Floor Statements

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 2584, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do. This amendment would limit the BLM from spending $10 million in offsetting collections for oil and gas fees and put the funding into the EPA's geographic programs. I understand what he's trying to do, and I'm sympathetic with what he's trying to do.

I'm not necessarily opposed to increasing this program, and we recognize the challenge of the Asian carp in the Great Lakes. We have many invasive species in Idaho, so I certainly understand where the gentleman is coming from and the challenges that they face.

With that said, we worked hard to balance funding in this bill. We already funded invasive species in the Great Lakes at $43 million, and the total for Great Lakes geographic programs is $250 million. It makes little sense to

take funds from offsetting collections for the cost to administer the oil and gas programs. In other words, these programs are paid for by the industry, not by the taxpayers.

So while I don't necessarily oppose what the gentleman is trying to do, it's the offset that the gentleman has created to put the $10 million in there. We've tried to create a balance between these different programs with limited funding. I think we've done a good job in the Great Lakes, the best we could in this bill; and I would oppose the amendment and ask my Members to oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do. As I said, we do have some concerns with the offsets, but I am more than willing once this bill goes to conference in whatever form, depending on the outcome of this amendment, obviously, to work with the gentleman to see what we can do with the geographical programs, not just the Great Lakes programs, but there are both Republicans and Democrats that care about the geographical programs.

We've tried to do the best we could there, but there are other geographical programs that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is concerned about and that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is also concerned about. We will work with the gentleman in conference in trying to address the concerns expressed by the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

First, let me apologize to the gentleman from Virginia for the last amendment.

We both had some concerns, that he expressed very well, about taking $20 million out of the Secretary's office and the impact that that could have. As we discussed during his debate, I think both of us are concerned about the underfunding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and would like to see that fund increased. During his debate in opposition to the amendment, we decided to accept the $20 million in the amendment from the gentleman from New Hampshire and the

gentleman from Connecticut's amendment.

So I apologize for the confusion in the middle of all that. The gentleman's issues that he raised about the Secretary's budget and the impact that could have are real. We will have to address those in conference, and I want to work with you to do that.

Let me rise in opposition to this amendment. I have concerns that this is eliminating all of the funds, especially since we just increased them by $20 million. When we had this limited allocation, we had to make some tough decisions. The Secretary wanted it fully funded at $900 million as did the Obama administration. We simply did not have that kind of money, and to put more money into it, given our allocation, we would have had to take the money out of some other programs that are very important to other people. What we did do is put enough money in it to keep the programs and the purchases and the deals that had been made with citizens to acquire land that were already in progress so that those could be completed. We didn't put additional money in there.

I happen to be a fan of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I think it has done some great things. I've seen it do things in Idaho and I've seen it do things in other States, things that are very important. Westerners, though, have a different view of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and let me tell you where it comes from.

It's that most of the money that's put into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, at least a large percentage of it, is used to buy land in States in the West. Those are States that are already highly leveraged by the Federal Government. In Idaho, 64 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. So a lot of westerners say, Listen, if you want to put money in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, if you want to buy the whole east coast, we don't care; but what we want in Idaho and what we want in Western States is some private land to be able to pay the taxes to support our education system and other services that are necessary.

I have one county in Idaho that is 96 percent Federal land--96 percent Federal land. It's bigger than the State of Rhode Island. That means 4 percent of the property is paying property taxes to deliver the services to these people. Several years ago, a mountain climber, not from Idaho but from somewhere else, came out and was climbing the mountains of Mount Borah. He died. It took their entire search and rescue budget for the year for that county to retrieve that one body off Mount Borah. That means everybody else who recreated in that county did not have that backup, did not have that search and rescue available, because they had no funds, because they had no private land to pay the taxes to fund those services.

That's the problem that westerners who are in States that are highly owned by the Federal Government have with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but I'll be the first to admit that it does some wonderful things. If you float down the South Fork of the Snake River, you will see one of the most beautiful canyons and one of the best fishing rivers in the country; and if the gentleman from Washington wants to come out, I'll float him down it. It is an incredibly beautiful place, and it has been done through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

So I believe in the importance of this program. I apologize to the gentleman from Virginia as to our previous confusion on that; but I oppose this amendment, and I would encourage Members to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word in opposition.

I rise in opposition to the amendment by my good friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

I respect where my friend is trying to go; but not only does this amendment not get us there, it's downright dangerous. Let me explain why.

Since the Clinton administration and response to lawsuits and court orders that were crippling the agency's budget, there has been a statutory cap on how much the agency is permitted to spend on ESA listings. There's been a statutory cap in place since the Clinton administration. A cap on critical habitat spending was added in 2002.

The Obama administration requested new caps for petitions and foreign species listed in 2012.

In short, support for ESA funding caps has had bipartisan support in Congress and in the White House and was in place when the gentleman from Washington wrote the Interior bill and when the gentleman from Virginia wrote the Interior bill. Those spending caps were in place.

This amendment proposes to do away with funding caps altogether and gives the green light to those who have made a living suing the Fish and Wildlife Service. As a result, the litigants will act, the courts will all act, and the Fish and Wildlife Service's entire operating budget will be at risk of being raided in order to fund court-ordered mandates to list species and designate critical habitat.

This service will have no choice but to raid other funds from its resource management account, which is already decreased by $146 million, or 12 percent, in this budget. Having said that, the heart of the issue isn't about funding. It's about the fact that the Endangered Species Act is broken and is badly in need of review, revision, and reauthorization by the Natural Resources Committee. As I have said before, there's been about 2,000 species listed and 21 recovered.

Unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act has become not so much about saving species as it has been about controlling land and water. I'll give you an example. We all talk about the fuzzy and warm animals that we all like and all want to save. Nobody talks about the slickspot peppergrass, endangered. Nobody really cares about the slickspot peppergrass, except that it's listed. And you know what it does? It prevents cattle grazing on public lands and is used to prevent cattle grazing on public lands and move cattle producers off of public lands. That's the only reason that the slickspot peppergrass is really listed. That's unfortunate.

When you start using what was an act that was bipartisan and almost had unanimous agreement in the House and Senate, was a good Act--the intent of the Endangered Species Act is right, and we need to do it. We need to protect species that are endangered. Unfortunately, that's not what it's being used for today, and you can't get the stakeholders to the table to do a reauthorization bill because there are groups that like it the way it is. They want to control land and water by using the Endangered Species Act. How do we get the message out to them that we need to do a reauthorization? The only way I can think of is to say, You know what? This has been unauthorized for 20 years.

Now, you talk about policy riders in this bill that you don't like. This is a policy rider that you're attempting to add. It's an unauthorized program. Just because we have continued to fund it for 20 years, that's not the answer; that's the problem. And we need stakeholders to come to the table, sit down with the Natural Resources Committee and write a reauthorization. That's what this is all about. It is a shot across the bow.

I believe there are 56 or 58 programs in this bill that the authorization has expired. Somehow we need to send a message that we have a process around here. It's authorization, then appropriation. Not authorization, expired appropriation, and appropriation and appropriation and appropriation. It's the only way those things keep going on. We are trying to send a message.

You will find that I am supportive of reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, and I am supportive of the Endangered Species Act as it was originally intended. But I would urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous amendment which would undermine the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget because it would lift the caps that have been in place since the Clinton administration, and Fish and Wildlife Service would have no other alternative but to raid their accounts in order to fund court orders, suits, and other things that would come along.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman brings up the point I tried to make. This is a shot across the bow. All of these programs need to be reauthorized. We had to start somewhere.

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

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

I move to strike the last word.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

I move to strike the last word.

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 move to strike the last word.

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 move to strike the last word.

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.

I move to strike the last word.

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.

I move to strike the last word.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

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. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 34 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 27, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2584 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor H.R. 2584, the fiscal year 2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

As we begin, I want to personally thank Mr. Moran, Mr. Dicks, and each of the members of our subcommittee for their active participation in the bipartisan spirit that has been part of our deliberations this year. Regardless of our positions on this bill, I do sincerely appreciate their constructive contributions.

Mr. Chairman, we're living at a time when the Federal Government borrows more than 40 cents on each dollar that it spends. We are also living in a time of record deficits and debt. While reductions in discretionary spending alone will not totally erase the deficit, we all know that reducing Federal spending is a necessary first step.

The fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment bill is funded at $27.5 billion, which is $2.1 billion, or 7 percent below the fiscal year enacted level, and $3.8 billion, or 12 percent below the budget request.

Overall, funding within this bill is essentially level within fiscal year 2009 spending. The subcommittee has made some very difficult choices in preparing this budget proposal. In total, 235 Members of the House submitted over 1,700 programmatic requests to the subcommittee for consideration.

While the bill makes significant spending reductions across many agencies and programs, it also provides ample funding to address the needs of key accounts supported by a bipartisan cross-section of Members. For instance, fire suppression at the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service is fully funded at the 10-year average.

The bill includes a $37 million increase over fiscal year 2011 for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to hire new inspectors and move forward with offshore oil and gas permitting and leasing while also improving safety. And Members will be pleased to know that the operations of our national parks are sustained at levels only slightly below last year, which means every park unit in the country will be operational and fully staffed without the threat of furloughs or layoffs.

Finally, this bill also makes critical investments in Indian Country. Building upon efforts initiated by Mr. Dicks and Mr. Moran, this bill continues to make investments in human health and wellness programs in Indian Country, affecting health care, education, and self- determination. Overall, the Department of the Interior is funded at $9.9 billion, which is a $715 million, or 7 percent, reduction below last year's enacted level.

As I mentioned, we've done some things that Secretary Salazar will support. The Secretary and I have had many discussions about these issues as well as some areas where funding isn't what he would like to see. One of those areas relates to the funding of the Endangered Species Act.

Since the ESA was enacted, there have been 2,018 species listed and only 21 species recovered. By any calculation, that's a pretty poor track record. Any other program with such a poor rate of success would have long since been terminated. There isn't one member of this subcommittee opposed to recovering endangered species; but the ESA has become so contentious, so political, and so litigious that it has become a policy failure. The authorization for the ESA appropriation expired 20 years ago, and the assumption has been that the Appropriations Committee would continue to fund it year in and year out, as it has in the past.

In fact, Members might be interested to know that 26 percent of the funding in this bill is for programs in which the authorizations have expired. That's not how the process is supposed to work, Mr. Chairman. And just as we are going back to regular order and passing appropriation bills, we need to return to regular order when it comes to working with the authorizers to update and fix laws that no longer work or have expired.

It's time to fix the ESA. The best way to do that is for the authorizers and stakeholders in the conservation community to come to the table to fix what is broken so we can actually begin recovering species. We are sending that message today.

Climate change is another item of interest to members of this committee. Most of the Members know that I am not a climate change naysayer. The fact is that climate change funding has been increasing over the past few years, and no one has any idea how or whether its funding is being coordinated between various agencies. The GAO came to the same conclusion in a report released in May of this year. The GAO said: ``Without further improvement in how Federal climate change funding is defined and reported, strategic priorities are set, and funding is aligned with priorities, it will be difficult for the public and Congress to fully understand how climate change funds are accounted for and how they are spent.'' As a result of this ongoing concern, climate change funding in this bill is reduced by $83 million, or 22 percent.

The bill also makes significant reductions in funding for land acquisition. Land acquisition was funded at $301 million in the current fiscal year. The President had requested $900 million for next year. We funded it at $66 million in this bill to complete land acquisitions currently under consideration. I would personally like to see more funding in the LWCF. The problem is, we just don't have the money.

It's also worth noting that while we increase funding for oil and gas rig inspections, we don't pay for them by including the President's proposed $38 million increase for additional onshore gas and oil fees or the $55 million increase for additional offshore oil and gas fees. These issues are best left to the authorizing committees of jurisdiction. And I hope that by next year, the authorizing committees will address this issue.

There are a few other items that may be of interest to Members that I'll mention briefly: The U.S. Geological Survey is funded at $1.1 billion, which is $30 million, or 3 percent, below the FY11-enacted level. The next-generation LandSat satellite imaging program, which has been a cooperative venture with NASA, was proposed to be transferred entirely to USGS without any corresponding funding from NASA. Because projected costs are estimated to increase tenfold over the next 2 years and because LandSat is a widely used governmental and private sector resource, this bill sends the proposal back to the administration with instructions to start over.

Within the EPA, the bill includes $15 million for a new competitive grant program to fund rural water technical assistance, which is widely supported on both sides of the aisle. The NEA and the NEH are both funded at $135 million, which is a level too low for some Members and too high for others. It's worth noting that both sides worked together in a effort to maintain several longstanding proven programs that the administration had slated for termination.

The bill provides funding for the Smithsonian at levels just below the FY11-enacted level and includes $50 million to begin construction of the National Museum of African American History and Culture and $75 million for revitalization of existing Smithsonian buildings. The bill also provides a $30 million down payment to begin construction next year of a memorial to honor the memory of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I suspect that most of the headlines from House consideration of this bill will focus on the committee's attention to the EPA. We need to continue funding the EPA in order for business to obtain the necessary permits to operate in accord with the environmental laws.

Through EPA funding, we also continue to address our Nation's critical water and wastewater infrastructure needs. However, one of the major underlying themes to this year's work is the sheer volume of regulatory actions being pursued by agencies in the absence of legislation and without clear congressional direction.

My intense opposition to the EPA's efforts to control nearly every industry in this country is no secret. The EPA's unrestrained effort to regulate greenhouse gases and the pursuit of an overly aggressive regulatory agenda are signs of an agency that has lost its bearings.

Wherever I go, the biggest complaint I hear about the Federal Government is about how the EPA is creating economic uncertainty and killing jobs. This isn't a partisan issue. Members of both parties have said that the EPA's regulatory actions vastly exceed its authority and congressional intent. The responsibility to determine whether or not to expand that authority rests solely with Congress, not with the EPA. We have included a number of provisions in the base bill to address some of these issues and more were added in full committee. We saw during consideration of H.R. 1 earlier this year and we will see again on the House floor even more efforts to rein in the EPA.

I know some of my Democrat friends will be especially critical of the spending reductions in EPA accounts. While we all recognize the importance of the clean drinking water and safe drinking water State revolving funds, we also know funding them, as we have in the past, is not possible. We need to find a better long-term funding source for water infrastructure projects, something that a number of Members have been working on.

It's also worth pointing out that these accounts received $6 billion in Recovery Act funds in 2009 and still have nearly $3 billion in previously appropriated funding that they have yet to spend. In calendar year 2009, the EPA received over $25 billion in combined stimulus funding and regular appropriation. So it should come as no surprise that the funding for the EPA was reduced by $1.5 billion, or 18 percent, from current levels.

Much will be said today about the subcommittee's allocation of the policy provisions in this bill; but just remember, at the end of the day, what this committee is attempting to do is all about reducing spending, creating more certainty in the marketplace, and promoting an economic environment conducive to job growth. If there's one thing that we should have learned in the last couple of years, it's that we can't spend our way to an economic recovery. That didn't work. All it did was make the hole we're in much deeper.

I know Mr. Moran and Mr. Dicks may not agree, but the legislative provisions in this bill and those that will be added today and on the House floor, they are not special interests. They're about jobs. They're about protecting businesses and hardworking Americans from frivolous lawsuits. They're about creating certainty in the marketplace, and they're about assuring businesses that employ people that it's safe to begin hiring people again without the threat of the EPA, under the guise of protecting our environment, imposing millions of dollars of penalties through regulations that are unreasonable or simply defy common sense.

Is this a perfect bill? No. But I've never seen a perfect bill. This is a bill that makes some very tough choices on spending. It's a bill that attempts to rein in the excesses of the EPA, and it's a bill that sends a clear message to stakeholders in Congress that it's time to get busy on renewing expiring authorizations. I wish we had more money to spend on a variety of programs that I, and other Members, believe are important. I also wish we didn't have a $1.6 trillion deficit. I wish we weren't $14.5 trillion in debt. I wish the economy was booming and that unemployment was something we only read about in history books. Unfortunately, wishing doesn't make it so. These are the economic and political realities that we have to face.

In closing, I'd like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in producing this bill. Most Members don't realize how much time and effort staff members put into this. On the minority side, I'd like to thank Rick Healy and Shalanda Young, as well as Tim Aiken and Pete Modaff. They have played an integral role in the process, and their efforts are very much appreciated.

On the majority side, I'd like to thank the subcommittee staff: Colin Vickery, Grace Stephens, who, by the way, just had a baby last week-- she held off until she was sure we had this bill through the full committee--Erica Rhoad, Jason Gray, Darren Benjamin, and Dave LesStrang. I'd also like to thank Missy Small, Kaylyn Bessey and Lindsay Slater on my personal staff for their great work.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.022

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the esteemed chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for the purpose of colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes. Our intent is to make it clear that States with approved management plans should be given authority to manage delisted wolf populations in their States. The language in the bill ensures that delisting decisions are made by scientists on the ground, not judges in courtrooms.

The report language clarifies that similar bill language should apply to areas where wolves have expanded beyond their original population boundaries once State management plans are in place and the Fish and Wildlife Service determines that the population should be delisted. That language is intended to address States that currently face mixed management challenges, like Washington, Oregon, and Utah.

I know your concern about this issue, and Representative Walden from Oregon has shared with me similar concerns as well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, today's ESA is so highly contentious, political, and litigious that it has become a failure of public policy. Funding authorization for ESA programs expired nearly two decades ago, but because we have continued to fund them, ESA reform continues to stay on the back burner.

This bill calls for a ``timeout'' for unauthorized funding of new critical habitat or ESA listing decisions in order to encourage authorizers and stakeholders to come to the table to bring the ESA into the 21st century, which it is not now.

I thank the gentleman.

It is important that authorizing committees like yours be able to modernize landmark laws like the ESA--laws that were widely supported when they were passed but no longer work as Congress originally intended. No less than 56 agencies or programs in this bill have expired authorizations, and stakeholders and interested Members of Congress should know that these programs are also at risk of defunding if they are not reauthorized. Our bill, hopefully, will provide incentive for stakeholders who have been unwilling to participate in the reform process to finally entertain serious reform of the ESA, which I am sure your committee will actively pursue.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have no problem sharing with you the colloquies that we engage in.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a valued member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to an esteemed colleague and member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the esteemed former chairman of the full committee, the member emeritus of several subcommittees, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, I thank the Members for the debate that has gone on with regard to this bill.

I notice that Members on the other side of the aisle continually refer to some of the policy provisions that are in this bill as policy rider/special interest legislation. In fact, they were called ``earmark legislation'' in this bill, but they are special interest.

Let me tell you that the only special interest that I care about right now are the unemployed people in this country who are looking for a job. If you talk to any business in this country, the one thing they will tell you is the uncertainty created by the potential regulation and proposed regulation by the EPA is stopping them from expanding their businesses because they have no idea--no idea--what it's going to cost to hire a new employee.

They are the biggest wet blanket on our economy that we have today, so we need to do something about it. We need to rein them back in because they are totally out of control. That's what this bill does.

This is under an open rule. That means Members will have the opportunity, if they have different ideas and if they can get a majority of the votes, to remove some of these things. If so, they can remove them, but I'd suspect more are going to be added rather than removed as this bill moves through its full consideration.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer a manager's amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider the amendment en bloc and at this point in the reading.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

The manager's amendment before us makes several technical and conforming changes to the bill. These are all noncontroversial changes, and they have been shared with the minority. I believe the minority is supportive of the amendment, and I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding.

I am aware of this issue. This is one of those times when a law whose intent is to protect may be unintentionally causing harm.

I agree with the gentleman from Missouri, and I want to be clear. I hope the Secretary of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service hear us clearly when we say that it is the sense of the committee that under these acts the Secretary of the Interior may issue permits for the importation into the United States of live polar bears for the purposes of public display at appropriate accredited zoological institutions upon a finding that such importation will benefit the health and welfare of the animal or is otherwise consistent with the conservation of the polar bear.

I thank the gentleman for raising the matter and for working with me on this important issue.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Virginia.

Honoring our Nation's obligations to American Indians and Alaskan Natives is an unshakable bipartisan sentiment shared by Members of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and is an accomplishment in this bill that I am most proud of. This bill increases funding for Indian Health Services by $392 million over the current fiscal year while almost virtually everything else is being cut, a 10 percent increase that also happens to be one of the rare and, by far, the largest increases in this bill. This bill includes the same $19 billion cut for sanitation facilities that was proposed by the President. And I note that the President's Indian Health Service budget was an additional $162 million higher than this bill.

The problem is the offset. The BLM's management of land resources account has already been cut by $43.5 million below the FY 2011 and $15.5 million below the President's budget request. This account funds the management of the BLM's more than 245 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres. Further cuts to this account are not appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, am I proud of the increases we were able to provide in this bill and in previous bills by my predecessors Mr. Moran and Mr. Dicks? You bet I am. Will I continue to fight for more funding for Indian country despite the attacks from virtually every other interest group who isn't happy with their share of the pie? You bet I will. Will I stand by and let my friend and colleague from Virginia continue to systematically dismantle the budget of the largest landowner in the West, the BLM? Absolutely not. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and while I appreciate my good friend from Kansas's passion for cutting spending, the reality is that this is exactly what we're doing. This bill comes in under the allocation. We passed the budget earlier this year on the floor--we're the only body to have passed a budget, actually. The Senate has not passed one yet. We were given an allocation, and this bill comes in under that allocation.

We all know that we cannot balance this budget simply by cutting, but we also know that reducing Federal spending is a necessary priority and a first step toward getting us toward a balanced budget.

I think that this amendment goes too far. It would take $3 billion from the numerous accounts in this bill, including the BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, NEA and NEH, as was mentioned, and transfer it to the budget reduction account.

While I appreciate the gentleman's concern that he expressed about the impact that the EPA is having in this country on job creation, and I have said repeatedly that when I go out and give a speech somewhere to a chamber of commerce or Lions Club or whatever, I'll talk about the Interior bill and the agencies that we fund, and when I get to the EPA, someone in the audience will say, Just defund it, get rid of it, and it's the first applause line in the speech. That's the reputation the EPA has out in the public, and that's the concern that the public has about the direction that the EPA is headed.

So I appreciate the gentleman's concern about the EPA; but as I try to explain to people, you can't just do away with the EPA because if you're out there and you have a business and the underlying law requires you to get an air quality permit or a water permit or something like that and you call the EPA to get your air quality permit and no one's there to answer the phone, to help you with that, then you've got a problem. We don't want to eliminate the EPA. What we want to do is rein the EPA back in, because I think they've got an overly aggressive agenda; and, as I have said, I think they're the biggest wet blanket on the growth in our economy that there is.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I would hope that my colleagues would oppose the amendment.

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

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

The amendment would take $3 million from the BLM Management of Lands and Resources and transfer it to the EPA's Urban Waters Initiative. The BLM Management of Lands and Resources account has already been cut by $43.5 million below the FY11 and $15.5 million below the President's budget request. This account funds the management of the BLM's more than 245 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres. Further cuts to this account would not be appropriate.

We eliminated funding for the EPA's new Urban Waters Initiative because it

was duplicative funding. Regardless of whether a water body is in an urban or a rural area, EPA and States should be addressing the most impaired waters first, and there are a number of well-established programs that handle that. There is no need for a separate, duplicative initiative in order to protect our urban waters; it only results in duplicative spending.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentleman from New York for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for his question.

The gentleman from New York has spoken to me about these concerns, and I am aware that this is a serious issue that will have an immediate impact on the State of New York and other Great Lakes States. Before conference, I will work with you, Congressman LaTourette, and other Great Lakes Members to try to resolve these concerns.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern for the budget deficit and reducing the budget deficit, but I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This amendment would limit the BLM from spending $4.5 million of offsetting collections for the processing of application of permits to drill. The BLM still collects the fees, they just wouldn't be able to spend the funds.

Mr. Chairman, this makes little sense as those fees offset the cost to administer the oil and gas permitting program. In other words, these programs are paid for by the industry, not by taxpayers. In other words, the BLM will have the cost of these programs but won't be allowed to spend the fees it has collected.

So I have a problem with this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to express my appreciation to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for the work they and the subcommittee staff have done in developing the FY12 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.

It is impossible to make everyone happy when the fiscal reality requires reductions, but at a time when we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend we need to be willing to set priorities and make difficult decisions.

The bill before us makes responsible investments in energy research and development and it funds critical waterway infrastructure improvements, but it does it in a responsible and sustainable manner. One of the lessons that we all should have learned over the past several years is that it is in nobody's interest to expand budgets at an unsustainable rate. We are now faced with the unpleasant task of trimming back the budget to remove the excesses of the past several years so that we can get back to a responsible baseline.

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee has always worked in a bipartisan basis to address the energy and infrastructure challenges facing our nation, and I believe that this product is better for the cooperative and problem-solving approach of both the staff and subcommittee members. It is an honor for me to be able to serve on this subcommittee, and I am pleased to be able to support this bill.

I would also like to speak directly to the Administration and NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko. I'm deeply concerned that Chairman Jaczko has allowed politics to influence the NRC's decisions, and in my opinion, in order to restore public confidence in the NRC, the Chairman should step aside. Absent that, the President and Chairman Jaczko should take note that the bill we are passing contains funding to continue with the Yucca Mountain repository and the associated licensing activities in the NRC.

Congress is making a statement here: continuing funding of Yucca is the fiscally responsible thing to do to prevent billions of dollars in future liability and to ensure that the $15 billion already invested has not been wasted.

Again, I want to express my appreciation for Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Visclosky, and the subcommittee staff for the fine work they have done this year.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 330, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1627, Arlington National Cemetery Monuments, I was unable to vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 332, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1657, Revising Fraud Penalties, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1407, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of Living-Adjustment Act, I was unable to vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 331, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1383, the Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011, I was unable to vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Harold Blackman, an Idahoan who has made a difference. When the Battelle Energy Alliance was selected by the Department of Energy to manage the Idaho National Laboratory, the contract called for the development of a research institution to link the Lab to the three Idaho state universities--the University of Idaho, Idaho State University and Boise State University. Ultimately, Dr. Harold Blackman was chosen to serve as Director of the Center for Advanced Energy Studies and a landmark institution in Idaho began to come together.

The Center for Advanced Energy Studies, or CAES as it is known in Idaho, brings INL researchers, university faculty and students, and industry together to partner in research and development activities. At the outset, Harold faced the challenge of getting the three Idaho universities to view the Lab as a partner and, perhaps the even more difficult challenge to get the three schools to work together. Previous efforts to bring our national labs and universities together in lasting partnerships have not always been successful and were it not for Harold Blackman's patient manner and his willingness to listen, learn and implement, CAES would have been another failed attempt. Instead, CAES is a smashing success and much of the credit goes to Harold Blackman.

CAES has developed into a state of the art research facility with world class equipment that gives its researchers a competitive advantage pursuing research proposals. Also, the partnership is helping fill the pipeline for the next generation of energy professionals. At a time when Idaho, like every other state in the Union, is facing severe budgetary pressure, Governor C.L. ``Butch'' Otter and the Idaho Legislature have continued to provide funding to support university faculty participation in CAES. Through CAES, Idaho universities have increased the role they play supporting nuclear energy research in the US, and undergraduate and graduate student enrollment in nuclear engineering classes has soared. As a result of the expertise and credentials of the staff Harold Blackman has assembled, CAES now administers the Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy University Program which funds R&D, fellowships, scholarships, and infrastructure investments across the country. In addition to fostering a new collaborative climate between the Idaho universities, Harold Blackman and CAES were instrumental in establishing a high-speed network researchers could tap into across the state.

The Center for Advanced Energy Studies is a model for national laboratory, university and industry collaboration and Harold Blackman deserves a large amount of credit for making this institution a success. Harold will now be tackling new challenges at INL, and I am sure he will bring his exceptional professionalism, listening skills and commitment to success to these new tasks.

Thank you, Harold.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and let me thank you for all the hard work that you've done on this appropriation bill in bringing it to the floor. I know it's been a tough task.

Mr. Speaker, the budget for fiscal year 2011 is now 6 months and 2 weeks overdue. It's time to finish this budget.

Through this legislation, Chairman Rogers and the Appropriations Committee achieved what some thought would be impossible. We have succeeded in cutting $40 billion--that's $40 billion--from current spending levels. No other single bill in history has cut more spending. Think about that for just a minute.

While the $40 billion reduction in spending--and it is $40 billion, contrary to some of the reports that have been out there that it is $300 and-some-odd million or something like this. This is $40 billion in real reductions in spending. While this is $40 billion, it is just a step. But it is a step in the right direction.

We should also think about how the nature of this national conversation on spending has changed. For several years, we debated in Congress how much we were going to increase spending each year. Our debate today centers not on whether we should cut spending but how much spending should be cut. That is a sea change in the debate--both in Congress and in the Nation. And it's a change in the right direction.

The Interior Subcommittee, which I am privileged to chair, has cut spending by 8.1 percent, or $2.62 billion below the FY10 enacted level. Virtually every agency within the budget has been cut. The CR cuts EPA funding by $1.6 billion, or 16 percent below the FY10 enacted level. Funding levels for land acquisition programs are reduced by $149 million, or 33 percent, and on and on.

Even with these deep cuts, funding levels for operational accounts are sustained to prevent employee furloughs and the closure of national parks and forests, wildlife refuges, Smithsonian museums, and other sites.

Let me just say for a minute about the Energy and Water appropriation. Although no funds were included in the Energy and Water appropriation to continue and proceed to build Yucca Mountain, I don't want anyone--and I'm speaking particularly to the NRC and the Department of Energy--to misinterpret this vote. Congress has voted

and spoke many times on the issue of Yucca Mountain. Do not misinterpret this vote that this is a vote against Yucca Mountain. What we are saying to the NRC is proceed with Yucca Mountain, and NRC, do your job, which they have failed to do.

As I close my remarks, I want to echo what both Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks said about the staff. Unless you've been on this committee or on any of the committees, the public generally doesn't know the hard work that goes on behind the scenes to make this all possible. I want to thank the staff of both the Appropriations Committee, and really the staff of the House, the staff who sits up here on the dais. They do a tremendous job for us for which this Congress would not be able to operate as effectively as we do. Some people think that's not too effectively. But, actually, we wouldn't be able to do our job.

And most people don't understand that when we went home last Friday after extending the government funding for a week, we went home. They were here all day Saturday until well into Sunday morning, and then all day Sunday until well into Monday morning in order to get the job done so that we could do this for the American people.

So I want you to vote for this budget. I urge an ``aye'' vote so that we can get on debating what the minority whip mentioned, the important priorities for the FY12 budget in the Ryan Republican budget. We appreciate that.

There is a way to avoid the consequences of a government shutdown that the government

from Virginia (Mr. Moran) spoke about just a few minutes ago, and that is to pass this CR, put it on the President's desk so that he will sign it. And I believe he will sign it.

The gentleman from North Carolina said this could have been avoided. He's absolutely right. This could have been avoided. It could have been avoided when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency last year by actually passing a budget or passing an appropriation bill on the floor of the House.

Guess what? That never happened. You left us with this mess. And now you complain about the way we're trying to clean it up.

The gentleman also said this is an ideological position on which the Republicans will not yield. He's right. And that ideological position is, this country is in a fiscal crisis, and we are going to get our house back in order. If that's the position that we're being criticized for, I welcome that criticism.

Mr. Speaker, nobody wants this government to be shut down. And frankly, there is absolutely no reason to close down the government. The smart thing to do would be to pass this 1-week CR that saves the taxpayers $12 billion and addresses the dual goals of addressing the fiscal crisis that we're in and averting a government shutdown.

It also funds our troops for the rest of this year. It enables our congressional leaders and the White House to dot the I's and cross the T's on the final spending bill for 2011. That would be the smart thing to do.

Many of the spending reductions contained in this CR are spending reductions that the President has submitted to Congress in either his FY11 or FY12 budget request. Almost $1.3 billion of the spending reductions come from my own subcommittee, the Interior and Environment Subcommittee. And these are spending reductions that will probably be in any final agreement that is made between Republicans and Democrats.

So the $12 billion is not extreme. It will be in the final agreement, whatever that agreement is. There is absolutely no reason why the Senate cannot pass this bill and send it to the White House. I believe if you put it on the President's desk, he will sign it so that our troops are funded.