Hydrofracking has been around for 60 years. The EPA took a look at it in 2005, found absolutely no problems with it.

Just to give you an idea of the impact that has had on us, we have had an increase of close to 58,000 jobs just in 2009 alone.

The point being that the aquifer, the water supply itself, is way up at the surface of the earth and all the activity where the hydrofracking fluid is, which, by the way, is 99.5 percent water and sand, is below the surface by about two…

the production levels have dropped and they continue down.

So you are proposing to spend that money without congressional authority.

a government that governs closest governs best.

I would use a scalpel--I wouldn't use a meat-ax with that--because you want an agency to be able to move quickly.

So the question is why can't we divert these kind of funds towards a restoration and access rather than running out there and stuffing money in people's pockets, which seems to me to be significantly unnecessary?

Now, first of all I will ask. This is a two part question, and I would love to hear from anybody on the panel on this.

It is my hope that the Service will provide us with assurances, if not a guarantee, that wildlife dependent recreation will be permitted within the entire Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge if it is created.

For many of us, our families have been here for generations, and we wish to have a Florida that our descendants may enjoy in similar fashion.

The USDA seems to have a much better grasp on conservation, whereas the Department of the Interior seems to embrace preservation.

It seems that despite the fact that the involved federal agencies have a two-decade track record of over 60 uncompleted projects, they have an insatiable appetite to acquire more land, and to restrict recreational access to the public.

It doesn't appear that there is very good access. That is the whole problem.

Let me say that I remain disappointed that the Service has been unwilling to support the need for a Congressional authorization of new national wildlife refuges.

If we put that back into congressional approval we could make it statutory where access would be required.

I want to take issue, and maybe this is a distinction without a difference, Ms. Jacobson, with your statement that this is not taxpayer money.

$465 billion in cuts that you are barely able to swallow and now we are talking about plussing that up to maybe a full trillion dollars over 10 years.

That is precisely why I voted against the Budget Control Act, because I knew we would be here today talking about these problems.

As we draw down and as we come out of Afghanistan and other places, it is imperative that we continue to improve our jewels of our training programs.

Since early 2009, there have consistently been at least 13.5 million Americans unemployed. Every month for more than 2\1/2\ years, millions of people have been looking for full-time jobs, and they have been waiting. They waited through…

Chair Sutley, you made the comment, and I want to get clarification to be sure, that nothing in this would restrict activity in the oceans.

My constituents are becoming increasingly angry that the President is making all the laws and all the legislation and creating all the rules.

I want to revisit this question of constitutionality that the Chairman brought up.

We are going out at a time when we are running deficits of $1.5 trillion plus.