September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5733 

and SHULER—for all their efforts to 

help advance this legislation in a bipartisan effort. 

Today, I join my colleagues in support of H.R. 2706, which is the Billfish 

Conservation Act of 2012. 

As the chairman has already said, 

the United States is the largest importer of billfish products in the world. 

Our populations continue to be affected 

by foreign commercial overfishing, and 

the importing of billfish only exacerbates the problem that exists today. 

Without passage of this bill and 

strengthening of the current ban of the 

Atlantic-caught billfish to include the 

sale and harvest of all billfish—excluding, as has been already said on the 

floor today, those fisheries in the State 

of Hawaii and Pacific insular area—the 

current ban will continue to be undermined through loopholes that have 

hurt our anglers and the economy. 

By eliminating the sale in the continental U.S., passage of this bill will 

support the billfish population growth, 

a healthy ocean ecosystem, and improve recreational fishing opportunities. As a result of the increased recreational fishing opportunities, this 

bill provides a huge economic boost to 

generate billions of dollars through direct expenditures and marine-related 

jobs and sales without placing a burden 

on the U.S. seafood market and its consumers. 

I want to urge all my colleagues to 

support this very important piece of 

legislation to help conserve a very depleted fish population, preserving our 

Nation’s fishing heritage, and provide 

for economic growth during a time 

when our country needs it most. 

Mr. HOLT. May I ask the chairman if 

he has additional speakers? 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I 

have no more requests for time. If the 

gentleman yields back, I’m prepared to 

yield back. 

Mr. HOLT. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I 

yield back the balance of my time and 

urge adoption of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 

HASTINGS) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2706, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

NORTH TEXAS ZEBRA MUSSEL 

BARRIER ACT OF 2012 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 

and pass the bill (H.R. 6007) to exempt 

from the Lacey Act Amendments of 

1981 certain water transfers by the 

North Texas Municipal Water District 

and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6007 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘North Texas 

Zebra Mussel Barrier Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LACEY ACT. 

The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 

U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) and section 42 of title 18, 

United States Code, shall not apply with respect to any water transfer by the North 

Texas Municipal Water District and the 

Greater Texoma Utility Authority using 

only closed conveyance systems from the 

Lake Texoma raw water intake structure to 

treatment facilities at which all zebra mussels are extirpated and removed from the 

water transferred. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Washington (Mr. HASTINGS) and the 

gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HOLT) 

each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Washington. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 

all Members may have 5 legislative 

days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material 

on the bill under consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I 

yield myself as much time as I may 

consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 

Chairman RALPH HALL’s bill to provide 

relief to 1.6 million people living in the 

Dallas/Fort Worth area necessitated 

because of a bizarre set of circumstances. 

In 1989, the North Texas Municipal 

Water District constructed a pumping 

station in Lake Texoma, providing up 

to 125 million gallons per day of safe 

drinking water to one of the most rapidly growing regions in the country, 

the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Sometime 

later, the enactment of a boundary adjustment resulted in a small portion of 

the pumping station being shifted from 

Texas to Oklahoma. In 2009, zebra mussels were discovered in the lake. This 

has caused a significant problem because it is in violation of the Lacey 

Act to transport zebra mussels across 

State lines. 

So, to resolve this, the Water District has proposed to construct a $300 

million, 46-mile closed pipeline that 

will transport Lake Texoma water to 

its treatment facility in Wylie, Texas. 

All zebra mussels will then be destroyed there, and the entire effort will 

be accomplished without any cost to 

Federal taxpayers. 

This project was issued a section 404 

Clean Water Act permit in May, and it 

was supported by the U.S. Wildlife 

Service district office in Arlington, 

Texas. However, as happens so many 

times, the Washington, D.C., headquarters of Fish and Wildlife is not so 

supportive and has suggested what it 

describes as a nonlegislative solution: 

an agreement with the Justice Department not to prosecute North Texas Municipal Water District for transporting 

zebra mussels. 

Now, just think about this, Mr. 

Speaker. As someone who believes that 

we are a Nation of law, I am deeply 

troubled by the notion that a Federal 

agency would suggest that it would not 

seek to prosecute, under the law, those 

who may violate the law. I just think 

that’s the wrong approach, and this approach is the right approach. 

So I urge adoption of H.R. 6007, and I 

reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6007, 

the North Texas Zebra Mussel Barrier 

Act, provides a very specific and necessary—we believe—exemption to the 

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981. 

The Lacey Act is vital to our Nation’s interests because it prevents the 

spread of undesirable, injurious species 

such as zebra mussels. In fact, zebra 

mussels may be a textbook example, a 

poster child for injurious introduced 

species. 

These mussels are the bane of many 

a power plant or municipal water operator. Millions are spent each year just 

to keep intake and outflow pipes clear 

of these creatures. They harm our fisheries by crowding out native species 

and taking all their food, and they’re 

driving many native mussels to extinction. 

H.R. 6007 would allow the North 

Texas Municipal Water District and 

the Greater Texoma Utility Authority 

to transport water that contains zebra 

mussels from the Oklahoma side of 

Lake Texoma to Texas. However, all 

the water would be kept in closed conveyance systems, we are assured; and 

we are further assured that all water 

would be fully treated, with all zebra 

mussels being fully removed before 

being released into any water body. 

The biologists, the limnologists, the 

hydrologists, the water engineers assure us of these things. 

I do want to emphasize that zebra 

mussels are pernicious and insidious. I 

am loathe, and I think many of my colleagues are loathe, to weaken or seek 

exemption from the Lacey Act, which 

controls invasive species. However, 

Texas needs access to this water, and 

the aforementioned entities have a 

comprehensive plan for ensuring, we 

are told, that these water transfers will 

not cause zebra mussels to spread. 

So for these reasons, and with this 

understanding, I rise in support of H.R. 

6007. I do strongly urge that this bill, 

which is put forward as a remedy for a 

very difficult and unique situation, 

should not be used to set any precedent 

for granting exemptions to the Lacey 

Act or in any way weakening our protections against invasive species. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5734 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 10, 2012 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I’m very pleased to yield 3 

minutes to the author of this legislation, our distinguished colleague from 

Texas, Chairman RALPH HALL. 

b 1620 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, of course, rise today in support of 

H.R. 6007, the North Texas Zebra Mussel Barrier Act of 2012. When I read in 

the papers and hear in the press that 

Republicans and Democrats can’t get 

together on anything, well, we’re together on something today, and I think 

the gentlemen have adequately described the enemy. 

North Texas has a very serious problem with an invasive aquatic species 

called zebra mussel. I’d never heard of 

them before. I hope I never hear of 

them again. Zebra mussels are going to 

attach to probably just about anything. They infest and cover rocks, attach to boats and docks, and clog water 

pipelines. North Texas has a unique situation due to a Texas-Oklahoma 

boundary change that requires a congressional solution. You know you hear 

people say it takes an act of Congress 

to get something accomplished. Well, 

that’s exactly what we’re here doing 

today. 

The local water folks have been 

working extremely hard to prevent the 

spread of zebra mussels while simultaneously attempting to provide enough 

clean water for our citizens, but they 

absolutely need our help. They need 

this help. H.R. 6007 allows the North 

Texas Municipal Water District to 

pump water from Lake Texoma 

straight into the Wylie, Texas, Water 

Treatment Plant where the water can 

be cleaned of zebra mussels without 

being in violation of the Lacey Act. 

These folks are the only ones who have 

tackled and solved this problem. 

They’re not the only ones who have 

tackled it, but they’re the only ones 

who have solved this problem. It has 

been at their own expense, and they 

have solved it. Now they need our support. 

In the late 1980s, the North Texas 

Municipal Water District built the 

Lake Texoma pump station to better 

serve its use. This was built entirely 

within the Texas border and in accordance with the Army Corps of Engineers’ 1939 survey, which defined the 

Texas and Oklahoma boundary line. 

In 2000, a variation in the TexasOklahoma border was enacted into law, 

and the pump station ended up straddling the two States. Since the Lacey 

Act prohibits the transfer of zebra 

mussels across State lines, it effectively has banned the use of the 

Texoma water pump station since the 

year 2009, which was when zebra mussels first appeared in Lake Texoma. 

The North Texas Municipal Water District generally receives 28 percent of 

its water supply from Lake Texoma. 

H.R. 6007 will enable the water district to resume pumping water to better serve more than 1.5 million users 

and to do so in a manner that provides 

safe water in the tradition of its 20- 

year history. The bill will allow the 

Texoma water pump to reopen, to provide much-needed jobs and to provide 

enough clean water to the community 

during a season of very severe drought, 

when water is desperately needed. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I 

yield the gentleman an additional 1 

minute. 

Mr. HALL. On May 3 of this year, the 

Army Corps of Engineers approved a 

404 permit that will allow the construction of a 46-mile water pipeline from 

Lake Texoma straight into the Wylie 

Water Treatment Plant, which would 

remove 100 percent of the zebra mussels 

and would provide clean water for 

North Texas citizens and businesses. 

This is a commonsense solution, a 

necessary solution and one for which I 

certainly want to thank the chairman, 

DOC HASTINGS. 

Mr. HOLT. I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 

minutes to the gentleman from Texas 

(Mr. SESSIONS). 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe the facts of the case that have 

been clearly enumerated by both sides 

are very important for this Congress to 

understand in that this is an agreement on both sides. Yet I think what 

has happened is that, due to the bipartisan leadership back on the committee between not just Mr. HOLT and 

the chairman but also with the gentleman, Mr. FLEMING, it has really 

come to the aid and assistance, not 

just in a bipartisan way but in a commonsense way. 

It is the opportunity for 1.6 million 

people who need this desperately to be 

able to get water at a time of drought, 

at a time of much consternation in 

Texas where we have fires and drought 

and heat and a lot of problems. This 

means that the people of North Texas 

know that Chairman RALPH HALL and 

this committee worked very carefully 

to make sure that they went through 

regular order, to make sure that they 

knew the facts of the case, to make 

sure that they studied this well. 

I really want to offer, not just my 

support for this, but my thanks to the 

committee and to the committee chairman for the hard work that has been 

done by this. I don’t make apologies for 

coming to the floor to do things that 

are in the best interests of the people 

of Texas, but this has become necessary as a result of directives back in 

Texas and the inability of people to 

clearly resolve this. So I am very 

pleased to support not just this bill, 

H.R. 6007, but also the concept of Congress working together through using 

common sense. 

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss 

an issue which is vital to North Texas. H.R. 

6007, the North Texas Zebra Mussel Barrier 

Act, provides an elegant solution to a growing 

problem. Currently, 1.6 million customers of 

the North Texas Municipal Water District, 

many of whom are my constituents, have restricted access to water as a result of the discovery of zebra mussels in Lake Texoma. Additionally, water transfers have become complicated because of a surveying error resulting 

in the incorrect designation of the District’s 

Lake Texoma intake station as being in Oklahoma rather than in Texas. This surveyor’s 

error, made more than a decade ago by the 

Red River Boundary Compact, means that 

water transfers of zebra mussels now cross a 

state line. Such a transfer triggers the Lacey 

Act, which is designed to prevent the spread 

of invasive species across state lines. 

In response, the North Texas Municipal 

Water District has been forced to suspend all 

pumping from Lake Texoma for the past three 

years. This water source constitutes roughly 

28 percent of the North Texas Municipal 

Water District’s available supply of raw water. 

Such a reduction in available resources has 

put a tremendous stress on the District and its 

ability to assure its customers that there will 

be an adequate supply of water in the future. 

H.R. 6007 would allow North Texas Municipal Water District to resume water transfers 

from Lake Texoma through a completely 

closed conveyance system that delivers water 

directly into their water treatment facility. To 

achieve this, the North Texas Municipal Water 

District has committed approximately $300 million to build a 46-mile long pipeline. The District has approved the funding and obtained 

the necessary 4–0–4 permits required by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin construction. 

Such a conveyance system would provide 

safe and dependable means for the District to 

access the water they have legal rights to 

while ensuring, with 100 percent reliability, that 

Zebra Mussels will not be transferred into 

Texas waters. Their treatment facility will employ chemical and mechanical means of filtration to eliminate any risk of propagation of 

invasive species. Such techniques have been 

proven successful in other areas of the country and have been approved by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Ultimately, H.R. 6007 will restore the adequate and steady stream of water to over 1.6 

million Texans without the use of taxpayer dollars while complying with the Lacey Act’s intended goal of preventing the spread of 

invasive species. 

Mr. HOLT. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill, 

and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 

HASTINGS) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6007, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5735 

AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM AMENDMENTS 

ACT OF 2012 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 

and pass the bill (H.R. 2489) to authorize the acquisition and protection of 

nationally significant battlefields and 

associated sites of the Revolutionary 

War and the War of 1812 under the 

American Battlefield Protection Program, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 2489 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act of 

2012’’. 

SEC. 2. REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND WAR OF 1812 

AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION. 

Section 7301(c) of the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11) is 

amended as follows: 

(1) In paragraph (1)— 

(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) BATTLEFIELD REPORT.—The term ‘battlefield report’ means, collectively— 

‘‘(i) the report entitled ‘Report on the Nation’s 

Civil War Battlefields’, prepared by the Civil 

War Sites Advisory Commission, and dated July 

1993; and 

‘‘(ii) the report entitled ‘Report to Congress on 

the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War 

and War of 1812 Sites in the United States’, prepared by the National Park Service, and dated 

September 2007.’’; and 

(B) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ‘‘Battlefield Report’’ and inserting ‘‘battlefield report’’. 

(2) In paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘eligible 

sites or’’ after ‘‘acquiring’’. 

(3) In paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘an eligible 

site or’’ after ‘‘acquire’’. 

(4) In paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘an eligible 

site or’’ after ‘‘acquiring’’. 

(5) In paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘An’’ and inserting ‘‘An eligible site or an’’. 

(6) By redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (9). 

(7) By inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraphs: 

‘‘(6) WILLING SELLERS.—Acquisition of land or 

interests in land under this subsection shall be 

from willing sellers only. 

‘‘(7) REPORT.—Not later than 5 years after the 

date of the enactment of this subsection, the 

Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on 

the activities carried out under this subsection, 

including a description of— 

‘‘(A) preservation activities carried out at the 

battlefields and associated sites identified in the 

battlefield report during the period between 

publication of the battlefield report and the report required under this paragraph; 

‘‘(B) changes in the condition of the battlefields and associated sites during that period; 

and 

‘‘(C) any other relevant developments relating 

to the battlefields and associated sites during 

that period. 

‘‘(8) PROHIBITION ON LOBBYING.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds provided 

pursuant to this section may be used for purposes of lobbying any person or entity regarding 

the implementation of this section or be granted, 

awarded, contracted, or otherwise be made 

available to any person, organization, or entity 

that participates in such lobbying. 

‘‘(B) LOBBYING DEFINED.—For purposes of this 

paragraph, the term ‘lobbying’ means to directly 

or indirectly pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone call, letter, 

printed or written matter, or other device intended or designed to influence in any manner 

a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government to favor, adopt, or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, 

ratification, policy, land use plan (including 

zoning), or appropriation of funds before or 

after the introduction of any bill, resolution, or 

other measure proposing such legislation, law, 

ratification, policy, or appropriation.’’. 

(8) In paragraph (9) (as redesignated by paragraph (6)), by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting 

‘‘2017’’. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Washington (Mr. HASTINGS) and the 

gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HOLT) 

each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Washington. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 

all Members may have 5 legislative 

days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material 

on the bill under consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 

may consume. 

The American Battlefield Protection 

Act of 1996 addressed the preservation 

and protection of Civil War battlefields 

through conservation easements or 

through the purchase of land from willing sellers through Federal grants. 

H.R. 2489 renews this effort, which will 

soon expire, and it adds the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 battlefields to those eligible for protection. 

The Natural Resources Committee 

made several improvements to the legislation as introduced, including a reduction of the authorization from 10 

years to 5 years. Also, the authorization was cut in half to save up to $50 

million over the course of the program. 

It is important to note that we have 

not raised the authorization one cent 

over current levels; therefore, there is 

no increase in spending. 

Finally, the committee added language to prohibit these funds from 

being used for lobbying activities or 

from being distributed to organizations 

that participate in lobbying. With so 

many existing needs within the National Park Service, we want to ensure 

that these funds go specifically for battlefield protection and not to outside 

advocacy groups. These battlefields are 

part of our history, and we should do 

everything we can to ensure that future generations understand what our 

forefathers went through to ensure our 

freedoms. 

So, with that, I support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I would like to thank my colleagues 

from the Natural Resources Committee 

for working with me to bring this bill 

to the floor today, our bipartisan bill, 

which is the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act. I 

was pleased to work with Chairman 

HASTINGS and Chairman BISHOP and 

Ranking Members MARKEY and GRIJALVA to move this bill through our 

committee, and I would like to thank 

the majority and minority staffs for 

their hard work. 

The bill before us today reauthorizes 

the American Battlefield Protection 

Program, which is a competitive grant 

program that matches Federal dollars 

with private money to preserve historic war sites. H.R. 2489 builds on the 

success of the Civil War Battlefield 

Protection Program, which has preserved Civil War battlefield sites. The 

legislation also expands the grant program to include over 670 historic battlefields and associated sites from the 

Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. 

Since 1996, when the Battlefield Protection Program was first authorized, 

the program has helped preserve many 

important sites, including, for example, the Fort Gregg, New Market 

Heights Battlefield in Virginia. 

b 1630 

In fiscal year 2011, a protection grant 

helped preserve a 7.2-acre property best 

remembered because of the unquestioned valor of the African American 

Union soldiers who fought there. There 

are many other examples that I could 

point to: the Wilderness Crossroads, 

the Reynolds Tract, Perryville Battlefield in Kentucky, the Slaughter Pen 

Farm, Fredericksburg Battlefield in 

Virginia, and so forth. 

H.R. 2489 would allow the American 

Battlefield Protection Program to collaborate with State and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and 

willing sellers—and I do want to emphasize that point—to protect the most 

endangered historical sites, and to provide up to half the costs of purchasing 

battlefield land threatened by sprawl 

and commercial development. 

From Lexington, where the shot was 

heard around the world, to Gettysburg, 

where Lincoln brilliantly summarized 

the description of the conception and 

proposition of our Nation, the stories 

of the American Revolution and the 

Civil War bring to life the ideals of liberty and democracy fostered by our 

Founders. 

Unfortunately, urbanization, suburban sprawl, and unplanned commercial 

and residential development are constantly encroaching on many of the 

significant battlefields of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the 

Civil War. This encroachment poses a 

severe and growing risk to the preservation of these historic sites. 

History is best experienced by those 

who can touch it, feel it, and live it, 

and the battlefields of the American 

Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, 

and the Civil War provide a unique opportunity for Americans to experience 

where and how the epic struggle for our 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE