Wildlife Refuge System Conservation Semipostal Stamp Act of 2011

Will the gentleman yield?

I do think it might be instructive that Mr. Pombo is no longer among our ranks and the principle reason is the Endangered Species Act authorization that he attempted to write which was so destructive of the original intent of the Endangered Species Act of 1965, and it was a Republican Senate that defeated it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have the voting record from February 16. I know the gentleman will recall H.R. 1 and the debate that ensued.

In H.R. 1, the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund was zeroed out, and so I had an amendment to restore $50 million to the North American Wetlands Conservation Program. What I find curious-- confusing--is that the very gentleman that now wants to put money into the program voted ``no'' against putting the $50 million into the North American Wetlands Conservation Program back in the spring.

Now, I do think it's an important program. I would like to see it continued. But I do have a problem with the fact that what we're doing when we want something to be funded, we take it out of the management of agencies--$3 million, $5 million, $6 billion--and when these amendments pass, you have a very damaging cumulative effect upon the ability of the agency to banish these programs. If this were to pass, we're now at $8 million that has been taken out of the management of

I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want our side to go on record in support of what Mr. Tonko and Mr. Dent are proposing. We have worked with them on this amendment.

This is the kind of program that really ought to have unanimous support in the House. I mean, we're talking about very small amounts of money that are distributed throughout the country; oftentimes $150,000; sometimes it gets up to $700,000. But they are relatively small amounts of money.

And what they do is to bring local community leaders together. Local communities love it and, of course, it draws tourism. It gets into the newspaper, oftentimes into metropolitan newspapers suggesting this is a terrific day trip for families to go on. They follow the Heritage Trail.

It has that kind of national recognition and credibility that only the Federal Government oftentimes can provide to a National Heritage Area, because many people claim it. But when the National Heritage Program identifies it as one of the true assets of our country and places that should be protected and preserved and explained to the public, then more people come. And it generates jobs; it generates economic activity.

Mr. Wolf just put in an authorization. He probably won't get the full amount of money that's authorized, but it will get some for the Civil War Battlefield Crossroads Trail, and that's drawing people up with the sesquicentennial of the Civil War.

All over the country. The Hudson River, there was a gentleman on the other side that opposed it when Mr. Hinchey put it in, had it designated. And then when he saw how successful it was, he said, Let's get my part of the Hudson River included.

This is a really good program. It was funded at about $17 million, 50 percent cut though. What are we doing? Talk about being penny-wise and pound-foolish, really. A 50 percent cut in it. It hurts the economies of any number of areas around the country.

So we think that this is a very reasonable amendment, and we congratulate the caucus for coming forward and suggesting that the money be restored, and we hope that it will be.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

First of all, I'm not sure why you want the Beach Boys to be the issue here. We were just discussing Mr. Watt's tenure as Secretary of the Interior. That was not so successful when he came after the Beach Boys.

But be that as it may, what we're really talking about here are a number of nonprofit organizations, and these are national memorials. Ford's Theater, Wolf Trap. I guess because the Beach Boys performed at Wolf Trap they are an issue. Actually, I would recommend to the gentleman that he watch them perform. I guess it's more my age than yours that can relate to them, but it was a pretty good performance. But I digress.

We're talking about Ford's Theater, Wolf Trap, Carter Barron, all part of the National Park System. The Kennedy Center is a national memorial. These are performing arts right here on the Capitol grounds as well.

Now we're talking about nationally significant sites, and the performances that occur, in fact, are part of the mission of these sites. They were authorized for members of the public, the taxpaying public, to come to a nonprofit venue and, in fact, be entertained. The national parks do that. They entertain the public that pays for them, sometimes by seeing iconic sites, sometimes by hiking and camping, sometimes it's by performances. So the National Park Service is in keeping with its mission to interpret the purpose of these national sites.

These performances are seen by citizens, in fact, all over the country. Many people who visit our Nation's Capitol attend these performances as part of their trip to the District of Columbia. And the crowds that fill the West Lawn of the Capitol on Memorial Day and the Fourth of July are testament to the public's support for this program.

In fact, if you were there on Memorial Day or the Fourth of July and turned to see the crowd, there are people as far as the eye can see, people representative of this vast, diverse country, and every single one of them had a smile on their face. Every single one of them was delighted, overjoyed that they were able to participate and appreciate and enjoy the performance that was put on on the Fourth of July and Memorial Day. That's part of our Nation's heritage. It's a proud part.

This amendment would do real harm to programs enjoyed by millions of Americans.

I would also suggest that this line item has already suffered a virtually devastating cut. It was funded at about $10 million. It's been cut to about $2 million. I mean, it's just barely hanging on. And now this amendment would eliminate it?

I mean, think about this. I know that some of the Members, at least as many Members of the majority side as the minority side, were there for the Memorial Day concert. I saw them. I was sitting with them. The chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the chairmen of the subcommittees, the leadership of the House and Senate were all there honoring our troops.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Not only were they there but Team 6 that had just dealt with Osama bin Laden in a fairly definitive manner, SEAL Team 6 was there. We couldn't identify them, but we all applauded for them, and they couldn't have been more overjoyed.

The gentleman makes a very good point. Colin Powell was basically the master of ceremonies.

Now, this is what we want to eliminate? This is what is such a threat to our budget as taking so much money? It's not taking that much money, and whatever money it's taking, it's giving back far more in return.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I think we have a problem in the amendment, itself, because it would specifically designate a study that might be interpreted as some type of earmark, which I don't think it really is.

I like what the gentlelady is trying to do. I think it's important. I think we ought to have a consideration by the Park Service of whether they are sufficiently flexible in dealing with local communities.

There was a recent article written in The Washington Post talking about some of the opportunities that exist to bring the community into local parks, urban parks, where far more people could be involved, people could participate, people could enhance the enjoyment of things that take place. For example, if there is a large soccer event at a park that is controlled by the National Park Service, you could bring the whole community in to watch it on a large screen.

There is no question but that we could find ways to discourage automobiles and encourage bikes--have bike sharing, for example, on The National Mall so that people could rent bikes and bike around The Mall. It wouldn't cause any environmental damage; in fact, it would preserve some of the lawn on our National Mall. Some people would enjoy it more and they would get a little exercise. Just all kinds of ideas that might be proposed by communities.

I remember being out in Washington State, San Juan Island. This was a little place. It's a national park because there was a bizarre military conflict that occurred out there. I won't go into the whole military conflict, but the people there love the bunny rabbits that are there. Well, the Park Service decided that they're really not a native species, there are too many of them, so the Park Service decided they're going to use the method they use at other places. First of all, they thought they would gas them, which the community was shocked by. Then they decided, well, we'll shoot them and so on, reduce the population. You know, if they had just sat down with members of the community, they could have figured out how to keep these bunnies that the community wanted, avoid a whole lot of negative attitude with regard to the Park Service, and in fact enhance the enjoyment of this little national park at San Juan.

I'm sure there are examples all over the country, in fact, all over the world, because the National Park Service has any number of parks outside the physical boundaries of our North American continent. We've got the Virgin Islands and so on.

I don't know what the local neighborhoods might suggest, but I do know that they have a lot of good ideas, ideas that the National Park Service ought to consider thoughtfully. And some will be rejected, but some might well be accepted. But the process of that kind of community input, it seems to me, would generate even more support for the National Park Service.

It's a great institution. Our parks are iconic assets to our Nation. But I do think that the local community could enjoy them more and appreciate the National Park Service's role more if we had the kind of dialogue with the Park Service that Ms. Norton is suggesting.

I don't see any harm in having that kind of study. I think we ought to be able to work with the gentlelady, maybe put together some report language, at least a letter to the head of the National Park Service suggesting that this is an area that the Congress itself, in a bipartisan way, thinks ought to be explored.

I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

The gentlelady is smiling, so I will accept her concurrence. We will move forward in that fashion if the gentlelady wouldn't mind withdrawing her amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I am not necessarily rising to oppose this, but to point out some deficiencies in the amendment itself. The claim is that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the National Park Service prioritizes its construction of law enforcement centers on national park lands, on the southern border in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.

First of all, there is some feeling that national parks not have basically prison sites on them because what happens is that when people are rounded up by the Border Patrol, they are taken to these law enforcement centers and detained until they--I don't know whether they are adjudicated or not, but then eventually they are moved to another place. But they are temporarily detained at these law enforcement centers, and there is some feeling that national parks are not an appropriate location for that purpose.

But the very wording of the amendment doesn't really do that. It increases money, then it decreases the same amount of money. If it did it, it would be an earmark. And, of course, we don't do earmarks in this bill.

So as I say, I don't rise in opposition because I'm not sure what the amendment does, but I think it is helpful to be informed as to what it doesn't do.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, I understand that the gentleman wants to make that point. I understand the challenges that are faced in the area that he represents.

I was similarly confused, though, when there was a substantial amendment to strip funding for environmental mitigation between the Homeland Security and Interior Departments that the gentleman previously suggested and, I think, was successful in doing. So I don't know, it's not an area that I'm particularly familiar with. I am becoming more familiar with it; but, again, I'm not sure that this amendment does anything other than draw attention to the issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to agree with the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee just as I did with the last amendment.

The idea of a bloated bureaucracy, when you've taken $53 million out of the Secretary's office, it seems to me, is misplaced where we're talking about giving the Office of the Secretary of the Interior far more responsibility. And now, at every opportunity, we seem to be cutting the resources that are necessary to fulfill those responsibilities. Already tonight we've taken $20 million from the Office of the Secretary's account.

So just as I did with the prior amendment, I would also agree with the chairman's comments and associate myself with them. So I won't take any more of the body's time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word, Madam Chair.

I agree with the chairman of the committee again that this amendment should be opposed. But I would also mention that I don't know how fast the administration could issue drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico that would be fast enough. It's as though Deepwater Horizon never happened. When it did happen, people died. The ecology of the gulf area was severely and adversely affected. The economy was devastated. And we did a complete investigation and found that it was largely because the Minerals Management Service was not doing its job, that they were issuing permits too quickly without adequate review. Sometimes they were just letting permit forms be filled out by the oil companies themselves. Sometimes they had already made arrangements to go to work for the oil companies.

But for whatever reason, the fact is that they weren't doing their job. They were letting down the American public. They were letting down the workers on the drilling rigs. And they certainly contributed to a despoiling of the environment, the ecology of the gulf. So this Congress, both sides having been severely critical of the Minerals Management Service, reorganized it and instructed it to be very careful, at least much more careful than they had been in the past in terms of issuing drilling permits. That's what they're doing.

Now, there have been any number of drilling permits issued. They're being issued so fast, we don't have an exact number right now; but we know a lot have been issued. Again, I doubt that whatever the number was that it would be enough for Members that represent areas in the gulf to benefit from more drilling activity. But the American public-- this is a democracy, the majority of the American public, whatever State they're in--wants the Secretary of the Interior to have a process that reflects integrity, that reflects caution, that puts the safety of workers and the protection of the environment first.

So the Secretary is doing his job. We support the job he's doing. We know he's issuing a lot of permits, and we agree with the chairman that this amendment should be defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, this is a distinction without a difference. The money still goes away. The argument that was made by the chairman of the committee still stands, as far as I can see. And so even though the amendment may be worded a little differently, the reality is that the money is lost. And we don't see that this would be a constructive amendment anyway, so we would oppose it.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Reclaiming my time, I don't know this business about playing by the rules and punishing people who don't. It seems to me that the Interior Department is trying to play by the rules that the Congress instructed it to play by.

But, notwithstanding that, when you remove $420,000 from the bill, don't know where it goes, I think you lose it. So I don't think that this makes a difference.

What you're saying is that you're not going to put the $420,000 into this reduction account. What's the term of it? The Spending Reduction Account. That does away with the money.

But now what you're doing is basically taking it out of the bill, letting it fly away to who knows where, but the reality is it no longer exists. So it's coming out of the bill. And we don't think that's a good idea. We agree with the chairman that this amendment should be defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

As I have said publicly and privately to the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I congratulate him for taking the initiative and showing the commitment to the Indian Health Service by increasing it by $369 million this year. And dental health specifically is up by $13.8 million. That's above the existing level this year, and this year is above last year. Granted, the need is very substantial, and so I am very supportive.

The problem is that, with this amendment that adds another $4.3 million for the express purpose of increasing dental health further, it's the offset. The cut is to the solicitor of the Department that serves as the chief legal officer, and it's the solicitor that provides legal services to Native Americans on behalf of the Department. So you're taking the chief legal officer for the Native Americans of this country and making a substantial cut to the resources available for that position. It's kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

There are very substantial and serious legal issues that need to be dealt with on behalf of Indians throughout the country, and there are very difficult health issues that certainly need to be addressed. So I did not rise in opposition to the amendment, but I do think that taking the money from the solicitor is an unfortunate place to be finding a cut of $4.3 million.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Bishop had it exactly right. We all want the same thing. We want the Endangered Species Act, but we want the Endangered Species Act to work. And as you mentioned, Senator Kempthorne worked on it very hard, got it through the Senate when he was a Senator before he became Governor of Idaho. And it was some Republicans frankly in the House that stopped it because they didn't think it went far enough.

Unfortunately, if we just continue to do what we've done in the past, we're going to get exactly what we've gotten in the past, and that is no incentive for people to sit down and say we've got to work on this and we've got to get it done. And that's all we're trying to do.

I don't disagree with anything the gentleman just said. It's also important to remember that this amendment would take the caps off that have been in place since President Clinton and would undermine the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget to a great degree because it would then be controlled by the courts and by lawsuits. That's not where we want to go.

I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment. While the gentleman from Virginia offered an amendment on H.R. 1, which was several months ago, it was $50 million. We didn't have that kind of money. Because of the bipartisan support for this program, we did fund it to keep it alive at $20 million. And I have no problem putting the additional funding in, if the gentleman requests, depending on where he takes it from. So I support the gentleman's amendment and would hope that my friend from Virginia would think twice and support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

First, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from New York for their amendment. I'm sympathetic to what they're trying to do and the work that they do in the National Heritage Caucus, and it's important work. But I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment.

While I'm sympathetic to the intent of the amendment and the increased funding for the National Heritage Areas, I'm concerned that the offset would take funds away from the account providing funds for operations of our national parks across the country.

One of our goals in this bill was to provide sufficient funding for park operations so that every Park Service unit in the country would be open for business next year, without the threat of layoffs or furloughs for full-time or seasonal employees. My fear is that reducing this account by $8.8 million would undermine the operation of our national parks.

Let me also point out that, while the amount in the bill is reduced from the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, the National Heritage Areas are funded in the bill at the amount requested by the President's budget. These National Heritage Areas are supposed to become self- sufficient, and the problem is we're going to see that when that doesn't happen, the funding request from the President is going to not be in their budget and, consequently, there's not going to be any money for these National Heritage Areas requested by the administration.

We funded this at the President's level. I appreciate what the gentlemen are trying to do. I support the National Heritage Areas program, but I, because of the offset, reluctantly oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I agree with the words that were spoken by the gentlemen from Virginia and from Washington.

In these tough economic times, it is important that we keep some things that are very important, I think, to the American people. If you look at the programs that have been put on by the Capitol concerts on the Fourth of July and on Memorial Day and what they've done for our troops and for really the spirit of America, I think is vitally important. They do things at Ford's Theater and other places around this country.

We have to remember: this is our Nation's Capital. The things they do here are important. They're important for our country, not just for this small piece of land we call Washington, DC. So I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle would recognize the importance of these programs and the work they do and the importance that they have for the American people and would reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would say that I think the gentleman has stated the case as it is. It is an earmark, and that's a whole other story we can talk about.

But I agree with what the gentlelady is trying to do here. And I will tell you that both the ranking member and I will work with the gentlelady from the District of Columbia to try to resolve this in conference so that we can do what you're trying to accomplish here because I think it is important.

We are prepared on this side to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, we don't have any problem with this amendment. This is kind of new territory in our bill, but I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona's work on this and his interest in providing quality education for our Native American brothers and sisters all across this country. It's a deep concern that I share also, and I look forward to working with him to make sure that this does what is intended and that it provides what is necessary for our Indian population so that they have the advantages that all of us have. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment.

We had to make some tough decisions with this bill. Some of them were with the money that we spent in the Geographic Programs. I believe every geographic program had reduced funding in this bill. Last year, they were funded at $300 million. I think the President requested $350 million for the Great Lakes geographic program, and we funded it at $250 million.

While I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do with his amendment--and I thank him for offering it--the fact is we just don't have that kind of money. The offset of this is $24 million out of the Secretary's account, and we earlier took $20 million out of it. I don't believe the Secretary is sleeping very well tonight.

Pretty soon he won't have any money left in his office, as a matter of fact. So that is a problem.

It's not what the gentleman is trying to do. I fully support what the gentleman is trying to do. It's the offset and trying to get the $20 million out of the Secretary's account which causes the problem for me. And I would hope that my colleagues would reject this amendment as we work on trying to make sure that we, in conference, can do what's necessary to fund those programs that do protect the Great Lakes, the Puget Sound, the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, San Francisco Bay, some of the other great water bodies in this country.

I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, but I have to rise in opposition to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman from New York's observation that we are working with some very difficult numbers, and he's absolutely right. And this is an account, frankly, that I think is important. The invasive species and trying to control invasive species across this country is of high importance. It's as of high importance in Idaho as it is in New York and other places across the country. But as the gentleman noted, the concern is the offset.

While we actually treated this account better than most other accounts within this budget, we actually only reduced it by 2\1/2\ percent. Some other accounts, EPA's account is down 18 percent, and some other things. Most accounts received substantially less funding. And where you're taking this money from, as I said on the last amendment, the Office of the Secretary is funded in this bill $33\1/2\ million below the budget's request. That was before we took out another $20 million in an earlier amendment to put it into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So now we're doing $53\1/2\ million. We add this to it and we are going to be down $62 million.

Sometimes these, what appear to be small amounts, add up. If we're going to have a Secretary's office that actually functions, we have to keep enough resources there so that he can do his job.

And while I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, I sympathize

with what he's trying to do and support the effort of what he's trying to do. The fact that the offset affects an account that we have substantially reduced already is a problem, so I would oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand what the gentleman is saying. I agree with what he's saying. I think the Members have a concern that we are not allowing these oil companies to go out after the permits, and we're trying to send a message to the Secretary. I understand that, and I don't have a problem with sending a message.

The problem is--and this is a little bit of inside baseball, I guess, to talk about it this way--the problem is that under the rules we have, you can reduce an account by a certain amount and put that money in the budget reserve account which then reduces the allocation that the committee has to spend. He takes the $420,000, I think it is, out of the Office of the Secretary and reduces our allocation by that much.

And as Members have heard that have listened to this debate, there are both Republicans and Democrats that are concerned about some of the funding allocations in this bill of the various accounts. People want to put more money into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. People want to put more money, as the last amendment did, into the invasive species program, taking care of invasive species. If you go throughout, there are Members on both sides of the aisle that believe that various accounts are funded at too low of a level. So to take this money and put it into the budget reserve account and take it out of the Interior appropriations bill means that that is money that could go into another account.

Now, this bill comes to the floor under the budget resolution that was passed by the House under the 302(a) and the 302(b) cap, the allocation that was given to this committee. It's a tough allocation, but we've made those tough decisions, and I don't like to see money to send a message to the Secretary, money taken out of his account and put into the budget reserve account when there are other accounts within the appropriation that could obviously use the funds.

So if we weren't putting it into the budget reserve account, I don't have a problem with the message you are trying to send. I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, but I would reluctantly have to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, this is the same debate over again. We're taking money from the Office of the Secretary, which is down some $30-odd million, $33 million, I think it was, from the budget request of this year; then we've taken $20 million out of that already to put into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This would take more money out of the Office of the Secretary.

It seems like every time somebody has an amendment that they want to offer to fund some program that they believe is important--and oftentimes they are important--the savings account that you get it from is the Office of the Secretary. Not only in this bill, but in other bills. We take it out of administration. That's always the easiest thing to do, but the fact is that the Office of the Secretary has taken a pretty good hit in this bill both during the markup and here on debate on the floor, and so I'm afraid I have to oppose this amendment because I think it hits an account that is already substantially lower than what was requested.

I would oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

I would have to say I don't know. I don't know what the Senate is doing, what their allocation is going to be. They have not passed a budget, so they have no 302(b) over there to work with. But certainly we realize that the EPA has taken the largest hit within this budget. A lot of that was due to the fact that they had the largest increases over the last couple of years. But certainly we will be looking at all of these accounts when we go into conference with the body across the Rotunda trying to come to a compromise that can pass both the House and the Senate.

Madam Chairwoman, you're going to hear from the entire Dental Caucus tonight. Congressman Gosar from Arizona and myself are the two dentists that are in Congress, so it might not surprise you that I support the gentleman's amendment. I appreciate his sincere efforts to address the obligations, both trust obligations and treaty obligations, and moral obligations, that we have with our Indian brothers and sisters across this country.

One of the things I'm proudest of in this bill, as I said in my opening statement during general debate, was to be able to carry on the work that had been done by Chairman Dicks when he was chairman of the committee, Chairman Moran when he was chairman of the committee, and now that I'm chairman of the committee, to meet those trust obligations that we have with our Indian brothers and sisters across this country.

One of the areas in this bill, one of the two areas, that actually got increased funding was Indian health services because we do have an obligation to meet these things. Dental decay is the most prevalent disease in the United States; and as the gentleman from Arizona said, it's 300 percent more likely in Native Americans than it is in the general population. That's unacceptable. We have to do something about it. It means that we have to meet the contract obligations that we have had.

There's a saying that's been said around the country that if you live in Indian Country, you need to get sick before June, because the contract support costs run out about that time. One thing we've made a concerted effort to do on a bipartisan basis is try to fund 100 percent of the contract support costs for Native Americans. We haven't reached that goal yet. I think in this bill we're about at 93 or 94 percent, something like that. The contract support in the BIA that does the police work and those types of things are fully funded. We are going to continue to work to make sure that we meet those obligations that I think we all as Americans have.

I appreciate the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona, and I truly appreciate his support for our Indian brothers and sisters.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 56, line 22 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment. As currently written, the Department of Interior appropriations bill states that education ``funds made available under this Act may not be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded school.'' My amendment would allow money appropriated under this bill to be used for charter schools. Now, the bill grandfathers in charter schools funded prior to 1999, but bars no new charter schools. The committee report is silent on this.

As of the 2005 census, children made up 1.4 million of the total of American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. They, and their parents, deserve educational choices. Charter schools are semi- independent schools usually within a State's public education system that are designed and operated by educators, parents, community leaders, educational entrepreneurs, and others. As of 2006, a total of 40 States and the District of Columbia have passed charter school laws allowing this type of school to be part of their system. I see no reason to deny this opportunity to American Indians.

I believe administrators of such schools may worry about administrative issues in terms of accounting for students who transfer between a charter school and a noncharter school and the moneys that are appropriated. This is sometimes referred to as the ``ownership'' of the student. But such administrative concerns should not be a basis to completely abandon this option. Competent administrators at the BIA, the tribes, and the State educational associations can work out the transitional issues.

Further, to the extent someone does not like charter schools, so be it. Don't send your child to one. But we in Congress should not be picking winners and losers. Charter schools should be an available choice to those tribes that want them. If a tribe chooses not to offer a charter school approach, that is its decision. But another tribe may do so on its own. There's no reason in this appropriation bill to foreclose this option. We should not impose our personal likes and dislikes on others.

It is my further belief that allowing the tribes the maximum ability to choose the best educational program is consistent with self- determination. Having the right to decide local school decisions is a part of self-determination, and I don't see why we in Congress should deny that right. A key part of self-determination is choosing the manner in which the tribes educate their children. As far back as 1970, President Nixon addressed this issue that was then emerging, and stated: ``It is long past time that the Indian policies of the Federal Government begin to recognize and build upon the capacities and insights of the Indian people. Both as a matter of justice and as a matter enlightened social policy, we must begin to act on the basis of what the Indians themselves have long been telling us. The time has come to break decisively with the past and create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.''

Indeed, that is what Congress did when it passed the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Allowing the tribes to choose a charter school option makes sense from a self-determination perspective.

Finally, according to the Center for Education Reform, there are over 5,000 charter schools nationwide. There are examples of charter schools with spectacular successes and results. I'm sure there are some charter schools that have failed in their mission. The point here, however, is about choice and allowing the tribes to decide what educational opportunities they want to create.

It is well-known that charter schools are schools of choice. Unlike traditional public schools, students may choose to attend charter schools, and if those students determine that the school is not serving their needs, they may choose to leave. It is true that many charter schools typically have longer schooldays, longer school years and higher academic and behavioral expectations for their students. For those

concerned about the current public educational system, these trends should be encouraged, but let's allow the tribes to make that choice.

It is Congress' duty to describe and allow such choices as part of its oversight and application of our treaties with which American Indian tribal relations are governed. I ask for support of this amendment and support for Indian self-determination and school choice.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We were looking that up, my colleague from Washington. We don't have that on the laptop at this point of inquiry.

It allows the option for choice of charter schools as defined as ``charters schools.''

They were grandfathered in up to 1999, but no provisions were given for that detail past 1999.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the table.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As someone who has practiced chair-side dentistry for 25 years, I know firsthand the profound value of oral health, particularly for children. Oral health care access early in life is shown to be a critical aspect of primary preventative care. This is especially true in the Native American community, which I am proud to serve as a Representative of Arizona, which has 21 federally recognized tribes.

For this reason, my amendment would transfer $4,367,000 from the Office of the Department of the Interior Solicitor General to the Indian Health Service. The committee report recommends $4,367,000 less than the President's request for dental health within IHS, and while the bill does not name dental health specifically, I would like to make it clear on this floor tonight that this reallocation of funds is explicitly intended to fund dental health programs within IHS at the level recommended by the administration.

The United States Government took on long ago a number of treaty obligations to our Native people, and health care was among them. In particular, I cannot state strongly enough how imperative it is that the Indian tribes have this effort in the area of oral health fully funded.

Believe it or not, the incidence of early childhood caries, or commonly understood tooth decay, occurs among the Native American and Native Alaskan populations at 300 percent the rate of the United States average. This is unacceptable; and, again, as someone who has practiced dentistry as long as I have, I can tell you that this epidemic will have dire consequences for these children throughout their lives.

Worse still, the severity of decay is substantially higher in these children compared to the population as a whole. Preschool Native children average more than five decayed teeth compared to one decayed tooth among U.S. preschool children of all races. In many Native communities, between 25 and 50 percent of preschool children have such extensive tooth decay that they require full mouth restoration under general anesthesia, compared to less than 1 percent for non-Native children.

We have an obligation to improve this sad state of affairs, and so I offer this amendment and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it for the sake of these Native children to whom we have an obligation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as one of the former cochairs of the Congressional Sportsmen Caucus, and very active in that organization, I rise in support of the Dicks amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill.

It is unfortunate that Ranking Member Dicks has to offer an amendment in order to strip out a policy rider of this magnitude in an appropriation bill. We just had a short discussion about how this would be more appropriate in the authorizing committee for a further vetting of this issue. And I think there are some legitimate issues that we need to get into, but not in the appropriation bill. This is one of many policy riders that have been jammed into this appropriation bill, from the assault on the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to allowing mining near the Grand Canyon, one of the great natural treasures we have as a Nation, and on and on and on. And this extension rider that was included in the base bill would prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from spending money, any money, on the listing of new animals or plants under the Endangered Species Act.

So to claim that this doesn't directly affect and attack the Endangered Species Act tonight is mind-boggling to me.

And yet in my home district in western Wisconsin, a very beautiful national wildlife refuge, the Necedah Wildlife Refuge, with three endangered species located there--from the gray wolf to the cardinal blue butterfly to the whooping crane--because of the protection that they have had, they are now increasing in population. The wolf to the extent that they are on the verge of being delisted in Wisconsin, another success story. And the whooping crane is making a resurgence, all because of the protections afforded under the Endangered Species Act.

And now to claim in this bill that we are going to prevent additional funding in order to locate those species, whether animal or plant or fish, from falling under the protection, this is not the appropriate vehicle. But there is even more in this legislation that's disconcerting. The deep cuts to long-standing conservation, the Land and Water Conservation Program that has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, is deeply disturbing--an 80 percent proposed cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

And I'm glad that the committee earlier this night adopted the Bass amendment to at least restore $20 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. But why are we cutting anything from that vital program? This isn't even funded by the taxpayers.

This comes from oil royalties from a grand bargain that we struck with oil and gas companies so they can explore and extract these natural resources from our public lands. They agreed that for the right of doing that, they would contribute to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, funds that would be used then for the enhancement of conservation programs and the protection and preservation of public lands in this country. And to come with a bill now to cut 80 percent of that out of oil royalties does not make sense. Or, the 7.5 percent under the Wildlife Refuge System.

I know Chairman Dicks has been a champion of the refuge system for many years. It's a system that affects virtually every congressional district. It brings countless revenue into our districts, plus jobs. And with the huge backlog of maintenance and operation, another 7.5 percent cut will put them in the hole.

A $7 million cut from the National Park System budget, a 21 percent cut in the Fish and Wildlife Service, a 64 percent cut in the State Wildlife Grants Program, yet back home some of the greatest conversationists that I know are my hunting and fishing buddies, because they get it. They understand if we just go and use the resources and deplete it, from the wildlife to the fish to the waterfowl, that there's not going to be that recreational enjoyment that so many of us get in the outdoor recreation community.

That's why it was no surprise that earlier this month over 640 outdoor recreation entities and preservation entities signed a letter to the chairman and the leadership and to everyone in our office decrying the spending cuts in these programs that we have before us this evening, because they know that these programs aren't something you can just turn off like a spigot. These programs require the continuity of funding and the continuity of assistance in order to make the progress that's necessary.

And so these draconian cuts that are being proposed right now are going to set back the cause of conservation, whether it's wildlife or land in the country, for many, many years, and that's unfortunate. Because these same people also understand the economic impact that these programs have.

Outdoor recreation contributes over $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy. It supports over 6\1/2\ million jobs. One out of every 20 private sector jobs are affiliated with outdoor recreational opportunity, 8 percent of consumer spending. In my own State of Wisconsin, hunting and fishing alone supports over 57,000 jobs and $400 million in State revenue.

So if we're really serious about addressing the soft economy we have now and doing what we can to get the economy on track, creating good- paying jobs, this is the wrong place we should be looking in the budget for drastic cutbacks.

I've been one of the leaders in this place for significant farm bill reform to get at the outdated agriculture subsidies.

For years, I have been leading the effort for farm bill reform to end these taxpayer subsidies going to a few but large agribusinesses that distort the market, distort trade policies. It's not helping our family farmers. Finally discussion is starting to take place seriously to actually scrub those programs. Yet when I've led this cause in the past, I remember not too long ago a Member in this body accused me of being the Osama bin Laden of agriculture policy. Yet today, if we had taken actions 10 years ago when many of us were acting on it, maybe we wouldn't be finding ourselves in this huge fiscal hole that we have today.

So not only the policy riders but the spending cuts that are being proposed are the wrong direction for our Nation to go. It will jeopardize these vital programs--programs, again, that have enjoyed wide bipartisan support. We ought not be balancing the budget on their backs.

Over the last 30 years, funding for conservation programs has gone from 1.7 percent of Federal funding to less than .6 percent. They get it at the altar of fiscal responsibility. We can't go any deeper.

I encourage Members to support the Dicks amendment and oppose the underlying bill. We have to do a better job.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, the amendment that I bring would take $420,000 from the Secretary of the Interior's account and move it into the spending reduction account to reduce the Nation's deficit.

And the reason that we're doing this is that, over the last year since the Deepwater Horizon exploded, the administration came out with a policy not long after that imposed a moratorium on drilling, a moratorium that was found by Federal courts to be outside of the law. The administration unfortunately went forward with that moratorium, costing thousands of American jobs, hurting America's energy security.

But even after the lifting of the moratorium, they still maintain what they call a permitorium, a refusal to issue permits to explore in the Gulf of Mexico for American energy. Not only does it cost our Nation tens of thousands of jobs, but it also costs us energy security where now we're even more dependent on Middle Eastern countries for oil. It's led to higher prices of gasoline at the pumps. It's had devastating impacts. Yet there's been no accountability to the administration for their policies that have led to this destruction of our economic well-being and our energy security as it relates to American energy, and especially as it relates to jobs in the Gulf of Mexico.

Now, if you really want to get down to the details of this amendment, one of the things we've said for a long time is, a lot of these companies, these big employers that have been out there for a long time exploring safely for American energy, they want to continue to be able to explore for American energy; and they want to go back to work; but they haven't been allowed to because of administration policies.

But what's more absurd is that while the administration has had this permitorium, where they won't let people go back to work, they have also allowed the clock to continue ticking on the permits and on the leases. And you've got a finite amount of time for a lease; you've got a 10-year period of time. And if the administration is saying you can't properly develop your lease--now it would be one thing if they said, we're going to stop the clock while we, as an administration, go forward with this radical policy. But all outside experts have said is that it has nothing to do with safety, and it is hurting not only American energy production but American jobs.

But what the administration said is they're going to continue to let the clock run. It's like if you are playing a basketball game and the referee is holding the ball, and the clock's still running. You are sitting there saying, look, I just want the ball. I want to be able to go out and play by the rules, and the referee is holding the ball while the clock continues to run. That's just not fair. And yet the administration continues to do this.

This House, Madam Chair, passed legislation, H.R. 1229. It's called the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act. This legislation that we passed here in this House with a bipartisan vote, sent it over to the Senate--they still haven't taken action in the Senate--but what this legislation did, among other things, is it addressed that problem and said, If this administration is going to tell responsible companies who are trying to go back to work, who are trying to do the right thing--if the administration is going to tell them that they're not allowed to play by their own rules, then the clock stops while the administration denies them the ability to be permitted.

So the legislation that we passed addressed this. But the Senate, for whatever reason, refuses to take that up; again, costing our country thousands of good, high-paying jobs and hurting America's energy security, making us more dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

What we're saying with this amendment is: if this administration wants to continue going forward with that radical policy, which a majority of the President's own hand-picked scientists in his report right after the explosion of the Horizon said is irresponsible to do, that would actually reduce safety by denying permits, by having this moratorium, and now permitorium, then there has to be accountability. We have to hold this administration accountable for their actions.

And the $420,000 number in this bill that we're setting aside and putting into the deficit reduction account was gathered by looking at the number of leases that expire at the end of this year. There are 350 leases that will expire at the end of this year, not through any fault of those companies that are out there trying to explore for American energy, but because the administration won't let them play by the rules.

So if they're going to be irresponsible with their policies, there has to be a price to pay. There has to be accountability that the American people say, You're not going to use taxpayer money to deny American jobs, to deny American energy, and make our country more dependent on Middle Eastern oil and make our country continue to have to pay these higher prices at the pump.

It's their policies that have done it, and it's clear, and everybody understands that. People in the Gulf of Mexico recognize that. But there has been no accountability by this Congress, and so that's what this legislation is intended to do. This amendment will address that problem. I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the modification I have placed at the desk.

Will the gentleman yield?

What the amendment, as it's now revised, would do is it would still reduce the $420,000. It wouldn't go to the Spending Reduction Account; it would stay within the department, and I think that addresses one of the concerns that the chairman had.

But it would still make it clear that there's going to have to be accountability for those people who have played by the rules who are being penalized today. There's got to be some accountability and, in this case, there would be the ability for us to not only send a message but a message attached to a spending reduction in the Secretary's department, that he can't just deny people the ability to go back to work who are playing by the rules.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.