standing, disrupt marriages and personal relationships, and encourage participation in criminal activity. Currently, no federal agency has responsibility for coordinating efforts to treat problem gambling.

The Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act of 2011 would begin to address this deficiency by designating the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) as the lead agency on problem gambling, allowing them to coordinate Federal

action: The legislation would allow SAMHSA to conduct research, develop guidelines for effective prevention and treatment programs, and provide assistance for community-based services.

While there may be disagreement over the degree to which gambling should be regulated, we should all be able to support efforts to minimize the negative effects of problem gambling on our constituents. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation.