Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2996) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is my privilege and pleasure to present the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to you today. This very fine bill is the product of many hours of hearings and briefings, always with bipartisan input and excellent participation. I am particularly pleased to present the bill with my friend, Mike Simpson.

The bill before us provides historic increases for the environment, natural resources, and Native American programs, especially Indian health. It also includes significant allocations to protect our public lands, invest in science, and support important cultural agencies.

At a total of $32.3 billion, this bill is an increase of 17 percent above last year. Chairman Obey recognizes that the programs funded through this bill have been chronically underfunded and provided the allocation necessary to reverse that trend.

From 2001 through 2009, when adjusted for inflation, the budget request for the Interior Department went down by 16 percent, the EPA went down by 29 percent, and the nonfire Forest Service accounts went down by 35 percent. This bill invests taxpayers' dollars in our natural resources, and for this investment all Americans will see great returns.

Some will argue that we are spending too much in this bill, but let's look at the facts. The largest increase by far is for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. The demand for assistance to repair, rehabilitate, or build new infrastructure is immense. This subcommittee received 1,200 requests for such assistance from both sides of the aisle.

Every one of us wants clean and safe drinking water for our constituents. This increase is long overdue. In fact, the first administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, under President Bush in 2002 did a study that showed that there was a $668 billion backlog for these kinds of programs. This kind of infrastructure is desperately needed. That's why we added money here and added money in the stimulus package.

Yes, this bill includes a $4.7 billion increase above the 2009 level, but let me remind my colleagues that the programs in this bill will return more than $14.5 billion to the Treasury next year. That's revenue. The Department of the Interior alone is estimated to return more than $13 billion to the Treasury through oil, gas and coal revenues, grazing, timber, recreation fees, and the revenues from the sale of the duck stamps.

I should also note that the EPA's Leaking Underground Storage Tank program, financed by a 0.1 percent tax per gallon of gas sold, has a balance of more than $3 billion that offsets the deficit. Clearly, the programs in this bill go a long way towards paying for themselves.

But let me be clear. This bill is not all increases. We had to make difficult choices. Through hearings and briefings, we carefully reviewed the proposed budget and have recommended a number of reductions and terminations. Some of these were the result of recommendations made by the GAO and the Inspector General. In total, we recommend program reductions or terminations of over $320 million from the 2009 levels and $300 million from the budget request.

The bill before us today provides historic increases and focused funding to protect the environment. Clean water and drinking water infrastructure received $3.9 billion, enough to provide assistance to more than 1,500 communities.

We included authority for subsidized assistance to those cities and towns which cannot afford conventional loans. These funds would provide drinking water that meets public health standards and clean water to restore important ecosystems. The bill invests $667 million to restore major American lakes, estuaries, and bays. It fully funds the President's request of $475 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and makes significant investments to protect other great American water bodies such as Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Chesapeake Bay.

To address global climate change, this bill provides $420 million for climate change adaptation and scientific study. This includes $178 million for research, planning and conservation efforts within the Department of the Interior and $195 million for EPA science, technology development and regulatory programs, including grants to local communities to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I am especially proud that the bill includes $15 million for the National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center at the U.S. Geological Survey.

The bill also addresses our Nation's commitment to Native Americans with increases for health care, law enforcement, and education in Indian country. This bill provides a total of $6.8 billion for Indian programs, an increase of $654 million above the 2009 level.

We recommend an historic increase of $471 million above 2009 for the Indian Health Service to improve the quality and availability of critical health care services. It also includes $182 million above 2009 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to support justice, law enforcement, education, and social services in Native American communities.

We recommend a major investment in Forest Service and Department of the Interior programs that fight and reduce wildfires. The bill has an unprecedented total of $3.66 billion for all of the fire accounts. We have increased overall wildfire suppression funding by 39 percent over 2009, including $357 million for the new wildfire suppression contingency reserve accounts.

In response to testimony received at a number of hearings, we also recommend a $611 million investment in hazardous fuels reduction. It is clear that focused fuels reduction is important if we hope to reduce the number and severity of wildfires in the future and protect communities and watersheds.

The bill provides a $198 million increase above 2009 for the National Park Service to invest in the iconic lands and infrastructure that comprise our national heritage. I am also particularly proud of our efforts to improve the National Wildlife Refuge System. We have provided $503 million, a $40 million increase over 2009, for the refuge system to reduce critical staffing shortages, implement climate change strategies, and improve conservation efforts.

The bill also supports land management, State assistance, and science programs at the Forest Service by increasing nonfire programs by $160 million above 2009. The bill provides $100 million for the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation program to protect streams and water systems from damaged forest roads. This is a key part of our effort to protect the national forests and grasslands.

And finally, we have provided an increase of $86 million above the 2009 level for the cultural agencies supported by this bill. We recommend $170 million for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The endowments are vital for preserving and encouraging America's creative and cultural heritage.

The bill also supports the Smithsonian Institution, the world's largest museum complex, with an increase of $43 million above 2009.

I'm especially proud of the way we produced this bill. Mr. Simpson has been an outstanding ranking member whose thoughtful contributions over the course of 20 hearings has helped us to make this a better bill. During those hearings, we heard from 37 government witnesses and 99 members of the public. We received written testimony from an additional 94 witnesses. I was most impressed with the minority's attendance at those hearings. This bill is the product of a bipartisan effort, and I truly believe it is a better bill because of that.

I want to take a moment to thank our staff who have worked long hours without weekend breaks to help prepare this bill. Delia Scott, our clerk; Chris Topik, Greg Knadle, Beth Houser, Juliette Falkner, Melissa Squire, and Greg Scott on the majority staff have worked in a bipartisan manner with David LesStrang and Darren Benjamin on the minority staff.

In addition, Pete Modaff and Ryan Shauers on my staff, and Malissah Small and Megan Milam from Mr. Simpson's staff have worked hard and

have been a great help to the subcommittee staff.

In closing, I want to remind members that although the increases I have outlined are substantial, their impacts will be even greater. Our subcommittee funds programs that span a broad spectrum of issues, from our cultural and historic heritage to the water we drink and the land we walk on. Our agencies fight fires, protect great water bodies, and tend to the needs of the first Americans.

These programs are vital to every American. They will improve the environment for everyone. And they work to fulfill our Nation's trust responsibilities.

I'm proud of this bill and ask that you support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

It is my understanding the community went forward with the necessary work in light of the Federal delay and now would like to use the money for a waterline. Is that correct?

I understand my colleague's problem. We're going to work with him and try to work this out with the other body. But I realize how serious this is, and we'll work with him until we get a satisfactory solution.

Madam Chair, if I could be recognized again, I want to yield 2 minutes to Congressman Gerald E. Connolly of Virginia for the purposes of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for acknowledging this important program. Would the gentleman agree that a critical component to freeing up additional dollars for the partnership program would be to have our existing heritage areas move towards self-sufficiency?

Madam Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia on this very important issue.

I would like to yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of having a colloquy with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Reclaiming my time, it is our understanding that the Member's statement of our intent is correct.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

The gentleman from Oklahoma has contacted me, and I have assured him, Chief Pyle and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma that the ranking member and I share with the entire subcommittee his desire to support these efforts to provide quality educational opportunities for the students from many tribes nationwide who attend

Jones Academy. I will work towards inclusion of the Jones Academy, should the BIA be untimely or unresponsive to the committee's directive. But I doubt that they will be.

Mr. Buyer, I would like to thank you for bringing this issue to light and I would like to work with you to improve the standards of these cemeteries. I do agree that we must improve these cemeteries to ensure that our appreciation for our veterans' sacrifices is appropriately expressed by maintaining their final resting place to the highest standards. I want to assure the gentleman that the National Park Service is taking steps towards better maintenance of the cemeteries. The national office of the Park Service is assembling a team with expertise and cultural resource preservation and maintenance. This team will conduct a review of these two active cemeteries and make recommendations to the national office regarding appropriate corrective actions where deficiencies are found. I would follow up this effort to ensure that the services provide a level of care befitting a national shrine. I look forward to working with you to address this issue.

I cannot do that.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Unfortunately I can't do that. But I will do everything I can, not only to address the two that you've mentioned, but all 14; and we'll work together on this. If it isn't to the gentleman's satisfaction, we will address it with legislation next year.

I'm prepared to have a meeting with officials from the Interior Department, with Mr. Simpson, and yourself to address this issue. That's the best I can do today. But we will follow through and make sure it happens.

Madam Chair, I welcome a colloquy with my distinguished colleague, Mr. LaTourette, and yield him 2 minutes.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. We were pleased to include funding for this important program in the bill, based on the administration's budget request and the broad bipartisan support of my colleagues including my colleague from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

The gentleman from Ohio is indeed correct. In my district I have seen the importance of the partnerships in the CELCP to our fragile coastal resources. The committee expects NOAA to invest in Great Lakes conservation through CELCP, as the gentleman has outlined; and I would be happy to work with him to ensure that the funds will be used for this purpose.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, who is a distinguished member of our subcommittee (Mr. Chandler).

First, Mr. Simpson, I want to commend you for your leadership on the Interior and Environment Subcommittee and your support of the DERA program. There is no doubt that the DERA program is a worthwhile and beneficial program that plays a significant role in combating global warming and improving air quality. This is why this subcommittee has continued to fund and support this program. We provided $60 million in both fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and an additional $300 million through the Recovery Act.

To date, only 32 percent of funds appropriated for this program through the Recovery Act have been spent. I understand that EPA plans to obligate all the Recovery Act funds before they begin a solicitation for the 2009 funds. It could be well into 2010 before the 2009 funds are spent.

President Obama's budget requested $60 million for the DERA program in FY10 and this bill provides that. Over the next fiscal year, I will work with you, Mr. Calvert--Congresswoman Doris Matsui has also talked to me about this--the EPA, and program stakeholders to review DERA in hopes of improving and streamlining its grant-making process and ensuring that we provide the proper level of funding in 2011.

Can you tell us what the remaining time is on both sides?

I want to commend the gentleman for his work and his staff's work. It's been a real pleasure. Everyone has worked together. I also want to commend again, the attendance on your side of the aisle. We have four Cardinals on our subcommittee, so they have subcommittees they are running. It's very difficult for everybody to be there, but your side has been there, and it's been terrific and the questions have been great, and it's just been a real pleasure.

And I also want to thank Mr. Obey, the chairman of the full committee, for this allocation. We can only go as far as our allocation, and I think Mr. Obey recognized that we had been hurt over the last 8 years, and that this was a catch-up budget.

But these are such important programs, our national parks, our national forests, our Fish and Wildlife Service, and the programs for the tribes. And I have really appreciated Mr. Cole and Mr. Olver, who have both been so concerned and sensitive about these tribal issues.

And we have made substantial increases. But even with that, the work

remains to be done. There still is more that needs to be done in order to really take care of the issues in Indian country. And I thought some of our hearings this year where we really got into law enforcement and the need for more law enforcement, the need for a recognition that the laws are covering tribal areas today are not sufficient, and the Justice Department needs to take action on this.

So I commend the gentleman for his solid work and participation, and let's get on with the amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

This is a good amendment. It's the so-called manager's amendment. It does three important things, but they are modest.

First, as Chairman Rahall of the Natural Resources Committee pointed out, this amendment restores the Interior Department's authority to assist cooperative watershed projects that restore streams damaged by acid mine drainage. This authority was in law for several years but was inadvertently discontinued after the surface mining reclamation law amendments of 2006. This amendment aids citizens groups and States that are restoring streams damaged by previous coal mining.

Second, this amendment adds $10 million to the National Park Service State grant program. This program provides grants for acquisition of park and recreation lands by State and local communities and was proposed by Mr. McGovern.

There is tremendous demand for more parkland and for recreational facility development. It is more and more vital to get people, and especially kids, out in nature and outdoors doing active recreation.

Lastly, this amendment increases the Save America's Treasures program by $1 million. This will provide funding for cost share historic preservation projects, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just say to the gentleman from Idaho, we should have had more dialogue on this manager's amendment. And we are just getting a new team in place, and I am not blaming it on anybody, so I take responsibility myself. But in the future, on any manager's amendment, you and I will have a thorough discussion about it. And if the gentleman has some suggestions for the manager's amendment, they will be considered. So I take the gentleman's point as well made, and this is something we will follow through on.

Again, this is, I think, very noncontroversial, so I urge adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 9, line 20 be considered as read.

Madam Chairwoman, though I plan to support the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

I have to say that I have really appreciated the gentleman's leadership and the fact that he has come before our committee and taken the time to present witnesses. Also, I think this is a very good amendment. This is a good amendment that increases funding for a program that funds conservation easements that protect critical forest and watersheds in the Northeast. This amendment increases the funding for this program by $2 million, bringing the total to $4 million.

The Highlands conservation program is an example of how a cooperative approach to land protection can provide wood resources, wildlife habitat, watershed protection, recreational opportunities and other benefits to the environment and to the community. The goal of this program is to promote forest stewardship as a working, sustainable landscape, both ecologically and economically for future generations.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Idaho if he would like to say a word.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 68, line 12 be considered as read.

Madam Chair, although I support the gentleman's amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition.

I want to say that I strongly support this amendment. It is very clear to me that in California, in Washington, in Oregon, and in many States, this has become a tremendous problem. Drugs are being grown, marijuana particularly, on Federal lands. I think we have to do more on enforcement. I commend the gentleman for his leadership in presenting the amendment. Our side supports it.

If the gentleman has nothing further to say, I think we ought to have a vote on his amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 119, line 15 be considered as read.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I understand that citizens and the Carson City Board of Supervisors are concerned about the Interior Department plan to build an urgently needed new wildfire facility, but it is clearly premature to cut off funding for this proposal. The environmental analysis is still out for public review. We should not halt this important project before the analysis and the public input can be analyzed and considered.

Carson City is a fire-prone area. It is really important for the Federal agencies to move ahead with an interagency center so they can be more efficient and effective firefighters. This new joint facility will support the Silver Hotshot Group, a key part of the firefighting force.

The Interior Department has already spent funds for the planning and design of this particular project, so we should not stop or unduly delay its implementation. Both the Interior Department and the Forest Service have budgeted some of their limited infrastructure funding for this badly needed project.

I understand the gentleman from Nevada has concerns. I pledge to work with him as this bill moves forward to be sure that his constituents' concerns are heard and fully considered. We all want to improve the firefighting capacity and protect neighborhoods and wildlands.

This amendment was not brought to our attention, the committee's attention, until very late in the process. Had we known, we could have taken an opportunity to talk to the Department, to hear the gentleman's views. He did not come to the committee and testify. There was an opportunity for Members to testify. He chose not to do that.

So I think that this is an amendment that comes late, is not favored by the administration, is actually going to weaken our firefighting capability and this is something that is serious because people's lives are at stake. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this misguided amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

This amendment would harm this bill dramatically and would shortchange America's vitally needed environmental conservation and Native American programs.

As our former colleague, Silvio Conte, would say: This is a mindless, meat ax approach. It makes no choices based on need or the merits of the programs. This reduction is the equivalent of a 17.8 percent cut. This is completely irresponsible. This is not just an accounting change on a spreadsheet. Cutting $5.75 billion from the bill would have serious consequences on health, jobs, energy programs, young people and wild places.

The Environmental Protection Agency would be reduced by $1.8 billion. This would seriously impair environmental protection, science programs, and hazardous area remediation. Funding for efforts to help local communities with repairs to their aging water and wastewater infrastructure would be reduced by $700 million. This would mean that approximately 400 communities would not receive the financial assistance they need to repair and improve water and sewer infrastructure.

Despite the fact that 76 million Americans live within 4 miles of a toxic waste site, the amendment cuts $233 million from programs to clean up the Nation's most toxic and hazardous waste sites. It reduces the landmark effort to clean up the Great Lakes by $85 million, thus jeopardizing the cleanup of toxic sediments in the lakes and harming the aquatic plants and animals which humans depend upon.

Our national parks would be cut by $485 million. It includes a $403 million reduction below the President's request for the basic operational costs of the 395 units of the national park system. As an example, Yosemite would lose $3.6 million; Yellowstone, $4.6 million; the Independence Mall in Philadelphia, $2.8 million. This reduction is the equivalent of closing 75 national park units. Many visitors would find closed national parks when they go on vacation or on educational trips, reducing the entire tourism industry and harming the economy of many cities and communities.

It rejects $1.2 billion for programs that have received bipartisan support by cutting $721 million out of Indian health care programs. This proposal would deny critically needed services to thousands of Native Americans. More than 2 million Native Americans would be denied inpatient and outpatient health care services and more than 4,000 cancer screenings would be eliminated.

It takes $90 million out of the already struggling Indian education programs, leaving even more Indian children without adequate education programs.

It reduces overall funding for firefighting by $652 million at a time when we are facing another dangerous wildfire season. Many small fires would escape initial attack, leading to many more large wildfires that harm watersheds and cost far more money in emergency firefighting and recovery costs.

It cuts 1,700 firefighters, shuts down more than 50 firefighter stations, and significantly reduces air tanker support. It decimates preparedness efforts by failing to provide critical support for initial attacks, and could allow as many as 600 more wildfires to escalate.

This would lead to larger, more damaging and much more expensive fires, the kind that costs in excess of $100 million to extinguish.

So I think this is a very bad amendment. It hurts the Fish and Wildlife Service. It hurts the Forest Service.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Again I want to say that our committee held countless oversight hearings. We made cuts, $300 million in cuts.

I would also say that this part of the budget, under the previous administration was reduced, Interior Department, by 16 percent, the EPA by 29 percent, the Forest Service by 35 percent. So this will help bring back these important programs. I mean, we are talking about health care in the Indian Health Service.

Mr. Obey made a decision. President Obama made a decision. It went through OMB. Many of the people on the other side of the aisle have no trust in the Congress, but this budget came from the administration. The administration looked at all these programs, And every earmark we had in this bill was vetted by the administration. So this has been carefully put together.

I spent 33 years on this committee, and I'll tell you this, we know what we're doing. We support the Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service. These are great institutions that deserve our support, and to have somebody come in here and accuse us of not doing our work is an insult to me and to Mr. Simpson because we have done our work. We know what's in this bill, and it's a good bill.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and yield back my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to seek the time in opposition.

I urge Members to oppose this amendment. The gentleman from Florida would not have believed it if I had accepted his amendment, and of course I can't accept it because this amendment is not a good amendment.

The gentleman says that this amendment would reduce the EPA to the fiscal year 2009 funding level, but let's talk about what it will really do.

A reduction of 38 percent to the funds provided in this bill for EPA would equal a $3.975 billion cut. That would eliminate all the funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, and 27,000 fewer construction jobs would be created through construction of water and wastewater infrastructure. That means almost 1,500 communities across this country would not receive assistance to repair and build drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.

It was the previous administration that reported a $662 billion gap between what our communities will need to spend and the funds they have to do it with. This reduction would mean that the great water bodies of this country will not receive the funding to help restore and protect these special natural resources.

The great water bodies are not just the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico. If you represent a district that borders any of these water bodies, this amendment will cut the funding your community depends on to help protect them: Mobile Bay, Alabama; San Francisco Bay; Morro Bay, California; Santa Monica Bay; Long Island Sound; Delaware Estuary; Tampa Bay; Sarasota Bay; Charlotte Harbor, Florida; Indian River Lagoon, Florida; Barataria Terrebonne, Louisiana; Casco Bay, Maine; Maryland coastal bays; Massachusetts Bay; Narragansett Bay; New Hampshire estuaries; New York/ New Jersey Harbor; Barnegat Bay, New Jersey; Peconic Estuary; Albemarle Pamlico Sound; Lower Columbia River; Tillamook Bay, Oregon; San Juan Bay, Puerto Rico; Coastal Bend Bays, Texas; and Galveston Bay, Texas.

I would warn Members that 151 Members of this body whose districts border one of these estuaries that I mentioned will see that their funding will be cut for these important programs.

A reduction of this size would mean the EPA would stop construction and demobilize 8 to 10 large, high-cost ongoing Superfund projects such as the Welsbach site in New Jersey, the Tar Creek site in Oklahoma, and the New Bedford site in Massachusetts. EPA would not be able to start any new Superfund sites in 2010 after years of reduction under the previous administration.

EPA estimates that a reduction of this size would prohibit them from completing construction at as many as nine Superfund sites in 2010 and 2011. This reduction would mean EPA would not properly certify new vehicles, fuels, and engines sold in the United States to make sure they conform to EPA's emission standards. And 217 tribes would lose funding for their environmental programs. A 38 percent reduction to the EPA would impact every program they administer. But most importantly, this reduction would affect every American who wants to drink clean water and breathe clean air.

Let me remind the Members, we all have an environment in our districts, so I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the Stearns amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I will answer the gentleman's question. I want you to know, again, I have to say this again, and it pains me every time I say it, but over the last 8 years, the Interior Department was cut by 16 percent; EPA was cut by 29 percent. So this is a little bit of help to get back to an approach that can deal effectively with some of the most important and sensitive programs we have in this country: the Superfund sites, our wastewater treatment, our clean water.

When you ask the American people, do you want clean water, do you want safe drinking water, it's a 99 percent issue. So to stand up here and say we're going to have draconian cuts of the money for the revolving funds that are going to provide that clean water, it is unthinkable. And I know the gentleman wants me to stop. It must be painful. The truth is always painful.

Madam Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I want the gentleman to know that this amendment, you put it on your Web site. We looked at it very carefully. And we feel that this is a totally justified amendment. We strongly support it.

We checked with the Park Service, and the Park Service strongly supports it.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

First of all, I want to say we strongly oppose this amendment. We have checked on this project. We think this is a great project. We think it's worthy. We think it provides a lot of public good. And I'd be glad to yield to my friend from New York (Mr. McHugh) to further discuss this project.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairwoman, let me begin my remarks by expressing thanks to Chairman Dicks for the reasonable and evenhanded manner in which he's conducted the business of the Interior Subcommittee this year. While we may disagree about the needed 17 percent increase in our subcommittee allocation, our work together has been a bipartisan, collaborative effort. We are certainly not going to agree on every issue, but even when we disagree, Chairman Dicks and I continue to work well together, and I thank him for that.

I'd also like to commend the chairman for the extraordinary oversight activity of our subcommittee this year. As he mentioned, oversight is one of the committee's most important functions, and we have upheld that responsibility by holding 20 subcommittee hearings since the beginning of the year involving over 100 witnesses. I don't know many other subcommittees that can match that record.

I also want to applaud the chairman's decision to provide full pay and fixed costs for each of the agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.

We're both concerned by the fact the President's budget submission for the U.S. Forest Service covered only 60 percent of the pay and fixed costs, while the budget request for the Department of Interior included 100 percent of pay and fixed costs. To date, the committee has received no explanation or justification from the administration for this discrepancy.

I'm also pleased by the needed attention this legislation provides our Native American brothers and sisters. There are many unmet needs within Indian country--in education, health care, law enforcement, drug abuse prevention, and other areas--and this bill does a great deal to address these issues.

Chairman Dicks and I agree on many things, including our obligation to be good stewards of our environment and public lands for future generations. However, we part when it comes to the need for an allocation as generous as the one Chairman Obey has provided in this bill.

The 302(b) allocation for this bill is $32.3 billion, a $4.7 billion, or 17 percent, increase over last year's enacted level. This increase comes on the heels of historic increases in this subcommittee's spending in recent years.

Interior and the Environment spending between 2007 and 2009-- including base bills, emergency supplementals, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--has increased by 41 percent--and that's before this year's 17 percent increase.

Chairman Obey is fond of saying, Show me a smaller problem and I'll show you a smaller solution. While I may not be able to show him a smaller problem, I can show him a historically bigger problem where the ``solution'' of more and more deficit spending has not worked-- including the Great Depression of the 1930s and Japan in the 1990s.

But it isn't just the spending that concerns me. This legislation is funding large increases in programs without having clearly defined goals or sufficient processes in place to measure the return on our investment. We are making rapid investments in water, climate change, renewable energy, and other areas--all of them worthy endeavors--but with relatively little planning and coordination across multiple agencies and the rest of government.

Our country has some serious environmental challenges that need to be addressed. And this bill has an overly generous allocation to meet many of those needs. But, with all due respect to Chairman Obey, too often we believe that our commitment to an issue is measured by the amount of money we spend rather than how we're spending that money. History has shown us that bigger budgets do not necessarily produce better results.

The climate change issue is an illustration of this point. ``Climate change'' is today what the term ``homeland security'' was in the days and months following the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Anyone who came into our offices, any of our offices, to discuss an issue, spoke of it in the context of ``homeland security.'' The argument was, We have to do X, Y, or Z, for our homeland security depends upon it.

Well, today many of our priorities are related to climate change. I agree with Chairman Dicks this is an issue we need to study carefully and know more about. It's affecting the intensity of our fires and even the duration of our fire season.

But what have we learned from the money this subcommittee and other committees have already provided? Are we spending $420 million on climate change next year to learn something new or relearn what we already know?

I'm also concerned that many climate change functions within this bill won't be coordinated with similar efforts undertaken by other Federal agencies, resulting in a duplicating of effort. We ought to require coordination across the entire Federal Government on an issue as important as this, and one on which we are spending as much money government-wide as we are.

It's for this reason that the minority offered an amendment--adopted during the full committee consideration--requiring the President to report to Congress 120 days after submission of the 2011 budget request on all obligations and expenditures across government on climate change programs and activities for FY 2008, 2009, and 2010. It's not because we're opposed to climate change programs, but because they need to be coordinated government-wide.

Given the uncertain economic times our country is facing, I'm also troubled by the unsustainable pattern of spending in this legislation. This subcommittee and Congress ought to be as concerned about the impact of too much spending as we are about the potential impact of climate change and other issues.

Chairman Dicks has spoken on many occasions about what he describes as ``the dark days'' and ``the misguided policies and priorities of the previous administration.'' Still, for any perceived or real inadequacies of past policies or budgets, it would be a mistake for any of us to believe we can spend our way to a solution to every challenge we face.

The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently told Congress that it's time for the Obama administration to develop a strategy to address record deficits or risk long-term damage to our economy. He said, ``Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.''

A good bill is a balanced bill. But providing a disproportionate level of funding to one agency creates an imbalance that undermines the legitimate needs of other deserving agencies. That is why I question a $10.6 billion budget for the EPA--a 38 percent increase from last year. This is on top of the $7.2 billion the agency received in the stimulus package and the $7.6 billion it received in the enacted 2009 Interior bill.

Taken together, the EPA will receive over $25 billion this calendar year alone. That's about the size of this subcommittee's entire budget just 2 years ago.

While the EPA will receive an extraordinary, historic funding increase, it's worth noting the U.S. Forest Service was recently rated as one of the worst places to work in the Federal Government by a study conducted by the Office of Personnel Management. It isn't clear why Forest Service employees feel as they do, but it may be linked to the incredible funding challenges the Service has faced in recent years due to the growing cost of fire suppressions.

From our hearings, we know that almost 50 percent of the Forest Service

budget is now consumed by the cost fighting wildfires. In past years, the Forest Service has had to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars from other accounts just to pay for fire suppression. Without any question, this creates uncertainty among Forest Service employees.

President Obama is to be commended for tackling the issue of budgeting for fire suppression by proposing a fully funded fire suppression budget as well as a contingency reserve fund. And I commend Chairman Dicks for providing the Forest Service with resources to address many fire-related needs.

Still, based upon recent fire patterns and the monumental increase in demand for fire suppression dollars, I feel strongly that the wildfire contingency reserve fund should be funded at the President's request level of $357 million. This reserve fund is similar to the emergency fund source contained in the FLAME Act, which passed the House in March on an overwhelming 412-3 vote.

That is why the minority offered an amendment--adopted during full committee consideration--which increased the fire contingency reserve fund from $250 million in the chairman's mark to the President's requested level of $357 million. If virtually every other item in this legislation is funded at or above the President's request level, there should be no justifiable reason to exclude fire suppression. And I want to thank the chairman for accepting that amendment in the full committee.

We paid for this increase by rescinding $107 million from the EPA's prior year balances. According to the May, 2009 report issued by the EPA's Inspector General's office, the EPA presently has $163 million on the books that have been sitting there unspent since 1999. The EPA does some good work, but if those dollars haven't been spent in 10 years, we ought to put them to good use fighting fires.

While Chairman Dicks has done a good job addressing many critical issues in this bill, I don't believe that a $4.7 billion, or 17 percent, increase over the FY 2009 enacted level is justified or warranted. This unprecedented increase follows a $3.2 billion, or 13 percent, increase between FY 2008 and FY 2009 spending bills, as well as an $11 billion infusion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Frankly, we just can't afford this.

In closing, I would again like to thank Chairman Dicks for the evenhandedness that he has shown in working with us. We work well together, and I think this bill shows that.

In closing, I'd like to thank both majority and minority staff for their long hours and fine work in producing this legislation. On the majority side, this includes Delia Scott, Chris Topik, Julie Falkner, Greg Knadle, Beth Houser, Melissa Squire, Ryan Shauers, and Pete Modaff.

On the minority side, let me thank my staff--Missy Small, Megan Milam, Kaylyn Bessey, and Lindsay Slater, as well as the committee staffers, Darren Benjamin and David LesStrang. If the Members of this House worked as well together as the majority and minority staffers do, we'd get a lot more done in this place.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I would yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Madam Chairwoman, I now yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Indiana, the former chairman and now ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to echo the words of Chairman Dicks and thank the gentleman from Indiana for bringing this to our attention, the importance of improving the standards of these cemeteries. Mr. Buyer's amendment--though not made in order, and it should have been made in order--has made us aware of this situation that must be addressed. I will continue to work with Chairman Dicks and Mr. Buyer to ensure that these veterans' cemeteries are brought up to the standard consistent with other veterans' cemeteries.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention, and I can guarantee that the National Park Service is now aware of it also.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Madam Chairwoman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with Chairman Dicks on behalf of Mr. Calvert of California.

Mr. Dicks, I rise today in support of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grants programs, which provide needed funding to State and local pollution control agencies to retrofit and replace older, higher emission diesel with newer, lower emission, and more efficient technologies.

EPA studies indicate that black carbon, like that emitted from diesel engines, is the second most significant contributor to global warming. Retrofits and replacements of old diesel engines, like those supported by DERA, reduce these emissions by up to 90 percent.

Recently, a broad and diverse coalition of over 250 environmental, science, public health, industry, and State and local governments wrote members of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee encouraging the committee to fully fund the DERA program at its $200 million authorized level for fiscal year 2010. Over 40 bipartisan Members of the House sent a similar letter of support to the subcommittee. Funds invested by the Federal Government in this program leverage two State and local dollars for every one Federal dollar appropriated and provide $13 of economic benefit for every dollar spent on the program.

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act was authorized at 200 million per year from FY07 to FY11. However, even given this program's success in combating global warming, DERA has received less than $146 million in regular fiscal year appropriations so far, 25 percent of its authorized level. In this year's bill, the DERA program is slated to receive $60 million.

To date, this successful program has received over 650 applications for DERA grants totaling over $2 billion. Given this fact and the broad support this program has received, our colleague, Mr. Calvert, introduced an amendment in the Appropriations Committee to increase funding for DERA by $15 million. Though this amendment was not adopted, Mr. Chairman, I ask you today, are you willing to work with Congressman Calvert in the future to increase funding for DERA closer to its authorized level?

I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am eager to work with you over the coming year to improve the DERA granting process to ensure that applications are processed and grants are awarded in a timely and efficient manner and work with you in the coming fiscal years to secure more robust funding for this program. It truly is a win-win-win situation, stimulating the American economy, improving air quality nationwide, and reducing emissions that are among the greatest contributors to global warming.

I want to thank Mr. Calvert for his interest and bringing this to our attention.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would inform the chairman that we have no further speakers.

Let me just say in closing, Madam Chairwoman, that I have truly appreciated working with you, Chairman Dicks. You and the staff have been an honor to work with, and I think we have created a very good bipartisan bill. To tell you the truth, I can't complain about anything where you have spent the funds, although there might have been some differences that I would have made if I were king for a day and that type of thing, but I think we have come out with a good bill.

As I have said, since we started the markup, you know that my major concern is the overall spending level in this bill. But in terms of what we have spent it on, I have no problems with the way that you are approaching this, and I thank you for your bipartisanship and working with us.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I thank you, and as I said in my opening statement, I truly do want to thank you for the oversight hearings that you have. It's been the best committee that I have served on in my time in Congress in terms of the oversight hearings that we have done, and I think that's one of the most vital functions that we have performed here and you have done a masterful job on them.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would claim time in opposition.

Madam Chairwoman, it saddens me that we are here with this manager's amendment. Traditionally, manager's amendments have been noncontroversial--when they have ever been offered on an appropriation bill, have been noncontroversial and have been offered by both sides. That's not the case on this amendment.

Surprisingly, my opposition to the amendment isn't because of the substance of the amendment and the provisions of the amendment, it's how it got here. There were a number of amendments that were proposed last night in the Rules Committee; almost all of them were turned down. There were amendments that had substantive purposes offered by Members on my side of the aisle that were turned down.

The ranking member of the full committee offered an important amendment that was not made in order. The

ranking member of the subcommittee, myself, offered an amendment that was important and was not made in order. And yet we have taken three proposed amendments that were offered in the subcommittee and rolled them together in one manager's amendment and brought it to the floor, three Democratic proposed amendments and rolled it into a manager's amendment. This is not in the tradition of what a manager's amendment should be.

And so while I can't complain about the amendments, the amendments that were offered, per se, if they were offered individually and had been allowed by the Rules Committee to be allowed independently along with some of the other amendments that should have been allowed, I would have voted for all of these amendments, most likely. But it's the process that brought us to this state.

And, unfortunately, what's been happening with the rules that have been adopted for consideration of appropriation bills, it leads us to these types of incidents that should not happen, that are unnecessary, that we try to get around our own rules and our own traditions of having manager's amendments approved by both sides that are generally noncontroversial.

So, again, while I don't oppose the individual provisions of this, how this amendment got here and what it contains is not fair to the rest of the Members who put in thoughtful efforts to go to the Rules Committee and propose amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Yielding myself the remainder of my time, and I take the gentleman from Washington at his word, I know that he is a gentleman of honor and he wants to work these out in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, I am not sure that the gentleman agrees fully with what has been going on with some of the rules and would like to get back, like many of us would, to regular order, and we would like to do that.

But if we had time to confer, and I understand what the gentleman is saying, a very noncontroversial amendment that could have been adopted was Mr. Buyer's amendment that we talked about on the veterans' cemeteries within the National Park Service would have been simple to put in a manager's amendment.

But I take the gentleman at his word and I look forward to working with him in the future on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is an important program. I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. We support it. I hope that it passes and that we can preserve the Highlands region.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, this doesn't cut off funding for the fire center. What it does is cut off funding for the fire center in that location. It doesn't matter whether the environmental review is done or not if that location is not acceptable to the local residents.

One of the things in dealing with Federal agencies that own a majority of the land surrounding you is that sometimes they are good neighbors, and sometimes they aren't. But local people ought to have some say in these Federal agencies' decisions of where they are going to locate facilities and so forth.

So just saying this area, this location that you are looking at is inappropriate, as the Board of County Commissioners apparently has said, seems to me to be entirely appropriate, and Congress ought to look at their wishes.

And I guarantee you in Nevada there are a lot of places that they could build this fire center that apparently wouldn't cause the controversy that is being caused in this local community. And when the Representative from that area comes to me and says this is a problem, then I have to believe the people who sent him here. I support the amendment.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 578 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady

from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rules is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 578.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 578 provides for consideration of H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010.

I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. I thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Dicks and the Appropriations staff for their hard work and dedication in bringing this bill to us.

Madam Speaker, I am a lucky man. I am truly blessed to represent communities in Colorado like Vail, Breckenridge, and Boulder, some of the most awe-inspiring forests, mountains, and wilderness that our country has to offer and I had the opportunity to witness as a kid growing up to this day.

Visitors from across the globe come to my district in Colorado and others like it across the Nation year-round to get a taste of what we experience every day. Amidst this beauty, Coloradans grow up understanding the great responsibility we all share to protect our precious natural resources for generations of Americans to enjoy.

This bill, I'm proud to say, reflects that great responsibility and priority by providing a total of $32.3 billion for the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Indian Health Service, and related agencies--an increase of $4.7 billion over the 2009 enacted levels.

These funds are absolutely critical in addressing the problems that have come with historic underfunding and have a tangible impact not only on communities in my district, but across the country. This bill also keeps its foundation in fiscal responsibility and contains over $320 million in program terminations for programs that simply don't work, reductions in other savings for the fiscal year 2009 level, and over $300 million from the budget request. Included in this amount is a $142 million recission from EPA prior year STAG account funds based on an inspector general report of unliquidated obligations and $18 million in reductions from a number of requested increases for EPA administrative functions.

This bill also terminates $28 million for a new initiative in Federal aid in wildlife restoration programs due to concerns about implementation of this program.

Our natural environment plays such a critical role in the quality of our lives not only in my district, but across the country, and this bill will help continue the proud tradition of Federal stewardship of our public lands.

I reserve the balance of my time.

This bill has several cuts that I went into in a number of different areas showing strong fiscal discipline in this difficult fiscal environment. And I would agree with the gentlelady that we need to ensure that we return to fiscal responsibility and indeed balance our budget and certainly preserve our national heritage as an important part of long-term fiscal responsibility.

I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

This proposed rule makes in order 12 Republican amendments and indeed only one Democratic amendment, a manager's amendment, which includes two Democratic amendments. I think it is fair to both parties. Included in the allowed amendments are five earmark amendments.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the Chair of the subcommittee whose hard work brings us this bill here today, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Washington.

Madam Speaker, to address the gentleman from California-- in a previous discussion at the Rules Committee, we talked about the fact that the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Salazar, has agreed to visit San Joaquin Valley and learn more about the situation firsthand to address the very legitimate concern that the gentleman from California has raised.

As a fellow Coloradan, I can attest to the savvy ability of our former Senator, former Attorney General, former water lawyer, one of the most knowledgeable minds and best minds that we have in the area of water law, water rights and water. I know that the gentleman from California shares our desire to address the legitimate issue raised by his constituents. I have every degree of confidence that the Secretary will play a constructive role in doing that.

The health of our communities is our most precious resource. This bill provides a historic and much needed investment in the Environmental Protection Agency, $10.5 billion, a large portion of which will improve our water and wastewater infrastructure. As a westerner, I understand the vast challenges we face with water. Establishing the water infrastructure that encourages and promotes conservation is of incredible importance for regions that will only see their water sources become fewer and farther between as demands grow.

In Colorado, we rely on clean water not just for municipal and agricultural use--many of our communities are supported by visiting kayakers, fly fishermen and outdoorsmen from across the country who flock to our pristine rivers and in doing so, are a key driver of the success of our economy. Our environment, communities, industries and businesses all stand to gain under the water provisions of this bill. Without significant infrastructure investment and improvement, our water quality could be further compromised, endangering the future health and economic viability of our communities nationwide and our environment. Building upon the job creation and stimulus of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this bill will provide loans and assistance to more than 1,500 communities across this country and will also create as many as 40,000 new construction jobs to help get our economy going again. Moreover, Madam Speaker, wildfire season has grown exponentially over the last decade, and it is just beginning in Colorado and across the West. The cost of fighting fires has continued to increase. The House recently passed the FLAME Act, and I hope the Senate will move quickly to do the same. The communities in my district are growing increasingly worried about another fire season that has the potential to be very dangerous to both property and to people. We've been hit hard, as have many communities across our country, by the mountain pine beetle epidemic, an epidemic that has killed millions of acres of trees. Hard-hit counties in my district, like Grand County and Summit County, have had their mighty lodgepole pines felled across the district, turning the area into a potential powder keg for forest fires, bringing the threat of wildfire literally to our backyards. Over the past 10 years, this outbreak has spread, and it is devastating the Mountain West. There is a strong correlation between previous outbreaks of mountain beetles and forest fires 10 years after the event. We are now coming upon the 10-year time frame when the risk of forest fires is at its maximum.

This bill is of particular note to my home State of Colorado as it reinstates a vital program, the good neighbor authority, which is currently helping to protect communities from wildfire threats with collaboration at both the State and Federal levels. Collaboration is key to forest fire prevention. Climate modeling predicts a large change in the frequency of precipitation and intensity of drought in the area, which will only add to our increasing wildfire risk.

This bill provides a significant increase for programs that address wildland fire mitigation and suppression at both the Forest Service as well as within the Department of the Interior, and that will directly aid our communities that are most at risk. In past years, Federal wildfire accounts have fallen dangerously low. This bill provides $3.6 billion to address wildfires, including $1.49 billion for suppression and $611 million for hazardous fuels reduction. It also provides $357 million for wildland fire suppression contingency reserve funds, which are critical to protect the health of our communities and health of our public lands. This bill is an important part of our overall strategy to prevent forest fires across the West and on public lands across our country.

Madam Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the economy of Colorado and many other States rely on the health of our public lands. Our public lands draw visitors every year to explore Rocky Mountain National Park, hike the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness, or enjoy skiing on our hundreds of world- class slopes.

To protect the historic and natural beauty of our State and our country, this bill includes much-needed increases for both the national parks as well as the wildlife refuges. The $2.7 billion provided for the National Park Service includes a $100 million increase to operate the parks and $25 million for the Park Partnership Program.

I was lucky enough to have grown up in Boulder, Colorado, hiking in Mount Sanitas, the Flat Irons, and Flagstaff Mountain, areas under public management. This bill will protect and defend some of America's truly great public lands so that children all across the country can grow up enjoying our environment and interacting with it every day just as I and many of my colleagues did.

We provide over $500 million to operate the National Wildlife Refuge System, $20 million above the request. These funds will provide critically needed staff for many areas, implement climate change strategies and improve conservation efforts. Currently more than 200 of the 550 National Wildlife Refuges have no on-site staff. This bill also provides $386 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, including an $11 million increase for the stateside land acquisition account in the National Park Service.

Colorado's landscape goes hand in hand with its character. All of us define where we come from by the character of our natural heritage. We're lucky to have as many beautiful places across our country set aside as public lands. Over half of the State of Colorado is held in public trust as a national forest. My district is home to the Indian Peaks Wilderness and the White River. The White River is the single most visited national forest in the Nation, and we have many other marvelous attractions as well in the public trust.

This bill invests in public land management, State assistance, and science programs at the U.S. Forest Service. The nonfire Forest Service budget is $2.77 billion, including $100 million for the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Program at the Forest Service to protect streams and water systems from damaged forest roads. This effort is a key part of our effort to protect the national forests and grasslands.

American arts and artists, not to mention their invaluable impact on education and recreation, are another important American resource which we must protect. Under this bill, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities will each receive $170 million, a $15 million increase above 2009 for each endowment. This bill also supports the Smithsonian Institution here in Washington, D.C. and across the country, the world's largest museum complex, with an increase of $15 million above the President's request and $43 million above 2009 levels.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, with regard to fiscal responsibility, this is an issue that we all care about for this generation and future generations. Americans across the country are tightening their belts in response to our financial meltdown, and the government is doing the same.

Opponents of this bill may claim that the $4.7 billion increase over 2009 is extravagant or unwise. But the programs in this bill are expected to return more than $14.5 billion to the Treasury next year. The Department of the Interior alone has estimated to return more than $13 billion to the Treasury through oil, gas, and coal revenues, grazing and timber fees, recreation fees and the revenues from the sale of the duck stamps, not to mention the secondary impact of tourism on economies like the one in my district in Colorado. And the EPA's Leaking Underground Storage Tank program, which is financed by a 0.1 percent tax per gallon of gas, has a balance of more than $3 billion that offsets the deficit.

The provisions in this bill have been built with strong bipartisan support and were designed to pay for themselves. And by protecting the health of our Nation's drinking water, boosting support for our beautiful parks and wild lands, and, in turn, our national tourism industry, and reducing the threat of global climate change, I can't think of a wiser investment to make or a better time to make it than now.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Dicks.

Madam Speaker, the jobs that this bill creates are very real: repairing our roads, doing trail work. Over 40,000 jobs are created, just as real as the jobs that are created under the American Recovery Program.

As I was driving through the mountain area of my district just last week, I saw signs alongside the road that these jobs are created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There were men and women at work making necessary improvements in our infrastructure and preparing it for the next generation. This bill provides crucial investment in America's resources, natural and human.

As representatives of the people and land of this great Nation, it's our responsibility to protect our resources and be good stewards of our forests, our parks, our wild lands, and our waters. This bill reinforces that imperative and makes sure that we keep our resources safe and take great steps to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy them for years to come.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. I appreciate my colleague yielding time and, like my colleague from Colorado, I feel extremely fortunate to live where I live in my district--I think the most beautiful area of this country.

But, Madam Speaker, the underlying bill we have here today, the Interior Appropriations Act, that most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are being denied the ability to offer amendments to, is filled with wasteful spending. The bill itself is a 17 percent overall increase in funding from last year's bill, and most programs are increased not only above the 2009 levels, but also above the levels the President requested.

This does not reflect the hard economic times our country and our constituents are experiencing right now and is instead spending borrowed money that we do not have.

This bill contains an astounding 38 percent increase in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. When combined with stimulus funding approved earlier this Congress, which I did not support, the EPA will receive more than $25 billion in a single calendar year, which is the equivalent of three-quarters of the entire Interior Appropriations Act we have before us.

This kind of excessive spending does not reflect but it mocks the economic challenges our constituents are experiencing.

The money that Speaker Pelosi and the Obama administration want to spend today is all borrowed money. We do not have this money. Our constituents do not have this money. And the Federal Government does not have this money.

The Democrat leaders have made the irresponsible decision to borrow in order to spend it at their whim. This bill will increase the deficit even more by borrowing and spending money we don't have.

We can no longer blame the deficit and economic difficulties today on the previous administration because the Democrat leaders are continuing to dig America into a bigger and bigger hole with more reckless spending.

This borrowed money is all being spent by Speaker Pelosi and the Obama administration and, as a result, the unemployment rate continues to rise and the deficit continues to rise also.

This bill contains also several hundred earmarks. The earmark system is flawed. And we know that even some of the earmarks in this bill have had questions raised about them.

This legislation contains several giveaways for and preferential treatment to green companies in order to promote the green climate. This bill applies Davis-Bacon, which will create wasteful spending that we do not need to have.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule in order to allow this body to appropriately and adequately offer their ideas and engage in the debate that our constituents deserve.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will now yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

I now yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I think it's important to point out to the American people that there are only 60 members on the Appropriations Committee, which means that only 60 out of 435 Members in this body had the opportunity to amend the bill that's under consideration here. If we had an open rule, every Member would have had that opportunity.

I'd also like to mention that my colleague from Colorado said, Only one Democrat amendment was accepted and 12 Republican amendments. But that reinforces the point that even Members of his own party were turned away from offering amendments, and that isn't right.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield now 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Nunes).

Madam Speaker, our colleague from California made an impassioned plea in the Rules Committee and again here on the floor today, and I have to ask the question: The Secretary of the Interior has been there to see the situation in the San Joaquin Valley. What more does he need to see? What is it going to take to take action to turn this water back on? How much more damage needs to occur before the Obama administration needs to take action or will take action on the needs there? As a person who grew up without water, I am very, very sensitive to this issue, and I know what a devastating thing it can be not to have water.

Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Madam Speaker, I love our national parks. My husband and I visit them whenever possible because we believe that they are crown jewels in our environment in this country. But by putting this and future generations further into debt, we are making it less likely that the population of this country is going to be able to visit these wonderful national parks.

I offered an amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee that was intended to save taxpayer money that was also not made in order; so we will not be debating it on the floor of the House today, much to my disappointment and all of our constituents' detriment. My amendment was a commonsense amendment to H.R. 2996, the fiscal year 2010 Interior Appropriations Act. It would save taxpayers $10 million by eliminating proposed funding for local climate change grants.

During a time when families across America are making sacrifices in order to keep food on their tables, Congress should be finding ways to reduce unnecessary spending. My amendment would have taken a small step in the right direction by removing $10 million in taxpayer funds for local groups to come up with ambiguous projects to counter climate change.

The Federal Government has increasingly entrenched the American people in trillions of dollars of debt. It is irresponsible and negligent to continue spending Federal taxpayer funds on frivolous projects that should be funded locally such as the one that I tried to take the money from. Unfortunately, in blocking debate on my amendment, the majority did not side with the taxpayers to eliminate this wasteful grant project. Instead, the majority has worked to frivolously and unnecessarily spend the public's money without listening to any of their input or ideas.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as my colleagues have spoken so eloquently before me about the process by which this rule has been brought to the floor by the majority, I want to talk again about what's wrong with this closed process.

Never before in the history of this Congress have we seen this kind of action by the majority party. As my colleagues have expressed during today's debate on this rule, as well as the past two appropriations debates, bringing appropriations bills to the floor under a closed rule is unprecedented. It's very important that the American people understand that. It does an injustice to both Democrats and Republicans who want to have the opportunity to offer amendments and participate in debate with their colleagues over pressing issues of our time.

By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has cut off the minority and their own Democrat colleagues from having any input in the legislative process. By choosing to stifle debate, the Democrats in charge have denied their colleagues on both sides of the aisle the ability to do the job that they have been elected to do. That job is to offer ideas that represent and serve their constituents. The Democrats are denying Members the ability to offer improvements to legislation, and this is an injustice to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Article I, section 9 of the Constitution places the responsibility to spend the people's money in our hands as Members of Congress. This is a great responsibility given only to this congressional body with the expectation that we will engage in rigorous debate over how to best appropriate taxpayer funds. However, the majority has chosen to refuse Members any participation in this decisionmaking and instead has anointed itself as the sole appropriators in this legislative body. The Democrats in charge are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and what constituents can be adequately represented in this House.

Our constituents in both Republican districts and Democrat districts are

struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment, and yet are simultaneously being shut out of participating in a debate of how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent by the Federal Government.

Why is the majority blocking debate on such an important legislation? Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their Members from tough votes? Are they afraid of the democratic process?

After promising to make this Congress the most open and honest in history, Speaker Pelosi has time and time again worked to shut out both Republicans and Democrats from participating in debate and taking part in the legislative process. And I would like to give one quote from the Speaker when she was trying desperately to take control of this House. This is her quote:

``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

This is exactly the opposite of what the Speaker is doing. Why is she going back on her word? Is she afraid that the American people will disagree with her? Is she keeping other Democrats from having to make tough decisions on difficult votes? Is she afraid of democracy, the very principle upon which our country was founded?

Madam Speaker, it's very concerning to me that the Democrats in charge have chosen to silence the minority yet again. In doing so, they have chosen to keep the millions of constituents the minority represents from having a voice on the floor of the people's House.

Several of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, offered amendments to the Rules Committee, amendments which were arbitrarily not made in order by the majority.

These amendments included asserting Second Amendment rights on Federal lands, protecting private property rights, preventing excessive regulation of greenhouse gases, eliminating excessive earmark spending across the Nation, increasing our ability to produce energy domestically, and cutting unnecessary funds in order to save our constituents money.

The list goes on and on, but these amendments will not be heard on this floor because, for some reason, the majority is afraid of allowing debate on these topics.

And we fear it's going to get even worse because they are working very hard to bring to the floor a bill on climate change. They stopped calling it global warming and now are calling it climate change.

This bill, H.R. 2454, is a $646 billion tax that will hit every American family, small business and family farm. Speaker Pelosi's answer to the country's worst recession in decades is a national energy tax that will lead to higher taxes and more job losses for rural America and small businesses.

It will shift jobs to China and India. The bill will result in an enormous loss of jobs that would ensue when U.S. industries are unable to absorb the cost of the national energy tax and other provisions, like sending jobs overseas. There is little debate that the tax would outsource millions of manufacturing jobs to countries such as China and India. According to the independent Charles River Associates International, H.R. 2454 would result in a net reduction in U.S. employment of 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs each year of the policy through 2030.

Higher gas prices. The American Petroleum Institute reports that the cost impacts of H.R. 2454 could be as much as 77 cents per gallon for gasoline, 83 cents per gallon of jet fuel, and 88 cents for diesel fuel.

The Heritage Foundation has estimated that as a result of these increased prices, the average household will cut consumption of gasoline by 15 percent, but forcing a family of four to pay at least $600 more in 2012. It's going to be a huge impact.

It's also going to unfairly target rural America. Rural residents spend 58 percent more on fuel and travel 25 percent farther to get to work than Americans living in urban areas.

Farm income would drop as a result of H.R. 2454, according to a Heritage Foundation study, $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035; decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent, and 94 percent, respectively.

More importantly, 25 percent of U.S. farm cash receipts come from agricultural imports. U.S. farmers would be at a severe disadvantage compared to farmers and nations which do not have a cap-and-tax system and correspondingly high input costs. Over 100 State and agricultural groups oppose the cap-and-tax bill.

Madam Speaker, what it appears is happening here in this House is nothing less than a tremendous power grab and an attempt to control every aspect of our lives.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to our colleague from the State of Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Colorado a moment ago said this bill is going to create jobs. I love that old saying, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.''

I wonder if this bill is going to create jobs like the stimulus package has created jobs since our unemployment has gone up significantly since the stimulus package was passed. I would also like to point out that Spain, which counted on having so many jobs from green issues, has the highest unemployment rate in Europe right now.

Madam Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow all Members of Congress the opportunity to offer his or her amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill under an open rule.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be placed in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am here today to seek the chairman's assistance with an important matter involving the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, a matter with which he has been most helpful and understanding. I am also proud my friend Mr. Cole from Oklahoma, who is a Chickasaw, a great friend of the Choctaw people, is here and helping me as well.

The issue is the effect of the moratorium on school participation in the BIA academic funding system and its effect of preventing the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma from carrying out its plan to operate a first through sixth grade school program. The original moratorium was to be temporary to afford the BIA a chance to control its construction policy; yet it, in fact, precluded the Choctaws from reconstituting their program, which was unilaterally cut by the termination policy of the 1950s, in spite of the fact that the tribe built a new school and, thus, saved the government considerable expense.

I appreciate your pledge to work with me and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to address this problem. And I deeply appreciate the committee including language in your report accompanying H.R. 2996, now under consideration, directing the Bureau of Indian Affairs ``to study and report to the committee within 180 days after the enactment of this Act on the impacts of allowing reinstatement of termination-era academic programs or schools that were removed from the Bureau School System between 1951 and 1972.'' This includes the reestablishment of Jones Academy of Oklahoma as part of the Bureau School System.

Mr. Chairman, the Choctaw Nation has paid all construction and maintenance costs, and Jones Academy has received extensive positive recognition from multiple sources, yet the tribe is prohibited from operating Jones as a Federal grant school or for reestablishing their preexisting program. I would like to submit for the Record a prescription of the current Jones Academy program.

It is to meet this concern that I ask for a clarification, Mr. Chairman. Is it the chairman's understanding that the study and report should be done in consultation with the tribes involved, as required by Public Law 95-561, and that the costs to be provided are to be those associated with the current tribal programs and practices and the current state of the school programs involved as opposed to the rural farm-based boarding programs of the 1950s?

If I may ask one more question, is it the committee's intention at this time, absent a timely report by BIA directly responsive to the committee report language, to work to include Jones Academy as part of the Bureau School System?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Jones Academy

Introduction

Jones Academy is a Native American residential learning

center for elementary and secondary school age children. The

boarding school is located in southeast Oklahoma and houses

co-ed students grades 1 through 12. Established in 1891, the

facility is under the auspices of the Choctaw Nation of

Oklahoma. The campus sits on 540 acres five miles east of

Hartshorne, OK on Highway 270.

Student Population

150 to 190 students attend Jones Academy--50 to 60

elementary students (1st-6th)--100 to 130 junior high & high

school students (7th-12th)

25 to 30 tribes are represented at Jones Academy

10 to 15 states are represented at Jones Academy

Academics

August 2005, grades lst-6th began being taught at Jones

Academy--School years 2005-06 & 2006-07: Jones Academy

achieved a perfect API (Academic Performance Index) on state

achievement tests

August 2008, Choctaw Nation opened $10.2 million elementary

school at Jones Academy

Jones Academy has an alternative school for students (7th-

12th), that are behind in their credits (self-paced

curriculum)

Approximately 120 students (7th-12th) attend the Hartshorne

Public school System

Tutoring is offered five nights a week for all students

Several academic software programs are utilized to enhance

student academic achievement

Rewards for academic achievement provided by Jones Academy

and the Choctaw Nation STAR program plus the Jones Academy

Scholarship for former students enrolled in postsecondary

institutions of higher learning and/or training

Vocational Training through the Kiamichi Technology Center

Choctaw Language is offered

Medical

Health Screenings--including physicals and dental services

for all students--provided by the Choctaw Nation Health

Services and follow-up appointments as needed

All students receive eye checks with follow-up and glasses

purchased as needed

Nutritional Classes/Activities including a school health

fair sponsored by the Choctaw Nation

Students are provided with a school nurse in the evenings--

offered through CNHS, as well as access to the health clinic

in McAlester and Talihina Hospital

Counseling

Counseling Services--two licensed professional counselors,

four part-time mental health professionals with masters

degrees, one certified drug and alcohol, an academic/guidance

counselor and a school-based social worker

ACT prep courses for college bound students as well as

visits to post-secondary institutions of higher learning and/

or training

Oaks peer/group intervention provided at the alternative

school

Prevention and dorm meetings are held weekly

Recreation/Activities

Students participate in athletics at Jones Academy and at

the Hartshorne Public School (baseball, softball, football,

volleyball, basketball, cheerleading, weightlifting, etc.)

Horseback riding, archery, ROPES course, paint ball, over-

night camping, social and cultural dances, movies, swimming

and fishing

Outings to museums, area lakes, parks and zoo, sporting and

cultural events

Six Flags Over Texas and Frontier City trips

Raising & showing swine projects

Summer youth work program

Enrichment Program

Journalism class which produces a newsletter for parent/

guardians/supporters

Guitar & piano lessons

Horseback riding

Archery activities

Ceramics, arts & crafts, pottery and art lessons

Social skills training

Community service projects

Other Services

Student senior high school graduation expenses paid for by

Jones Academy (sr. pictures, announcements, sr. jacket, class

ring)

Family day at Jones Academy

Purchase hygiene products as well as clothing for students

as needed

Provide three meals and snacks each day

Provide safe secure environment for students and staff

Provide transportation home to and from Jones Academy

Provide adult supervision for students 24/7

Assist student in getting driver's license

Motivational speakers (including Miss OK/Miss America)

Location and History

Jones Academy is a Native American residential learning

center for elementary and secondary school age children. The

facility is located in southeast Oklahoma and houses about

190 co-ed students grades 1 through 12. Established in 1891

by the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the campus sits on 540

acres of rolling pasture 5 miles east of Hartshorne, OK on

Highway 270. Named after Wilson N. Jones, Principal Chief of

the Choctaws from 1890 to 1894, the school has served

generations of Native American children while under the

oversight of the Choctaw Nation or the Bureau of Indian

Affairs.

Student Body

Initially, the facility was an all boys school. In 1955,

Wheelock, a non-reservation school for Indian girls, was

closed; approximately 55 female students then were

transferred to Jones Academy. In April of 1985, the Choctaw

Nation contracted the boarding school operation from the

Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 1988, Jones Academy became a

tribally controlled school.

Our students represent a cross-section much like most other

areas of the country. Jones Academy's maximum enrollment is

190. In the past, the school has enrolled students from 29

different tribes. Students come from parts of Oklahoma,

Texas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, and

several other states. Each student is a member of a federally

recognized Indian tribe.

Facilities/Physical Resources

The physical layout of the campus includes two dormitory

buildings, each divided into elementary and secondary wings.

There is a cafeteria, an after-school tutorial building, and

a counseling center. A gym houses two classrooms for 20

alternative school students, a basketball court, and a weight

room. The campus grounds also include a museum, an

administration building, and a library/learning center with

an underground storm shelter. The boys' dorm and the

cafeteria were completely renovated in 2000. The girls' dorm

was built in 1994 and is a modern, bright, home away from

home. All four dorms have communal living rooms with areas

for entertainment.

Academic Program

The long-range goals of our academic program are to develop

capable students who can read and write proficiently and

perform math functions necessary in life. We believe that

building a strong foundation for our children will lead to

success.

Our students attend the Hartshorne Public Schools. They are

fully supported in their academic endeavors as well as extra-

curricular activities. Grades are monitored weekly to insure

that the student is performing to the best of his/her ability

and receiving proper instruction. Tutorial services are

offered to students in all grades. Students receive

incentives for academic achievements. High school students

are provided career counseling for postsecondary education

such as college or vocational training.

Jones Academy houses an alternative school for students

whose needs have not been met in the traditional classroom or

who are behind in grade level. The limited class size and

self-paced curriculum allow the teachers to give the students

individualized academic attention.

The Choctaw Nation has begun the process of operating its

own school at Jones Academy. Grades first through sixth are

presently held on our campus. Construction of the new

elementary school began in 2006.

Cultural/Recreational Activities

A goal of Jones Academy is to involve all students in

cultural, educational and recreational activities. Our

facility offers a wide variety of services to the student.

Students are encouraged to participate in our cultural and

traditional programs. These activities include the Indian

Club, traditional dance, drum and singing groups, pow-wows,

visits to ancient burial mounds and tribal festivals/museums.

Recreational activities include intramural sports, camping,

swimming, fishing, social dances, bowling, skating, movies,

picnics, horseback riding, and many other services. Jones

Academy offers a strong well-rounded program of activities to

meet the individual needs of our youth.

Medical Services

With the support of Choctaw Nation Health Services, Jones

Academy is able to provide health care for our students. Our

youth receive complete physical exams soon after school

begins. Throughout the year, a registered nurse and

physician's assistant are on site four days of the week.

Other medical services are referred to the Choctaw Nation

Indian Health Clinic at McAlester and the Choctaw Nation

Indian Hospital at Talihina.

Student Activities

Indian Club

Drum, Dance, Singing Groups

Jones Academy Rangers

Girl Scouts

Choctaw Language Classes

Student Council

Ropes Course

Weight-Lifting

Livestock Shows

Dances and Prom

Overnight Camping

Paint Ball, Go-Cart Racing

Horseback Riding, Skating

Movies, Swimming, Fishing,

Arts & Crafts, Flute Making

Outings to Area Lakes/Parks, Zoos, Museums, Sporting and

Cultural Events, Shopping Trips

Six Flags, Frontier City Trips

Residential Program

Jones Academy provides the following services to our

students:

Tutorial Assistance for All Grades

Rewards for Academic Achievement

Work Program for Clothing

Summer JTPA Work Program

Drug and Alcohol Education

Library Learning Center with Computers and Internet/E-mail

Access

Career Counseling

College and ACT Tests Preparation

Senior Graduation Expenses Paid

Jones Academy Scholarship Program

Vocational Training through the Kiamichi Technological

Center

Alternative School Program

Agriculture Program

Driver's License

Jones Academy Yearbook

Family Day

Nutritional Education

Complete Physical Exams

Medical Services Provided

Mental Health Services

Health Fair

Walking Program & Aerobics Class

Project Fit America

Life Skills Curriculum

Social Services Staff

Campus Security