Floor Statements

I very much appreciate my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, my friend, Mr. Murtha, has spent some time at Bethesda, and I would like to recognize the contributions that he has made to this bill and to the work he has done with Mr. Young.

Madam Speaker, it has taken months to get to this point but I'm pleased to see that we are finally considering a Defense Appropriations bill to provide funds for the men and women of our armed forces and the national security needs of our country.

We should have been on the House floor months ago--months ago-- passing a clean Defense funding bill. Like many Members, I questioned the priorities of the Democrat leadership in moving this year's funding bills, particularly the decision to send the President the Legislative Branch conference report as our first completed bill. It sent an unmistakable signal that the House majority was putting the needs of Congress first and placing the needs of our troops at the end of the line.

I know there has been great temptation to use the Defense bill as the vehicle to carry many unrelated legislative items that could not and would not muster enough support to pass on their own. And while this package before us is far from clean, it's a streamlined version of what was, just a few days ago, shaping up to be the mother of all Christmas tree bills.

It was Chairman Obey who, on December 18th, 2005 said, and I quote, ``The defense bill ought to be about delivering equipment and supporting our troops. There is something especially outrageous and callous about the willingness of the majority party leadership to allow the Defense Department bill in a time of war to be held hostage to totally unrelated legislative items.''

But that is precisely what we are doing by including a variety of non-defense related legislative provisions in this package. Some items like COBRA, food stamps, and so-called ``poverty guidelines'' have been manipulated in a way to suit the Chairman's purposes for redistributing income in America but do not reflect the agreement reached to garner bipartisan support on this bill.

We are also designating as emergency spending an additional $20 billion worth of program extensions. I'm not arguing that some of these are unworthy but merely pointing out that they should have no place in a defense spending bill. At the very least, we should pay for them honestly rather than continuing to add to our mountain of debt.

More curious to me is the fact that buried within this legislation is an airdropped Member project in the form of bill language authorizing the payment of nearly $13 million to a county in North Carolina. I can only assume that this project meets all of the necessary requirements for congressional projects. No one

seems to know how or why this project was included in this package but it's there in black and white for the world to see.

Also disconcerting is the fact that the underlying defense spending bill fails to include funding needed for additional MRAPS to support the 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. My understanding is that the House and Senate majority and minority were in full agreement to funding an additional 4,000 MRAPS--and yet a decision was made at another level--perhaps even at a staff level--to leave this vital funding out of this package. Again, it's a decision like this that causes me to scratch my head and question the priorities of this majority leadership.

At the end of the day, this legislation is far from perfect; I would vote against Division B if given the opportunity. But it is a vast improvement over the massive train wreck that was heading our way earlier this week. I strongly support the underlying defense portion of this package and ask our colleagues to support our troops who are defending freedom at home and abroad.

Madam Speaker, this is a simple 5-day CR, and I happily yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, Chairman Obey calls this legislation the Jobs for Main Street Act; I call it economic insanity. Truly, this is one of those rare occasions when I hardly know where to begin.

It is because of legislation like this and the manner in which it was produced that the public has lost faith in this Congress and why confidence in Washington is at an all-time low.

This legislation repeats the failures of the so-called ``Recovery Act'' by pouring another $150 billion into programs included in the original stimulus package that have so far failed to produce real results or real jobs.

Secondly, this legislation adds an additional $150 billion to a budget deficit that has already tripled in the last year. The Democrat majority claims that this spending is offset with funds from the TARP program, but under present law these dollars are already dedicated to reducing our debt. The public should not be fooled; every dollar will come out of the Treasury and taxpayers will be footing the bill.

Further, this legislation is a virtual mystery to almost every single Member of the House. I think we got the basic material like at 11 o'clock last night, I think. Its contents were released just shy of midnight last night for most, and there is no way for anyone to have read or understood it completely. How much thought or Member input really went into it? I dare say very, very little.

Ironically, it was Chairman Obey who said on December 11, 2006, We will work to restore an accountable, above-board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of the Congress. This is a demonstration project of just how serious Mr. Obey was about that.

Let me take just a moment to outline the transparent process by which

this legislation comes before us today. Chairman Obey instructed his majority staff not to share any details or information with the minority staff about the bill. Chairman Obey's staff sent the bill to the Rules Committee at 11 o'clock last night. It has had no hearings, no markup, and is prevented from being amended on the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, martial law in the House of Representatives is hardly change that we can believe in.

Yet another irony in today's debate is that the Democrat majority has suddenly found religion by championing so-called ``PAYGO'' rules. This is occurring at the very same time that they are proposing to spend another $150 billion and even as they have voted to increase the debt limit. We pass the debt limit, spend another $150 billion.

Not long ago, small business in America was the backbone and the lifeblood of our national economy. Today, higher taxes and excessive government regulations have small business in a stranglehold, and that's even before Congress puts its stamp of approval on government- run health care.

With all this reliance on Uncle Sam, why don't we just put everyone in the United States on the Federal Government payroll and call it a day? In essence, that's what this fatally flawed process attempts to do.

According to Transportation Weekly, ``Even if you only count title I of the stimulus II bill as an appropriations bill, it would still be the third largest fiscal year 2010 discretionary appropriations bill-- bigger than Agriculture, Commerce-Justice, Energy and Water, Financial Services, Homeland Security, Interior and Environment, legislative branch, State/foreign operations, and the THUD bill.''

Imagine what Ranking Member David Obey's reaction would have been had a GOP majority moved a supplement of this size to the House floor on less than 24-hours' notice and with no committee markup? Can you imagine the screaming from the rooftops? We have seen that before.

On more than one occasion, my friend, the majority leader, has suggested that the House minority has become the so-called party of ``no,'' but he forgot to finish the sentence. House Republicans are the party of no more spending beyond our means. We are the party of no more increases to the historic debt limit. Republicans in the House are the party of no more busting the spending cap and calling it ``emergency spending.''

Our country's economy will never recover as long as Congress continues making the same mistakes over and over again. Spending by this House majority is unconstrained and unsustainable. Billions and billions and billions spent on the continued expansion of government will only exacerbate our financial troubles and will bring little or no relief to those without jobs.

Through this legislation, Congress is demonstrating once again that it is both unwilling and incapable of restraining its appetite to spend. This is nothing short of a taxpayer-funded Christmas shopping spree, financed with money borrowed from the Chinese.

I appeal to my friends, the Blue Dogs, to take a stand on this legislation. If you are serious about making a statement, this is your chance. Are the Blue Dogs serious about deficit reduction? If so, then vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, simply put, this is an awful bill produced through a dreadful process. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Jack Kingston.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, the gentleman from Kansas, for 3 minutes, Mr. Tiahrt.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri, who is the ranking member on the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, Mrs. Emerson.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), Chairman Frank's great friend from the committee.

Madam Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the Republican whip.

Madam Speaker, by way of inquiry of my chairman, aside, Mr. Chairman, from the unprecedented and secretive process by which this bill was put together and is being brought to the floor, the rule before us contained a most unusual provision to allow the chairman to submit a report explaining the legislation. It would be very helpful to all Members before we vote on over $154 billion in spending to actually have the benefit of the chairman's explanation.

I, for one, have not only not seen this report, I didn't even know he was writing one. Therefore, I would ask the chairman, is there a copy of this report, and will you make it available now so that Members will have a chance to see it before we vote on this bill?

The chairman certainly might have given us the courtesy of communicating that that was his intention ahead of time. And it's very clearly stated within the report that the Members would have it available to them. Obviously, the chairman has chosen to ignore that side of the responsibility.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

We have no speakers remaining. I might make a few remarks after I hear what the chairman has to say.

Can you give me an idea how much of your time you intend to take?

Ten minutes?

I think it would be very important for the Members to know, Madam Speaker, that up to this point, only about 15 percent of the first piece of this package has been spent, so Stimulus I is a long ways away from being spent. And I think we all know that the agencies are awash in money coming through the pipeline, and they wonder where it's going to go from here. It's significant to know that as we spend the people's money in this process, with very, very little information available to our Members, the majority is choosing to push another $150 billion down that pipeline, regardless of what has been spent already.

It seems to me that one of the lessons to be learned here is that the American people are much smarter than we give them credit for. They know that just throwing money at every perceived problem out there is no way to solve such a problem. In the meantime, I will listen with interest to my chairman's closing remarks.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I certainly would not object, but I had asked the chairman about additional speakers, and clearly I would never, ever detract from our Speaker, but in the meantime, a little straightforward discussion would be helpful.

I certainly do.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Redlands Police Lt. Bill L. Cranfill, who has provided protection and service to the city's residents for more than three decades and has helped make the force one of the most professional and well-respected in the region.

Bill Cranfill began working with the Redlands Police Department in 1976 as a volunteer reserve officer, and was hired as a permanent officer in May 1978. He graduated

from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Academy that year and holds both a bachelor's and master's degree from La Salle University.

Officer Cranfill won the first of the two Meritorious Service Awards he has received in 1980 for rescuing a woman from a burning building.

He was promoted to corporal in 1981 and was made a sergeant in 1985. After completing a wide range of leadership training, including the FBI Academy, he became a lieutenant in 1998.

Lieutenant Cranfill has helped to make the Redlands Police Department one of the most professional and progressive forces in the region, working alongside Police Chief Jim Bueerman and other top officers like Lt. Dan Shefcik, Lt. Rogelio Garcia and Commander Tom Fitzmaurice.

During his career, Lieutenant Cranfill has headed the Patrol Services Bureau and the Investigative Services Bureau. He has been the department's crisis negotiation coordinator, and was named the Redlands Public Safety Manager of the Year in 2008.

For many in the Redlands community, however, Lieutenant Cranfill is known as the Director of Public Safety for the University of Redlands. Serving under contract in that role for much of the past decade, Lieutenant Cranfill has helped the university maintain top standards for security, courtesy and even-handed discipline with an open campus that is an asset to the community around it.

Beyond his high-profile role with the university, Lieutenant Cranfill is well-known for community involvement. He has helped run the Redlands Emergency Services Academy, which trains high school graduates in police and fire techniques, and is a strong supporter of the Redlands Bicycle Classic, an internationally-known bicycle race.

He is an active member of the Redlands Morning Kiwanis and has served as the Redlands Police Department's representative to the United Way. He has volunteered numerous times for Tipa-Cop fundraisers for local charities, ran in the annual Law Enforcement Torch Run and Redlands Community Hospital Run for Life benefiting the Special Olympics and participated frequently in the Loma Linda University Medical Center Children's Hospital Halloween event.

Madam Speaker, after 30 years of dedication to law enforcement, Lt. Bill L. Cranfill is retiring this month. Please join me in thanking him for his decades of providing safety and service to the residents of Redlands, and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Redlands City Clerk Lorrie Poyzer, who over the past three decades has established herself as the institutional memory of this Southern California city.

A true native of this San Bernardino County city, Lorrie Poyzer is a Redlands High School graduate and the daughter of Marion H. Poyzer, who was the city's elected Treasurer from 1960 to 1975. Her grandfather and his sister were the first recorded twins born in the city around 1900.

After graduation from Redlands High School and then San Bernardino Valley College, Louie Poyzer worked for seven years as office manager for the Redlands Teachers Association, and seven more as the assistant manager's secretary of the Bank of America Redlands branch.

She went to work in the City Clerk's office in February 1976, shortly after her father retired as city Treasurer. In those days before computers, she had to retype minutes of the City Council meetings three or four times as changes were made. She was appointed deputy clerk within a year.

Her expertise and years of service led to the City Council appointing Lorrie Poyzer acting City Clerk in January 1983, and she was elected to the first of seven consecutive terms in November 2003.

Madam Speaker, as with many growing cities, Redlands has seen its share of changes in leadership. Ms. Poyzer has served with 10 mayors, 29 City Council members and 11 City Managers. She has overseen the accurate recording of minutes for more than 1,000 council meetings.

Under her leadership, Redlands has become known for its incredibly accurate recordkeeping. The office has ensured that all former paper records have been transferred to computers, and she is proud to say that her office can find any document--even dating back to the city founding in 1888--within 10 minutes.

As City Clerk, Ms. Poyzer has overseen numerous municipal elections and has a long-established reputation for fair and impartial handling of candidates. Her duties have ranged from administering oaths and affirmations to helping organize the city's Centennial celebration in 1988. She has even taken charge of selling tickets to the annual Fourth of July celebration at the University of Redlands.

Over the years, Lorrie Poyzer has become known as the person who knows everything about the city and community of Redlands. She handles all requests for help and information cheerfully and efficiently.

Madam Speaker, after serving as the elected city clerk for 26 years, Lorrie Poyzer is retiring this month. We will all miss her vast knowledge of our city and its history, but we wish her success and happiness on her retirement. Please join me in commending her for a fabulous life of public service.

I appreciate very much my colleague's yielding.

As I open my remarks, I know I want to join my chairman to express our appreciation for the fine work of our staff. They worked long hours and should be very much appreciated by all of us. So as we break for the Christmas recess, I hope you all take some time to really enjoy yourselves. You deserve it.

Once again, interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves approaching the holiday season with our appropriations work largely unfinished. Here we are 2 weeks before Christmas and 10 weeks after the end of the fiscal year demonstrating to the world that Congress remains incapable of getting its work done.

It's ironic that some in the House are quick to find fault in the lack of efficiency of governments such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps if we did a better job of meeting our own milestones, like finishing our spending bills by October 1 of each year, we would be in a better position to suggest milestones for others.

It's laughable to this Member that some in the Democrat majority are pointing fingers at the Republican minority for this failure of leadership. After all, it's the Democrat majority that controls both the House and the Senate and the White House. As much as it may pain my friends on the other side of the aisle, they can no longer blame George Bush or the Republican Party for their own failure to lead.

Still left unfinished is the Defense Appropriations bill, which many believe will be used by the majority leadership to pass unpopular legislation that has little chance of passing on its own. On this point let me be very clear: The House Republicans will not support passage of a Defense Appropriations measure if it is used as a vehicle to raise the debt limit and if it contains other controversial legislative items.

The reckless record of spending by the Congress has caused our national debt to more than triple over the last year. In this $450 billion package that's before us today, spending on domestic programs has increased by an astonishing 14 percent, while Military Construction and Veterans funding, for example, is held to only 5 percent.

Sadly, the misplaced priorities of this Congress have resulted in too much spending, fewer jobs, and bigger government that the public doesn't want and certainly cannot afford. Some in Washington refer to this unrestrained spending as a ``change we can believe in.'' Most people in our country call it ``business as usual.''

There is no question that the era of Big Government has returned to Washington. One need only look at the so-called Recovery Act or double- digit unemployment, a job-killing cap-and-trade bill, and an unpopular government takeover of health care as evidence. It's no wonder that the public confidence in the Congress is at an all-time low.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot and will not support this package of spending bills because it simply spends too much money and makes a mockery of our legislative process.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1854.

This bill will revise a previously authorized project to allow the mountain community of Big Bear, which is located in the 41st Congressional District, to move forward with the Army Corps of Engineers to begin replacement of an aging water infrastructure. The bill reduces the authorized amount of the project by $3 million.

The city of Big Bear Lake currently distributes water through pipes that are over 70 years old and crumbling by the minute. This lack of integrity from the water infrastructure has led to declining water quality, massive water loss, and dangerously low flow levels that do not meet firefighting standards.

California is in the midst of a water crisis, and San Bernardino County has been granted Federal disaster status due to extreme drought conditions. In a misguided effort to protect fish, the Federal Government has shut off pumps for the California Aqueduct, further reducing water supplies for southern California communities. Under these severe conditions, we cannot overlook any opportunity to conserve what water we have. This bill will provide immediate and measurable conservation.

Equally dire, Big Bear is located within the San Bernardino National Forest. Because of lack of consistent management in the past, the San Bernardino National Forest has become a powder keg for wildfire. We have made some progress at reducing the threat through aggressive hazardous fuels removal, but the danger remains extreme. Replacing the water infrastructure will help protect the Big Bear community and provide the U.S. Forest Service with another vital weapon in the event of catastrophic wildfire.

As a side benefit, the increased pressure in the pipes will also drastically reduce the power consumption currently needed to pump water throughout the system. It has been a priority of this Congress to implement policies that conserve resources and I believe this bill is consistent with those goals.

I urge a ``yes'' vote of H.R. 1854.

Madam Speaker, I am submitting the following: in regards to my bill, H.R. 1854 to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to modify an environmental infrastructure project for Big Bear Lake, California.

Agency: Army Corps of Engineers

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Big Bear Department of Water and Power

Address of Requesting Entity: 41972 Garstin Drive, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315

Description of Request: The city of Big Bear Lake delivers its potable water from 70 year old 2-inch diameter pipes that have led to declining water quality at the faucet, massive unaccounted for water loss, and most dangerously--low water pressure.

Because of this lack of water pressure the city does not have the capability to effectively fight a fire of size within city boundaries. Big Bear exists within the San Bernardino National Forest one of the most high risk zones for wildfire in the State of California. It has also led to rampant power consumption to move water through the system making Big Bear Lake the second highest rate payer in the region.

This bill will modify an existing authorization for Big Bear Department of Water and Power and reduce the previously authorized amount by $3,000,000.

Amount: $9,000,000

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3962.

Madam Speaker, our health care system is the envy of much of the world. That does not mean it is perfect.

Major challenges such as pre-existing conditions and portability can be dealt with by breaking down barriers between states and through nationwide underwriting.

California-style liability reform provides a model to reduce the cost of defensive medicine and can significantly reduce the cost of health care.

Tax incentives can be used to encourage broader participation by families, without federal mandates.

The Speaker and her congressional advisors are committed to government-run health care. We can solve existing problems without adding a trillion dollars on the backs of average American taxpayers.

Vote ``no'' H.R. 3962. Help save us from single payer healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentlelady yielding, and I rise in part to express my appreciation to both her and Mr. Berman for working so hard on behalf of human rights throughout the country.

But, Mr. Speaker, I rise at this moment to express my grave concerns about the impact the Democratic health care plan will have upon businesses and jobs in this country, another human rights concern.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my grave concerns about impact that the Democrat health reform plan will have on businesses and jobs across this country. Despite the trillions the Federal Government has spent on shoring up our economy, today we learned that national unemployment rose over 10 percent--the highest since 1983. In the Inland Empire of California that I represent, unemployment remains over a staggering 14 percent.

Instead of focusing on fixing the economy and creating more jobs--the House is taking up a $1.3 trillion government takeover of healthcare that includes $135 billion in new taxes on businesses. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that this tax on jobs will reduce the hiring of new workers and President Obama's own advisor has suggested that 5.5 million jobs could be lost due to this bill's new taxes.

As we approach the holiday season this House is threatening to deliver a big bah hum bug. No sensible business owner is going to hire more workers in the face of these new taxes.

Mr. Speaker, we must work together in a bipartisan fashion to fix this economy and create more jobs--not pass massive spending increases, job-destroying taxes, and a government takeover of health care.

Will the gentleman yield?

I don't want to take a lot of time on the general debate, but I presume that the chairman is going to allow some time to discuss the question that has been raised regarding an exemption that affects ships among the Great Lakes, the Michigan boat question.

I just wanted to make sure we would have time during the general debate to discuss that. It won't take a lot of time, I am sure, but I didn't want to be left out.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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, there are still at least three very different versions of a massive health care package being discussed in the House of Representatives. There is no firm agreement on whether we will have a ``public option'' or what form it might take. And yet we are being told that this plan MUST be passed before Thanksgiving.

Rushing this package to a vote is a huge mistake. It is dangerous to the futures of all of our constituents. This year our federal deficit has surpassed $1.4 trillion. And yet, the Democrat majority wants to expand government in this healthcare bill, adding hundreds of billions more to our deficit.

The work on this bill is being done out of sight of every member except the select few chosen by the majority leadership. Americans deserve transparency in this process, not Chicago-style strong arm tactics.

That is why I have introduced a resolution calling for the final language, of the healthcare package to be available for 30 days before it comes to the floor for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friends, Chairman Norman Dicks and Mike Simpson, for nearing the completion of their work on the Interior appropriations report as we speak. I look forward to discussing their work in greater detail over the next couple of days.

With regard to the motion to instruct, I would like to remind Members how important it is to you if this vote happens to reflect your constituency concerns--those constituents who have farms, ranches, livestock, et cetera in their districts. Without your support, the EPA will place an extraordinary and expensive burden on your constituents by regulating the emissions from cow, pig and chicken manure.

Now, I do know how intently my chairman, over the years, has opposed any kind of minor exemption in a process like this, but the language that we are considering, which was presented by Mr. Latham in the committee, was adopted with bipartisan support by the full committee, and it passed the House with overwhelming support. As Mr. Simpson pointed out, no one even tried to remove this during the House proceedings.

However, today, as we discuss this commonsense motion to instruct, I can't help but wonder about the greater plan to finish our appropriations work. I remind Members that the clock is ticking. We are now 1 month into the 2010 fiscal year, and we still have a great deal of work to do if we plan to complete our appropriations business this year.

By my account, the House and Senate have now sent to the President 4 of the 12 appropriations conference reports. Presuming it gets there soon, the Interior conference report will be the fifth. That means that there are 7 spending bills left to complete before the end of the year.

For weeks and months now, the House has had very little substantive work to do. Week after week, the legislative calendar is fashioned to appear that the House is busy with the Nation's business, but Members and those portions of the public who watch carefully know better. Members on both sides of the aisle are frustrated with the House leadership for loading up the calendar with suspension bills, which are relatively insignificant, as the rest of our spending bills languish.

For example, the Defense spending bill has now cleared both the House and the Senate, and there aren't any obstacles to prevent this conference report from moving forward.

I care a great deal about our public lands and environment, but moving the Interior bill before the Defense bill makes no sense. In fact, it borders on the irresponsible. Rather than moving the Defense bill, one of the most important spending bills, that bill is lying on the shelf while our men and women are defending our freedom in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. It is unfortunate that Democrat leaders have prevented the Defense bill from moving forward while we have troops deployed overseas.

Even more disconcerting is the fact that Democrat leaders are talking about using the troop funding bill as a mechanism for increasing the debt limit to the tune of over $13 trillion. There is no way, certainly, that that can be a reflection of our desire to honor the commitment of our military that is fighting overseas.

In addition, the Transportation-Housing spending bill cleared the House and Senate months ago, and that conference agreement should also be completed in short order. Instead, many of the best and brightest staffers on the Hill are left sitting on their hands, with nothing to do, while they await direction on how this year's work will be wrapped up.

The way we are proceeding, one would presume we are headed for yet another massive take-it-or-leave-it omnibus package. It is my understanding that the Interior bill will also carry the next continuing resolution, which could last until the week of Christmas or maybe even until the end of the year.

For all of the bluster about passing appropriations bills by the August break, albeit by changing the rules to avoid tough amendment votes, the majority has very little to show for it now. So far, the only bill completed on time is that which contains the budget for the Congress, itself. We certainly wouldn't want to have our being unemployed while the people out there are struggling to pay their bills and their taxes and while the men and women who are fighting for us overseas are left languishing, awaiting this Defense appropriations bill.