Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2009.

One of the iconic physical features of my home state is Puget Sound. It is a keystone of our identity in Washington State. In a region known for its beauty, Puget Sound is beyond comparison.

But the postcard image of Puget Sound belies the fact that it is in decline. Over the last 20 years we have seen increasing signs that water quality is deteriorating. We are experiencing low-oxygen zones in a growing number of areas within Puget Sound. Many of our most cherished aquatic species are in trouble with salmon and Orcas listed under the Endangered Species Act. At this point, nearly three-quarters of our original estuaries and wetlands are gone. And as a toxic remnant of its more industrialized past, the bottom of the Sound has many thousands of acres of extreme contamination.

Even with this decline, the Sound remains a natural wonder, and my legislation will provide an increased Federal role to reverse the deterioration. Its 2,800 square miles of inland marine waters makes Puget Sound the Nation's second largest estuary after Chesapeake Bay. There is a strong marine and natural resource industry. The bounty of the Sound includes several hundred fish species, plentiful shellfish and shrimp, 25 different marine mammals and 100 different species of sea birds.

Several years ago, the State of Washington led by Governor Gregoire recognized the dire condition of Puget Sound. In response, the Puget Sound Partnership was set up to lead the state effort to restore the Sound. The Partnership developed the Puget Sound Action Agenda which was recently approved by the EPA as the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan. This Action Agenda will serve as the blueprint that local and state government, Tribes, and federal agencies will follow in this cooperative effort to restore Puget Sound. In tandem with these efforts occurring in Washington State, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee which I chair has approved increasing amounts of funding for Puget Sound in the annual EPA budget. For FY 2010, I am proud that the EPA budget contains $50 million for Puget Sound. President Obama signed this spending bill into law on October 30th.

The Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2009 sets up an EPA office in Washington State to coordinate the federal effort to implement the Action Agenda. The other Federal agencies that are involved in the cleanup include the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park Service, the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service within the Department of Agriculture, the United States Geological Survey, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security and Transportation. In addition, this bill authorizes grants to study the causes of the Sound's declining water quality and ways to counter these threats, as well as grants for sewer and stormwater discharge projects.

I am pleased that the 6 Washington State Delegation Members whose districts surround the Puget Sound are original cosponsors of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2009 is an important step to authorize the federal role in the cleanup of this important water body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman alerting us to his concern.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman.

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

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

I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

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

I still have some speakers.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2996) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the instruction.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

I want my colleagues to know that these are two important issues. We are going to work on them, and we are going to do the very best we can.

EPA has come out with a ruling on this issue that wants to make sure that the largest people who have the biggest farms with the most cows, cattle, and pigs have to report, but we are working on this. We're going to do the best we can to come out with a credible position for the House of Representatives.

And we will do the best we can on the 72 hours, but we have to keep the government running. We have a responsibility to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to give a little background on this. I think the gentleman has a perspective, but I want to make sure that everyone understands what actually happened here.

The EPA administrator signed the proposed rule for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases from large emission sources in the United States on March 10, 2009. It was published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2009. The EPA received almost 17,000 written comments on the proposal, and it heard from approximately 60 people at the two public hearings. The final rule reflects changes the EPA made as it carefully considered and responded to significant comments.

Now what has happened here is that thousands of small farmers would be exempted, and only the 90 largest manure management systems in the country would be required to report their emissions, those who annually emit as

much in greenhouse gases as 58,000 barrels of oil. It is important for the EPA to receive information from these systems because the EPA needs reliable data on the greenhouse gas emissions from major facilities in all industries if we are going to be able to base our climate policy on a solid and thorough understanding of the problem.

So I think this rule, which is very close to where, I think, the conferees are going to come out, does the right thing. It exempts thousands of small farmers; but for the ones who have enormous operations, where large amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted, they have to report.

I think that's reasonable, and I think the process is reasonable. Congress directed that this be done. It was our committee that required a greenhouse gas registry so that we could make these decisions based on science, not on just political machinations. We did it on science. The EPA did it on science. I think it's a reasonable compromise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

It means we got 99.9 percent of Latham. That's pretty good.

We all agree that for these small farmers, this makes no sense. The only people that are going to be under this rule are the people who are emitting the equivalent of 58,000 barrels of oil in these emissions. These are the biggest farmers in the country. They can afford to do this.

This is a compromise. The spirit of Latham has been adopted, but we regulate the small number of people, around 90 in the country, who have these very large emissions. I think it makes sense. I think it's a decent compromise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend my colleague from Kansas for the extraordinary statement about Russ Meyer, who I have known over the years as you've stated, one of the true leaders in general aviation. And I'd also like to mention my good friend, who was very sick out there in Boise, Idaho, Ed Stimson.

Ed was the head of general aviation manufacturing and worked with Russ, and they were a great team. Your colleague, your predecessor, Dan Glickman worked very hard on the general aviation liability legislation, which was an extraordinary piece of work that completely changed the dynamics and helped general aviation recover. And I was a cosponsor of that legislation. But Russ Meyer is just one of the great leaders in general aviation history.

I commend the gentleman for his remarks and urge the passing of this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserved my time and I will answer this on my own time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered by Mr. Flake.

In addressing my colleagues, I want to begin by clarifying what the funds designated for Enhanced Navy Shore Readiness Integration are directed to.

Several years ago the Navy adopted a significantly different approach to managing all of its installations on U.S. soil. The commander of Navy Installations Command operates an $8 billion enterprise for the Nation. Now, you can imagine that when making changes in such a vast enterprise, its leaders want to explore innovative options; but they need to carefully evaluate ideas to find the best ones. They also need to test out an idea as a pilot project, and that's exactly what happened here.

The Concurrent Technologies Corporation is a nonprofit. In fact, they just had a competitive bid which they won a few months ago. They do great work for the United States Navy. The Navy often matches the money that Congress puts up because the work is of such high quality. And this company is located in Bremerton, Washington, one of its branch offices. They do great work for Navy Region Northwest.

I don't have anything named after me. My family has no interest in this in any way, shape, or form. This is a good, solid program; and this company this year has no one representing it. It doesn't have a lobbying firm. Well, the gentleman wants to make various insinuations, but I still funded it because it was quality work. It was work that was meritorious. And Congress has the right to do this.

Congress also has the right to review national programs. National programs should be considered by Congress. We can either increase the funding for them or decrease the funding for them. We have the right to do that. Congress has the power of the purse, and we can't give it away because it's in the Constitution. And this is an important issue.

Now, all I can tell my colleagues here is that this is a good operation in Bremerton. They're doing fine work for the United States Navy, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman obviously hasn't read the bill because it's in the bill that you have to compete these projects if it is done by a for-profit

company. Congress has passed a law saying you have to compete these. So the gentleman is wrong in so many ways, but on this one you are really wrong.

Will the gentleman yield?

If, in fact, we do wind up competing these projects, which is the intent of our committee, wouldn't the gentleman say that that is a major step forward in correcting his concern, if they were, in fact, competed?

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Because, again, the gentleman may not understand the process. It is because that is the company that has made the request of the Member of Congress. The Member of Congress now realizes that it is going to be competed, that it isn't going to necessarily go to that company. I think that is a good reform. I supported it in the Appropriations Committee.

Also, by the way, for the gentleman's knowledge, all of these earmarks, every single earmark, was vetted with the Department of Defense before the committee staff and Members considered those amendments. They were looked at by the Department of Defense.

They're the ones that made the request.

I think we ought to fight for that language in conference to do the very best we can to prevail and to keep that language.

Will the gentleman yield?

I think it's a very simple answer. It's the company that made the request. But that doesn't mean that when there is a competition that this funding is going to necessarily go to that company. But if you want the people to certify that they don't have a financial interest, you've got to put down the name of the company that made the request.

We might want to change that language to ``will compete for the project.''

I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.

I want to congratulate Chairman Murtha and Mr. Young, who has been our chairmen in the past, for the excellent work they have done in crafting this Defense Appropriations bill.

I have been on this committee for 31 years, and I am Vice Chairman, and I think we have a great staff that works collaboratively on this bill.

In discussing this process issue, I think the one thing that we do want the American people to understand is that in every one of our 12 subcommittees, the ranking member, the Republican, and the Democratic chairman are working together very effectively. They are involved in the entire process. I feel that this is an indication that there is a bipartisan collaboration on these bills.

At the full committee, there is no limit on amendments. The minority was able to offer as many amendments as they wished on each of these twelve bills.

Yes, if you will yield me an additional minute.

We got through these 12 bills, and what I am saying here today is the American people want us to get our work done.

Now, when you are faced with the reality of the minority offering 600 amendments--600 amendments--that would take us days to go through 600 amendments, we have got other issues that have to be dealt with.

I am not going to yield at this point until I finish.

The first year that I was chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, we went back and looked at it. The year before, when we were in the minority, it took about 8 hours to finish the bill, to go through the entire bill. The first year we were in the majority, it was 22 hours, and there was no limit to the amount of amendments that could be offered.

So I think we had to do this. This was the responsible thing to do, was to limit the number of amendments, let the people like Mr. Flake, Mr. Campbell, who want to pick out some of the earmarks that they are against, let them have their moment to address those issues and deal with any other major substantive matters. But in order to get our work done, we could not let this thing be open-ended when one side just wants to abuse the process, unfortunately.

Now, if we could have gotten an agreement, and I am told our leadership went over and met with Mr. Boehner, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis and tried to work out something. The way you would work this out--and the gentleman from California and I are good friends and we worked together on many important trade issues over the years and I have great respect for him--well, the way to work this thing out is for the two sides to get together before we go to the floor and limit the number of amendments, limit the number of amendments, and then have a unanimous consent agreement, if both sides can control their Members.

I will yield on that point.

But there is a lack of trust here, because if we can't get an agreement which the leadership on both sides embrace, then there is no reason, not to restrict the number of amendments, because there is an element within the gentleman's party that wants to offer unlimited amendments.

Again, all I am saying is we got our work done. All 12 of these bills will have been enacted before the August recess. This hasn't happened in years. I wish that we could have had an open process, but when the minority is talking about 600 amendments, on the defense bill there is no choice but to limit the number of amendments. We had to limit it in order to get our work done.

The gentleman's amendment represents a misguided view on the subject of climate change and global warming. As the United States finally faces up to its responsibility to adapt to climate change, the gentleman wants to hobble our efforts for some illogical reason.

I, for one, am very comforted by the fact that Carol Browner is serving President Obama on energy and climate change issues and our response to them. We need all of the expertise that we can muster as we figure out how to adapt and mitigate climate change. My friend Carol Browner brings her respected experience as the former head of EPA to this job. The President, as well as the entire country, could not be better served in this important battle.

Also, the gentleman appears to want to defund the Council on Environmental Quality. The CEQ, under Nancy Sutley, is probably one of the best repositories of environmental expertise, and the United States is well served by them. NEPA was created in 1969 and Richard Nixon signed it into law.

As the chairman of the Interior and Environmental Appropriations Committee, I'm proud of the fact that we have dramatically increased funding for climate change science and wildlife adaptation over the last few years. But as my good friend Mike Simpson, who is the ranking member on the Interior Subcommittee, repeatedly has said, we must make sure that the increased spending to combat climate change is spent properly. And I think that Carol Browner can also provide that kind of oversight at the White House. Why anyone would want to refuse her work is beyond me.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this very, very mischievous amendment.

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

I will just say this. We had at least 50 oversight hearings on this deal. Mr. Simpson and I----

Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee and someone who shares the concern of many in this House about the need to protect and restore threatened and endangered species, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues a report recently released by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service on the effects of the long-term operation of California's Central Valley Project and State Water Project.

The Central Valley Project is a Federal Bureau of Reclamation water project which supplies irrigation and municipal water to inland California from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Sacramento River, along with the American River, was once among the top salmon spawning rivers on the West Coast, behind only the Columbia and Snake Rivers. The Sacramento was the only river in the West with four salmon runs, with returning fish numbered in the millions. Now one run is gone, and two are endangered, and the fourth could be listed soon. The scientists concluded in this most recent biological opinion that without wild salmon from the Sacramento and American Rivers, the killer whales known so-well throughout the Puget Sound would likely face extinction.

These findings only stress the interconnectedness of our biosphere and the need to find a balance between the demands of irrigation and agriculture with those required by the species that once thrived in these rivers. In Washington State, we have worked very hard to find compromises between agriculture, power generation, and salmon restoration. While there is still work to be done, we have made great strides in implementing a mark selective fishery, one of the best tools for restoring wild salmon runs.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in California, Oregon, and Washington, in establishing a comprehensive plan to ensure the recovery and survival of our legendary wild salmon and killer whales.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I am submitting for the record an article recently published by McClatchy Newspapers, which provides an excellent overview of the biological opinion, the history of wild salmon in California, and the recent decline of the killer whales.

[From McClatchy Newspapers, July 5, 2009]

California Water Plan Aims To Save Puget Sound Orcas

(By Les Blumenthal)

Washington.--A plan to restore salmon runs on California's

Sacramento River also could help revive killer whale

populations 700 miles to the north in Puget Sound, as federal

scientists struggle to protect endangered species in a

complex ecosystem that stretches along the Pacific coast from

California to Alaska.

Without wild salmon from the Sacramento and American rivers

as part of their diet, the killer whales might face

extinction, scientists concluded in a biological opinion that

could result in even more severe water restrictions for

farmers in the drought-stricken, 400-mile-long Central Valley

of California. The valley is the nation's most productive

farm region.

The plan has faced heated criticism from agricultural

interests and politicians in California, but

environmentalists said it represented a welcome departure by

the Obama administration from its predecessor in dealing with

Endangered Species Act issues.

The Sacramento plan, they add, is in sharp contrast to the

plan for restoring wild salmon populations on the Columbia

and Snake rivers in Washington state and Idaho. That plan,

written by the Bush administration, essentially concluded

that the long-term decline in those federally protected runs

didn't jeopardize the killer whales' existence because

hatchery fish could make up the difference.

The 85 orcas of the southern resident killer whale

population travel in three separate pods, spending much of

their time roaming the inland waters of Washington state from

the San Juan Islands to south Puget Sound. During the winter

they've been found offshore, ranging as far south as Monterey

Bay in California and as far north as British Columbia's

Queen Charlotte Islands. Each orca has distinctive markings,

which allows them to be tracked.

In the mid-1990s, there were nearly 100 orcas in the three

southern resident pods. The population fell to fewer than 80

in 2001. In 2005, they were granted federal protection as an

endangered species. They've been studied closely for only 30

years or so, but historically there may have been up to 200

southern resident orcas.

Researchers think that the decline has resulted from

pollution--which could cause immune- or reproductive-system

dysfunction--and from oil spills, noise and other vessel

disturbances, along with a reduced quantity and quality of

prey.

With the largest 27 feet long and weighing 10,000 pounds,

orcas are constantly on the prowl for food. They've been

known to hunt in packs. Their meal of choice: salmon,

particularly chinook salmon.

By some estimates, the orcas eat about 500,000 salmon a

year.

``We are trying to figure out how killer whales fit in,''

said Bradley Hanson, a wildlife biologist with the National

Marine Fisheries Services in Seattle who studies orcas. ``We

don't have a lot of information on the movement of southern

resident whales down the coast. We don't have a lot of

information on adult salmon movements off the coast.''

Before 2000, Hanson said, no one was quite sure where the

killer whales went when they went to sea. It was a surprise

when they showed up near Monterey Bay, he said.

The Sacramento and American river systems combined were

once among the top salmon-spawning rivers on the West Coast,

trailing only the Columbia and Snake rivers.

Prompted by lawsuits, the National Marine Fisheries Service

last month published its latest plan for the Sacramento and

American rivers' winter and fall chinook salmon runs. Without

further curtailments of water for the federal Central Valley

Project--a several-hundred-mile network of dams, canals and

pumping plants--and the California State Water Project--the

nation's largest state-built water and power development and

conveyance system, which supplies water for 23 million

Californians--the two runs are in jeopardy of extinction, the

plan said.

Without changes, the southern resident killer whales, a run

of steelhead and a population of North American green

sturgeon almost certainly would disappear, according to the

plan.

The killer whale population is extremely fragile, and

scientists said the loss or serious injury to just one could

appreciably reduce the odds that the southern resident pods

would recover or survive.

The scientists who wrote the Sacramento plan also said that

hatchery-raised salmon couldn't be counted on to sustain the

killer whales' survival.

``Healthy wild salmon populations are important to the

long-term maintenance of prey populations available to

southern residents, because it is uncertain whether a

hatchery-only stock could be sustained indefinitely,'' the

scientists said.

Not only are there concerns about long-term funding for the

hatcheries, but scientists also have questions about whether

hatchery fish are as genetically strong and healthy as wild

ones. Though changes to the hatcheries could improve the fish

they produce, there's no agreement on what needs to be done

and no guarantees that the changes would work.

The latest plan for the Columbia-Snake wild salmon runs

concluded that continued operation of the federal

hydroelectric dams on the two rivers was ``not likely to

adversely affect'' the killer whales. Earlier, federal

scientists found that ``perhaps the single greatest change in

food availability for resident killer whales since the late

1800s has been the decline of salmon from the Columbia River

basin.''

Despite the decline in wild runs, the scientists who worked

on the Columbia plan concluded that hatchery fish would be

able to make up any deficit in the orcas' diet.

Though the Columbia-Snake salmon plan acknowledges the

potential problems with hatchery fish, it dismisses, at least

for now, their impact on killer whale food supplies.

Lynne Barre, a National Marine Fisheries Service scientist

in Seattle who helped write both plans, downplays any

differences.

``I think we say the same thing in both opinions,'' Barre

said, adding that both plans recognize that hatchery fish

could be a short-term substitute for wild fish but that there

were concerns about whether hatchery fish could be a long-

term food source for orcas. ``The general principles are

similar.''

Environmentalists, however, say that the differences

couldn't be more obvious.

``The contrasts are striking,'' said Todd True, a lawyer

for the Seattle office of Earthjustice, which has challenged

the Columbia-Snake plan in a lawsuit in federal court in

Portland, Ore.

True said the Sacramento salmon plan was a ``candid piece

of work that had a strong independent review and the absence

of political interference.'' As for the Columbia-Snake plan,

True said that it ``pretends there isn't a problem.''

The judge in the Portland case has given the Obama

administration until Aug. 15 to indicate whether it'll stick

with the Columbia-Snake salmon plan written during the Bush

administration or offer a new one. True said he'd raise the

orca issue again.

Other environmentalists said that Jane Lubchenco, who heads

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which

includes the fisheries service, must be aware of the

differences in how the two salmon plans addressed killer

whales. Lubchenco is a marine biologist who taught at Oregon

State University.

``They need to decide which of the contradictory statements

are correct,'' said Pat Ford of Save Our Wild Salmon.

Objection.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

I just want to commend everyone for their hard work and staying last night to work on this very important bill. I want to thank Mr. Simpson, his staff and all the members of the committee. I think this is one of the best Interior appropriation bills that I can ever remember. I want to thank Mr. Campbell for being so cooperative.

I think we ought to move ahead here and get to final passage, but again, thank you and I hope you will all vote for and support this bill.

Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and someone who is very concerned about the need to safeguard wildlife and ecosystems from global warming, I wish to express my strong support for the ``American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.'' I believe that the policy provisions in this legislation, coupled with a new core funding stream for wildlife and natural resources derived from a portion of the Federal revenues from expected cap-and-trade legislation will provide the policy response necessary to tackle this significant challenge.

I am very much aware of the need to take action to address global warming, and I have held hearings to examine the impact of climate change on many of the agencies and resources under my subcommittee's jurisdiction. I have consistently stated my belief that climate change may be the emerging issue of our time. Climate change will alter the face of our planet in ways we cannot yet fully comprehend, and I believe it is our responsibility not only to do as much as possible to halt or slow it, but also to do everything in our power to protect the earth's resources from its impacts so that future generations will be able to benefit from them as we and past generations have done.

Our Nation's wildlife is one critically important resource that is particularly vulnerable to climate change and is also a resource that is a fundamental part of America's history and character. Conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat is a core value shared by all Americans.

America's wildlife is vital to our Nation for many reasons. Wildlife conservation provides economic, social, educational, recreational, emotional, and spiritual benefits. The economic value of the outdoor recreation industry--hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing, hiking, paddling--alone is estimated to contribute $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy. Wildlife habitat, including forests, grasslands, riparian lands, wetlands, rivers and other water bodies, is an essential component of the American landscape, and is protected and valued by Federal, State, and local governments, Tribes, private landowners, and conservation organizations.

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the effect of climate change on wildlife will be profound. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports have made clear that global warming is occurring, that it is exacerbated by human activity, and that it will have devastating impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. In addition, a recent report, Global Climate Change in the United States, was released by the Administration and reflects the most current information from our Nation's leading scientists who agree that the impacts from climate change are already being felt and will continue to increase.

Global warming is already impacting all of us: threatening the water we drink, the air we breathe, the medicines we use, the food we eat, the forests and fisheries we depend on, the special places we take our children. Wildlife is suffering from massive changes in habitat, particularly in the arctic, and shifts in ranges and timing of migration and breeding cycles. Continued global warming could lead to large-scale species extinctions. These impacts add to and compound the adverse effects wildlife and its habitat already suffer from land development, energy development, road construction, and other human activities, and from other threats such as invasive species and disease.

According to the IPCC, global warming and associated sea level rise will continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized now or in the very near future. I believe that, as a nation, we must craft responses and mechanisms now to help navigate the threats global warming poses to the natural resources that we all depend upon for survival.

To conserve natural resources and wildlife in the face of the far- reaching effects of global warming, there is a need for a coordinated, national strategy based on sound scientific information to ensure that impacts on wildlife that span government jurisdictions are effectively addressed and to ensure that Federal funds are prudently committed. Ensuring strategic and efficient allocation of funding is something of particular interest to me as an appropriator.

To that end, I have acted within my capacity as a lead appropriator on this issue to advance steps necessary to combat the climate change impacts we have already set underway. I have worked to establish the Global Warming and Wildlife Science center at the U.S. Geological Survey, now receiving its second year of funding. Also in the recent FY09 omnibus appropriations bill and the FY2010 Interior Appropriations bill. I have provided direction to the Department of the Interior to develop a national strategy to address global warming's impacts on fish, wildlife, and natural resources.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act will help ensure that the pressing needs that are faced by the agencies and programs under the Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee to help wildlife and wildlife habitat are addressed strategically, based on a foundation of sound scientific information, and that funding is driven through proven programs at the Federal, State and tribal levels in the most efficient way possible. I have also included significant funding increases. But I can only do so much in the Interior Appropriations bill.

I also have one additional but very significant point to make about funding to address impacts to natural resources and wildlife from global warming. It is essential that actions to safeguard wildlife and the natural resources will all depend upon receiving adequate funding. Addressing the greatest conservation challenge of our time will require long-term investments of the magnitude that only the revenue stream created by comprehensive climate and energy legislation can provide. While I support dedicating more of the allowances under this bill to natural resources adaptation, the 1 percent currently contained in the bill represents an important start of the problem. As I have indicated, the impacts are occurring today and the need is urgent. Paying for these investments through climate revenues takes the burden of protecting these resources off taxpaying citizens and onto the polluting entities responsible for causing global warming pollution.

The Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee allocation is woefully stressed just dealing with the current needs of the agencies and programs under its jurisdiction. Our Federal land management agencies have tremendous backlogs for operations and maintenance of our national wildlife refuges, parks, forests, and other public lands. This situation was greatly exacerbated under the Bush administration budgets and prior Congresses. Hundreds of important biologist positions have been cut, and the agencies' budgets are far below what they have needed just to keep up with inflation. These programs have been starved to the point where they are on life support. It became apparent in hearings the subcommittee has held on global warming that the land management agencies are already seeing the results of climate change on the ground, but that they have few, if any, resources to deal with these changes. With the effects of global warming only expected to increase in severity in the coming years, I believe it is crucial to infuse a new core funding stream into our efforts to address this crisis, and I am pleased that the American Clean Energy and Security Act provides an important new funding stream.

This is a great Nation with a unique and irreplaceable natural heritage. We must take steps now to protect our wonderful wildlife from the ravages of climate change. With this in mind, I plan to vote for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding time.

I just want to say to my colleagues that I believe this is an extraordinarily good bill. Mr. Simpson and I worked together on a bipartisan basis to craft this legislation. Our staffs worked together very effectively; and we had an open process, an open subcommittee markup where any member could have offered any amendment that they wanted. We had a full committee markup where any member of the Appropriations Committee could have offered an amendment, either side of the aisle; and many were offered.

I just want you to know that I understand Mr. Simpson's statement here. He feels badly that we don't have an open rule. I would have preferred an open rule. But when we took control of the House, all of a sudden we had an extension of time on these bills. I can remember the last year I was the ranking member, Mr. Taylor was the chairman. I think we went about 8 hours. The next year when I became chairman, it was over 20 hours, and it was an exhaustive process.

I just think we have to remember that we've got to get these 12 bills passed. The greatest sin, in my judgment, is to not do our work; and there are some people in this House who don't want to see the work get done because then they can point the finger of failure at the majority. I have to support my leadership because they have offered their hand-- they went over and they talked to Mr. Boehner. They talked to Mr. Lewis, who is here on the floor. And they said, We would like to work out an agreement on these bills on how we can proceed. And they were rebuffed.

So we started out, and we found that there was going to be, on the first bill, a huge number of amendments. There was going to be a long- term delay in getting the work done. So we had no choice but to go to the Rules Committee and get a structured rule. I would have preferred an open rule, but I support what our leadership has done. I think until the leadership gets together and works out a different way, we're going to be doing it this way. It takes both sides here to cooperate and to realize that we have to limit the number of amendments, either by an agreement or by a structured rule.

Now this is a very good bill. I hope that this dispute about the procedure doesn't get in the way of the fact that this is one of the best--maybe the greatest--Interior appropriations bill that has ever been enacted.

I want to say something. Over the last 8 years, between 2001 and 2008, during the previous administration, the budget for the Interior Department was cut by 16 percent. The budget for the EPA was cut by 29 percent; and the budget for the Forest Service, if you take fire out, was cut by 35 percent. These were huge cuts in these programs. The Park Service was in trouble. The Fish and Wildlife Service was in trouble. We had to step in, and we did this on a bipartisan basis. In fact, when I was in the minority, Mr. Taylor and I, Mr. Regula and I worked to try to increase the funding for the Park Service so we wouldn't see it deteriorate. Now we have a better budget, and it helps us correct some of the problems. Still we have huge backlogs of work that have to be done in the Park Service, in the Fish and Wildlife Service, at the BLM. So even with a better budget, we still do not have enough money to take care of all the issues that we need to address.

But this is a good bill that deserves our support, and this rule deserves support.

Thank you for yielding. Is this the Cascade ecosystems in Mount Baker, Wenatchee?

And this is in the Forest Service?

This is the first I have known of this. My colleague from Washington State, I understand your very long and very principled position on this issue. I would be delighted to take a look at this and report back to the gentleman on what I have found out and see what the situation is with the Forest Service.

Yes. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our attention, and we look forward to working together, as we have on many projects throughout the years.

I want to point out that in this bill, at the request of the local cities and counties of our country, we have appropriated some money that will be used for climate change and to deal with the impacts of climate change.

And I would just point out, since this issue was raised on the other side of the aisle, that if we were going to do meaningful work on climate change, it's going to take our local communities to be involved, to work with their transportation systems and their energy systems and do all the other work that's necessary to deal with the

consequences of climate change. So I think this was a very wise investment. The local communities, the League of Cities, the counties, are all very enthusiastic about this.

Administrator Lisa Jackson put out an announcement the other day about this program. I am sure there will be hundreds of applications from all over this country. Climate change is one of the most serious issues facing our country.

We held hearings and brought in representatives from all the Federal agencies, and they all tell us unequivocally that they can already see the impacts of climate change on the Federal lands across the country. I mean, people are talking about bug infestation and they are talking about the effect of this bug infestation, which has a devastating effect on our forestry and our trees.

And then we have the fire issues that relate to this. The fire season now is 1 month longer on each end. So we have drought, bug infestation. We have longer fire seasons. So we have all these things that are happening because of global warming and climate change, and we have to deal with that. And we have to have our communities involved. We have to have our rural communities involved.

So I think the investments that we are making here and the research that we are doing is very necessary. There are still some people, it's amazing to me, who still have some doubts about this from a scientific perspective. So that's why we are doing all these things in the Interior bill.

I move to lay the appeal on the table.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is my privilege and pleasure to present the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to you today. This very fine bill is the product of many hours of hearings and briefings, always with bipartisan input and excellent participation. I am particularly pleased to present the bill with my friend, Mike Simpson.

The bill before us provides historic increases for the environment, natural resources, and Native American programs, especially Indian health. It also includes significant allocations to protect our public lands, invest in science, and support important cultural agencies.

At a total of $32.3 billion, this bill is an increase of 17 percent above last year. Chairman Obey recognizes that the programs funded through this bill have been chronically underfunded and provided the allocation necessary to reverse that trend.

From 2001 through 2009, when adjusted for inflation, the budget request for the Interior Department went down by 16 percent, the EPA went down by 29 percent, and the nonfire Forest Service accounts went down by 35 percent. This bill invests taxpayers' dollars in our natural resources, and for this investment all Americans will see great returns.

Some will argue that we are spending too much in this bill, but let's look at the facts. The largest increase by far is for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. The demand for assistance to repair, rehabilitate, or build new infrastructure is immense. This subcommittee received 1,200 requests for such assistance from both sides of the aisle.

Every one of us wants clean and safe drinking water for our constituents. This increase is long overdue. In fact, the first administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, under President Bush in 2002 did a study that showed that there was a $668 billion backlog for these kinds of programs. This kind of infrastructure is desperately needed. That's why we added money here and added money in the stimulus package.

Yes, this bill includes a $4.7 billion increase above the 2009 level, but let me remind my colleagues that the programs in this bill will return more than $14.5 billion to the Treasury next year. That's revenue. The Department of the Interior alone is estimated to return more than $13 billion to the Treasury through oil, gas and coal revenues, grazing, timber, recreation fees, and the revenues from the sale of the duck stamps.

I should also note that the EPA's Leaking Underground Storage Tank program, financed by a 0.1 percent tax per gallon of gas sold, has a balance of more than $3 billion that offsets the deficit. Clearly, the programs in this bill go a long way towards paying for themselves.

But let me be clear. This bill is not all increases. We had to make difficult choices. Through hearings and briefings, we carefully reviewed the proposed budget and have recommended a number of reductions and terminations. Some of these were the result of recommendations made by the GAO and the Inspector General. In total, we recommend program reductions or terminations of over $320 million from the 2009 levels and $300 million from the budget request.

The bill before us today provides historic increases and focused funding to protect the environment. Clean water and drinking water infrastructure received $3.9 billion, enough to provide assistance to more than 1,500 communities.

We included authority for subsidized assistance to those cities and towns which cannot afford conventional loans. These funds would provide drinking water that meets public health standards and clean water to restore important ecosystems. The bill invests $667 million to restore major American lakes, estuaries, and bays. It fully funds the President's request of $475 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and makes significant investments to protect other great American water bodies such as Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Chesapeake Bay.

To address global climate change, this bill provides $420 million for climate change adaptation and scientific study. This includes $178 million for research, planning and conservation efforts within the Department of the Interior and $195 million for EPA science, technology development and regulatory programs, including grants to local communities to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I am especially proud that the bill includes $15 million for the National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center at the U.S. Geological Survey.

The bill also addresses our Nation's commitment to Native Americans with increases for health care, law enforcement, and education in Indian country. This bill provides a total of $6.8 billion for Indian programs, an increase of $654 million above the 2009 level.

We recommend an historic increase of $471 million above 2009 for the Indian Health Service to improve the quality and availability of critical health care services. It also includes $182 million above 2009 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to support justice, law enforcement, education, and social services in Native American communities.

We recommend a major investment in Forest Service and Department of the Interior programs that fight and reduce wildfires. The bill has an unprecedented total of $3.66 billion for all of the fire accounts. We have increased overall wildfire suppression funding by 39 percent over 2009, including $357 million for the new wildfire suppression contingency reserve accounts.

In response to testimony received at a number of hearings, we also recommend a $611 million investment in hazardous fuels reduction. It is clear that focused fuels reduction is important if we hope to reduce the number and severity of wildfires in the future and protect communities and watersheds.

The bill provides a $198 million increase above 2009 for the National Park Service to invest in the iconic lands and infrastructure that comprise our national heritage. I am also particularly proud of our efforts to improve the National Wildlife Refuge System. We have provided $503 million, a $40 million increase over 2009, for the refuge system to reduce critical staffing shortages, implement climate change strategies, and improve conservation efforts.

The bill also supports land management, State assistance, and science programs at the Forest Service by increasing nonfire programs by $160 million above 2009. The bill provides $100 million for the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation program to protect streams and water systems from damaged forest roads. This is a key part of our effort to protect the national forests and grasslands.

And finally, we have provided an increase of $86 million above the 2009 level for the cultural agencies supported by this bill. We recommend $170 million for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The endowments are vital for preserving and encouraging America's creative and cultural heritage.

The bill also supports the Smithsonian Institution, the world's largest museum complex, with an increase of $43 million above 2009.

I'm especially proud of the way we produced this bill. Mr. Simpson has been an outstanding ranking member whose thoughtful contributions over the course of 20 hearings has helped us to make this a better bill. During those hearings, we heard from 37 government witnesses and 99 members of the public. We received written testimony from an additional 94 witnesses. I was most impressed with the minority's attendance at those hearings. This bill is the product of a bipartisan effort, and I truly believe it is a better bill because of that.

I want to take a moment to thank our staff who have worked long hours without weekend breaks to help prepare this bill. Delia Scott, our clerk; Chris Topik, Greg Knadle, Beth Houser, Juliette Falkner, Melissa Squire, and Greg Scott on the majority staff have worked in a bipartisan manner with David LesStrang and Darren Benjamin on the minority staff.

In addition, Pete Modaff and Ryan Shauers on my staff, and Malissah Small and Megan Milam from Mr. Simpson's staff have worked hard and

have been a great help to the subcommittee staff.

In closing, I want to remind members that although the increases I have outlined are substantial, their impacts will be even greater. Our subcommittee funds programs that span a broad spectrum of issues, from our cultural and historic heritage to the water we drink and the land we walk on. Our agencies fight fires, protect great water bodies, and tend to the needs of the first Americans.

These programs are vital to every American. They will improve the environment for everyone. And they work to fulfill our Nation's trust responsibilities.

I'm proud of this bill and ask that you support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

It is my understanding the community went forward with the necessary work in light of the Federal delay and now would like to use the money for a waterline. Is that correct?

I understand my colleague's problem. We're going to work with him and try to work this out with the other body. But I realize how serious this is, and we'll work with him until we get a satisfactory solution.

Madam Chair, if I could be recognized again, I want to yield 2 minutes to Congressman Gerald E. Connolly of Virginia for the purposes of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for acknowledging this important program. Would the gentleman agree that a critical component to freeing up additional dollars for the partnership program would be to have our existing heritage areas move towards self-sufficiency?

Madam Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia on this very important issue.

I would like to yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of having a colloquy with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Reclaiming my time, it is our understanding that the Member's statement of our intent is correct.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

The gentleman from Oklahoma has contacted me, and I have assured him, Chief Pyle and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma that the ranking member and I share with the entire subcommittee his desire to support these efforts to provide quality educational opportunities for the students from many tribes nationwide who attend

Jones Academy. I will work towards inclusion of the Jones Academy, should the BIA be untimely or unresponsive to the committee's directive. But I doubt that they will be.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Buyer, I would like to thank you for bringing this issue to light and I would like to work with you to improve the standards of these cemeteries. I do agree that we must improve these cemeteries to ensure that our appreciation for our veterans' sacrifices is appropriately expressed by maintaining their final resting place to the highest standards. I want to assure the gentleman that the National Park Service is taking steps towards better maintenance of the cemeteries. The national office of the Park Service is assembling a team with expertise and cultural resource preservation and maintenance. This team will conduct a review of these two active cemeteries and make recommendations to the national office regarding appropriate corrective actions where deficiencies are found. I would follow up this effort to ensure that the services provide a level of care befitting a national shrine. I look forward to working with you to address this issue.

I cannot do that.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Unfortunately I can't do that. But I will do everything I can, not only to address the two that you've mentioned, but all 14; and we'll work together on this. If it isn't to the gentleman's satisfaction, we will address it with legislation next year.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'm prepared to have a meeting with officials from the Interior Department, with Mr. Simpson, and yourself to address this issue. That's the best I can do today. But we will follow through and make sure it happens.

Madam Chair, I welcome a colloquy with my distinguished colleague, Mr. LaTourette, and yield him 2 minutes.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. We were pleased to include funding for this important program in the bill, based on the administration's budget request and the broad bipartisan support of my colleagues including my colleague from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

The gentleman from Ohio is indeed correct. In my district I have seen the importance of the partnerships in the CELCP to our fragile coastal resources. The committee expects NOAA to invest in Great Lakes conservation through CELCP, as the gentleman has outlined; and I would be happy to work with him to ensure that the funds will be used for this purpose.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, who is a distinguished member of our subcommittee (Mr. Chandler).

Will the gentleman yield?

First, Mr. Simpson, I want to commend you for your leadership on the Interior and Environment Subcommittee and your support of the DERA program. There is no doubt that the DERA program is a worthwhile and beneficial program that plays a significant role in combating global warming and improving air quality. This is why this subcommittee has continued to fund and support this program. We provided $60 million in both fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and an additional $300 million through the Recovery Act.

To date, only 32 percent of funds appropriated for this program through the Recovery Act have been spent. I understand that EPA plans to obligate all the Recovery Act funds before they begin a solicitation for the 2009 funds. It could be well into 2010 before the 2009 funds are spent.

President Obama's budget requested $60 million for the DERA program in FY10 and this bill provides that. Over the next fiscal year, I will work with you, Mr. Calvert--Congresswoman Doris Matsui has also talked to me about this--the EPA, and program stakeholders to review DERA in hopes of improving and streamlining its grant-making process and ensuring that we provide the proper level of funding in 2011.

Can you tell us what the remaining time is on both sides?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman for his work and his staff's work. It's been a real pleasure. Everyone has worked together. I also want to commend again, the attendance on your side of the aisle. We have four Cardinals on our subcommittee, so they have subcommittees they are running. It's very difficult for everybody to be there, but your side has been there, and it's been terrific and the questions have been great, and it's just been a real pleasure.

And I also want to thank Mr. Obey, the chairman of the full committee, for this allocation. We can only go as far as our allocation, and I think Mr. Obey recognized that we had been hurt over the last 8 years, and that this was a catch-up budget.

But these are such important programs, our national parks, our national forests, our Fish and Wildlife Service, and the programs for the tribes. And I have really appreciated Mr. Cole and Mr. Olver, who have both been so concerned and sensitive about these tribal issues.

And we have made substantial increases. But even with that, the work

remains to be done. There still is more that needs to be done in order to really take care of the issues in Indian country. And I thought some of our hearings this year where we really got into law enforcement and the need for more law enforcement, the need for a recognition that the laws are covering tribal areas today are not sufficient, and the Justice Department needs to take action on this.

So I commend the gentleman for his solid work and participation, and let's get on with the amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

This is a good amendment. It's the so-called manager's amendment. It does three important things, but they are modest.

First, as Chairman Rahall of the Natural Resources Committee pointed out, this amendment restores the Interior Department's authority to assist cooperative watershed projects that restore streams damaged by acid mine drainage. This authority was in law for several years but was inadvertently discontinued after the surface mining reclamation law amendments of 2006. This amendment aids citizens groups and States that are restoring streams damaged by previous coal mining.

Second, this amendment adds $10 million to the National Park Service State grant program. This program provides grants for acquisition of park and recreation lands by State and local communities and was proposed by Mr. McGovern.

There is tremendous demand for more parkland and for recreational facility development. It is more and more vital to get people, and especially kids, out in nature and outdoors doing active recreation.

Lastly, this amendment increases the Save America's Treasures program by $1 million. This will provide funding for cost share historic preservation projects, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just say to the gentleman from Idaho, we should have had more dialogue on this manager's amendment. And we are just getting a new team in place, and I am not blaming it on anybody, so I take responsibility myself. But in the future, on any manager's amendment, you and I will have a thorough discussion about it. And if the gentleman has some suggestions for the manager's amendment, they will be considered. So I take the gentleman's point as well made, and this is something we will follow through on.

Again, this is, I think, very noncontroversial, so I urge adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 9, line 20 be considered as read.

Madam Chairwoman, though I plan to support the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

I have to say that I have really appreciated the gentleman's leadership and the fact that he has come before our committee and taken the time to present witnesses. Also, I think this is a very good amendment. This is a good amendment that increases funding for a program that funds conservation easements that protect critical forest and watersheds in the Northeast. This amendment increases the funding for this program by $2 million, bringing the total to $4 million.

The Highlands conservation program is an example of how a cooperative approach to land protection can provide wood resources, wildlife habitat, watershed protection, recreational opportunities and other benefits to the environment and to the community. The goal of this program is to promote forest stewardship as a working, sustainable landscape, both ecologically and economically for future generations.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Idaho if he would like to say a word.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 68, line 12 be considered as read.

Madam Chair, although I support the gentleman's amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition.

I want to say that I strongly support this amendment. It is very clear to me that in California, in Washington, in Oregon, and in many States, this has become a tremendous problem. Drugs are being grown, marijuana particularly, on Federal lands. I think we have to do more on enforcement. I commend the gentleman for his leadership in presenting the amendment. Our side supports it.

If the gentleman has nothing further to say, I think we ought to have a vote on his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 119, line 15 be considered as read.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I understand that citizens and the Carson City Board of Supervisors are concerned about the Interior Department plan to build an urgently needed new wildfire facility, but it is clearly premature to cut off funding for this proposal. The environmental analysis is still out for public review. We should not halt this important project before the analysis and the public input can be analyzed and considered.

Carson City is a fire-prone area. It is really important for the Federal agencies to move ahead with an interagency center so they can be more efficient and effective firefighters. This new joint facility will support the Silver Hotshot Group, a key part of the firefighting force.

The Interior Department has already spent funds for the planning and design of this particular project, so we should not stop or unduly delay its implementation. Both the Interior Department and the Forest Service have budgeted some of their limited infrastructure funding for this badly needed project.

I understand the gentleman from Nevada has concerns. I pledge to work with him as this bill moves forward to be sure that his constituents' concerns are heard and fully considered. We all want to improve the firefighting capacity and protect neighborhoods and wildlands.

This amendment was not brought to our attention, the committee's attention, until very late in the process. Had we known, we could have taken an opportunity to talk to the Department, to hear the gentleman's views. He did not come to the committee and testify. There was an opportunity for Members to testify. He chose not to do that.

So I think that this is an amendment that comes late, is not favored by the administration, is actually going to weaken our firefighting capability and this is something that is serious because people's lives are at stake. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this misguided amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

This amendment would harm this bill dramatically and would shortchange America's vitally needed environmental conservation and Native American programs.

As our former colleague, Silvio Conte, would say: This is a mindless, meat ax approach. It makes no choices based on need or the merits of the programs. This reduction is the equivalent of a 17.8 percent cut. This is completely irresponsible. This is not just an accounting change on a spreadsheet. Cutting $5.75 billion from the bill would have serious consequences on health, jobs, energy programs, young people and wild places.

The Environmental Protection Agency would be reduced by $1.8 billion. This would seriously impair environmental protection, science programs, and hazardous area remediation. Funding for efforts to help local communities with repairs to their aging water and wastewater infrastructure would be reduced by $700 million. This would mean that approximately 400 communities would not receive the financial assistance they need to repair and improve water and sewer infrastructure.

Despite the fact that 76 million Americans live within 4 miles of a toxic waste site, the amendment cuts $233 million from programs to clean up the Nation's most toxic and hazardous waste sites. It reduces the landmark effort to clean up the Great Lakes by $85 million, thus jeopardizing the cleanup of toxic sediments in the lakes and harming the aquatic plants and animals which humans depend upon.

Our national parks would be cut by $485 million. It includes a $403 million reduction below the President's request for the basic operational costs of the 395 units of the national park system. As an example, Yosemite would lose $3.6 million; Yellowstone, $4.6 million; the Independence Mall in Philadelphia, $2.8 million. This reduction is the equivalent of closing 75 national park units. Many visitors would find closed national parks when they go on vacation or on educational trips, reducing the entire tourism industry and harming the economy of many cities and communities.

It rejects $1.2 billion for programs that have received bipartisan support by cutting $721 million out of Indian health care programs. This proposal would deny critically needed services to thousands of Native Americans. More than 2 million Native Americans would be denied inpatient and outpatient health care services and more than 4,000 cancer screenings would be eliminated.

It takes $90 million out of the already struggling Indian education programs, leaving even more Indian children without adequate education programs.

It reduces overall funding for firefighting by $652 million at a time when we are facing another dangerous wildfire season. Many small fires would escape initial attack, leading to many more large wildfires that harm watersheds and cost far more money in emergency firefighting and recovery costs.

It cuts 1,700 firefighters, shuts down more than 50 firefighter stations, and significantly reduces air tanker support. It decimates preparedness efforts by failing to provide critical support for initial attacks, and could allow as many as 600 more wildfires to escalate.

This would lead to larger, more damaging and much more expensive fires, the kind that costs in excess of $100 million to extinguish.

So I think this is a very bad amendment. It hurts the Fish and Wildlife Service. It hurts the Forest Service.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Again I want to say that our committee held countless oversight hearings. We made cuts, $300 million in cuts.

I would also say that this part of the budget, under the previous administration was reduced, Interior Department, by 16 percent, the EPA by 29 percent, the Forest Service by 35 percent. So this will help bring back these important programs. I mean, we are talking about health care in the Indian Health Service.

Mr. Obey made a decision. President Obama made a decision. It went through OMB. Many of the people on the other side of the aisle have no trust in the Congress, but this budget came from the administration. The administration looked at all these programs, And every earmark we had in this bill was vetted by the administration. So this has been carefully put together.

I spent 33 years on this committee, and I'll tell you this, we know what we're doing. We support the Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service. These are great institutions that deserve our support, and to have somebody come in here and accuse us of not doing our work is an insult to me and to Mr. Simpson because we have done our work. We know what's in this bill, and it's a good bill.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and yield back my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to seek the time in opposition.

I urge Members to oppose this amendment. The gentleman from Florida would not have believed it if I had accepted his amendment, and of course I can't accept it because this amendment is not a good amendment.

The gentleman says that this amendment would reduce the EPA to the fiscal year 2009 funding level, but let's talk about what it will really do.

A reduction of 38 percent to the funds provided in this bill for EPA would equal a $3.975 billion cut. That would eliminate all the funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, and 27,000 fewer construction jobs would be created through construction of water and wastewater infrastructure. That means almost 1,500 communities across this country would not receive assistance to repair and build drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.

It was the previous administration that reported a $662 billion gap between what our communities will need to spend and the funds they have to do it with. This reduction would mean that the great water bodies of this country will not receive the funding to help restore and protect these special natural resources.

The great water bodies are not just the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico. If you represent a district that borders any of these water bodies, this amendment will cut the funding your community depends on to help protect them: Mobile Bay, Alabama; San Francisco Bay; Morro Bay, California; Santa Monica Bay; Long Island Sound; Delaware Estuary; Tampa Bay; Sarasota Bay; Charlotte Harbor, Florida; Indian River Lagoon, Florida; Barataria Terrebonne, Louisiana; Casco Bay, Maine; Maryland coastal bays; Massachusetts Bay; Narragansett Bay; New Hampshire estuaries; New York/ New Jersey Harbor; Barnegat Bay, New Jersey; Peconic Estuary; Albemarle Pamlico Sound; Lower Columbia River; Tillamook Bay, Oregon; San Juan Bay, Puerto Rico; Coastal Bend Bays, Texas; and Galveston Bay, Texas.

I would warn Members that 151 Members of this body whose districts border one of these estuaries that I mentioned will see that their funding will be cut for these important programs.

A reduction of this size would mean the EPA would stop construction and demobilize 8 to 10 large, high-cost ongoing Superfund projects such as the Welsbach site in New Jersey, the Tar Creek site in Oklahoma, and the New Bedford site in Massachusetts. EPA would not be able to start any new Superfund sites in 2010 after years of reduction under the previous administration.

EPA estimates that a reduction of this size would prohibit them from completing construction at as many as nine Superfund sites in 2010 and 2011. This reduction would mean EPA would not properly certify new vehicles, fuels, and engines sold in the United States to make sure they conform to EPA's emission standards. And 217 tribes would lose funding for their environmental programs. A 38 percent reduction to the EPA would impact every program they administer. But most importantly, this reduction would affect every American who wants to drink clean water and breathe clean air.

Let me remind the Members, we all have an environment in our districts, so I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the Stearns amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I will answer the gentleman's question. I want you to know, again, I have to say this again, and it pains me every time I say it, but over the last 8 years, the Interior Department was cut by 16 percent; EPA was cut by 29 percent. So this is a little bit of help to get back to an approach that can deal effectively with some of the most important and sensitive programs we have in this country: the Superfund sites, our wastewater treatment, our clean water.

When you ask the American people, do you want clean water, do you want safe drinking water, it's a 99 percent issue. So to stand up here and say we're going to have draconian cuts of the money for the revolving funds that are going to provide that clean water, it is unthinkable. And I know the gentleman wants me to stop. It must be painful. The truth is always painful.

Madam Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I want the gentleman to know that this amendment, you put it on your Web site. We looked at it very carefully. And we feel that this is a totally justified amendment. We strongly support it.

We checked with the Park Service, and the Park Service strongly supports it.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

First of all, I want to say we strongly oppose this amendment. We have checked on this project. We think this is a great project. We think it's worthy. We think it provides a lot of public good. And I'd be glad to yield to my friend from New York (Mr. McHugh) to further discuss this project.

Will the gentlewoman just yield for a moment?

I just want to say, our side strongly supports this amendment. It was properly vetted. This is one of those incredibly important things for a local community, and we want this project to be funded.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Chair, I want to rise in strong support of her amendment and the Speaker's amendment.

This is a very important project. And I urge a ``no'' vote on the Campbell amendment.

I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

The ``bridge to nowhere'' was not an Appropriations Committee project. This was a project of the House Transportation Committee, and our committee had no responsibility for this.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to say to the gentleman that the committee strongly supports his amendment. We think this is a good amendment. It's well thought out. We like the fact that the city and the State put up money. It's a real partnership. This is the way we do things today, and the gentleman is a distinguished member of the committee and we are proud of his good work.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I just would say to the gentleman, I hope when we get to entitlement reform, where the real money is spent, over two-thirds of the budget is in the entitlement reform, that I will see the gentleman from California and the gentleman's from Texas out here doing their good work on something that makes a difference.

With all due respect, the good efforts, I think what the gentlemen has done has led to reform. We have changed the way we operate in the Appropriations Committee. Everything is put on the Web site when it's requested, all the agencies review this. If it's for profit, it has to be competed.

Remember--we are going to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I move that the Committee do now rise.