i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. dold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. since 1947, 49 million induce in bangladesh have gone missing. at a recent hindu-american foundation report concluded that the hindus of bangladesh continue to be victims of daily acts of murder, rape, kidnapping, temple destruction, and physical intimidation. . an authority on human rights abuses in bangladesh has described to me on several occasions the atrocities and human rights abuses suffered by bangladeshi's hindus that he has verified. other groups like the christian asyrians in iraq, the suffering of the prisoners in iran and the millions of others proseek to

practice their religion -- who seek to practice their religion in peace looks to us for hope. this bill answers that call. h.r. 440 will create a powerful diplomatic tool for the promotion of religious freedom and for human rights in the volatile regions of the near east and south central asia. i thank the gentleman for his bill and i urge support for this meaningful legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: yes, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. peters: mr. speaker, i'm pleased today to rise in support of h.r. 440, a bill to establish a special envoy to promote religious freedom -- freedom of religious minorities in the near east and south central asia. as a co-sponsor of this bipartisan legislation and as a member of the religious minorities of the middle east caucus, i strongly support its passage. while many parts of the near east and south east asia are predominantly muslim,

historically these areas have been home to a diverse group of ethnic and religious minorities. whether it is syrians in iraq, bahi in iran or the hindus in pakistan, religious minorities have for centuries lived and worshiped alongside their muslim countrymen and women. unfortunately instability in the middle east has had a disproportionately negative impact on religious minorities, the most striking example of this has been in iraq where more than half of the iraqi christian population has been forced to flee the country since the invasion of iraq in 2003. those who have stayed have been specifically targeted in gruesome and random acts of violence, such as murder, rape and abduction. this includes religious and community leaders like archbishop rahall who has been kidnapped and murdered. religious minorities who have suffered attacks in their places of worship such as the october, 2010, massacre at our lady of salvation church in baghdad in which 58 worshipers were killed

by militants and extremists. while the end of the mubarak regime in ejiment has brought about the promise for a -- in ejiment has brought about the promise for -- in egypt has brought about promise for religious reform, coptic christians have lived peacefully in this part of the world for centuries but sadly in recent months, coptic churches and protesters have been targeted for violence. freedom of religion is something we take for granted here in the united states. our citizens are free to worship however they please, without fear that they will be targeted for violence because of their religious briefs -- beliefs. i'm honored to represent michigan's ninth congressional district which is the home to an amazing diverse population. we have jewish synagogues, islamic mosques, hindu temples and christian churches. this zwevert a source of strength -- this diversity is a source of strength in this community and something my constituents have very proud of. many of my constituents have relatives in near east or south

central asia and they wish they too had the same freedom to worship that so many of us take for granted. they are desperate to see the united states take more leadership in promoting religious tolerance overseas. that is why the legislation we are debating today is so important. it creates a permanent special envoy that will work on behalf of the president and the secretary of state to advance the cause of religious minorities abroad. this individual will be able to ensure that the united states is full yen gauged to fight to protect religious minorities in other countries and to help hold our own government accountable when that should be done. i would like to thank representative wolf who is not only the author of this legislation but also the co-chair of religious minorities of the middle east, as a tireless champion on behalf of vulnerable populations and i'd also like to thank my friend, representative eshoo, who is also a co-chair of the caucus and a true champion for religious minorities in the middle east. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. peters: i urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that the united states will be vigilant in promoting religious tolerance and freedom around the world.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, we have no further requests for time and reserve the balance of my time. do you have any further -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: yes. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: simply to indicate that i have no further requests for speakers, i simply ask the house to pass what is i think an important bill because we only have to read what's going on recently to understand this is a rapidly increasing and severe problem that affects those countries deeply in terms of the conflicts and tensions. i think much good can come from having someone focused on these issues in that region and i urge an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. smith: we do have one of our members who made his way here, congressman joe pitts of pennsylvania. i do yield mr. pitts 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to urge this chamber to support h.r. 440, a bill that requires the president to apoint a special envoy at the state department to vogt fosh -- advocate for religious minorities in the near east and south central asia and i commend the gentleman for his leadership on this matter. i personally met with the press peoples from -- oppressed peoples from all over the globe, predominantly ones from the near east and south asia. the region has long been a hot bed of religious discrimination and little has been done by our government to aid these innocent practitioners of faith. revolution striving for democracy and greater expression in the region have been matched by a wake of religious intolerance and extremism. as we cherish our right to the free expression of religion here at home our state department

needs to reflect our dedication to protecting this right in our diplomatic engagements abroad. religious minorities in egypt, iraq, iran and other countless countries are left without an advocate in the political process of their respective governments. and h.r. 440 would provide an envoy that could advocate for these religious minorities and focus solely on their plight while being able to avoid bureaucratic red tape. as basic human rights are increasingly under assault in this region, our government needs to rapidly respond to the new challenges rapidly emerging. it is our nation's strategic interest to pass this legislation. i ask the he members to join me in supporting it -- i ask the members to join me in supporting it. i yield back. mr. smith: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. smith: i yield to -- mr. berman: i've given up my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for how long? >> i just need a minute. i thank the gentleman for yielding and this is a bipartisan bill which i support. i would just note and i know the gentleman's long history with mine of advocating for human rights and religious freedom in vietnam. ms. lofgren: and i hope that we can follow up this great effort with the similar effort really specifically oriented toward the religious oppression that's going on in vietnam against the buddhists, against the others, against the catholics and many others and i commend the gentleman for this bill. i just wanted to raise that issue in the hope that it can be addressed at a later date and i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized.

mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume to close. the issue of religious freedom for minorities in the middle east and south central asia must be of the highest priority. for far too long religious minorities have been overlooked, even trivialized. their rights and even their very lives must now be protected in this time of political upheaval, especially in the middle east. mr. wolf had the foresight to draft this bill before the so-called arab spring. it was needed in january, it's even more needed now. especially in light of the spade of church bombings and escalated persecution against believers. especially with kidnappings of thousands each and every year, thousands of coptic christian teenage girls who are then forced to convert to islam and forced to marry, quote, marry a muslim man. make no mistake, mr. speaker, the middle east is at a critical juncture.

we are witnessing the systematic extension of centuries old religious communities. south central asia is also systemically failing its religious minorities. the late federal minister for ministry of minorities in pakistan gave his life to fight for the injustice and atrocities suffered by religious minorities in pakistan. the government of pack stage has since a-- pakistan has since abolished the ministry of minorities, under the false pretension that it does not matter in relation to the united states. a special envoy for religious minorities sends the right message at the right time and empowers a diplomatic with the access to the president and hopefully the presidents throughout the region and all those who are concerned, the rights of religious minorities matter and we will not look askance at their destruction. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r.

440 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules -- mr. smith: mr. speaker. qui the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. for a period less than 15 minutes.

>> we are going to show you that with john larson of the democratic caucus. well, we hoped to bring you

that john larson briefing and we'll show it to you later in our program hour schedule. instead, we'll show you comments from harry reid and other senate leaders also from earlier today. >> i really believe it's time for the house republicans to face facts. they're struggling to save a tea party bill, not a balanced solution. at the end of the day it doesn't matter if speaker boehner's bill passes or fails. we need to ignore the extremists and meet in the middle of the road. people ask me, where's the room for compromise? that's what we've done. we have compromise. the senate bill was written to take care of the problems that democrats said they had and republicans said they had. it protects social security and

medicare. it's a good piece of legislation. it's a compromise. but it also satisfies the true demand to obtain revenues, the amount of cuts needed to increase the debt ceiling that we are trying to increase. we feel comfortable with the scores we got from c.b.o. i know there are a number of questions about that. >> the house is coming back in for a series of votes live here on c-span. the chair: the house is the ne confident -- is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of the interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, july 26, 2011, the bill had been read through page 56, line 22.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment by mr. clarke of michigan, amendment by mr. dicks of wra and amendment by mr. tonko of new york and amendment by amash of michigan and amendment by mr. dodd of illinois, amendment number 44 by mr. reid of new york, and amendment -- reed of new york, and amendment by mr. scalise of indiana. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke, on which further proceedings will postpone and on which the noes prevail by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. clarke of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 173 and the nays are 251. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, on which further proceedings were postpone and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dicks of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a twoman minute vote -- two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 223, the nays are 201 and the amendment --

the chair: on to -- on this vote the yeas are 224, the nays are 202, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offer by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: a recorded vot has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 184, the nays are 238, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment printed in the congressional record offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 131, the nays 294 with one present, the amendment is not agreed to. members are reminded that these are two-minute votes and urge that they remain in the chamber. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, on which proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dold of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise

and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 137. the nays are 291. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. reed of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation

with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays are 189. the amendment is not agreed to. i'm sorry, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment as modified and offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: by mr. scalise of

louisiana as modified. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in supports of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 215. the nays are 213. the amendment is agreed to.

the chair: the committee will be in order. the chair asks members to clear the aisle, remove conversations so the committee may continue its work.

the chair: the committee will be in order. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 56, line 23, you concharlie national preserve, section 116, none of the funds may be used by the secretary to implement regulations relating to waters located within uconn charlie national preserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dicks of washington. page 56, beginning on line 23, strike section 116.

the chair: the gentleman will withhold. the chair again requests members remove audible conversation. the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. dicks: section 116 would prohibit the national park service from carrying out boat inspection or safety checks on the uconn river within yukon charlie national preserve in alaska. this provision was put in at the request of mr. young from alaska

who is upset with the national park service law enforcement at the preserve. last summer two park rangers arrested a 70-year-old following an altercation during a boat safety inspection. this case is still before the courts, but it has stirred considerable local anger, especially when it was learned the two rangers had handcuffed but later released another local resident who refused to speak to rangers when approached. now, in this situation, mr. young of alaska is a long-time friend of mine. and i am very hesitant to offer this amendment to strike his provision, but i think he's already won the case. the people there -- the two rangers have been reassigned to another duty. and they do have jurisdiction. i have discussed this with the chairman, chairman young, and i -- the park service always has

jurisdiction within the national park. now the gentleman from alaska suggested that the coast guard had jurisdiction, or the state had jurisdiction, but we have checked this carefully. the park service has jurisdiction within the national park to look at safety on the river. and i think it is wrong to prohibit a safety inspection for people whose lives are at risk up there. i mean i have been to alaska many times. these rivers can be very dangerous. and to make sure that the people who are being -- this is a commercial endeavor. that people who are being moved around in these boats are safe. the people on the boats are safe. whether it's commercial or not. so i would like to yield to the ranking member and discuss this amendment and the importance of it.

mr. moran: why is this not an earmark? why is this not an earmark for one particular national preserve? while we are considering that, the -- perhaps mr. young can come up with an explanation, but i share the ranking member's great affection for mr. young. he's a good friend. but this also creates a precedent. any time something happens on national preserve or parkland, they could come to the congress and say, all right. no more inspections. and we could get a proliferation of these kinds of things. specific to individual national reserves or parks. the fact is that if the park service has jurisdiction, then

they have responsibility. and i'll bet you anything that if we were to say that there would be no boat inspections, something's going to happen. and some serious accident is going to occur and then people are going to ask, why in gosh name wasn't the park service there to do inspections? and it's going to go back to this where we set a precedent not allowing any boat inspection, safety check. i think this precedent -- mr. dicks: would the gentleman yield. this has happened before. i can remember one of our colleagues putting in a provision in one of these bills, i think it was in the merchant marine and fisheries bill years ago, about one of the boats that was going up to alaska to fish in these very dangerous waters. this wasn't in the river. this was in the ocean. and that boat went down. and there was many questions raised about why that member had

prohibited boat and safety inspections of that boat. now, i think the gentleman is completely right. this is a bad precedent. the gentleman from alaska has already won. he has already gotten his view across with the park service. they have taken these rangers away. it's time to leave this. . and we are doing this in the best interest of mr. young. and if mr. young would like to get up and explain this i'd like to hear his explanation. i yield back my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman from washington has expired. mr. dicks: mr. young. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. young: mr. chairman, members of the body, in all due respect, this is about the state's -- states' right. this does not preclude the state of alaska, the coast guard or anything of enforcement on the yukon river. it does not allow them to enforce inspections for boats on the river that are private. not in a business but private. and i have to tell you a little story about this. this is the really i am very adamant about this. the park service is for the people. it's not for the park service. and the park service of alaska has become very frankly like i would say an occupied army of a free territory. i'll give you an example. this man arrested was 70 years old with his wife who happened to be from germany. i'm going to bring that up a little later. and a couple. 70 years old, 70 years old, 69

years old and 68 years old on a cruise on the yukon river and a very sea weather worthy boat, coast guard inspected, and there was another boat on the river and there was a distressed signal given by the park service. being a good samaritan they went over there to help them out. they flashed their badges and said, we're the park service. we're going to board your vessel and inspect you for safety and registration. think about this, a distressed signal and maritime law says you will not board a boat on a moving river. you have to put it to shore. and the guy said, up yours. i'm going to go to shore. and that's what he did. and he gets to shore. he gets out of the boat. the rangers have already got a shotgun on a 70-year-old man. and carrying a pistol out of their holster. and as the guy walked toward him, they started to say something, he turned around and walked up, they tackle him and

rolled him in the mud, a 70-year-old man. these are two young bucks, cowboys, and handcuffed this man, this 70-year-old man, and made him sit on the shore and they took him a great distance down the river to a village and flew him to fairbanks, drove him to fairbanks handcuffed, a 70-year-old man. this is your park service? this is not my park service. well, it did go to trial and the judge hasn't rendered a decision yet. and the first place the state didn't give them the authority to do any inspection. and the second place, they didn't give him any authority -- the coast guard did not give them authority. and they do not have jurisdiction over that water, that's state's water. every state in this union, it's the state's water. to have the park service act like that is dead wrong. so i'm asking to you support this amendment. this is an amendment that should be adopted because we have people who are acting like

occupiers. the lady i brought up was from germany. during the trial they asked her, the prosecutor, did you ever have a gun pointed at you and she said, yes, by the s.s. troops. now, that gives you an idea. a 70-year-old lady and have them point a shotgun at her? now, that's wrong. why you say it sets a precedence, yes, it sets a precedent. it's the state's water. we should leave this in the bill. i say vote down the amendment. think about the little people. keep thinking about these agencies. these agencies aren't god. think about the little people. those people that are abused by agencies and you're paying for them. by the way, the one ranger had a record as long -- longer than my arm and they hired him to enforce the so-called park's regulations. so i'm asking to you think about this a moment. it's the wrong amendment. this is the right thing to do. it's time we start telling

these agencies, think of the people. not the parks themselves. this is about parks and partners and they're certainly not partners in alaska. they say we're going to educate alaskans about alaska. this is a 70-year-old man who has been living there all his life and to do that is dead wrong. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, in response to my very good friend , it appears that the conduct -- it appears that conduct of these park rangers was wrong, so they have been reassigned, and i'm sure that whoever has responsibility now in that jurisdiction has been told, you don't do this. now, these kinds of things happen all over the country if not all over the world. clearly some people in

authority abuse their power. it happens with local police departments. it happens to state police. it happens with other people with a badge, and so they get disciplined. sometimes they get taken to court. but normally we don't change national policy to deal with misconduct, if that's what it was, on the part of certain individuals. we don't change national policy. that's what you're trying to do. let me put into this discussion and deliberation the fact that they had to go through national park land to get to that state water. well, they do, and the national park service runs the concessions so the national park service does have responsibility for some of the vehicles on this water. they don't know if there's contraband stuff coming. they don't know what's on the vessel. now, my guess is -- i don't

know for sure -- my guess it's very seldom that they're going to stop and board any boat. they would probably have to have some reason, i'm sure after this incident they would have to have substantial reason. it's sometime in the future they are going to have substantial reason to stop and board a boat and we have precluded their ability to carry out their responsibility. so that's why we're concerned about the precedence. we are not concerned about the fact if there was misconduct that these folks have been reassigned. we're sure that the instructions being given by superiors have changed now to ensure that this incident is never repeated, but we really don't think that the solution is to change national policy which would have repercussions for other national preserves around the country, and it

might very seriously have ramifications on this particular one in the future that we can't tell right now, so i'd be happy to yield to my colleague. mr. dicks: again, i plead with my friend from alaska. you have made your case. you have gotten the relief for your constituents. the rangers have been reassigned. accept victory and don't give us an amendment that would undermine boat safety inspections, and that's what this amendment does. he says, why did we read this -- let me read this amendment. none of the funds may be used by the secretary of the interior to enforce regulations concerning boating and other activity on or relating to waters located within the ukon charlie national preserve except jurisdictions of the united states pursuant to section 38 or da-da-da-da. mr. moran: reclaiming my time. it's clear it's not just the

waterway. it includes all of the land. the entire park of this national reserve, they can't carry out their responsibilities. mr. young: will the gentleman yield? it's not their responsibility. this is the state's water. it is not the -- mr. dicks: it was in a national park. the chair: all members suspend. the time is controlled by the gentleman from virginia, and members will yield time appropriately. to each other. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: would my very good friend from alaska like me to yield him a few seconds? mr. young: i'd love to have you yield to me. again, this is the yukon charlie that was used by the gold rush people has been used by alaskans all these years without the park service. the state has authority over the waters. the coast guard has authority for inspection.

the state has the authority for registration. not the park service. this is a navigatable water. now, the land is on one side. but this is our water. may i just continue for one thing? i have not won because i may won a temporary battle, but there can be another park ranger, rangers, there can be another park superintendent that doesn't listen to anyone. where are we? mr. moran: reclaiming my time. the language is clear. it applies to all waters, not just navigatable waters. mr. young: it says yukon. the only navigatable water is yukon. mr. moran: if the language was more specific -- mr. dicks: relating to waters located within the yukon charlie national reserve. the park service has -- when you have -- the chair: the time of the gentleman from virginia has expired.

>> i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman have two minutes so he can yield to me? the chair: without objection. mr. moran: be happy to yield to the chairman of the natural resources committee. mr. hastings: i appreciate my friend for yielding and appreciate the gentleman from washington for reading the section. he left out the last sentence. this is a pertinent part and this is what the gentleman from alaska's point. it goes to inspection. it goes on, and i'll quote out the last sentence. it does not affect the authority of the coast guard to regulate the use of waters subject to the jurisdiction of the united states within the yukon charlie reserve, end of quote. now, i would interpret that in saying the safety part of that is taken care of. the gentleman from alaska certainly is right on the part that these are state waters. i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i yield back. mr. moran: i was happy to yield. i'd respond to the gentleman. the coast guard really doesn't spend too much time on rivers.

it's normally coastal waters. it may have responsibility but the fact is the coast guard normally doesn't apply much in the way of resources. i'd like to know, how large is this national preserve, because i expect it's a substantial national preserve that we're talking about. do we know? mr. hastings: i don't know. mr. young: will the gentleman yield? mr. moran: it's my time. i yield to mr. -- it's my time, mr. young. i'll yield. mr. dicks: the parks service doesn't have jurisdiction. how does the coast guard have jurisdiction? that's another federal agency. the gentleman changed his story. he said the state had authority. i would wonder who in the hell has authority. mr. young: you are from washington and you don't know

who has authority. the chair: again, the chair requests the members use the proper yielding for time. the time is controlled by the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i very much thank the chair of the full committee for clarifying who has the time. now, i think a number of very good questions have been raised by the ranking member of the full committee of the appropriations committee and we are concerned about this precedent. we are also concerned about the safety of people who use this national reserve. we can understand mr. young's angst but nevertheless we have the responsibility not to establish precedent that may come back to haunt us. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to point out that the staff clearly reverend the language here and the a-- clearly researched the language here and the applicable laws. that's what we do when we put

this language in here. with that i yield to the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: the coast guard has authority for enforcement on all waters, including all rivers. in fact, sometimes the coast guard is too active on the rivers as far as i'm concerned. i've been on that river. i'm a tug boat captain, licensed mariner. my biggest challenge to this is the excessive use of the park service. now you say i won that battle. like i said before, that doesn't keep them from trying to enforce this again over the state's objections. the state didn't give them the right to register or inspect the boat. now, remember this. here's two guys giving a distress signal and a good citizen tried to help them and they flashed the badge. this sounds like you know what to me. that's not a good thing. and i get very frustrated. leave this in the bill, let the park service know they know --

no longer can trod over the people of alaska because they are part of the federal government. they are the park service. you better listen to us. when this man was breaking no law. this is wrong. now you say i've won the battle. maybe i have. but it took a lot of effort to do it but i haven't won the war and they will come back. so i'm suggesting it stay in the bill as it is. it's very, very important. i yield back my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? the gentleman moves to strike the requisite number of words is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i do so really just to ensure that we understand that this is a huge 2.5 million acre park. and we are talking about here is a 158-mile long river. in the middle of this park. so we are talking about a huge

area. i would be glad to yield. mr. young: the river is 2,800 miles long. mr. markey: this part of it. mr. young: this is a river, 2,800 miles long. third largest river in the united states ever america. mr. dicks: that carries transportation. mr. markey: reclaiming my time. the 158-mile area is the portion inside of the park. the 2.5 million acre park. so what the gentleman is suggesting it seems to me that he believes and i understand that, that the national park service or an individual officer made a mistake here. that they abused their authority. and i understand that. when i was a boy my favorite television show when i was 9, 10, 11 was sar get preston of the yukon. he had his faithful horse rex and his dog, uconn. king, each

week at 5:00 on friday he would come out to patrol the yukon. he worked with the canadian royal mounties. i would like to think if he ever made a mistake, overstepped his boundaries, if he ever improperly retreated anyone, that the punishment would be the mounties could never again, any of them, go into the yukon. because that would seem to me to kind of result in a less fully implemented set of law enforcement principles in that area. so what we are learning here is that the punishment to the national park service for potentially something that one or two officers engaged in is that none of them can continue their policing which the coast guard says they need. in fact, this is in many ways such a remote part of the yukon that the coast guard right now relies upon the park service to

police these areas. and the answer which we are getting from the gentleman from alaska is, i understand the example that he's trying to make of this one particular incident, is that you are using this as something, i think that is illustrative and perhaps to highlight it, but i don't think you want the result of a reduction in the overall enforcement of the laws inside of the park. because that's what would result here. so the partnership between the coast guard and the park service on this river and all that abuts the river is something that is seamless. it's worked for generations, and it's something that everyone seems to support. so i guess what i would say to you is that perhaps you could target this a little bit more narrowly but not to punish the entire park service. every officer in the park service. it's like every person who works

there is now going to suffer as a result of this amendment. i don't think that's what you intend. so i guess what i would say is that i would support the amendment of the gentleman from washington state. it will, think i, make it possible for to us come back and maybe take another look at it, but not in a way that undermines this partnership that has existed up there for a generation which has worked. and if there is an exception -- by the way, if there is an exception in any police department, that person who did something wrong should not lead to that entire police department never again being able to enforce the laws. that would be an indictment of everyone. i just think that to the extent to which the dicks amendment seeks to repeal the -- delete the provision which is in the bill, it doesn't mean that you can't come back and talk about something that might be more specific. i would be glad to yield to the

gentleman from washington state. mr. dicks: we are talking about safety. we are talking about inspecting boats that may be unsafe. and i think that is an important issue that we should not deal with in a -- an across-the-board way here in this bill. i think the gentleman from alaska has made his point. i think he should withdraw -- i think he should -- support our amendment. to strike this in order to make sure that the people of alaska are protected. i know he cares about them. i yield back. mr. markey: the effect of this amendment could be because the coast relies on the park service is we could wind up in an entire area without any law enforcement. the coast guard does not reach that area. the park service is there. if you take out the park service it becomes much more of a dangerous place for everyone. i don't think that's really what the gentleman intends. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise?

mr. simpson: move to strike the last word. this has been a fascinating debate to listen to as the gentleman from massachusetts and the gentleman from virginia tell the gentleman from alaska how it works in alaska. i will tell you he knows more about alaska than any of you ever thought of knowing. the problem is, you say you are trying to save mr. young from himself by offering this amendment. we are trying to save the park service from itself. and the actions that it's taken. logically your argument is gee, if people had problems in their own areas, then you might see other amendments come like this. and we would be setting a precedent. exactly. if we can't have oversight about what goes on and what the park service does, why are we even here? you heard the story that i won't repeat what happened to this gentleman, mr. wild, on the river. we all agree that it's a problem. and in fact when the park service tells the gentleman, stops him in the middle of the

river and tells him to shut down his boat, shut down his motors, and as they testified in court, they refused to shut down theirs because it was unsafe, who is being protected? that's the point. safety inspections of these -- let me finish. safety inspections of these boats will not stop. the statutory authority is given to the coast guard. that's who has the statutory authority. not the park service. that's the debate -- mr. dicks: the gentleman from alaska -- mr. simpson: this language is only limited the park service to engage in motor safety checks within the yukon-charley national preserve. it's important to note this language will not have any effect on the ability of the coast guard to conduct statutorily granted powers of

conducting motor safety checks. it is intended to avoid similar incidents between the park service and the public. and, yes, when mr. young brought this up originally, the manager of the park service could have said, you're right. there is a problem there. i'll get rid of these people. they didn't do that. it took this to bring about the actions that have finally occurred that they have been dismiss interested that region. we are trying to prevent the park service from harming themself. i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. young: we are twice as big as texas. keep in mind, coast guard has the authority. as soon as this happened i called the coast guard. the park service said the coast guard granted them that authority. the coast guard, no way. that's our authority. then secondly, they said registration. the state has a right to register a boat. that's the same thing in your state. not any federal agency. as far as 135 miles, remember this is the highway of alaska. the highway of alaska has been used for hundreds of years.

and we got along very well without any park service all these years. all these years. by the way, i don't think there was a drowning because of a boat accident on that section of the river in history. why all of a sudden you want me to protect the alaskan people that do not like this, i do not understand. i very frankly i think you are meddling. you are meddling in something the state has a great interest in. that has said before, this is our waterway, we have a right to transverse it from canada through alaska all the way down to the bering sea. to have any agency that the taxpayer pays for -- by the way it had an illegal boat. the boat they were driving was overpowdered according to the coast guard. so just leave this in the bill as it should. i'm asking all my colleagues to think about this very carefully. do you want an agency that does not respect the right of individuals because they work for the government? does not respect the rights of

history? i don't think you do. so i'm asking the amendment to be defeated and ask them -- my colleagues to understand this is a big issue in my state. it's very, very important not only to my me but my people. the people of the state of alaska that have been using this river for centuries. let's leave it in the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. simpson: i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: we have people in the law enforcement area who makes mistakes we don't get rid of law enforcement. we don't say we are no longer going to protect people. the other people. we go through a process. mr. simpson: reclaiming my time. we are not getting rid of law enforcement. the coast guard will still do the safety inspections which they are statutorily authorized to do. the park service is not statutorily authorized to do. they say they have been given that authority from the coast guard. i don't think that's the case. so we are not getting rid of

anything. what we are doing is clearing up a jurisdictional problem here. mr. dicks: would the gentleman yield for a second? i would hope that we could clarify this. there seems to be a misunderstanding here. i hope that we can -- if my amendment doesn't prevail, that we could try to work together to clarify this before conference. mr. simpson cloun i guarantee there is a -- mr. simpson: i guarantee this is a misunderstanding. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would again remind all members they should direct their comments to the chair not each other. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: there is no doubt, mr. young, you are the renowned expert on alaska. so i don't rise to counter that. in fact i come from the other open wild state that likes their own self-determination and they just associated you with the state of texas.

i remind my colleagues that there's water in virginia, there's water in massachusetts, and there's water all along. but i rise to support the gentleman's amendment because frankly the last time i talked to the very important coast guard, they are short on money. frankly i want the coast guard to be in the port of houston doing their job as relates to protecting the coast line of america from terrorists. they are involved in that. they are not in essence an agency that can just expand its resources. i would just raise the question, i think the gentleman from washington was very engaging and cooperative by saying how can we work this out? my interpretation is in opposing the language that's in the bill and supporting mr. dicks is that we have in essence a legislative earmark. and that means that all of us can rise up and try to solve our problems in that way.

i'd like to get back to regular order. and i cite for all of you just another example. we've got a legislative earmark when one of our colleagues, republican colleagues, have decided to shut down the f.a.a. that's an example. and loss in the doing of that, 2.5 billion construction projects, 87,000 american construction jobs, 3,000 f.a.a. aviation engineers furloughed. safety analysts, career professionals in 35 states. in my own city of houston. i want to get on the floor and put an amendment on the floor to get that member out of the business of stopping the f.a.a. from doing its work. $200 million per week is being lost. nobody is saying anything because we are also not doing regular order by fooling around with the debt ceiling. nobody can come together and act like adults and say let's just raise the debt ceiling so the american people can go on with their business. now we got a member that says, my way or the highway.

and shutting down the f.a.a. you can't run the government like this. and i think the message of the amendment that is on the floor is not that we don't respect members' personal knowledge of their states, it's just we can't go willy-nilly and change laws just for isolated incidences. i apologize to mr. wild. you can see i'm pretty agitated about a situation where we are quietly allowing the f.a.a. not to work. and as a member of the homeland security committee, who knows what danger is around because the f.a.a.'s not functioning? who knows what jeopardy we are putting for seniors and students and families and people trying to buy a home because we are fooling around with the debt ceiling? so i just think we are in a pattern here. do what you want to do. and forget the heck of the american people and forget that we live in a big country and we should be for all of the people. and if we need safety on our

waterways, we need to find a way to work through our issues. i don't like the way individuals were handled. i agree on that issue. but i certainly don't like the way we are handing our business with the debt ceiling when we are literally putting ourselves on the jeopardy. and i encourage the president to do anything he needs to do to save the american people. and to be able to move forward so that we don't lose all of our resources and opportunities for the medicare, medicaid, and social security recipients of america, and i hope he stands up and recognizes this is a ridiculous position to be in when the f.a.a. is not even functioning. and my intercontinental airport can't even continue to do construction work and the people doing the work are thrown out on the street because they can't work because one lone member, once again up and talk about the f.a.a. and foolishness about not protecting small airports and not allowing our airport employees or our employees such as air traffic controllers and others to be able to confer about the quality of work

issues. i would just suggest that you might be able to find a solution, mr. young. i know you know all of the issues about that. . we have a lot of water from where i come from. i think mr. dicks has put together a perfect question and answer to the idea of whether or not your amendment or language would have a far-reaching impact beyond the behavior of two individuals that i understand may not be here. let's look at this holistically. let's come together as adults representing the american people. i thank the gentleman for the time. is there any time that you want? and i'm happy to yield back by asking for all of the support for mr. dicks' amendment. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. members are again reminded to direct their comments to the chair, not to each other. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska, mr. young.

those in favor say aye. the gentleman is exactly right. the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. dicks: mr. chairman, i ask a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word and i promise to stick to the subject. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pascrell: mr. chairman, i rise today in strong opposition to the underlying bill, 2584, a bill which irresponsibly slashes funding for many of our nation's most important

environmental and infrastructure programs. if it's passed, the overall legislation would cause grave harm to the health and safety of our communities and additional removing protections for our wildlife and environment. i'll take a few issues at hand. clean water infrastructure. ensuring our families have clean water is under attack in this bill. it cuts 55%, almost $1 billion from the clean water state revolving fund. this program enables the states to invest in much-needed repairs and improvements to aging water infrastructure. mr. chairman, an estimated 25% of all treated water in the united states of america is lost due to leakage from water

systems that are in disrepair. 25% of the water that's already been treated. what a waste of money. and supposedly an austere congress. we're facing a $500 billion funding gap to bring aging water and wastewater infrastructure back to par. our pipes are literally crumbling beneath our feet, out of sight, out of mind until the next major water main break disrupts our lives in our towns. this investment in water infrastructure has the potential to generate thousands and thousands of american jobs since every $1 million in infrastructure investment supports 28,500 jobs. second issue, air quality. the bill that's before us takes us further backwards to an era where polluters positioned our

atmosphere at will by preventing e.p.a. from implementing two important air quality rules -- the power plant air toxics rules and the transport rule -- irresponsibly putting the health of our communities at risk. we're going backwards instead of frontwards. it impacts the urban areas in my district such as paterson, new jersey, where we see much higher incidents of asthma. it's terrible to go to our hospitals. it's out of control. not just in paterson, new jersey, but across the united states. otherress picture tear ailments due to the conner is tration of harmful pollutants. these pollutants can become lodged in the lungs and interfere with the respiratory system. this needs to be controlled. and the park system itself, it was referred to in the last

debate, this proposed legislation would cripple the national park service. this service takes care of our parks. we fought for this. all of us. democrats, republicans, and whatever state it was in this union. they want to slash this by $409 million for the president's request. our national parks are visited by 275 million people each year, come from all over the world to appreciate our nation's natural and historic wonders. we are at work on the historic park in my own home city of patterson. it's an historic accomplishment as the first industrialized city of the united states. the investment we make in our parks pays for itself many times over. in economic development, in the

surrounding areas. the enjoyment and education they provide to americans of all ages. we must ensure that the park service has the resources they require to ensure their parks all over the country are properly operated. how about the arts and humanities in this legislation? besides the you slide it cuts to our health and infrastructure and environment, the bill before us drastically cuts funding for the national endowment of the arts and national endowment for the humanities. as a former teacher, as a member of the congressional arts caucus, many of us are, i have seen firsthand the positive impact that our arts and humanities education have on the success of our students. in my district as a result of the economic crisis, many schools have enforced the cutback in arts programs to lay off arts teachers. they're the first to go. in conclusion, let me say this

-- i would say, mr. chairman, that this legislation needs a lot to be desired. and i yield back my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 57, line 10, direct higher authority. section 117, the secretary may appoint a qualified candidate to a position with the land managing agency for which the candidate meets qualification standards. review process for certain bureau of land management actions. >> mr. chairman. the clerk: section 118. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dicks of washington. page 58, beginning on line 13, strike section 118. mr. dicks: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. dicks: i rise in support of my amendment.

this would strike section 118 which amends the administrative appeals procedure for grazing decisions on public land, to require parties to exhaust all administrative appeals before they may file suit in federal court this is a back door attempt to curtail the use of junctions to stop grazing decisions made by the b.l.m. without the ability to seek conjunketive relief, opponents of a grazing decision are handicapped because irreparable damage to a resource may occur while the administrative appeal process is being exhausted. and i would yield to the ranking member to further discuss this amendment. mr. moran: i thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. we hear from a number of people and organizations around the country who are concerned about this, because without the ability to seek conjunctive

relief from the courts, opponents of grazing decision are very much handicapped because irreparable damage to a resource may occur while the administrative appeals process is being exhausted. i know that's the concern. i know that's the concern of the ranking member of the full committee. but let me share another concern that i think underlies this whole issue of grazing. currently, i know the ranking member is aware of this, the federal government charges $1.35 per month per cow to graze on federally owned land. in the meantime, states like idaho charge five times that, $5.12. or $6.12. nebraska can charge up to $41

per acre to graze on state-owned land. texas -- i know the gentleman is aware of this. texas will charge $65 to $150 per acre per cow, but the federal government charges $1.35. now, that's the kind of federal subsidy that we really think we ought to go after when we're cutting deeply into the bone, programs for people who are destitute, programs that are absolutely necessary to protect our environment, for needed infrastructure in this country, we're giving this kind of a subsidy $1.35 for federal -- to graze on federal land versus as much as $65 to $150 the great state of texas charges to graze on state land. and then private land is even

-on-times more expensive. so that's the kind of subsidy i don't think passes, a test of scrutiny that the taxpayer is aware of the kind of subsidy they're providing some grazers on their federally owned lands. it ought to be rectified. but this particular issue simply rubs salt into that wound. i'd yield back to the gentleman. mr. dicks: and i yield back. i, again -- i ask for support of my amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: the costs or subsidies has absolutely nothing to do with this amendment. it's a whole different issue. should the resources committee look at the price that's charged for cattle grazing, for mining, other things? sure, they should be. not the purpose of this bill. not the purpose of this amendment. all this amendment says is that in the past b.l.m. regulations

have required litigants to exhaust the administrative review before litigating in federal court. that means they have to go through the review process that's been set up administratively before they can go to court. recently numerous lawsuits over grazing have been filed in federal courts before the administrative review process has been completed. that means they haven't gone through to find out whether they win or lose on the administrative side. this ties up the b.l.m. field offices because they must respond to an administrative process on one side and a litigation process on the other side. this provision simply requires litigants to first exhaust the administrative review before litigating process in court. litigants can still file for temporary restraining orders, contrary to what they have. they have irrepairable harm and they can still file for a temporary restraining order. nothing in this bill prevents that. i would hope, and i know the

good ranking member of the full committee, mr. dicks, because we talked about this before, if we could spend more money actually managing the lands rather than in court we would all be better off. all this says is follow the administrative procedures, exhaust them before you go to court. you still have that option after those administrative procedures have been exhausted. and as i said, you can still get a restraining order if there's irreparable harm. this, i think, will cut down on the lawsuits, and i think this is a good provision in the bill. and i would hope that the gentleman from washington and virginia would recognize how well the underlying bill is written and would withdraw their amendment. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. terry: -- mr. dicks: i am told that the ability to have a temporary

restraining order is very narrowly drafted. i yield to the gentleman. mr. moran: thank you. if the gentleman would yield. it's only if the federal court finds that the agency failed or was unable to make information timely available during the administrative review, according to this language. so it's probably going to -- mr. simpson: reclaiming my time. that's the language that we understand. we're not changing that. mr. moran: if the gentleman would yield? i'd like to make two points. one, this is clearly authorizing language on an appropriations bill. if we're going to change the law, then it ought to be done by the authorizing committee. but, secondly, i know the gentleman is aware, you can only get an injunction from a federal judge if you can prove that you are likely to win your case or if there is imminent harm.

so i don't know why the gentleman is so concerned about the existing legal situation. mr. simpson: reclaiming my time. the reason i'm concerned is the extraordinary amount of money that we are spending in court instead of on managing public lands. that's the real issue here. and we have a process set up where if you have problems you can go through an administrative process, go through it. if you don't like the outcome, go to court. that's all we're saying. and is this legislating on an appropriation bill? well, i guess funding unauthorized programs is legislating on an appropriation bill also. which we've done in several provisions in this bill. which you support. so i yield back the balance of my time and hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 59, line 16, gray wolf, section 119 -- mr. dicks: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dicks of washington. page 59, beginning on line 16, strike section 119. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: section 119 exempts from judicial review any final rule of the secretary of the interior that delists wolves in wyoming or the western great lakes states. provided the fish and wildlife service has notice and entered into an agreement with the state for it to manage the wolves. the irony here is that the majority does not trust any

action of secretary salazar except if it involves the delisting of wolves. the rider undercuts the public's right to petition a federal court to review an agency's decision and blocks the court's ability to carry out its customary authority to review executive branch decisions. now, i have been a strong proponent of the reintroduction of the gray wolf into yellowstone and in other areas. this has been one of the most successful operations in the restoring a species that had been completely wiped out in our country. and today we're seeing all of the benefits of this. so i don't think we should undercut the people's right to go to court if they don't think the agency has done this according to the law. and i have great respect for secretary salazar and i'm sure he would agree with me that

there should not be a prohibition on judicial review. and i'd like to yield to the distinguished ranking member for any comments he would have on this. mr. moran: i thank the gentleman. my only observation is, it's ironic that the majority doesn't seem to trust anything the secretary -- that secretary salazar does except if it involves the delisting of wolves . this rider does undercut the public's right to petition a federal court to review an agency's decision. so we're establishing a precedent here with regard to wolves. it blocks the court's ability to carry out its customary authority to review executive branch decisions. that's the way the system's supposed to work. the executive branch makes a determination and in our system if there are individuals or organizations that don't agree,

they have recourse to the judicial system. this says, no, we're going to suspend that part of the constitution, no, you know, you can't go to the courts, the executive branch is here, they make a decision, that's it. permanent. well, we like secretary salazar and we support secretary salazar far more consistently than the majority does, if the majority supports him on anything. but, you know, with he don't really see why we need to suspend -- but, you know, we don't see why we need to suspend the constitutional process in this specific unique circumstance so i would support the gentleman's amendment. mr. dicks: again, i ask for the support for my amendment. i think it corrects a flaw in this bill and believe me there are a lot of flaws. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i move to strike

the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i move to oppose my friend's amendment. i hope this isn't a pattern long-term but on this particular bill this seems to be a pattern at any rate. his amendment would strike the important language in h.r. 2584 that addresses the administration's confusing policy involving a endangered species act, listed populations of gray wolves nationwide. as i mentioned on the house floor during a colloquy with chairman simpson on monday, the obama administration has created a confusing and impractical result with its recent announcement to delist the gray wolves in some states but leave other states, such as washington, oregon and utah, with mixed management. h.r. 2584 as written and as collarified in my colloquy with the chairman would help remedy this flawed policy. problems with the federal management of gray wolves are nearly as old as the endangered species act itself.

five years after e.s.a.'s passage, in 1978, the gray wolf was liffletted as endangered or threatened in all of the lower 48 states. in the mid 1990's the clinton administration ordered an experimental introduction of wolves into the yellowstone area , central idaho and the mexican wolves into arizona, new mexico and texas. it also established a new definition to identify the population of listed species. as a result, wolves multiplied but unfortunately because they can't read maps they moved into areas where they weren't supposed to go. in 2003 the fish and wildlife service divided gray wolves into geographical boundaries that made more sense. it included the entire states of washington, oregon, utah and other areas so that states would eventually be able to develop their own state management plans to remove wolfs from the

endangered species list -- wolves from the endangered species list. then in 2009 the obama administration reversed course so that only parts of certain states. that would leave those areas, but would leave other areas where wolves likely populate still, this is under e.s.a. as a result in my own fourth congressional district in central washington, i'll put up a map here, the wolves are delisted on the eastern side of highways 97, 17 and 395. highway 97, highway 17 and 395. delisted over here, listed over here. this makes absolutely no sense and it shows how the e.s.a. is badly in need of updating and how ineffective the u.s. fish and wildlife service is in managing wolves. and i might add, this is truly

-- in parts of oregon and parts of utah. so i oppose this amendment because the colloquy that i had with the chairman is one that sets the stage for properly managing these wolves in the states that i associate with. i just might add on a personal level, i live very, very close to here and -- but i live in the listed area. now, you know, we do -- we do fish marking, i know my friend is very well of fish marking and i'm not opposing the authorizing on this bill as the gentleman knows this year anyway, but there's no listing here for the gray wolf. now, i have no idea if a wolf crosses down here into my area if it is in fact a listed or a delisted wolf. but apparently fish and wildlife thinks that they know where highway 17 or highway 97 ends,

where 17 comes down here and connects with highway 395, because that's what the arbitrary rule says. it doesn't make any sense at all. and so as a result of this, the colloquy i had with chairman simpson collarified this that it includes the -- clarified this that it includes the geographic boundary. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: i move to strike the last word. i also rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from the state of washington. the best way to manage wolves is to let state experts do the job. now, that's true whether you want to increase the number of wolves in your state, like the gentleman from the state of washington wants to do, or you

want to maintain a recovered population which is what we want to do in my state of wyoming. now, the truth about current wolf management is that if washington wants to try to increase the wolf population in western washington, they cannot do it under the current rules. and in my state of wyoming, where when asked at our committee meeting whether the wolf was fully recovered in the state of wyoming, the u.s. fish and wildlife service testified that, yes, the gray wolf is fully recovered in the state of wyoming, has been for a long time. mr. dicks: will the gentlelady yield? mrs. lummis: i will. mr. dicks: i appreciate that very much. i think the problem is that the state of wyoming, unlike idaho and montana, has not come up with a plan where the state would protect the wolf if it were delisted.

mrs. lummis: reclaiming my time. i'm coming to that. the state of wyoming has a wolf management plan that was approved by the u.s. fish and wildlife service as adequate and then subsequently through litigation upon litigation upon litigation the courts changed their mind, the u.s. fish and wildlife service changed its mind, the court changed its mind again, the u.s. fish and wildlife service changed its mind again. so this is a process that is driven by litigation not by science. because the science and the numbers both say that the gray wolf is recovered in wyoming. wyoming has a wolf management plan on the books. however, what we are saying here with this amendment is that the state of wyoming, through its governor, will negotiate changes

to that management plan which when agreed to with u.s. fish and wildlife service and submitted to the wyoming legislature will not then be subject to additional whip saw litigation. that will be the end of it. returning management of wolves to the state experts that should be doing this job. wolf management is frozen and it need not be. by trying to strip this language, the gentleman from the state of washington emboldens the people who don't want washington state or oregon or wisconsin or michigan or wyoming or any other state to make its own decisions using its own wildlife biologists. i believe that state wildlife experts, not d.c. cube dwellers, have the expertise and the knowledge and the passion to

manage the wolf anywhere they roam. it is the intent of this legislation as currently written to make sure that the people who have the science, the background, the knowledge to make sure that the wolf, which has admittedly been recovered, admittedly by the u.s. fish and wildlife recovered, to be managed in a way that ensures that ongoing recovered status and ensures it at the very level where you're able to do it, where the boots are on the ground of the wildlife biologists and the paws are on the ground of the wolf that is already recovered but that needs to be maintained pursuant to a wolf management plan. let's trust our states, their wildlife biologists, let's trust my wyoming game and fish

department that has been recognized as one of the best wildlife management agencies in the country. i'm stunned that people in washington really believe that they can do it better and make decisions for wolves they've never seen in places they've never been and don't trust wildlife biologists they've never met. it is much better if the people on the ground where the wildlife are on the ground, where the interaction is on the ground, where the conditions are understood, where the geography is known, where the life expectancy, where the birth rates, where the survivability of the species can be witnessed and determined. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? simpson

mr. simpson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i appreciate this discussion on wolves because it is something that is near and dear to the people of idaho. i was the speaker of the house in idaho when the gentleman from washington supported wolf reintroduction in washington -- in yellowstone and idaho and montana and wyoming. something that idaho, wyoming and montana frankly didn't want. but nevertheless, fish and wildlife service said that's what we are going to do and that's what they did. idaho and wyoming and montana have done the right thing in restoring these wolf population. they came up with a wolf management plan that was approved by fish and wildlife service. it was approved. but then it was taken to court because it didn't include wyoming, and the judge said, not based on science, we're trying to get back to science,

but the judge said you can't just delist in idaho and wyoming montana. you have to include wyoming. since that time i understand that fish and wildlife service in wyoming have come up with a plan in principal and they're still working out the detail but i believe they will have a plan by the end of this year to delist in wyoming. all we're saying is when they're delisted by fish and wildlife service, they have an approved plan, then it is not subject to judicial review. because frankly there are people who don't think we ought to have any wolf management plan that would include, guess what, hunting wolves. i know the gentleman from washington is astounded by that. our governor has indicated he likes to hunt wolves. the problem is wolves have no natural predator out there except hunger. when they've done away with the food supply, some wolves die.

otherwise they just continue to grow in population. anybody that thought we were going to reintroduce wolves into the rocky mountains and there wasn't going to be some type of control, a hunt or whatever, were living on a different planet. now the people that oppose any type of wolf management and want them introduced go to court to try to stop the delisting. the gentleman from washington has explained the problem that exists when you have mixed management of wolves that get confused. they don't foe which side of the line they live on, whether they're protected or whether we're not protected, whether they can go out and eat your puppy dog or not so they're confused wolves. we're trying to clear that up for them. and in the great lakes, the great lakes have had a population that is greater than in the rocky mountains and have

been deserving of delisting for a number of years but just have not got it done. and contrary to what the gentleman from virginia said, i actually think the secretary of interior's doing a god job. there are many things i agree with him on. many of my westerners would disagree with that. i happen to think he's doing a good job as secretary of the interior. i don't agree with everything he does, but you know what, when i call him up and say, we have some problems with this, he listens. he may not agree with it after he listens but he listens to us. and that's all i ask from the gentleman in that position. so don't believe that we are critical of the secretary. i know he works in an administration that makes it difficult for him sometimes. he's from colorado. he has western issues. i enjoy working with him and i trust the flife -- fish and wildlife service better than i

do a judge. that's why this language is here. wolves will still be protected in idaho, montana, wyoming, washington, oregon, utah where they've expanded to and in the great lakes. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. simpson: i'll be happy to yield. mr. dicks: as i recall, the fact is that montana and idaho had plans that would protect the wolves if this -- they were delisted and at some point they would take further action if necessary to protect the wolves, if too many of them were killed. mr. simpson: exactly. mr. dicks: the problem is wyoming, wyoming's plan didn't lack credibility. now, i understand it does, but what the judge is saying, you have to protect the wolf throughout the area which included wyoming. that's why they couldn't -- that's why they couldn't delist it without dealing with wyoming and wyoming wasn't ready. so i hope that wyoming will

come up with a credible plan at the state level to keep the wolf going. mr. simpson: reclaiming my time. if wolf population gets below certain levels, it goes on an endangered list. idaho and wyoming and montana will not let that happen. i think this is a good way to go for proceeding with the securities exchange act and making sure it does what -- with the endangered species act and making sure that it does what it's supposed to do. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from idaho is yielded for two minutes. mr. simpson: i yield. mr. hastings: this is what the debate that the endangered species act is having. if you recall in the c.r., the endangered species act was allowed to -- was able to allow idaho and montana to delist. nobody could manage.

that was the flaw and that's what we've been saying why, as we had last night, probably have other discussions on it, why s.e.a. needs to be looked at -- where e.s.a. needs to be looked at in a comprehensive way. it's clearly a flaw. i'm glad the c.r. amended the endangered species act to take care of this provision. this is a col key we had regarding washington, oregon and utah was simply to -- colloquy we had regarding washington, oregon and utah was simply moving in a direction to manage the population. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. simpson: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i'd just say to the gentleman from washington that was supportive of reintroduction of wolves in montana, idaho and wyoming that put us in this situation, several wolves -- mr. dicks: i want to say to the gentleman if you yield, i tried to introduce the wolf in western washington but the chairman of the interior committee in the other body

disagreed with me. mr. simpson: reclaiming my time. western washington. i just want you to know there have been several wolves that have come to my house and they presented me with a petition they would like to visit the cascades. mr. dicks: we'd like to have them. mr. simpson: you're welcome. mr. hastings: the gray wolves are showing up in the cascades now, eastern side of the cascades. you'll get them. i yield back. mr. dicks: the olympic too. the chair: 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. mr. dicks: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 60, line 6, trailing livestock over land. mr. dicks: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dicks of washington. page 60, beginning on line 6, strike section 120. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: section 120 provides that for 2012 through 2014 the movement of livestock across public lands shall not be subject for nepa review. proponents of this provision says that moving cattle from one location to another should not have a nepa review. however, movement of this cattle could take weeks and not just days. the impact on water, plant and other wildlife species, including big horn sheep, can be significant. so i would like to yield to the ranking member to further discuss this amendment. mr. moran: i thank the gentleman.

some on the other side may be thinking, well, what's a guy from a heavily residential suburban area in the washington area with no cattle in his district know so i would have thought this would have been a perfectly fine amendment. what do you need to have restrictions for livestock, you know, moving from one place to another? but upon further investigation, what is not immediately apparent becomes very important. as the gentleman has said, we're talking about very wide swaths of land that are covered by these livestock movements, and they don't just take, you know, a few hours or a few days. sometimes they could take weeks. and when you got very large herds of cattle, you can cause quite some destruction to the soil, to the brush, to waterways, to any number of environmental resources in the

process of major transfers from one area to another of very large herds of cattle. so there can be very substantial environmental destruction. that's why those who are involved in this feel there ought to be some appeal to the judicial system if you're going to do this, and the only way we have, really, is to have a nepa review. the national environmental policy act will review it. they'll tell us what the ramifications will be, what are the consequences and then based upon that information in those that have land or interest that would be adversely affected by large movements of cattle from one place to another. so that's why the nepa review has an appropriate place to -- and role to play in this, and that's why i think the

gentleman's amendment makes a lot of sense and i would support it. mr. dicks: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i refer my remarks to the chairman. i want to get the gentleman from virginia out on a horse and moving some cattle. moving from one grazing area to another, it generally doesn't take weeks, it certainly don't take weeks in the same location you're moving from one hoecation to another. trailing has no significant impact on the environment. in the past it has generally been considered -- in the past it has generally been considered grazing on public lands. the b.l.m. has issued permits for trailing itself, focusing instead on the impacts of

grazing. focusing on the impacts of grazing instead. recently, and this is the problem and this is why this amendment is before us. this is why this amendment is before us. recently environmental activists that want to get cattle off of public lands, and they have a right to try to do this. i disagree with them, but they have focused their attention on trailing as a way to shut down grazing on public lands. congress, not the courts, has the authority to determine public land policies and today responsible grazing is an important and legitimate use of public lands. unfortunately, because the activists have tied local b.l.m. offices up in knots with litigation, judges are now determining how public lands can be used in the west. this provision, and in the srnt part, this provision attempts to get ahead of this issue by exempting trealing from neepea -- trailing from nepa requirements from 2012 to 2014.

i hope the gentleman's listening. it exempts the trailing from nepa requirements from 2012 to 2014. it requires permits on trailing, forest services. the b.l.m. has not in the past. but instead these litigations are tying this up in knots. the b.l.m. is going through a process to include trailing when they issue their grazing permits so that it will be the nepa process on trailing will be included. the problem is between now and when they get that completed we're going to be in court spending all our money in court rather than getting this processing -- moving this process moving forward. we are not opposed to requiring nepa process on trailing permits just like the forest service does, but let's -- but what this does is exempt this through 2014 while b.l.m., for lack of a better word, gets their act together.

that's all this does. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: i rise to oppose the amendment as well, mr. chairman. there's a gentleman who is a wildlife biologist by the name of allen savory. and allen savory studied the way buffalo grazed on the sweeping landscapes of the american west. and buffalo grazed in a manner that cut wide swaths of concentrated numbers of buffalo that would move through and graze literally everything down to the nubs. both the weeds, the buffalo grass and all of the very nutritious hard grasses and the grasses of the sand hills in nebraska, very different, very

nutritious grasses that we call hard grasses. some short hard grass and others the tall grass. but they'd take everything out. and they would at the same time, through their split hooves, knead the soil in way that allowed those lands to -- in a way that allowed those lands to grow more healthy, more grown in prior to this intensive short-term grazing. that's how buffalo grazed, the -- grazed the plains of the united states before people were here. so, allen savory took those same practices to rodesia and studied the manner in which grazing occurred there and created something called the savory system, the savory grazing system is now used in a number of places throughout the west

and it actually emulates the way that buffalo grazed. and that is what happens when you trail cattle and sheep across public lands in a manner in which keeps them concentrated for very short periods of time, where they do very intensive grazing for a very short period of time and then get off that land quickly so that grass can regenerate, so you don't have the type of runoff that happens when you have some charismatic megaphenomenaa overgrazing day after day after day in the same place. that's why these grazing practices are appropriate, these trailing practices are appropriate and actually great a healthier grazing situation that carries a long-term, sturdier, stronger, healthier grass resource to be used by wildlife

and domestic animals. that is why on a scientific basis there is great rationale for relieving people who trail livestock across public lands from the onerous expensive obligations of the nepa process. i appeal to the desire to use sound science in the manner in which we approach these issues and not the type of emotional arguments that are raised by people who are just philosophically opposed to grazing. and i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i'm waiting for the -- the chair: in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

the clerk will read. the clerk: page 60, line 15, reporting requirements -- mr. dicks: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dicks of washington. page 60, beginning on line 15, strike section 121. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: section 121 requires the bureau of ocean energy management, regulation and enforcement to keep detailed records and provide quarterly reports on any oil and gas permit or plan that was not approved by the agency. they don't ask for the ones that were approved, just the ones that were not approved. this is the majority's attempt to try to speed up the approval of oil, gas permits and plans and i have no objection to that. here we are 16 months after

deepwater horizon and the congress hasn't enacted a single significant safety reform. despite the serious safety and environmental shortcomings found as a result of the deepwater horizon tragedy, the majority wants boemre to return to the good old days of lax reviews and quick approval of oil and gas permits and plans. i think this amendment should be stricken and i yield to the ranking member for his comments on this amendment. this provision. mr. moran: i thank the gentleman. not surprisingly i fully agree with the gentleman that this language again is inappropriate in here. it's punitive. it requires excessive record keeping and ironically, because, you know, normally we're getting

complaints that this is requiring too much record keeping. well, now we -- what we do is requiring in this bill even more detailed records that are not now required and it's going to expand the bureaucracy, they have to provide quarterly reports on any oil and gas permit or plan that wasn't approved by the agency. so in other words the intention is to discourage the agency from not approving anything, even if they feel that the oil and gas drilling operation might not be a safe one, that they don't have the requisite rules in place to prevent a deepwater horizon tragedy. it says, from each such document that the bureau receives they have to have the date the document was returned, the date

the document is treated by the bureau, the date of final agency action by the document and on and on. more and more records that are not necessary. we know what the intent of this is. it's to tell the new ocean energy management agency, it's in your interest, just speed these along. don't hold up any of these permits because if you do, you're going to have this very burdensome requirement on you. here 16 months after deepwater horizon and the congress hasn't enacted a single significant safety reform and the majority wants us to return to the good old days of very lax reviews, quick approvals of every oil and gas permit and plan and if you don't then we're going to impose this burdensome requirement upon it. that's just not in the interests

of safety, it works against our resolve, not to let a deepwater horizon tragedy occur again. i'm using this acronym, for those who don't know what it means, it's the bureau of ocean energy management, regulation and enforcement. it's the new agency that was set up to prevent any future deepwater horizon tragedies. so here we are, language that is intended to mitigate against boemre being able to do its job so i strongly support the intention of the ranking member of the full committee in striking this burdensome language. mr. dicks: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, if a little green man from outer space came and land and watched this debate, they'd be puzzled. and if the gentleman on the other side were so concerned about the amendment, i'm puzzled

why they didn't request a recorded vote in the committee. mr. latourette: this was adopted in the committee, the full committee markup by a voice vote. but then beyond that nobody wants another deepwater horizon, but this language that that the gentlemen are object -- that the gentlemen are objecting to says this new agency will report quarterly to congress on the status of permitting and why permits were rejected. now, why would the gentleman not want to have transparency and oversight over an agency to which we appropriate dollars? now, this wouldn't puzzle me if we just hadn't come off of four years of a majority that was preaching to us about transparency and oversight and openness. why wouldn't you want some report issued by the agency that tells you what they're doing with the money that we appropriate to them and what's the status and why a permit was rejected? that's a reasonable question. just to move to a different

agency, i have -- you may not know this, mr. moran, and i've been introduced to know that i lived in mr. moran's district for a period of time when i'm here in washington, d.c., and never saw anybody grazing and never saw anybody moving livestock, but in my area, in my area i will tell you that we're the nursery capital of the world. and we are very much concerned with the guest worker program and under this administration applications for guest worker applications have been denied at an alarming rate. but when we asked the department of labor how many have been denied and how many have been appealed and how many appeals have been successful, they keep those records. you know why? because that's a reasonable inquiry by a member of congress, a member of the public, a guy who's growing something in ohio and so to describe this as somehow burdensome and crippling and somehow going to lead to another horizon deepwater disaster is just ridiculous. now, you guys, excuse me, the

guys on the other side, mr. chairman, are great members and great advocates for a lot of things. but this argument doesn't even pass the straight face test and i would respectfully urge that it be defeated. mr. moran: would the gentleman -- mr. latourette: i'd love to yield to my former congressman. mr. moran: well, thank you. because you had this deep-seated concern, i know, about why we did not ask for a vote so i can clarify that. mr. latourette: good. mr. moran: the reason is we were wlomed with more than 40 amendments -- overwhelmed with more than 40 amendments and we were trying to look to the welfare of the rest of the committee, i mean, there's only so many of these issues that you can call a roared vote on. so we -- a recorded vote on so. we tried to be -- mr. latourette: reclaiming my time. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield to me? mr. latourette:ky appreciate the pressure the gentleman found

himself under. there are 200 amendments, we're approaching 200 amendments on this piece of legislation, and i remember sitting on another full committee markup when the government asked for a recorded vote on whether or not we can use styrofoam cups in the calf tearia. the gentleman has to be as concerned about knowing what this agency is doing as he is about styrofoam containers in the cafeteria. happy to yield to the gentleman. mr. dicks: this year, i'm sure the gentleman has noticed, we've been trying to establish regular order. having a subcommittee markup and a full committee markup and amendments on the floor which is welcome by our side. so we have to kind of make a decision, are we going to ask for a vote on every single issue? we never do that. we try to cooperate. this is comity, something that the gentleman from ohio understands quite well. so i would just remind him that we're trying to get through these bills and that that's why

we try to not ask for a vote on everything and we wanted to save this one for the floor so the american people would hear about what's going on. mr. latourette: just reclaiming my time. i appreciate it and i know the gentleman said comity not comedy but i think that it's comedy with a d that reigns here and i trust the gentleman had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek when he made that observation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hail from louisiana which of course is a very big part of what this section 121 is about. mr. fleming: and certainly what the amendment is about. just bringing everyone back, we had the deep horizon spill which is a tragic situation which has hurt louisiana in several ways, one being of course oil in the

water, that's obvious, but then of course the many jobs that have been lost. but, you know, going back over history, what we found is that in response to this the president brought together 10 experts to determine whether or not drilling should be stopped in deepwater, off the shores of louisiana. and the gulf of mexico, in fact. this board of experts came together and said, no, that should not happen. we should continue forward, we can solve this problem, we can prevent it from happening. nonetheless the president came out and said, no, let's shut down drilling. well, when that didn't work the president slapped a moratorium and secretary salazar on drilling. then there was lawsuits, then we had a de facto moratorium, then we had a permer toum after there

was a statement placed by the judge and today we have what i would call a slowitorium on permits and leasing in the gulf of mexico. so it's very clear what's going on is the fact that even though the administration can't get the courts to stop drilling in the gulf of mexico, even though the other side can't advance legislation, they're trying to do it administrativively by slowing the process down. so all we ask the people of louisiana is some transparency in this issue and this section 120 does, 121 does some very simple things. it just says the secretary of the interior shall log and track the specific reasons for boemre returning any application, development operation, coordination documents or application, etc., etc. we're getting reports continuously from drillers, from

contractors who are out there trying to drill, that they put in applications weeks, months go by, they hear nothing. finally they get it back and an i was not do thed. so now they have to start the process over again. all we're asking is that integrity be brought back into this process, that there be accountability back into this process and you're absolutely -- the gentleman is absolutely right. we do want to get drilling back up in the gulf of mexico, we were at a peak of $1 -- 1.7 million barrels a day before this incident. it dropped to $-- 1.59 million barrels a day and it's going to continue to drop because we have a process in which permits and leasing are still way off track. they are not back to the levels they were, and production is going to net down. and as a result of that we're going to continue to see oil and gas prices going up.

despite what's going out of the secretary of the interior, drilling and production is not up, it's done, and it's continuing down and will continue to do for the foreseeable future until we get the permits and leases back up. so i certainly suggest, mr. chairman, that my colleagues and i should oppose this amendment. we do need to have transparency and accountability in boemre when it comes to offshore drilling. mr. moran: will the gentleman yield? mr. fleming: i will. mr. moran: the gentleman is quite right. there are now 1.6 million barrels per day being drilled, but to date 67 until shallow -water well permits have been issued since the implementation of these new standards, and they're averaging six per month. the averpblg before the

disaster had been eight, so they're catching up. just three of these permits are currently pending. eight this asked for more information. have not been denied. terms of deep water, 75 permits have been issued. there are 25 pending, 22 have been asked for additional information. and mostly that information is -- with regard to containment which is exactly what we instructed the bureau of ocean and energy management to do. can they assure us that they can contain any spill? so, you know, things are not quite as dire as you might believe. mr. fleming: reclaiming my time briefly, i would just suggest we're stilwell offpace. accountability is not being to be a factor. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from texas rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> in the seven month below the blowout there were nine deep-water permits and since the moratorium was lifted there was seven deep-water permits issued. and in the committee we offered this amendment simply to shine sunlight on the process. all the language in this bill requires is that the agency report to the american people and report to congress the reasons why a permit for exploration or for drilling has been slowed down or delayed. we're all committed to transparency. mr. culberson: we want to know how and where our tax dollars are being spent. and the slowdown and drilling in the gulf of mexico has had a catastrophic event. since 2008 over 60,000 jobs have been lost in the gulf of mexico area. if we get back to the levels of

drilling, of permitting, both shallow and deep water, that we were before the blowout, it's estimated that as many as 190,000 jobs could be created in the gulf of mexico in about 18 months with about 400,000 industry-supported jobs across the united states supplying equipment to the offshore oil industry. no one has a stronger stake in protecting the environment than those who live there. those folks who great for these companies are my friends and my neighbors. i'm proud to represent so many of these companies. houston, texas, is to the oil industry what silicon valley is to the computer industry. these are scientists, these are people who live and work in the gulf of mexico. who fish there. whose kids play on the beaches. being a hustonian in the gulf, tar balls were common on the beach. you just don't see them

anymore. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. culberson: i will. mr. dicks: the gentleman and i work together. i have great regard with them. i just want to mention a couple of facts and if we have time i will try to get you more time. 67 new water well permits have been issued since the implementation of new safety and environmental standards on june 8, 2010. permits have averaged more than six per month over the last eight months. compared to an average of eight per month in 2009. just three of these permits are currently pending with eight having been returned to the on rator for more information. -- operator for more information. why can't we ask them, on the ones they're doing the report, but the ones they have approved, wouldn't the gentleman have all that information? mr. culberson: well, the permits that have been approved are a matter of public record. if -- the ones that have not we

want to see that language and why it's been denied. it shines sunlight in many of the corners of this process. for many of these permits have been rejected for reasons that are not directly tied to the substance of the application. i've seen permits that are rejected because the type face wasn't in the opinion of the permitter correct. it is clear that there's been a slowdown. that this administration overreacted to the spill and is deliberately slowed down the permitting process and has made it more difficult for americans to find american oil and gas. and we're -- we're committed to drill here and drill now in a way that's safe and clean, that protects the environment but yet takes advantage of the natural resources that god has so abundantly blessed this continent with. we have had -- in the gulf of mexico demonstrated it can be done cleanly and safely and there's no quicker way to generate high-paying jobs than to open up drilling in the

continental united states, particularly in the gulf of mexico. those rigs are gone, by the way, mr. dicks. once those rigs leave the gulf of mexico, they don't come back. i would be happy to yield to my friend from ohio. mr. latourette: sometimes during the course of a very intelligent discussion, the truth then and facts come out. now, both the gentleman from washington and the gentleman from virginia have been able to cite chapter and verse of how many applications has been applied for, what happened to them. to suggest that somehow this is going to create some additional burden, you have to add a line. we denied it because. so i trust based upon the sunshine that's now been brought forth by the good fact of the ranking member, perhaps we could get passed this amendment without a recorded vote in the interest of comity. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. culberson: i yield. mr. dicks: now we get to deep

water. since it had containment capabilities in mid february of this year, they have approved 75 permits for 21 unique wells with 25 permits pending and 22 permits returned to the operator with request for additional information. can i have one additional minute? the chair: is there objection? without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute additional minute. mr. dicks: if the gentleman will yield. particularly regarding containment. now, we want to do this safely. we don't want to go through what we went through. mr. culberson: of course. cleanly, safely. mr. dicks: but i just hope we can have reports that not only -- about the ones that are turned back, as you say, maybe the other ones are part of a public record. i think the report should come back with both of these, if it's going to come to the congress, you know how this place works. not everybody sees these public records. if these reports are going to be used by the committee, we ought to have both sides of the equags. -- equation.

mr. culberson: we agree that sunshine is a perfect thing. with respect, it's important that the house reject this amendment so we can have sunlight in every corner of the permitting process and the public and the congress can know why these permits have been delayed or denied so we can open the gulf of mexico to drill here and drill now cleanly and safely. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. brown: strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. i feel like a lot of americans, i just can't act like business as usual. i'm very upset that the f.a.a. is shut down. and let me just tell everyone that house bill 2644 by costello was filed yesterday. it is a clean re-authorization of the f.a.a. bill. saturday morning at midnight

filing 20 previous clean extensions funding for the federal aviation administration has expired. why did this happen? simply because the republican party's lack of leadership over the debt ceiling debate is the same as this position with f.a.a. but over 4,000 people have been laid off and over 3,000 in florida. good construction jobs. just last night i spoke with a single mother from kansas who had to give two children eviction notice to her apartment because she's not going to be able to pay her bills because of this impasse. this -- these are real people, and i repeat, the reason that the f.a.a. extension las not been renewed is because the house transportation committee inserted language in the f.a.a. bill extending the bill that

would end the program that provides rural area airport subsidies. so, yes, this is another example of the republican party , if you don't do it my way then we'll just shut it down, shut it down. but let me be clear. there are people here in the capitol that flew up and they paid, let's say $500 for their ticket, well, the aviation still charged the $500 but the money that goes to fix up the airport, that money is going now to the airline industry. and in fact, they have raised the ticket price. so this is an example that we don't do our job the people get hurt. and that goes back to what everybody is so nervous about as far as what we should do about raising the tax -- debt

ceiling. i spoke to the longshoremen on monday and asked them, have you ever heard it before? not one person. well, did you know i voted for it seven times under president bush? they didn't know that. four times under president clinton and 19 times under ronald reagan. but yet we got people that were -- will bring down the united states government if they don't have their way. it's our way or not at all. you know, i was here under president bush where we had eight years of what i call reverse robin hood. robbing from the poor and working to give tax breaks for the rich. we did the same thing in december. $70 billion we gave, $70 billion to the millionaires and billionaires and now people are calling my office wanting to know whether or not they're going to get their social security check.

there's something wrong with that. there's something wrong in the people's house that we are having seniors and -- senior citizens worrying about whether they're going to get their social security check or whether they are going to get their veterans check but yet we can't include the millionaires and billionaires. and we got people over here from louisiana that we've given billions of dollars, but yet we want to close the opportunities to help other areas when we have disasters. well, you know, that's what a budget is about. the budget determines your priorities, and it's a sad day in the people's house that we have people in this house that do not care about the american people. they only care about the next election. well, i can truly say that you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. and so the people that have lost their jobs at the f.a.a. because of politics, wake up. the people who think that it's

ok to rob social security, medicaid, medicare, wake up. education. you know, elections have consequences, and we are going to have another election and the people in this country are going to wake up and they're going to realize that we're going to move forward or move behind and clearly we got people in charge that's only interested in pushing us behind. so with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida wreeleds back her time. who seeks -- yields back her time. who seeks recognition? mr. landry: i move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. landry: i find it very amusing that the gentleman from virginia, the gentleman from washington would use an argument that we are overburdening a federal agency when it is that side of the aisle that has the tendency to

overburden and overregulate and over-- and demand reporting from our private sector. they have no problem asking the private sector to report things to the government so that they can discern whether or not the private sector is conducting its business accordingly. when this amendment comes up and we're simply asking for transparency, in order to see whether or not my constituents are being disingenuous or whether it is the government that is being disingenuous in the permitting process. that is simply all we're asking here. this allows us to help separate facts from fiction. as to whether or not boemre is rejecting permits for ridiculous reasons or legitimate reasons. and so, again, it just amazes me that when we have an opportunity to shed a little light on a

federal agency that the party who has claimed that it's all about transparency and open government is now trying to shield that agency and so therefore, mr. chairman, i believe this amendment should fail. the chair: does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. landry: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment 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. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 61, line 18, lease authorization, section 122, the secretary may lease to the savannah bar pilots association no more than 30,000

square feet of land within the national monument. self-determination demonstration project, section 123, the director of the bureau of indian affairs shall reinstate the demonstration project for the indian tribes. wild lands funding prohibition, section 124, none of the funds may be used to implement secretary al order number 3310 issued by the secretary of the interior on december 22, 2010. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: mr. chairman, i rise with an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. moran of virginia. page 64, beginning on line 15 strike section 124. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, as the amendment states, i seek to strike section

124 of this bill. because section 124 prohibits expenditures for the bureau of land management to carry out its lawful duties under the federal land policy and management act of 1976. secretary salazar issued an order appropriately, it was called 3310, and it stated a policy that b.l.m., the bureau of land management, should act consistently with the law. section 201 of the law, the federal land policy and management act, requires that the interior department maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction and that it identify within that inventory of land the resource values including wildernesses of those lands. now, section 101 of the federal

land policy act also says that certain public lands should be maintained in their natural state and i quote, now that's the law. it's been law since 1976. secretary salazar is simply attempting to implement that law. now, despite what some have claimed, secretary salazar's order does not create any de facto wilderness. the reason that i would strike section 124 is that it will then return b.l.m. wilderness policy to the way that it has operated for 27 years. until it was unilaterally changed by then interior secretary norton in 2003 in the bush administration. now, the order that secretary salazar has issued directs

b.l.m. to develop recommendations to the congress regarding wilderness land designations and it directs public involvement in the development of those recommendations. now, what could be wrong with that? make recommendations to the congress and have public involvement. but section 124 of this bill removes the requirement for public involvement. why are we afraid of public involvement? and it also removes the requirement for the bureau of land management to provide recommendations to the congress. now why does this bill want to prevent the secretary of the interior from making recommendations to the congress and for having public involvement? now, it's not going to prevent the congress from designating

wilderness. what it does do is to prevent the congress from being properly informed before we can consider those designations. so the secretary's order is the kind of good government process that encourages public involvement and forward thinking . as a demonstration of that forward thinking secretary sl czar reached out to the congress -- secretary salazar reached out to the congress in june, just a short while ago, and asked for members' input into the wilderness characteristics of lands within their districts. isn't that what we want him to do? reach out to the congress, ask for our input. i don't know what more we can ask from the secretary or from the bureau of land management but an open, public process with congressional input. but this section that i think

should be struck, this section 124, wants to foreclose that process, for close that open public process with recommendations to the congress. now, it was a process that the majority in the committee report applauded. let me say further that wild lands do have real benefits. they have economic, they have environmental and they have aesthetic benefits. it's important that we protect not only public land and its natural state but that we protect our ability to make informed decisions about which areas should or should not be designated as wilderness areas. do i think we need the secretary order so that we can be informed, so we can make the right decisions with regard to those designations. wilderness areas are important but it's also important that we

maintain our responsibility, that the secretary makes recommendations to us, for us to make the designation and that it be a public process. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: i appreciate very kindly the gentleman from virginia and his explanation of this particular provision that's in the bill. unfortunately it's not quite that way. your recommendation of this is that in june the secretary ask for our input as to wilderness which is indeed exactly what he should do if he wants to obey the law. that is the proper course. only congress has the ability to designate wilderness areas. you said that the provision that's in the bill would foreclose that process.

in fact, you're arguing the exact opposite. this provision in the bill does not allow the secretary to go around that process but insists that he does comand work with congress -- come and work with congress to do any kind of land designation as it is written in the law. secretary salazar and deputy secretary hayes and b.l.m. director have all assured us that they have no plans to implement this ill-advised policy they established just before christmas, a secretary order that usurped congressional authority and congressional responsibility. i'm going to take them at their word. unfortunately, though, the order has never been withdrawn officially. it has been superseded. a promised solicitor general's opinion to clarify the legal status of that superseding of the opinion has been promised us, it was promised to the chairman, promised to the chairman of the authorizing committee, yesterday at a

hearing we asked where that was and we were told once again that it's on its way. what was said at that hearing obviously is what they will do is nothing contrary to the provision that was placed in the c.r.. therefore if we're going to take their word for it in the form, trust but verify, continue this language in here and make sure that what they claim they will do will be done and there is no legal way of getting around it. now, i say that legal process for a purpose. even if i trust the word of the secretary and i do, if this provision is in some way legally in doubt, now, once again, the opinion is clear with us, it is in doubt, in a litigation-prone society like we have, any kind of radical activist may ask a renegade jut judge for political purposes to -- a renegade judge for political purposes to intervene. that's why i support congressman

lummis' inclusion of this language in here. it would oppose any kind of a round-about process of going around congress and allowing the administration to go around nepa and around what the original order did. it is not that we don't are have confidence in this process -- it's not that we don't have confidence in this process, it's simply that we want to make sure that it's very clear. if we agree and believe what the secretary's saying, then this language in here has no impact whatsoever. it should be accepted by all of us. if, though, you want to try and have some kind of dangling aspect out there so that somebody can sue someone somewhere and maybe change the entire process, then create doubt and actually withdraw language that was in the c.r., that was aproved by the house and the senate and signed by the president. what we're asking for is consistency so that what the gentleman from virginia said will indeed happen.

that if wilderness is designated it will be done by congress, it is our legal responsibility to do it. and that no one can do these evaluations, which are legal under fip ma, -- which are legally done, that that is not the way the law is written and indeed if you do that, that is an abrogation of the law. now, once again, you have the process here, you leave the language in there, it's no harm, it's no foul, it is consistent with the law and it is consistent with what the department of interior said their policy will be. you take this language out and all of a sudden you have created a doubt, find somebody who has a good attorney and all of a sudden that doubt creates a major problem for the department of interior and especially for us in congress. thank you and i yield back. >> would the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?

>> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: the amendment that's being offered is perfectly appropriate. it's the duty of the department of interior to carry out the law. the law requires the secretary to review from time to time the status of public land. all too often i hear my colleagues on the republican side say that this is government land. no, no, no, this is not government land. this is our land. this is the land of the american people. owned in common for the common good. and the secretary carrying out that responsibility reviews the art beauts of the land -- attributes of the land. is it good for oil? how about gas development or coal development? or maybe it's useful as grazing land.

or perhaps it should be wild and scenic land and preserved for that purpose of remaining in its most natural state. so, my republican colleagues come up and say, no, you can't look at the land, you can't study the land, we just won't want to know anything about the land. except to allow for the destruction of the land. this particular amendment doesn't come in a vacuum. this amendment falls or actually leads to the house floor another bill that is likely to move out of the resources committee and soon be on the floor. which would take the previous work done over the last 30 years that would quantify the values of the land, scenic, natural, wilderness, and push all of that aside and say, open all the land , all the land to what was

called meckniesed conservation. -- mechanized conservation. sounds to me like bulldozers, drilling rigs, stampede of cattle and the like over any and all land. understand that this particular line in this appropriation bill goes hand in hand with a piece of legislation that went through that was heard in the resources committee just yesterday. that would take all of the land that's been designated as wild and scenic, some 30 years ago, some of which has said, no, it's not perfect for a wild and scenic designation, and take all of that land and open it for development. we ought not do that. and therefore this amendment has been brought forward by the

ranking member, it is appropriate in that it allows the department of interior to upgrade some 30-year-old studies, taking into account new scientific information, new information about the land and making that information available to us in congress so we can make an informed decision about whether land should or should not be wild and scenic or whatever designation might be appropriate. including opening some land for development. but i suppose it's best to know nothing. i would love to yield briefly and if i don't have enough time to respond, perhaps you could yield to me. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i think -- i understand the gentleman's comments and i know the hearing yesterday addresses the issue which is separate from this. mr. hastings: and, listen, we

should have that debate, we should have that discussion. this issue is an administrative order that to the credit of secretary salazar they withdrew. it was confirmed by the way to be withdrawn because of the c.r. we passed that takes us through september 30, the secretary said he's going to abide by that. but as has been pointed out, the order has not been withdrawn. this debate here is about next year's funding. so until we get clarification on that order or the order is withdrawn, this language is appropriate. and that's simply all we're saying. now, we can get into a discussion whether you should have -- a discussion whether wild lands is in fact a designation or not and as a matter of fact wild lands has no definition whatsoever administratively. so this question on our side obviously is if they can even do that because wild lands may be synonymous with

lilledwilederness but wilderness can only be designated -- but wilderness can only be designated by the congress. i say to the credit of the secretary -- mr. garamendi: reclaiming my time, sir. thank you very much, mr. chairman, and my apologies for interpreting you -- interrupting you. mr. hastings: i ask one more minute so the gentleman can finish his remarks. mr. garamendi: perhaps it would be easier if you would strike the last word and we have five minutes to debate. mr. hastings: i was not going to strike the last word. i was just going to respond to the gentleman. i think it's important to clarify that. mr. garamendi: i'll take the one minute. thank you for that accommodation. i think the underlying problem was well described by you and that is that the language prohibits the secretary from going forward with the study of the wild lands. i think that's wrong. . what has changed and what is appropriate as we go forward.

mr. hastings: as the gentleman remembers on a direct questioning, i think what the director said there was no authority to make any designation under law of wild lands because that was a made-up term. there was no designation -- the inventory, yes. but you can't make up a new designation and that's what the issue was. and he testified that he had no authority to do that. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. garamendi: i think you are down to parsing words. the attempt undertaken by the secretary was to study the lands for their wildland values. he couldn't designate a wildland but the study could give us information and to decide scenic -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. simpson: this debate is always fascinating. if rhetoric were fast food, it would be golden arches overall of these doors because i never heard so much rhetoric in my life and i hope the gentleman from california actually read from the report. maybe he did and maybe thinks pages got stuck together. he says we don't care about the lands and the designations. we just want to use them up and all that kind of did you. let me read for the record what the report says. as mentioned in the introduction of this report, the committee lodged the department of interior for wildland policy and the bureau has been in compliance with the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution prohibiting funds for the use of secretarial order 3310, which was to designate and as the gentleman said i couldn't designate wildlands because that policy doesn't exist. while the department is requesting the input of

congress, the committee is concerned about the internal direction given by the bureau of land management regarding the inventory of lands managed by the bureau. inventories of bureau lands are required under the federal land policy and management act of 1976 and the committee agrees -- the committee agrees this reading -- with this reading of the fact. the committee points out that inventory should cover multiple uses. the values to be assessed include wildlife, fish habitat, nonmotor rised, hunting, fishing, grazing, conventional and renewable energy development, mining, wilderness character, forest management. all of these values are important and one value does not supersede the other and the committee directs the bureau to use the definition of wilderness

in the 1964 wilderness act. the committee will continue its oversight of this issue. the secretary has done the right thing by withdrawing his policy of wildlands designation, a designation that he made up. only congress can designate a new land -- new land designation. that's what congress does. the secretary agreed with that, withdrew it. we have no problem and encourage them to go on with the inventories for all of the characters of public lands. so the gentleman's comments relative to all we care about mining and flatening land and whatever he said is just rhetoric. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the reality is if the secretary carriers out what he says he is going to do, this amendment probably isn't necessary. if they decide to reverse course, then it was necessary.

it's absolutely -- won't have any effect as the gentleman from utah said. i will be happy to yield. mr. garamendi: when i was the deputy secretary of the department of interior, i thought the department needed to do what they needed to do and, however, the point is that the language you put into this bill would preclude the secretary from moving forward even to carry out the words that are in the document itself. and i did read the document. we need to know what is on the land. we know need to know its potential uses. the amendment that you put forward that would deny the funding for those purposes to do the study. if i'm wrong about that intent and effect of the amendment, then we have had a wonderful debate in which we all agree that the secretary and department of interior should continue to always study the land and take into account new information, new science, no

knowledge, new g.p.s. or satellite photos of the land. i think, as i understand the amendment and intent of the amendment, it is to stop the department from continuing to study these multiple at try beauties. mr. simpson: reclaiming my time. the secretarial order which is in question needs to be withdrawn and then he needs to issue a new one, which doesn't include this designation of wildlands, because that still stands out there even though he says he isn't going to designate any new willedlands and i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: this comes under the regulation, which is not changed by this amendment. this amendment only deals with the category that was called wildlands, which is a made-up category that doesn't have anything to do with any law. is it not true that the secretary can still do inventories but not a loud to do

inventory for one characteristic. they can inventory for all characteristics. mr. simpson: the amendment deals with the secretarial order, not just wildlands. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: section 124 prohibits expenditures for the bureau of land management to carry out its duties under section 201 of the federal land policy and management act of 1976. secretarial order 3310 states, a policy that the bureau of land management shall act consistently. and maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction and identify within that inventory the resource values, including wilderness of those lands despite of what some have

claimed does not create defacto wilderness and returns policy to the way it operated for 27 years before being changed by then interior secretary gail norton in 2003. it directs the b.l.m. to develop recommendations to congress regarding wilderness land designation and directs public involvement in the development of those recommendations. section 124r removes the requirement for public involvement and removes the requirement for the b.l.m. to provide recommendations to congress. section 124 doesn't prevent congress from designating wilderness but prevents us from being properly informed before we consider these designations. secretarial order 3310 is the kind of good government process that encouraged public involvement and forward thinking. as a demonstration of that forward thinking, the secretary reached out to congress in june

asking for members' input into the wilderness characteristics of land within their districts. i'm not sure what we can ask from the b.l.m. and the secretary in an open public process. section 124 seeks to foreclose that process, a process that the majority in the committee applauded. these wildlands have real benefit, economic, environment. it's important that we protect public land in its natural state but our ability to make informed decisions about what areas should or should not be designated willed deerness. we need the -- will deerness. we need the secretarial order. and i yield to the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: i appreciate the gentleman from washington doing so. it's useful to read and the characteristic of order number 3310, which is the subject

matter was well described by the gentleman from washington. if one were to read the order, the order basically directs the bureau of land management to continue to do its studies with the purpose of identifying those lands. this is what i was talking about when i raised my first point that this particular section that is in this appropriation bill, section 124 fits directly with the piece of legislation that was authored by mr. mccarthy and heard in the subcommittee yesterday and that is to terminate efforts to create wilderness areas in the united states. that's what this is all about. this is about opening lands to development and to prohibit the development from exercising its authority under the law to continue to investigate and to annualize -- analyze all land

for the value of its characteristics. this clause 124 in the appropriations bill runs directly counter to the requirement under the existing law that has been there for more than three decades from the department of interior and bureau of land management to carry out its responsibilities. mr. simpson: would the gentleman from washington yield? mr. garamendi: it's not my point. mr. dicks: do you yield? i yield to the distinguished chairman who i just heard a few minutes ago praising secretary salazar in the way he conducts himself and he is a good man. and now 3310 is part of the communist manifest toe. >> he came down and listened to us that there was a problem with

secretarial order 3310. mr. dicks: why do we have this amendment? mr. simpson: what does it hurt? it doesn't hurt a thing. what the gentleman is suggesting is that we are essentially saying you can't follow secretarial order 3310, that means you can't follow the requirement of the inventory of these lands. they have to do the inventory of the lands whether or not there is a secretarial order 3310. mr. garamendi: if i can reclaim my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington's time has expired. mr. dicks: i ask unanimous consent for one additional minute. the chair: the gentleman from washington has an additional minute. mr. dicks: i yield to the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: it's useful to read the secretarial order rather than all the hoopla of what this is all about. it says the b.l.m. shall do an analysis of the willed deerness

characteristics. that is the law. it says that's what it is doing. mr. dicks: is there something that this provision says he shouldn't follow the law? mr. garamendi: they are saying not to follow the law. mr. simpson: it is absurd to think repealing a secretarial order that does not supersede federal law changes the underlying law. mr. garamendi: reclaiming my time. in fact, the secretarial order does follow the law. it precisely follows the law. tchoip the -- the chair: the committee will come to order. the gentleman from washington's time has expired who seeks recognition? the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: i would yield a moment of my time to the gentleman from utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i didn't want it but thank you. let me just simply try and come up with this one last time. the idea of inventory is covered in flitma. that doesn't change. the secretarial order is a new policy, that has been superseded by another secretarial order. it doesn't have an impact on the -- on think this which is one of the reasons why the administrative policy says it is unnecessary given the department's policy includes collaboration with stake holders to identify public lands that may be appropriate. the administration's not fighting this thing. they're onboard with it. all we're saying is, the reason you want to keep this language in here until, until the supersition has taken place and the entire things is -- thing is replaced is in case someone

wants to litigate outside of it and try to force the department of interior to do something it said it would not do. all the arguments in here are extraneous. it's relationship to other administration, doesn't have any impact whatsoever. this is simply saying what the policy is and what the policy they're going to continue will be substantiated in the statute in case someone else wants to play around with it. i yield back to the gentlelady from wyoming. mrs. lummis: reclaiming my time, mr. chairman. so the point is this. the administration does not object, as i understand it, to the language of my amendment. the executive order if it were repealed would allow it to function as it is designed in the law. the problem that has been called to my attention is that the executive order has not been repealed. secretary salazar communicated

privately with chairman simpson and chairman bishop that he did not intend to enforce the wild lands order but the order is still in place. so until the order is withdrawn, this amendment is necessary. democrats strongly opposed including this language in the committee level, they've offered this amendment today and then the president has threatened veto because this language might be in the bill. now, given that development my initial skepticism on including this language is long gone, i'm not even skeptical anymore. clearly there are those who still want the secretary to operate outside his legal authority and declare wilderness or wild lands areas without congress.

only congress can do that. now, there's plenty -- and i yield to the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i'm glad the gentleman suggested -- mr. dicks: point of order. the chair: the gentlewoman will rise. mrs. lummis: excuse me. mr. hastings: i'm glad the gentleman brought up 3310 because that's what we're talking about here. the first sentence under section 1 purpose reaffirms, it says the secretarial order about the protection of wilderness characteristics. nobody is arguing about that at all. then you go to page 2 of the secretarial order, section 4 policy and it goes on through the process of inventory and so forth and the last sentence is the problem where we have our heartburn. and it says, and i will quote, where the b.l.m. concludes that protection of wilderness characteristics, which nobody argues about, is appropriate, the b.l.m. shall designate these lands as, quote, wild lands, end

quote. now, that is a made-up definition. nobody argues about the inventory part but all of a sudden they're superseding and suggesting that there should be a new designation called wild lands, that is what the problem is. they have no authority to do that. and we affirmed that by the way in testimony in front of our committee. what this -- the part of the interior bill simply says we're not going to fund that and until the secretary order is withdrawn, this one here, this one here that says wild lands, once this is withdrawn you're right, there's no issue. but it hasn't been withdrawn. that's why the language needs to stay in there. it's nothing more complicated than that and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mrs. lummis: thank you. reclaiming my time, this issue is not just a academic discussion on this floor. people in the west are terrified

that the department of the interior is going to create a new category of lands called wild lands that will be managed differently than the law provides. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 64, line 20, title 2, environmental protection agency, science and technology, $754,611,000 to remain available until september 30, 2013. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. latourette: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk occurring on page 65 and line 5 and i also would ask unanimous

consent to have three amendments put all in the same subject but one amendment touches line 21 and one amendment touches line 73, in the interest of comity i would ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to offer all those amendments en bloc. the chair: is there objection to considering all three amendments en bloc at this reading? hearing none, the clerk will designate. the chair: will the gentleman from ohio specify the amendments in the correct order? mr. latourette: well, the first one is an amendment that occurs on pages 65, line 5. the second amendment is an amendment that simply says --

page 65, line 21. and the third amendment is page 73 line 19. the chair: the clerk will report the amendments. the clerk: amendments offered by mr. la tret of ohio. after of -- mr. latourette of ohio. after the dollar amount insert, increase by $13 million. page 65, line 21, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $60 million. page 73, line 19, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $50 million. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. mr. latourette: i thank the chair. you know, there's a lot going on in washington, mr. chairman. and i would tell you that people back home think we can't get along but this is a great example of how we're going to get along and i'm going to become the second member of this subcommittee to say something nice about a member of the democratic party and that's the

president of the united states, barack obama. president obama became the first president of the united states in history to recognize that we needed to put real money into great lakes restoration. those of us who live in the region selfishly know it and those around the world know it as about 20% of the world's freshwater. and we've nickeled and dimed and sort of moved along with some nice legislation in this house, some of it written by one of our former colleagues, mr. ehlers of michigan, the great lakes legacy act, but it wasn't until president obama, and i suspect that his then chief of staff, the new mayor of chicago, mr. emanuel, has whispered in his ear because he was certainly con never jent with these issues, that we need to address the great lakes as an ecosystem and make sure we deal with it appropriately. and so president obama proposed $475 million a couple years ago for the great lakes restoration initiative. however, as so many things occur around here that went from $475 to $300 and now in this bill we

find it to be $250 million. the great lakes restoration initiative is designed to mitigate tax acceptances in the great lakes, to reduce the impact of invasive species, to improve near shore health and reduce nonport solution, improve habitat and reduce species lost and improve the improvement of engagement and accountability in the program overall. i just want to focus on one of those and that is the invasive species and not the invasive species that come in, this is an invasive species that is swimming up the mississippi river, it's the asian carp. the asian carp and i have something in common, the asian carp can eat 20% of its body weight a day. and this asian carp, if it is successful in breaking through the electronic barrier, getting into the great lakes, will devastate that entire ecosystem. so, this is important and i know that there are some members who are going to say, well, i don't like dish love the great lakes, i love the fact that the

president made this designation, you're right, we need more money, but what doesn't need more money in this bill and the account from which i am taking it, climate change, but i'm going to tell you right now, that if we don't take care of the great lakes 20% of the world's freshwater, we're not going to be -- we're not going to have to worry about climate change because we're going to be dead. we need to make sure that we protect this valuable resource and on this instance, mrs. jackson, the administrator at the e.p.a., has been really a great partner in implementing these programs. she has over 300 projects under way at this current time. so, i know this is heavy lift, i knows that selfish, but i would tell you that it's not selfish because the great lakes continue to be the treasure of the world and there's going to come a time when water is the new oil, when it comes to an important resource. so i urge members of the house to please support this amendment and i yield back the balance of

my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. anyone seek recognition? >> mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from idaho. >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this is really hard, mr. chairman. but given our allocation, we had to cut many e.p.a. programs including programs we support like the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds. mr. simpson: in the base bill we reduce nearly every e.p.a. geographical program below the 2011 enacted levels in addition to providing none of the requested increases. despite the cuts, restoration to the great lakes remains a committee priority as demonstrated by the fact that the great lakes program is the largest recipient of funs in the geographic programs, it's the largest geographical area also so you would probably expect that. while i appreciate the intent of the gentleman's offset, where he offset this from, we cut e.p.a.'s climate budget by $23 million and it's easy to vote

against funding for climate change or the increased funding that we have put into climate change. the chairman's remark and believe it or not there are some e.p.a. programs we support under the climate change heading including research and development of new automotive stecknolings including the hydraulic hybrid technology for trucks, carbon capture and sequestration and initiatives to increase methane transmission. the reality is that over a period of time, because climate change is now the kind of key phrase, that you if you want to get money for -- if you want to get money for your basic science, you call it climate change. just like after 9/11 9/11 if you wanted money for some program you called it national security. homeland security. that was the key phrase. now climate change is the key phrase. so a lot of the requests from the administration have been basic science programs that have been going on for a long time but have been shifted over and called climate change. .

while we looked at climate change and the budget increasees that have been substantial, when we looked at them, many of them were basic science that needed to be continued so we couldn't eliminate the climate change or reduce it and climate change took an $83 million hit in this bill. we see the same thing happening in the department of interior where base programs have been classified as climate change. so we need to be careful about what we are using as an offset under the administration's classification of a climate change program. in addition, funding for the great lakes restoration efforts grew from $60 million in 2009 to $475 million in 2010. therefore, at the chairman's mark of $250 million, funding for the demrakes is four times above its historical levels. again, it continues to be

historical and the great lakes is the largest recipient of funds in the e.p.a. programs. if i felt we could fund the great lakes at a higher level, believe me i would have done so and would have done anything to avoid this debate with the the gentleman from ohio. the gentleman makes a good point and i agree with him and if we had happy in the allocation, i would be happy to do it. i would be more than happy to yield. mr. latourette: if i say great lakes restoration fund back slash? mr. simpson: i would have to oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota rise? the the gentlewoman from

minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i thank the gentleman. i represent a great lakes region in minnesota and i think as the chairman pointed out the climate change has been cut, great lakes have been cut and i'm here to tell the gentleman from ohio, i think we can have a win-win even without supporting your amendment, the reason being by leaving the dollars where they are in the climate change, we can continue on and through our work make sure that what is happening to the great lakes is documented and proven so that the facts are out there about what we need to do about climate change. and there are two examples. one is from a local paper "star tribune," july 13 and it talks about how with climate change

that they are seeing in lake superior, used to be too cold for deer ticks but not anymore. scientists are watching the effects of climate change and what is happening to the great lakes' region. the ticks that carry lime disease have been found off the coast of northern minnesota and at the end of the century, nesting loons -- may affect them. and effect or parks and public waters that we share in our region. the series of studies have concluded future effects of warming, global climate change, our national parks from california to virginia and the consequences of it, but people think that that is not hard enough to really kind of get -- to make sure that we do climate change, that we look at what is

going on in the great lakes, let me speak from another report that dealt with shipping on the great lakes. and i will enter for the record which reports i use. but let me quote from this. it says the expected higher temperatures of climate change are predicted to increase water evaporation, lower runoff, reduce ice formation, raise surface temperatures in the great lakes resulting in a fall of lake levels. the increased precipitation will not be sufficient to offset the reduction in lake levels. for international and commercial navigation of the great lakes, the impact of lower lake levels will be reduction in vessel, tonages, and increasing the cost of trips. in other words, climate change on the great lakes has an effect on the economy. and i know that the chairman did not have, in my opinion, sufficient allocations to address many of the issues i

care passionately about, including the economic consequences of climate change as well as some of the funding as the gentleman from ohio and i saw on the great lakes. but i think the gentleman's -- from ohio, could actually see benefit to the great lakes and research by not having his amendment move forward and keeping the dollars that we do have for science and climate change. as the chairman said with great risk, i would yield. mr. latourette: the deer tick is misnamed because it doesn't come on deer, it comes more on the little gray mouse because the gray mouse is closer to the ground. and if you treat a cotton ball with an appropriate substance, you can relieve that not only in minnesota, virginia and ohio. ms. mccollum: i thank the gentleman, i know how to remove

leaches, deer ticks and fish hooks. the members should reject this amendment and leave the dollars where they are and put more dollars into our environment not only for its natural beauty and leave a valued treasure to our children but it has a direct impact on our economy. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does vasm virginia rise? -- the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i agree rise to strike the last word. i object to this amendment. i want to make a number of points. one is that the amendment adds funds for what are called geographic programs. it's a pretty broad category and includes chesapeake bay, pew get sound and great lakes and other

water bodies that need restoration projects. if the amendment passes, i trust the gentleman will understand that the funding will be divided amongst all of those programs. now i do support the efforts of the congress to clean up the great lakes and deal with these invasive species and the asian carp is who arebly destructive. but i think it's worth pointing out that it was during democratic leadership in the congress that the great lakes restoration project received its largest increases. in fiscal year 2010, the program received $475 million. in this current year, they are getting $300 million. with all due respect, it would seem that the funding level of $250 million, which is in this bill in a bill that cuts far more dramatically any other

programs would be seen as a success. if anything, mr. simpson should be thanked for protecting this program. the chesapeake bay program -- i'll let mr. dicks speak about puget sound. chesapeake bay was funded at $50 million. now i understand the gentleman's frustration that more could not have been done in this bill for all of the geographic programs. but the reason why we are in this position of underfunding these admittedly critical water programs is because of two actions. and i know he will remember because he supported them. one was the ryan republican budget resolution that the gentleman voted and the 302-b allocation to the interior department. i think that set the stage.

it really set parameters that were far too tight to be able to provide the kind of funds for many programs, including great lakes restoration, that are needed. now another point that needs to be named is that the g.a.o. reported to the committee, and i quote, progress remains slow as the program has delisted only one of the 31 areas of concern. e.p.a. officials said the -- set programs because it has had trouble to meet past goals. the agency did set lower goals in 2012 than it does seem to make sense that reduce funding might be appropriate for those lesser goals. but i also want to point out that the offset is really untenable.

reduces science account and environmental programs with what i think is the expressed intent of cutting additional climate change and clean energy programs. now i also want to point out and i know that the gentleman offering the amendment may not be excited about this, but it does seem a bit hypothetical. the gentleman offering this amendment to add funds to the great lakes restoration also offered language that was put in the bill to defund the great lakes restoration over the ballast water standards. that amendment -- mr. latourette: will the gentleman yield? mr. moran: i will when i finish. i believe i have the time. mr. latourette: i said please. mr. moran: i will yield to you at the appropriate moment. if we want to help great lakes get the kind of money they need,

it doesn't seem to me we should be offering amendments which would completely defund all e.p.a. programs for the states bordering the great lakes if they don't meet adequate ballast water standards which is the amendment the gentleman put in the bill. there are sufficient number of points to urge defeat of the amendment and i will be happy to yield to my very good friend from ohio. mr. latourette: i thank the gentleman very much. but you have mischaracterized the other part. the other piece of language in the bill does, it says to the state of new york -- i ask that the gentleman be given an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. latourette: one state in particular, new york, has imposed ballast standards that

can't be met by any technology that exists today. that will crip will and bring to a halt. my amendment says if you want to impose that kind of standard you rpt going to get any money until the e.p.a. and coast guard come up with a uniform ballast water exchange. the great lakes are unique. the great lakes are unique in the world and i can remember a couple of years ago, senator dodd wanted lake cham plain to be a great lake. the great lakes are the five great lakes that children know how to identify them. we need to do this in a big way and we will be in trouble if we don't. and i thank the gentleman for his courtesy. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment

offered en bloc offered by mr. latour et. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman from ohio. mr. latourette: ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman from ohio asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the >> i have an amendment at the desk.