[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 113 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5553-H5578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 363 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2584.
{time} 2037
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2584) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hurt (Acting
Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) was
pending, and the bill had been read through page 9, line 12.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment
introduced by my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Dicks, and in
opposition to the broader FY 2012 Interior appropriations bill. This
bipartisan amendment, I believe, is critical to restoring the longtime
commitment to protecting our most threatened species from extinction.
The gentleman from Virginia is absolutely correct that so many of
these species our planet actually depends on, and it is a symbiotic
relationship that protects our environment.
The language in the underlying bill to prevent any funds from being
used to list new species under the Endangered Species Act, I believe,
is shortsighted and only serves to punish a successful program for
preserving critical habitats. And this language is just one example of
the extremely harmful policies included in this bill.
On the broader bill itself, and how it fails to help our economy and
create jobs, I want to mention that in my home State of Rhode Island,
our unemployment rate right now continues to be the third-highest in
the Nation, at 10.8 percent. Right now we need investment in our
infrastructure and in our resources to create jobs and modernize our
communities.
New England is home to some of the oldest infrastructure in the
Nation, and it is estimated that our drinking water infrastructure
needs will cost over $400 million over the next 20 years, and that our
State has $1.16 billion in unmet wastewater needs. But instead of
addressing these needs by investing in our communities and creating new
jobs, this bill slashes both the Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds by 55 and 14 percent, respectively, below last year's
levels.
In this time of complex and contentious debates about our debt and
future fiscal security, I constantly hear my colleagues talk about the
burden our actions will place on the next generation. Yet this bill
would repeal and block implementation of two of the most important laws
that keep our environment safe, the Clean Water and Clean Air Act.
Now, what chance are we giving our children to grow up and flourish
if we can't protect the rivers and bays that they swim in and the water
that they drink?
I'm also very disappointed that this bill blocks the EPA from
finalizing a rule reducing emissions of mercury from power plants. Now,
last week, Members were down here on the floor speaking about the tiny
amount of mercury in light bulbs. Yet, today these same Members are
blocking a rule that would keep our fisheries healthy and safe for
consumption, in addition to preventing 17,000 premature deaths each
year.
I don't understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
can be opposed to a small amount of mercury last week, yet today
seemingly have no problem, no problem with much larger quantities of
the same substance, but it being allowed to endanger public health.
Now, lastly, I urge my colleagues to fight against the nearly 80
percent cut in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the lowest amount
in its 45-year history. As many of us are well aware, hunting, fishing,
camping, and other outdoor recreation activities are a great benefit to
our economy, bringing in a total of $730 billion each year and
supporting 6.5 million jobs.
{time} 2040
These numbers bear out when you look at my home State of Rhode
Island. Each year, 163,000 sportsmen and 436,000 wildlife watchers
combine to spend $381 million on wildlife-associated recreation in
Rhode Island. We have incredible national wildlife refuges, which have
been protected with LWCF funding, and which offer families in my
district an opportunity to enjoy beautiful parks, trails, and open
spaces at no cost during these tough economic times.
Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that this bill reflects our values or
our shared desire to preserve our beautiful Nation. I believe we can
and we ought to do better for our constituents and for our children. I
urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to bring a bill to the floor
that preserves our environment, creates new jobs, and protects our
commitment to future generations.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I just want to commend the gentleman for his statement.
It's an outstanding statement. You covered this very comprehensively,
especially the part about infrastructure. There was a $688 billion
wastewater backlog during the Bush administration. We should be putting
people to work on those kinds of projects. The gentleman is absolutely
right, and I appreciate him being here late in the evening to support
my amendment.
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the ranking member. I want to commend the
gentleman for sponsoring this amendment and for his work on the broader
bill. This is the right thing to do, to defeat the broader bill here
and bring a bill to the floor that really reflects our values.
Again, I thank the gentleman from Washington State for offering this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, as has been spoken earlier, the Endangered
Species Act is broken. What began as a tool to help scientists protect
vulnerable populations of endangered animals and plants has
metastasized into an economic straitjacket from which there is no
relief.
To illustrate my point, I would like to share the stories of two
species that make their home in west Texas: the Concho water snake and
the dune sagebrush lizard.
The Concho water snake was first listed as threatened on September 3,
1986. Since that time, the citizens of
[[Page H5554]]
Texas have spent millions of dollars complying with Federal mandates,
performing surveys, and generally advancing knowledge of the snake's
biology far beyond that which existed when the snake was first listed
in 1986. Today, there is little question that the snake's population is
stable and exists in far greater numbers than during the original
listing.
Because of this research, the service proposed delisting the snake on
July 8, 2008. This delisting should be a victory for the service and
the supporters of the Endangered Species Act. Instead, it has collapsed
into a maddening, saddening caricature of endless government
bureaucracy.
During a federally mandated 10-year study of the snake, researchers
caught and released 9,000 individual snakes. The data collected was the
basis for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission's decision to remove
the snake from their threatened species list in August 2000. At that
time, Fish and Wildlife declined to delist the species, instead
requesting an additional population viability study to be conducted,
with, of course, updated data.
Eight years later, in July of '08, the service finally issued a
formal delisting proposal after what must have been an exhaustive,
thorough, and detailed review of all of the best available science.
Unfortunately, as of today, the service still has not completed action
on its own proposal. Today, to the best of my knowledge, the final
delisting rule is hung up somewhere with the lawyers in the solicitor's
office of Fish and Wildlife.
It is inexcusable that this snake persists on the endangered species
list. Its continued inclusion on the list represents a significant
commitment of Federal, State, and local tax dollars. At a time when our
financial commitments are under a strain at every level of government,
dollars are wasted because of the failure of Fish and Wildlife to make
a final decision on their own recommendation.
But beyond the dollars wasted while protecting a species that the
service supports delisting, I'm more concerned about the long-term
impact this non-decision has on the public's trust in our Federal
Government. By proposing and then failing to delist a species, the
service is undermining the very reputation it relies on when it hands
down drastic and painful mandates sometimes needed to protect a species
on the brink of extinction. The dunes sagebrush lizard is just one such
species whose protection will require the service to demand significant
and costly compliance measures from the landowners and communities
where this lizard exists.
Unfortunately, it's also a species that has a paltry amount of
science behind the support of its listing. In Texas, there are but a
handful of places that anyone has looked for the lizard, and the
service is unable to answer basic questions as to how many lizards
exist today or how many are needed to support a viable population of
these lizards.
This might not stir up much trouble, except that the dune sagebrush
lizard lives above one of the most productive oil and gas producing
basins in the lower 48. Its inclusion on the endangered species list
would dramatically curtail oil and gas exploration across this vast
patch of the Permian Basin until the Fish and Wildlife Service decides
on how best to proceed several years from now.
The oil produced on this land provides the livelihood for hundreds of
thousands of Texas families, millions of dollars of support for Texas
university and public school students and, most important, is used as
energy by millions of Americans. The Fish and Wildlife Service has
proposed closing this land to development based on too little science
and too little concern for the economic consequences.
I believe that the interminable delay in delisting the Concho water
snake and the paltry science behind listing of the dune sagebrush
lizard is damaging the service's credibility as an honest steward of
the powers its agents are entrusted with. Fair or not, the Endangered
Species Act as implemented by Fish and Wildlife is viewed in my
district as little more than a cudgel to beat up disfavored industries,
in large part because the science is often shoddy, species are rarely
delisted, and the mandates continue in perpetuity. I support the
underlying legislation today because I believe it is the best short-
term chance to correct the imbalance in the implementation of the
Endangered Species Act.
The underlying legislation will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service
one full year to clear out its backlog of Concho water snakes across
this Nation. Free from new listing requirements, the service can focus
on the recoveries of the species that are under its care and better
managing the charges it already has. I hope that the service takes this
year off to pay particular attention to the dune sagebrush lizard and
work to understand this animal better before it moves to close down
thousands of well sites across west Texas while the resulting energy
prices are crushing our constituents.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment because the
amendment locks in the failed status quo for another year and offers
communities around this country like mine no relief from the arbitrary
mandates in the Endangered Species Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SABLAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express deep concern over the
allocations in H.R. 2584, the Interior and Environment appropriations
bill for 2012.
To begin, the bill cuts $1.7 million for technical assistance and
maintenance assistance in the United States territories. These small
amounts of money pay big dividends in the islands. The Northern
Marianas was just awarded $1.2 million in technical assistance funding
to develop geothermal resources to generate electricity. We pay up to
40 cents per kilowatt-hour now because we have to buy expensive foreign
oil to power our generators. Technical assistance funds are helping to
develop our own domestic energy resources; and cutting these funds
sends us in the wrong direction, back into the arms of foreign oil
interests.
I do appreciate the small increases in the bill to fund water and
sewer projects in the Northern Mariana Islands and the other
territories. I am disappointed, however, that the bill targets the
Environmental Protection Agency for overall cuts in the funding that
provides Federal assistance to ensure clean air and water for all
Americans.
As the ranking member of the Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular
Affairs Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, I am also troubled over the allocations in this bill
which would be devastating for the environment and for the preservation
of America's natural heritage. H.R. 2584 provides inadequate funding
for the Fish and Wildlife Service at levels 21 percent below fiscal
year 2011 and 30 percent below the President's fiscal year 2012
request.
The bill cuts provide a meager $22 million in funding for the State
and tribal wildlife grants program, 64 percent below fiscal year 2011,
and 77 percent below the fiscal year 2012 President's request. This is
a program that makes small investments now to avoid large expenses
later. It provides money to States and tribes to take voluntary
conservation actions to stabilize declining fish and wildlife
populations now, and this helps avoid endangered species listings
later. In my district, these grants help implement our wildlife action
plan, conserving wildlife and, I might add, creating jobs.
The bill also cuts the Fish and Wildlife Service's cooperative
landscape conservation and adaptive science program 35 percent below
the fiscal year 2011 levels and 47 percent below the fiscal year 2012
President's budget. This program supports the work of Federal, State,
tribal, and local partners to develop strategies to address climate
impacts on wildlife on local and regional scales.
{time} 2050
The Northern Mariana Islands and other insular areas are on the front
line of climate change. We face the impacts of sea level rise, ocean
acidification, and increasing typhoon intensity. We need this program
to develop science-based tools and solutions to conserve natural
resources and help us adapt to the many negative effects coming at us
as the Earth grows hotter. H.R. 2584 also cuts funding for the
[[Page H5555]]
National Wildlife Refuge System to 7 percent below fiscal year 2011 and
9 percent below the 2012 request.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's finest network of
protected lands and waters. We have refuges in every State and in
nearly every territory, including the Northern Mariana Islands. These
refuges conserve our fish and wildlife resources, but they also have a
huge economic benefit. Millions of people visit refuges each year to
hunt, fish, and observe wildlife. The refuge system generates $1.7
billion in sales for local communities and creates nearly 27,000 jobs
annually. Every dollar spent in the refuge system by the Federal
Government returns about $4 to local communities, and we can assume
that every dollar we cut means $4 less for our local communities.
I have introduced legislation, H.R. 2236, that would generate funds
for the refuges separate from the appropriations through the sale of
semipostal stamps to address operations and maintenance backlog, but
this is no substitute for money being cut in H.R. 2584.
Also cut is the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is used to
acquire lands and conservation easements from willing sellers and
landowners to provide operational efficiencies and connectivity within
the refuges.
At a Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs Subcommittee
hearing this year, we heard from stakeholders as diverse as Defenders
of Wildlife and the National Rifle Association who recognize the
importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which, I might add,
is generated by offshore oil and gas drilling revenues. H.R. 2584
provides only $15 million to this program, 73 percent below fiscal year
2011 levels and 89 percent below the fiscal year 2012 President's
request.
I strongly oppose H.R. 2584, which rolls back necessary funding to
support hunters, fishermen, recreationists, and local communities who
depend on the environment for their livelihoods and which undermines
ongoing conservation, public health, and environmental protection for
all Americans.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
amendment, which I have cosponsored, that would remove a rider from
this bill that would seriously compromise the effectiveness of the
landmark Endangered Species Act, which was signed into law almost 40
years ago in 1973.
The extinction rider in this bill is a sweeping action that will
prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from spending any money on
listing new plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act,
designating critical habitat, or upgrading species from threatened to
endangered. At the same time, the bill maintains funding for delisting
species, creating an incomplete and lopsided endangered species policy.
Mr. Chairman, my constituents in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and the
American people support the important mission of the ESA, and it's not
hard to see why. Preserving animals and plants brings countless
benefits to people, and a loss of a species can have dangerous and
expensive consequences in the future. For example, the U.S. Geological
Survey recently estimated that the loss of bats in North America would
cost agricultural producers nearly $4 billion per year, including those
in my district. We also never know which species of plants and animals
may be important in developing lifesaving medicines in the future.
But the ESA's primary success to date has been to prevent the
extinction of hundreds of species, including the American alligator,
grizzly bear, and gray wolf. Indeed, less than two dozen species have
gone extinct under the act, and most of these species were already
doomed to extinction by the time they were listed.
Perhaps the most iconic among these species saved by the act is our
national symbol, the bald eagle. On June 20, 1782, our Founding Fathers
adopted the bald eagle as our national emblem. On the backs of many of
our coins we see an eagle with outspread wings. On the Great Seal of
the United States, on the seal of this very House of Representatives,
and in many places which are exponents of our Nation's authority, we
see the same emblem.
Living as it does on the tops of lofty mountains and in river valleys
as close as the Potomac, the eagle represents freedom. However, by the
mid-20th century, the bald eagle was severely threatened and reduced to
just 400 nesting pairs. Bald eagles were declared an endangered species
in 1967 in the lower 48 States under a less cohesive, less effective
act. Then the ESA was signed into law. As a result of this, on July 4,
1976, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially listed the bald
eagle as a national endangered species. And thanks to the Endangered
Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service upgraded the bald eagle to
threatened status in the lower 48 States in 1995 and officially removed
it from the nationwide list in 2007. Today, after decades of
conservation effort, the Interior Department reports that there are
some 10,000 nesting pairs for us and for future generations to cherish.
Because, in large part, of the ESA, my children have had the chance to
see a bald eagle in its natural habitat.
This amendment will remove the funding restriction on the listing and
limit the funding to what has been spent on these activities in recent
years. Additionally, the overall funding amount for the ESA and related
programs of $138 million is significantly less than in past years,
including in fiscal year 2008.
Mr. Chairman, decisions about wildlife management should be made by
scientists, not by politicians. Preventing listing is not the answer.
We must allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to do their job and
protect species while making improvements to increase the efficiency of
this crucial program.
As I close, I implore my colleagues to imagine if the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service had been restricted from listing the American bald
eagle. This majestic creature, without corrective measures, would have
been lost only to books and to our national memory.
We have a responsibility to prevent the extinction of fish, plants,
and wildlife because once they're gone, they're gone forever and we
can't bring them back.
I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I just want to commend the gentleman for an incredibly
comprehensive, thoughtful, and credible presentation.
You mentioned the bald eagle. Just a few weeks ago, my grandchildren
were out at Hood Canal, where I live, and on the beach three bald
eagles came down and landed. It was one of the most remarkable things I
have ever seen. And I just want to thank the gentleman for his support,
his cosponsorship of this amendment. And I appreciate your credibility
and your forthrightness.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to say, because the gentleman
made a very good remark, but since we're talking about bald eagles, in
our State they're around, and I would invite the gentleman to come to
where I live in the desert in central Washington where every fall and
winter we see bald eagles. They are truly a majestic bird.
But the point is, again--and I really thank the gentleman for
yielding--this debate is not about the Endangered Species Act. This
debate here is about trying to get people together so we can make the
Endangered Species Act work in a way that will be beneficial to
everybody, so that we can repeat the successes that we have had, albeit
the successes are only 20 species; but, nevertheless, we ought to be
working that way rather than restricting and having restrictions as the
current act is.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I appreciate
the invitation. And the way to amend the act is in regular order, not
in appropriation.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
(On request of Mr. Hastings of Washington, and by unanimous consent,
Mr.
[[Page H5556]]
Fitzpatrick was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I appreciate the invitation, but the way to amend
the act is in regular order in the committee, not necessarily through
the appropriations process.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. As I mentioned in my remarks when I
spoke, that certainly is the intent of the committee that I chair that
has jurisdiction.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
{time} 2100
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us
today corrects a terrible flaw in the underlying bill, a provision that
prohibits the endangered species from being listed as endangered. This
provision is so bad that it would be funny but for the dangerous effect
it would have on imperiled species on the brink of extinction and
struggling to survive.
The previous speaker was eloquent in his discussion about the bald
eagle. Let's think about what would have happened had this measure been
law 44 years ago. The American bald eagle, our national bird and
symbol, would be gone. In the 1960s, there were less than 450 nesting
pairs of bald eagles. But thanks to the Endangered Species Act, this
national symbol was removed from the endangered species list in 2007.
And now there are nearly 10,000 nesting pair of bald eagles.
Maybe some of my colleagues side with those who wanted our national
bird to be a turkey. But I think I speak for most Americans when I say
that I am proud that we saved this national treasure, the American bald
eagle, from extinction.
Had this rider been the law of the land in 1979, the American
alligator would most likely be gone. But because of the ESA
protections, the American alligator population has grown to more than 2
million and continues to thrive, helping local economies throughout the
southeast.
The Aleutian goose is another example of the success of the
Endangered Species Act. Back in 1967, there were no more than a few
hundred of these birds. But thanks to the ESA, the Aleutian goose was
fully recovered and successfully delisted in 2001, with a population of
more than 100,000 birds in 2008. So successful was the ESA recovery
effort that the Aleutian goose is not only thriving, but also being
hunted in my district. Just this past hunting season alone, 1,700 acres
of land were made available to hunters by the California Department of
Fish and Game, not only pleasing the hunters, but helping the local
economy as well.
Other animals that have made a tremendous recovery while listed under
the Endangered Species Act include the California condor, the black-
footed ferret, and the whooping crane. And of great importance to my
district, we are seeing signs of healthy recovery for ESA-listed
salmon. This impacts other fishing States as well.
Ironically, this deeply flawed provision does allow funding for the
Fish and Wildlife Service to delist recovered species under the act.
However, you can't remove protections for recovered species unless they
are listed as endangered in the first place and a successful recovery
plan is implemented. This measure puts the cart before the horse.
Our bipartisan amendment, which is supported by more than 60
organizations, would strike this extreme provision. It is our
responsibility to be good stewards of this Earth and prevent the
extinction of wildlife, plants, and fish. The sad truth is that once we
lose a species, we will never get it back. That's why we need to allow
for science-based policies and recovery plans for imperiled species
instead of allowing politics to drive listing decisions and activities.
I recognize that some of my colleagues have strong objections to the
Endangered Species Act. But placing a spending rider on this year's
Interior appropriation bill is not the answer. If real reform is
needed, then let's have an honest debate in the authorizing committee
to look at what is working and what's not working under the Endangered
Species Act. And let's fix it.
That's a far wiser course than including an extreme policy change
that goes back on America's promise to protect our most vulnerable
animals and plants and would not be supported by the American public.
I ask that we support the Dicks amendment, this bipartisan amendment,
and make sure that we take this extreme policy out of the underlying
bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman's closing
remarks when he said this is not the proper venue to address the
Endangered Species Act. That has been my argument, too. I think it
should be done in the authorizing committee.
But the fact of the matter is there is no incentive for the
stakeholders to sit down if we continue to kick the ball ahead and not
seriously look at the Endangered Species Act.
As the chairman said very well in his remarks, this is simply a shot
across the bow, not only on this, but on other authorized programs. So
we are not picking on these.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Hastings of Washington, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Thompson of California was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman.
This is a shot. It is a shot at the endangered species. You and I
both know how important this is in regard to the salmon in our
district, something that is very, very important, something that is
important to our economy and something that is important to the ecology
of not only our State but the ecology of the Nation. We need to work
together, and I can suggest that we remove this and get to working
together.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. We share that concern about the salmon. I
would point out to the gentleman that the salmon runs in the Snake
River and the tributaries are coming back in greater number, which
would suggest that the species is being recovered. And yet we are
waiting for a judge to make a decision.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Remember, you are very well aware of the
salmon issue and how there have been a number of attempts over the
matter of water that, if they had been successful, had it not been for
the Endangered Species Act, there wouldn't be any fish, because without
water, as you know, there are no fish.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will continue to yield,
I can't argue with the gentleman. I'm simply saying we need to look at
this. It has been 23 years.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has again
expired.
(On request of Mr. Hastings of Washington, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Thompson of California was allowed to proceed for 30 additional
seconds.)
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The argument is not about the Endangered
Species Act. The argument is about the serious business of sitting down
and reauthorizing an act that has not been reauthorized since the
1980s.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I suggest we do it in the authorizing
bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I totally agree with you, and I said that
in the opening remarks. The gentleman from Washington suggested that,
and I totally agree with him.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. I rise tonight in support of the Dicks-Fitzpatrick
amendment. I voted for this same language in the Appropriations
Committee markup a few
[[Page H5557]]
weeks ago, and we have all heard some pretty compelling arguments here
tonight about some challenges with the Endangered Species Act. And as
has been previously stated by Mr. Thompson and others here tonight, I
agree with those who said that the proper venue for this discussion is
in the authorizing committee. I have great confidence in Chairman
Hastings, that he would take a thoughtful and sincere look at the act
to make reforms that I think many people would agree are needed. But
again, I don't think this is the right place to do it.
Again, I support the underlying bill. I think overall this
legislation, this Interior bill, while it is not everything to
everybody, and certainly the funding levels might not be where some
people would like, Chairman Simpson has done a commendable job putting
a bill together.
But I think this language in the underlying bill should be stricken
as proposed by Mr. Dicks and Mr. Fitzpatrick, and so I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, as one of the former cochairs of the
Congressional Sportsmen Caucus, and very active in that organization, I
rise in support of the Dicks amendment and in opposition to the
underlying bill.
It is unfortunate that Ranking Member Dicks has to offer an amendment
in order to strip out a policy rider of this magnitude in an
appropriation bill. We just had a short discussion about how this would
be more appropriate in the authorizing committee for a further vetting
of this issue. And I think there are some legitimate issues that we
need to get into, but not in the appropriation bill. This is one of
many policy riders that have been jammed into this appropriation bill,
from the assault on the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to allowing
mining near the Grand Canyon, one of the great natural treasures we
have as a Nation, and on and on and on. And this extension rider that
was included in the base bill would prevent the Fish and Wildlife
Service from spending money, any money, on the listing of new animals
or plants under the Endangered Species Act.
So to claim that this doesn't directly affect and attack the
Endangered Species Act tonight is mind-boggling to me.
And yet in my home district in western Wisconsin, a very beautiful
national wildlife refuge, the Necedah Wildlife Refuge, with three
endangered species located there--from the gray wolf to the cardinal
blue butterfly to the whooping crane--because of the protection that
they have had, they are now increasing in population. The wolf to the
extent that they are on the verge of being delisted in Wisconsin,
another success story. And the whooping crane is making a resurgence,
all because of the protections afforded under the Endangered Species
Act.
And now to claim in this bill that we are going to prevent additional
funding in order to locate those species, whether animal or plant or
fish, from falling under the protection, this is not the appropriate
vehicle. But there is even more in this legislation that's
disconcerting. The deep cuts to long-standing conservation, the Land
and Water Conservation Program that has traditionally enjoyed
bipartisan support, is deeply disturbing--an 80 percent proposed cut to
the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
{time} 2110
And I'm glad that the committee earlier this night adopted the Bass
amendment to at least restore $20 million to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. But why are we cutting anything from that vital
program? This isn't even funded by the taxpayers.
This comes from oil royalties from a grand bargain that we struck
with oil and gas companies so they can explore and extract these
natural resources from our public lands. They agreed that for the right
of doing that, they would contribute to the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, funds that would be used then for the enhancement of conservation
programs and the protection and preservation of public lands in this
country. And to come with a bill now to cut 80 percent of that out of
oil royalties does not make sense. Or, the 7.5 percent under the
Wildlife Refuge System.
I know Chairman Dicks has been a champion of the refuge system for
many years. It's a system that affects virtually every congressional
district. It brings countless revenue into our districts, plus jobs.
And with the huge backlog of maintenance and operation, another 7.5
percent cut will put them in the hole.
A $7 million cut from the National Park System budget, a 21 percent
cut in the Fish and Wildlife Service, a 64 percent cut in the State
Wildlife Grants Program, yet back home some of the greatest
conversationists that I know are my hunting and fishing buddies,
because they get it. They understand if we just go and use the
resources and deplete it, from the wildlife to the fish to the
waterfowl, that there's not going to be that recreational enjoyment
that so many of us get in the outdoor recreation community.
That's why it was no surprise that earlier this month over 640
outdoor recreation entities and preservation entities signed a letter
to the chairman and the leadership and to everyone in our office
decrying the spending cuts in these programs that we have before us
this evening, because they know that these programs aren't something
you can just turn off like a spigot. These programs require the
continuity of funding and the continuity of assistance in order to make
the progress that's necessary.
And so these draconian cuts that are being proposed right now are
going to set back the cause of conservation, whether it's wildlife or
land in the country, for many, many years, and that's unfortunate.
Because these same people also understand the economic impact that
these programs have.
Outdoor recreation contributes over $730 billion annually to the U.S.
economy. It supports over 6\1/2\ million jobs. One out of every 20
private sector jobs are affiliated with outdoor recreational
opportunity, 8 percent of consumer spending. In my own State of
Wisconsin, hunting and fishing alone supports over 57,000 jobs and $400
million in State revenue.
So if we're really serious about addressing the soft economy we have
now and doing what we can to get the economy on track, creating good-
paying jobs, this is the wrong place we should be looking in the budget
for drastic cutbacks.
I've been one of the leaders in this place for significant farm bill
reform to get at the outdated agriculture subsidies.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kind was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. KIND. For years, I have been leading the effort for farm bill
reform to end these taxpayer subsidies going to a few but large
agribusinesses that distort the market, distort trade policies. It's
not helping our family farmers. Finally discussion is starting to take
place seriously to actually scrub those programs. Yet when I've led
this cause in the past, I remember not too long ago a Member in this
body accused me of being the Osama bin Laden of agriculture policy. Yet
today, if we had taken actions 10 years ago when many of us were acting
on it, maybe we wouldn't be finding ourselves in this huge fiscal hole
that we have today.
So not only the policy riders but the spending cuts that are being
proposed are the wrong direction for our Nation to go. It will
jeopardize these vital programs--programs, again, that have enjoyed
wide bipartisan support. We ought not be balancing the budget on their
backs.
Over the last 30 years, funding for conservation programs has gone
from 1.7 percent of Federal funding to less than .6 percent. They get
it at the altar of fiscal responsibility. We can't go any deeper.
I encourage Members to support the Dicks amendment and oppose the
underlying bill. We have to do a better job.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page H5558]]
Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I reluctantly rise to oppose the gentleman from Washington's
amendment and support the underlying bill. A lot of compelling
arguments have been made tonight to support the Endangered Species Act
without interruption. They talk about the bald eagle and the compelling
story about seeing those magnificent birds, and those are visual images
that we all like.
But there's a side to the Endangered Species Act that is not being
told. That's the side where one group just this year filed 1,000
petitions at one time to list new species. They know that their lawyers
get reimbursed from the Federal Government every time they bring suit,
and so they're happy to bring these actions which are destroying jobs
in the West.
For instance, in the Second District of New Mexico, a suggested
listing was given this year on the sand dune lizard, a small brown
lizard that I've seen in the sand hills since I was going up there.
They were plentiful then; they're about the same number now, but they
have been listed as endangered.
And people didn't think much of it. And then they began to read the
reports that anything that disturbs the surface of the ground would
represent a potential threat to the habitat of the lizard and would
thereby be prohibited.
Disturb the ground, they ask. What does that mean? Well, that means
oil and gas activity. That means that $2.8 billion investment for
nuclear enrichment that is taking place in southern Lea County, just
taking place now, creating jobs for the first time in the nuclear
industry that has been dormant for 30 years, would be shut down because
they disturb the ground.
It would stop the high line wires from being put up and the electric
utility crews from driving to the homesteads miles and miles away from
the nearest town because they would disturb the ground. They could not
even check the power lines to make sure electricity is going to these
remote areas.
This is the Endangered Species Act that we're seeing.
People would come to me in disbelief and say, Mr. Pearce, it is not
true? They couldn't kill our jobs with a lizard, could they? What about
us as humans? What do they say?
I said, Take a look at the San Joaquin Valley. Twenty-seven thousand
farmers put out of work with a 2-inch Delta smelt that we could have
kept alive in holding ponds and bred by the millions and put into the
rivers and go ahead and use the rivers for irrigation. But instead, a
judge found that we had to shut down the entire agricultural product.
We began to import vegetables from areas that spray contaminants that
we are not allowed to use in this Nation, a less safe food supply. We
kill 27,000 jobs. We caused jobs to be created somewhere else, less
safe food supply, all for a 2-inch minnow that could have been kept
alive in some other fashion.
We also have a Lesser prairie-chicken that threatens the oil and gas
jobs in our area. They're saying that the bird might not fly under or
over those lines, so we can't put up electric lines across. Then, bury
the lines, people say. Well, then the lizard wouldn't go across the
area that's been disturbed by burying the lines.
It's easy to see why people are saying that the Endangered Species
Act is not functioning properly and we've got to stop it. We are
spending $3.5 trillion a year in our government and we're bringing in
$2.2 trillion. Part of the problem is we've killed enough of our jobs,
we've killed enough of our economy that we're in severe debt and
deficit crisis.
Now, one of the problems is we've systematically eliminated the
timber industry because of a spotted owl. We eliminated those 27,000
farmer jobs in the San Joaquin Valley. We've got the salmon swimming
upstream, and now it's threatening that we've got to tear down all the
hydroelectric dams. And the list goes on and on.
It is time for us to say that we can preserve the species and create
jobs at the same time. That's not an unreasonable request. But to those
lawyers making $350 a hour, they don't care if it's reasonable or not.
To the Fish and Wildlife Service, they arrogantly told the people in
New Mexico, No, we didn't do an economic study to see the cost on the
jobs. We're not required to. These are things that are making people
say enough is enough.
It's in my district that 900 people showed up to protest at one of
the hearings on the listing of the lizard; 900 people coming out, and
the Fish and Wildlife Service came to me in nervousness before the
meeting and said, Would you speak to those who couldn't get into the
meeting? They're agitated. I said, People do get agitated when you
start killing their careers, when you start taking the jobs away from
them.
There's a side to the Endangered Species Act that is being dealt with
here tonight. I support the underlying bill and oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2120
Mrs. CAPPS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of Mr. Dicks' amendment to
remove this destructive and shortsighted anti-wildlife rider from the
underlying bill.
The rider would gut the Endangered Species Act, as we've been
discussing--a law that has worked for 40 years to successfully conserve
our Nation's plants and animals. It would do this by blocking the Fish
and Wildlife Service from new listings and bar the designation of
critical habitat for currently listed species.
As has been said on both sides of the aisle this evening, this
provision creates a one-way path to weakening wildlife protections by
allowing the service to delist and downgrade a species' status from
endangered to threatened but not to list new species. Unless a species
is listed, it receives no protection under the ESA. Currently, the
service has identified over 260 species that warrant protection but
cannot be listed due to a lack of Federal resources. That's 260 species
of plants and animals found across the Nation that are in dire need of
assistance and are at risk of disappearing forever.
Mr. Chairman, America's native plants and animals are already in
serious trouble--under constant threat from toxic pesticides, air and
water pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change; but this
shortsighted and irresponsible rider may prove to be the most immediate
and serious threat of all, sending countless species into extinction
and destroying America's great conservation legacy.
It is our responsibility here to protect and conserve our Nation's
most precious resources for future generations, and of course, that's
why the Endangered Species Act was written. It codifies our commitment
to good stewardship, and it preserves what we hold dear for the benefit
of our children and our grandchildren. Since its initiation, we've
witnessed incredible comebacks. Animals that were once on the verge of
disappearing forever are thriving once again.
Because of the Endangered Species Act and other successful
partnerships, bald eagles have returned, not only to Washington State,
but to the Channel Islands off the coast of my congressional district.
Just a few years ago, a pair of nesting bald eagles produced the first
wild-born chicks in 50 years on Santa Cruz Island.
Also on the Central Coast, we've seen California condors and
peregrine falcons soaring through our skies once again. The Guadalupe
fur seal, which was hunted to near extinction, can now be seen swimming
off the Channel Islands. There are similar success stories for the
southern sea otter and the blue whale, both found in the Central Coast
waters of California; and the return of Island Foxes, whose population
dropped down to less than 100, is now back above 1,200.
Mr. Chairman, of course there are so many examples across the
country--Florida panthers, gray wolves, grizzly bears--and hundreds
more species that have not gone extinct after receiving protection
under the act. These species can't wait any longer, and we can't let
them disappear forever on our watch.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support Mr. Dicks' amendment to
strike this irresponsible provision in the bill. We can and must do
better. Our children and our grandchildren are depending upon us.
[[Page H5559]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I rise to support Mr. Dicks' idea but not the
process he is using to get there.
It is one of the amazing things as you look about the debate on this
particular amendment. It's like ships passing in the night--getting
close but never actually touching because everyone who has spoken so
far is saying the same thing: that we want to have an Endangered
Species Act that works. This needs to be fixed or amended and changed
in some way to make it work better, to involve the entire process so
that everyone is working towards the same goal; but for some reason, it
flat out is not happening, and it's not happening because we have
violated the process.
Everyone has said this is not the right place to try and fix the
Endangered Species Act. That's also true, but it's the only process
that's allowed because we have violated our own intent. Appropriators
are supposed to appropriate funds to programs. Authorizers are supposed
to create the programs and then every so often reauthorize those
programs to make changes based on the need or to make sure that we are
moving in the proper direction.
Let me introduce you, or at least remind you, of John Gochnauer--one
of my favorite baseball players at the turn of the century with the
Cleveland Indians. He was good enough to play regular shortstop for
Cleveland, although the first year he played he committed 48 errors,
and his batting average was 187. He was still good enough to stay
around for the next year when, this time, his errors were just slightly
under 100--he had a hard time hitting the first baseman when he threw--
and his batting average was, once again, 187.
I say that specifically because the most inept player ever to put on
spikes and play Major League Baseball had a batting average of 187. The
Endangered Species Act has listed over 2,000 species and saved 21 for a
batting average of 10 if you round up. It's actually .009. That clearly
indicates we can do better, and we need to do better.
So the question has to simply be why aren't we doing better? Why
can't we fix this problem and have a better success rate?
The answer is very simple:
For 23 years, we have put riders on this particular appropriations
act to fully fund the old program, which has prohibited the authorizing
committee to ever get people together to make the program better.
Chairman Hastings has simply said his goal is to provide a process
that improves the system--and there is room for improvement of the
system--but to do that, you've got to get the players to sit down in
the authorizing committees where this is supposed to be worked out. The
Endangered Species Act needs to be expanded, needs to be fixed, needs
to zero in to create people working together for a common goal.
I am actually grateful for Representative Dicks and Representative
Simpson and what they have done in this bill. This amendment in the
underlying bill does not destroy the Endangered Species Act. It doesn't
even cut the funding for those species that are already being worked
on. All it does is provide a change in the process to insist that
people have to do what we should have been doing for the last 23
years--going to the authorizing committee and fixing the act, not just
kicking the can down the road by funding it year, after year, after
year, after year, while only 21 species have recovered over the 2,000
that could have and should have been.
I'm sorry. That's what everyone is saying. We all want species to be
preserved and recovered, but we all are failing in the process, and
after 23 years, we should have learned what we have been doing in the
past doesn't work. Maybe if we went back to the way the system was
intended to be and was designed to function, we could actually move
forward in this entire issue, which, oddly enough, is what everyone is
saying.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. I will do this very briefly.
As I recall, from 1995 to 2007, the other side--the majority party
today--was the majority party then, and I don't remember any great
effort on the Endangered Species Act. I welcome it. I welcome that any
act can be made better. Now you guys are in charge again, and you have
another opportunity. I believe Mr. Bishop has been on the committee for
quite a long time. I'm going to go look in his reform bill in the
Record to see what has been happening here.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington State, from the
Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I would remind him, from the
time that we did get control of Congress in 1995 until your side gained
control after the 2006 election, that was the issue that the then-
chairman--the last chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Richard
Pombo from California--was working on. As a matter of fact, I think it
was in 2005 that we did pass ES reform out of this House.
{time} 2130
It did not go anyplace in the other body. So history tends to repeat
itself.
Mr. DICKS. Former Senator Kempthorne worked on it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. He did, as did Senator Crapo from Idaho.
Here is the problem: The problem is that through all of the efforts
of Chairman Pombo of trying to get this enacted and he couldn't get it
through the Senate, then you know what the Appropriations Committee
did?
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, because I can't go on forever, I just
would say nobody is stopping you. Hold your hearings. Have your
meetings. Bring up the witnesses, but don't stop listing 260 candidate
species until you get the job done.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I've been chairman now for a little over
6 months. I have every intention to do that, and I want to work with
the gentleman on this.
Mr. DICKS. I want to be involved in this.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho, my good friend and
the chairman and former ranking member, one of the best ranking members
I've ever had.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Bishop had it exactly right. We all want the same thing. We want
the Endangered Species Act, but we want the Endangered Species Act to
work. And as you mentioned, Senator Kempthorne worked on it very hard,
got it through the Senate when he was a Senator before he became
Governor of Idaho. And it was some Republicans frankly in the House
that stopped it because they didn't think it went far enough.
Unfortunately, if we just continue to do what we've done in the past,
we're going to get exactly what we've gotten in the past, and that is
no incentive for people to sit down and say we've got to work on this
and we've got to get it done. And that's all we're trying to do.
Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. MORAN. I do think it might be instructive that Mr. Pombo is no
longer among our ranks and the principle reason is the Endangered
Species Act authorization that he attempted to write which was so
destructive of the original intent of the Endangered Species Act of
1965, and it was a Republican Senate that defeated it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to respond to my friend from
Virginia.
The bill passed, if my memory serves me correctly, with bipartisan
support.
But, yes, of course there are political risks in doing whatever we're
doing in
[[Page H5560]]
this body; and we all face that. After all, this is the people's
government. But the point is it needs--and we've been saying over and
over, the ESA needs to be updated.
It's been 23 years, for goodness sake.
Mr. DICKS. No one is objecting. I agree. We should look at how to
improve the ESA. I don't like to hear these examples of where the
process has not been able to be worked out. I have had to go through
this as you have in the Pacific Northwest with the spotted owl, the
marbled murrelet, salmon, et cetera. Now, those are starting to
recover. We're making some progress, but I still believe we can make
this act better.
I just think by taking out the ability to list and to have critical
habitat, we're risking some of these species that are close to
extinction.
And remember this: it's also about biodiversity, the web of life. We
don't know how all of these things relate and whether something can be
created, a medicine that could save lives in the future. And that's why
trying to protect these species is an important thing.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Washington has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Simpson, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. DICKS. It's important for civilization, for humanity. We're
creatures here, too. We depend on a lot of other animals in order to
survive. And so this goes beyond just a legislative ``it's difficult.''
This is down and dirty. This is very important. This is very important
to survival.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I don't disagree with anything the gentleman just said.
It's also important to remember that this amendment would take the caps
off that have been in place since President Clinton and would undermine
the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget to a great degree because it
would then be controlled by the courts and by lawsuits. That's not
where we want to go.
Mr. DICKS. We'll fix it in conference.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support
of the Dicks-Fitzpatrick-Thompson-Hanabusa amendment to delete the
Extinction Rider that was improperly added to this legislation. This
rider, which has no place in an appropriation bill, prevents the Fish
and Wildlife Service from spending any money on listing new plants and
animals under the Endangered Species Act, designating critical habitat,
or upgrading species from threatened to endangered.
This is a big deal to me because Hawaii happens to have the highest
number of endangered species of any state in the nation. This is due,
in large part, to the unique species that evolved in Hawaii because of
its location 2,400 miles from the nearest land mass. In fact, Hawaii's
33 endangered bird species represent 42 percent of the U.S. bird
species listed as endangered. All of these live in my district. For
example, we have a beautiful endangered forest bird called the Hawaii
`Akepa. Thanks to the Endangered Species Act, the populations of this
bird are currently stable on Hawaii Island, although it is very rare on
the island of Maui. The `Akepa and the other 32 Hawaiian bird species
listed as endangered are threatened by loss of habitat, a warming
climate, and the onslaught of introduced species.
In fact, 69 of the 265 candidate species for addition to the
Endangered Species Act--26 percent--are found in Hawaii. Most, like the
`Akepa, are found nowhere else in the world.
Another example of an Endangered Species Act success is the
threatened Hawaiian green sea turtle--or honu as we call it in Hawaii.
In the 1970s, before being listed, the Hawaiian green sea turtle was in
steep decline because it was regularly hunted and eaten. Since being
protected by the Endangered Species Act, the numbers of green sea
turtles have increased dramatically--by 53 percent over the past 25
years! Despite this success, the honu remains vulnerable because its
primary nesting habitat in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands could be
lost to sea level rise caused by climate change.
As members of Congress, we have a special responsibility to protect
and be stewards of the land, the water, the air, and the species with
which we share this world. There is no recovery from extinction. Each
time we lose a unique creature or plant that evolved over thousands or
millions of years, we make the world a poorer place and rob future
generations.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to defend our democracy from
the egregious attacks on our legislative process that are abundant in
the underlying legislation. The FY 2012 Interior Appropriations bill is
rife with policy riders that legislate on an appropriations bill, which
is in violation of Rules of the House. As a long serving Member of the
House Rules Committee, I have seen a fair share of policy riders
attached to legislation, but never in the history of my time here in
the House have I seen such blatant disregard for the House rules and
departure from regular legislative order.
There are dozens of these anti-environment policy riders--or should I
say these pro-industry earmarks that are included in the underlying
legislation. There is an entire stand-alone bill included in this must-
pass legislation--an entire bill that couldn't muster enough support to
be passed into law on its own virtues--that is standing in our way from
funding the government in the upcoming fiscal year.
Last Thursday in the Rules Committee I offered a motion to amend the
rule to strike the waiver that protects these offensive riders from
points of order. If the Majority had voted in support of regular order
and adopted my amendment, the Members of this House would have had the
opportunity to raise points of order against these assaults on our
environment here on the floor and strike them from the bill.
Predictably, though, my motion failed on a party-line vote.
If the Majority had followed regular and adopted my amendment to the
rule in Committee, Members of the House could have been able to strike
riders that:
Put more toxic mercury, arsenic, and lead into our air and puts our
children's health at risk; Allow more soot pollution in our air;
Block EPA from moving forward with carbon pollution standards for new
vehicles after 2016;
Put as many as 34,000 lives at risk;
Threaten the health of millions of Americans;
Threaten the health of America's children, elderly citizens and other
vulnerable populations;
Block EPA from limiting dangerous air pollution from livestock
production and manure management;
Ban EPA from doing its job to enforce the Clean Air Act in Texas;
Exempt oil companies from complying with Clean Air Act standards;
Put the drinking water of 117 million Americans at risk;
Prevent EPA from protecting communities' clean water supplies;
Allow unregulated discharge of pesticides directly into waterways;
Threaten the health and environment of communities across Appalachia
by blocking a number of protections against the destruction and
pollution from mountaintop removal coal mining;
Put thousands of people living near coal ash pools at risk of toxic
disasters;
Put Americans' drinking water and waterways at risk of sewage and
urban runoff pollution;
Block EPA from moving forward with new rules to minimize the adverse
environmental impacts of power plant cooling water intake structures;
Block protections for more than 1 million acres of land around the
Grand Canyon;
Put public lands at risk of destruction;
Put the Delaware Water Gap and parts of the Appalachian Trail at risk
of development; and
Put endangered species at risk of harmful pesticides.
So here we are tonight, fighting for our fellow citizens' right to
clean air and clean drinking water with one of the few tools we have
left as the minority in the House--our voices and the privilege to
represent our constituents on the House floor. We are fighting to
uphold decades of successful, bipartisan environmental laws that have
protected our environment and improved our public health.
Each policy rider goes against our nation's values and our belief
that we solve our toughest problems through shared sacrifice and
working together. When these policy riders are all combined, they place
a suffocating burden on the American people while rewarding special
interests and the lobbyists who walk these halls.
Under this bill, the nation's clean air protections would be
devastated, leaving our children exposed to life-threatening pollution.
This bill would cause hundreds of thousands more Americans to suffer
from the dangerous and deadly impacts of air pollution. The bill's
policy riders prevent the EPA from doing its job to protect public
health and won't cut one dime from the deficit.
The EPA has been actively engaged in helping clean up the air in
Tonawanda, New York, which I proudly represent, and I stand by the
agency's ability to continue doing the good work to improve the quality
of life for
[[Page H5561]]
those residents. Rolling back the Clean Air Act, as is proposed under
this legislation, will lead to more air pollution, more hospital visits
and more deaths. We must support the Clean Air Act so that all
Americans can breathe easier.
I will mention one more of these abhorrent policy riders that should
be struck from the bill. There is a rider in this legislation that will
effectively open up a million acres of national forest and other public
land around Grand Canyon National Park to new uranium mining claims.
Democrats have concerns about maintaining the integrity of the Grand
Canyon and the effect of uranium mining on water quality, not to
mention the spectacle of auctioning off a national treasure with the
proceeds going to mostly foreign-owned entities, including Russia's
state atomic energy corporation and South Korea's state-owned utility.
America is not for sale, Mr. Chair, even if Republicans would like us
to believe otherwise.
Mr. Chair, I stand firmly in opposition to the Majority's daily
attempts to whittle away at the rules of the House. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the Majority's protection of policy riders that
endanger our public health and environment in favor of private
interests, and to oppose the underlying legislation.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
construction
For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal of
buildings and other facilities required in the conservation,
management, investigation, protection, and utilization of
fish and wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and
interests therein, $11,804,000, to remain available until
expended.
land acquisition
For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.),
including administrative expenses, and for acquisition of
land or waters, or interest therein, in accordance with
statutory authority applicable to the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, $15,047,000, to be derived from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund and to remain available until
expended, of which, notwithstanding 16 U.S.C. 460l-9, not
more than $4,000,000 shall be for land conservation
partnerships authorized by the Highlands Conservation Act of
2004, including not to exceed $120,000 for administrative
expenses.
cooperative endangered species conservation fund
For expenses necessary to carry out section 6 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1534 et seq.),
$2,854,000, to remain available until expended, to be derived
from the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund.
national wildlife refuge fund
For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17,
1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $13,980,000.
north american wetlands conservation fund
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4401 et
seq.), $20,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Griffin of Arkansas
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 10, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 65, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN from Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment
which will leverage our limited resources for wetlands and wildlife
conservation.
My amendment would transfer $3 million to the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund, or NAWCA, by reducing the EPA's operations and
administration budget by the same amount.
The EPA has been overfunded in recent years, and I appreciate
Subcommittee Chairman Simpson's efforts to bring the agency's budget
back down to size.
This amendment makes a reasonable reduction to the EPA's
administrative budget in favor of wetland conservation.
Since this organization was established in 1989, more than 1,800
projects have led to the conservation of over 24 million acres of
wetlands across North America. Each of these projects is funded through
a public/private partnership. And for every dollar of the
organization's money that is spent in my home State of Arkansas,
private sources and foundations have given $4 in matching funds.
In Arkansas alone, 12 of these projects are either completed or
currently under way. And these projects have conserved over 64,000
acres of wetlands.
Make no mistake, this success story is not limited to Arkansas.
Wetlands, wildlife, and outdoorsmen in every single State in the
country have seen the benefits of this conservation effort.
Arkansas sits in the cradle of the Mississippi flyway, a migration
route used by waterfowl as they fly to the southern United States each
autumn. Migratory waterfowl and other birds often settle in the
wetlands along the White River and Arkansas River, and the health of
these habitats is closely tied to the health of the wildlife which
inhabit them.
This amendment would improve the condition of our Nation's wetlands
and wildlife. This is important to sportsmen, conservationists, and
anyone who enjoys the American outdoors.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense conservation
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have the voting record from February 16. I
know the gentleman will recall H.R. 1 and the debate that ensued.
In H.R. 1, the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund was zeroed
out, and so I had an amendment to restore $50 million to the North
American Wetlands Conservation Program. What I find curious--
confusing--is that the very gentleman that now wants to put money into
the program voted ``no'' against putting the $50 million into the North
American Wetlands Conservation Program back in the spring.
Now, I do think it's an important program. I would like to see it
continued. But I do have a problem with the fact that what we're doing
when we want something to be funded, we take it out of the management
of agencies--$3 million, $5 million, $6 billion--and when these
amendments pass, you have a very damaging cumulative effect upon the
ability of the agency to banish these programs. If this were to pass,
we're now at $8 million that has been taken out of the management of
EPA.
So I would have to oppose the amendment. And I'm not sure how
strongly the gentleman feels about it since he voted against restoring
the money in February, as did a great many Members of the body,
unfortunately, because it is a good program.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2140
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
While the gentleman from Virginia offered an amendment on H.R. 1, which
was several months ago, it was $50 million. We didn't have that kind of
money. Because of the bipartisan support for this program, we did fund
it to keep it alive at $20 million. And I have no problem putting the
additional funding in, if the gentleman requests, depending on where he
takes it from. So I support the gentleman's amendment and would hope
that my friend from Virginia would think twice and support this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
multinational species conservation fund
For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.), the Asian Elephant
Conservation Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 4261 et seq.), the
[[Page H5562]]
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301
et seq.), the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C.
6301 et seq.), and the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004
(16 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), $7,875,000, to remain available
until expended.
state and tribal wildlife grants
For wildlife conservation grants to States and to the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States
Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa,
and federally recognized Indian tribes under the provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.)
and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et
seq.), for the development and implementation of programs for
the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species
that are not hunted or fished, $22,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the amount
provided herein, $2,000,000 is for a competitive grant
program for federally recognized Indian tribes not subject to
the remaining provisions of this appropriation: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall, after deducting $2,000,000
and administrative expenses, apportion the amount provided
herein in the following manner: (1) to the District of
Columbia and to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each a sum
equal to not more than one-half of 1 percent thereof; and (2)
to Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, each a
sum equal to not more than one-fourth of 1 percent thereof:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall apportion the
remaining amount in the following manner: (1) one-third of
which is based on the ratio to which the land area of such
State bears to the total land area of all such States; and
(2) two-thirds of which is based on the ratio to which the
population of such State bears to the total population of all
such States: Provided further, That the amounts apportioned
under this heading shall be adjusted equitably so that no
State shall be apportioned a sum which is less than 1 percent
of the amount available for apportionment under this heading
for any fiscal year or more than 5 percent of such amount:
Provided further, That the Federal share of grants shall not
exceed 50 percent of the total costs of such projects:
Provided further, That the non-Federal share of such projects
may not be derived from Federal grant programs.
administrative provisions
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service may carry out
the operations of Service programs by direct expenditure,
contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable
agreements with public and private entities. Appropriations
and funds available to the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service shall be available for repair of damage to public
roads within and adjacent to reservation areas caused by
operations of the Service; options for the purchase of land
at not to exceed $1 for each option; facilities incident to
such public recreational uses on conservation areas as are
consistent with their primary purpose; and the maintenance
and improvement of aquaria, buildings, and other facilities
under the jurisdiction of the Service and to which the United
States has title, and which are used pursuant to law in
connection with management, and investigation of fish and
wildlife resources: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C.
501, the Service may, under cooperative cost sharing and
partnership arrangements authorized by law, procure printing
services from cooperators in connection with jointly produced
publications for which the cooperators share at least one-
half the cost of printing either in cash or services and the
Service determines the cooperator is capable of meeting
accepted quality standards: Provided further, That the
Service may accept donated aircraft as replacements for
existing aircraft.
National Park Service
operation of the national park system
For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and
maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the
National Park Service and for the general administration of
the National Park Service, $2,240,152,000, of which
$9,832,000 for planning and interagency coordination in
support of Everglades restoration and $97,883,000 for
maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation projects for
constructed assets, operation of the National Park Service
automated facility management software system, and
comprehensive facility condition assessments shall remain
available until September 30, 2013.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 14, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $8,408,000)''.
Page 14, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $8,408,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R.
2584, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2012. The amendment is bipartisan and is supported
by the Congressional National Heritage Caucus and the 49 National
Heritage Areas across our country.
The amendment is straightforward and modest. The amendment restores
the National Heritage Area program within the National Park Service to
the fiscal year 2010 funding levels. This amount is constant with the
amount approved by Congress for the past several years. To pay for this
increase, the amendment shifts $8,408,000 away from the Office of the
National Parks Service account.
From Alaska to Florida, the National Heritage Areas are the most
effective public-private partnerships for resource conservation and
heritage tourism supported by the Federal Government. While each of the
49 National Heritage Areas currently in existence are authorized to
receive $1 million in annual support through the Department of
Interior, the National Heritage Area program has only been funded
between $15 million and $18 million over the past 5 years by Congress,
despite their success in revitalizing communities and conserving
naturally significant resources with only modest Federal support.
These public-private partnerships are perhaps the most cost-effective
and efficient programs within the Department of Interior. Matching
every dollar of Federal support with $5.50 of other public and private
funding, National Heritage Areas are clearly a high-yield investment of
Federal resources.
To be clear, that investment results in over $100 million of economic
activity. During a time when our economy is so fragile, we must support
these programs that have a proven record of economic benefit. National
Heritage Areas have such a proven record of fostering job creation and
advancing economic, cultural, historic, environmental, and community
development. In addition to creating jobs, National Heritage Areas
generate valuable revenue for local governments and sustain communities
through revitalization and heritage tourism.
More specifically, in my district, a recent study released last year
by my local heritage area, the Erie Canalway Heritage Corridor, found
that visitors to heritage sites in the eastern part of the corridor--
found that nearly 1 million people visit heritage sites each year,
generating some $38 million sales in local businesses, supporting 507
local jobs.
We must preserve sites that are historically significant. Doing so
will increase community spirit as well as generate much-needed tourism
dollars. A recent United States Cultural and Heritage Tourism Marketing
Council and United States Department of Commerce study revealed that
cultural heritage travelers contribute more than $192 billion annually
to our United States economy. I would point out also that this tool,
this opportunity for heritage areas enables given regions to have a
stronger sense of marketing tools. They are able to promote a stronger
sense of place and a much more dynamic bit of destination. That is a
tool in the economic recovery toolkit that is tremendously valuable and
important to these given host regions.
I want to thank Representative Dent of Pennsylvania for offering this
amendment with me today. He is the cochair of the National Heritage
Area Caucus in the House, and he and his staff have been a pleasure to
work with on this amendment. I also need to thank the ranking member on
the committee, Mr. Dicks, and our ranker of the subcommittee,
Representative Moran. They have been invaluable in their support in my
effort for this amendment.
Understanding today's difficult budgetary climate, I want to remind
everyone that this amount is equal to the total appropriation for the
program in the previous fiscal year and reflects the minimum level of
support National Heritage Areas need to remain successful. I hope my
colleagues will consider joining Mr. Dent and myself in supporting this
modest funding level for a vitally important program.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the Tonko amendment.
Mr. Tonko and I have offered this amendment for consideration by the
House.
[[Page H5563]]
We are the cochairs of the Heritage Corridor Caucus. I represent the
areas of the Delaware-Lehigh Heritage Corridor as well as the
Schuylkill Valley Corridor in eastern Pennsylvania, and we have seen a
great deal of positive activity as a result of these heritage areas.
Specifically, as Mr. Tonko conveyed, a great deal of tourism activity,
recreational opportunities, as well as economic development occurs as a
result of this. Also, significant community development activities have
been the result of our efforts and investment in these heritage areas.
Obviously money is very tight, and this program is taking about a 50
percent reduction under the underlying bill. The amendment before us
will simply restore about $8.4 million to the heritage area, to the
heritage partnership program; and we'll be taking that money,
substituting it from the National Park Service, where we believe they
have sufficient funds to operate.
I support the underlying legislation. I know Chairman Simpson has put
a lot of effort into this. I think he has really done a great deal,
given the numbers he has had to work with. So I do support the
underlying bill. But I think that this amendment strikes a proper
balance and preserves and protects these heritage areas that are making
a real impact across the country.
I guess there are 49 of these heritage areas currently in existence,
and most of them, I believe, are receiving under $1 million of support
through the Interior Department. So I just think this is a program that
is worthy of our support. We're just simply, in these tough economic
times, trying to bring this program back to neutral. I know the
administration did not, in their budget proposal, cut this program as
well. But I think this might be one way this amendment could help us
bring this program back to a level that will be sufficient in
supporting these heritage areas.
Again, as was stated by Mr. Tonko, these communities are benefiting.
We are seeing so much tourist activity. We are seeing increased
recreational opportunities. I know in my community, we are all of a
sudden doing things on our rivers and discovering our rivers and the
natural beauty of them that many of us had not really noticed before,
and it's really as a result of this. Again, it brought the rivers back
to life, economic life, community life, and it has become really, once
again, the center of our existence. And a lot of this would not have
been possible but for the efforts of these heritage areas. So, again, I
rise in support of the Tonko-Dent amendment and would urge the House to
adopt this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want our side to go on record in support
of what Mr. Tonko and Mr. Dent are proposing. We have worked with them
on this amendment.
This is the kind of program that really ought to have unanimous
support in the House. I mean, we're talking about very small amounts of
money that are distributed throughout the country; oftentimes $150,000;
sometimes it gets up to $700,000. But they are relatively small amounts
of money.
{time} 2150
And what they do is to bring local community leaders together. Local
communities love it and, of course, it draws tourism. It gets into the
newspaper, oftentimes into metropolitan newspapers suggesting this is a
terrific day trip for families to go on. They follow the Heritage
Trail.
It has that kind of national recognition and credibility that only
the Federal Government oftentimes can provide to a National Heritage
Area, because many people claim it. But when the National Heritage
Program identifies it as one of the true assets of our country and
places that should be protected and preserved and explained to the
public, then more people come. And it generates jobs; it generates
economic activity.
Mr. Wolf just put in an authorization. He probably won't get the full
amount of money that's authorized, but it will get some for the Civil
War Battlefield Crossroads Trail, and that's drawing people up with the
sesquicentennial of the Civil War.
All over the country. The Hudson River, there was a gentleman on the
other side that opposed it when Mr. Hinchey put it in, had it
designated. And then when he saw how successful it was, he said, Let's
get my part of the Hudson River included.
This is a really good program. It was funded at about $17 million, 50
percent cut though. What are we doing? Talk about being penny-wise and
pound-foolish, really. A 50 percent cut in it. It hurts the economies
of any number of areas around the country.
So we think that this is a very reasonable amendment, and we
congratulate the caucus for coming forward and suggesting that the
money be restored, and we hope that it will be.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. First, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and
the gentleman from New York for their amendment. I'm sympathetic to
what they're trying to do and the work that they do in the National
Heritage Caucus, and it's important work. But I rise in reluctant
opposition to the amendment.
While I'm sympathetic to the intent of the amendment and the
increased funding for the National Heritage Areas, I'm concerned that
the offset would take funds away from the account providing funds for
operations of our national parks across the country.
One of our goals in this bill was to provide sufficient funding for
park operations so that every Park Service unit in the country would be
open for business next year, without the threat of layoffs or furloughs
for full-time or seasonal employees. My fear is that reducing this
account by $8.8 million would undermine the operation of our national
parks.
Let me also point out that, while the amount in the bill is reduced
from the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, the National Heritage Areas
are funded in the bill at the amount requested by the President's
budget. These National Heritage Areas are supposed to become self-
sufficient, and the problem is we're going to see that when that
doesn't happen, the funding request from the President is going to not
be in their budget and, consequently, there's not going to be any money
for these National Heritage Areas requested by the administration.
We funded this at the President's level. I appreciate what the
gentlemen are trying to do. I support the National Heritage Areas
program, but I, because of the offset, reluctantly oppose this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Amash
Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 14, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $2,206,000)''.
Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,206,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, did you know the Federal Government
subsidizes the Goo Goo Dolls, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and the Gipsy Kings? What
about the Culture Shock East Coast Dance Concert?
Well, it does.
My amendment to H.R. 2584 will reduce the deficit, save taxpayer
dollars, and stop subsidies to bands, including the Beach Boys. This
amendment will reduce the deficit by $2.2 million by transferring
funding from the National Capital Area Performing Arts program to the
spending reduction account.
The National Capital Area Performing Arts program provides free
[[Page H5564]]
concerts and subsidized performances in and around Washington, DC, by
paying for ushers, performers, lighting and other performance-related
costs. The program funds venues like Carter Barron Amphitheater in DC.
Even the National Park Service, which administers the program, has
recommended its elimination, saying it distracts the Park Service from
performing its core functions.
My amendment is simple. It will transfer all of the program's $2.2
million in funding to the spending reduction account. I like the Beach
Boys as much as the next person, but that doesn't mean we should force
taxpayers to subsidize my ticket if I go to their concert.
Don't break taxpayers' trust. I urge my colleagues to support this
commonsense amendment to prevent the wasteful spending of taxpayer
dollars on niche entertainment programs in the Washington, DC, area.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. First of all, I'm not sure why you want the Beach Boys to
be the issue here. We were just discussing Mr. Watt's tenure as
Secretary of the Interior. That was not so successful when he came
after the Beach Boys.
But be that as it may, what we're really talking about here are a
number of nonprofit organizations, and these are national memorials.
Ford's Theater, Wolf Trap. I guess because the Beach Boys performed at
Wolf Trap they are an issue. Actually, I would recommend to the
gentleman that he watch them perform. I guess it's more my age than
yours that can relate to them, but it was a pretty good performance.
But I digress.
We're talking about Ford's Theater, Wolf Trap, Carter Barron, all
part of the National Park System. The Kennedy Center is a national
memorial. These are performing arts right here on the Capitol grounds
as well.
Now we're talking about nationally significant sites, and the
performances that occur, in fact, are part of the mission of these
sites. They were authorized for members of the public, the taxpaying
public, to come to a nonprofit venue and, in fact, be entertained. The
national parks do that. They entertain the public that pays for them,
sometimes by seeing iconic sites, sometimes by hiking and camping,
sometimes it's by performances. So the National Park Service is in
keeping with its mission to interpret the purpose of these national
sites.
These performances are seen by citizens, in fact, all over the
country. Many people who visit our Nation's Capitol attend these
performances as part of their trip to the District of Columbia. And the
crowds that fill the West Lawn of the Capitol on Memorial Day and the
Fourth of July are testament to the public's support for this program.
In fact, if you were there on Memorial Day or the Fourth of July and
turned to see the crowd, there are people as far as the eye can see,
people representative of this vast, diverse country, and every single
one of them had a smile on their face. Every single one of them was
delighted, overjoyed that they were able to participate and appreciate
and enjoy the performance that was put on on the Fourth of July and
Memorial Day. That's part of our Nation's heritage. It's a proud part.
This amendment would do real harm to programs enjoyed by millions of
Americans.
I would also suggest that this line item has already suffered a
virtually devastating cut. It was funded at about $10 million. It's
been cut to about $2 million. I mean, it's just barely hanging on. And
now this amendment would eliminate it?
{time} 2200
I mean, think about this. I know that some of the Members, at least
as many Members of the majority side as the minority side, were there
for the Memorial Day concert. I saw them. I was sitting with them. The
chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the chairmen of the
subcommittees, the leadership of the House and Senate were all there
honoring our troops.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Colin Powell was there to thank all of the troops that had
served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many of the wounded warriors were
there as well.
Mr. MORAN. Not only were they there but Team 6 that had just dealt
with Osama bin Laden in a fairly definitive manner, SEAL Team 6 was
there. We couldn't identify them, but we all applauded for them, and
they couldn't have been more overjoyed.
The gentleman makes a very good point. Colin Powell was basically the
master of ceremonies.
Now, this is what we want to eliminate? This is what is such a threat
to our budget as taking so much money? It's not taking that much money,
and whatever money it's taking, it's giving back far more in return.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I hope we can
defeat this unneeded amendment.
Mr. MORAN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
I agree with the words that were spoken by the gentlemen from Virginia
and from Washington.
In these tough economic times, it is important that we keep some
things that are very important, I think, to the American people. If you
look at the programs that have been put on by the Capitol concerts on
the Fourth of July and on Memorial Day and what they've done for our
troops and for really the spirit of America, I think is vitally
important. They do things at Ford's Theater and other places around
this country.
We have to remember: this is our Nation's Capital. The things they do
here are important. They're important for our country, not just for
this small piece of land we call Washington, DC. So I hope that Members
on both sides of the aisle would recognize the importance of these
programs and the work they do and the importance that they have for the
American people and would reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
national recreation and preservation
For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs,
natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership
programs, environmental compliance and review, international
park affairs, and grant administration, not otherwise
provided for, $49,363,000.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton
Ms. NORTON. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 14, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $300,000)(increased by $300,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would designate $300,000 from
the National Recreation and Preservation Account for a National Park
Service study of whether applying the same rules and regulations to all
parks maximizes the highest and best use of individual parks, for the
system as a whole, and for Americans who use our parks.
This is but a study, and it would require the National Park Service
to look at how NPS, cities, counties and States, as well as other
countries, manage their diverse parks and to suggest, from the
available best practices, appropriate ways to help NPS meet the needs
of individual communities within the basic uniformity necessary to
operate a national system of parks. Today, the NPS applies the same
rules and regulations to all its parks, regardless
[[Page H5565]]
of location, from the almost 1200-square-mile Yosemite National Park to
small urban parks on street corners.
I support a unified national park system, but NPS should develop
flexible standards that take into account the unique circumstances and
population of individual parks and changing conditions throughout the
country in keeping with congressional recognition of both conservation
and recreation as primary reasons for our parks. The neighborhood parks
in the District of Columbia, for example, serve a very different
function from Yellowstone. Dupont Circle Park is a central urban
community meeting place in the District, not a place for enjoying the
greenery of nature, as much as we love our parks for that purpose. On
any given day, you will find people playing chess, sunbathing, playing
Frisbee or passing out fliers.
Madam Chair, I have come to the floor because I have tried,
unsuccessfully, to get the Park Service to make small adaptations
perfectly compatible with their mission to allow for the people in the
parks in my own district, and I am certain that other Members have
found similar roadblocks. For example, the Park Service won't allow
bike share stations on or near Federal parks, and they are not
permitting the three golf courses in the District of Columbia to be run
as a public-private partnership. Both of these examples have run into
the same one-size-fits-all concession concerns.
Yet the National Park Service could negotiate concession agreements
that accommodate bike share in the future; and an inflexibility in Park
Service insistence on concession contracts that do not allow capital
investment resulting in an astonishing deterioration of invaluable
capital-intensive golf courses in the District could give way to other
approaches, such as public-private partnerships operating under long-
term leases that would allow private funding to assist the Park Service
with upgrading and maintaining these public assets with Congress, which
the taxpayers can't possibly by themselves maintain.
Inflexible, one-size-fits-all policies keep Americans from using our
parks for compatible purposes, such as bike stations, or, worse,
condemn unique iconic resources to inevitable decline.
Madam Chairman, my amendment is of the lowest possible cost. It is
for a study to tell us what to do, to tell the Park Service what to do,
to allow people throughout this country who live in very different
locations and have to use our parks in very different ways just how
this must be done compatible with a uniform National Park Service.
I ask that my amendment be approved.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I think we have a problem in the
amendment, itself, because it would specifically designate a study that
might be interpreted as some type of earmark, which I don't think it
really is.
I like what the gentlelady is trying to do. I think it's important. I
think we ought to have a consideration by the Park Service of whether
they are sufficiently flexible in dealing with local communities.
{time} 2210
There was a recent article written in The Washington Post talking
about some of the opportunities that exist to bring the community into
local parks, urban parks, where far more people could be involved,
people could participate, people could enhance the enjoyment of things
that take place. For example, if there is a large soccer event at a
park that is controlled by the National Park Service, you could bring
the whole community in to watch it on a large screen.
There is no question but that we could find ways to discourage
automobiles and encourage bikes--have bike sharing, for example, on The
National Mall so that people could rent bikes and bike around The Mall.
It wouldn't cause any environmental damage; in fact, it would preserve
some of the lawn on our National Mall. Some people would enjoy it more
and they would get a little exercise. Just all kinds of ideas that
might be proposed by communities.
I remember being out in Washington State, San Juan Island. This was a
little place. It's a national park because there was a bizarre military
conflict that occurred out there. I won't go into the whole military
conflict, but the people there love the bunny rabbits that are there.
Well, the Park Service decided that they're really not a native
species, there are too many of them, so the Park Service decided
they're going to use the method they use at other places. First of all,
they thought they would gas them, which the community was shocked by.
Then they decided, well, we'll shoot them and so on, reduce the
population. You know, if they had just sat down with members of the
community, they could have figured out how to keep these bunnies that
the community wanted, avoid a whole lot of negative attitude with
regard to the Park Service, and in fact enhance the enjoyment of this
little national park at San Juan.
I'm sure there are examples all over the country, in fact, all over
the world, because the National Park Service has any number of parks
outside the physical boundaries of our North American continent. We've
got the Virgin Islands and so on.
I don't know what the local neighborhoods might suggest, but I do
know that they have a lot of good ideas, ideas that the National Park
Service ought to consider thoughtfully. And some will be rejected, but
some might well be accepted. But the process of that kind of community
input, it seems to me, would generate even more support for the
National Park Service.
It's a great institution. Our parks are iconic assets to our Nation.
But I do think that the local community could enjoy them more and
appreciate the National Park Service's role more if we had the kind of
dialogue with the Park Service that Ms. Norton is suggesting.
I don't see any harm in having that kind of study. I think we ought
to be able to work with the gentlelady, maybe put together some report
language, at least a letter to the head of the National Park Service
suggesting that this is an area that the Congress itself, in a
bipartisan way, thinks ought to be explored.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I would say that I think the gentleman has stated the
case as it is. It is an earmark, and that's a whole other story we can
talk about.
But I agree with what the gentlelady is trying to do here. And I will
tell you that both the ranking member and I will work with the
gentlelady from the District of Columbia to try to resolve this in
conference so that we can do what you're trying to accomplish here
because I think it is important.
Mr. MORAN. The gentlelady is smiling, so I will accept her
concurrence. We will move forward in that fashion if the gentlelady
wouldn't mind withdrawing her amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. I appreciate the remarks of the chairman and the ranking
member. In light of those remarks and their generosity, I do withdraw
my amendment and will work with them to try to implement it in other
ways.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
historic preservation fund
For expenses necessary in carrying out the National
Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470), and the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-333), $49,500,000, to be derived from the Historic
Preservation Fund and to remain available until September 30,
2013.
construction
For construction, improvements, repair, or replacement of
physical facilities, including modifications authorized by
section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and
Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-8), $152,121,000, to
remain available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Carter
Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 15, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000 )''.
[[Page H5566]]
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, this is an amendment that was put
together to ensure that the Interior Department prioritize its efforts
to construct a joint law enforcement center in national parks and
recreation areas along the southern border of the United States with
available funds.
National Park lands on our southern border have experienced a
gigantic increase in the amount of illegal activity that has crossed
into our park lands. The reason for this is very similar to grabbing a
bean bag and squeezing it; it always bulges out at some point. As we
start tightening our southern border with a lot of the efforts that
have been bipartisan efforts by this Congress, it causes the people who
are wanting to have illegal activity to move farther and farther out
into the rural areas and into the unoccupied areas, and they're moving
into our national parks.
Joint law enforcement centers will be available to serve the National
Park Service law enforcement agency, the United States Customs and
Border Patrol, possibly even the Coast Guard when they're on the river
at that border, and other Federal, State, or local law enforcement
agencies as may be needed.
This is something that has been discussed; it has been agreed upon;
it has been approved. Additional rangers and Border Patrol officers
have been added to our border and been assigned and are being
compensated for working down there, but they lack serious facilities
within which to be able to operate.
One example is when we sent a group down to take a look at what other
needs might be on our southern border, we ran across eight Border
Patrol officers that were working in a temporary facility that was 288
square feet. This is absolutely inadequate. And if they were working in
conjunction with the Park Service, there was no place for the Park
Service to even stand in the building.
The purpose of this amendment is to dedicate $1 million to the
National Park Service construction funds for FY 2012 to jump-start the
interagency project already agreed upon between the Departments of
Interior and Homeland Security. We are confident that with this shot in
the arm we will be able to get these centers, as they may be available,
constructed.
And it's not just a place for these folks to work; but if you take a
look at most of our southern border from all the way across, you will
see that, if there is no place to hold prisoners when they're captured
doing illegal activities, then you have to transport them. In many
instances, this transportation is 150 miles to a place where they can
be secured. And these would also allow at least for temporary detention
so that we wouldn't have Border Patrol officers running back and forth
150 miles every time there's a detention needed.
This is a facility that really will aid what we've already provided,
which is personnel to help defend our southern border. It is budget
neutral, and I would respectfully request that this be adopted.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. We are prepared on this side to accept the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2220
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I am not necessarily rising to oppose this, but to point
out some deficiencies in the amendment itself. The claim is that the
purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the National Park Service
prioritizes its construction of law enforcement centers on national
park lands, on the southern border in coordination with the Department
of Homeland Security.
First of all, there is some feeling that national parks not have
basically prison sites on them because what happens is that when people
are rounded up by the Border Patrol, they are taken to these law
enforcement centers and detained until they--I don't know whether they
are adjudicated or not, but then eventually they are moved to another
place. But they are temporarily detained at these law enforcement
centers, and there is some feeling that national parks are not an
appropriate location for that purpose.
But the very wording of the amendment doesn't really do that. It
increases money, then it decreases the same amount of money. If it did
it, it would be an earmark. And, of course, we don't do earmarks in
this bill.
So as I say, I don't rise in opposition because I'm not sure what the
amendment does, but I think it is helpful to be informed as to what it
doesn't do.
Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman.
It is my understanding that this joint agreement, as we saw the
acceleration of park rangers, and you're right, quite honestly, I don't
think anywhere on the southern border people want illegal activity to
be going on on our recreational areas, wherever they might be located.
And nobody is trying to warehouse prisoners in a national park.
It is hard to envision this facility, but it would be a facility, I
would assume, sort of like some of the facilities you see in other
locations where people are operating out of it, but they have a
temporary detention holding cell.
This would be strictly--and maybe I can explain it by pointing out
one of the problems we have on the border with the transportation of
our prisoners. And, in fact, one of the things that we used our
National Guard for when we did have to transfer prisoners when they
were working on the border, there always has to be someone having this
prisoner in custody. Whatever the accused crime is, they have to be in
custody.
When we had limited resources, we bumped them up. But they take a
trained border patrolman whose duty it is to protect our border, if
he's the only person available, and he has to transport that prisoner
because there's no facility to temporarily hold him in. And when I say
``temporarily,'' it could be hours or maybe even minutes until someone
can come along to help transport. If he's alone, then he has to
transport him 150 miles. That's 3 hours that officer is off his post to
make the transport.
So that's a little, tiny part for the purpose of this facility. This
facility is really for a working space for those resources that we have
already beefed up and put down on the border, and both Interior and
Homeland have made agreements and really it is kind of just a kick to
get them started. I believe we will see funding come from both sources
to finish the project.
Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time, I understand that the gentleman wants
to make that point. I understand the challenges that are faced in the
area that he represents.
I was similarly confused, though, when there was a substantial
amendment to strip funding for environmental mitigation between the
Homeland Security and Interior Departments that the gentleman
previously suggested and, I think, was successful in doing. So I don't
know, it's not an area that I'm particularly familiar with. I am
becoming more familiar with it; but, again, I'm not sure that this
amendment does anything other than draw attention to the issue.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica
Mr. MICA. I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, we don't have a copy of the gentleman's
amendment, and it is usually the protocol to give one to the minority.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 15, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $2,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MICA. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I am sorry the minority didn't
have a copy of this fine amendment. It was modified slightly from the
original
[[Page H5567]]
submission to comply with the requirements of the Parliamentarian to be
in order.
Let me say at this late hour I won't take too much time. I am from
the authorizing side, and it's always good to come here and hear the
difficulties that the appropriators have in trying to make choices, and
tonight is about making choices.
I do have to compliment Mr. Simpson, the chair of the subcommittee;
Mr. Hastings, the chair of the full committee; and the ranking members,
Mr. Moran and Mr. Dicks, for their efforts, being up late at night and
making these difficult choices in some very tough economic times.
Normally, I wouldn't come here and tell you what to do; but, again,
coming from a State that has some 11 parks and preserves and national
monuments, I have a great interest in some of these accounts.
Now, we all have to set priorities; and as I said, these are
difficult times. The Department of the Interior, I noticed, had, I
guess, in 2010 just under $11 billion that's being cut to $9.8 billion,
a 7 percent reduction. People ask me about transportation projects.
Whether it is FAA, on transportation, I'm reducing some of the accounts
by 30 percent in authorization, so I know the difficulty you're facing.
Now, I also looked at some of the other accounts here. EPA, I think
folks would be shocked to find EPA has $7.1 billion in this bill.
That's quite a bit to operate that agency. Well, the National Park
Service has $2.5 billion. I think if you ask people on the street where
would you put the dollars, I think they would like to see something
very tangible. They appreciate their national parks. And, again, you
have difficult priorities.
My amendment is simple. It takes $2 million out of EPA's account for
management programs, and it transfers it to the National Park
Construction Account.
Now, this is not going to resolve a $10 billion backlog in
maintenance and construction projects. I can give you examples. Just a
few miles from here, Harpers Ferry, they have a $59 million deferred
maintenance account pending. Florida, with its 11 parks and preserves
and national monuments, has a $4 million backlog. And, again, my
amendment won't solve even Florida's problem.
{time} 2230
Even closer to home in my district--and I want to thank again the
chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and
staff for working with me--we are attempting, after authorization in
2004, to finally finish a visitors center. I want to make certain that
the Castillo San Marco Visitor Center and the backlog of some of
Florida's 11 parks and national monuments, their maintenance and some
of their construction costs, that we have those funds available. So
that's why I offered this amendment.
Again, I know you have difficult choices. This won't resolve the
pending needs either in the State of Florida or nationally. That being
said, and also stating my position and intent, and knowing that the
committee and I know Mr. Simpson is anxious to work with me and is
committed to work with me, Mr. Hastings and staff, and in the interest
of time and also not pressing the issue beyond my ability to retain my
friendship and strong working relationship, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
land and water conservation fund
(rescission)
The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2012 by 16
U.S.C. 460l-10a is hereby rescinded.
land acquisition and state assistance
For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in
accordance with the statutory authority applicable to the
National Park Service, $18,294,000, to be derived from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund and to remain available
until expended, of which $2,794,000 is for the State
assistance program and of which $2,000,000 shall be for the
American Battlefield Protection Program grants as authorized
by section 7301 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-11).
administrative provisions
(including transfer of funds)
In addition to other uses set forth in section 407(d) of
Public Law 105-391, franchise fees credited to a sub-account
shall be available for expenditure by the Secretary, without
further appropriation, for use at any unit within the
National Park System to extinguish or reduce liability for
Possessory Interest or leasehold surrender interest. Such
funds may only be used for this purpose to the extent that
the benefiting unit anticipated franchise fee receipts over
the term of the contract at that unit exceed the amount of
funds used to extinguish or reduce liability. Franchise fees
at the benefiting unit shall be credited to the sub-account
of the originating unit over a period not to exceed the term
of a single contract at the benefiting unit, in the amount of
funds so expended to extinguish or reduce liability.
National Park Service funds may be transferred to the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation, for purposes authorized under section 204 of
title 23, United States Code. Transfers may include a
reasonable amount for FHWA administrative support costs.
United States Geological Survey
surveys, investigations, and research
For expenses necessary for the United States Geological
Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research
covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the
mineral and water resources of the United States, its
territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by
43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their
mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to
power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30
U.S.C. 641); conduct inquiries into the economic conditions
affecting mining and materials processing industries (30
U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and related
purposes as authorized by law; and to publish and disseminate
data relative to the foregoing activities; $1,053,552,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2013, of which
$65,561,000 shall be available only for cooperation with
States or municipalities for water resources investigations:
Provided, That none of the funds provided for the ecosystem
research activity shall be used to conduct new surveys on
private property, unless specifically authorized in writing
by the property owner: Provided further, That no part of this
appropriation shall be used to pay more than one-half the
cost of topographic mapping or water resources data
collection and investigations carried on in cooperation with
States and municipalities.
administrative provisions
From within the amount appropriated for activities of the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) such sums as are
necessary shall be available for reimbursement to the General
Services Administration for security guard services;
contracting for the furnishing of topographic maps and for
the making of geophysical or other specialized surveys when
it is administratively determined that such procedures are in
the public interest; construction and maintenance of
necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities; acquisition
of lands for gauging stations and observation wells; expenses
of the United States National Committee on Geology; and
payment of compensation and expenses of persons on the rolls
of the USGS duly appointed to represent the United States in
the negotiation and administration of interstate compacts:
Provided, That activities funded by appropriations herein
made may be accomplished through the use of contracts,
grants, or cooperative agreements as defined in section 6302
of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That the
United States Geological Survey may enter into contracts or
cooperative agreements directly with individuals or
indirectly with institutions or nonprofit organizations,
without regard to 41 U.S.C. 5, for the temporary or
intermittent services of students or recent graduates, who
shall be considered employees for the purpose of chapters 57
and 81 of title 5, United States Code, relating to
compensation for travel and work injuries, and chapter 171 of
title 28, United States Code, relating to tort claims, but
shall not be considered to be Federal employees for any other
purposes.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
ocean energy management
For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and
environmental studies and regulation of industry operations,
as authorized by law; for enforcing laws and regulations
applicable to oil, gas, and other minerals leases, permits,
licenses and operating contracts; for energy-related or other
authorized marine-related purposes on the Outer Continental
Shelf; and for matching grants or cooperative agreements,
$138,605,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013;
and an amount not to exceed $160,163,000, to be credited to
this appropriation and to remain available until expended,
from additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates
in effect on August 5, 1993, and from cost recovery fees:
Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, in fiscal year
2012, such amounts as are assessed under 31 U.S.C. 9701 shall
be collected and credited to this account and
[[Page H5568]]
shall be available until expended for necessary expenses:
Provided further, That to the extent $160,163,000 in addition
to receipts are not realized from the sources of receipts
stated above, the amount needed to reach $160,163,000 shall
be credited to this appropriation from receipts resulting
from rental rates for Outer Continental Shelf leases in
effect before August 5, 1993: Provided further, That for
fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter, the term
``qualified Outer Continental Shelf revenues'', as defined in
section 102(9)(A) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act
of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 109-432; 43
U.S.C. note), shall include only the portion of rental
revenues that would have been collected at the rental rates
in effect before August 5, 1993: Provided further, That not
to exceed $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses
related to promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup
activities.
For an additional amount, $10,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That section 115 of the Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010 (division A of Public Law 111-88;
123 Stat. 2928) shall apply for fiscal year 2012, and in such
application ``2012'' shall be substituted for ``2010'':
Provided further, That such amount shall be derived from
receipts resulting from such application: Provided further,
That to the extent that such amount is not received by the
United States as a result of such application, the amount
needed to reach $10,000,000 shall be credited to this
appropriation from receipts resulting from rental rates for
Outer Continental Shelf leases in effect before August 5,
1993.
oil spill research
For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016,
title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII,
section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $14,923,000,
which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund, to remain available until expended.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
regulation and technology
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public
Law 95-87, as amended, $123,050,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2013: Provided, That appropriations for
the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may
provide for the travel and per diem expenses of State and
tribal personnel attending Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement sponsored training: Provided
further, That, in fiscal year 2012, up to $40,000 collected
by the Office of Surface Mining from permit fees pursuant to
section 507 of Public Law 95-87 (30 U.S.C. 1257) shall be
credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2012 appropriation estimated at
not more than $123,010,000: Provided further, That, in
subsequent fiscal years, all amounts collected by the Office
of Surface Mining from permit fees pursuant to section 507 of
Public Law 95-87 (30 U.S.C. 1257) shall be credited to this
account as discretionary offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended.
abandoned mine reclamation fund
For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87,
as amended, $27,443,000, to be derived from receipts of the
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund and to remain available until
expended: Provided, That pursuant to Public Law 97-365, the
Department of the Interior is authorized to use up to 20
percent from the recovery of the delinquent debt owed to the
United States Government to pay for contracts to collect
these debts: Provided further, That amounts provided under
this heading may be used for the travel and per diem expenses
of State and tribal personnel attending Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement sponsored training.
administrative provision
With funds available for the Technical Innovation and
Professional Services program in this Act, the Secretary may
transfer title for computer hardware, software and other
technical equipment to State and tribal regulatory and
reclamation programs.
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education
operation of indian programs
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian
programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of
November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450 et seq.), as amended, the Education Amendments of 1978
(25 U.S.C. 2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amended,
$2,333,690,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013,
except as otherwise provided herein; of which not to exceed
$8,500 may be for official reception and representation
expenses; and of which not to exceed $74,911,000 shall be for
welfare assistance payments, except that, in cases of
designated Federal disasters, the Secretary may exceed such
cap, from the amounts provided herein, to provide for
disaster relief to Indian communities affected by the
disaster; and of which, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, including but not limited to the Indian Self-
Determination Act of 1975, as amended, not to exceed
$228,000,000 shall be available for payments for contract
support costs associated with ongoing contracts, grants,
compacts, or annual funding agreements entered into with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs prior to or during fiscal year 2012,
as authorized by such Act, except that tribes and tribal
organizations may use their tribal priority allocations for
unmet contract support costs of ongoing contracts, grants, or
compacts, or annual funding agreements and for unmet welfare
assistance costs; and of which not to exceed $584,369,000 for
school operations costs of Bureau-funded schools and other
education programs shall become available on July 1, 2012,
and shall remain available until September 30, 2013; and of
which not to exceed $48,049,000 shall remain available until
expended for housing improvement, road maintenance, attorney
fees, litigation support, the Indian Self-Determination Fund,
land records improvement, and the Navajo-Hopi Settlement
Program: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, including but not limited to the Indian Self-
Determination Act of 1975, as amended, and 25 U.S.C. 2008,
not to exceed $46,373,000 within and only from such amounts
made available for school operations shall be available for
administrative cost grants associated with ongoing grants
entered into with the Bureau prior to or during fiscal year
2011 for the operation of Bureau-funded schools, and up to
$500,000 within and only from such amounts made available for
administrative cost grants shall be available for the
transitional costs of initial administrative cost grants to
grantees that assume operation on or after July 1, 2011, of
Bureau-funded schools: Provided further, That any forestry
funds allocated to a tribe which remain unobligated as of
September 30, 2013, may be transferred during fiscal year
2014 to an Indian forest land assistance account established
for the benefit of the holder of the funds within the
holder's trust fund account: Provided further, That any such
unobligated balances not so transferred shall expire on
September 30, 2014: Provided further, That in order to
enhance the safety of Bureau field employees, the Bureau may
use funds to purchase uniforms or other identifying articles
of clothing for personnel.
construction
(including transfer of funds)
For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of
irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other
facilities, including architectural and engineering services
by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands;
and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of
the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law
87-483, $154,992,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the
construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be
transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further,
That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority available
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway
Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program management
costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any funds
provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C.
13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis:
Provided further, That in implementing new construction or
facilities improvement and repair project grants in excess of
$100,000 that are provided to grant schools under Public Law
100-297, as amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use
the Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles
for Assistance Programs contained in part 12 of title 43,
Code of Federal Regulations as the regulatory requirements:
Provided further, That such grants shall not be subject to
section 12.61 of such title; the Secretary and the grantee
shall negotiate and determine a schedule of payments for the
work to be performed: Provided further, That in considering
grant applications, the Secretary shall consider whether such
grantee would be deficient in assuring that the construction
projects conform to applicable building standards and codes
and Federal, tribal, or State health and safety standards as
required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(b), with respect to organizational
and financial management capabilities: Provided further, That
if the Secretary declines a grant application, the Secretary
shall follow the requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2504(f):
Provided further, That any disputes between the Secretary and
any grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the
disputes provision in 25 U.S.C. 2507(e): Provided further,
That in order to ensure timely completion of construction
projects, the Secretary may assume control of a project and
all funds related to the project, if, within 18 months of the
date of enactment of this Act, any grantee receiving funds
appropriated in this Act or in any prior Act has not
completed the planning and design phase of the project and
commenced construction: Provided further, That this
appropriation may be reimbursed from the Office of the
Special Trustee for American Indians appropriation for the
appropriate share of construction costs for space expansion
needed in agency offices to meet trust reform implementation.
indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to
indians
For payments and necessary administrative expenses for
implementation of Indian
[[Page H5569]]
land and water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 99-
264, 100-580, 101-618, 108-447, and 111-11, and for
implementation of other land and water rights settlements,
$32,855,000, to remain available until expended.
indian guaranteed loan program account
For the cost of guaranteed loans and insured loans,
$8,114,000, of which not to exceed $964,000 is for
administrative expenses, as authorized by the Indian
Financing Act of 1974, as amended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize total loan principal, any part of which is to be
guaranteed or insured, not to exceed $85,242,280.
administrative provisions
The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of
Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative
agreements, compacts, and grants, either directly or in
cooperation with States and other organizations.
Notwithstanding 25 U.S.C. 15, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
may contract for services in support of the management,
operation, and maintenance of the Power Division of the San
Carlos Irrigation Project.
Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the
Revolving Fund for Loans Liquidating Account, Indian Loan
Guaranty and Insurance Fund Liquidating Account, Indian
Guaranteed Loan Financing Account, Indian Direct Loan
Financing Account, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
account) shall be available for expenses of exhibits.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office
oversight and Executive Direction and Administrative Services
(except executive direction and administrative services
funding for Tribal Priority Allocations, regional offices,
and facilities operations and maintenance) shall be available
for contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative agreements
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the provisions of the
Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribal Self-Governance
Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
In the event any tribe returns appropriations made
available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, this
action shall not diminish the Federal Government's trust
responsibility to that tribe, or the government-to-government
relationship between the United States and that tribe, or
that tribe's ability to access future appropriations.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
available to the Bureau, other than the amounts provided
herein for assistance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452
et seq., shall be available to support the operation of any
elementary or secondary school in the State of Alaska.
Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for
schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the
schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996.
No funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support
expanded grades for any school or dormitory beyond the grade
structure in place or approved by the Secretary of the
Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as of
October 1, 1995, except that any school or school program
that was closed and removed from the Bureau school system
between 1951 and 1972, and its respective tribe's
relationship with the Federal Government was terminated,
shall be reinstated to the Bureau system and supported at a
level based on its grade structure and average student
enrollment for the 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school
years. Funds made available under this Act may not be used to
establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded school (as that
term is defined in section 1141 of the Education Amendments
of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2021)), except that a charter school that
is in existence on the date of the enactment of this Act and
that has operated at a Bureau-funded school before September
1, 1999, may continue to operate during that period, but only
if the charter school pays to the Bureau a pro rata share of
funds to reimburse the Bureau for the use of the real and
personal property (including buses and vans), the funds of
the charter school are kept separate and apart from Bureau
funds, and the Bureau does not assume any obligation for
charter school programs of the State in which the school is
located if the charter school loses such funding. Employees
of Bureau-funded schools sharing a campus with a charter
school and performing functions related to the charter
school's operation and employees of a charter school shall
not be treated as Federal employees for purposes of chapter
171 of title 28, United States Code.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 31, lines 2 through 10, strike ``Funds made
available'' and all that follows through ``that period, but''
and insert ``A charter school (as that term is defined in
section 1141 of the Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C.
2021)) may operate''.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment. As
currently written, the Department of Interior appropriations bill
states that education ``funds made available under this Act may not be
used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded school.'' My
amendment would allow money appropriated under this bill to be used for
charter schools. Now, the bill grandfathers in charter schools funded
prior to 1999, but bars no new charter schools. The committee report is
silent on this.
As of the 2005 census, children made up 1.4 million of the total of
American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. They, and their
parents, deserve educational choices. Charter schools are semi-
independent schools usually within a State's public education system
that are designed and operated by educators, parents, community
leaders, educational entrepreneurs, and others. As of 2006, a total of
40 States and the District of Columbia have passed charter school laws
allowing this type of school to be part of their system. I see no
reason to deny this opportunity to American Indians.
I believe administrators of such schools may worry about
administrative issues in terms of accounting for students who transfer
between a charter school and a noncharter school and the moneys that
are appropriated. This is sometimes referred to as the ``ownership'' of
the student. But such administrative concerns should not be a basis to
completely abandon this option. Competent administrators at the BIA,
the tribes, and the State educational associations can work out the
transitional issues.
Further, to the extent someone does not like charter schools, so be
it. Don't send your child to one. But we in Congress should not be
picking winners and losers. Charter schools should be an available
choice to those tribes that want them. If a tribe chooses not to offer
a charter school approach, that is its decision. But another tribe may
do so on its own. There's no reason in this appropriation bill to
foreclose this option. We should not impose our personal likes and
dislikes on others.
It is my further belief that allowing the tribes the maximum ability
to choose the best educational program is consistent with self-
determination. Having the right to decide local school decisions is a
part of self-determination, and I don't see why we in Congress should
deny that right. A key part of self-determination is choosing the
manner in which the tribes educate their children. As far back as 1970,
President Nixon addressed this issue that was then emerging, and
stated: ``It is long past time that the Indian policies of the Federal
Government begin to recognize and build upon the capacities and
insights of the Indian people. Both as a matter of justice and as a
matter enlightened social policy, we must begin to act on the basis of
what the Indians themselves have long been telling us. The time has
come to break decisively with the past and create the conditions for a
new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and
Indian decisions.''
{time} 2240
Indeed, that is what Congress did when it passed the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Allowing the tribes
to choose a charter school option makes sense from a self-determination
perspective.
Finally, according to the Center for Education Reform, there are over
5,000 charter schools nationwide. There are examples of charter schools
with spectacular successes and results. I'm sure there are some charter
schools that have failed in their mission. The point here, however, is
about choice and allowing the tribes to decide what educational
opportunities they want to create.
It is well-known that charter schools are schools of choice. Unlike
traditional public schools, students may choose to attend charter
schools, and if those students determine that the school is not serving
their needs, they may choose to leave. It is true that many charter
schools typically have longer schooldays, longer school years and
higher academic and behavioral expectations for their students. For
those
[[Page H5570]]
concerned about the current public educational system, these trends
should be encouraged, but let's allow the tribes to make that choice.
It is Congress' duty to describe and allow such choices as part of
its oversight and application of our treaties with which American
Indian tribal relations are governed. I ask for support of this
amendment and support for Indian self-determination and school choice.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, we don't have any problem with this
amendment. This is kind of new territory in our bill, but I appreciate
the gentleman from Arizona's work on this and his interest in providing
quality education for our Native American brothers and sisters all
across this country. It's a deep concern that I share also, and I look
forward to working with him to make sure that this does what is
intended and that it provides what is necessary for our Indian
population so that they have the advantages that all of us have. I
thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Washington wish to continue
to reserve his point of order?
Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my point of order, but would like to ask a
question of the gentleman from Arizona.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington withdraws his point
of order.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. In your amendment, it says:
funds made available and all that follows through that period--but--
and insert a charter school as that term is defined in section 1141 of
the Education Amendments of 1978.
Would you tell us what that definition is, please.
Mr. GOSAR. We were looking that up, my colleague from Washington. We
don't have that on the laptop at this point of inquiry.
Mr. DICKS. So you have no idea what this amendment means?
Mr. GOSAR. It allows the option for choice of charter schools as
defined as ``charters schools.''
Mr. DICKS. How do you know that if you don't know what the language
is?
Mr. GOSAR. They were grandfathered in up to 1999, but no provisions
were given for that detail past 1999.
Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including
section 113 of title I of appendix C of Public Law 106-113,
if in fiscal year 2003 or 2004 a grantee received indirect
and administrative costs pursuant to a distribution formula
based on section 5(f) of Public Law 101-301, the Secretary
shall continue to distribute indirect and administrative cost
funds to such grantee using the section 5(f) distribution
formula.
Departmental Offices
Office of the Secretary
departmental operations
For necessary expenses for management of the Department of
the Interior, including the collection and disbursement of
royalties, fees, and other mineral revenue proceeds, as
authorized by law, $250,151,000 to remain available until
September 30, 2013; of which not to exceed $15,000 may be for
official reception and representation expenses; and of which
up to $1,000,000 shall be available for workers compensation
payments and unemployment compensation payments associated
with the orderly closure of the United States Bureau of
Mines; and of which $12,112,000 for the Office of Valuation
Services is to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and shall remain available until expended;
and of which $36,000,000 shall remain available until
expended for the purpose of mineral revenue management
activities: Provided, That, for fiscal year 2012, up to
$400,000 of the payments authorized by the Act of October 20,
1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907) may be retained for
administrative expenses of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes
Program: Provided further, That no payment shall be made
pursuant to that Act to otherwise eligible units of local
government if the computed amount of the payment is less than
$100: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, $15,000 under this heading shall be
available for refunds of overpayments in connection with
certain Indian leases in which the Secretary concurred with
the claimed refund due, to pay amounts owed to Indian
allottees or tribes, or to correct prior unrecoverable
erroneous payments: Provided further, That, notwithstanding
the provisions of section 35(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act,
as amended (30 U.S.C. 191(b)), the Secretary shall deduct 2
percent from the amount payable to each State in fiscal year
2012 and deposit the amount deducted to miscellaneous
receipts of the Treasury.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Dold
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $24,700,000)''.
Page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $24,700,000)''.
Page 65, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $24,700,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to restore funding to the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative. This important initiative received steep
cuts in this year's Interior bill. My amendment would simply restore
half of the funding that was cut.
This amendment is part of a two-step process to restore funding to
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. This amendment transfers funds
from the Departmental Offices account to the Environmental Programs and
Management, and it would be accompanied by a subsequent amendment to
increase this funding to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
I do appreciate the support that the Appropriations Committee has
shown the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in the past, and I am
thankful that it does remain a priority within the Geographic Programs
account. However, I do believe it is vitally important to restore some
funding so that we can continue to protect the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes are truly a shared national treasure. As the largest
group of freshwater lakes on Earth, they hold 95 percent of the United
States surface freshwater and are a source of clean drinking water to
over 30 million people. From the beautiful beaches and wide open waters
to the bluffs and dunes, the Great Lakes provide a wide array of
recreational opportunities and are an important part of the physical
landscape and cultural heritage of North America. Furthermore, the
Great Lakes provide transportation for raw materials and finished
goods, all of which create jobs and contribute to a stronger economy.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is an important part of
restoring the health and vitality of our Great Lakes. Certainly, in my
district--the 10th District of Illinois--we want to make sure that the
Great Lakes are taken care of and protected for future generations.
However, the ecosystem is showing signs of serious stress, and action
is now required to restore, rehabilitate and make our Great Lakes
better. As a scoutmaster, I teach the Boy Scouts the principles of
leaving areas better than when we found them.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is an important avenue by
which to clean up our lakes and restore them to their natural beauty so
that they can remain the crown jewel for generations to come; but in
order to preserve our Great Lakes, we need the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative to help tackle the challenges facing this natural treasure.
First, toxic substances are polluting the water, and this initiative
helps with cleanup and pollution prevention. Also, invasive species are
causing severe ecological stress on the lakes, and the initiative
institutes a zero tolerance policy so that species such as the Asian
carp cannot become fully established in the Great Lakes. Third, we must
ensure that the pollution does not impair water quality. Finally, the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative works to restore degraded wetlands
and wildlife habitats.
Earlier this year, I, along with Congressman Lipinski, introduced the
Great Lakes Water Protection Act, which would protect Lake Michigan and
the rest of the Great Lakes from wastewater discharges by prohibiting
[[Page H5571]]
publicly owned treatment works from intentionally diverting wastewater
systems to bypass any portion of the treatment facility.
This is just one more step my colleagues and I in the Great Lakes
region are taking to fight for the protection of our lakes. Yet,
despite all of these concerns, the current recommendation for this
critical initiative is just over half of what it received in fiscal
year 2010, and is $49.4 million below the fiscal year 2011 enacted
level.
I do appreciate the hard work that the Appropriations Committee has
been tasked with, and I fully support the committee's efforts to be
fiscally responsible--to rein in Federal spending and to make sure that
we are funding our Nation's priorities. That is why my amendment only
seeks to restore half of the roughly $50 million cut that the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative received in this year's Interior bill.
I do believe that the Great Lakes are at risk, and we must restore
funding so that the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative can work to
protect our natural resources for our children and our grandchildren
for decades to come.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment.
We had to make some tough decisions with this bill. Some of them were
with the money that we spent in the Geographic Programs. I believe
every geographic program had reduced funding in this bill. Last year,
they were funded at $300 million. I think the President requested $350
million for the Great Lakes geographic program, and we funded it at
$250 million.
While I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do with his
amendment--and I thank him for offering it--the fact is we just don't
have that kind of money. The offset of this is $24 million out of the
Secretary's account, and we earlier took $20 million out of it. I don't
believe the Secretary is sleeping very well tonight.
{time} 2250
Pretty soon he won't have any money left in his office, as a matter
of fact. So that is a problem.
It's not what the gentleman is trying to do. I fully support what the
gentleman is trying to do. It's the offset and trying to get the $20
million out of the Secretary's account which causes the problem for me.
And I would hope that my colleagues would reject this amendment as we
work on trying to make sure that we, in conference, can do what's
necessary to fund those programs that do protect the Great Lakes, the
Puget Sound, the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, San Francisco Bay,
some of the other great water bodies in this country.
I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, but I have to rise in
opposition to it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Reed
Mr. REED. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 32, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $8,291,000)''.
Page 76, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $8,291,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REED. I offer this amendment with my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr.
Boren).
This a bipartisan amendment to this appropriations bill with the
intent to return funding for the Forest Health Management Account,
under State and private forestry.
What we're intending to do with our proposed amendment is to move
money from the D.C. bureaucracy, and I anticipate there will be a
concern raised about the offset of the line that we're using to cover
this increase in the Forest Health Management account from the
Secretary's account.
But I firmly do believe that our taxpayer dollars are better spent
not on the bureaucracy of the Secretary's office here in Washington,
D.C., but more importantly on the front lines and into the States that
can benefit from these programs.
This program that we're trying to take care of with this amendment is
to restore the funding for the purposes of weeding out invasive species
which threaten many industries and our environment across the Nation.
Essentially, invasive species threaten natural habitats, economies,
and environments in every State and essentially every district that we
represent. The work done by the Forest Service in education, outreach,
and on-the-ground action is imperative to the prevention and early
detection of nonnative invasive species.
By way of just one example that we deal with in our district, in the
New York 29th Congressional District is the emerald ash borer beetle
which can kill an ash tree within 5 years, decimating forests across
the States and across our district. This pest and other insects have
caused disruption on local economies and on job producers nationwide.
Research estimates that we have reviewed at our office indicate that
replacement and treatment of affected ash trees could total $10 billion
over the next decade should this pest continue to spread.
This is just one pest of many that the U.S. Forest Service is seeking
to maintain and address so that Federal and State funds are not
diverted from other meaningful initiatives.
Working with individual States on invasive species control, the
Forest Health Management programs are part of a collaborative effort to
protect forest and grasslands where their efforts can be most
effective--in the field on the front line rather than here behind a
desk in Washington, D.C.
The benefit of placing Federal funds into action on the front lines,
therefore, far outweighs the use of those funds to bloat the Federal
bureaucracy. And, therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the
amendment and join in this bipartisan effort, with all due respect to
the chairman of the appropriations process that is making some very
difficult decisions in this day and age.
But I just want to highlight this issue, and I do truly believe that
through a bipartisan issue we can get money from D.C. into the fields
and deal with the issue of invasive species that threaten economies and
industry across the Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the gentleman from New York's observation
that we are working with some very difficult numbers, and he's
absolutely right. And this is an account, frankly, that I think is
important. The invasive species and trying to control invasive species
across this country is of high importance. It's as of high importance
in Idaho as it is in New York and other places across the country. But
as the gentleman noted, the concern is the offset.
While we actually treated this account better than most other
accounts within this budget, we actually only reduced it by 2\1/2\
percent. Some other accounts, EPA's account is down 18 percent, and
some other things. Most accounts received substantially less funding.
And where you're taking this money from, as I said on the last
amendment, the Office of the Secretary is funded in this bill $33\1/2\
million below the budget's request. That was before we took out another
$20 million in an earlier amendment to put it into the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. So now we're doing $53\1/2\ million. We add this to
it and we are going to be down $62 million.
Sometimes these, what appear to be small amounts, add up. If we're
going to have a Secretary's office that actually functions, we have to
keep enough resources there so that he can do his job.
And while I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, I
sympathize
[[Page H5572]]
with what he's trying to do and support the effort of what he's trying
to do. The fact that the offset affects an account that we have
substantially reduced already is a problem, so I would oppose the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I rise to agree with the chairman of the appropriations
subcommittee just as I did with the last amendment.
The idea of a bloated bureaucracy, when you've taken $53 million out
of the Secretary's office, it seems to me, is misplaced where we're
talking about giving the Office of the Secretary of the Interior far
more responsibility. And now, at every opportunity, we seem to be
cutting the resources that are necessary to fulfill those
responsibilities. Already tonight we've taken $20 million from the
Office of the Secretary's account.
So just as I did with the prior amendment, I would also agree with
the chairman's comments and associate myself with them. So I won't take
any more of the body's time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REED. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise
Mr. SCALISE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $420,000)''.
Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $420,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, the amendment that I bring would take
$420,000 from the Secretary of the Interior's account and move it into
the spending reduction account to reduce the Nation's deficit.
And the reason that we're doing this is that, over the last year
since the Deepwater Horizon exploded, the administration came out with
a policy not long after that imposed a moratorium on drilling, a
moratorium that was found by Federal courts to be outside of the law.
The administration unfortunately went forward with that moratorium,
costing thousands of American jobs, hurting America's energy security.
But even after the lifting of the moratorium, they still maintain
what they call a permitorium, a refusal to issue permits to explore in
the Gulf of Mexico for American energy. Not only does it cost our
Nation tens of thousands of jobs, but it also costs us energy security
where now we're even more dependent on Middle Eastern countries for
oil. It's led to higher prices of gasoline at the pumps. It's had
devastating impacts. Yet there's been no accountability to the
administration for their policies that have led to this destruction of
our economic well-being and our energy security as it relates to
American energy, and especially as it relates to jobs in the Gulf of
Mexico.
{time} 2300
Now, if you really want to get down to the details of this amendment,
one of the things we've said for a long time is, a lot of these
companies, these big employers that have been out there for a long time
exploring safely for American energy, they want to continue to be able
to explore for American energy; and they want to go back to work; but
they haven't been allowed to because of administration policies.
But what's more absurd is that while the administration has had this
permitorium, where they won't let people go back to work, they have
also allowed the clock to continue ticking on the permits and on the
leases. And you've got a finite amount of time for a lease; you've got
a 10-year period of time. And if the administration is saying you can't
properly develop your lease--now it would be one thing if they said,
we're going to stop the clock while we, as an administration, go
forward with this radical policy. But all outside experts have said is
that it has nothing to do with safety, and it is hurting not only
American energy production but American jobs.
But what the administration said is they're going to continue to let
the clock run. It's like if you are playing a basketball game and the
referee is holding the ball, and the clock's still running. You are
sitting there saying, look, I just want the ball. I want to be able to
go out and play by the rules, and the referee is holding the ball while
the clock continues to run. That's just not fair. And yet the
administration continues to do this.
This House, Madam Chair, passed legislation, H.R. 1229. It's called
the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act. This legislation that
we passed here in this House with a bipartisan vote, sent it over to
the Senate--they still haven't taken action in the Senate--but what
this legislation did, among other things, is it addressed that problem
and said, If this administration is going to tell responsible companies
who are trying to go back to work, who are trying to do the right
thing--if the administration is going to tell them that they're not
allowed to play by their own rules, then the clock stops while the
administration denies them the ability to be permitted.
So the legislation that we passed addressed this. But the Senate, for
whatever reason, refuses to take that up; again, costing our country
thousands of good, high-paying jobs and hurting America's energy
security, making us more dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
What we're saying with this amendment is: if this administration
wants to continue going forward with that radical policy, which a
majority of the President's own hand-picked scientists in his report
right after the explosion of the Horizon said is irresponsible to do,
that would actually reduce safety by denying permits, by having this
moratorium, and now permitorium, then there has to be accountability.
We have to hold this administration accountable for their actions.
And the $420,000 number in this bill that we're setting aside and
putting into the deficit reduction account was gathered by looking at
the number of leases that expire at the end of this year. There are 350
leases that will expire at the end of this year, not through any fault
of those companies that are out there trying to explore for American
energy, but because the administration won't let them play by the
rules.
So if they're going to be irresponsible with their policies, there
has to be a price to pay. There has to be accountability that the
American people say, You're not going to use taxpayer money to deny
American jobs, to deny American energy, and make our country more
dependent on Middle Eastern oil and make our country continue to have
to pay these higher prices at the pump.
It's their policies that have done it, and it's clear, and everybody
understands that. People in the Gulf of Mexico recognize that. But
there has been no accountability by this Congress, and so that's what
this legislation is intended to do. This amendment will address that
problem. I urge its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the
amendment. I understand what the gentleman is saying. I agree with what
he's saying. I think the Members have a concern that we are not
allowing these oil companies to go out after the permits, and we're
trying to send a message to the Secretary. I understand that, and I
don't have a problem with sending a message.
The problem is--and this is a little bit of inside baseball, I guess,
to talk about it this way--the problem is that under the rules we have,
you can reduce an account by a certain amount and put that money in the
budget reserve account which then reduces the allocation that the
committee has to spend. He takes the $420,000, I think it is, out of
the Office of the Secretary and reduces our allocation by that much.
[[Page H5573]]
And as Members have heard that have listened to this debate, there
are both Republicans and Democrats that are concerned about some of the
funding allocations in this bill of the various accounts. People want
to put more money into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. People
want to put more money, as the last amendment did, into the invasive
species program, taking care of invasive species. If you go throughout,
there are Members on both sides of the aisle that believe that various
accounts are funded at too low of a level. So to take this money and
put it into the budget reserve account and take it out of the Interior
appropriations bill means that that is money that could go into another
account.
Now, this bill comes to the floor under the budget resolution that
was passed by the House under the 302(a) and the 302(b) cap, the
allocation that was given to this committee. It's a tough allocation,
but we've made those tough decisions, and I don't like to see money to
send a message to the Secretary, money taken out of his account and put
into the budget reserve account when there are other accounts within
the appropriation that could obviously use the funds.
So if we weren't putting it into the budget reserve account, I don't
have a problem with the message you are trying to send. I appreciate
what the gentleman is trying to do, but I would reluctantly have to
oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word, Madam Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I agree with the chairman of the committee again that this
amendment should be opposed. But I would also mention that I don't know
how fast the administration could issue drilling permits in the Gulf of
Mexico that would be fast enough. It's as though Deepwater Horizon
never happened. When it did happen, people died. The ecology of the
gulf area was severely and adversely affected. The economy was
devastated. And we did a complete investigation and found that it was
largely because the Minerals Management Service was not doing its job,
that they were issuing permits too quickly without adequate review.
Sometimes they were just letting permit forms be filled out by the oil
companies themselves. Sometimes they had already made arrangements to
go to work for the oil companies.
But for whatever reason, the fact is that they weren't doing their
job. They were letting down the American public. They were letting down
the workers on the drilling rigs. And they certainly contributed to a
despoiling of the environment, the ecology of the gulf. So this
Congress, both sides having been severely critical of the Minerals
Management Service, reorganized it and instructed it to be very
careful, at least much more careful than they had been in the past in
terms of issuing drilling permits. That's what they're doing.
Now, there have been any number of drilling permits issued. They're
being issued so fast, we don't have an exact number right now; but we
know a lot have been issued. Again, I doubt that whatever the number
was that it would be enough for Members that represent areas in the
gulf to benefit from more drilling activity. But the American public--
this is a democracy, the majority of the American public, whatever
State they're in--wants the Secretary of the Interior to have a process
that reflects integrity, that reflects caution, that puts the safety of
workers and the protection of the environment first.
So the Secretary is doing his job. We support the job he's doing. We
know he's issuing a lot of permits, and we agree with the chairman that
this amendment should be defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment with the modification I have placed at the desk.
{time} 2310
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Scalise:
Strike the second instruction
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, this is a distinction without a
difference. The money still goes away. The argument that was made by
the chairman of the committee still stands, as far as I can see. And so
even though the amendment may be worded a little differently, the
reality is that the money is lost. And we don't see that this would be
a constructive amendment anyway, so we would oppose it.
Mr. SCALISE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. SCALISE. What the amendment, as it's now revised, would do is it
would still reduce the $420,000. It wouldn't go to the Spending
Reduction Account; it would stay within the department, and I think
that addresses one of the concerns that the chairman had.
But it would still make it clear that there's going to have to be
accountability for those people who have played by the rules who are
being penalized today. There's got to be some accountability and, in
this case, there would be the ability for us to not only send a message
but a message attached to a spending reduction in the Secretary's
department, that he can't just deny people the ability to go back to
work who are playing by the rules.
Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time, I don't know this business about
playing by the rules and punishing people who don't. It seems to me
that the Interior Department is trying to play by the rules that the
Congress instructed it to play by.
But, notwithstanding that, when you remove $420,000 from the bill,
don't know where it goes, I think you lose it. So I don't think that
this makes a difference.
What you're saying is that you're not going to put the $420,000 into
this reduction account. What's the term of it? The Spending Reduction
Account. That does away with the money.
But now what you're doing is basically taking it out of the bill,
letting it fly away to who knows where, but the reality is it no longer
exists. So it's coming out of the bill. And we don't think that's a
good idea. We agree with the chairman that this amendment should be
defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), as modified.
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $5,500,000)''.
Page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, we are in some tough times,
but I believe it's important to have a structure in this government
that provides oversight over the environment of this country. And
however one may quarrel with regulations that may seem a little steep,
the work of the Environmental Protection Agency is important. And as we
stand here today, this legislation cuts the budget of the Environmental
Protection Agency by 18 percent, in addition to a 16 percent cut in
funding for
[[Page H5574]]
FY 2011. Thirty-four percent. This is unacceptable.
In order to protect the environment without harming industry, we must
reach a compromise, instead of haphazardly slashing the EPA budget.
These cuts purposely limit the EPA's ability to ensure that all
Americans have access to drinking water that does not contain harmful
pathogens and toxins that expose Americans to serious risk such as
typhoid, hepatitis, cancer, and organ damage.
The assault on public health does not stop with the quality of our
drinking water. This bill also takes drastic steps to weaken the Clean
Air Act. A rider is attached that will prevent the EPA from
implementing the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, a regulation that was
implemented to protect the public from dangerous air pollution and
prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, and
400,000 cases of aggregated asthma.
I've never seen an EPA director work as hard as Administrator Lisa
Jackson. Although we have had some outstanding administrators, she has
worked to work with Members across the aisle.
But these cuts reduce funding for the very programs that keep
Americans, our constituents safe. And I cannot speak for my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, but I cannot afford to have these cuts
impact the people of Houston and around the Nation.
Since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los Angeles for the
poorest air quality in the Nation. And so it is important that we find
a way to increase the funding for the EPA. And as this bill makes its
way through the floor, I am continuing to work to do so. And I start
first with this effort. And I ask my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Let me explain to you about the Old Acres Home Citizens Council. This
is a historic African American community located in Houston, Texas. The
Council partnered with the University of Texas to conduct a study to
assess the community's health risk. It was determined that a local
landfill could be the cause for the community's health-related
problems, enormous cancer in that area.
As a result of the study, the Council was awarded a $20,000 grant
from the EPA Justice Small Grants Program, under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act, commonly known as
the Superfund, which, obviously, it was in some years past to conduct
tests to detect, assess, and evaluate the risk to human health from
hazardous substances. The goal of these Small Grants Program evaluation
projects was to investigate whether there were hazardous substances in
the runoff from the adjacent landfill. This community needed those
resources. The Council used the EPA grant funds to hire an EPA-approved
environmental consultant to take soil and water samples from the
backyards. The results of the sample analysis revealed high
concentrations of toxic substances, many of which are harmful to
humans.
Since 2002, the residents of Old Acres homes have observed water and
substances seeping from the landfill into their back yards. This runoff
collects into pools of standing water. Due to poor drainage, these
standing pools became engorged and then flood, thereby increasing
exposure of residences to potentially hazardous substances from the
landfill.
This was the work of the EPA. It educated a poor community of seniors
and others about the conditions of their neighborhood. This funding
that takes away from EPA also takes away from the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund and, of course, impacts communities like that of the
Acres Home Community in the 18th Congressional District.
{time} 2320
My friends, we cannot gamble with the safety of the American public,
the cleanliness of air and water, the quality of the environment for
future generations. We need to restore this funding, and I have made
this effort to do so. I will continue to do so.
Since the debt limit was put in place, we have always paid America's
bills. We fight today to raise the debt ceiling, but at the same time
we're cutting away at America's safety and America's need for
environmental protection. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment
because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for
Acres Home Community in Houston, Texas.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, this is the same debate over again.
We're taking money from the Office of the Secretary, which is down some
$30-odd million, $33 million, I think it was, from the budget request
of this year; then we've taken $20 million out of that already to put
into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This would take more money
out of the Office of the Secretary.
It seems like every time somebody has an amendment that they want to
offer to fund some program that they believe is important--and
oftentimes they are important--the savings account that you get it from
is the Office of the Secretary. Not only in this bill, but in other
bills. We take it out of administration. That's always the easiest
thing to do, but the fact is that the Office of the Secretary has taken
a pretty good hit in this bill both during the markup and here on
debate on the floor, and so I'm afraid I have to oppose this amendment
because I think it hits an account that is already substantially lower
than what was requested.
I would oppose the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. First of all, I didn't thank both you and
the ranking member for a very tough task, and I think my overall intent
was the need for increasing the funding in EPA.
As we make our way through this process, does the gentleman see, in
the consultation with the other body, any opportunity to restore any of
these funds to the EPA?
Mr. SIMPSON. I would have to say I don't know. I don't know what the
Senate is doing, what their allocation is going to be. They have not
passed a budget, so they have no 302(b) over there to work with. But
certainly we realize that the EPA has taken the largest hit within this
budget. A lot of that was due to the fact that they had the largest
increases over the last couple of years. But certainly we will be
looking at all of these accounts when we go into conference with the
body across the Rotunda trying to come to a compromise that can pass
both the House and the Senate.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. If the gentleman will yield again, I am
going to continue to work on this issue. I know that we're going to
take a vote on this. I, as they say, will come back again on the floor,
because I think this is a very important issue.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to allow me to again express how
important it is that the EPA be funded more fully than it has been.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Insular Affairs
assistance to territories
For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior,
$82,558,000, of which: (1) $73,296,000 shall remain available
until expended for territorial assistance, including general
technical assistance, maintenance assistance, disaster
assistance, insular management controls, coral reef
initiative activities, and brown tree snake control and
research; grants to the judiciary in American Samoa for
compensation and expenses, as authorized by law (48 U.S.C.
1661(c)); grants to the Government of American Samoa, in
addition to current local revenues, for construction and
support of governmental functions; grants to the Government
of the Virgin Islands as authorized by law; grants to the
Government of Guam, as authorized by law; and grants to the
Government of the Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by
law (Public Law 94-241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $9,262,000
shall be available until September 30, 2013 for salaries and
expenses of the Office of Insular Affairs: Provided, That all
financial transactions of the territorial and local
governments herein provided for, including such transactions
of all agencies or instrumentalities established or used
[[Page H5575]]
by such governments, may be audited by the Government
Accountability Office, at its discretion, in accordance with
chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code: Provided further,
That Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding shall be
provided according to those terms of the Agreement of the
Special Representatives on Future United States Financial
Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands approved by
Public Law 104-134: Provided further, That the funds for the
program of operations and maintenance improvement are
appropriated to institutionalize routine operations and
maintenance improvement of capital infrastructure with
territorial participation and cost sharing to be determined
by the Secretary based on the grantee's commitment to timely
maintenance of its capital assets: Provided further, That any
appropriation for disaster assistance under this heading in
this Act or previous appropriations Acts may be used as non-
Federal matching funds for the purpose of hazard mitigation
grants provided pursuant to section 404 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5170c).
compact of free association
For grants and necessary expenses, $3,307,000, to remain
available until expended, as provided for in sections
221(a)(2) of the Compact of Free Association for the Republic
of Palau; and section 221(a)(2) of the Compacts of Free
Association for the Government of the Republic of the
Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, as
authorized by Public Law 99-658 and Public Law 108-188.
Administrative Provisions
(including transfer of funds)
At the request of the Governor of Guam, the Secretary may
transfer discretionary funds or mandatory funds provided
under section 104(e) of Public Law 108-188 and Public Law
104-134, that are allocated for Guam, to the Secretary of
Agriculture for the subsidy cost of direct or guaranteed
loans, plus not to exceed three percent of the amount of the
subsidy transferred for the cost of loan administration, for
the purposes authorized by the Rural Electrification Act of
1936 and section 306(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act for construction and repair projects in Guam,
and such funds shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That such
loans or loan guarantees may be made without regard to the
population of the area, credit elsewhere requirements, and
restrictions on the types of eligible entities under the
Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and section 306(a)(1) of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act: Provided
further, That any funds transferred to the Secretary of
Agriculture shall be in addition to funds otherwise made
available to make or guarantee loans under such authorities.
Office of the Solicitor
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor,
$64,946,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the table.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 36, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $4,367,000)''.
Page 88, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,367,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As someone who has practiced chair-side dentistry for 25 years, I
know firsthand the profound value of oral health, particularly for
children. Oral health care access early in life is shown to be a
critical aspect of primary preventative care. This is especially true
in the Native American community, which I am proud to serve as a
Representative of Arizona, which has 21 federally recognized tribes.
For this reason, my amendment would transfer $4,367,000 from the
Office of the Department of the Interior Solicitor General to the
Indian Health Service. The committee report recommends $4,367,000 less
than the President's request for dental health within IHS, and while
the bill does not name dental health specifically, I would like to make
it clear on this floor tonight that this reallocation of funds is
explicitly intended to fund dental health programs within IHS at the
level recommended by the administration.
The United States Government took on long ago a number of treaty
obligations to our Native people, and health care was among them. In
particular, I cannot state strongly enough how imperative it is that
the Indian tribes have this effort in the area of oral health fully
funded.
Believe it or not, the incidence of early childhood caries, or
commonly understood tooth decay, occurs among the Native American and
Native Alaskan populations at 300 percent the rate of the United States
average. This is unacceptable; and, again, as someone who has practiced
dentistry as long as I have, I can tell you that this epidemic will
have dire consequences for these children throughout their lives.
Worse still, the severity of decay is substantially higher in these
children compared to the population as a whole. Preschool Native
children average more than five decayed teeth compared to one decayed
tooth among U.S. preschool children of all races. In many Native
communities, between 25 and 50 percent of preschool children have such
extensive tooth decay that they require full mouth restoration under
general anesthesia, compared to less than 1 percent for non-Native
children.
We have an obligation to improve this sad state of affairs, and so I
offer this amendment and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support it for the sake of these Native children to whom we
have an obligation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, you're going to hear from the entire
Dental Caucus tonight. Congressman Gosar from Arizona and myself are
the two dentists that are in Congress, so it might not surprise you
that I support the gentleman's amendment. I appreciate his sincere
efforts to address the obligations, both trust obligations and treaty
obligations, and moral obligations, that we have with our Indian
brothers and sisters across this country.
One of the things I'm proudest of in this bill, as I said in my
opening statement during general debate, was to be able to carry on the
work that had been done by Chairman Dicks when he was chairman of the
committee, Chairman Moran when he was chairman of the committee, and
now that I'm chairman of the committee, to meet those trust obligations
that we have with our Indian brothers and sisters across this country.
One of the areas in this bill, one of the two areas, that actually
got increased funding was Indian health services because we do have an
obligation to meet these things. Dental decay is the most prevalent
disease in the United States; and as the gentleman from Arizona said,
it's 300 percent more likely in Native Americans than it is in the
general population. That's unacceptable. We have to do something about
it. It means that we have to meet the contract obligations that we have
had.
There's a saying that's been said around the country that if you live
in Indian Country, you need to get sick before June, because the
contract support costs run out about that time. One thing we've made a
concerted effort to do on a bipartisan basis is try to fund 100 percent
of the contract support costs for Native Americans. We haven't reached
that goal yet. I think in this bill we're about at 93 or 94 percent,
something like that. The contract support in the BIA that does the
police work and those types of things are fully funded. We are going to
continue to work to make sure that we meet those obligations that I
think we all as Americans have.
I appreciate the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona, and
I truly appreciate his support for our Indian brothers and sisters.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2330
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. As I have said publicly and privately to the chairman of
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I congratulate him for taking
the initiative and showing the commitment to the Indian Health Service
by increasing it by $369 million this year. And dental health
specifically is up by $13.8 million. That's above the existing level
this year, and this year is above last year. Granted, the need is very
substantial, and so I am very supportive.
[[Page H5576]]
The problem is that, with this amendment that adds another $4.3
million for the express purpose of increasing dental health further,
it's the offset. The cut is to the solicitor of the Department that
serves as the chief legal officer, and it's the solicitor that provides
legal services to Native Americans on behalf of the Department. So
you're taking the chief legal officer for the Native Americans of this
country and making a substantial cut to the resources available for
that position. It's kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
There are very substantial and serious legal issues that need to be
dealt with on behalf of Indians throughout the country, and there are
very difficult health issues that certainly need to be addressed. So I
did not rise in opposition to the amendment, but I do think that taking
the money from the solicitor is an unfortunate place to be finding a
cut of $4.3 million.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the bill through page 56, line 22 be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Idaho?
There was no objection.
The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:
Office of Inspector General
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$48,493,000.
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians
federal trust programs
(including transfer of funds)
For the operation of trust programs for Indians by direct
expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and
grants, $152,319,000, to remain available until expended, of
which not to exceed $31,171,000, from this or any other Act,
shall be available for historical accounting: Provided, That
funds for trust management improvements and litigation
support may, as needed, be transferred to or merged with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, ``Operation of Indian Programs''
account; the Office of the Solicitor, ``Salaries and
Expenses'' account; and the Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and Expenses'' account: Provided further, That
funds made available through contracts or grants obligated
during fiscal year 2012, as authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall
remain available until expended by the contractor or grantee:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the statute of limitations shall not commence to run
on any claim, including any claim in litigation pending on
the date of the enactment of this Act, concerning losses to
or mismanagement of trust funds, until the affected tribe or
individual Indian has been furnished with an accounting of
such funds from which the beneficiary can determine whether
there has been a loss: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
shall not be required to provide a quarterly statement of
performance for any Indian trust account that has not had
activity for at least 18 months and has a balance of $15.00
or less: Provided further, That the Secretary shall issue an
annual account statement and maintain a record of any such
accounts and shall permit the balance in each such account to
be withdrawn upon the express written request of the account
holder: Provided further, That not to exceed $50,000 is
available for the Secretary to make payments to correct
administrative errors of either disbursements from or
deposits to Individual Indian Money or Tribal accounts after
September 30, 2002: Provided further, That erroneous payments
that are recovered shall be credited to and remain available
in this account for this purpose.
Department-wide Programs
wildland fire management
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression
operations, fire science and research, emergency
rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, and rural fire
assistance by the Department of the Interior, $574,072,000,
to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed
$6,137,000 shall be for the renovation or construction of
fire facilities: Provided, That such funds are also available
for repayment of advances to other appropriation accounts
from which funds were previously transferred for such
purposes: Provided further, That persons hired pursuant to 43
U.S.C. 1469 may be furnished subsistence and lodging without
cost from funds available from this appropriation: Provided
further, That notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received
by a bureau or office of the Department of the Interior for
fire protection rendered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq.,
protection of United States property, may be credited to the
appropriation from which funds were expended to provide that
protection, and are available without fiscal year limitation:
Provided further, That using the amounts designated under
this title of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior may
enter into procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative
agreements, for hazardous fuels reduction activities, and for
training and monitoring associated with such hazardous fuels
reduction activities, on Federal land, or on adjacent non-
Federal land for activities that benefit resources on Federal
land: Provided further, That the costs of implementing any
cooperative agreement between the Federal Government and any
non-Federal entity may be shared, as mutually agreed on by
the affected parties: Provided further, That notwithstanding
requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act, the
Secretary, for purposes of hazardous fuels reduction
activities, may obtain maximum practicable competition among:
(1) local private, nonprofit, or cooperative entities; (2)
Youth Conservation Corps crews, Public Lands Corps (Public
Law 109-154), or related partnerships with State, local, or
non-profit youth groups; (3) small or micro-businesses; or
(4) other entities that will hire or train locally a
significant percentage, defined as 50 percent or more, of the
project workforce to complete such contracts: Provided
further, That in implementing this section, the Secretary
shall develop written guidance to field units to ensure
accountability and consistent application of the authorities
provided herein: Provided further, That funds appropriated
under this heading may be used to reimburse the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service for the costs of carrying out their responsibilities
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) to consult and conference, as required by section 7 of
such Act, in connection with wildland fire management
activities: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Interior may use wildland fire appropriations to enter into
leases of real property with local governments, at or below
fair market value, to construct capitalized improvements for
fire facilities on such leased properties, including but not
limited to fire guard stations, retardant stations, and other
initial attack and fire support facilities, and to make
advance payments for any such lease or for construction
activity associated with the lease: Provided further, That
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture may authorize the transfer of funds appropriated
for wildland fire management, in an aggregate amount not to
exceed $50,000,000, between the Departments when such
transfers would facilitate and expedite jointly funded
wildland fire management programs and projects: Provided
further, That funds provided for wildfire suppression shall
be available for support of Federal emergency response
actions: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this
heading shall be available for assistance to or through the
Department of State in connection with forest and rangeland
research, technical information, and assistance in foreign
countries, and, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State, shall be available to support forestry, wildland fire
management, and related natural resource activities outside
the United States and its territories and possessions,
including technical assistance, education and training, and
cooperation with United States and international
organizations: Provided further, That, before obligating any
of the funds provided herein for wildland fire suppression,
the Secretary of the Interior shall obligate all unobligated
balances previously made available under this heading that,
when appropriated, were designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution
on the Budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 and notify the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
in writing of the imminent need to begin obligating funds
provided herein for wildland fire suppression: Provided
further, That the Secretary of the Interior may transfer not
more than $50,000,000 of the funds provided herein to the
Secretary of Agriculture if the Secretaries determine that
the transfer will enhance the efficiency or effectiveness of
Federal wildland fire suppression activities.
flame wildfire suppression reserve fund
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for large fire suppression
operations of the Department of the Interior and as a reserve
fund for suppression and Federal emergency response
activities, $92,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such amounts are available only for transfer
to the ``Wildland Fire Management'' account and only
following a declaration by the Secretary that either (1) a
wildland fire suppression event meets certain previously-
established risk-based written criteria for significant
complexity, severity, or threat posed by the fire or (2)
funds in the ``Wildland Fire Management'' account will be
exhausted within 30 days.
central hazardous materials fund
For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior
and any of its component offices and bureaus for the response
action, including associated activities, performed pursuant
to the Comprehensive Environmental
[[Page H5577]]
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), $10,149,000, to remain available until
expended.
natural resource damage assessment and restoration
natural resource damage assessment fund
To conduct natural resource damage assessment and
restoration activities by the Department of the Interior
necessary to carry out the provisions of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Public
Law 101-337, as amended (16 U.S.C. 19jj et seq.), $5,763,000,
to remain available until expended.
working capital fund
For the acquisition of a departmental financial and
business management system, information technology
improvements of general benefit to the Department, and
consolidation of facilities and operations throughout the
Department, $57,019,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this Act or
any other Act may be used to establish reserves in the
Working Capital Fund account other than for accrued annual
leave and depreciation of equipment without prior approval of
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That the Secretary may assess reasonable charges to
State, local and tribal government employees for training
services provided by the National Indian Program Training
Center, other than training related to Public Law 93-638:
Provided further, That the Secretary may lease or otherwise
provide space and related facilities, equipment or
professional services of the National Indian Program Training
Center to State, local and tribal government employees or
persons or organizations engaged in cultural, educational, or
recreational activities (as defined in section 3306(a) of
title 40, United States Code) at the prevailing rate for
similar space, facilities, equipment, or services in the
vicinity of the National Indian Program Training Center:
Provided further, That all funds received pursuant to the two
preceding provisos shall be credited to this account, shall
be available until expended, and shall be used by the
Secretary for necessary expenses of the National Indian
Program Training Center.
administrative provision
There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available
resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of
which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by
donation, purchase or through available excess surplus
property: Provided, That existing aircraft being replaced may
be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in value used to
offset the purchase price for the replacement aircraft.
General Provisions, Department of the Interior
(including transfers of funds)
emergency transfer authority--intra-bureau
Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be
available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or
office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the
emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft,
buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment
damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other
unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made
available under this authority until funds specifically made
available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies
shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds
used pursuant to this section must be replenished by a
supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible.
emergency transfer authority--department-wide
Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or
transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in
addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of
the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency
prevention of wildland fires on or threatening lands under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for the
emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its
jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or
actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other
unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to
actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage
assessment activities related to actual oil spills or
releases of hazardous substances into the environment; for
the prevention, suppression, and control of actual or
potential grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the
authority in section 417(b) of Public Law 106-224 (7 U.S.C.
7717(b)); for emergency reclamation projects under section
410 of Public Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year
funds available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit
assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy
State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the
Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in
this title for wildland fire operations shall be available
for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding
fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies
for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in
connection with their use for wildland fire operations, such
reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently
available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further,
That for wildland fire operations, no funds shall be made
available under this authority until the Secretary determines
that funds appropriated for ``wildland fire operations'' and
``FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund'' shall be
exhausted within 30 days: Provided further, That all funds
used pursuant to this section must be replenished by a
supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible: Provided further, That such
replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata
basis, accounts from which emergency funds were transferred.
authorized use of funds
Sec. 103. Appropriations made to the Department of the
Interior in this title shall be available for services as
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
when authorized by the Secretary, in total amount not to
exceed $500,000; purchase and replacement of motor vehicles,
including specially equipped law enforcement vehicles; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment
of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library
membership in societies or associations which issue
publications to members only or at a price to members lower
than to subscribers who are not members.
authorized use of funds, indian trust management
Sec. 104. Appropriations made in this Act under the
headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of the Special
Trustee for American Indians and any unobligated balances
from prior appropriations Acts made under the same headings
shall be available for expenditure or transfer for Indian
trust management and reform activities. Total funding for
historical accounting activities shall not exceed amounts
specifically designated in this Act for such purpose.
redistribution of funds, bureau of indian affairs
Sec. 105. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any
Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base
funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring
funds to address identified, unmet needs, dual enrollment,
overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution
methodologies. No tribe shall receive a reduction in Tribal
Priority Allocation funds of more than 10 percent in fiscal
year 2012. Under circumstances of dual enrollment,
overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution
methodologies, the 10 percent limitation does not apply.
twin cities research center
Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
conveying the Twin Cities Research Center under the authority
provided by Public Law 104-134, the Secretary may accept and
retain land and other forms of reimbursement: Provided, That
the Secretary may retain and use any such reimbursement until
expended and without further appropriation: (1) for the
benefit of the National Wildlife Refuge System within the
State of Minnesota; and (2) for all activities authorized by
section 701 of Public Law 100-696 (16 U.S.C. 460zz).
payment of fees
Sec. 107. The Secretary of the Interior may use
discretionary funds to pay private attorney fees and costs
for employees and former employees of the Department of the
Interior reasonably incurred in connection with Cobell v.
Salazar to the extent that such fees and costs are not paid
by the Department of Justice or by private insurance. In no
case shall the Secretary make payments under this section
that would result in payment of hourly fees in excess of the
highest hourly rate approved by the District Court for the
District of Columbia for counsel in Cobell v. Salazar.
everglades ecosystem restoration
Sec. 108. This and any subsequent fiscal year, the
National Park Service is authorized to implement
modifications to the Tamiami Trail as described in, and in
accordance with, the preferred alternative identified in the
final environmental impact statement noticed in the Federal
Register on December 14, 2010, (75 Fed. Reg. 77896), relating
to restoration efforts of the Everglades ecosystem.
ellis, governors, and liberty islands
Sec. 109. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire lands,
waters, or interests therein including the use of all or part
of any pier, dock, or landing within the State of New York
and the State of New Jersey, for the purpose of operating and
maintaining facilities in the support of transportation and
accommodation of visitors to Ellis, Governors, and Liberty
Islands, and of other program and administrative activities,
by donation or with appropriated funds, including franchise
fees (and other monetary consideration), or by exchange; and
the Secretary is authorized to negotiate and enter into
leases, subleases, concession contracts or other agreements
for the use of such facilities on such terms and conditions
as the Secretary may determine reasonable.
[[Page H5578]]
indian probate judges
Sec. 110. In fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year
thereafter, for the purpose of adjudicating Indian probate
cases in the Department of the Interior, the hearing
requirements of chapter 10 of title 25, United States Code,
are deemed satisfied by a proceeding conducted by an Indian
probate judge, appointed by the Secretary without regard to
the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing the
appointments in the competitive service, for such period of
time as the Secretary determines necessary: Provided, That
the basic pay of an Indian probate judge so appointed may be
fixed by the Secretary without regard to the provisions of
chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,
United States Code, governing the classification and pay of
General Schedule employees, except that no such Indian
probate judge may be paid at a level which exceeds the
maximum rate payable for the highest grade of the General
Schedule, including locality pay.
bureau of ocean energy management, regulation and enforcement
reorganization
Sec. 111. The Secretary of the Interior, in order to
implement a reorganization of the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and Enforcement, may establish
accounts and transfer funds among and between the offices and
bureaus affected by the reorganization only in conformance
with the reprogramming guidelines described in the report
accompanying this Act.
authorized use of indian education funds
Sec. 112. Beginning July 1, 2008, any funds (including
investments and interest earned, except for construction
funds) held by a Public Law 100-297 grant or a Public Law 93-
638 contract school shall, upon retrocession to or re-
assumption by the Bureau of Indian Education, remain
available to the Bureau of Indian Education for a period of 5
years from the date of retrocession or re-assumption for the
benefit of the programs approved for the school on October 1,
1995.
contracts and agreements for wild horse and burro holding facilities
Sec. 113. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the Secretary of the Interior may enter into multiyear
cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations and other
appropriate entities, and may enter into multiyear contracts
in accordance with the provisions of section 304B of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C. 254c) (except that the 5 year term restriction in
subsection (d) shall not apply), for the long-term care and
maintenance of excess wild free roaming horses and burros by
such organizations or entities on private land. Such
cooperative agreements and contracts may not exceed 10 years,
subject to renewal at the discretion of the Secretary.
(b) During fiscal year 2012 and subsequent fiscal years, in
carrying out work involving cooperation with any State or
political subdivision thereof, the Bureau of Land Management
may record obligations against accounts receivable from any
such entities.
bureau of indian education operated schools
Sec. 114. (a)(1) Nothwithstanding section 586(c) of title
40, United States Code, the head of a Bureau-operated school
is authorized to enter into agreements with public and
private persons and entities that provide for such persons
and entities to rent or lease the land or facilities of the
school in exchange for a consideration (in the form of funds)
that benefits the school, as determined by the head of the
school when such rent or lease does not interfere with school
operations.
(2) Funds received under paragraph (1) shall be retained by
the school and used for school purposes otherwise authorized
by law. Any funds received under paragraph (1) are hereby
made available until expended for such purposes,
notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow for
the diminishment of, or otherwise affect, the appropriation
of funds to the budget accounts for the operation and
maintenance of Bureau-operated schools. No funds shall be
withheld from the distribution to the budget of any Bureau-
operated school due to the receipt by the school of a benefit
in accordance with this section.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of title 5, United States
Code, or any regulation promulgated under such title,
education personnel who are under the direction and
supervision of the Secretary of the Interior may participate
in a fundraising activity for the benefit of a Bureau-
operated school in an official capacity as part of their
official duties. When participating in such an official
capacity, the employee may use the employee's official title,
position, and authority. Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to authorize participation in political activity
(as such term is used in section 7324 of title 5, United
States Code) otherwise prohibited by law.
(c) The Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate
regulations to carry out this section not later than 12
months after the date of the enactment of this Act. Such
regulations shall include--
(1) provisions for the establishment and administration of
mechanisms for the acceptance of consideration for the use
and benefit of a school in accordance with this section
(including, in appropriate cases, the establishment and
administration of trust funds);
(2) accountability standards to ensure ethical conduct; and
(3) provisions for monitoring the amount and terms of
consideration received, the manner in which the consideration
is used, and any results achieved by such use.
(d) Provisions of this section shall apply to fiscal year
2012 and subsequent fiscal years.
mass marking of salmonids
Sec. 115. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
shall, in carrying out its responsibilities to protect
threatened and endangered species of salmon, implement a
system of mass marking of salmonid stocks, intended for
harvest, that are released from federally operated or
federally financed hatcheries including but not limited to
fish releases of coho, chinook, and steelhead species. Marked
fish must have a visible mark that can be readily identified
by commercial and recreational fishers.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gosar) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2584)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________