understand that land and water conservation funds are not taxpayer dollars, they come from the receipts from oil and gas drilling, drilling that is on publicly owned land. those royalties, even though they are a small percentage, but they nevertheless come into the government and that's what we use to fund the land and water conservation fund. . but this would eliminate that program. this is a complete elimination of a bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years. this proposal prevents revenues in the water and land conservation account being used for authorized purposes. these funds were promise todd the american people. this congress should not be breaking that long-standing

commitment. i would urge opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> let me apologize to the last amendment. we had concerns. and as we discussed it during his debate, i think both of us are concerned of the underfunding of the water and land conservation fund and would like to see that increase. during his opposition, we accept the $20 million and the amendment from the the gentleman from new hampshire and the gentleman from connecticut's amendment. i apologize for the confusion in the middle of all that. but the gentleman's issues that he raised by the secretary's budget are real. and we will have to address those in conference and i want to work with you to do that. let me rise in opposition to this amendment. i have concerns that this is

eliminating all of the funds, especially we just increased it by $20 million, but when we had this limited allocation, we had to make some tough decisions. the secretary wanted it fully funded, as did the obama administration. we did not have that money. and to put more money, we would have to take money out of programs that were important to people. we put enough money in it to keep the programs and the purchases and the deals that had been made with citizens to acquire land that are already in progress so those can be completed. we didn't put additional money. i think the fund has done great things and done things in idaho and other states that are very important. westerners, though, have a different view of the land and water conservation fund and let me tell you what it comes from.

most of the money that's put into the water and land conservation fund, a large percentage, is used to buy land in states in the west. states that are already highly leveraged by the federal government. in idaho, 64% of the land is owned by the federal government. a lot of westerners said if you want to put money in the fund, we don't care, but what we want in idaho and western states is private land to be able to pay the taxes and support our education system and other services that are necessary. i have one county in idaho that is 96% federal land, 96% federal land, bigger than the state of rhode island. that means 4% of the property is paying property taxes to deliver services to these people. several years ago, a mountain climber from -- not from idaho but somewhere else came out and

was climbing the mountains and died. it took their entire search and rescue budget for that county to retrieve that one body. that means everybody else that recreated did not have that search and rescue available because they had no funds, no private land to pay the taxes to fund those services. that's the problem that westerners that are in states that are highly owned by the federal government have with the land and water conservation fund. i will be the first to admit. it does some wonderful things. if you float down the south fork of the snake river, you will see one of the most beautiful canyons and one of the best fishing rivers in the country and as the gentleman from washington wants to come out, i'll float him down it. it is an incredibly beautiful place and it has been done through the fund. i believe in the importance of this program. i apologize to the gentleman from virginia on our previous

confusion on that's correct but i oppose this amendment and i would encourage my members to oppose it. the chair: for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. i was listening to the debate here and i'm going, what are they thinking? what is the rationale, what is the purpose for the legislation that we have before us and more point he hadly, the amendment that was just offered. this is an incredible country. this is a country that very recently took great provided in cleaning its rivers -- pride in cleaning its rivers in protecting it from chemicals, toxins and poisons. this is a country that took pride in creating the first national park and expanding it over time to create the most

awesome national park system in the entire world. this is a country that took great pride in the snake river and the use of the land and water conservation funds. an argument was made a moment ago that there isn't enough money, but a month ago, an effort to increase the royalties from our oil, that is pumped from our land, the land of the people of the united states to increase those royalties and in fact to get a royalty was rejected from our republican colleagues. this legislation goes far beyond that and over time will destroy the pride that we have taken in creating our national parks and setting aside for future generations the great advice tass of america ca -- vistas.

you look at this bill and you say, how could they put in legislation that would block the effort of the e.p.a. to eliminate mercury poison in our air and water? how could they allow a bill that would create more soot in our atmosphere, put 34,000 lives at risk, exempt the oil companies from air pollution standards and off-shore drilling, which in california is a big deal because the air blows onto the land. how could they threaten the lives of millions of americans by blocking the e.p.a. how could they put together a bill that could potentially contaminate 117 million americans' water. how could you do that? have you no pride in this

country? do you not care about the basic things that we have done to create a country that cares about clean water? you talk about jobs, and yet in this bill, you eliminate the funding for the clean water act, which is really building sanitation facilities in our community? i remember in the 1960's, the great pride, 500 people in my community took when they got money from the federal government and built the first sanitation system in that small town. how could you den eye americans -- deny the americans that opportunity? that's what this bill does. take pride in what you are doing, gentlemen, because at the end of the day, the american public will not take pride in what you are doing to this piece of legislation. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk shall read -- will report the amendment. >> ask unanimous consent to wave the reading. the chair: is there objection? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tipton of colorado. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves the right to reject. mr. dicks: what was the gentleman's request? the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tipton of colorado. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is going to apply funds directed towards much needed conservation programs, which are used to be able to provide access for the american people to our public lands and help support jobs in recreational and sportsmen industries. public lands are a treasured resource for all americans for all americans to enjoy and use responsibly. i support a balanced approach to public land use respecting the environment that we all deeply value while making the best use of our natural resources on public lands. recreation, preservation, access and job creation, these are all important aspects of the multiple use management for which these lands are truly intended. this funding will be used for

projects to specifically improve access for hunting, fishing and other forms of outdoor recreation on these federal public lands. i have directed funds, $5 million, will be redirected to make public lands public and provide much needed support for recreational access. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is goode to. -- is agreed to. the clerk will read the next amendment. the clerk: page 4, line 9, oregon and california grant lands, 122,043,000. range improvements, monies

received under section 3 and 15 of the taylor grazing act and for jones lands not less than $10 million. service charges, deposits and forfeit turs, such amounts may be collected under public law 479 and the 923-153. mistrust funds. in addition to amounts, such amounts as may be contributed to section 307 of the act of october 21, 1976. administrative provisions, appropriations shall be available for temporary structures, buildings and facilities to which the united states has title. the chair: for which purpose the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk will proceed with the next paragraph. the clerk: united states fish

and wildlife resource management , remain available until september 30, 2013. mr. dicks: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dicks of washington, under the heading fish and wildlife resource management strike the first provision to page 8 line 1, a, b, c and e. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i rise to strip a dangerous rider from this bill, a rider that would compromise the effectiveness of the endangered species act. this is a bipartisan amendment and i'm offering it with the support of congressman thompson and congressman fitzpatrick and

congresswoman hanabusa. the f.y. 2012 bill passed by the full committee a few weeks ago contains a direct attack. i offered an attempt to strike the provision, but the full committee rejected it. the provision would block the fish and wildlife service that is in the bill from listing candidate species as either threatened or endangered or the designation of the critical habitat necessary for species' recovery. these listing activities are preliminary steps that the fish and wildlife service must take in order to begin the recovery process. after those steps are taken, then the hard work begins. without these important preliminary steps of listing and critical habitat designation, it would be impossible to develop apsontive particularically valid and defensive plan for declining species. this is postponing the day of

reckoning and it's important to note the bill does provide for the fish and wildlife service to downgrade the protections to species under the e.s.a. the goal is to delist recovered species. delisting is the reward after recovering the species but we can't get to the point of delisting species without listing them first. my amendment would remove these restrictions on listing and uplifting and the designation of critical habitat. many critics say the law does not work. the recovery of the delisting of the bald eagle and the american algator is a strong success. in the last few months the gray wolf in the northern rockies has been delisted in two states and the fish and wildlife service announced the intention to

delist the wolf in the western great lakes. other listings have made recoveries. in the pacific northwest, i'm glad to report that we are seing signs of healthy recover for the e.s.a. listed salmon, although it will be a while before the delisting will occur. these examples show us the success of the e.s.a., a law, by the way, that the american people overwhelmingly support. . it is naive to think that a quick turnaround is easy when it took decades if not centuries for a species to decline. also it takes a longer time for long loop species. currently there are about 250 species that have been identified as potential candidates for e.s.a.

protection. of that total there are just under 30 species that are poised for listing in the near future. the spending provisions in this bill would block further activity to protect these declining species and remember, if you delay listing too long, a species will go extinct. thus making a recovery impossible. and that is why some people call in the extinction writer. the endangered species act is one of the most effective environmental laws ever written. recovering species is hard, often long work, but it is a responsibility that cannot be dismissed like the interior appropriation bill attempts to do. i know that many of my colleagues would like to drastically reform the e.s.a., but it would be a sounder path to do such a reform through the authorization process, rather than accomplishing the goal with a few lines in the appropriation bill. and i see that the distinguished chairman of the natural resources committee is here and he has pledged to get to work on this important endeavor. in closing i will point out that

this amendment is supported by former directors of the fish and wildlife service who have served under president nixon, ford, carter, the first president bush and bill clinton. it is also supported by several bullet groups, including the isaac walton league and trout unlimited. so i urge support for this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> move to strike the last word in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend from washington, mr. dicks. mr. simpson: i respect where my friend is trying to go, but not only does this amendment not get us there, it's downright dangerous. downright dangerous. let me explain why. since the clinton administration in response to lawsuits and court orders that were crippling the agency's budget, since the

clinton administration there has been a statutory cap on how much the agency is permitted to spend on e.s.a. listings. it's been a statutory cap in place since the clinton administration. a cap on critical habitat spending was added in 2002. the obama administration requested new caps for petitions and foreign species listed in 2012. in short, support for e.s.a. funding caps has been -- has had bipartisan support in congress and in the white house and was in place when the gentleman from washington wrote the interior bill and when the gentleman from virginia wrote the interior bill. those spending caps were in place. this amendment proposes to do away with funding caps altogether. and gives the green light to those that have made a living suing fish and wildlife service. as a result the litigants will act, the courts will act and the fish and wildlife services' entire operating budget will be at risk of being raided in order

to fund court-ordered mandates to list species and designate critical habitat. the service will have no choice but to raid other funds from its resource management accounts which is already $146 million or 12% decreased in this budget. having said that the heart of the issue isn't about funding. it's about the fact that the eng dane doctor endangered species act is -- that the endangered species act is broken and in need of revision. as i have said before, there's been about 2,000 species listed. 21 recovered. 2,000 listed, 21 recovered. and unfortunately the endangered species act has become not so much about saving species as it has been about controlling land and water. i'll give you an example. we all talk about the the fuzzy and warm animals that we want to save.

no one talks about the slick-spotted pepper grass, endangered. nobody really cares about the six-spotted pepper grass except that it's listed and you know what it does? it prevents cattle grazing on public lands. and is used to prevent cattle grazing on public lands and move cattle producers off of public lands. that's the only reason that the slick-spotted pepper grass is really listed. that's unfortunate. when you start using what was an act that everyone in bipartisan, almost unanimous agreement in the house and senate was a good act. the intent of the endangered species act is right. and we need to do it. we need to protect species that are endangered. unfortunately that's not what it's being used for today and you can't get people to the table, the stakeholders, to do a re-authorization bill because there are groups that like it the way it is. they want to control land and water by using the endangered

species act. how do you get the message out to them that we need to do a re-authorization? the only way i can think of is to say, you know what? this has been unauthorized for 20 years. now you talk about policy writers in this bill that you don't like, this is a policy writer that you're attempting to add. it's an unauthorized program. just because we have continued to fund it for 20 years, that's not the answer, that's the problem. and we need stakeholders to come to the table, to sit down with the natural resources committee and write a new authorization. that's what this is all about. it is a shot across the bough. there are 58 i believe, 56 or 58 programs in this bill that the authorization has expired. somehow we need to send a message that we have a process around here. it's authorization then appropriation. not authorization, expired appropriation and appropriation and appropriation and appropriation. the only way that things keep

going on. we are trying to send a message. will you find i am supportive of re-authorization of the endangered species act and i am supportive of the endangered species act as it was originally intended. but i would urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous amendment which would undermine the fish and wildlife service's budget because it would lift the caps that have been in place since the clinton administration and fish and wildlife service would have no other alternative but than to raid their accounts in order to fund court orders, suits and other things that would come along. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: i was going to wait until other speakers spoke, but i felt it appropriate to engage in a discussion here with the chairman and to remind him, mr.

chairman, that this bill includes funding for a multitude of expired authorizations. the bureau of land management is an -- isn't authorized. but you're funding the bureau of land management because you like the bureau of land management. the grazing program isn't authorized. oil and gas isn't authorized. mr. simpson: will the gentleman yield? mr. moran: yeah. mr. simpson: the gentleman brings up the point i tried to make. this is a shot across the bow. all of these programs need to be re-authorized and we had to start somewhere. that's it. i mean, this goes across the heart of the endangered species act. mr. moran: so you're picking winners and losers. you could have picked any number of programs but you like those so -- in fact some of them you've increased, funding for grazing subsidies, funding for oil and gas subsidies. but the endangered species act, the poor species who are in

danger of extinction, they get targeted. they're the ones you're going to make an example of. you know, not allowing listings of the designation of even the critical habitat that will protect endangered species doesn't change the fact that so many plant and animal species are at risk of extinction. there are 260 species that are in danger of extinction. but we're not going to protect them. the lack of critical habitat designation not only hurts those species at risk but it leaves in limbo land owners and businesses that need decisions in order to make plans. we hear so much about uncertainty and how thank bad uncertainty is. this creates -- how bad uncertainty is. this creates uncertainty. the twist of irony, the bill

allows funding to be used to delist species or reclassify them from endangered to threatened, to delist them or downlist them, but no funds can be used for listings or to reclassify them from threatened to endanger oorks even if they become endanger -- endanger, even if they become endangered, we can't classify them as endangered, we can only downlist them. it's a one-way street. a one-way street to less protection. i too would like to see the endangered species act authorized. maybe we'll hear from the chairman of the authorizing committee why it's not being re-authorized. but this is not the way to de-authorize it. the fact is that this is legislation in an appropriations bill basically. i thought we were not supposed to be doing that. but we make these poor endangered species that are at

risk of extinction bear the cost of congress' failure to re-authorize the endangered species act. of course i support the dicks amendment. not only do we have 260 species at risk of extinction but we don't even know the entire scope of species that -- whose very existence is at risk and we don't know either the role they play in the ecology of our planet, there's so many species that we're only now learning -- for example, there are many that catch insects, you know, mosquitos or whatever that maintain the population of other species. i do believe that every species has some role to play in the sustainability of the ecology of this planet. we don't know necessarily what that role is but i do think we have some idea that they're there for a purpose and while

they're there for a purpose it seems to me, hey, we have a purpose, a responsibility of enabling that species to be sustained on this fragile planet. and to say that we can't do -- outperform our responsibility, that we can't act responsibly toward these species is irresponsible. it really is an embarrassment to this congress. so i very strongly support the dicks amendment. i would hope that we would give species a break, get this language out of this bill. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me make one point. this debate is not about the endangered species act. it is not about the endangered

species act. i have to rise and oppose the amendment offered by my good friend from washington state. i think that chairman simpson has brought to the house floor a bill that prioritizes funding to ensure that the core responsibilities and environmental protections are met in a broader sense. when it comes to the endangered species act, this bill focuses on funding the actual recovery of species. it does this by one continuing -- by, one, continuing funds for recovery activities and doing that despite the fact that this bill has -- that the e.s.a. has not been re-authorized for 23 years, not 20 years, 23 years. and, two, by limiting funds for lawsuit-driven new listings and habitat designations. this bill send as clear message as the gentleman from idaho said that the endangered species act needs to be updated and improved. it needs to be authorized. as i mentioned, it's been 23

years since this bill was re-authorized by congress. a person can be born and graduate from college in the amount of time that it has passed since congress last acted to make serious, responsible improvements to this law. the gentleman from washington acknowledged me on the floor here earlier and i will tell him that the chairman of the natural resources committee, which has jurisdiction on the endangered species act, i can inform the house that this committee will be conducting robust oversight of the need to update this law in the coming months. the current law is failing to truly recover species while it frequently hamstrings jobs and economic prosperity like the gentleman from idaho mentioned. . we will examine legislative priorities. and in my view, and this is important, the real obstacle to improving e.s.a., a number of groups are heavily invested in litigation mindset.

a litigation mindset that wants law suits over improving the act. these groups have filed lawsuits against fish and wildlife, national marine fisheries. this bill under the chairman's leadership effectively halts these lawsuits by limiting spending on new listings or habitat designations and this will will allow getting back to work rather than responding to court cases. both funding and personnel will be able to focus on the real work of bringing species back from the brink. by striking this provision, the discs' amendment would re-open the litigation process. the same groups that filed these lawsuits endorsed this amendment. as we speak, they are waging expensive campaigns on behalf of this amendment. because they profit from these

lawsuits, to me, it appears that they are more concerned about their ability to go to court, get a settlement and get paid than they are about recovering species. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. this bill strikes the right balance by directing funding to actual recovery of species and strikes the balance by bringing a halt to litigation to new listings and habitat designations. congress can do its job to update and modernize the e.s.a. it's time we take a thoughtful analysis of the inadequacies of this current law. inadequacies are abused through lawsuits rather than serving as a true conduit for resource recovery. as the chairman said very well in his remarks, there is no incentive for the stake holders to try and come and work out the

differences or update this law if congress keeps kicking the can ahead. that's what the issue is all about. i can't imagine, i can't imagine, for example, that people really believe that this bill should be in place, yet when there is a major construction project here in the washington, d.c., area, like the woodrow wilson bridge, they waive the act. does that make sense? it doesn't make sense. we don't get the opportunity, those of us impacted by this act, get a chance to waive it. it just seems to me that there has to be an update. it's time to do it and as the chairman of the committee who has jurisdiction on that, i'm glad to work with the chairman of the appropriations committee on this. i will work with anybody on this. because i believe that the species are very important, as the gentleman from virginia said. but let's do it in a way that

protects species and does not harm those people that make a living from the land and/or the water. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: i ask that the committee rise. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2584, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2584 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will record the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 372, resolution for providing consideration of the bill 2587 to prohibit the labor relations board to close, relocate or transfer any employment under any circumstance. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to house resolution 363 and rule 18, the chair declares that the house and the committee of the whole in the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2584.

will the gentleman from virginia kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house of the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2584 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year september 30, 2012 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier, the bill had been read through page 9 line 12. mr. langevin: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. langevin: i rise to support the amendment introduced by my friend and colleague, mr. dicks. this bipartisan amendment, i

believe is critical to restoring the long time commitment to protecting our species from extinction. the gentleman from virginia is correct that so many of these species, our planet depends on and it is a relationship that protects our environment. the language in the underlying bill to prevent any funds being used to delist species is short sighted and pun issues a successful program for preserving critical habitats and this language is critical of the harmful policies included in this bill. the broader bill in how it fails to create jobs, my home state of rhode island, our unemployment rate continues to be the third highest in the nation at 10.8%. right now, we need investment in our infrastructure and our resources to create jobs and

modernize our community. new england is home to the oldest infrastructure in the nation. it estimated that our drinking water infrastructure needs what will cost over $400 million over the next 20 years and our state has 1.16 billion billion in unspent waste water needs. this bill slashes both the clean water and drinking water state revolving fund by 55% and 40% below last year's level. in this time of contentious debate about our debt and future security, i hear my colleagues talk about the burden that are placed on the next generation. this bill would repeal and block implementation of two of the most important laws that keep our environment safe, clean water and clean air act. now what chance are we giving

our children to grow up and flourish if we can't protect the rivers and bays they swim in and water that they drink. i'm disappoint that had this bill blocks the e.p.a. from finalizing a rule reducing emissions of mercury from power plants. last week, members were down here on the floor speaking about the tiny amount of mercury in light bulbs, but today, the same members are blocking a rule that would keep our fisheries healthy and safe for consumption in addition to preventing 17,000 premature deaths each year. i don't understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can be opposed to a small amount of mercury last week and today have no problem, no problem, with much larger quantities of the same substance being allowed to endanger public health. now last week, i urge my colleagues to fight against the 80% cut in the land and water conservation fund, the lowest

amount in the 45-year history. as many of us are well aware, hunting, fishing, camping and other recreation activities are a great benefit to our economy, and supports 6.5 million jobs. now these numbers bear out when you look at my home state of rhode island. 163,000 sportsmen and 436,000 wildlife watches have recreation in rhode island. we have incredible national wildlife refuges which have been protected by the funding which families in my district are offered an opportunity to enjoy parks, trails, open space at no costs during these tough economic times. mr. speaker, i don't believe that this bill reflects our values or our shared desire to preserve our beautiful nation.

i believe we can and ought to do better for our constituents and for our children. i urge my colleagues to reject this bill and bring a bill to the floor that preserves our environment, creates new jobs and protects our commitment to future generations. i yield to the gentleman. mr. dicks: outstanding statement and covered it, especially the part about infrastructure. there is $688 billion waste water backlog during the bush administration. we should be putting people to work on those kinds of project. i appreciate the gentleman being here late in the evening to support my amendment. mr. langevin: i thank the ranking member and i want to commend the gentleman for sponsoring this amendment and for his work on the broader bill. this is the right thing to do to bring -- to defeat the broader bill here and bring a bill to

the floor that really reflects our values. and i thank the gentleman from washington state for offering this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. conaway: move to strike the last word. as has been spoken earlier, the endangered species act is broken. as a tool to protect animals and plants is in a strait jacket. i would like to share the stories of two species, the water snake and lizard. the water snake was threatend on september 3, 1986. the citizens of texas have spent millions of dollars to conduct surveys. and today, there is little question that the snake's population is stable and exists in far greater numbers than the original listing. because of this research, the

service proposed delisting the snake on july 8, 2008. this delisting should be a victory to the service and the supporters of thening dangered species act and has collapsed in government bureaucracy. during federally mandated study, researchers caught snakes. the date ave collected. at that time, fish and wildlife declined to delist and requested by ability study to be requested. eight years later, the service issued a delisting proposal after which has been exhausted. unfortunately as of today, the service has not completed action on its proposal. to the best of my knowledge the delisting rule is hung up in the lawyers and solicitor's office. it is inexcuseable that they

insist. it has continued to inclusion on the list, represents a significant commitment of federal and state and local tax dollars when our commitment is unrestrained and dollars are wasted because the failure to make a final decision on our own recommendation. beyond the dollars wasted on protecting the species, i'm more concerned about the long-term impact this nondecision has on the public trust by proposing and failing to delist a species, the services undermining when it hands down painful mandates to protect a species on the brink of. and it will require them to land owners and union unfortunately it is a species that has science behind the science. in texas there is a handful of places and the service is unable

to answer questions how many lizards exist and to support a viable population. the lizard is one of the lower 48. its inclusion would dramatically curtail oil and gas exploration across the basin. fish and wildlife service decides how to proceed. the oil producers of this land provide livelihood millions of dollars to support the texas university and used by millions of americans. the service has proposed closing this land for development based on too little science and concern for the economic consequences. the delay in delisting the snake and the lizard is damaging the services' credibility as a steward. fair or not, the endangered

species act is implemented by fish and wildlife is viewed in my district is to beat up disfavored industry because the science is oven shoddy and science is not delisted. i support the underlying legislation because i believe it is the best short-term chance to correct the implementation of the endangered species act. it will allow one full year to clear out the backlog. the service can focus on the recoveries of the species under its care. i hope the service takes this year off to pay particular tonings to the lizard and understand this animal before it closes some sites down in texas. mr. speaker, i oppose the gentleman's amendment because the amendment locks in failed status quo for another year and communities no relief from the

endangered species act and i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i rise to express deep concern over the allocations in h.r. 2584, the interior and environmental appropriations bill for 2012. to begin, the bill cuts $1.7 million for technical assistance and maintenance assistance in the united states territories. this small amount of money paid big dividends in the islands. the northern mariana islands were awarded $1.2 million in technical assistance to develop geothermal resources to generate electricity. we pay up to 40 cents per kilowatt hour now because we have to buy expensive foreign oil to power our generators. these funds are helping to develop our own domestic energy resources and cutting these funds sends us in the wrong

direction, back into the the arms of foreign oil -- back into the arms of foreign oil interests. i do appreciate the small fund increases. i am disappointed however that the bill targets the environmental protection agency for cuts. the ranking member of fisheries, wildlife, oceans and other committees which have jurisdiction, i am also troubled over the allocations in this bill which would be devastating for the environment and for the preservation of america's natural heritage. h.r. 2584 provides inadequate funding for the fish and wildlife service at levels 21% below fiscal year 2011 and 30% below fiscal -- the president's fiscal year 2012 request. the bill cuts provide a meager $22 million in funding for the state and tribal wildlife grants program, 64% plo fiscal year

2011 and 77% below fiscal year 2012 president's request. this is a program that makes small investments now to avoid large expenses later. it provides money to states and takes conservation actions to stabilize declining fish and wildlife populations now and this helps avoid endangered species extinction later. in my districts these grants help implement a wildlife action plan, conserving wildlife and creating jobs. the bill also cuts the fish and wildlife service cooperative landscape conservation and science program 35% below the fiscal year 2011 levels and 47% below the fiscal year 2012 president's budget. this program supports the work of federal, state, tribal and local partners to develop strategies to address climate impacts in wildlife and local and regional scales. the northern mariana islands and other areas are in climate change.

we face the impacts of sea level rise, ocean acidification and increasing intensity. we need this program to develop science-based tools and solutions to conserve natural resources and help us adapt to the negative effects coming to us. h.r. 2584 continues and also cuts funding for the national wildlife refuge system to 7% below fiscal year 2011 and 9% below the 2012 request. the national wildlife refuge system is the finest work of protected lands and waters. we have refuge in every state and nearly every territory including the northern mariana islands. these refuges conserve our fish and wildlife resources but they also have a huge economic benefit. millions of people visit refuges each year to hunt, fish and observe wildlife. the refuge system generates $1.7 billion in sales for local communities and creates nearly 27,000 jobs annually. every dollar spent in the refuge system by the federal government

earns about $4 for local communities and we can assume every dollar we cut means $4 less for our local communities. i have introduced legislation, h.r. 2236, that would generate funds for the refuge separate from the appropriations of the sale of postal stampless. but this is no substitute for money being cut in h.r. 2584. also cut is the land and water conservation fund which is used to acquire lands and conservation easements from willing sellers and land owners to provide operational efficiencies and connectivity within refuges. fishery, wildlife, oceans and we heard from stakeholders as defenders of wildlife and the national riffle association will recognize the importance of land and water conservation fund which is generated by offshore oil and gas drisking -- drilling revenues. h.r. 2584 provides only $15 million to this program, 73

below fiscal year 2011 levels and 89% below the fiscal year 2012 presidential request. i strongly oppose h.r. 2584 which rolls back necessary funding to support hunters, fishermen, recreationism and local communities who depend on environmental for their livelihoods and which undermines undergoing conservation, public health and environment protection for all americans and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this amendment which i have co-sponsored that would remove a writer from this bill that would seriously compromise the effectiveness of the landmark endangered species act which was signed into law almost 40 years ago in 1973. mr. fitzpatrick: the extinction writing in this bill is a sweeping action, it would

prevent the fish and wildlife service from spending any money on listing new plants and animals under the endangered species act, designating critical habitat or upgrading species from threatened to endangered. at the same time the bill mape danes funding for -- maintains funding for delisting species, createsing an uncomplete and lop sided and dangerous species policy. mr. speaker, my constituents in pennsylvania and the american people support the important mission of the e.s.a. and it's not hard to see why. preserving animals and plants brings countless benefits to people and the loss of a species can have dangerous and expensive consequences in the future. for example, the u.s. geological survey recently estimated that the loss of bats in north america would cost agricultural producers nearly $4 billion per year including those in my district. we also never know which species of plants and animals may be

important in developing life-saving medicines in the future. but the e.s.a.'s primary success to date has been to prevent the extinction of hundreds of species including the american alligator, grizzly bear and the gray wolf. indeed less than two dozen species have gone extinct under the act and most of these species were already doomed to extinction by the time that they were listed. perhaps the most iconic among these species saved by the act is our national symbol, the bald eagle. on june 20, 1782, our founding fathers adopted the bald eagle as our national emblem. on the backs of many of our coins we see an eagle without spread wings. on the great seal of the united states, on the seal of this very house of representatives and in many places which are exponentents of our nation's authority we see the same emblem. living as it does in the tops of lofty mountains and in river

vallies, the eagle represents freedom. however by the mid 20th century the bald eagle was severely threatened and reduced to just 400 nesting pairs. bald eagles were declared an endangered species in 1967 and the lower -- in the lower 48 states under a less cohesive, less effective act. then the e.s.a. was signed into law and as a result of this on july 4, 1976 the u.s. fish and wildlife officially listed the bald eagle as a national endangered species. and thanks to the endangered species act, the fish and wildlife service upgrated -- upgrated the bald eagle status to and officially removed it from the nationwide list in 2007. today after decades of conservation effort, the interior department reports that there are some 10,000 nesting payers for us -- pairs for us and future generations to

cherish. because in large part of the e.s.a., my children have had the chance to see a bald eagle in its natural habitat. this amendment will remove the funding restriction on the listing and limit the funding to what has been spent on these activities in recent years. additionally the overall funding amount for the e.s.a. and related programs of $138 million is significantly less than in past years, including in fiscal year 2008. mr. speaker, decisions about wildlife management should be made by scientists, not by politicians. preventing listing is not the answer. we must allow the u.s. fish and wildlife service to do their job and protect species while making improvements to increase the efficiency of this crucial program. as i close i implore my colleagues to imagine if the u.s. fish and wildlife service had been restricted from listing the american bald eagle. this majestic creature, without

corrective measures, would have been lost only to books and to our national memory. we have a responsibility to prevent the extinction of fish, plants and wildlife because once they're gone they're gone forever. we can't bring them back. i urge support for this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? i just want to commend the gentleman for an incredibly comprehensive and thoughtful and credible presentation. i just want -- you mentioned the bald eagle. just a few weeks ago my grandchildren were out at hood canal where i live and on the beach three bald eagles came down and landed and it was like one of the most remarkable things i've ever seen. and i just want to thank the gentleman for his support, his co-sponsorship of this amendment and i appreciate your credibility and your forthrightness. thank you. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. fitzpatrick: i will.

mr. hastings: since we're talking about bald eagles and in our state they're around and i would invite the gentleman to come to where i live in the desert in central washington where frequently in the fall, i won't say frequently, i would say every fall and winter we see bald eagles. they are truly a majestic bird. but the point is, again, i just want to -- i really thank the gentleman for yielding. this debate is not about the endangered species act. this debate here is about trying to get people together so we can make the endangered species act work in a way that will be beneficial to everybody. so that we can repeat the successes that we've had, albeit the successes are only 0 species, but nevertheless -- 20 species, but nevertheless we ought to be working that way rather than restricting and having restrictions as the current act is. so i thank the gentleman for yielding. fritz fritz i appreciate the gentleman's remarks and i -- mr. fitzpatrick: i appreciate the gentleman's remarks and the invitation -- the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. >> i ask unanimous consent 30 seconds more for the gentleman. the chair: is there objection? the gentleman may proceed. mr. fitzpatrick: i appreciate the invitation by the way to way to amend the act is in regular order in the committee, not necessarily through the appropriations process. mr. hastings: as i mentioned in my remarks, when i spoke at, that that certainly is the attempt of the committee. so i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendments before us today corrects a terrible flaw in the underlying bill. a provision that prohibits the endangered species from being listed as endangered. this provision is so bad that it would be funny but for the dangerous effect it would have on imperiled species on the brink of extinction and struggling to survive. the previous speaker was eloquent in his discussion about

the bald eagle. let's think about what would have happened had this been -- had this measure been law 44 years ago. the american bald eagle, our national bird and symbol, would be gone. in the 1 60's there were less than 450 nesting pair of bald eagles. but thanks to the endangered species act, this national symbol was removed from the endangered species list in 2007 and now there are nearly 10,000 nesting pair of bald eagles. . maybe some of my colleagues side with those who wanted our national bird to be a turkey but i think i speak for most americans when i say i'm proud we saved this national treasure, the american bald eagle, from extinction. had this rider been the law of the land in 1979, the american alligator would most likely be gone. but because of the u.s.a.

protections, the american alligator wild population has grown to more than two million and continues to thrive, helping local economies throughout the southeast. a species of goose is another example. back in 1967, there were no more than a few hundred of these birds but thanks to the e.s.a., the goose was fully recovered and successfully delisted in 2001, with a population of more than 100,000 birds in 2008. so successful was the e.s.a. recovery effort that the the goose is not only thriving but also being hunted in my district. just this past hunting season alone, 1,700 acres of land were made available to hunters by the california department of fish and game, not only pleasing the hunters but helping the local economy as well. other animals that have made a tremendous recovery while

listed under the endangered species act include the california condor, a black footed ferret an the whooping crane and of great importance to my district, we're seeing signs of healthly -- healthy recover -- recovery for salmon. this impacts other states as well. ironically this deeply flawed provision does allow funding for the fish and wildlife service to delist recovered species under the act. however, you can't recover -- remove protections for recovered species unless they're listed as endangered in the first sp place and a successful recovery plan is implemented. this measure puts the cart before the horse. our bipartisan amendment, which is supported by more than 60 organizations, would strike this extreme provision. it's our responsibility to be good stewards of this earth and prevent the extinction of

wildlife, plants and fish. the sad truth is that once we lose a species, we'll never get it back. that's why we need to allow for science-based policies and recovery plans for imperiled species instead of allowing politics to drive listing decisions and activities. i recognize that some of my colleagues have strong objections to the endangered species act but placing a spending rider on this year's interior appropriations bill is not the answer. if real reform is needed, let's have an honest debate in the authorizing committee to look at what's working and what's not working under the endangered species act and let's fix it. that's a far wiser course than including an extreme policy change that goes -- that goes back on america's promise to protect our most vulnerable animals and plants and would not be supported by the american public.

i ask that we support this bipartisan amendment and make sure that we take this extreme policy out of the underlying bill. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. thompson: i will. >> when the gentleman said this is not the proper venue in order to address the encaged species act, that's my argument too, i think it should be done in the authorizing committee. but the fact of the matter is, there's no incentive for stake holders to sit down if we continue to kick the ball ahead and not seriously look at the endangered species act. mr. hastings: as the chairman said,s that shot across the bow, not only on this but other authorized programs. this is not -- we're not picking on this -- we're simply saying -- mr. thompson: reclaiming my time. mr. hastings: i can that the

gentleman have an additional minute. mr. thompson: it's a shot at the endangered species and you and i know how important it is with regard to the salmon in our districts, something that is important to our economy, something that is important to the ecology of not only our state but the ecology of -- we need to work together and i suggest that we remove this and get to work, i do yield. mr. hastings: we share that with the salmon. i would point out that the salmon run coming back in greater number which is suggests that the species is being recovered. and yet we are waiting on -- for a judge to make a decision. mr. thompson: would you yield back? remember, you're very well aware of the salmon issue and how there's been a number of attempts over the matter of water that if had been successful, had it not been for the endangered species act,

there wouldn't be any fish because without water, as you know, there's no fish. mr. hastings: i can't argue with the gentleman. i'm just saying we need to look at this -- it's been 23 years, 30 seconds to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: is -- the chair: is there objection? the gentleman is yielded 30 seconds. mr. hastings: will the gentleman yield? the argument is not about the endangered species act but about sitting down and re-authorize an act that's not been re-authorized since 1980. mr. thompson: i ask that we do it in the authorizing bill. mr. hastings: i agree with you, i said that in my opening remark the gentleman from washington said that as well and i agree. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i'm here to rise in support of the dicks-fitzpatrick amendment. i voted for this same language

a few weeks ago and i heard, we all heard compelling arguments here tonight about some challenges with the endangered species act and as has been previously stated by mr. thompson and a few others here tonight, i agree with those who said the proper venue for this is in the authorizing committee and i have great confidence in chairman hastings that he would take a thoughtful and sincere look at the act to make reforms and i think many people would agree they're needed but i don't think this is the right place to do it. mr. dent: and again, i support the underlying bill. i think overall this legislation, interior bill, while it's not everything to everybody and certainly funding levels may not be where some people would like, chairman simpson has done a commendable job putting a bill together but i think that this language in the underlying bill should be stricken as proposed by mr. dicks and mr. fitzpatrick.

i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? >> rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> as one of the former co-chairs of the congressional sportsmen's caucus, i rise in support of the dicks amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill. mr. kind: it's unfortunate that ranking member dicks has to offer an amendment in order to strip out a policy rider of the magnitude in an appropriations bill. we had a short discussion about how this would be more appropriate in the authorizing committee and i think there are legitimate issues we need to get into but not in the appropriation bill. this is one of many policy riders that have been jammed in this appropriation bill from the assault on the clean air and clean water act to allowing mining near the grand can, one of the great natural treasures we have as a nation and on and on and on. this extension rider that was included in the base bill would prevent the fish and wildlife

service from spending money, any money, of listing of new animals or plants under the endangered species act. to claim that this doesn't directly affect and attack the endangered species act tonight is mind-boggling to me yet in my home district of western wisconsin, a very beautiful natural wildlife refuge, with three endangered species located there, from the blue butterfly to the whooping crane and because of the po text they've had, -- of the potgs they've had -- protection they've had, they're recovering and the wolf is about to be removed from the endangered list. now to say we're going to refuse additional funding to have animals or plants or fish from falling under the protection, to not good.

but other troubling facets of this, the cuts that have been bipartisanly supported is disturbing. i'm glad the committee earlier adopted the bass amendment to restore $20 million to the land and water conservation fund but why are we cutting anything from that vital program. this isn't even funded by taxpayers. it comes from oil royalties, from a grand bargain we struck with oil and gas companies so they can explore and extract these natural resources from our public land. they agree that for the right of doing that, they would contribute to the land and water conservation fund, funds that would be used then for the enhancement of conservation programs and the protection of public lands in this country. to come with a bill that would cut 80% out of oil royalties does not make sense or the 7.5% cut under the wildlife refuge system. i know chairman dicks has been

a champion of the refuge system for many years. it's a system that affects virtually every congressional district, brings countless revenues into our district, plus jobs, and with the huge back log of maintenance and operation, another 7.5% cut will put them in the hole. a $7 million cut from the national parks system budget, a 21% cut in the fish and wildlife service, 64% in the state wildlife grants program. yet back home, some of the greatest conservationists i know are my hunting and fishing buddies because they get it. they understand if we just go and use the resources and deplete it from the wildlife to the fish to the water foul -- waterfowl there's not going to be the recreational enjoyment so of us get in the outdoor recreation community. that's why it was no surprise that earlier this month over 640 jut door recreation entities and preservation entities signed a better -- letter to every -- everyone in

our office decrying the sending -- spending cuts in these programs we have before us this evening. they know that these programs aren't something you can just turn it off like a spispi got. they require the continuity of funding and the continuity of assistance in order to make the progress that is necessary. so these draconian cuts that are being proposed right now is going to set back the cause of conservation, whether it's wildlife or land in this country for many, many years. that's unfortunate. because these same people also understand the economic impact that these programs have. outdoor recreation contributes over $730 billion annually to the u.s. economy. it supports over 6.5 million job, one out of every 20 private sector jobs are affiliated with outdoor recreational opportunities. 8% of consumer spending. and in my own state of wisconsin, hunting and fishing aloan supports over 57,000

jobs, $400 million in state revenue. so if we're really serious about addressing the soft economy we have now and doing what we can to get the economy on track, creating good-paying jobs, this is the wrong place we should be looking in the budget for drastic cutbacks. i've within bun of -- i've been one of the leaders for significant farm bill reform to get at the outdated agricultural subsidies. i ask unanimous consent for one additional minute. the chair: is there objection? the gentleman may proceed for one minute. mr. kind: i've been leading the charge for farm bill reform, with these subsidies that go to large farmers and not our family farmers, yet when i've lead this -- led this cause in the past a member in this body accused me of willing the osama bin laden of agricultural policy. yet today if we had taken those actions 10 years ago when many of us were acting on it, maybe

we wouldn't find ourselves in the huge fiscal hole we have today. it's not only the policy riders but the spending cuts being proposed. it's the wrong direction for our nation to go. it will jeopardize these vital programs, programs that have enjoyed wide bipartisan support and we ought not be balancing the budget on their backs. other the last 30 year, funding for conservation programs has gone to less than .6% of federal funding. they've given at the altar of fiscal responsible. we can't go any deeper. i urge my colleagues to support the dicks amendment. we have to do a better job. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i reluctantly rise to oppose the gentleman from washington's amendment and support the underlying bill. a lot of compelling arguments have been made tonight to support the endangered species

act without interruption. they talk about the bald eagle and the compelling story about seeing those magnificent birds. those are visual images that we all like. but there's a side to the endangered species act that is not being told. that's the side where one group just this year filed 1,000 petitions at one time to list new species. they know that their lawyers get reimbursed from the federal government every time they bring suit, so they're happy to bring these actions which are destroying jobs in the west. mr. pearce: for instance, in the second district of new mexico, a listing of -- suggested listing was given this year on the sand dune liz sard. a small brown liz sard that i've seen in the sand hills since i was growing up there. . they have been listed as endangered and people didn't think much of it and people

began to read the reports anything that disturbed the surface of the ground would have a potential threat to the habitat of the lizard and would be prohibited to the lizard. they asked, what does that mean? and that means oil and gas activity. $2.8 billion investment for nuclear enrichment that is taking place in southern lee countyy and creating jobs in an industry that has been dormant that would be shut down. would stop the high line wires from being put up, from the electric utility crews from driving to the homesteds miles and miles away from the nearest town. they couldn't check the power lines to make sure electricity is going to these remote areas. this is the endangered species

act that we are seeing. people have said to me, they couldn't kill our jobs with a lizard. what about us as humans? i said look at the san joaquin valley, 27,000 farmers put out of work with a two-inch delta smelt. and we could have put jobs into rivers and use the rivers for irrigation, but instead a judge found that we had to shut down the entire agriculture product. we imported vegetables from other areas that spray contamination that we are not allowed to use in this nation unless safe food supply. we kill 27,000 jobs. we cause jobs to be created somewhere else, less food safe food supply. we also have a lesser prarie

chicken that threatens jobs in our area. they are saying the bird might not fly over or under those lines so we can't put up electric lines. people say, well, the lizard wouldn't go across the area. it's easy to see why people are saying that the endangered species act is not functioning properly and we have to stop it. we are spending $3.5 trillion in our government and we have killed enough of our jobs and killed enough of our economy that were in severe debt and deficit crisis. one of the problems is that we have eliminated the timber industry because of the spotted owl and eliminated farmer jobs in the san wow keen valley and we have salmon swimming upstream and now we have to tear down the

hydro lk dams and the -- hydroelectric dams and the list goes on and on. we have to preserve the species and preserve jobs. for the lawyers making $350, they don't care. to the fish and wildlife agency, they said we didn't do an economic study to see the cost on jobs. we aren't required to. people are saying enough is enough. it's in my district that 900 people showed up to protest at one of the hearings on the listing of the lizard. 900 people coming out so the fish and wildlife service came to me and said would you speak to those who couldn't get into the meeting. they are agitated. i said people do get agitated when you start taking the jobs away from them.

the endangered species act is being dealt. i support the underlying bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? capps capps i rise to strike the last word to speak in favor of mr. dicks' amendment to remove this anti-wildlife rider from the underlying bill. the rider would gut the endangered species act, a law that has worked for 40 years to conserve our nation's plants and animals and would do this by blocking the agency. as has been said on both sides of the aisle, this provision creates a one-way path to by allowing the service to delist and downgrade a species' status but not to list new species. unless a species is listed, it

reserves no protection. the service has identified over 26 species that warrant protection but cannot be listed due to a lack of federal resources that is plants and animals that are in dire need of assistance and in risk of dying forever. plants and nafpbles are in serious -- animals are in trouble. habitat destruction and climate change but this irresponsible rider may prove to be the most immediate and serious threat of all. sendless countless species, destroying america's legacy, it's our responsibility to preserve our nation's resources for future generations and the endangered species act was written. it codifies our commitment to stewardship and holets dear for the benefit of our children and

grandchildren. we witnessed incredible comebacks. animals that were disappearing are thriving. because of this act and other successful partnerships, bald eagles have returned not only to washington state but to the channel islands off the coast of my congressional district. just a few years ago, a pair of nesting eagles produced the first born chicks on our island in 50 years. we have seen california and co ndoors and the seal, which was hunt todd near extinction can be seen swimming. there are similar success stories for the otters and blue whale both found off the coast of california and return of island foxes whose population dropped doub down to less than 100 is now back above 1,200.

there are so many examples, florida panthers, gray wolfs and hundreds more species that have not gone extinct after receiving protection under the act. they can't wait any longer and we captain let them disappear. i urge my colleagues to support mr. dicks' amendment to strike this irresponsible provision in the bill. we can and must do better. our children and grandchildren are depending upon us. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: i support mr. dicks' idea but not the preas. if you look at the debate on this particular amendment it's like ships crossing in the night but not touching. everyone who has spoken so far is saying the same thing, we

want to have an endangered species act that works. we need to make it work better and involve the entire process so everyone is working towards the same goal. but for some reason it is not happening. and it's not happening because we have violated the process. everyone who has said this is not the right place to fix the endangered species act, and that is true, but the only process that is allowed because we have violated our own intent. appropriators are supposed to proipt funds to program, authorizers are supposed to create the programs and then re-authorize those programs bea based on the need or make make sure we are moving in the right direction. one of my favorite baseball players with the cleveland independentians and he was good enough to play regular shortstop

but the first year he committed 48 yorse and batting average was .187. this time his errors was slightly under .100. and his batting average was .187. i say that specifically because the most inept player to put on spikes had a batting average of .187. the endangered species act has listed over 200 species and saved 21 for a batting average of .10 if you round up. it is .009. that indicates we can do better and need to do better. so the question has to be, why aren't we doing better? why can't we fix this problem and have a better success rate. and the answer is simple. for 23 years we put riders on this appropriations act to fully

fund the old program which has prohibited the authorizing committee to ever get people together to make the program better. chairman hastings has simply said his goal is to provide a process that improves the system and there is room for improvement in the system. but to do that, you have to get the players to sit down in the authorizing committees where this is supposed to be worked out. the endangered species act needs to be expanded, needs to be fixed, needs to zero in to create people working together for a common goal. i'm actually grateful for representative discs and representative simpson and what they have done in this bill. this does not destroy the endangered species act ar doesn't cut the funding for those species already being worked on. all it does is provide a change in the process to incyst --

insist that people have to do what we have been doing the past 23 years, going to the authorizing act and not kicking the can down the year and funding it year after year after year after year while only 21 species vr recovered over the 2,000 that could have and should have been. we all want species to be preserved and recovered, but we all are failing in the process and after 23 years, we should have learned what we have been doing in the past doesn't work. maybe if we went back to where the system was intended to be and designed to function, we could actually move forward in this entire issue which everyone is saying. mr. chairman, i thank you for your indulgence and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by -- the gentleman from washington. for what purpose does gentleman

rise. mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. as i recall from 1995 to 2007, the other side, the majority party today was the majority party then. and i don't remember any great effort on the endangered species act. now i welcome it. i welcome any act that can be made better and now you guys are in charge again and you have another opportunity, i believe mr. bishop was on the committee for quite a long time. i'm going to go look for his reform bill in the record to see what's been happening here. i'll yield first to the distinguished chairman from washington state, the natural resources committee and then mr. simpson.

he is senior to you. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate the gentleman's remarks. i would remind him that from the time we did get control of the congress from 1995 until your side gained control after 2006 election, the then chairman, the last chairman of the natural resources committee, richard pombo of california, that was pt issue he was working on. and in 2005, we did pass the reform out of this house. it did not go any place in the body so history tends to repeat itself. my point is that yes, -- and here's the problem. the problem is that through all the efforts of chairman pombo of trying to get this enacted and couldn't get it through the senate, what the appropriation

did, kicked the can ahead. mr. dicks: regaining my time, i just would say, nobody's stopping you. hold your hearings, have your meetings. call your witnesses, but don't stop listing 260 candidate species until you get the job done. mr. hastings: will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: of course i yield. mr. hastings: i have been chairman now for a little over six months and i have every intention to do that and i want to work with the gentleman to do this. mr. dicks: i want to be involved. i yield to my good friend, gentleman and former ranking member, one of the best ranking members i ever had. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. we all want the same thing here. we want the endangered species act and we want it to work. as you mentioned, senator

kempthorn worked on it. he -- that was when he was senator before he became governor of idaho. it was republicans in the house that stopped it because they didn't think it went far enough. unfortunately if we continue to do what we've done in the past, we're going to get exactly what we got in the past, that is no incentive for people to sit down and say, we've got to work on this and we've got to get it done. that's all we're trying to do. that's all we're trying to do. mr. dicks: i yield to the ranking member. zphri do think it might be instructive that he's no longer among our ranks and the principal reason is the endangered species act accusation that he attempted to write which was so destructive of the original intent of the endangered species act back in 1965 and it was a republican senate that defeated it, that would not let it pass.

>> will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i yield. mr. hastings: of course there are political risks in doing whatever we're doing in this body. we all face that. after all, this is the people's government. but the point is, it needs, we have been saying over and over, the e.s.a. needs to be updated. mr. dicks: i agree. we should look at how to improve the e.s.a. i don't like to hear these examples of where this is -- the process has not been able to be worked out. i've had to go through this as you have in the pacific northwest. there's a spotted owl, the marbled salmon, etc. these are starting to recover. we're making some progress. but i still believe we can make this act better. i just think by taking out the ability to list, to have critical habitats, we're

risking some of these species that are close to extinct. remember this, it's also about biodiversity. the web of life. we don't know how all these things relate and whether something can be created, a medicine that could save lives in the future and that's why trying to protect these species is an important -- i ask -- >> i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman have one more minute. the chair: is there objection? the jell may continue. mr. dicks: we're creature here's too. we depend on a lot of other animals in order to survive. this is -- this goes beyond -- this goes beyond just a legislative it's difficult. this is down and dirty, this is very important to survival. >> will the gentleman yield? i don't disagree with anything the gentleman just said. it's also important to remember that this amendment would take the caps off that have been in

place since president clinton and would undermine the fish and wildlife service's budget because it would be controlled by the courts and lawsuits. that's not where we want to go. mr. dicks: we'll fix it in conference. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to mr. dicks: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 9, line 13, construction, $11,80 ,000. land acquisition. $15,047,000. cooperative endangered species

conservation fund. $2,854,000. national wildlife refuge fund, $13,980,000. north american wetlands conservation fund, $20 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. griffin of arkansas, page 10, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the following, increase by $3 million. page 65, line 19, insert after the dollar amount, the following, reduced by $3 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. griffin: i rise to offer an amendment which will leverage our limited resources for wetlands and wildlife conservation. it would transfer $3 million to the wetlands conservation fund by reducing the e.p.a.'s operations and administration budget by the same amountment

-- by the same amount. the e.p.a. has been overfunded in recent years and i respect subcommittee chairman simpson's attempt to bring it down to size. this makes a cut to e.p.a. administrative budget in favor of wetlands conservation. since this organization was established in 1989, more than 1,800 projects have led to the conservation of over 2,-- of over 24 million acres across north america. each project is funded through a public-private partnership and for every dollar of the organization's money that's spent in my home state of arkansas, private sources and organizations have given $4 in matching funds. in arkansas alone, 12 of these projects are either completed or currently under way. these projects have conserved over 64,000 of wetlands. make no mistakes this success story is not limited to

arkansas. wetlands, wildlife and outdoorsmen in every single state in the country have seen the benefits of this conservation effort. arkansas sits in the middle of the mississippi flyway, a route used by water foul as they migrate each autumn. they often settle in wetlands along the white river and arkansas river and the health of these habitats is closely tied to the health of the wile live which inhabit them. this would help improve the condition of the nation's wetlands and wildlife. this is important to sportsmen, conservationists and anyone who enjoys the joust doors. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. chairman, i would claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i have the voting record from february

16. i know the gentleman will recall h.r. 1 and the debate that ensued. in h.r. 1, the north american wetlands conservation fund was zeroed out. and so, i added an amendment to restore $50 million to the north american wetlands conservation program. what i find curious, confusing, is that the very gentleman who now wants to put money into the program voted no. against putting the $50 million into the north america wetlands conservation program back in the spring. now, i do think it's an important program. i would like to see it continued. but i do have a problem with the fact that what we're doing

when we want something to be funded, we take it out of the management of agencies. $3 million. $5 million. $6 million. when these amendments pass, you have a very damaging cumulative effect on the ability of the agency to manage these programs. if this were to pass, we're now at $8 million that has been taken out of the management of e.p.a. so i would have to oppose the amendment. i'm not sure how strongly the gentleman feels about it, since he voted against restoring the money in february, as did a great many members of the body, unfortunately, because it is a good program. and i'll reserve the balance of my time -- i can't reserve. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman i'm prepared to accept the amendment. while the gentleman from -- mr. simpson: while the gentleman from virginia offered an amendment on h.r. 1, which was several months ago, it was $50 million. we didn't have that kind of money. because of the bipartisan support for this program, we did fund it to keep it alive at $20 million. and i have no problem putting the additional funding in the gentleman requests and where he takes it from, so i support the gentleman's amendment and would hope that my friend from virginia would think tice and support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arkansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read.

the clerk: page 10, line 23, multinational species conservation fund. $7,875,000. state and tribal wildlife grants, $22 million. administrative provisions. appropriations shall be available for repair of damaged public roads within reservation areas. national park service, operation of the national park system. $2,240,152,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 049. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tonko of new york. page 14, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert decreased by $8,408,000. page 14, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $,408,000.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment to h.r. 25 4, the interior environment and related agencies act for fiscal year 12. the amendment is bipartisan and supported by the congressional national heritage caucus and the 49 national heritage areas across our country. the amendment is straightforward and modest. the amendment restores the national heritage area program within the national park service to the fiscal year 2010 funding levels. this amount is constant with the amount approved by congress for the last several years. to pay for this increase, the amendment shifted $8,408,000 a way from the national parks system account. from alaska to florida, the national heritage areas are the most effective public-private partnerships for research conservation and heritage tourism supported by the federal government. while each of the 49 national heritage areas currently in

existence are authorized to receive $1 million in annual support through the department of interior, the national heritage area program has only been funded between $15 million and $18 million over the past five years by congress. despite their success in revitalizing communities and conserving nationally significant resources with only mod etc. federal support. these public-private partnerships are perhaps the most cost effective and efficient programs within the department of interior, matching every dollar of federal support with $5.50 of other public and private funding, national heritage areas are clearly a high yield investment of federal resources. to be clear, that results in over $1 million of economic activity. during a time when our economy is so fragile, we must support these programs that have a proven record of economic benefit, national heritage areas have such a proven record of fostering job creation and advancing economic, cultural,

historic, environmental and community development. in addition to creating jobs, national heritage areas generate valuable revenue for local government and sustain communities through revitalization and heritage tourism. more specifically in my district, a recent study released last year by my local heritage area, the erie canal way heritage corridor found that nearly one million people have it heritage sites each year, generating $36 million in sales in local businesses and 507,000 local jobs. we must preserve sites that are historically significant. it will increase community spirit and yen rate much-needed tour inch dollars. a recent tourism and marketing counsel re-- council revealed that cultural heritage travelers contribute more than $192 billion annually to our

united states economy. i would point out also that this tool, this opportunity for heritage areas, enables given regions to have a stronger sense of marketing tools. they are able to promote a stronger sense of place and a much more dynamic bit of destination. that is a tool of the economic recovery -- recovery tool kit that is tremendously valuable and important to these given host regions. i want to thank representative dent of pennsylvania for offering this amendment with me today. he is the co-chair of the nabble heritage area caucus in the house and he and his staff has been a pleasure to work with on this amendment. i also need to thank our ranking member of the committee, mr. dicks, and our ranker of the subcommittee, representative moran. they have been invaluable in their support in my effort for this amendment. . i want to remind everyone

this amount is total on the program in the fiscal year and remains successful. i hope my colleagues will support this modest funding level. with that. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. dent: i move to strike the last word. i do support the tonko amendment. mr. tonko and i have offered this amendment for consideration by the house. we are the co-chairs of the heritage corridor caucus. i represent the areas of the delaware lehigh corridor in eastern pennsylvania and we have seen a great deal of positive activity as a result of these heritage areas. specifically as mr. tonko conveyed, a great deal of tourism activity, recreational

opportunities, economic development as well occurs as a result of this and also significant community development activities have been the result of our efforts and investment in these heritage areas. obviously money is very tight. and this program is taking about a 50% reduction under the underlying bill. the amendment before us will simply restore about $8.4 million to the heritage area, to the heritage partnership program and will be taking that money, substituting it from the national park service where they believe they have sufficient funds to operate. i do support the underlying legislation. i know chairman simpson has put a lot of effort in this and has done a great deal with the numbers he has had to work with. i support the underlying bill but this amendment strikes the proper balance and preserves and protects these heritage areas

that are making a real impact across the country and we have many of these heritage areas that are currently operating, 49 of these heritage areas are currently in existence and they are receiving support through the interior department. i think this is a program that is worthy of our support. we are simply in these tough economic times trying to bring the program back to neutral. i know the administration did not in their budget proposal cut this program as well, but i think this might be one way to help us bring this program back to a level that will be sufficient to supporting these heritage areas and these communities are benefiting. we are seeing so much tourist activity and increased recreational opportunities. in my community, we are doing things on our rivers and discovering our rivers and

discovering the natural beauty that many of us have not noticed before and it is as a result of this and brought the rivers back to life, economic life, community life and have become the center of our existence and a lot of this would not have been possible if not for the realization of these heritage areas. i would urge the house to adopt this. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: we are in support of what mr. tonko and mr. dent are proposing. we have worked with them on this amendment. this is the kind of program that really ought to have unanimous support in the house. i mean, we are talking very

small amounts of money that are distributed throughout the country, oftentimes 150,000, sometimes it gets up to 700,000, but sometimes relatively small apartments of money and what they do is bring local community leaders together. local communities love it and it draws tourism. people -- it gets in the newspaper, oftentimes in the metro newspapers suggesting that this is a terrific day trip for families to go on and they follow the heritage trail. it has that kind of national recognition and credibility that only the federal government oftentimes can provide to a national heritage trail because many people claim it. but when the national heritage program identifies it as one of

the two assets of our country in places that should be protected and preserved and explained to the public, then more people come. and it generates jobs. it generates economic activity. mr. wolf just put in an authorization. he probably won't get the full amount of money that's authorized, but will get some for the civil war battlefield crossroads trail and that's drawing people up with the ceremony of the civil war. the hudson river, there was a gentleman on the other side that opposeded it when mr. hinchey put it in and when he saw how successful it was, he said let's get my part of the hudson river included. this was a good program that was funded at $17 million.

50% cut, though. talk about being penny wise and pound foolish. 50% cut and it hurts the economies of any number of areas around the country. so we think that this is a very reasonable amendment. and we congratulate the caucus for coming forward and suggesting that the money be restored. and we hope that it will be. so thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: move to strike the last word. i thank the gentleman from from new york and virginia and i'm sympathetic to what they are trying to do and it is important works, but i rise in reluctant opposition. while i'm sympathetic opposition to the amendment, i'm concerned that the offset would take funds

away for providing funds for operations of our national parks across the country. one of our goals was to provide funding for park services so every park would be opened for business next year without threat of layoffs. my fear is reducing this by $8.8 million would undermine the operation of our national parks. let me point out that while the amount in the bill is reduced from fiscal year 2011 enacted level, the national heritage areas are funded in the amount requested by the president's budget. you know these national heritage areas are supposed to become self-sufficient and when that doesn't happen, the funding request from the president is not going to be in their budget and not any money for these national heritage areas. we funded these at the

president's level. i appreciate what the gentlemen are trying to do. but because of the offset, i reluck tantly oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington, d.c., rise? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. tonko: mr. chair, i call for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5

printed in the congressional record offered by mr. amash of michigan. mr. amash: what about the east coast dance conservative, my amendment to h.r. 2884 will reduce the deficit save taxpayer dollars and sought subsidies to bands including the beach boys. it will reduce the deficit by transferring funding by the national capital area for funding arts program to the spending reduction account. the program provides free concerts and subsidized performances around washington, d.c., by paying for lighting and other perform-related costs. the program funds venues. which administers the program , has recommended its elimination.

seeing it distracts the park service from performing its core functions. it will transfer all of the programs, $2.2 million to the spending reduction program. i like the beach boys but that doesn't mean we should force taxpayers to subsidize my ticket if i go to their concert. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to prevent the wasteful spending on entertainment programs in the washington, d.c., area. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. i'm not sure we want the beach boys to be the issue here. we were just discussing mr. was' tenure as secretary of the interior. that was not so successful when he came after the beach boys. but be that as it may, what we

are really talking about here are a number of nonprofit organizations and these are national memorials. ford's theater, wolf trap. i would recommend to the gentleman that he watch the beach boys perform. i guess it's more my age but it was a pretty good performance. we are talking about ford's theater, wolf trap, carter baron, all part of the national park system. the kennedy center is a national memorial. these are performing arts right here on the capitol grounds as well. now we are talking about nationally significant sites and the performances that occur, in fact, are part of the mission of

these sites that were authorized for members of the public, the tax paying public to come to a nonprofit venue and in fact be entertained. the national parks do that, they entertain. the public that pays for them. sometimes it's being seeng at sites, hiking, camping and performances. national park service is in keeping with its mission to interpret the purpose of these national sites. these performances are seen by citizens, in fact, all over the country, many people who visit our nation's capital attend these performances as part of their trip to the district of columbia. the crowds that fill the west

lawn on the capitol on 4th of july and memorial day are testament. if you were there on memorial day or the 4th of july and turned to see the crowd, people are there as far as the eye can see, people representative of this diverse country and every one of them with a smile on their face, every single one of them were delighted and overjoyed that they were able to participate and appreciate and enjoy the performance that was put on on the 4th of july and memorial day. that's part of our nation's heritage. it's a proud part. this amendment would do real harm to programs enjoyed by millions of american. would also suggest that this line item has already suffered virtually devastating cut.

it was funded at about 10 million and been cut to $2 million. it's just barely hanging on. and how this amendment would eliminate it. i mean, think about this. and i know that some of the members and at least as many members of the minority -- of the majority side and the minority side were there for the memorial day concert. i saw them. i was sitting them with them. the chairman of the subcommittees, the leadership of the house and senate were all there honoring our troops. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. moran: i would be happy to yield. . colin powell was there and many

of the wounded warriors were there as well. team 6 that had just dealt with osama bin laden in a fairly definitive manner, team six was there. we couldn't identify them but we all applauded for them. the gentleman makes a very good point, colin powell was the master of ceremonies. this is what we want to eliminate? this is what is such a threat to our budget, taking so much money? it's not taking that much money. whatever money it's taking, it's giving back far more in return. mr. dicks: thank you for yielding. i hope we can defeat this unneeded amendment. mr. moran: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i agree with the

words spoke bin the gentleman from virginia and the gentleman from washington. in these tough economic times, it is important that we keep some things that are very important, i think, to the american people. and if you look at the programs that have been put on by the capitol concerts on the fourth of july and memorial day, what they've done for our troops and for really the spirit of america, i think it's vitally important. and they do things at ford's theater and other places around the country, and we have to remember, this is our nation's capitol. the things they do here are important. they're important for our country, not just for this small piece of land we call washington, d.c. so i hope that members on both sides of the aisle would recognize the importance of these programs an the work they do and the importance that they have for the american people and would reject this

amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. amash: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be pro-- will be postpone the clerk will read. the clerk: page 14, line 14, nabble recreation and preservation, $49,366,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? ms. norton: i have an amendment at the desk and waive the reading. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by

the gentlelady from washington, d.c., ms. norton. the chair: the gentlelady may proceed. ms. norton: my amendment would designate $300 million for a national park service study of whether applying the same rules and regulations to all parks maximizes the highest and best use of individual parks. the system as a whole -- for the system as a whole and americans who use our parks. this is but a study. and it would require the national park service to look at how n.p.s., cities, counties, and states, as well as other countries, manage their diverse parks and to suggest funds the available best practices, appropriate ways to help them meet the -- meet the needs of individual communities within the basic uniformity necessary to operate a national system of parks.

today, the n.p.s. applies the same rules and regulations to all its parks, regardless of locations from the almost 1,200 square mile yosemite national park to small urban parks on street corners. i support a unified national park system but n.p.s. should develop flexible standards that take into account the unique circumstances and population of individual parks. and changing conditions throughout the country. in keeping with congressional recognition of those conservation -- of both conservation and recreation as primary reasons for our parks. the neighborhood parks in the district of columbia, for example, serve a very different function from yellowstone. dupont circle park is a central urban community meeting place in the district, not a place for enjoying the greenery of nature as much as we love our parks.

for that purpose. on any given day, you will find people playing chess, sunbathing, playing frizz bee, or passing out flyers. madam speaker, i have come to the floor because i have tried unsuccessfully to get the park service to make small adaptations, perfectly compatible with their mission, to allow for the people in the parks in my own district, and i am certain that other members have found similar roadblocks, for example, the park service won't allow bike share stations on or near federal parks. and they're not permitting the golf courses in the district of columbia to be run as a public-private partnership. both of these examples have run into the same one-size-fits-all

concession concerns. yet the national park service could negotiate concession agreements that accommodate bike share in the future and inflexibility in park service insistence on concession contracts that do not allow capital investment resulting in an astonishing deterioration of invaluable capital-intensive golf courses and -- in the district could give way to other approaches such as public-private partnerships. operating under long-term leases. that would allow private funding to assist the park service with upgrading and maintaining these public assets with congress, which the taxpayers can't possibly buy themselves -- by themselves maintain.

inflexible one-size-fits-all policies keep americans from using our parks for compatible purposes such as bike stations or worse, condemn unique, chi aye connick resources to inevitable decline. madam speaker, my amendment is of the lowest possible cost. it is for a study to tell us what to do, to tell the park service what to do, to allow people throughout this country in very different locations and need to use our parks in very different ways just how this must be done compatible with a uniform national park service and i ask that my amendment be approved. i yield -- >> you don't need to yield.

ms. norton: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: madam chairman, i think we have a problem in the amendment itself because it would specifically designate a study that might be interpreted as some type of earmark which it, i don't think it really is. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: the -- i like what the gentlelady is trying to do. i think it's -- it's important. i think we ought to have a consideration by the park service of whether they are sufficiently flexible in dealing with local communities. there was a recent article written in "the washington post" talking about some of the

opportunities that exist to bring the community into local parks, urban parks, where far more people could be involved, people could participate, people could enhance the enjoyment of things that take place. for example, there's a large soccer event at a park that's criminaled by the national park service. you could bring the whole community in to watch it on a large screen. there's no question but that we could find ways to discourage automobiles and encourage bikes. have bike -- bike-sharing, for example, on the national mall so people could rent bikes and bike around the mall, it wouldn't cause any environmental damage, in fact

it would preserve some of the lawn on our national mall and i think some people would enjoy it more and get a little exercise. just all kinds of ideas. it might be proposed by communities. i remember being out in washington state, san juan island, and this was a little place, it's a national park because of -- of a bizarre military conflict that occurred out there, i won't go into the whole military conflict, but the people there loved the bunny rabbits that are there. the park service decided that they're really not a native species, there are too many of them, and so the park service decided they're going to use the method they use other places and first of all, they thought they would gas them, which the community was shocked by. then they decided, well, we'll

shoot them and so on, redeuce the population. you know, if they had just sat down with members of the community, they could have figured out how to keep these bunnies that the community wanted, avoid a whole lot of negative attitude with regard to the park service, and advance -- in fact enhance the enjoyment of this little national park of san juan. i'm sure there are examples all over the country, probably all over the world, because the national park service has any number of parks outside the physical boundaries of our north american continent. we've got the virgin islands and so on. i don't know what the local neighborhoods might suggest but i do know that they have a lot of good ideas. ideas that the national park service ought to consider thoughtfully and some will be rejected but some might well be

accepted. but the process of that kind of community input, it seems to me, would generate even more support for the national park service. it's a great institution. parks are iconic assets to our nation. but you know, i do think that the local community could enjoy them more and appreciate the national park service's role more if we had the kind of dialogue with the park service that ms. norton is suggesting. i don't see any harm in having that kind of study. i think we ought to be able to work with the gentlelady, maybe put together some report language, at least a letter to the head of the national park service suggesting that this is an area that the congress itself in a bipartisan way thinks we ought -- thinks ought to be explored. if the gentleman would like me to yield to him, unless he'd lake to claim his own time? >> if the gentleman would

yield, i think the gentleman has stated the case as it is that it is an earmark. and that's a whole other story we could talk about. mr. simpson: i agree with what the gentlelady is trying to do here. i will tell you the ranking member and i will work with the gentlelady from district of columbia to resolve this in conference to accomplish what you're trying to do. mr. moran: the gentlelady is smile, so i accept her concurrence. we'll move forward in that fashion if the gentlelady doesn't mind withdrawing her amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise. ms. norton: i appreciate the remarks of the chairman and ranking member and in light of those remarks withdraw my amendment and will work with them to implement it in other

ways. i ask unanimous consent that it be withdrawn. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 14, line 20, historic preservation fund $49 million. construction fund -- the chair: for what purpose does jam rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. carter, after the dollar amount insert decrease by $1 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: this is an amendment that is put together to ensure that the interior department prioritize its efforts to construct a joint law

enforcement center to national parks and recreational areas along the southern border of the united states of available funds. national park lands on our southern border are experiencing a gigantic increase in the amount of illegal activity that has crossed into our parkland. the reason for this is similar to grabbing a bean bag and screezing it and it bulges out at some point. as we tighten our southern border with the bipartisan efforts by this congress, it causes the people who are wanting to have illegal activity to move farther out into the unoccupied areas and they are moving into our national parks. the joint law enforcement centers will be available to serve the national park service law enforcement agencies, united states customs and border patrol, possibly even the coast

guard there on the river at that border. federal, state or local law enforcement agencies that may be needed. this is something that has been discussed and been agreed upon and been approved. additional rangers and patrol men have been assigned and compensated for working down there but they lack serious facilities within which to be able to operate. one example where we sent a group down there to see what needs may be needed on our southern border, eight border patrol men that were working in a facility with 288 square feet. this is absolutely inadequate and if they were working in conjunction with the parks service, there was no room for the parks service to stand in the building.

this is some jump start by dedicating $1 million to the national parks service construction fund for f.y. 2012 to jump start the project already agreed upon between the departments of interior and homeland security. we are confident with this shot in the arm, we will be able to get these septemberers as they may be available, constructed. and it is not a place for these folks to work, but if you look at most of our southern border from all the way across, ull see when it comes to -- there's no place to hold prisoners when they are captured. and then you have to transport them. many instances, this transportation is 100, 150 miles to a place where they can be secured. and this would allow for

temporary detention so we wouldn't have border patrol running back and forth 150 miles every time there is a detention needed. this is a facility that really will aid what we already provided, whisper son nell to help defend our southern -- which is personnel to help defend our southern border. >> we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment. mr. carter: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: i'm not necessarily rising to oppose this but to point out some deficiencies in

the amendment itself. the claim is that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the national park service prioritize is construction of law enforcement centers on national park lands on the southern border in coordination with the department of homeland security. first of all, there is some feeling national parks ought not have basically prison sites on them because what happens when people are rounded up by the border patrol, they are taken to these law enforcement centers and detained and then they're moved to another place. but they would be temporarily detained at these law enforcement centers and there is some feeling that national parks are not an appropriate location for that purpose. but the very wording of the

amendment doesn't really do that. it increases money and decreases the same amount of money. if it did it, it would be an earmark. and of course, we don't do earmarks in this bill. so as i say, i don't rise in opposition because i'm not sure what the amendment does, but i do think it's helpful to be informed as to what it doesn't do. and i yield back. mr. carter: it's my understanding that this joint agreement, as we saw the acceleration of park rangers -- and you are right, i don't think anywhere on the southern border people don't want activity going on in our southern borders and nobody is trying to warehouse prisoners in a national park. it's hard to envision this

facility, but it would be a facility, i would assume, sort of like some of the facilities you see in other locations where people are operating out of it, but they have a detention -- temporary detention holding cell. this would be strictly -- and maybe i could point out one of the problems we have on the board is the transportation of our prisoners and one of the things we use our national guard for when they are working on the border, there always has to be someone having this prisoner in custody, whatever the accused crime is, they have to be in custody. and when we have limited resources, they take a trained border patrolman, if he isn't available and has to transport that prisoner because there is

no facility to temporarily hold him in, it could be hours and maybe minutes until something could come along to help transport, if he is alone, he has to transport him 150 miles, that's three hours. that officer has to make the transport. that's a little tiny part of the purpose of this facility. the facility is for a working space for those resources we have already beefed up and put down on the border, both interior and homeland have made agreements and it is a kickstart and we will see funding come from both sources. mr. moran: i understand the challenges that are faced in the area that he represents. i know -- i was similarly

confused, though, when there was a substantial amendment to strip funding for environmental hit occasion between the homeland security and interior departments previously that the gentleman suggested and i think was successful in doing so. it's not an area i'm familiar with, and again, i'm not sure this amendment accomplishes anything but drawing attention to the issue. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise. mr. mica: i have an amendment at the desk, mica one. the chair: the clerk will -- the chair: can the gentleman submit his amendment to the desk. mr. mica: yes, we did. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 14, line 20, historic preservation fund

$49,500,000. construction $152,121,000. land and water conservation fund -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise. mr. mica: i have an amendment at the desk. mr. dicks: we don't have a copy of the gentleman on amendment. and usually the protocol -- mr. mica: trying to sneak this one in. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mica of florida, page 15, line 8, insert increased by $2 million, page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert decreased by $2 million. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: thank you, madam chairman. and thank you for the clerk

reading this amendment. i'm sorry that the minority did not have a copy of this fine america. it was modified slightly from the original submission to comply with the requirements of the parliamentarian to be in order. let me say at this late hour, i won't take too much time, i'm from the authorizing side and it's always good to come here and hear the difficulties that the appropriators have in chige to make choices and tonight is about making choices and i have to compliment mr. simpson, the chair of the subcommittee, the chair, the ranking members, mr. month moran and mr. dicks and their efforts making these difficult choices in some very tough economic times. and normally, i wouldn't come

here and tell you what to do, but again coming from a state that has some 11 parks and preserves and national mon youments, i have a great interest in some of these accounts. we all have to set priorities. the department of interior, i noticed, has had i guess in 2010, just under $11 billion that's being cut to $9.8 billion, 7% reduction. people ask me about transportation productions, whether it is f.a.a., transportation. i'm reducing some of the accounts by 30% in authorizations, so i know the difficulty you are facing. i looked at some of the other accounts, e.p.a., people would be shocked to find that e.p.a. has $7.1 billion in this bill, quite a bit to operate this agency.

the national park service has $2.5 billion. i think if you ask people on the street, you know, where would you put the dollars, i think they would like to see something very tangible. they appreciate the national parks. and again, you have difficult priorities. my amendment is simple, takes $2 million out of e.p.a.'s account for management programs and it transfers it to the national parks construction account. now this is not going to resolve a $10 billion backlog in maintenance and construction projects. and i could give you examples, just a few miles from here, harpers ferry that a $59 million deferred maintenance account pending, florida with its 11 parks and preserves and national mon youments has a $4 million

backlog and my amendment would solve florida's problem. closer to my district and i thank the chairman of the committee and chairman of the subcommittee and staff for working with me, we are attempting after authorization, in 2004, to finally finish a visitors' center and make sure that the visitors' center and the backlog of florida's 11 parks and national monuments, their maintenance and construction costs, that we have those funds available. that's why i offered this amendment. you have difficult choices. this won't resolve the pending need either in the state of florida or nationally. that being said, and also stating my position and intent

and knowing that the committee and i know mr. simpson is anxious to work with me and is committed to work with me, mr. hastings and staff and in the interest of time and not pressing the issue beyond my ability to retain my friendship and strong working relationship, i'm going to ask unanimous consent at this hour to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment has been withdrawn. . the clerk will read. the clerk: page 15, line 9, land and water conservation fund. authority provided for 2012 i bi16 u.s.c. is hereby rescinded. land accusation and state assistance. $18,294,000.

administrative provisions. in addition, franchise fees credited to a subaccount shall be available for expenditure by the secretary. national park service funds may be transferred to the federal highway administration. united states geological survey. surveys, investigations and research, $1,053,552,000 to remain available until september 30, 2013. administrative provisions, the amount appropriated shall be available for reimbursement to the general services administration for security guard services. bureau of ocean energy management. regulation and enforcement, ocean energy management. $138,605,000 to remain available until september 30, 2013.

for an additional amount $10 million to remain available until expended. oil spill research. $14,923,000. office of surface mining reclamation and enforcement, regulation and technology, $123,050,000. abandoned mine reclamation fund. $27,443,000. administrative provision. with funds in this act, the secretary may transfer title for computer hardware to state and tribal regulatory and reclamation programs. bureau of indian affairs and bureau of indian education, $2,333,690,000. to remain available until september 30, 2013.

construction. $154,992,000. indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to indians, $32,855,000. indian guaranteed loan program account. $8,114,000. administrative provisions. the bureau may carry out programs by direct expenditure. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise in mr. flake: i have an amendment at -- >> i have an amendment at the desk and have a -- and move to strike the last word. the chair: does the gentleman seek to offer an amendment or strike the last word. >> strike the last word and

talk about my amendment. we're not quite to the member's amendment. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: administrative provisions, the bureau may carry out programs by direct expenditure. the bureau may contract for services in support of the power division of the san carlos irrigation project. appropriations for the bureau shall be available for expenses of exhibits. no funds available to the bureau shall be available for contracts. in the event any tribe returns appropriations to the bureau, this action shall not diminish the federal government's trust responsibility to that tribe. other than amounts provided under -- >> i withdraw. the chair: the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: shall be available to support any elementary or secondary school in the state of alaska. funds for schools funded by the

bureau shall be available only for schools in the bureau's school system as of january 1, 1996. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. >> we want to reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman's point of order will be -- is reserved. the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. page 31, lines two through 10, strike funds made available and all that follows through that period but and insert a charter school as that term is defined in section 1141 of the education amendments of 1978, 25 u.s.c. 2021, may operate. the chair: the gentleman from -- mr. dicks: we'd like to make a point of order.

we don't have a copy of the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the clerk will distribute copies, and the point of order is reserved. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gosar: as currently written, the department of entireor appropriations bill states that education funds made available under this act may not be used to establish a charter school and a bureau funded school. my amendment would allow money appropriated under in -- under this bill to be used for charter schools. it grandfathers in charter schools funded prior to 1999 but allows no new charter schools. the committee report is silent on this. children made up 1.5 million of the native american population. they and their parents the serve choice in education. charter schools are schools

usually operated by parents, entrepreneurs an others. a toe tl of 40 states and the texas d.c. have passed -- have passed charter school laws allowing these schools to be part of their system. i believe administrators of such schools may worry about administrative issues for students who transfer between a charter school and noncharter school an the moneys appropriated. this is sometimes referred to as ownership of the student. such administrative concerns should not be a basis to ban this option. competent administrators can work out transitional issues. further, to the ex-to tent someone does like not -- does not like charter school, so bit, don't send your kids to one. but we should not pick winners an losers. charter schools should be available to tribes that want them. if a tribe chooses not to offer

charter schools, that's its decision. there's no reason in this appropriation bill to foreclose this option. we should not impose our personal likes an dislikes on others. it is my further belief that allowing tribes the maximum ability to choose the best educational program is consistent with self-determination. having the right to decide local school decisions is a part of self-determination and i don't see why we in congress would deny that right. a key part of self-determination is choosing the manner in which tribes educate their children. as far back as 1970, president nixon addressed this issue and stated, it is long past time that the indian policies of the federal government began to recognize and build upon the insights of the american people both as a matter of justice and a matter of enlightened social policy, we must begin to act on the basis of what the indians thems have long been telling us. the time has come to break decisively with the past and create conditions for a new era

in which the indian future is determined by indian acts and decisions. that's what congress did when it passed the educational assistance act of 1975, allowing the tribes to choose a charter school option makes sense from a self-determination perspective. finally, according to the center for educational reform, there are over 5,000 charter schools nationwide. there are charter schools with spectacular successes and results. i'm sure there are some that have failed in their mission. the point here, however, is about choice and allowing tribes to decide what educational opportunities they want to create. it is well known that charter schools are schools of choice, unlike traditional public schools, student mace choose to attend charter schools and if the schools are not serving their needs they may choose to leave. it is true that many charter schools have longer school day, longer school years and higher academic and behavioral expectations for their stuvenes. for those concerned about the

current public educational system, charter schools should be encouraged. but let's allow the tribes to make that choice. it is congress' duty to allow and describe such choices as part of our treaties with the american tribal relations and how they are governed. i ask for support of this amendment and for indian self-determination and school choice. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: madam chairman, we don't have a problem with this amendment. this is new territory in our bill but i appreciate the gentleman from arizona's work on this and his interest in providing quality education for our native american brothers and sisters across this country. it's a deep concern that i share also and i look forward to working with him to make sure this does what's intended to provide what's necessary for our indian population so that they have the advantages that all of us have. i thank the gentleman for

offering the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington -- does the gentleman from washington wish to continue to reserve his point of order? mr. dicks: i withdraw my point of order. i would like to ask a question. the chair: the gentleman withdraws and is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: in your amendment it says funds made available and all that follows through that period but, and insert a charter school as that term is defined in section 1141 of the education amendments of 1978. could you tell us what that definition is, please? mr. gosar: we were looking that up, my colleague from washington. we don't have that on the laptop at this point. mr. dicks: so you have no idea what this amendment means?

mr. gosar: it allows the option for choice of charter schools as defined as charter schools. mr. dicks: how dune that? mr. gosar: they were grandfathered in up to 1999 but no provisions were allowed past 1999. mr. dicks: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 31, line 23, the secretary shall continue to distribute indirect cost funds to such grantee using section

5f distribution formula. departmental offices, office of the secretary, departmental operations, $250,151,000 to remain available until september 30, 2013. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dold of illinois. page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $24,700,000. page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert, increased by $24,700,000. page 65, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert, increased by $24,700,000. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. dold: madam chairman, i thank you. i rise today to restore funding to the great lakes restoration initiative this important initiative received steep cuts

in this year's interior bill. my amendment would simply restore half of the funding that was cut. this amendment is part of a two-step process to restore funding to the demrakes restoration initiative. this amendment transfers funds from the departmental office's account to the environmental programs and management and would be accompanied by a subsequent amendment to specify -- and to increase this funding to the great lakes restoration initiativism do appreciate the support that the appropriations committee has shown, the great lakes restoration initiative in the past, and i'm thankful it does remain a priority within the geographic programs account. however, i do believe it is vitally important to restore some funding so that we can continue to protect the great lakes. . the great lakes hold 95% of the united states' surface fresh water and source of clean drinking water to over 30 million people. from the beautiful beaches, wide

open waters to the bluffs and do you knows, the great lakes provide recreational opportunities and important part of the physical landscape and cultural heritage of north america. it provides raw materials and finished goods, which contributes to jobs and a stronger economy. the great lakes initiative is restoring the health and vitality of our great lakes. in my district, the 10th district of illinois, we want to make sure the great lakes are taken care of and protected for future generations. however, the ecosystem is showing signs of serious stress and action is required to restore, rehabilitate and make our great lakes better. as a scout master, i teach the boy scouts the principles of leaving areas better than when we found it. the great lakes restoration is an important avenue to restore

our lakes so they can remain the crown jewel. but in order to preserve the great lakes, we need the initiative to help tackle the challenges. first toxic substances are polluting the water and this is helping with cleanup. invasive species are causing ecological stress on the lakes and the initiative institutes a zero tolerance policy so asian carp cannot be established. we must ensure the pollution does not impair water quality. and the initiative works to restore degraded wetlands and wildlife habitats. i along with congressman lipinski introduced the water protection act which would protect lake michigan from wastewater discharges from prohibiting public works from

distributing wastewater systems to buypass the treatment facility. this is one more step my colleagues that we are taking to fight for the protection of our lakes and yet despite all of these concerns, the current recommendation for this critical initiative is over half of what it received in 2010 and 49.4 million below the 2010 enacted level. i appreciate the work that the appropriations committee has been tasked with and they are fiscally responsible to make sure we are funding our nation's priorities. my amendment only seeks to restore half of the $50 million cut that the great lakes initiative received in this borrower bill. i believe the great lakes are at risk and we must restore funding so the great lakes restoration funding can restore funding for

decades to come. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: move to strike the last word. the chair: gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: we had to make tough decisions in this bill. i believe every geographical program had reduced funding in this bill. last year they were funded at $300 million and the president requested $350 million and we funded it at $250 million and i thank the gentleman nor offering his amendment, the fact is, we don't have that kind of money. and the offset of that is $24 million out of the secretary's account which we took $20 million.

i don't believe the secretary is spleeping well. pretty soon he won't have money left in his office so that is a problem. that is not what the gentleman is trying to do. it's the offset and trying to get $20 million out of the secretary's account that causes a problem. and i would hope that my colleagues reject this amendment as we work on trying to make sure that we can do what's necessary to fund those programs that do protect the great water bodies in this country. appreciate the gentleman's amendment. but i have to rise in opposition to it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. dold: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will death designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. reed of new york. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for five minutes. reed reed i -- mr. reed: i offer an amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment to this appropriations bill with the intent to return funding to the forest health management account under state and private foffers try. what we are intending to do is

to move money from the d.c. bureaucracy and i anticipate there will be a concern raised about the offset of the line that we're using to cover this increase in the forest health management account from the secretary's account. but i firmly do believe that our taxpayer dollars are better spent not on the bureaucracy of the secretary's office here in washington, d.c.,, but more importantly on the front lines and into the states that can benefit from these programs. this program that we're trying to take care of with this amendment is to restore the funding for the purposes of weeding out invasive species which threaten many industries and our environment across the nation. essentially, invasive species threaten economies and environments in every state and every district that we represent. the work done by the forest

service by the outreach is imperative to the prevention and early detection of nonnative invasive species. one example that we deal with in our district in the new york 29th congressional district is the beetle which can decimate forests across our district. they have caused disruption on economies and job producers. research estimates we have reviewed, inindicate that affected trees could total $10 billion should this pest continue to spread. they are working to maintain and address so that federal and state funds are not diverted from other meaningful initiatives. working with individual states, the forest health management programs are part of an effort

to protect forest and grasslands where their efforts can be most effective, in the field and front line rather than here behind a desk in washington, d.c. this far outweighs the use of those funds to wlote the federal bureaucracy. and i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and join in this bipartisan effort with all due respect to the chairman of the appropriations process that is making difficult decisions but i want to highlight this issue and i believe that we can get money from d.c. into the fields and deal with the issue of invasive species that threatens economies and industries across the nation. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does idaho rise? the gentleman is recognized for

five minutes. mr. simpson: i appreciate the gentleman from new york's observation that we are working with some very difficult numbers and he is absolutely right. and this is an account that i think is important, the invasive species and trying to control them across this country is of high importance and it is important in idaho and other places across the country. we actually reduced this account by 2.5%. some other accounts, e.p.a.'s accounts down 18% and some other things. most accounts received substantially less funding and where you are taking this money from in the last amendment, the office of the secretary is funded in this bill $33.5 million below the budget's request before we took out another $20 million in another amendment to put it in the water

and land conservation fund. we add to this it and be down $62 million. sometimes what appear to be small amounts add up if we are going to have a secretary's office that functions, we have to keep enough resources there so he can do his job and while i appreciate what the jab is trying to do and sympathesize what he is trying to do and support the effort what he is trying to do, the offset affects an account we have reduced already. i oppose the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i move to strike the last word. i rise to agree with the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee just as i did with the last amendment. the idea of a bloated bureaucracy when you've taken

$53 million out of the secretary's office, it seems to me is misplaced. we are talking about giving the office of the secretary of the interior far more responsibility. and now at every opportunity, we seem to be cutting the resources that are necessary to fulfill those responsibilities. already tonight, we have taken 20 million from the office of the secretary's account. just as i did with the prior amendment, i would agree with the chairman's comments and associate myself with them so i won't take any more of the body's time. i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. reed: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sca lies of louisiana, page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount insert by 324,000. after the dollar amount, insert increased by $420,000. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five

minutes. mr. scalise: it would take $420,000 from the secretary's account and moving it into the account to reduce the nation's deficit and over the last year since the deepwater horizon exploded, the administration came out with a policy that imposed a moratorium on drilling, a moratorium that was found by federal courts to be outside of the law, the administration unfortunately went forward with that moratorium, costing thousands of american jobs, hurting america's energy security and after the lifting of the moratorium, they maintained a permitorium, to refuse to explore in the gulf of mexico. not only has it cost our nation thousands of dollars of jobs and we are now more