Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2050, the Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act.

This bipartisan, noncontroversial legislation is a technical fix intended to enable the Forest Service to authorize and permit existing historical water diversions within Idaho wilderness.

Last Congress, one of my constituents came to me for help with a problem. The Middle Fork Lodge has a water diversion within the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area that existed before the wilderness area was established and is protected under statute. The diversion was beginning to leak and was in desperate need of repairs to ensure that it did not threaten the environment and watershed, but it turned out the Forest Service did not have the authority to issue the lodge a permit to make the necessary repairs.

As we looked at this issue, we discovered that the Forest Service lacked the authority throughout both the Frank Church Wilderness area, of which there are 22 known water developments, and the Selway- Bitterroot Wilderness, where there are three. These diversions are primarily used to support irrigation and minor hydropower generation for use on non-Federal lands. While the critical situation at the Middle Fork Lodge brought this issue to my attention, it is obvious that this problem is larger than just one diversion. At some point in the future, all 25 of these existing diversions will need maintenance or repair work done to ensure their integrity.

H.R. 2050 authorizes the Forest Service to issue special use permits for all qualifying historic water systems in these wilderness areas. I believe this is important that we get ahead of this problem and ensure the Forest Service has the tools necessary to manage these lands.

For these reasons, I've introduced H.R. 2050. The legislation, which was passed by the House last Congress, allows the Forest Service to issue the required special use permits to owners of historic water systems and sets out specific criteria for doing so. Providing this authority will ensure that existing water diversions can be properly maintained and repaired when necessary and preserves beneficial use for private property owners who hold water rights under State law.

I have deeply appreciated the cooperation of the Forest Service in addressing this problem. Not only have they communicated with me the need to find a systemwide solution to this issue, but at my request, they drafted this legislation to ensure that it only impacts specific targeted historical diversions--those with valid water rights that cannot feasibly be relocated outside of the wilderness area.

H.R. 2050 is bipartisan and noncontroversial. I know of no opposition to this bill. It is intended as a simple, reasonable solution to a problem that I think we can all agree should be solved as quickly as possible. I'm encouraged that the committee held hearings on this bill, and I am hopeful that we can move it through the legislative process without delay so that the necessary maintenance to these diversions may be completed before the damage is beyond repair.

I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding this time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, an individual who is trying to do more to reform the appropriations process by bringing individual bills to the floor.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Appropriations Committee and, more importantly, the Budget Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee that marked this bill up.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Dicks.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I would inquire--we're ready to close--how much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

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

I appreciate the fact that some of my good friends have a different opinion about this than I do, particularly Chairman Ryan and Mr. Van Hollen. I appreciate the bipartisanship with which they have worked on this issue; but I will tell you, bipartisanship does not make something right which is fundamentally wrong, and this is fundamentally wrong.

I also feel a little bit like Custer at the Little Big Horn. I know this is probably going to pass without much doubt, but it's still wrong.

For 200 years, as the gentleman from Alaska said, Congress has been shifting more and more authority to the administrative branch of government. We are doing it again with this legislation.

I keep hearing people talk about earmarks and airdropped provisions in appropriation bills. I would remind the Members, in the 2011 appropriation bill there were no earmarks, there were no airdrops. In the 2012 appropriation bills there were no earmarks, there were no airdrops. We have changed the way we do business around here.

Now, you might have had an argument several years ago when there were thousands of earmarks in the appropriation bill. That doesn't happen anymore. For the first time, we're trying to bring appropriation bills--for the first time in 5 years--bring appropriation bills to the floor under an open rule. We didn't get it all done last year. We ended up with an omnibus, as Mr. Van Hollen shows on his table. This year we are committed, given the floor time, we're going to bring every appropriation bill to the floor under an open rule so that every Member that has a problem with any provision can offer an amendment to have that removed.

It's been said that this is constitutional, Mr. Van Hollen said, so let's take that argument away. Not necessarily and not so quickly. In conversations with members of the third branch of government, the judiciary, they have concerns that this may be unconstitutional, because what's required now is that the President presents the judicial request for appropriations, but he can't change it. He just passes it on to Congress. This gives the President a say in line-iteming specific provisions in the judicial request, which may violate both U.S. Code and be unconstitutional.

So that question is still out there about the constitutionality of this. But I will tell you, in times of extraordinary circumstances, as we currently have, with a $15 trillion debt, and everyone wants to reduce that debt, nobody more than the members of the Appropriations Committee have reduced spending in the last 2 years. But in times of extraordinary circumstances, we often do unwise things in the name of trying to address that problem. Such is this bill.

Most Members have never negotiated an appropriation bill with the Senate. Let me tell you how it works. We would think that the President has no say in the appropriation process until we present him with a bill. When I was negotiating the Interior bill with the Senate, I was not negotiating with the Senate. I was negotiating with the White House. They did not approve anything that was not pre-approved by the administration.

And we made some deals, and we got some priorities of things that we, on the Republican side, think are important, and the President got some priorities that he thinks are important on his side. That's called legislating.

But now, what you are going to do is say, okay, you make those deals. You get an appropriation bill. There's going to be things in it I don't like. There's going to be things in it the administration doesn't like. There's going to be things in it that nobody in here likes.

But now you're going to give the President a second bite at the apple to break that deal. And do you think he's going to take those things that Democrats think are not their priorities and take them out of the bill? Of course not. He's going to take out Republican priorities and put them for a second vote. And a Republican President would do the same thing to the Democrats.

This is going to be partisan politics. And when you say it comes back for Congress to have a final say, once it comes back to overriding a veto or overriding a rescission, it then becomes political. You, on your side of the aisle, in this case, are going to say we have to support our President. That's what happens. That's the reality. We, on our side of the aisle, would say the same thing if it were a Republican President. That's just reality.

So what you're breaking down is that balance of power between the administrative branch of government and the legislative branch of government. This is, without a doubt, a step in the wrong direction.

Voting for this bill will not make you a budget hawk. And frankly, I don't think it will save any money. But it will make for some good press releases.

But don't go out and say that you've reduced Federal spending, and you've taken wasteful spending out of the

Federal budget by passing this bill. You haven't. What you've done is said, I'm willing to sacrifice the legislative authority that was given to us in the Constitution and shift more power to the administrative branch of government.

Do you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers would recognize what they built in the Constitution? Do you really think that they would look at the administrative branch of government and say we wanted this kind of Presidency and a weak legislative branch? I don't think so.

This is a bad bill. I would vote it down if I were you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 2, Adoption of H.J. Res. 98, relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, the Statement of Managers language contained in Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 regarding the Boiler MACT rule is not intended in any way to convey an endorsement by the conferees of any Boiler MACT rulemaking proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to express my gratitude to Dr. Peter Friedman who served as my Congressional Fellow this year. Pete served as my point person on energy issues with the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and was responsible for all nuclear and defense related issues in my office.

Pete's background as chairman of an engineering department, a naval officer, and engineering background, provided me with unique technical knowledge of nuclear power and defense issues. His expertise came to the forefront during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor accident. Pete provided me with data-driven, measured advice on the crisis which was both forward-looking and justifiable. It was an important year for nuclear energy and it was good to have Pete on my staff.

In the appropriations process, Pete developed well-researched and insightful positions, which properly prioritized the spending on energy projects based on their potential impact. His astute political insights and his willingness and ability to learn the legislative process served me very well.

I benefited greatly from Pete's advice, knowledge and work ethic over the past year. I want to thank him, and commend him, for a job well done. I also want to thank his wife, Sylvia, and daughter, Helen, for allowing us to have Pete for the year. I know it wasn't easy for them to have him away for such a long period. I am sure they will be glad to have him back and that he will be glad to resume his position as Chairman of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.

Finally, I want to thank the American Society of Mechanical Engineers for sponsoring Pete as a Congressional Fellow. At a time when the world is becoming increasingly technical and competitive, Congress benefits from the advice of experienced and educated experts.

First, let me thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks.

As I've told many Members, if this is your first term or your second term or your third term here in this body, this is the first time you've actually seen an appropriation bill come to the floor under an open rule, and I know that is something we both want. The majority party wants that, and I know the minority party wants that, also. And while Mr. Hoyer was correct, we didn't get them all done, we are moving in the right direction. And we will get there where every bill comes under an open rule so that Members have input into that legislation, and that's what we're working toward. And I want to thank you for that.

But first let me also thank my partner in this effort, Mr. Moran from Virginia. He's been a great asset in working out this bill. We don't always agree on every issue. I'm from Idaho, he's from Virginia, and so we sometimes have differences of opinion. But we're able to sit down and work together to solve those differences and work out a bill that I think is in the best interests of the American people.

The Interior bill conference agreement is $29.175 billion, which is $384 million below the FY enacted level. The conference agreement funds the EPA at $8.45 billion, which is $233 million below the FY11 enacted level and $524 million below the President's request. The bill also includes in title IV a general provision that amends the Clean Air Act to transfer air quality permitting authority as of the date of this enactment from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of the Interior. This will provide regulatory parity for the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea planning areas with the western and central Gulf of Mexico planning areas. It fully funds the newly created Bureau of Ocean Energy Management with $60 million to help expedite the review of offshore exploration plans. It also fully funds the newly created Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement at $76 million, including $15 million for oil spill research.

It provides authority for the collection of $62 million in inspection fees, but it dedicates funding for approving permits, expediting exploration plans, and hiring much-needed inspectors and engineers while also accelerating the approval of drilling plans. It fully funds wildfire suppression at the 10-year average. It cuts the NEA and NEH funding by $17.4 million combined in this bill from the '011 appropriation.

It provides $4.3 billion to the Indian Health Service. This has been a bipartisan effort with Mr. Dicks when he was chairman of this committee, with Mr. Moran when he was chairman of this committee, and now with me that we fully fund the Indian Health Services. This is a 5.8 percent increase in this bill to address the health care needs in Indian Country, including access to Indian health facilities and contractual obligations to tribes. It provides $108 million for the Smithsonian, including $75 million for the construction of the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

It does several things for Westerners that live in public land States relative to grazing. There is a new provision that requires that the administrative review process first be exhausted before litigating on grazing issues and provides protection for trailing of livestock.

This, overall, is a good bill, and I think it's one that we can all be proud of. And, again, I want to thank Mr. Moran for his dedication and work on this. But, most of all, I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. If you're not on this committee, if you don't work with this committee, you don't know how much time they put in, and they do an incredible job for Congress and for the American people.

MR. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee, Mr. Moran.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to clarify the intent of language included in the conference report on H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY12, regarding the management of forest roads.

In May of 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a final ruling in NEDC v. Brown declaring for the first time that forest roads used for timber management are point sources and must have permits under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The State of Oregon and the industry defendants have now asked the Supreme Court to review this decision. On Monday, December 12, the Supreme Court issued an order seeking the views of the Solicitor General signaling the possibility that the Court will review the case. However, the Ninth Circuit's decision remains in effect.

Section 429 of Division E exempts stormwater discharges from forest roads and other forestry activities from any such permit requirement for the rest of the fiscal year. This will ensure that neither EPA nor any state is forced to impose a permitting requirement while the Supreme Court is considering whether to review the Ninth Circuit's decision. With such an abrupt change in interpretation of the Act, it is important that there be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in. We encourage the Supreme Court to proceed with its determination of whether to review of the case, and this provision should in no way deter the Court's proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, when someone thinks of Idaho, they usually think of the things the state is most well known for, like potatoes, Boise State football, world-class hunting and fishing, or any other of the numerous outdoor attractions popular in the State. One thing Idaho is not yet well known for is its contributions to deep space exploration, yet that is the reason I come to the floor today.

I rise today to pay tribute to the dedicated men and women of the Idaho National Laboratory, INL, who have made significant contributions to NASA's Mars Science Laboratory mission. This mission has sent a large mobile laboratory--a planetary rover named Curiosity--into space, and is now headed to the surface of Mars. One of the greatest challenges for deep space exploration has always been providing a reliable source of electricity to power scientific instruments and provide heat to keep them from freezing in the harsh conditions of space. NASA used solar power for its earlier voyages to Mars, but because of its limitations, NASA decided to utilize nuclear powered batteries to provide the needed heat and power for the mission. The best place to assemble and test these batteries was Idaho.

Why Idaho? Well, Idaho has a long history of leadership and innovation in the nuclear power arena. After World War II, Idaho was chosen as the new home of the Nuclear Reactor Testing Station, where for the first time it was demonstrated that nuclear power could be used to generate usable forms of electricity. In the 60 years since, over 50 nuclear reactors have been designed and tested in Idaho, leading to the development of extensive capabilities and expertise. This expertise handling nuclear materials made Idaho an ideal location when NASA needed to develop the next space battery that would power its new planetary rover.

The Mars Science Laboratory mission has the potential to be the most productive Mars surface mission in history. That is due, in part to its nuclear heat and power source. The rover Curiosity, which is the size of a small car, is carrying the most advanced payload of scientific gear ever used on Mars' surface. The nuclear powered rover can go farther, travel to more places and power and heat a larger and more capable scientific payload than a solar powered vehicle would in the same environment. Curiosity will travel to locations on Mars that have been off-limits before and collect samples and perform analysis on a far larger scale than previously imagined. This is all possible because of Curiosity's unique nuclear-powered batteries.

A dedicated team of INL scientists and engineers began assembling and testing these batteries in the summer of 2008. After extensive testing to ensure the batteries would perform as expected during the launch and subsequent travel through space, and then again when the rover began its mission on Mars, the team of INL employees felt confident the batteries would do what they needed to do. Many of these people sacrificed significant time away from families to ensure every aspect of the batteries would work as planned, a service that this country should be grateful for. But in the end, I'm sure the individuals who put thousands of hours into this project have considered it a privilege and an honor to be involved.

Last Saturday, when Curiosity lifted off from its launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center to begin its nearly nine month voyage to Mars, it may have seemed odd to see a large group of people in Idaho celebrating while they watched the event unfold on a big screen. But for this dedicated team of INL employees, it was a moment they had been anxiously awaiting for years. They can be proud of the fact that whatever new discoveries are made as a result of this new state-of-the- art rover would not be possible without their contributions. And for that, I extend heart-felt congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize seven employees of the Idaho National Lab who recently received awards from Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, for their assistance to the people of Japan in dealing with the disaster caused by the recent earthquake and tsunami and for their efforts to secure enough special nuclear material to produce almost 800 nuclear weapons.

Eight months ago a devastating disaster struck Japan when a massive earthquake and unprecedented tsunami struck the island nation, killing over 16,000 people and causing a serious reactor accident. Recovery was complicated by a near total destruction of the surrounding transportation infrastructure. At the greatest time of need the Idaho National Laboratory offered its assistance, which was gratefully accepted by the people of Japan. INL employees Doug Burns, Cal Christensen, Betsy Connell, Harold McFarlane, Joy Rempe and Derek Wadsworth assisted by assessing the damage in near real time, providing technical assistance and coordinating the delivery of specialized equipment to assist in controlling the radiological effects.

Eric Howden led a 14 year program to secure ten tons of highly enriched uranium and three tons of plutonium from Kazakhstan. These efforts have resulted in relocating enough fissile material to produce almost 800 nuclear weapons at a time when there was great turmoil in the region and an emerging international terrorist threat.

I am proud to represent the Idaho National Lab, which has through its history been the worldwide leader in advancing the safe and peaceful use of nuclear energy. As the worldwide demand for energy and environmental concerns increase, the responsible use of nuclear power will continue to grow. As it does, the dedicated employees of the Idaho National Lab will continue their efforts to improve the impressive safety record of nuclear power and promote technologies that prevent future accidents and reduce the threat of nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate Bonneville County on its 100th anniversary as an organized county in the great state of Idaho. Significant events over the past century have made for a colorful history, and this commemoration is a noteworthy event for both past and present residents of Bonneville County.

Bonneville County acquired its name from United States Army Captain B. L. E. Bonneville. He established a settlement in southeastern Idaho in the mid 1800s while exploring the Snake River area. On February 7, 1911, one hundred years ago, Bonneville County was born and that small establishment, known as Taylor's Crossing, then Eagle Rock, and now as Idaho Falls, became the heart of beautiful Bonneville County. Ammon, Iona, Irwin, Swan Valley, and Ucon are a few of the other towns located in this distinguished county.

A vast and naturally diverse landscape offering mountain ranges, the world-renowned South Fork of the Snake River, and national forests expanding to Idaho's border with Wyoming is home now to more than 104,000 people, making Bonneville County the fourth largest county in the state of Idaho. The county is also home to the Idaho National Laboratory and Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge and is a regional cultural destination where you may enjoy the Idaho Falls Symphony, the Museum of Idaho, the Colonial Theatre, and several art galleries.

The citizens of Bonneville County demonstrate unity and a sense of pride through their deeply sown roots. Traditions, a variety of dynamic organizations, both large and small farms, unique entrepreneurship opportunities, and a willingness to extend a helping hand within the community appropriately characterize this community and our Idaho lifestyle.

It is a privilege to represent Bonneville County and the people who structure its prominence.

Mr. Speaker, October 10th of this year marks the 100th anniversary of Taiwan, the Republic of China. Taiwan has been an important contributor towards economic and political security in Asia for decades, and continues to be a major trading partner with the United States. Indeed, Taiwan is the ninth largest trading partner of the United States and the sixth largest agricultural market for products grown and produced here in the United States.

Taiwan continues to benefit from self-governance and free-elections, and its open society and democracy allows for innovation and growth that puts it on a competitive footing with the most powerful and largest countries in the world.

Taiwan and the United States uphold a peaceful affiliation through trade agreements and meaningful personal relationships. I enjoyed a trip to Taiwan when I was a state legislator, and it is a beautiful country with a vibrant culture.

Congratulations to the people of Taiwan and President Ma Ying-jeou on its 100th anniversary.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I loved listening to the gentleman from Washington's debate. Now, if the gentleman wants to really create some jobs in this country, we can create hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs if we'll start getting oil going back in the gulf and permitted. The gentleman talked about not being so reliant on foreign oil. We've got rigs right now that were in the gulf that are off the coast of Africa because they can't get permitted in the gulf. Now, do you want to create millions of jobs? Join us on that, and let's create millions of jobs.

The gentleman talked about, geez, he just doesn't understand how people could change their votes. People actually sometimes learn more information and decide that they were wrong the time before and that now they'll change their votes, just like some people on that side of the aisle who actually issue press releases saying that they were going to support this CR and then change their minds. That's okay.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of this continuing resolution. This CR is vital to keeping our government operating over the next 7 weeks while Congress completes its work on next year's budget.

It's worth reminding Members that tonight this CR actually reduces spending from last year's enacted levels and saves taxpayers billions of dollars. The irony is that voting against this CR is actually a vote for more spending. If you want to reduce government spending, then you should vote for this CR. It's pretty simple, really.

FEMA's coffers for disaster assistance are about to run dry. There is no such thing as a Republican natural disaster or a Democrat natural disaster. The last thing Congress should do is hold up disaster assistance because of partisan politics. We need to approve this CR tonight and get the relief to those in need as quickly as humanly possible.

Now, I've got to tell you, in all honestly, I'm not one of those people who believes that we have to offset every emergency. We have done some in the past--some we have not--but in the past, we have not had a $14 trillion deficit. That's the danger to this country is the $14 trillion deficit and the $1.6 trillion we add to it every damned year.

I've got to admit, this is only $1 billion. But do you know what? Some people say, Oh, that's only $1 billion. I heard one Member say yesterday it was nickels and dimes. In Idaho, $1 billion is not nickels and dimes. We did not get into this situation a trillion dollars at a time. We got here a million and a billion dollars at a time, and that's how we're going to get out of this situation. So let's do our job and do what's right for the country and get this deficit under control; and if we can offset it, let's offset it.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, many Members of Congress, myself included, recognize that if we want to get our economy going again we need to take steps to get our fiscal house back in order and provide certainty to the marketplace so small business and job creators can begin hiring again.

Until we finish the regular appropriations process for the coming year, we won't be able to implement the necessary spending reductions and policy reforms needed to get our economy moving again.

While the House has come close to passing all of the appropriation bills out of committee and many of the bills on the floor, the Senate has passed only one bill so far. This CR gives us time to complete that work, while cutting current spending. To me, that seems like a much more reasonable solution than threatening another government shutdown, which will only hurt the economy.

Congress has one responsibility each year, and that is to pass the 12 appropriations bills by the beginning of the year. That job has been made harder this year by the fact that the previous majority did not complete their work by the end of 2010.

But I've got to tell you, in all honesty, this debate has almost been bizarre to me today. People have asked me whether we need to offset emergency spending, and I said emergency spending does not have to be offset. But if you can find the offsets to do so, why not do so? And that's what we've tried to do in this bill.

This debate seems to me almost devoid of the fact that we are $1.5 trillion in debt this year. The gentlelady from Texas, in the debate on the rule, said, we're nickel and diming those that are suffering from disaster, and that we shouldn't be nickel and diming.

I don't know, but in Idaho, $1.5 trillion, or the $1 billion that we're offsetting here, is not nickels and dimes.

The gentleman from New Jersey said people need relief now in New Jersey. They are going to get relief when we pass this bill.

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) said, we are cannibalizing the program that we are taking the money out of. In full committee, this amendment was offered on the Homeland Security bill. This amendment was offered. There was no objection to it. It passed on a voice vote. And now we are cannibalizing the program?

We need to pass this so that we can get on and finish our appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, as a representative of Idaho's Second Congressional District and member of the House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, it gives me great pleasure to recognize Bechtel BWXT Idaho's exemplary eight year legacy at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, AMWTP.

Under BBWI's supervision, AMWTP is the United States Department of Energy's most advanced waste treatment facility, safely and compliantly sending more radioactive waste to the DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for permanent disposal than any other site in the DOE Complex.

The excellence of BBWI and its employees shows through numerous awards ranging from the 2005 Department of Energy Electrical Safety Challenge to the multiple National Safety Awards received in 2010. Employees have worked more than 12.4 million hours and 2,839 days without a lost-time injury and have shipped more than 43,718 cubic meters of transuranic, mixed low level, and low level waste.

BBWI is also an active and involved corporate partner to Idaho. Supporting its community through contributions such as civic, cultural arts, and educational organizations, BBWI helps strengthen the fabric of communities and improve the -quality of life for Idahoans.

I am proud to represent AMWTP, a leading corporation in Idaho and for other waste treatment sites across the country.

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

I move to strike the last word.

It has been a fascinating debate to listen to the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Virginia tell the gentleman from Alaska how it works in Alaska. I will tell you that he knows more about Alaska than any of you ever thought of knowing. The problem is, you say you're trying to save Mr. Young from himself by offering this amendment. We're trying to save the Park Service from itself and the actions that it has taken.

Now, logically, your argument says if people have problems in their own areas, then you might see other amendments come up like this and we'll be setting a precedent. Exactly. If we can't have oversight about what goes on and about what the Park Service does, why are we even here?

You heard the story, which I won't repeat, of what happened to this gentleman, Mr. Wilde, on the river. We all agree that it's a problem. In fact, when the Park Service stops the gentleman in the middle of the river and tells him to shut down his boat, to shut down his motors--and as they testified in court, they refused to shut down theirs because it was unsafe--who is being protected? That's the point. The safety inspections of these boats will not stop. The statutory authority is given to the Coast Guard. That's who has the statutory authority, not the Park Service. That's the debate that's going on here.

This language is intended to only limit the Park Service's authority to engage in boater safety checks on the Yukon River within the Yukon Charley National Preserve, the only non-ocean navigable waterway within Alaska's national parks. It is important to note that this language will not have any effect on the ability of the Coast Guard to conduct the statutorily granted power of conducting boater safety checks. It is intended to avoid similar incidents between the Park Service and the public.

Yes, when Mr. Young brought this up originally, the manager of the Park Service could have said, ``You're right. There is a problem there, and I'll get rid of these people.'' They didn't do that. It took this to bring about the actions that have finally occurred: that they've been dismissed from that region. We're trying to prevent the Park Service from harming itself.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, we're not getting rid of law enforcement here. The Coast Guard will still do the safety inspections which they are statutorily authorized to do. The Park Service is not statutorily authorized to do that. They say they have been given that authority from the Coast Guard. I don't think that's the case.

So we're not getting rid of anything. What we're doing is clearing up a jurisdictional problem here.

I yield to the gentleman.

I'll guarantee there is a misunderstanding here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia's concern about the cost or the subsidies or whatever he wants to call it, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this amendment. It's a whole different issue. Should the Resources Committee be looking at the prices charged for cattle grazing, or mining, other things? Sure, they should be. It's not the purpose of this bill. It's not the purpose of this amendment.

All this amendment says is that in the past, BLM regulations have required that litigants exhaust the administrative review before litigating in Federal court. That means they have to go through the review process that's been set up administratively before they can go to court.

Recently, numerous lawsuits over grazing have been filed in Federal courts before the administrative review process had been completed. That means they haven't gone through to find out whether they would win or lose on the administrative side. This ties up the BLM field offices because they must respond to both an administrative process on one side and a litigation process on the other side. This provision simply requires litigants to first exhaust the administrative review before litigating grazing issues in Federal court. Litigants could still file for temporary restraining orders, contrary to what you said. They have to show irreparable harm, and they can still file for temporary restraining orders. Nothing in this provision prevents that.

I would hope--and I know the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Dicks, because we've talked about this before--if we could spend more money actually managing the lands rather than in court, we would all be better off. All this says is, follow the administrative procedures, and exhaust them before you go to court. You still have that option after those administrative procedures have been exhausted. As I said, you can still get a restraining order if there's irreparable harm. This, I think, will cut down on the lawsuits, and I think this is a good provision in the bill.

And I would hope that the gentlemen from Washington and Virginia would recognize how well the underlying bill is written and would withdraw the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, that's the standard that exists now, as I understand it. We're not changing that.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, to answer your question, the reason I'm concerned is the extraordinary amount of money that we are spending in court instead of on managing public lands. That's the real issue here. And we have a process set up where, if you have problems, you can go through an administrative process. Go through it. At the end if you don't like the outcome, go to court. That's all we're saying.

And is this legislating on an appropriation bill? Well, I guess funding unauthorized programs is legislating on an appropriations bill also, which we've done in several provisions in this bill which you support. I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman, or as brief as I can.

I appreciate this discussion on wolves because it is something that is near and dear to the people of Idaho.

I was the speaker of the house in Idaho when the gentleman from Washington supported wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone and Idaho and Montana and Wyoming--something that Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana frankly didn't want but, nevertheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service said that's what we're going to do and that's what they did. Since that time, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have been doing the right thing in restoring these wolf populations.

In Idaho and Montana, they came up with a wolf management plan that was approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service--it was approved--but then it was taken to court because it didn't include Wyoming. And a judge said--not based on science. We're trying to get back to science. But a judge said, You can't just delist in Idaho and Montana; you have to include Wyoming, and Wyoming didn't have a State management plan approved then. Since that time, I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service and Wyoming have come up with a plan in principle--and they're still working out the details, but I believe that they will have a plan by the end of this year--to delist in Wyoming.

All we're saying is that when they're delisted by Fish and Wildlife Service, they have an approved plan, then it is not subject to judicial review. Because, frankly, there are people who don't think we ought to have any wolf management plan that would include, guess what? Hunting wolves. I know the gentleman from Washington is astounded by that. Our Governor has indicated that he likes to hunt wolves. The problem is wolves have no natural predator out there except hunger. When they've done away with the food supply, some wolves die; otherwise, they just continue to grow in population.

Anybody that thought we were going to reintroduce wolves into the Rocky Mountains and there wasn't going to be some type of control--a hunt or whatever--were living on a different planet. But those same people now that wanted the wolves reintroduced, that oppose any type of wolf management, go to court to try to stop the delisting.

The gentleman from Washington has explained the problem that exists when you have mixed management of wolves that get confused. They don't know which side of the line they live on, whether they're protected or whether they're not protected, whether they can go out and eat your puppy dog or not. So they're confused wolves. We're trying to clear that up for them.

And in the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes have had a population that is greater than in the Rocky Mountains and have been deserving of delisting for a number of years but have just not gotten it done.

And contrary to what the gentleman from Virginia said, I actually think the Secretary of the Interior is doing a good job. There are many things I agree with him on. Many of my westerners would disagree with that. I happen to think he's doing a good job as Secretary of the Interior. I don't agree with everything he does, but you know what? When I call him up and say we've got some real problems with this, he listens--he might not agree after he listens, but he listens to us. That's all I ask from a gentleman in that position.

So don't believe that we are critical of the Secretary. We do have some differences of opinion, and I realize that he works in an administration that

makes it difficult for him sometimes. He's from Colorado. He knows western issues. But I have enjoyed working with him.

And I trust the Fish and Wildlife Service and the science that they provide to delist wolves better than I do adjudge. That's why this language is here. Wolves will still be protected in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Utah, where they have expanded to, and in the Great Lakes.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is right. If wolf populations get below acceptable levels, then they go back on the endangered list. Guess what. Wyoming and Montana and Idaho are not going to let that happen.

I think this is a good way to go for proceeding with the Endangered Species Act and making sure it does what it's intended to do.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I would just say to the gentleman from Washington that was supportive of the reintroduction of wolves in Idaho and Montana and Wyoming that put us in this situation, several wolves----

Reclaiming my time, western Washington.

I just want you to know that there have been several wolves that have come to my house, and they presented me with a petition that they would like to visit the Cascades.

You're welcome.

I would be happy to yield.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Referring my remarks to the Chairman, I've got to get the gentleman from Virginia on a horse out with some cattle.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. ``Trailing'' is the process of moving a livestock herd from one grazing area to another. It generally doesn't take weeks. It certainly doesn't take weeks in the same location. You're moving from one location to another. Trailing has no significant impact on the environment, so

while in the past it has been generally considered part of the process of grazing on public lands, the BLM has rarely conducted environmental assessments on or issued permits for trailing itself, focusing instead on the impacts of grazing.

Recently--and this is the problem and this is why this amendment is before us--environmental activists that want to get cattle off of public lands, and they have a right to try to do this--I disagree with them--have focused their attention on trailing as a way to shut down grazing on public lands.

Congress, not the courts, has the authority to determine public land policies, and today responsible grazing is an important and legitimate use of public lands. Unfortunately, because activists have tied local BLM offices up in knots with litigation, judges are now determining how public lands can be used in the West.

This provision--and this is the important part--attempts to get ahead of this issue by exempting trailing from NEPA requirements for 2011 through 2014. The Forest Service on their grazing permits require permits on trailing. The Forest Service does. The BLM has not in the past. But, instead, these litigations are tying this up in knots. The BLM is going through a process to include trailing when they issue their grazing permits, so that the NEPA process on trailing will be included. The problem is between now and when they get that completed, we're going to be in court spending all our money in court rather than getting this process moving forward.

We're not opposed to requiring NEPA process on trailing permits just like the Forest Service does, but what this does is exempt this through 2014 while BLM, for lack of a better term, gets their act together. That's all this does.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this debate is always fascinating. I've got to tell you, if rhetoric were fast food, there'd be golden arches over all these doors because I've never heard so much rhetoric in my life. And I hope that the gentleman from California actually read the report. Maybe he did and maybe these pages got stuck together. I don't know.

But if you look at the report--he said that we don't care about the lands and the designations, that we just want to use them up and all that kind of stuff.

Let me read, for the Record, what the report says: As mentioned in the introduction of this report, the committee lauds the Department of the Interior for its significant changes in wild lands policy and notes that the Bureau of Land Management has, to this date, been in compliance with the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution prohibiting funds for the use of Secretarial order 3310, which was to designate, and as the gentleman said, he couldn't designate wild lands because

that policy didn't exist, and he can't. And he's in compliance with that.

It continues: While the Department is now rightly requesting the input of Members of Congress, Senators, and the public, the committee is concerned about the internal direction given by the Bureau of Land Management regarding the inventory of lands managed by the Bureau. As the Department has stated, inventories of bureau lands are required under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, FLPMA, and the committee agrees. The committee agrees with this reading of the act.

The committee points out that inventories should, however, cover all land uses, multiple use, not just lands with wilderness character. The values to be assessed include wildlife, fish habitat, nonmotorized and motorized recreation, hunting, fishing, grazing, conventional and renewable energy development, mining, wilderness character, forest management, and aesthetics. All of these values are important, and one value does not supersede the other.

The committee also directs the Bureau to use the definition of wilderness as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act, as directed by section 603 of FLPMA. The committee will continue its oversight of this issue.

The Secretary has done the right thing by withdrawing his policy of wild lands designation, a designation that he made up. Only Congress can designate a new land designation. That's what Congress does. The Secretary agreed with that, withdrew it.

We have no problem, and encourage them to go on with the inventories for all of the characteristics of public lands. So the gentleman's comments relative to oh, all we care about is mining and flattening the land, or whatever he said, is just rhetoric.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The reality is, if the Secretary carries out what he says he's going to do, this amendment probably isn't necessary. If they decide to reverse course, then it was necessary. If they do what they said they are going to do, it absolutely won't have any effect, as the gentleman from Utah said.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, the Secretarial order which is in question needs to be withdrawn, and then he needs to issue a new one which doesn't include this new designation of wild lands because that still stands out there even though he says he's not going to designate any new wild lands.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

That's exactly correct.

The amendment deals with the Secretarial order, not just wild lands.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Part of the reason I was praising him is because he came over and sat down and listened to us and realized that there was a problem with Secretarial order 3310.

I trust him.

What does it hurt? It doesn't hurt a thing.

What the gentleman is suggesting is because we are essentially saying you can't follow Secretarial order 3310, that means you can't follow FLPMA, which requires the inventory of these lands. They still have to do the inventory of the lands under FLPMA whether or not there is a Secretarial order 3310.

Will the gentleman yield?

It is absurd to think that repealing a Secretarial order which does not supercede Federal law somehow changes the underlying Federal law. It does not. FLPMA still exists whether the Secretarial order is there or not.

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

This is really hard, Mr. Chairman, but given our allocation, we had to cut many EPA programs, including programs we support like the clean water and drinking water State revolving funds. In the base bill, we reduced nearly every EPA geographic program below the 2011 enacted level, in addition to providing none of the requested increases.

Despite the cuts, restoration of the Great Lakes remains a committee priority as demonstrated by the fact that the Great Lakes program is the largest recipient of funds in the geographic programs. It's the largest geographical area, also, so you would probably expect that.

While I appreciate the intent of the gentleman's offset, where he offset this from, we cut EPA's climate budget by $23 million--and it's easy to vote against funding for climate change or the increased funding that we have put into climate change--in the chairman's mark, and, believe it or not, there are some EPA programs we support under the climate change heading, including research and development of new automotive technologies, including the hydraulic hybrid technology for trucks, carbon capture and sequestration, and initiatives to increase methane transmission.

The reality is that over a period of time, because ``climate change'' is now kind of the key phrase, that if you want to get money for your basic science, you call it ``climate change.'' Just like after 9/11, if you wanted money for some program, you called it ``homeland security.'' That was the key phrase. Now ``climate change'' is the key phrase. A lot of the requests from the administration have been basic science programs that have been going on for a long time but have been shifted over and called climate change.

While we looked at the funding for climate change and the increases that had occurred in this budget over the years and that have been substantial, the fact is, when we looked at them, many of them were just basic science that needed to be continued. So we couldn't just go out and eliminate all the climate change or reduce it, I believe, any more than we did, and climate change took an $83 million hit in this bill.

We see the same thing happening in the Department of the Interior, where base programs have been reclassified as climate change. So we really need to be

careful about what we are using as an offset under the administration's classification of a ``climate change program.''

In addition, funding for the Great Lakes restoration efforts grew from $60 million in 2009 to $475 million in 2010. Therefore, at the chairman's mark of $250 million, funding for the Great Lakes is still four times above its historical levels. And, again, it continues to be a committee priority as evidenced by the fact that the Great Lakes program is the largest recipient of funds in the EPA's geographic programs.

If I felt we could fund the Great Lakes at a higher level within our allocation, then believe me, I would have done so. I would have done anything to avoid this debate with the gentleman from Ohio, but, unfortunately, even though the gentleman makes a good point and I agree with him and if we had more money in the allocation I would be more than happy to do it, it's the offset and where it comes from that causes me some concern.

I would be more than happy to yield.

Well, that would be one of the overall problems with the title, Climate Change, but I would have to oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate what the gentlelady is trying to do, and actually agree with what she's trying to do, I must insist on my point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part:

``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an earmark that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

When I first looked at the President's proposal to eliminate funding for the diesel emissions reductions grant, I knew that there was a budget gimmick that we would have to backfill when we did this budget. This was an issue I addressed with the EPA administrator when she came before the subcommittee to justify her budget.

The diesel emissions reduction program, or DERA, is a proven program with known, quantifiable health benefits. The DERA program provides grants to States to retrofit old diesel engines in order to reduce pollution.

These grants produce $13 of economic benefit per Federal dollar. And the technology supported by DERA reduced black carbon emissions by 90 percent.

When I asked the administrator why she would propose to eliminate funding for a program with proven technology that works in order to fund new, nice-to-have voluntary initiatives that we have no idea what they do, she responded that it was a tough budget choice. Well, it was the wrong choice.

I think the committee supports this program, it has in the past. As I said, it's a proven program that has proven results, and that's why we backfilled the request--even though the President didn't request any funding for this--to put $30 million in. It is $20 million below what was funded at the current level. So it did have a reduction just like every other program, but we did keep it alive at $30 million.

I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

I thank the gentlelady.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, a good friend of mine from Virginia once said that he would hear this on the floor, and I guess this is probably the first time that he's going to hear it; that is, the gentlelady makes a good point. But given the allocation that we have and the low funding level, frankly, we just don't have the money to do what she's requesting.

Her offset is to take money out of the Capital Improvement and Maintenance program. That's a program that has already been cut by $94 million in this bill. We've had to make some tough decisions. And while we haven't eliminated the funding for this, obviously, we just don't have that kind of money to put back into it.

Every program is going to have to suffer some cuts. I don't think we should be taking money out of the Capital Improvement and Maintenance program allocation that has already been cut by nearly $100 million. So I would oppose the gentlelady's amendment and hope my colleagues will oppose it also.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill.

The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states:

``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''

The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill and is in violation of such section.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I move to strike the last word.

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

What the amendment does is create the 30 percent language that we've had in the past, which is a floor, and makes it a ceiling rather than a floor.

The EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds provide grants to States to capitalize on their revolving loan fund programs. These programs offer low-interest loans to communities for projects included on a State's Intended Use Plan. These low-interest loans are usually below market rates and are used to finance water and wastewater infrastructure projects.

Many small and disadvantaged communities with a low income base can hardly afford to apply for these loans even with the low-interest rates. Therefore, this provision in the base text, which we have had for a few years, would offer zero-interest loans, which are loans that forgive a portion of the principal, or grants, to these disadvantaged communities that would otherwise be unable to afford a standard SRF loan. The provision provides some relief to small communities across the Nation that are tirelessly working to provide clean and safe drinking water to their residents and bring construction jobs to their communities, all at the same time as they balance their books.

Given the huge infrastructure needs facing this Nation and the crumbling water and wastewater infrastructure, we should be providing more of this assistance, not less. So, while I appreciate my colleague's amendment and share his interest in preserving the viability of the SRFs, I do not support this amendment, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I would just say, we've talked about this in the subcommittee for a number of years. One of the real problems we have is we have these State revolving loan funds. We put the money out there, and there are a lot of communities that can't even afford the loans, so it doesn't help them rebuild their water systems or the wastewater treatment facilities. With the standards that we have with arsenic and other things, I have a lot of small communities in Idaho, and it doesn't help them that they have a State revolving loan fund, because they can't afford it. What this does is help them through that to meet some of the clean water standards that they have to meet.

As I said, what we've carried in the bill before us is that a minimum of 30 percent, or a floor of 30 percent, of those funds have to be used for those types of things. What the gentleman's amendment would do would make that a ceiling in which you could only use 30 percent of that. I oppose the amendment, and hope my colleagues would also.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment would take $21 million from the Forest Service's State and Private program and put it in the Spending Reduction Account.

While it's easy to stand here and say, ``It just reduces it by 10 percent. Who can't stand a 10 percent reduction?'' I'd like to note that the State and Private Forestry program has already had a significant cut in this budget--$133 million below that of FY11, and despite its name, it is critical to managing the national forest system.

The accounts we kept intact are extremely important: for example, cooperative fire protection in rural areas. This helps rural communities fight catastrophic wildfires. With such a large percentage of public land and such a small tax base, many rural communities are hard-pressed to pay for the suppression of large wildfires that start on public lands.

Cooperative forest health: in other words, the prevention and treatment of insects and disease. Improving forest health helps prevent catastrophic wildfires. In the South, I know you're familiar with the southern pine beetle. This program has helped to contain the spread of southern pine beetle. I wish the same were true in the Western United States where 20 million acres are dead due to the mountain pine beetle.

I understand the gentleman is standing on principle. So am I. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.

While the program that she seeks to increase funding for is a good program, and I think most people support it and its intent and what it does, the problem is is that it takes the money out of the Wildfire Suppression Program.

Anybody that has been watching the news for the last 5 months understands the wildfire problems we have in Texas, in New Mexico, in Arizona. And as NOAA has told us, those wildfires are going to climb into the Pacific Northwest later in the year this year. So I suspect August, September, October in the Pacific Northwest is going to be a huge fire suppression cost.

So I think we can ill afford to take the money out of wildfire suppression and put it into the program. It would be nice to increase the funding for those conservation programs to help protect those things, but if they burn up, we're not really protecting them. So we've tried in this bill to fund the wildfire suppression at the 10-year average, which we have done, and I would be hard-pressed to support taking money out of that given the fire situation we find ourselves in this year. And I would oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to note that I support the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program, CFLR. This bill funds the program at $30 million. In the CR, it was funded at $25 million; and in fiscal year 2010, it was funded at $10 million. We've supported it enough that we've increased funding for it from the 2010 level through the CR and in this bill. The funding for this program has increased dramatically at a time when other programs are being cut. The offset for this program is hazardous fuels; and because of the budget authority and outlays, the amendment

has to cut $16.6 million to pay for a $10 million increase in this program.

The hazardous fuels program has been extremely effective at reducing the threat of catastrophic fire. I would also argue that hazardous fuels funds get to the ground and actually make a meaningful impact much earlier than the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program, which can take years before a project is even implemented.

I understand and agree with the gentleman that in our bill report we state over and over that the Forest Service needs more active management at a much larger scale. But CFLR is not the only program that does this. There are numerous programs and line items for improving forest health and reducing wildfire risk. We funded all of these at FY11 levels.

I am glad that the CFLR program is working well in Arizona, but it is not working as well in other parts of the country. In some areas, other buckets of funding are more effective at actively managing the forest. As a result, I reluctantly have to oppose the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is truly one of the less-thought-out amendments, I think, that's been proposed to this bill.

The Smithsonian is truly a gem in this country--ask the American people--if you look at what they are doing and the important role they play.

A lot of people think that it's not important if you don't come to Washington. The Smithsonian doesn't do anything. They only operate some museums here and a few things like that. That's not the truth. The Smithsonian operates all across this country. If you look at what they're doing in digitalization of the things they have in their museum and stuff, and they're reaching out to schools and so forth, it is making an amazing difference. Go on their Web site and see what they're doing in terms of the applications for your iPhone and things like that that are making a difference in people's lives, plus the research that they do on a variety of things around this country is just amazing.

If the gentleman wants to reduce this, and everybody can take a $58 million hit, I guess, but this is $100 million or more below what the President already requested. Another $58 million hit on this would be a substantial hit.

They also raise $158 million in private funds. That tells you that private corporations and citizens all across this country love what the Smithsonian does. And they do a fantastic job. If you want to get the public outraged, slice the Smithsonian's funding so that when someone comes here to visit Washington, maybe a trip that they planned on for quite some time, and their kids want to see the number one thing they came to see, guess what it is. The Air and Space Museum, and the other things that occur here.

But the Smithsonian is so much more than that. Go look at what they do at the National Zoo. Go look at what they do in their collections that they have. This is an incredible organization.

I'm only sorry that in this budget climate, and I appreciate the gentleman's desire to address the budget deficit that we have. Everybody wants to do that. There are some things that we should maintain. The Smithsonian is one of them. So I would hope that not only would the Members of this body vote against this amendment, but that they would vote hopefully unanimously against it and in support of the Smithsonian and the work that they do for this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Walberg amendment. First, let me associate myself with the words of my good friend from Virginia and his comments on this. The Walberg amendment would return the NEA funding to the 2006 levels of $126 million. The National Endowment for the Arts--the NEA--is funded in this bill at $135 million, which is a $20 million reduction from the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, a $32.5 million reduction from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and a $10 million reduction from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.

I was asked earlier by a Member if I would support just going back to the 2008 level. We could do that but we'd have to add another $10 million into it. And we, frankly, just don't have it. This would take it back to the 2006 level, as I said. Overall, the committee has cut $2.1 billion in this bill from the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. This is on top of the $2.6 billion we cut from the bill earlier this year.

I think this amendment is excessive. But I will tell you that for some people, voting against any funding for the arts is okay with them. I'm not suggesting that that's what the sponsor of this amendment is proposing. He's only proposing a reduction in this. But there are Members who believe that the Federal Government or a State government-- no government--should be involved in the arts at all. I disagree.

When we ran into problems several years ago before I was here--maybe it was when Mr. Moran was here; I can't remember--but they ran into some controversies with the arts and the funding for individual artists that they've done. Since then, the Interior Appropriations Committee has done, working with the NEA, some reforms. So we don't fund individual artists. We fund what the intent is, I think, of the National Endowment for the Arts, and that is to get the arts out to the rest of America. If you're sometimes in a large city and that type of thing, you have access to arts. But when you're in Salmon, Idaho, you don't have access to the arts like they do in some of the other areas.

So one of the things I've been focused on in working with Chairman Landesman is making sure the arts get out to rural America so that they have an opportunity to see these art performances, whether they're the visual arts or the performing arts or other things. But we need to get them out to rural America. If you want to come to Boyce, Idaho, you will have missed Boyce, Idaho, in the summer if you don't go to the Idaho Shakespeare Festival, partly funded by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Yes, they raise private funds and have sponsorships and other things, but part of their funding comes from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Chairman Landesman was out in Idaho last spring, I guess it was, and we toured around Idaho and looked at some of the arts programs, at the local arts agencies that receive some funding from the NEA, and we looked at the impact it had on their operations. We also went to Jerome High School where the actors who did their performances in Boise City, at the Idaho Shakespeare Festival, toured the schools and gave performances to students. Then they sat there afterwards and talked with the students about what it was to be in the performing arts--how you get into it, what the pluses and minuses of it were, and other things. They helped educate these students in these communities. It's a very important thing.

There are a variety of very popular programs in this bill which are popular on both sides of the aisle. The American Jazz Masters program, the Heritage Fellowships, The Big Read program, and Shakespeare in American Communities have their funding maintained, not at the previous levels, but at a level so that they can maintain these very popular programs. The chairman has introduced a new program that we're working with him on--exactly how it would work and what it would be--called Our Town, which is how the arts can help transform local communities and other things through a grant program, so we've been working with him.

I will tell you that the arts are important, and I think having a Federal investment in the arts is an important thing to have.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

In reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. The Hide and Seek program, as the gentleman mentioned, was not an NEA program. It was not funded by the NEA, and that was not part of the NEA.

We have a tendency to think that anything that's done in this country or in this State or in this community that is done in the name of arts is done by the NEA. That's not the truth. So, when we attack them because of Hide and Seek, that's just not an accurate statement.

Again, there have been times in the past when there have been criticisms of the NEA, mainly because of the individual artist funding that went on. The committee has addressed that, and they have made reforms in working with the NEA to make sure that those types of things are not funded in this bill and that we don't fund individual artists. The main funding of the program is to get the arts out into the rural communities. Like I said, the American Jazz Masters program and The Big Read program are all vitally important programs that, I think, the American people like and that, I think, Members on both sides of the aisle like.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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