in past years, federal wildfire accounts have fallen dangerously. this will address wildfire fires, $1.49 billion for suppression and 611 million for hazardous fuels reduction and $357 million for contingency reserve funds, which are critical to protect our communities and health of our public lands. this bill is an important part of our overall strategy to prevent forest fires across the west and public lands across our country. i would like to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: our colleague from california made an impassioned plea in the rules committee and again here on the floor today. and i have to ask the question, the secretary of the interior has been there to see the situation in the san joaquin valley. what more does he need to see?

what is it going to take action to turn this water back on? how much more damage needs to occur before the obama administration needs to take action or will take action on the needs here? as a person who grew up without water, i'm very, very sensitive to this issue. and i know what a devastating thing it can be not to have water. i now would like to yield to my colleague from tennessee three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. . >> madam speaker, i urge a no vote on this rule. i went to the rules committee last night and asked them to make in order my amendment that would prohibit the e.p.a. if using funding to implement or

enforce its notice of rule making finding six greenhouse gases constitute a threat to the public's health and welfare. the e.p.a. issued a rules making that found six greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, nitrous ox side and others pose a significant health risk to the public's health and welfare. this endangerment finding is a precursor for the e.p.a. to regulate these emissions with or without explicit authority from congress do so. my amendment would have simply returned this explicit authority to congress to regulate greenhouse gases. without this amendment, the e.p.a. could implement sweeping changes without giving any consideration to the effects on this eeconomy since the e.p.a.'s mandate is environmental and public hell. passing this amendment could have removed a threat so we could consider climate change

legislation in an open, deliberative process. if the majority's national energy tax, scheduled for debate later this week, gets signed into law eventually the e.p.a. can move forward on this rule bhi congress. there has been no action yet, rather the courts have decided the e.p.a. can take no ks, hardly what the committee -- what the congress intended. other members had rules and the committee denied all three. if we had an open rule, we could not be debating all our amendments, we'd be debating one. unfortunately, because of the democrats' unprecedented longdown rule we don't get a chance to debate at all. s that travesty for democracy. i urge all members to reject the democrat ig leadership's attempt to stifle debate by

defeating this embarrassing rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: the economy of colorado and other states roe lie on the health of our public lands. our public lands draw visitors every year to see rocky mountain state park or enjoy skiing on our hundreds of world class slopes. to protect the historic and natural beauty of the state and country, this bill provides much-needed increases for the national parks and the wildlife refuges. the $2.7 million provided includes a $100 -- 2.7 billion provide includes a $100 million increase . i was lucky enough to grow up hiking in areas under public management this bill will protect and defend some of america's truly great public lands so children across the

country can grow up enjoying our environment and interacting with it every day, just as i and many of my colleagues did. we provide money to operate the national wildlife refuge system, $20 million above the request. these funds will provide critically needed staff if more areas, implement climate change strategies. currently more than 200 of the 250 ref refuges have no on-site staff this bill provides $360 million for the land and water conservation fund, including an $11 million increase for the land administration account in the parks service. colorado ose landscape goes hand in hand wits character. all of us define where we come from by the character of our natural heritage. we're lucky to have as many beautiful places across our country set aside as public lands. over half of the state of colorado is held in public

trust as a national forest. my district is home to the indian peaks wilderness and the white river. the white river is the single most visited national forest in the nation and we have other marvelous ray atractions as well in the public trust. this bill invests in public land management, state assistance and other items at the forest service. the forezest service budget is $2.7 billion, including money to protect streams and water systems from damaged roads. this is a key part of our effort to protect the -- protect the national grasslands. american artists and their valuable impact on education and recreation are another subject we must protect. thunder bill, the national endowment for the arts and the national endowment for the humanity is will receive

increases. this bill supports the smithsonian institution in washington, d.c. and across the country, the world's largest museum complex with an increase of $15 million above the president's request and $43 million above 2009 levels. madam speaker, i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. you know, i love our national parks, my husband and i visit them whenever possible because we are -- we believe that they are crown jewels in our environment in this country. but by putting this and future generations further into debt, we are making it less likely that the population of this country is going to be able to visit these wonderful national parks. i offered an amendment yesterday in the rules committee that was intended to save taxpayer muffin that was also not made in order. we'll not be debating it on the

floor of the house today, much to my disappointment and all our constituents' detriment. my amendment was a common sense amendment to h.r. 2996, the fiscal year 10 appropriations act. it would save taxpayers $10 million by eliminating proposed funding for local climate change grants. during a time when families across america are making sacrifices to keep food on their tables, congress should be finding ways to reduce unnecessary spending. my amendment would have taken a small step in the right direction by removing $10 million in taxpayer funds for local groups to come up with ambiguous projects to counter climate change. the federal government has increasingly entrenched the american people in trillions of dollars of debt. it is irresponsible and negligent to continue spending federal taxpayer funds on frivolous projects that should be funded locally such as the one that i tried to take the

money from. unfortunately, in blocking debate on my amendment, the majority did not side with the taxpayers to eliminate this wasteful grant project. instead, the majority has worked to frivolously and unnecessarily spend the public's money without listening to any of their input or ideas. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. with regard to fiscal responsibility, this is an issue we all care about, for this generation and future generations. americans across the country are tightening their belts in response to our financial meltdown and the government is doing the same osmponets of the bill may claim that the $4.7 billion increase over 2009 is extravagant or unwise, but the programs in this bill are expected to return more than $14.5 billion to the treasury next year. the department of the interior

alone is estimated to return more than $13 billion to the treasury through oil, gas, and coal revenues, grazing and timber fees, recreation fees and the revenues from the sale of duck stamps, not to mention the secondary impact of tourism on economies like the one in my district in colorado. the e.p.a.'s leaking underground storage tank program, financed by a .1% tax per gallon of gas has a balance of more than $3 billion that offsets the deficit. the provisions in this bill have been built with strong bipartisan support and were designed to pay for themselves. by protecting the health of our nation's drinking water, boosting support for parks and wild lands and in turn our national tourism industry, reducing the threat of global climate change, i can't think of a more wise investment to make or a better time to make it than now. i'd like to inquire of the gentlelady from north carolina if she has remaining speakers.

ms. foxx: i do mr. polis: then i'd like serve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves, the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. as my colleagues have spoke son eloquently were before me -- eloquently before me about think process by which this rule has been brugget to the floor by the majority, i want to talk again about what's wrong with the th closed process. never before in the history of this congress have we seen this kind of action by the majority party. as my colleagues have expressed, during today's debate on this rule as well as the past two appropriations debates, bringing appropriations bills to the floor under a closed rule is unprecedented. it's very important that the american people understand that.

it doesn't -- it does an injustice to beth democrats and republicans who want the opportunity to offer amendments and participate in debate with their colleagues over pressing issues of our time. by choosing to operate in this way, the majority has cut off the minority and their own democrat colleagues from having any input in the legislative process. by choosing to stifle debate, the democrats in charge have denied their colleagues on both sides of the aisle the ability to do the job they have been elected to do. that job is to offer ideas that represent and serve their constituents. the democrats are denying members the ability to offer improvements to legislation and this is an injustice to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. article 1, section 9, the constitution places the responsibility to spend the people's money in our hands as members of congress. this is a great responsibility, given only to this

congressional body work the expectation we will engage in rigorous debate over how to best appropriate taxpayer funds. however, the majority has chose ton refuse members any participation in this decision making and instead has anointed itself as the sole appropriators in this legislative body. the democrats in charge are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and what constituents can be adyatyathly represented in this house. our constituents in both republican districts and democrat districts are struggling to make ends meet, they're facing unemployment, and are simultaneously being shut out of participating in a debate over how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent by the federal government. why is the majority blocking debate on such important legislation? are they afraid of debate? are they protecting members from tough votes? are they afraid of the democratic process? after promising to make this

congress the most open and honest in history, speaker pelosi has time and time again worked to shut out both republicans and democrats from participating in debate and taking part in the legislative process. i'd like to give one quote from the speaker when she was trying desperately to take control of this house. this is her quote. bill should -- bills should generally to the to the floor under a proceeda that -- procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. end quote. this is exactly the opposite of what the speaker is doing. why is she going back on her word? is she afraid the american people will disagree with her? is she keeping other democrats from having to make tough decisions on difficult votes? is she afraid of democracy, the very principle on which our country was founded.

madam speaker, it's concerning to me that the democrats in charge have chose ton silence the minority yet again. in doing, they've chose ton keep the millions of constituents, the minority represents from having a voice on the floor of the people's house. several of my colleagues, both republicans and democrats, offered amendments to the rules committee, amendments which were arbitraryly not made in order by the majority. these amendments included asserting second amendment rights on federal lands, protecting private property rights, preventing excessive regulation of greenhouse gases, eliminating excessive earmark spending across think nation, increasing our ability to produce energy domestically and cutting unnecessary funds to save our constituents money. . these amendments will not be heard on this floor because the

democrats are afraid of allowing debate. and we fear it's going to get worse, because they are working very hard to bring to the floor a bill on climate change. they stopped calling it global warming and now calling it climate change. this bill, h.r. 2454 is a $646 billion tax that will hit every american family, small business and family farm. speaker pelosi's answer to the country's worst recession in decades is a national energy tax that will lead to higher taxes and more job losses for rural america and small businesses. the impact -- it will shift jobs to china and india. the bill will result in enormous loss of jobs that would ensue

when u.s. industries are unable to absorb the cost of the national energy tax and sending jobs overseas. there's little debate that the tax would outsource millions of manufacturing jobs to countries such as china and india. according to the independent charles river associates international, h.r. 2454 would result in a net reduction in u.s. employment of 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs each year of the policy through 2030. higher gas prices. the american petroleum institute reports that the cost impacts of h.r. 2454 could be as much as 77 cents per gallon for gasoline, 83 cents per gallon of jet fuel and 88 cents for diesel fuel. the heritage foundation has estimated as a result of these increased prices, the average household will cut consumption

of gasoline by 15%, but forcing a family of four to pay at least $600 more in 2012. it's going to be a huge impact. it's also going to unfairly target rural america. rural residents spend 58% more on fuel and travel 25% farther to get to work than americans living in urban areas. farm income would drop as a result of h.r. 2454, according to a heritage foundation study. $8 billion in 2012. $25 billion in 2024. and over $50 billion in 2035. decreases of 28%, 60% and 94% respectively. and more importantly, 25% of u.s. farm cash receipts come from agricultural imports. u.s. farmers would be at a severe disadvantage compared to

farmers in nations which do not have a cap and tax system and correspondingly high input costs. over 100 state and agricultural groups oppose the cap and tax bill. madam speaker, what it appears is happening here in this house is nothing less than a tremendous power grab in an attempt to control ever aspect of our lives. and with that, madam speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to our colleague from the state of washington, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. hastings: i rise to enter into a brief colloquy with my friend from washington, mr. dicks. in this bill, in the underlying bill, there is monies for land acquisition.

national forest land acquisition. and i know the gentleman and i have a different view on that. i am not necessarily in favor of land acquisition for the federal government and i know you have a different view on that. but there is a provision in this bill that allows for land acquisition within my district. and i have specifically said in the past that i don't want to have any more land acquisition in my district. my understanding in the way the language is is that there would be some he allowance for that land acquisition to happen in other members' districts, principally in western washington until at least we have an opportunity in my district -- counts are concerned about that because it takes land off the tax rolls. so i wonder if the ranking member would work with me on this land acquisition so that we can at least satisfy the counties' concerns should this land acquisition move forward.

with that, i yield to my friend from washington. mr. dicks: thank you for yielding. is this the cascade ecosystems in mount baker? mr. hastings: yes. mr. dicks: this is in the forest service? mr. hastings: that is correct. mr. dicks: this is the first i have known of this. my colleague from washington state, i understand your long and very principled position on this issue. i would be delighted to take a look at this and report back to the gentleman on what i found out and see what the situation is with the forest service. mr. hastings: reclaiming my time. i appreciate that. again, the basis of that is as i have heard from my local county commissioners, smaller rural counties and they're concerned about the loss of revenue, rightfully so. i want to make sure that on anything like this, they are at least made whole. and i appreciate the gentleman

taking a look on that and i would yield if he has more to say on that. mr. dicks: i appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our attention and we look forward to working together as we have on many projects throughout the years. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for taking that and for his work. i look forward to work with him. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from washington, the chair of the subcommittee, mr. dicks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dicks: i want to point out that in this bill, at the request of the local cities and counties of our country, we have appropriated some money that will be used for climate change. and to deal with the impacts of climate change. and i would just point out since this issue was raised on the other side of the aisle that if we're going to do meaningful work on climate change, it's

going to take our local communities to be involved, to work with their transportation systems and their energy systems and do all the other work that's necessary to deal with the consequences of climate change. so i think this was a very wise investment. the local communities, league of cities, counties are all very enthusiastic about this. administrator lisa jackson put out an announcement about this program. i'm sure there will be hundreds of applications from all over this country. climate change is one of the most serious issues facing our country. we held hearings. and brought in representatives from all the federal agencies. and they alltel us that they can see the impacts of climate change on the federal lands across the country. i mean people are talking about

bug infestation and they're talking about the effect of this bug infestation which has a devastating effect on our forestry and our trees. and then we have the fire issues. the fire season is now one month longer on each end, so we have drought, bug infestations and longer fire seasons. we have all these things happening because of global warming and climate change. and we have to deal with that. and we have to have our communities involved. we have to our rural communities involved. so i think the investments that we're making here and the research that we're doing is very necessary. it's amazing to me, there are some who still have some doubts on this from a scientific perspective. that's why we're doing all these sthings in the interior bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north

carolina has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. foxx: my colleague from colorado a moment ago said that this bill is going to create jobs. i love that all saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. i wonder if this is going to create jobs like the stimulus package has created jobs, since our unemployment rate has gone up since the stimulus package has passed. spain, which counted on having so many jobs from green issues has the highest unemployment rate in europe right now. madam speaker, i'm going to your knowledge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so i can amend the rule to allow all members of the congress the opportunity to offer his or her amendment to the interior appropriations bill under an open rule. i ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be placed in

the record prior to the vote on the previous question. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. and no on the rule. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: repairing our roads, doing trail work, over 40,000 jobs are created. just as real are the jobs that are created under the american recovery program. as i was driving through the mountain area of my district just last week, i saw signs alongside the road that these jobs are created by the american recovery and reinvestment act. there were men and women making necessary infrastructure improvements. this bill provides crucial investment in america's resources, natural and human. it's our responsibility to protect our resources and be good stewards of our forests, our parks, our wild lands and

our waters. this bill reinforces that imperative and makes sure that we keep our resources safe and take great steps to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy them for years to come. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and the rule. and i yield back the balance of my time. and i move the previous question on the previous resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the order is on ordering the previous question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> thank you madam speaker. i rise to question privileges of the house and offer the resolution previously noticed.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: wrs on january 20, 2009, barack obama was inaugurated as president of the united states and the outstanding public debt of the united states was at 10.26 trillion. on january 20, 2009, and the president's inaugural address, he stated, those of us who manage the public debt -- the public scholars will be held to account to spend wisely, reform bad habits and do our business in the light of the day because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. whereas on february 17, 2009, the president signed into public law, h.r. 1, the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. whereas the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 included $575 billion of new spending and $212 billion of revenue reductions for a total

deficit of $787 billion. whereas the borrowing necessary to finance the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 will cost an additional $300 billion. whereas on february 26, 2009, president unveiled the blueprint for fy 2010. whereas the president's budget for fy 2010 proposes the 11th highest annual deficit in u.s. history. whereas the president's budget for fy 2010 proposes to increase the national debt to $23.1 trillion by fy 2019, more than doubling it from current levels. whereas on march 11, 2009, the president signed into public law h.r. 1105, the omnibus appropriations act of 2009. whereas the omnibus appropriations act of 2009 constitutes nine of the 12 appropriation bills for fy 2009, which has not been acted before