4:40 PM EDT

Steven C. LaTourette, R-OH 14th

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the Chair.

There's a lot going on in Washington, Mr. Chairman, and I would tell you that people back home think we can't get along, but this is a great example of how we're going to get along, and I'm going to become the second member of this subcommittee to say something nice about a member of the Democratic Party, and that's the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

President Obama became the first President of the United States in history to recognize that we needed to put real money into Great Lakes restoration. Those of us who live in the region selfishly know it, and those around the world know it as about 20 percent of the world's freshwater.

We've nickeled-and-dimed and sort of moved along with some nice legislation in this House, some of it written by one of our former colleagues, Mr. Ehlers of Michigan, the Great Lakes Legacy Act, but it wasn't until President Obama, and I suspect that his then-Chief of Staff, the new mayor of Chicago, Mr. Emanuel, was whispering in his ear because he was certainly conversant with these issues, that we need to address the Great Lakes as an ecosystem and make sure that we deal with it appropriately.

So President Obama proposed $475 million a couple of years ago for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. However, as so many things occur around here, that went from 475 to 300, and now in this bill we find it to be $250 million. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is designed to mitigate toxic substances in the Great Lakes, to reduce the impact of invasive species, to improve nearshore health and reduce nonpoint source pollution, improve habitat and reduce species loss, and improve information

engagement and accountability in the program overall.

I just want to focus on one of those, and that is the invasive species, and not the invasive species that come in ballast water. This is an invasive species that is swimming up the Mississippi River, the Asian carp. The Asian carp and I have something in common: The Asian carp can eat 20 percent of its body weight a day, and this Asian carp, if it is successful in breaking through the electronic barrier and getting into the Great Lakes, will devastate that entire ecosystem. This is important.

I know that there are some Members who are going to say, well, I love the Great Lakes; I love the fact that the President made this designation; you're right, we need more money, but what doesn't need more money in this bill, and the account from which I'm taking it, climate change, but if we don't take care of the Great Lakes, 20 percent of the world's freshwater, we're not going to have to worry about climate change because we're all going to be dead. We need to make sure that we protect this

valuable resource. And on this instance, Ms. Jackson, the administrator at the EPA, has been really a great partner in implementing these programs. She has over 300 projects under way at this current time.

I know this is a heavy lift, I know that it's selfish, but I would tell you that it's not selfish because the Great Lakes continue to be the treasure of the world, and there's going to come a time when water is the new oil when it comes to an important resource. I urge Members of the House to please support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

4:44 PM EDT

Mike Simpson, R-ID 2nd

Mr. SIMPSON. This is really hard, Mr. Chairman, but given our allocation, we had to cut many EPA programs, including programs we support like the clean water and drinking water State revolving funds. In the base bill, we reduced nearly every EPA geographic program below the 2011 enacted level, in addition to providing none of the requested increases.

Despite the cuts, restoration of the Great Lakes remains a committee priority as demonstrated by the fact that the Great Lakes program is the largest recipient of funds in the geographic programs. It's the largest geographical area, also, so you would probably expect that.

While I appreciate the intent of the gentleman's offset, where he offset this from, we cut EPA's climate budget by $23 million--and it's easy to vote against funding for climate change or the increased funding that we have put into climate change--in the chairman's mark, and, believe it or not, there are some EPA programs we support under the climate change heading, including research and development of new automotive technologies, including the hydraulic hybrid technology for trucks, carbon

capture and sequestration, and initiatives to increase methane transmission.

The reality is that over a period of time, because ``climate change'' is now kind of the key phrase, that if you want to get money for your basic science, you call it ``climate change.'' Just like after 9/11, if you wanted money for some program, you called it ``homeland security.'' That was the key phrase. Now ``climate change'' is the key phrase. A lot of the requests from the administration have been basic science programs that have been going on for a long time but have been shifted over

and called climate change.

While we looked at the funding for climate change and the increases that had occurred in this budget over the years and that have been substantial, the fact is, when we looked at them, many of them were just basic science that needed to be continued. So we couldn't just go out and eliminate all the climate change or reduce it, I believe, any more than we did, and climate change took an $83 million hit in this bill.

We see the same thing happening in the Department of the Interior, where base programs have been reclassified as climate change. So we really need to be [Page: H5623]

careful about what we are using as an offset under the administration's classification of a ``climate change program.''

In addition, funding for the Great Lakes restoration efforts grew from $60 million in 2009 to $475 million in 2010. Therefore, at the chairman's mark of $250 million, funding for the Great Lakes is still four times above its historical levels. And, again, it continues to be a committee priority as evidenced by the fact that the Great Lakes program is the largest recipient of funds in the EPA's geographic programs.

If I felt we could fund the Great Lakes at a higher level within our allocation, then believe me, I would have done so. I would have done anything to avoid this debate with the gentleman from Ohio, but, unfortunately, even though the gentleman makes a good point and I agree with him and if we had more money in the allocation I would be more than happy to do it, it's the offset and where it comes from that causes me some concern.

4:44 PM EDT

Mike Simpson, R-ID 2nd

Mr. SIMPSON. This is really hard, Mr. Chairman, but given our allocation, we had to cut many EPA programs, including programs we support like the clean water and drinking water State revolving funds. In the base bill, we reduced nearly every EPA geographic program below the 2011 enacted level, in addition to providing none of the requested increases.

Despite the cuts, restoration of the Great Lakes remains a committee priority as demonstrated by the fact that the Great Lakes program is the largest recipient of funds in the geographic programs. It's the largest geographical area, also, so you would probably expect that.

While I appreciate the intent of the gentleman's offset, where he offset this from, we cut EPA's climate budget by $23 million--and it's easy to vote against funding for climate change or the increased funding that we have put into climate change--in the chairman's mark, and, believe it or not, there are some EPA programs we support under the climate change heading, including research and development of new automotive technologies, including the hydraulic hybrid technology for trucks, carbon

capture and sequestration, and initiatives to increase methane transmission.

The reality is that over a period of time, because ``climate change'' is now kind of the key phrase, that if you want to get money for your basic science, you call it ``climate change.'' Just like after 9/11, if you wanted money for some program, you called it ``homeland security.'' That was the key phrase. Now ``climate change'' is the key phrase. A lot of the requests from the administration have been basic science programs that have been going on for a long time but have been shifted over

and called climate change.

While we looked at the funding for climate change and the increases that had occurred in this budget over the years and that have been substantial, the fact is, when we looked at them, many of them were just basic science that needed to be continued. So we couldn't just go out and eliminate all the climate change or reduce it, I believe, any more than we did, and climate change took an $83 million hit in this bill.

We see the same thing happening in the Department of the Interior, where base programs have been reclassified as climate change. So we really need to be [Page: H5623]

careful about what we are using as an offset under the administration's classification of a ``climate change program.''

In addition, funding for the Great Lakes restoration efforts grew from $60 million in 2009 to $475 million in 2010. Therefore, at the chairman's mark of $250 million, funding for the Great Lakes is still four times above its historical levels. And, again, it continues to be a committee priority as evidenced by the fact that the Great Lakes program is the largest recipient of funds in the EPA's geographic programs.

If I felt we could fund the Great Lakes at a higher level within our allocation, then believe me, I would have done so. I would have done anything to avoid this debate with the gentleman from Ohio, but, unfortunately, even though the gentleman makes a good point and I agree with him and if we had more money in the allocation I would be more than happy to do it, it's the offset and where it comes from that causes me some concern.

4:47 PM EDT

Betty McCollum, D-MN 4th

Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his work on the Great Lakes.

I represent a Great Lakes region in Minnesota. As the chairman pointed out, the climate change has been cut, Great Lakes have been cut, and I'm here to tell the gentleman from Ohio, I think we can have a win-win even without supporting your amendment. The reason being is, by leaving the dollars where they are in the climate change, I think we can count on and, through our work, make sure that what is happening to the Great Lakes is documented and proven so that the facts are out there about what

we need to do about climate change, and I'm going to refer to two examples. One is from a local paper of mine, the Star Tribune, from July 13:

It talks about how, with climate change, that they're seeing that Isle Royale in Lake Superior used to be too cold for deer ticks, but not anymore. Scientists are watching the effects of climate change and what is happening to the Great Lakes region. The ticks that carry Lyme disease have been found for the first time on the island off the coast of northern Minnesota. At the end of the century, nesting loons may disappear altogether from most of the Great Lakes. These are findings from a report

on the effects of climate change on the Great Lakes. It talks about, also, its effect on five of the largest national parks and public waters that we share in our region.

The series of studies has concluded that the current and future effects of warming, global climate change on national parks from California to Virginia and the consequences of it. But if people think that that is not hard enough to really kind of get, to make sure that we do climate change, that we look at what is going on in the Great Lakes, let me speak from another report that dealt with shipping on the Great Lakes.

[Time: 16:50]

I will enter for the Record which reports I use, but let me quote from this. It says: ``The expected higher temperatures of climate change are predicted to increase evaporation, lower runoff, reduce ice formation, and raise surface water temperatures in the Great Lakes, resulting in a fall in lake levels. The increased precipitation will not be sufficient to completely offset the reduction in lake levels.

``For international commercial navigation in the Great Lakes, the impact of lower lake levels will be restrictions in vessel draughts and tonnage carriage, thus increasing the number of trips and the total costs to move a given tonnage of cargo.''

In other words, climate change on the Great Lakes has an effect on the economy.

I know that the chairman did not have, in my opinion, sufficient allocations to address many issues I care passionately about, like climate change, including the economic consequences of climate change, as well as do some of the funding that the gentleman from Ohio and I both sought for the Great Lakes.

But I think the gentleman from Ohio could actually see benefit to the Great Lakes in research by not having his amendment move forward and keeping the dollars that we do have for science and climate change.

4:51 PM EDT

Steven C. LaTourette, R-OH 14th

Mr. LaTOURETTE. No, no, no, you're going to like this. Actually, the deer tick is misnamed because it really doesn't come on deer. It comes more on the little gray mouse because the gray mouse is closer to the ground. And if you treat a cotton ball with an appropriate substance, you can relieve the deer ticks not only in Minnesota but here in Virginia and also in Ohio.

4:51 PM EDT

Betty McCollum, D-MN 4th

Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for sharing that. I know how to remove leeches, deer ticks, fish hooks. Yes, I've been out there. But I really do think the Members should reject this amendment and leave the dollars where they are. We need to work harder to put more dollars into our environment, not only for its natural beauty and to leave a valued treasure to our children, but also because it has a direct impact on the economy of many of our States.

4:52 PM EDT

Jim Moran, D-VA 8th

Mr. MORAN. I must agree with the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee and object to this amendment. I want to make a number of points. One is that the amendment adds funds for what are called geographic programs. That is a pretty broad category. It includes the Chesapeake Bay, the Puget Sound, the Great Lakes, and other water bodies that need restoration projects. So if the amendment passes, I trust the gentleman understands that the funding will be and should be divided up amongst all

of those programs.

Now, I do support the efforts of the Congress to clean up the Great Lakes and to deal with these invasive species. Clearly, it is a very serious problem. Asian carp is horribly destructive. But I think it is worth pointing out that it was during Democratic leadership in the Congress that the Great Lakes Restoration Project received its largest increases. In fiscal year 2010, the program received $475 million, and this current year they're getting $300 million. With all due respect, it would seem

that the funding level of $250 million, which is in this bill, that cuts far more dramatically many other programs, would be seen as something of a success. I think if anything, Mr. Simpson should be thanked for protecting this program.

I will let Mr. Dicks speak about Puget Sound--but the Chesapeake Bay was funded at $17 million below the request, and it's only getting $50 million. Now, I understand the gentleman's frustration that more could not have been done in this bill for all of the geographic programs.

But the reason why we are in this position of underfunding these admittedly critical water programs is because of two actions. I know the gentleman will remember those two actions because he supported them. One was the so-called Ryan Republican budget resolution that the gentleman voted for; and the second was the 302(b) allocation to the Interior Department. I think that set the stage. It really set parameters that were far too tight to be able to provide the kinds of funds for many programs,

including Great Lakes restoration, that are needed.

Now, another point that needs to be made is that the GAO reported to the committee, and I quote: ``Progress remains slow as the program has delisted only one of the 31 areas of concern.'' EPA officials said that the program set less ambitious goals for fiscal year 2012 because it has had such trouble in meeting past goals. The agency did set lower goals in 2012, and so it does seem to make some sense that reduced funding might be appropriate in view of those lesser goals.

But I also want to point out that the offset is really untenable. It reduces EPA's science account and environmental programs with what I think is the express intent of cutting additional climate change and clean energy programs.

Now, I also want to point out, and I know that the gentleman offering the amendment may not be excited about this, but it does seem a bit hypocritical, the gentleman offering this amendment, to add funds for the Great Lakes restoration also offered language which was put in the bill to defund the Great Lakes restoration over the ballast water standards. That amendment would save----

4:56 PM EDT

Jim Moran, D-VA 8th

Mr. MORAN. I will yield when I'm finished.

If we want to help the Great Lakes get the kind of money they need, it doesn't seem to me that we should be offering amendments that would completely defund all EPA programs for the States bordering the Great Lakes if they don't meet adequate ballast water standards, which is the amendment that the gentleman put in the bill.

So I think that is a sufficient number of points to urge defeat of the amendment.

Now I will be happy to yield to my very good friend from Ohio.

4:57 PM EDT

Steven C. LaTourette, R-OH 14th

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman very much. I wanted you to yield because you mischaracterized the other part.

What the other piece of language in the bill does, it says to the State of New York----

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired.

(On request of Mr. LaTourette, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Moran was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

4:59 PM EDT

Laura Richardson, D-CA 37th

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be postponed.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIR

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:

The first amendment by Mr. Dicks of Washington.

The second amendment by Mr. Dicks of Washington.

The amendments en bloc by Mr. LaTourette of Ohio.

Amendment No. 39 by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.

Amendment No. 23 by Ms. Richardson of California.

The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.

DICKS

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

RECORDED VOTE

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, noes 237, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 658]

AYES--174

Ackerman

Andrews

Baca

Baldwin

Barrow

Bass (CA)

Becerra

Berkley

Berman

Bishop (NY)

Blumenauer

Boswell

Brady (PA)

Braley (IA)

Brown (FL)

Butterfield

Capps

Capuano

Carnahan

Carney

Carson (IN)

Castor (FL)

Chu

Cicilline

Clarke (MI)

Clarke (NY)

Clay

Cleaver

Clyburn

Cohen

Connolly (VA)

Conyers

Cooper

Costa

Costello

Courtney

Crowley

Cuellar

Cummings

Davis (CA)

Davis (IL)

DeFazio

DeGette

DeLauro

Deutch

Dicks

Dingell

Doggett

Donnelly (IN)

Doyle

Edwards

Ellison

Engel

Eshoo

Farr

Fattah

Filner

Fitzpatrick

Frank (MA)

Fudge

Garamendi

Gonzalez

Green, Al

Grijalva

Gutierrez

Hahn

Hanabusa

Hastings (FL)

Heinrich

Higgins

Himes

Hinojosa

Hirono

Hochul

Holden

Holt

Hoyer

Inslee

Israel

Jackson (IL)

Jackson Lee (TX)

Johnson (GA)

Johnson, E. B.

Kaptur

Keating

Kildee

Kind

Kissell

Kucinich

Langevin

Larsen (WA)

Larson (CT)

Lee (CA)

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lipinski

Loebsack

Lofgren, Zoe

Lujan

Lynch

Maloney

Markey

Matheson

Matsui

McCarthy (NY)

McCollum

McDermott

McGovern

McIntyre

McNerney

Meeks

Michaud

Miller (NC)

Miller, George

Moore

Moran

Murphy (CT)

Nadler

Napolitano

Neal

Olver

Owens

Pallone

Pascrell

Pastor (AZ)

Payne

Pelosi

Perlmutter

Peters

Pingree (ME)

Polis

Price (NC)

Quigley

Rahall

Rangel

Reichert

Reyes

Richardson

Rothman (NJ)

Roybal-Allard

Ryan (OH)

Sanchez, Linda T.

Sanchez, Loretta

Sarbanes

Schakowsky

Schiff

Schwartz

Scott (VA)

Scott, David

Serrano

Sewell

Sherman

Sires

Slaughter

Smith (WA)

Speier

Stark

Thompson (CA)

Thompson (MS)

Tierney

Tonko

Towns

Tsongas

Van Hollen

Visclosky

Walz (MN)

Wasserman Schultz

Waters

Watt

Waxman

Welch

Wilson (FL)

Woolsey

Yarmuth

NOES--237

Adams

Aderholt

Akin

Alexander

Altmire

Amash

Bachus

Barletta

Bartlett

Barton (TX)

Bass (NH)

Benishek

Berg

Biggert

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop (UT)

Black

Blackburn

Bonner

Bono Mack

Boren

Boustany

Brady (TX)

Brooks

Buchanan

Bucshon

Buerkle

Burgess

Burton (IN)

Calvert

Camp

Campbell

Canseco

Cantor

Capito

Cardoza

Carter

Chabot

Chaffetz

Coble

Coffman (CO)

Cole

Conaway

Cravaack

Crawford

Crenshaw

Critz

Culberson

Davis (KY)

Denham

Dent

DesJarlais

Diaz-Balart

Dold

Dreier

Duffy

Duncan (SC)

Duncan (TN)

Ellmers

Emerson

Farenthold

Fincher

Flake

Fleischmann

Fleming

Flores

Forbes

Fortenberry

Foxx

Franks (AZ)

Frelinghuysen

Gallegly

Gardner

Garrett

Gerlach

Gibbs

Gibson

Gingrey (GA)

Gohmert

Goodlatte

Gosar

Gowdy

Granger

Graves (GA)

Graves (MO)

Green, Gene

Griffin (AR)

Griffith (VA)

Grimm

Guinta

Guthrie

Hall

Hanna

Harper

Hartzler

Hastings (WA)

Hayworth

Heck

Hensarling

Herger

Herrera Beutler

Huelskamp

Huizenga (MI)

Hultgren

Hunter

Hurt

Issa

Jenkins

Johnson (IL)

Johnson (OH)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Jordan

Kelly

King (IA)

King (NY)

Kingston

Kinzinger (IL)

Kline

Labrador

Lamborn

Lance

Landry

Lankford

Latham

LaTourette

Latta

Lewis (CA)

LoBiondo

Long

Lucas

Luetkemeyer

Lummis

Lungren, Daniel E.

Mack

Manzullo

Marchant

Marino

McCarthy (CA)

McCaul

McClintock

McHenry

McKeon

McKinley

McMorris Rodgers

Meehan

Mica

Miller (FL)

Miller (MI)

Miller, Gary

Mulvaney

Murphy (PA)

Myrick

Neugebauer

Noem

Nugent

Nunes

Nunnelee

Olson

Palazzo

Paul

Paulsen

Pearce

Pence

Peterson

Petri

Pitts

Platts

Poe (TX)

Pompeo

Posey

Price (GA)

Quayle

Reed

Rehberg

Renacci

Ribble

Rigell

Rivera

Roby

Roe (TN)

Rogers (AL)

Rogers (KY)

Rohrabacher

Rokita

Rooney

Ros-Lehtinen

Roskam

Ross (AR)

Ross (FL)

Royce

Runyan

Ryan (WI)

Scalise

Schilling

Schmidt

Schweikert

Scott (SC)

Scott, Austin

Sensenbrenner

Sessions

Shimkus

Shuler

Shuster

Simpson

Smith (NE)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Southerland

Stearns

Stivers

Stutzman

Sullivan

Sutton

Terry

Thompson (PA)

Thornberry

Tipton

Turner

Upton

Walberg

Walden

Walsh (IL)

Webster

West

Westmoreland

Whitfield

Wilson (SC)

Wittman

Wolf

Womack

Woodall

Yoder

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--21

Austria

Bachmann

Bishop (GA)

Broun (GA)

Cassidy

Chandler

Giffords

Harris

Hinchey

Honda

Lowey

McCotter

Richmond

Rogers (MI)

Ruppersberger

Rush

Schock

Schrader

Tiberi

Velazquez

Wu

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIR

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

[Time: 18:29]

Mr. BARTON of Texas, Ms. SUTTON, and Mr. ROONEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

Mr. CARNEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Stated against: