commitment. i would urge opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> let me apologize to the last amendment. we had concerns. and as we discussed it during his debate, i think both of us are concerned of the underfunding of the water and land conservation fund and would like to see that increase. during his opposition, we accept the $20 million and the amendment from the the gentleman from new hampshire and the gentleman from connecticut's amendment. i apologize for the confusion in the middle of all that. but the gentleman's issues that he raised by the secretary's budget are real. and 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 we just increased it by $20 million, but when we had this limited allocation, we had to make some tough decisions. the secretary wanted it fully funded, as did the obama administration. we did not have that money. and to put more money, we would have to take money out of programs that were important to people. we 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 are already in progress so those can be completed. we didn't put additional money. i think the fund has done great things and done things in idaho and other states that are very important. westerners, though, have a different view of the land and water conservation fund and let me tell you what it comes from. most of the money that's put into the water and land conservation fund, a large percentage, is used to buy land in states in the west. states that are already highly leveraged by the federal government. in idaho, 64% of the land is owned by the federal government. a lot of westerners said if you want to put money in the fund, we don't care, but what we want in idaho and western states is private land to be able to pay the taxes and support our education system and other services that are necessary. i have one county in idaho that is 96% federal land, 96% federal land, bigger than the state of rhode island. that means 4% of the property is paying property taxes to deliver services to these people. several years ago, a mountain climber from -- not from idaho but somewhere else came out and was climbing the mountains and died. it took their entire search and rescue budget for that county to retrieve that one body. that means everybody else that recreated did not have that search and rescue available because they had no funds, no private land to pay the taxes to fund those services. that's the problem that westerners that are in states that are highly owned by the federal government have with the land and water conservation fund. i will be the first to admit. 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 as 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 fund. i believe in the importance of this program. i apologize to the gentleman from virginia on our previous confusion on that's correct but i oppose this amendment and i would encourage my members to oppose it. the chair: for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. i was listening to the debate here and i'm going, what are they thinking? what is the rationale, what is the purpose for the legislation that we have before us and more point he hadly, the amendment that was just offered. this is an incredible country. this is a country that very recently took great provided in cleaning its rivers -- pride in cleaning its rivers in protecting it from chemicals, toxins and poisons. this is a country that took pride in creating the first national park and expanding it over time to create the most awesome national park system in the entire world. this is a country that took great pride in the snake river and the use of the land and water conservation funds. an argument was made a moment ago that there isn't enough money, but a month ago, an effort to increase the royalties from our oil, that is pumped from our land, the land of the people of the united states to increase those royalties and in fact to get a royalty was rejected from our republican colleagues. this legislation goes far beyond that and over time will destroy the pride that we have taken in creating our national parks and setting aside for future generations the great advice tass of america ca -- vistas. you look at this bill and you say, how could they put in legislation that would block the effort of the e.p.a. to eliminate mercury poison in our air and water? how could they allow a bill that would create more soot in our atmosphere, put 34,000 lives at risk, exempt the oil companies from air pollution standards and off-shore drilling, which in california is a big deal because the air blows onto the land. how could they threaten the lives of millions of americans by blocking the e.p.a. how could they put together a bill that could potentially contaminate 117 million americans' water. how could you do that? have you no pride in this country? do you not care about the basic things that we have done to create a country that cares about clean water? you talk about jobs, and yet in this bill, you eliminate the funding for the clean water act, which is really building sanitation facilities in our community? i remember in the 1960's, the great pride, 500 people in my community took when they got money from the federal government and built the first sanitation system in that small town. how could you den eye americans -- deny the americans that opportunity? that's what this bill does. take pride in what you are doing, gentlemen, because at the end of the day, the american public will not take pride in what you are doing to this piece of legislation. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk shall read -- will report the amendment. >> ask unanimous consent to wave the reading. the chair: is there objection? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tipton of colorado. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves the right to reject. mr. dicks: what was the gentleman's request? the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tipton of colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is going to apply funds directed towards much needed conservation programs, which are used to be able to provide access for the american people to our public lands and help support jobs in recreational and sportsmen industries. public lands are a treasured resource for all americans for all americans to enjoy and use responsibly. i support a balanced approach to public land use respecting the environment that we all deeply value while making the best use of our natural resources on public lands. recreation, preservation, access and job creation, these are all important aspects of the multiple use management for which these lands are truly intended. this funding will be used for projects to specifically improve access for hunting, fishing and other forms of outdoor recreation on these federal public lands. i have directed funds, $5 million, will be redirected to make public lands public and provide much needed support for recreational access. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is goode to. -- is agreed to. the clerk will read the next amendment. the clerk: page 4, line 9, oregon and california grant lands, 122,043,000. range improvements, monies received under section 3 and 15 of the taylor grazing act and for jones lands not less than $10 million. service charges, deposits and forfeit turs, such amounts may be collected under public law 479 and the 923-153. mistrust funds. in addition to amounts, such amounts as may be contributed to section 307 of the act of october 21, 1976. administrative provisions, appropriations shall be available for temporary structures, buildings and facilities to which the united states has title. the chair: for which purpose the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk will proceed with the next paragraph. the clerk: united states fish and wildlife resource management , remain available until september 30, 2013. mr. dicks: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. dicks of washington, under the heading fish and wildlife resource management strike the first provision to page 8 line 1, a, b, c and e. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i rise to strip a dangerous rider from this bill, a rider that would compromise the effectiveness of the endangered species act. this is a bipartisan amendment and i'm offering it with the support of congressman thompson and congressman fitzpatrick and congresswoman hanabusa. the f.y. 2012 bill passed by the full committee a few weeks ago contains a direct attack. i offered an attempt to strike the provision, but the full committee rejected it. the provision would block the fish and wildlife service that is in the bill from listing candidate species as either threatened or endangered or the designation of the critical habitat necessary for species' recovery. these listing activities are preliminary steps that the fish and wildlife service must take in order to begin the recovery process. after those steps are taken, then the hard work begins. without these important preliminary steps of listing and critical habitat designation, it would be impossible to develop apsontive particularically valid and defensive plan for declining species. this is postponing the day of reckoning and it's important to note the bill does provide for the fish and wildlife service to downgrade the protections to species under the e.s.a. the goal is to delist recovered species. delisting is the reward after recovering the species but we can't get to the point of delisting species without listing them first. my amendment would remove these restrictions on listing and uplifting and the designation of critical habitat. many critics say the law does not work. the recovery of the delisting of the bald eagle and the american algator is a strong success. in the last few months the gray wolf in the northern rockies has been delisted in two states and the fish and wildlife service announced the intention to delist the wolf in the western great lakes. other listings have made recoveries. in the pacific northwest, i'm glad to report that we are seing signs of healthy recover for the e.s.a. listed salmon, although it will be a while before the delisting will occur. these examples show us the success of the e.s.a., a law, by the way, that the american people overwhelmingly support. . it is naive to think that a quick turnaround is easy when it took decades if not centuries for a species to decline. also it takes a longer time for long loop species. currently there are about 250 species that have been identified as potential candidates for e.s.a. protection. of that total there are just under 30 species that are poised for listing in the near future. the spending provisions in this bill would block further activity to protect these declining species and remember, if you delay listing too long, a species will go extinct. thus making a recovery impossible. and that is why some people call in the extinction writer. the endangered species act is one of the most effective environmental laws ever written. recovering species is hard, often long work, but it is a responsibility that cannot be dismissed like the interior appropriation bill attempts to do. i know that many of my colleagues would like to drastically reform the e.s.a., but it would be a sounder path to do such a reform through the authorization process, rather than accomplishing the goal with a few lines in the appropriation bill. and i see that the distinguished chairman of the natural resources committee is here and he has pledged to get to work on this important endeavor. in closing i will point out that this amendment is supported by former directors of the fish and wildlife service who have served under president nixon, ford, carter, the first president bush and bill clinton. it is also supported by several bullet groups, including the isaac walton league and trout unlimited. so i urge support for this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> move to strike the last word in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend from washington, mr. dicks. mr. simpson: i respect where my friend is trying to go, but not only does this amendment not get us there, it's downright dangerous. downright dangerous. let me explain why. since the clinton administration in response to lawsuits and court orders that were crippling the agency's budget, since the clinton administration there has been a statutory cap on how much the agency is permitted to spend on e.s.a. listings. it'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 e.s.a. funding caps has been -- 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 that have made a living suing fish and wildlife service. as a result the litigants will act, the courts will act and the fish and wildlife services' entire operating budget will be at risk of being raided in order to fund court-ordered mandates to list species and designate critical habitat. the service will have no choice but to raid other funds from its resource management accounts which is already $146 million or 12% decreased in this budget. having said that the heart of the issue isn't about funding. it's about the fact that the eng dane doctor endangered species act is -- that the endangered species act is broken and in need of revision. as i have said before, there's been about 2,000 species listed. 21 recovered. 2,000 listed, 21 recovered. and 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 the fuzzy and warm animals that we want to save. no one talks about the slick-spotted pepper grass, endangered. nobody really cares about the six-spotted pepper grass 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 slick-spotted pepper grass is really listed. that's unfortunate. when you start using what was an act that everyone in bipartisan, almost 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 people to the table, the stakeholders, to do a re-authorization 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 you get the message out to them that we need to do a re-authorization? 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 writers in this bill that you don't like, this is a policy writer 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, to sit down with the natural resources committee and write a new authorization. that's what this is all about. it is a shot across the bough. there are 58 i believe, 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. the only way that things keep going on. we are trying to send a message. will you find i am supportive of re-authorization 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 than 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. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: i was going to wait until other speakers spoke, but i felt it appropriate to engage in a discussion here with the chairman and to remind him, mr. chairman, that this bill includes funding for a multitude of expired authorizations. the bureau of land management is an -- isn't authorized. but you're funding the bureau of land management because you like the bureau of land management. the grazing program isn't authorized. oil and gas isn't authorized. mr. simpson: will the gentleman yield? mr. moran: yeah. mr. simpson: the gentleman brings up the point i tried to make. this is a shot across the bow. all of these programs need to be re-authorized and we had to start somewhere. that's it. i mean, this goes across the heart of the endangered species act. mr. moran: so you're picking winners and losers. you could have picked any number of programs but you like those so -- in fact some of them you've increased, funding for grazing subsidies, funding for oil and gas subsidies. but the endangered species act, the poor species who are in danger of extinction, they get targeted. they're the ones you're going to make an example of. you know, not allowing listings of the designation of even the critical habitat that will protect endangered species doesn't change the fact that so many plant and animal species are at risk of extinction. there are 260 species that are in danger of extinction.