simply through the traditional lends of annual appropriations. with the passage of this stimulus bill, of the stimulus bill, sec rechair -- secretary chue and his team have new roles as account managers and accountants for billions of new dollars of federal programs and hundreds of new employees. mr. chairman, i'm pleased we were able to improve upon the administration's request in several ways. for example, the legislation before us increases the budget request by other $400 million for the army corps of engineers, enabling us to address more water needs across the country. army corps projects touch virtually every congressional district. i know mr. pastor and i respect the interest of all members who knowing their district needs have sought some assistance and we have done our best to accommodate them. it increases research and

development for nuclear energy and power while supporting clean coal initiatives and other technologies such as geothermal, solar fusion and wind power. and i'm exceptionally pleased that our bill keeps the department on track for the next generation nuclear plant program. there are some areas that i would have done a bit differently, of course. not surprisingly, i would have preferred to have done more to reverse the administration's decision to terminate the yucca mountain repository in nevada where we've spent over $11 billion of taxpayer and rate pair monies. in fact, $7 billion of rate payer monies. with little apparent return and we still have tons of waste to dispose of and to protect. the bill before us does contain the administration's significant cut to the program and i'm deeply concerned that this basically political decision will be followed by others

trumping future scientific recommendations and judgments. however, our bill directs $70 million to ensure that the questions raised during the yucca license application process can be answered. and it requires funding for the president's suggested blue ribbon panel is only available for review which includes all the alternatives, including yucca mountain. i think this is the only way the future review could be credible. i would also have preferred much more support for nuclear power here in the united states and the greater availability of nuclear loan guarantees. given what china and other nations are doing to build new nuclear power plants, we could produce much more electricity ourselves while adding american jobs which we need if the administration and the house and senate majority leadership were more supportive. american companies are working abroad building nuclear power plants while we digitter here.

the president and congressional leadership appear to have a strong bias against nuclear power as well as oil and gas production which will leave our nation severely disadvantaged. energy intensive industries like what is left of our american manufacturing base will no longer be able to compete with nations who are making nuclear and other types of capital investments a priority and they do not subject themselves to self-imposed cap and trade emissions reductions. our lack of vin -- investing in nuke lure pore -- nuclear power, so illustrated in the recent passage of the so-called american clean energy and security act, is a gift that keeps on giving to our economic competitors, china and understandia, whose economies are already sucking away u.s. jobs at an alarming rate. we also improve that portion of the committee's jurisdiction that involves nuclear weapons activities.

not to promote more nuclear weapons, but to provide more funds to reduce the weapons stockpile. the president's recent trip to russia in his call for major changes in what's called our nuclear posturer review, must be matched by the administration's funding requests that will pay for our country's nuclear dismantlements and for the science to certify the reliability of what's left. and we must provide adequate funding to retain our highly specialized nuclear scientists and technicians and to maintain the facilities and laboratories where they do their work. the only way to support our national security is by increasing this account, not holding it flat. talk about a delicate balance between nuclear and renewables is only talk. for invests -- investments in renewables received $60 billion in the $800 billion stimulus act, all of that borrowed money,

and nuclear received nothing. i do hope that we can address this disproportionality in conference. in one of my biggest disappointments however is not with the bill but the way it was brought to the floor. with all the debate about complimet change, global warming, conservation, carbon footprints, green jobs, members of congress of both parties should have the right to propose amendments to address their concerns and supports for sources of power that they specifically favor and know about. whether that be nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, gas-based, fuel cell or fusion. that traditional right to amend our appropriations has been severely curtailed by the house leadership. our appropriation bill affects virtually every part of our economy and the household budget of every american family and job prospects for thousands.

and the thought that renewables alone are going to give us energy independence is, of course, on its face absurd. before i close, though, i'd like on a positive note to thank the army corps of engineers, both military and civilian, who, as we gather here today, continue to do their remarkable work in dangerous territory in iraq and afghanistan. we thank them for their courage and their work and their professionalism. mr. chairman, again, i'd like to thank vice chairman pastor for his leadership and despite my unhappiness about the energy policy issues i've discussed, i intend to support the bill and retain the balance of my time. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. >> i would like to yield two minutes to the chairman of the appropriations committee, chairman obey.

the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. obey: mr. chairman, i want to congratulate both mr. pastor and mr. frelinghuysen for an excellent bill. they are both first rate legislators and i think this bill is a very effective and reasonable response to the problems with which it deals. i think it's most clearly a bipartisan product as well and i appreciate that. i also appreciate the fact that this bill will continue significant assistance to lake superior communities who need help with sewer and water in order to be able to provide decent opportunities for economic growth in the future. communities cannot grow without adequate infrastructure. i also want to suggest that the nonproliferation efforts contained in this bill are important indeed and i would also note that when combined with the actions taken in the

recovery act, this bill will begin the long process of trying to make up for the fact that for almost 30 years this country has had no effective energy policy. that has to change and this is part of the effort to change that. i also appreciate the fact that as is the case with the previous bills approved by the committee, when this bill is finished on the floor we will have accepted 24 republican amendments to appropriation bills in the full committee, we will have accepted another 24 on the floor itself. i think that is testimony to the bipartisan approach taken by the subcommittees on bill after bill. i appreciate the cooperation of all of the members, the hard work of the staff, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. >> mr. chairman, i'm pleased to

yield three minutes for the purpose of a colloquy to mr. hastings of washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, mr. pastor. mr. chairman, hanford is the world's largest nuclear cleanup site. the waste at hanford are a result of our nation's nuclear program. hanford cleanup cannot sustain continued reductions without jeopardizing progress, breaking existing legally binding commitments to the state and increasing long-term costs to the taxpayers. -- taxpayers. achieving the cleanup progress requires funding each year for all projects, including the tank farms, the waste treatment plant, groundwater protection and the river corridor project which is responsible for stopping contaminants for reaching the clubia -- columbia river and represents the highest priority of work for hanford's operation office.

i appreciate mr. pastor's attention to this issue and assistance in making adjustments to this bill as it went through the committee process. these adjustments are a step in the right direction, will have meaningful impact at hanford with full funding for the office of river protection. i'd like to ask mr. pastor for commitment to continue to work with me as a final energy and water bill is developed and i yield to the distinguished subcommittee chairman. mr. pastor: i want to thank my friend for yielding. as i talked earlier this morning we said that we understand the importance of hanford as well as of all the other sites and told you that possibly some of us would need to go see the site and look at first hand and so you well know that the recognize the importance of cleaning up hanford and also all the e.m. sites. i will work with you on this issue and review the needs of hanford's richland operations

office, including the river corridor closure project, as we make our way through conference and write a final bill. mr. hastings: reclaiming my time. i'd like to thank you for your commitment on this and for your commitment to nuclear waste cleanup at all the sites and i look forward to continuing to work with you and obviously the invitation is open for you. mr. frelinghuysen has been at hanford but i certainly invite you. it is something to see first hand. but i thank you for your commitment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes from another gentleman from washington, mr. inslee. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. inslee: thank you. i join my colleague from washington's invitation to the state of washington to talk about hanford issues at some point and i appreciate the chair's interest in that. but i want to thank specifically the committee for including $1.78 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development and

deployment. but i do rise with some concern that the report proposes to decrease water r. yaction -- r&d from $40 million in 2009 to just $30 million. while i understand that the ocean and tiedle base industry is certainly anyway sant at this time, estimates suggest that ocean resources in the u.s. could supply more than 6% of our electricity generation if ocean renewable energy enjoyed the same federal investment as other forms of renewable energy. many countries already operate projects that generate powers from both the waves and tidal and currents and we should lead in this regard, not follow. in washington state, these efforts are currently underway. the u.s. navy and power will install a demonstration project in 2010 and another project north of seattle in 2011. federally backed research is

underway at the northwest national marine renewable energy center, in partnership between the university of washington and oregon state university. in squim, the d.o.e.'s marine science lab is researching potential and hawaii, oregon, maine and new york efforts are underway to develop this industry. our colleagues in the senate have recommended $60 million for water power r&d and i hope to work with mr. pastor through conference to work toward those senate levels for this important and very promising program. with that, i think -- thank mr. pass for his efforts and -- pastor for his efforts and i'll yield to the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i can assure the gentleman from washington that the committee is aware of this sustainable domestic energy source and its potential. we will continue to work with the gentleman from washington through conference to highlight renewable marine and hydrokinetic energy development as a priority.

i will tell the gentleman i will work with him through conference. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for three minutes. mr. simpson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm pleased to rise today in support of the fiscal year 2010 energy and water appropriation bill. i'd like to thank vice chairman pastor and ranking member frelinghuysen for their work on this important bill. they've done a great job of putting this bill together. i also want to thank the staff on both sighs of the aisle for their hard work and dedication on this piece of legislation. i'd like to focus my remarks on the department of energy's loan guarantee program. the loan guarantee program is one of the few policy tools we he was -- we have that immediately -- is immediately -- delivers immediately available market ready innovative clean energy technologies that will have a positive impact on our economy. congress has authorized 2ds billion in loan guarantee authority for front end nuclear facilities. d.o.e. should be recognized for

their work creating a loan guarantee program that has sound criteria to ensure the protection of taxpayers and award guarantees to the most credit worthy projects. i support the efforts of my colleagues in the house to encourage d.o.e. to administer the loan guarantee program, particularly for the front end facilities efficiently and in the earliest possible time frame. i also support efforts to ensure that these decisions are based on merit and that all loan guarantees are issued to the most qualified and not necessarily the most politically correct -- politically connected applicants. this program is not a bailout. it was designed to allow credit worthy companies to invest in large multimillion-dollar investment grade probablies that will create thousands of jobs and inject seller several billion dollars in the local economies without loan interest. it must demonstrate integrity and credibility through a fair and objective timely process. it must also meet the reasonable business needs of the applicants and protect the treasury and the u.s. taxpayer from undue exposure.

the department of energy has personally assured me that all decisions regarding loan guarantees will be made based on merit rather than on politics. i look forward to working with my colleagues, the department of energy, secretary chew, to issue loan guarantees at the earliest time frame possible by applying the program criteria in a fair an unbiased manner. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. frelinghuysen: idaho, not iowa. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, bobby scott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i would like to briefly discuss the importance of fully funding the thomas jefferson's labs upgrade this received accelerated funding in the recovery act and it's vital it receive the administration's full request of $22 million in this bill. the full funding is not in place for the upcoming fiscal

year due to stringent controls in how recovery act funds are spent. there is little way for them to meet the deadline of the project without delays. i hope the gentleman from arizona will work work -- will work with me and mr. wittman to ensure the project is funding for fiscal year 2010 and i yield to the gentleman from virginia, my colleague, mr. wittman. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. scott. i rise in support and echo the comments of mr. scott. the lab is currently in a major upgrate. fully funding the accelerator upgrade will expand the research potential and lead to a greater understand og of atomic parols. research -- particles. it will continue to expand our knowledge of nuclear physics and i respectfully with request the gentleman from arizona work to fully fund this project.

mr. scott: i yield back to the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: you've mad the -- made the case that the $22 million is merited. you have my personal commitment to work with you and mr. wittman going forward to see that this project receives the funding it needs and deserves. i yield back my time to the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i thank you for your commitment and thank you for your willingtons -- willingness to work on this issue and i look forward to working with you in conference. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from ohio, mrs. schmidt. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. schmidt: i rise to ask

about usac, it filed its application with the department of energy for a loan guarantee nearly a year ago, yet its application languishes. usac has informed the department of energy it needs at minimum a request for a loan guarantee by 2009 or it will begin to mobilize its project. i will turn this over to my good colleague from ohio, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, as my colleague said, this loan application is critical for thousands of jobs in ohio and throughout the country. i hope the secretary of energy and other departmental leadership will provide the loan guarantee office staff with the necessary guidance and leadership to address this issue in the immediate future so a conditional commitment can be issued on reasonable terms. mrs. schmidt: i would now like to yield time necessary to mr. wamp of tennessee.

mr. wamp: i'm proud the united states enrichment corporation has been developing the highly advanced uranium technology at the plant in my district at the oak ridge facility. usac's technology is well established and the risks have been mitigated. we should not allow a risk-averse loan staff at the department to continually delay the decision which will have the effect of terminating this incredible facility. would the chairman work with us to ensure the program is run effectively? mr. pastor: i thank the gentleman for yielding time and congratulate him on his amendments. i appreciate the comments made by all my colleagues. i will be happy to work with everyone to ensure the program is run efficiently and effectively. the management and effectiveness of this program is a priority of the subcommittee and we must ensure

that it is fair to all applicants and yes, i will work with my colleagues. mrs. schmidt: i want to add that usac plays a critical role in our national defense and security. usac's a.c.p. project uses u.s.-owned and developed technology. only uranium fuel that is u.s. origin, produced using u.s. technology can be used to meet our defense needs. our nation's national security alone is enough of a reason for the department of energy to issue usac a loan guarantee at reasonable terms and conditions. i just want to appreciate everyone's comments here. we are also talking about 8,000 good-paying jobs in ohio, tennessee, and other states. if we're serious about stimulating the economy, this is a great place because these projects are truly shovel ready. the department of energy must finish its review and initial commitment with reasonable terms and conditions by the end

of this month. if it doesn't, we can expect to see layoffs in early august. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield the gentlewoman an additional minute. mrs. schmidt: i wish to say i hope we get this resolved quickly and do you have anything you would like to add? mr. frelinghuysen: i agree that 11 months is more than enough for the department to act on the loan guarantee submission. it is a personal priority of mine to make sure that this program is run efficiently in the interest of u.s. taxpayers. while it needs to move quickly, the loan application process should be open and fair towel a applicants. mrs. schmidt: i yield back the balance of my time. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i yield two minutes to mr. israel. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for two minutes. mr. israel: i appreciate you lending me the time and i'm proud of the subcommittee's decision to double the international renewable energy program from $5 million to $10 million this year. last year, the committee provided $2 million to promote cooperation between the united states and the government of israel. the government of israel matched that funding which is being directed toward cooperation in the fields of advanced battery technology, biomass and sew laffer technology. i urge the house to support further cooperation between israel and the united states. i yield to my friend, ms. lowey. mrs. lowey: thank you for yielding me time. last year president obama told the american people it is time for the united states to take steps to end our addiction to oil and we can join israel in building on last year's

cooperation act to deepen our partnership. i agree with president obama and believe we must work with our global partners to diversify our energy portfolio with the distinguished mr. pastor work -- will the distinguished mr. pastor work with us to ensure that u.s.-israel energy cooperation receives substantial funding as you proceed to conference with the senate. mr. pastor: thank you for the compliment and thank you for yielding time. i have eliot engel and brad sherman, as well as you, madam chairman, and mr. israel, who have brought this matter to my attention. i want to thank you for raising it on the floor. i am, too, a supporter of the u.s.-israel energy cooperation this bill, as you have told us, doubles the account for such a program and -- and i look forward to working to ensure the u.s.-israel energy cooperation continues to receive strong support in order

to accelerate the development of alternative energy programs. so i yield to the gentleman from no. mr. israel: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield to my colleague, mr. chris smith. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: this bill includes funding to allow the u.s. army corps of engineers to take a greater role in ongoing efforts to fix significant, recurring environmental hazards proposed by a pond located in my district. on an average summer day, it's a picture perfect postcard, but just below the surface lies high level of fecal kohl form and other contaminant -- of fecal coliform and're contaminants. when the pond floods this

poison pours into the basements and first floors of nearby homes, which i have seen myself on several occasions. immediate action is necessary to improve the water quality conditions and mitigate the serious health and environmental hazards caused by its pollution to local residents. the corps' work at the up and down will be greatly enhanced and proceed to construction earlier than normally anticipate because of extensive analysis already completed by other agencies at the federal, state, and local level, including work on a $400,000 e.p.a. study, department of environmental protection, as well as the state's installation of provisional storm water outflow pipes and the upward watershed management programs. these actions have been effective, however they are not the best long-term solution and a permanent fix can be achieved only after the corps begins its work. i want to especially thank my good friend and colleague, mr.

frelinghuysen, for the chairman, chairman oberstar, who actually made a trip to the pond in 2007 to view this himself. i thank them all and thank you for your great work on this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i rise in support of the 2010 energy and water appropriations bill and i'm appreciative of what the chairman has done on this bill. i would like to engage mr. pastor in a colloquy on an issue related to the seattle district of the army corps of engineers. rivers in my district were flooded in 2009, causing cities to sustain major damage. levis on these -- levees on

these are in need of repair. the need for resources and action is imperative. following the record high level of water behind the howard hansen dam on the green river, significant weaknesses were scovered. because of this, water levels are being held at a lower than normal level, drastically increasing the ponalt of flooding along the bank best low. this is troubling as we a i proach the upcoming rain and storm seasons. if a storm comes, the levees are at serious risk of being breached, driving large numbers of people from their homes an businesses. i respectfully ask to work with the gentleman to ensure that the seattle district of the army corps of engineers is responsive to the flood control needs of those along the rivers and will make the repairs of their levees a top priority. i also ask to work with the

subcommittee to fix the dam in a timely manner. with that, i yield to the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i thank the gentleman from washington for yielding to me. i thank the gentleman for drawing the subcommittee's attention to this serious issue. he has been a dedicated advocate for the people of the ninth district of washington and surrounding areas. we will work with the gentleman to ensure that the seattle district of the corps is responsive to the needs of the cities and people along the lower green and other rivers and that adequate resources are available to repair the howard hansen dam. we look forward to working with you. mr. smith: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to mrs. biggert. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. biggert: i rise today in support of the fiscal year 2010 energy and water appropriations bill. i want to commend chairman pastor and ranking member

frelinghuysen and their subcommittee for putting together a balanced bill that clearly recognizes the important of scientific research and energy security to our nation's competitiveness. there are several provisions of the bill i'm proud to support, chief among them, though is the increase for the department of energy's department of science. i along with several colleagues asked for an increase with respect to the president's request to double science spending in the next decade. the committee provided for $170 million more than fiscal year 2009. this is critical to our basic research infrastructure in my district. the innovations and sloughs that will enable us to overcome many of our greatest challenges, from our economic crisis, environmental concerns, dependence on foreign energy and escalati health care costs all start with basic research investments. economic experts concluded that science-driven technology has

accounted for more than 50% of the growth of the u.s. economy during the last half century. in recent years, congress has come to recognize that science will be the foundation to address those needs and keep america globally competitive. as evidenced by the american competes act in 2007, both democrats and republicans support efforts to basic research in the physical sciences to meet the needs of our growing population. i'd like to ask unanimous consent that a copy of our letter be inserted in the record. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mrs. biggert: and i support the underlying bill and appreciate the committee's efforts to carefully balance the needs of our energy future and scientific investments. however, i am particularly disappointed that the committee followed the president's budget request to slash yucca mountain funding and the failure to increase important loan guarantees to support a revitalized nuclear energy sector. illinois receives nearly half of its electricity generation from nuclear power followed by coal.

if we are to work toward as low-carben economy we cannot pick energy winners and losers to meet the growing energy needs of our population. clean, safe nuclear must be a part of our solution. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire, for purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. altmire: i rise to commend mr. pastor for his excellent work on this legislation and thank him for his continued support of the nuclear power 2010 program which is now in its final year. this program is a success story. it has re-established u.s. leadership and standardized state of the art nuclear power plants and created a licensing process that allows electric utilities the business certainty to make capital investments while also preserving public participation. i yield to the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i agree and the committee was pleased to recommend that the nuclear power 2010 program

receive $71 million in this legislation. an increase of $51 million above the president's request. mr. altmire: i thank mr. pastor and as he may know, the nuclear power 2010 program is a particularly -- is of particular importance to my district, home to an electric company, and the thousands of my constituents who work for them. westinghouse helped establish the civilian nuclear energy industry, building the first emission-free electricity generating plant in 1957. today more than 40% of the world's operating plants are westinghouse designs and 62 of the 104 plants in the u.s. are westinghouse designs. np-2010 has helped meet today's regulatory requirements for standardizing and licensing the latest nuclear power plant designs. mr. pastor: i want to thank the gentleman for pointing out that the vital role of this program plays in his district. i am glad that mp-2010 fund something included in this bill

for all participants that are moving forward with licensing and building to bring the next generation of nuclear power plants to the market. mr. altmire: i appreciate mr. pastor for his support of this project and i'm proud of my constituents who helped bring the ap-1,000 reactor to market and made the program the success that it is. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield a minute and half to the gentleman from, mr. calvert of california, a member of our committee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i rise today to bring your attention to the ongoing water crisis in my home state which has been exacerbated by the economic down turn throughout california. statewide the unemployment rate has risen to more than 11%. in the central valley, regional unemployment has reached 20% with some communities, unemployment now up to over 40%. california's water crisis is the result of severe drought conditions on top of federally imposed pumping restrictions that have been placed on our

state's critical water infrastructure. the appropriations bill before us provides some funding for a number of california's mid and long-term water resource management projects. unfortunately, many of the projects that are receiving funding are years away from completion and will not provide any assistance to californians suffering today. even the most promising short-term projects in the delta will only provide relief if regulatory permitting anticipated court challenges are resolved in a quick fashion. many of the most effective communities have made it clear that they aren't looking for a handout, they want their water and they want their jobs back. during the markup of this bill in the committee, offered an amendment to do just that, by ending the federally imposed pumping restrictions. sadly, most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected the amendment and voted to protect this three-inch fish instead of protecting jobs and the people of my state of california. i'm disappointed the rules committee denied a similar amendment offered by my colleague, mr. nunes.

mr. speaker, the federally imposed pumping restrictions are harming california families up and down the state. if this congress and this administration fail to take the bold steps necessary to address the crisis in the next six to 12 months, the people of california will know exactly who's responsible for the job losses and the economic -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for two minutes. mr. lujan: i'd first like to commend my good friend from arizona, mr. pastor, for the strong commitment this bill shows toward shoring up both signs and national security of this country. the strong support for the office of science will be well received in my home state of new mexico. i am seeking the commitment of the gentleman from arizona to work with me on refurbishing lands. this facility plays a crucial role in providing one-of-a-kind experimental capabilities to further the lab science mission. in addition, it's a key draw for

new scientific talent in losal mose international laboratory and high-tech research into northern new mexico. the capabilities resonant within the facility cannot be duplicated in a cost effective manner anywhere elsen the country. the investment of the capabilities, the refurbishment will sustain, will pay for itself many times over. i yield to mr. pastor. mr. pastor: thank you, mr. lujan, for yielding. first of all, i want to thank you for raising this important issue. and you have my personal commitment to work with you as we go forward to find a solution that best serves the national security. we're well aware that the capabilities and the value of los a will lamos national laboratory and i yield back my time. mr. lujan: again i'd like to commend my friend from arizona for this legislation and his willingness to work with me on this issue. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve the balance of my time. and ask how much time is available on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has eight minutes remaining. the gentleman from arizona has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, my good friend, mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: mr. chairman, i along with my colleague mr. carnahan rise to enter into a colloquy with mr. pastor. mr. pastor, several weeks ago the house sustainable energy and environmental coalition met with secretary of energy steven chu. he shared his vision of eight innovation hubs that will deliver transformational energy technologies. this bill only funds one of those important hubs -- hushes -- hubs. when these hubs were discussed with the committee, d.o.e.'s action plan wasn't fully developed. since that time they've made necessary revisions to develop the concept. while we support funding of proposals that are developed, we

hope you'll continue to work with the coalition and the department of energy to continue working to fund this initiative as this process continues. thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield to my colleague and fellow sea commender, mr. carnahan of missouri. mr. carnahan: i thank mr. polis for yielding and his work. i know first-hand that improvements to our built environment are some of the lowest hanging fruit in terms of energy efficiency gains. in the long-term, we would like to work with you, mr. chairman, to see that all eight energy innovation hubs are fully funded in the short-term, as we enter into conference with the senate, we'd like to work with you to ensure that fuels from the sunlight hub and the energy efficient buildings system hub are fully funded. i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record letters from members and organizations who also support funding for the hubs. i thank you, chairman pastor, for allowing us to address this issue. i look forward to working with you.

i yield to the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: thank you, mr. carnahan, for yielding. first of all, you're both correct in that when the secretary appeared before the subi can -- subcommittee and presented this in a work in progress and knowing that we are going to proceed forward with the administration and with the secretary, we thought that it was in the best interests to fund one hub and as the secretary and administration goes forward in developing those hubs, we look forward to working with you, mr. polis -- the chair: the chair notes the gentleman's unanimous request is covered under general leave. mr. pastor: could i yield another minute to mr. polis? the chair: the gentleman yields an additional minute to the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield to mr. pastor. mr. pastor: we look forward to working with you and mr. carnahan because it's an idea that obviously will expand, will

grow, and we just want to make sure that the committee, the subcommittee, has an opportunity to work with the secretary to see its development. so we look forward to working with you. mr. polis: i'd like to thank the gentleman from arizona and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman and wanted to rise today for a colloquy and what this has to do with is some report language that's in the bill, some on the house side and actually some on the senate side, but the gentleman from florida, mr. boyd, had put language in the bill that directs the court to report back to congress an outline of a study based on the findings of the national research council workship on water issues in river basins and we in the georgia and alabama and florida

delegations are in support of that language. however, there's also some language that was put in by mr. shelby on the senate side that directs the court to report the critical yield of federal reservoirs on the acf-act and the majority of members from the georgia delegation are opposed to that. and it's a bipartisan opposition, it's something that we are very concerned about. we feel strongly that the corps of engineers water manuals need to be updated and what the senator has put in the bill will hurt that. so what i would like to do if possible would be to ask the ranking member and the chairman to keep an eye on this issue and hopefully as this thing develops oppose the language that's been put in the bill only the senate side. and support the language that mr. boyd put in on the house side. those two bits of language are not in opposition of each other. you can support one without the other.

but the one that we have the most heartburn about in terms of the bipartisan georgia delegation is the shelby language on the senate side. and i would love to yield to anybody who would like to -- mr. frelinghuysen: let me say i would be happy to work, as i'm sure mr. pastor would, too, see what we could do to be helpful to all involved. mr. pastor: if the gentleman yields to me. mr. frelinghuysen: yes. mr. pastor: mr. kingston, as you know, we have yet to go to conference, but if this is an interest that you and other members have in terms of its effect on your particular states, you have my commitment as well as the ranking member as you heard to work with you and work it out. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i yield actually four minutes to the gentleman from new york, a member of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee, mr. israel. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes.

mr. israel: i thank the distinguished gentleman from arizona. i appreciate his leadership on so many issues. in particular, i want to thank him for including my bipartisan amendment with our colleagues, mr. larsen from connecticut, mr. ma is a, dent, doyle and english, to restore 45 million. this bill brings the total to $153 million which i believe can be used to establish a public-private partnership with industry partners that have already displayed a significant domestic investment in the united states. currently, mr. chairman, the united states is in a neck and neck competition with the global market on hydrogen fuel cells. we've got to support these technologies for commercialization within five years as a matter of national security, energy independence and to remain competitive in the energy sector. this investment keeps us ahead and want to again thank the gentleman from arizona for his leadership and his cooperation and my colleagues for their bipartisanship in drafting this amendment which the gentleman has accepted and i yield back

the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from -- mr. israel: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields to the gentleman from arizona? or yields back the balance of his time? mr. pastor: the gentleman had four minutes and the intent was that we'd have another co-sponsor of this amendment be able to -- the chair: the chair rules the gentleman from new york yields to the gentleman from connecticut. mr. pastor: two minutes. the chair: such time as he wants to yield. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker, i want to associate my -- myself with the remarks of steve israel and the aforementioned members of the hydrogen caucus who have been critical to promoting this legislation. i want to thank chairman pastor, especially his staff, tonya berkman and also joe levin who played an

instrumental role in making sure that we got this important funding included in the bill. now, in connecticut, we have -- we pride ourselves on being a fuel cell center. we have more than eight companies, three in my home district. as steve israel pointed out, and i know mr. pastor knows this the importance of being energy independent cuts to the core of what we're going to do. this is technology that's been around for some time. we use it successfully in nasa. we're able to power our space vehicles, able to use the water and be able to heat and cool and power our spacecraft. with that, can we get people back and forth to work and heat and cool our buildings? i think so. the whole goal is to make sure we're able to embrace the most abundant fuel in the universe, hydrogen. if we expect to wean ourselves off foreign dependency, we have

to do this. in 1960, a young president said we could put a man on the moon in 10 years we did it in nine. it's long overdue for us to make the kind of investments in the public-private partnerships he alluded to, making sure we're no longer dependent on opec countries, on lib ark on venezuela or russia for our source of fuel, that we make it here in america, with american innovation and technology. with that, again, i thank you, mr. pastor, for your leadership and your outstanding staff for providing us with this oppounity in what i know is a bipartisan effort to move this nation forward. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: we don't have any other speakers. i reserve my time.

mr. frelinghuysen: i'm prepared to yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: as you heard this is a bipartisan bill we tried to balance the different priorities and needs of this country. again, i want to thank my ranking member for his cooperation, his support, and his insight for preparing this bill. it is a good bill. we would not have been able to do it without the staff involved in bringing this bill to us. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back my time. the chair: what with that, all time for yen debate as expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule, the bill shall be considered read through page 63, line 12. no amendments shall be considered except those printed in house report 111-209, not to exceed one amendment printed in

part b, if offered by mr. campbell or his designee, not to exceed six of the amendments offered in part c of the report if offered by mr. flake or his designee and three of the following amendments if offered by mr. hensarling or his designee. they shall not be subject to demand for the division of the question. after the amendment specified in house resolution 645, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee or their dez egg knees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill, for purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the proponent and it is now in order to consider amendment number one, printed no russpe port 111-209. mr. pastor: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment

number one, offered by mr. pastor of arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. pastor and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pastor: this amendment provides funding for several important programs within the bill. on behalf of ms. hodes, ms. pingree and others, on behalf of mr. klein of florida, $1.8 million for the corps of engineers to address the back log of regulatory permit applications, and on behalf of mr. israel, mr. larson of connecticut, mr. dent, mr. massa, $45 million for energy efficiency. on behalf of mr. cuellar of texas, the amendment prohibits

funds from being used to purchase light bulbs, unless they have the energy star or federal energien management program designation. also, the -- this amendment has an amendment for mr. kissell which does not create any new programs or it follows the current language and the amendment prohibits funds in the bill for being used to purchase passenger vehicles unless they are purchased from ford, g.m., or chrysler. the dement decreases funding for corps of engineers expenses by $10.8 million, bethpt of energy by $30 million, the office of electricity by $15 million and others by $.25 million. at this time, i will yield mr. massa 30 seconds if he's here. i reserve my time, mr.

chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment. i don't have any real problem with the content of the chairman's amendment, i do, however, have a problem with carrying the idea of a manager's amendment, which was once only for our full committee's consideration, right onto the house floor. in committee this sort of amendment is used for noncontroversial items, many of these are, that are generally accepted by unanimous consent. but now it's largely used in many instances for partisan purposes on the house floor. none of the content of the -- of the chairman's amendment was discussed with the minority and none of the changes were made were suggested by the minority. if the changes are important, i think we should be able to discuss them. otherwise, i fear it's only a matter of time before the majority will include everything they can in this sort of en masse amendment,

this would be bad for the institution and bad for the american people. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mr. pastor: well, i -- first of all, i apologize to the ranking member in that it was my understanding that the manager's amendment had been shown to him and had sought his approval but if it had not, my deepest apologies, because i think it's important that this bill, along with the manager's amendment, be bipartisan. with this, i would like to yield 30 seconds to mr. massa. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. massa: thank you. i'd like to commend the efforts of my colleagues on the energy and commerce subcommittee for recognizing the importance of hydrogen fuel cell technologies. funding for this important research through this bill and through mr. pastor's amendment will help america continue to

lead in this critical field necessary in our energy's security. i believe using these funds to support important breakthroughs through a public-private partnership, with an experienced industrial leader, will put america on track to revolutionize this in fife years. significant investments have been made in this -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i would be pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. deal. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. deal: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise to comment about language that is in the report that is attached to this legislation, that my good friend and colleague from florida, mr. boyd, has asked that a study be done. the study relates to the ongoing dispute about water between the states of alabama, florida, and georgia.

i have no real problem with the study being done. i simply would hope we could get assurances from the subcommittee chairman that with regard to the scope of that study, that it would be broad enough to include all of the issues involved and that it would also allow all three states who have an interest in this to have equal participation. there has been a perception, i think that is a wrong perception that my state of georgia doesn't have a water conservation program in place. in fact, we have had one in place since 2003. we believe that all of these issues should be encompassed within the study that is set forth in the report to this particular bill. we would hope that we could get assurances not only from the subcommittee chairman but also from mr. boyd that in determining the scope of that study, that all three states

would have equal opportunity to parties 35eu9. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i have no further speakers, so if -- mr. frelinghuysen: i'm prepared to yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: this is a good amendment, i ask house members to support it. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to mr. frelinghuysen: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to legal cause 8 of rule 18, further proceedings on the motion will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number two printed in house report 111-209. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

report the title. the clerk: house report -- amendment number two printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. connolly. the clerk: mr. connolly and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. connolly: i rise to address an amendment to augment the oyster restoration program by $7 million. this is a critical investment in the health of america's largest singlest ware. many of america -- single estuary. many of america's founding fathers came to the bay. john myth smith wrote that one could walk across the backs of swimming rockfish and that oysters lay thick as stones covering the bay's floor this productivity fueled economic growth in our region.

h.m. mencken said oysters were the standard meal of working man. today we are attempting to restore the ecosystem that's been devastated by pollution, to the point where some suggested replacing it with nonnative oysters. the fisheries relies on the health of its oyster population, not only for their own value but becse they are the keystone species for the bay. this amendment is an important part of our broader efforts to restore the health of the bay. i think mr. pastor and mr. frelinghuysen for the committee's support. mr. chairman, i yield to mr. pastor. mr. pastor: i want to inform the gentleman we support his amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserve thinks balance of miz time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition,

though i'm not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. it would transfer $7 million to protect a nationally and regionally important resource. these oysters provide thousands of jobs to local oystermen. this is a huge project and must be balanced against other national priorityings and ask the gentleman to work closely with the corps to ensure their budget request reflects the needs of the program against the background of other demands the corps is facing. with that, i'm pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment and yield to mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and i want to commend the gentleman from virginia for his efforts to restore oyster populations in the chesapeake bay. as he pointed out, they are extraordinary important economically and culturally to the state of virginia. historically the chesapeake bay has been one of the most

productive fisheries in the world. however, oyster populations are at less than 1% of historic levels. pollution and diseases have taken a substantial toll on oyster populations. we know that oysters are a commercially important resource. the virginia seafood industry is one of the largest in the nation and provide -- provides a positive economic impact to virginia of other half a billion dollars a year. the oister is a natural filter, filler it by removing algae and improving clarity and quality. oyster habitats provide habitats for crabs and other animals. we will probably never be able to restore the bay to the state it was when captain john smith landed in jamestown, however we will go a long way to restoring the bay's health. the challenges to oyster restoration are daunting and compleck. the army corps of engineers along with federal, state and private partners have been working to restore oyster

populations and while limited in scope, they have shown oyster restoration successes on several water sheds. the army corps is reaching completion of an oyster rest ration strategy that this will guide bay-wide oyster restoration for years to come. it is clear the oister is a critical species in the chesapeake bay and this is an important step to support oyster restoration in the bay. i urge my colleague's supports. the chair: the gentleman from -- mr. connolly: i want to thank the managers of the bill for their bipartisan support and their respective staffs and particularly my colleague from virginia for his support as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time, the yes son the amendment baferede the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18,

further proceedings offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. mr. frelinghuysen: i request a recorded vote. thank you. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part a of the house report 111-209. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. wamp: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 3, printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. wamp of tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee, mr. wamp, and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. wamp: i thank the chairman and i thank the committee for an extraordinary product. i think this bill is worthy of our support. the staff has done an excellent job supporting the members. i want to thank the rules committee for ruling this amendment in order because mr. davis of tennessee and myself come to the floor today to offer the amendment to transfer $14 million from the corps of

engineers' regular account, their operating account, over to the construction account. and the reason is that we have, on the tennessee river, a loch, an aging loch with a real problem of concrete growth. we've known now for 15 years in this must be replaced. we are under construction. we're in the middle of construction. the cover dam is virtually finished so the center of the river will be dried out in the next few months. the stimulus funding allowed the purchase of the equipment, the steel, the gates, to go ahead and do the construction, but unfortunately only $1 million was requested for this project, which will not allow us to go forward. we must go forward. there are many priorities within the corps of engineers' inland waterway system and they should all be supported as much as possible. but this one can't go forward, this amendment is really to transfer $14 million from the corps expense account to the corps construction account to be

used for the purpose of awarding a lock construction contract on the tennessee river. the reason we've just taken the money from this expense account is to try to get this amendment adopted on the floor so when we go to conference, and i'm a long standing member of this subcommittee, as is mr. davis of tennessee, now a new member of this subcommittee, when we go to conference we can try to work with this -- work this out. something that the chairman and the ranking member have expressed a desire to do at both the subcommittee level and the full committee level. we don't want to hold up the trains or cause any problems but the $1 million would literally freeze us for a year with a lot of equipment and progress and we're running out of time. this has to be completed and finished by 2014. we spent millions of dollars repairing the lock to keep the current lock open. we can't allow the tennessee river to close to navigation and commerce. it would be the largest lock closure in the history of our country if we allowed this to happen. so it's of critical importance

to continue to work with us and i can't thank the chairman and the ranking member enough for their willingness to work with us and i want to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. davis. mr. davis: i thank my colleague from tennessee. i want to appreciate his work that he's been doing to be sure that the lock is continuing in the process of being sure that we keep that river open. i want to make further comments and i deeply appreciate the ranking member and vice chairman and chairman for at least allowing an opportunity to speak today on this amendment. when you look at our inland water systems and the impact they have on america's economy, if you go to the tributaries of the ohio, the mississippi, the come ber left-hand side and tennessee rivers and look at commerce and agriculture that travels those, that becomes the road basically for exports for america's production. at least much of it does. so it's important that we keep our infrastructure along our

inland waterways open. it is some of the least expensive methods of transportation. one of the bright spots in america's economy as far as exports is concerned is agriculture. that is the only area today in commerce and -- is in commerce where we have a surplus in trade. so from my support of the legislation, obviously is to keep all of our rivers open, all of our waterways open for commerce. and it is my hope, and i concur on everything that my friend, congressman wamp from tennessee, has said, it is my hope that we'll be able to pass the legislation and recommend members on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. wamp: yields back. the chair: yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona, for what purpose does do you arise? mr. pastor: to claim the time in opposition although do i support the amendment. the chair: without objection.

mr. pastor: as i have told you, i support this amendment since it simply adds money to the corps construction account. however, i wish to point out that additional funds for the lock cannot be made available until the solvency of the inland waterway trust fund is addressed. the project requires 50% of its funding from the inland waterways trust fund and that trust fund is insolvent. before any new multiyear obligations are initiated, the revenue stream or alternative funding solutions for these projects must be addressed. we have been working with the transportation and infrastructure committee for a comprehensive solution to the issue for some time. i have sympathy for the project. i think i know more about this project because of mr. lincoln and mr. wamp, and i congratulate both of them for bringing the amendment, but, again, the issue at hand is a lot larger than the

$1 0 million project and -- $180 million project and i support the project. i'll yield to my ranking member. mr. frelinghuysen: let me associate my remarks, thank you, mr. chairman, with your statement and commend both mr. wamp and mr. davis for being ardent supporters of this move forward. and i've been to the lock, i can certainly attest and certainly to mr. wamp's boundless energy and determination to make this thing happen. he's made me aware of the dangers of what happens if we have inaction and i want to commend you, but obviously this issue is moving ahead but there's some complex issues that need to be addressed that mr. pastor's appropriately commented on. and thank you for yielding. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to and pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee -- the chair retracts that nice colloquy we had there. and it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 111-209. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 4, printed in house report 111-209 you are aed by mr. hastings of washington -- offered by mr. hastings of washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i

rise to offer an amendment that seeks to expand hydropower in the western united states. for almost a century, western communities have benefited from this low cost renewable and emissions-free resource. in today's environment, we talk around centers to provide clean and environmentally friendly power, there's a clear need to promote the original renewable which is moving water. this is a clear opportunity in the first step to do just that. my amendment seeks to follow up on the progress made in the report authorized by the energy policy act of 2005. this report required the bureau of reclamation to determine where new hydropower products -- projects could be added to the agency's existing water supply facilities. the bureau of reclamation is already the second leading hydropower producer in the nation, so it's only natural to require that agency tory assess its hydropower potential. while the agency failed to look at potential projects on small canals and laterals, it did find six larger opportunities to generate almost 300 megawatts from new hydropower facilities. to date, the bureau of

reclamation has not implemented one aspect of this report. if this amendment is adopted, there will no longer be bureaucratic excuses about the necessary resources to begin the installation of the new resources. while i am pleased this amendment was made in order, it only covers part of the hydropower equation. regrettably, the democrat leadership did not make my other amendments in order. one of my other amendments would have decreased carbon emissions while keeping more hydropower resources online. currently the army corps of engineers and the bureau of reclamation are forced to diversity water from hydropower production at some of their dams. this results in a loss of generation that has to be found from some other energy source and the vast majority of this replacement power is carbon based in the form of coal and natural gas and is much more expensive than hydropower. my amendment, which the democrat majority chose not to debate on, would have reduced these carbon emissions to help the environment and keep energy affordable by allowing for more

hydropowered production. another amendment would have prohibited the reduction of federal hydropower if that hydropower backs up other renewable energies like wind and solar. as almost everybody knows, the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day and the wind doesn't blow all the time. because of these indisputable fact, wind and solar energies needs a backup or a firmed-up in energy speak as a base resource. in my home region of the pacific northwest, the federal dams are the models of a backup electricity generation when it comes to wind generation. in fact, in december of last year, some of the turbines didn't produce electricity for 11 straight days yet the only reason that the lights stayed on is because of the backup electricity provided by hydropower. my amendment would -- was also rejected by the democrat majority, would have prohibited the loss of hydropower needed to back up these renewable energy sources. so in conclusion, the democrat majority is sending a mixed message by not allowing

amendments to protect our existing federal hydropower, yet allowing an amendment to increase a limited amount of hydropower resources. i appreciate that. the american people deserve to see a full debate about hydropower. the original, emissions-free and renewable energy. nevertheless, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona, for what purpose does do you rise? -- for what purpose do you rise? mr. pastor: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i'm very happy to tell the author of the amendment this will be a bipartisan amendment since we are accepting his amendment. we understand how important hydropower is and we need improvements at existing facilities so we can provide the reliable, efficient domestic emission-free source of renewable energy. it has been a benefit of improving existing water quality and fish passage issues. in addition to increasing

generation efficiency and capability. as energy security and issues of global climate change are becoming increasingly important to the decisionmaking regarding infrastructure investment, improving existing hydropower facilities, we must add some priority. i urge the brewer reclamation to work -- bureau of reclamation to work with local groups and public power entities as it looks use its water resources efficiently. i also urge them to focus on its core water and related resource projects and not sacrifice that valuable work while engaging in this effort. and i support the amendment and i'll yield time to the ranking member. mr. frelinghuysen: let me associate myself again with chairman pastor's remarks. i've been to congressman hasting's districts.

when he talks about hydropower, he know what is he's talking about. he's obviously been a strong proponent of nuclear power. we're pleased to accept the amendment and thank you for recognizing me. postpostwe support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you and i thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member for accepting this amendment. i just simply wanted to point out that had we been under regular order we could have probably enhanced hydropower with the two other amendments that were not made in order. but nevertheless this is an important step. it is something that we need to recognize because i firmly believe that an energy plan that includes all of the above is what the american people understand and what they accept and with that i appreciate the gentleman for accepting my amendment with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 111-209. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. costa: on rise on behalf of support of amendment number 92. the chair: does the gentleman offer the amendment? mr. costa: yes. the clerk: part a, amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. costa of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 645, the gentleman from california, mr. costa, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. costa: yes. i'd like to refer to the gentleman from arizona, the chairman of the subcommittee, to speak on behalf of the amendment. mr. pastor: i'd like to inform the gentleman that we are

supportive of his amendment. mr. costa: i'd like to thank the chairman and the ske chair and those who worked on this behalf. this should be taken us two amendments because they're both part of an overall effort that many of us from the valley delegation have been working on for over the last year in a bipartisan basis to deal with the third year of the drought in california which, unfortunately, could last a fourth and a fifth year. water in california has traditionally not been a partisan issue. my colleagues both congressmans radanovich, cardoza and i have worked on these issues. i hope that tradition will continue. the drought has been devastating. these two pictures reflect ground zero in my district which we have farm communes that have 30% to 40% unemployment. food lions that i have helped provide food for those farm workers who are some of the

hardest working people you will know in your life. the next picture shows 300,000 acres this year in which family farmers in second and third generation are in fear and frustration of losing their farms. these two amendments taken together are important. congressman cardoza deserves a great deal of credit and effort for working very hard. these two amendments are not a silver bullet but they're part of an overall effort to provide incremental additional water to our valley. amendment 93 provides $10 million for drought relief for the san joaquin valley to fund two important projects that we've identified on our list of things to do. two gate project that we have strong support throughout the state on that if implemented this november we believe could act as real relief to allow the federal and state operating federal projects and the pumps to operate as they were intended to. the pumps have operated intermitt antley and sometimes

have been shut down this year. today thank god they are operating at near full capacity. but that will not continue. and next year if a biological opinion is implemented i think is flawed, as does my colleague. the funding will provide in this amendment money for the secretary of interior within the central valley project to be used to implement both the two gate and the intertie project. in addition to that, this amendment provides a resolution to the giant garter snake issue, which has long been an impediment. lastly, i want to commend my colleague and thank congressman cardoza, my colleague, for his hard work on this issue. as a result of our efforts, beginning in january, working with the westlands water agency, with the san louis units, we have provided with

the state of california and the bureau of reclamation over 560,000 acre-feet of water to the west side that would otherwise not be there in these drought conditions on top of sadly what has been a 10% allocation of water. together that has provided nearly 700,000 acre-feet to the very dry west side. i want to thank all of those who have been part of it. leadership steny hoyer, the secretary of interior who visited at our request last month to the valley, secretary salazar and his deputy secretary hayes and commissioner connor, all who have been designated as a drought task force team with secretary vilsack, the secretary of agriculture, because god forbid this drought could last a fourth or a fifth year in which all of california would be rationing water. today my district is ground zero, along with congressman cardoza's district. but next year it could be far worse. so we will continue to work with chairman obey and other members of the appropriations committee.

i want to know that the san lois delta water authority supports these amendments and most of the water agencies in california because they understand that this amendment, along with the next amendment, is part of that incremental effort to bring water to a drought-stricken area in california that could be next year the rest of the state. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who rises in opposition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition though i am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: let me say that while i'm supportive of this amendment, it is congressman devin nunes, who has been on this floor repeatedly calling members' attention to the catastrophic situation in california. and i'm admiring of both representatives costa and cardoza's effort, but devin

nunes has been carrying this issue in a very visible way. he went, tried to get three amendments in order before the rules committee yesterday afternoon and evening and he was denied that opportunity. but i'm no expert in california water, but let's give credit all around to members of congress that have stood up on this issue to articulate their position, indeed their passionate position. i support the amendment, but i certainly want to recognize all members of the california delegation. and since mr. nunes' name was not mentioned in earlier comments, i would certainly like to highlight his role making this a priority for our attention. thank you, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. costa: could you yield some time? will the gentleman yield some time? mr. frelinghuysen: i'd be happy to yield. the chair: the gentleman from

california has his own time, 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman has yielded back his time. mr. costa: thank you. i indicated that traditionally water has been a bipartisan issue. i said for over a year now, radanovich, nunes, cardoza and myself, the five of us have been working on a bipartisan basis. i said i hope it continues to work on a bipartisan basis. the chair: does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? mr. costa: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from califora. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. it is now in order to consider consider amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 111-209. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. cardoza: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. cardoza of california. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 645, the gentleman from california, mr. cardoza, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of the amendment and amendment that makes technical changes to allow water transfers in the central valley of california. this amendment takes a significant step towards addressing the impacts of the water supply crisis in the san joaquin valley. this is a companion amendment to the one that mr. costa and i just introduced. mr. costa is my co-author of this amendment. and together these two amendments in fact do work to help us deal wet incredibly significant crisis that we have in the central valley. people are suffering greatly. currently the bureau of reclamation restricts certain water transfers to intercounty transfers, the inability to transfer water beyond county lines has created incredible

impediments in our state. this amendment will allow those transfers to occur beyond those county lines so water users will have enough supply -- who have enough supply in one county will be able to use it in another county to help their fellow farmers. as mr. costa indicated, the amendments also direct the secretary to implement recovery plans for the giant garter snake and endangered species. the recovery plan will remove the bureaucratic red tape that prevents water projects from moving forward while also protecting this important species. we could not be here today working on these problems if it wasn't for the work of the chairman, mr. pastor, for mr. obey, for the cooperation that the entire valley delegation has shown on this issue. mr. costa has indicated that because of the efforts that we have employed we have provided our farmers with 500,000 acre-feet that they wouldn't have had otherwise under the

current rules. i want to specifically also indicate my sincere appreciation to majority leader hoyer, who has been steadfast in his support of mr. costa and i trying to move this effort forward. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. salazar, who's also been a diligent supporter of our efforts and has been concerned, has actually visited our district and i greatly appreciate his help and support. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. salazar: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. first of all, i want to thank you for your diligence in trying to help the agricultureure community in california. -- agriculture community in california. in june, 2009, mr. chairman, at the request of chairman -- congressman costa and congressman cardoza, the secretary of interior, secretary salazar and deputy secretary hayes reclamation commissioner connor held a public meeting to address the issues of the drought in

california. but previous to that, i want to also thank the administration for previously working on issues because they understood that the drought was a big concern to this country. on april of 2009, the department announced the allocation of $220 million of a.a.r. funding -- aara funding from the bureau of reclamation for water and infrastructure projects in california. of this amount $160 million was directed to projects to address the needs of the central valley. allocation of $40 million will be made for drought relief actions, most of which will go to california with final awards coming very, very soon. reclamation has released $134 million in water recycling and water reuse grants much which $120 million were allocated to communities of california. reclamation has also processed over 100 transfers totaling to 263,000 acre-feet of water to

address shortages in the san joaquin valley. reclamation has also accommodated a rescheduling request by west side and other central valley water project contractors to allow them to preserve and use prior allocations in some -- in the sum of 250,000 acre-feet in san luis reservoir and another in millerton feet. and we asked secretary hayes to have coordinated efforts for california water issues. so i want to commend the administration for their diligence and trying to address the issues in california, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california has one minute remaining. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield 15 seconds to the chairman of the committee. mr. pastor: i just want to indicate to my friend, dennis cardoza, that we will be supporting his amendment. mr. cardoza: mr. speaker, i'd like to thank the chairman. as i said before, without his

help we could not have made these amendments in order and brought them to the floor. i think these amendments offer significant opportunities to the central valley. they are not a panacea. they are not going to cure every problem. we have more work to do. but in closing i want to thank secretary salazar for taking time out, coming and visiting our valley, understanding the problem. we have a lot to work to do with bureau of -- the department of interior, the bureau of reclamation. but with continued work and cooperation i think we will make significant progress on the significant challenges that we face in the central valley. with that, mr. speaker, i'd ask for an aye vote of my colleagues. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who rises in opposition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition though i am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: thank you very much. i served on the energy water committee when i was first

elected to congress in 1994. i took a two-year hiatus when i chaired working with mr. fattah as ranking member, the chair of the d.c. committee. i don't think in my time on the committee on these water issues , and in is a water crisis out in your neck of the woods, and we're respectful that republicans and democrats could work together on these issues. i say i am hugely disappointed at your lack of inclusiveness. you may be spitting mad at congressman devin nunes, but for many members of congress, he put a human face on the water crisis out there. i'm not going to get into the issue as to, you know, biological studies and things of that nature. but you at least ought to give your congressional colleague from california credit for raising this issue. he tried to raise the issue, but quite honesty, he was voted

down on the floor a number of times. and when he went to the rules committee his amendments were not put in order. yours were. basic courtesy would have called for his name to at least be mentioned as you rose to the floor today and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part a of house

report 111-209. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. boren: i have an amendment the desk. the clerk: part a, amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. boren of oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. boren, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. boren: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boren: my colleagues may be familiar with an initiative i have been working on, the nat gas act. particularly to replace traditionally fueled heavy and light duty trucks. i am a strong proponent of natural gas as an alternative fuel source because it is clean, abundant, cheap and readily available and best of all, as t. boone pickens says, it's ours. according to a study by the

department of energy, it is feasible to produce biomethane from landfills, sewage and animal waste so one could even argue that it is renewable. that is why as we continue efforts to drive our country towards a cleaner transportation sector natural gas vehicles are a natural fit. there's no single silver bullet solution to our transportation energy dilemma. all available alternatives to petroleum must be used in the marketplace and in an application where they make the most sense and for many of these applications that means natural gas. in 2008 n.g.v.'s displaced 250 million gallons of petroleum in the united states. with adequate support by 2020, that could grow to $10 billion gallons. but the n.g.v. industry is made up of mostly small companies. in order for the industry to achieve that growth potential in

the time frame we need, more research is needed for vehicle integration, deployment, engine development and cost reductions. in 1992, congress authorized a vehicle technologies program to fund a wide range of research activities on passenger vehicles and heavy duty trucks. the program's mission is to develop leap frog technologies that will provide americans with greater freedom of mobility and energy security while lowering costs and reducing impacts on the environment. though natural gas vehicle research was funded through this program until fiscal year 2005, since then there have been no d.o.e. activities in this area. my amendment would add $5 million in funding to this account for natural gas vehicle research. this is relatively small -- this is a relatively small investment for something that could easily move america toward as cleaner and independent energy future.

i hope my colleagues will join me in launching a new direction in the transportation fuel by supporting this amendment. i would like to yield to my friend from arizona, mr. pastor. mr. pastor: first of all, i'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding and also thank him for bringing this amendment. this amendment funds research and development for one of the small handful of technologies that may reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. this increase in funding is consistent with the committee's efforts in this bill to address rising gasoline prices and so i tell my dear friend from oklahoma that we rise in support of his amendment. mr. boren: thank you so much. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition but i am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield one

minute to the congressman from indiana, mr. burton. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. burton: thank you very much. i rise in very strong support of the amendment. we really need to move toward using natural gas as a clean burning fuel and we have a huge supply of it in this country. as a matter of fact, down in louisiana just recently they discovered probably one of the biggest finds of natural gas in the whole world. and it's, as i said, it's a clean burning fuel and we need to transition from our dependency on foreign oil. if we continue at the pace we're heading right now, over the next 10 years we'll see a transfer of $10 trillion of our money to countries like saudi arabia and venezuela and many of those are not friends of ours. so this is a great step in the right direction. i want to congratulate mr. boren on the amendment. you're doing good work. thanks an awful lot. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. boren: i'm going to still reserve. the chair: reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i yield a minute to mr. row dan very much of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. radanovich: thank you, mr. chair. i'm using this opportunity to speak for the bill that was previous because i was not able to get out of committee to come down for the debate. but i want to rise in support of the cardoza amendment. as you are well aware, california's in the midst of a devastating man made drought. any action to help alleviate the drought is needed. facilitating transfers of water from areas of california that have water to spare to send to the westlands and the valley is a good start but we must have increased pumping out of the delta. i'd like to commend my colleagues, mr. cardoza, mr. costa, mr. nunes, for their hard work and efforts in offering solutions to the drought in california and in the meantime, temporary solutions such as two gates and the canal project are necessary to keep farmers in the valley farming. these projects must be constructed and online by this fall in order to provide any relief to this terrible drought. the only way to keep the state

of california strong is to change the water infrastructure, california water system cannot continue as it is. if there are no changes we will continue to see escalating unemployment rates of over 40% and the depletion of the ag industry. thank you. mr. boren: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to recognize mr. sullivan from oklahoma for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. sullsull thank you, mr. speaker. mr. sullivan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this amendment. this would provide natural gas research and development at the department of energy. natural gas is the bridge fuel toward decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of oil and putting our nation on the path to energy independence. we have a proven reserve of natural gas rice here -- right here in the united states. we have enough known natural gas reserves to last us more than a century. as a matter of fact, 98% of the natural gas we consume is produced right here in north america. in addition to our vast supply, we already have a way to get

natural gas to the consumer with over 1.5 million miles of natural gas pipeline distribution across the country. natural gas vehicle technology is readily available in europe, south america and asia with nearly 10 million natural gas vehicles in circulation worldwide. general motors and ford currently make 18 different models for purchase overseas, yet have fewer than 150,000 natural gas vehicles here in the united states. we must increase our research and development funding in this amendment which it seeks to do. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. boren: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleague from oklahoma, mr. sullivan, who's been a real reeder -- leader in this effort for natural gas vehicles. we've got one more speaker on our side, i think, and so i'm going to continue to reserve and then -- the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to recognize the

gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. while i support the boren amendment, i do rise in opposition to the manager's amendment and some provisions that are there and it strikes me that the manager's amendment results in an earmark for the big three automakers and what it does is to stipulate that the cars, the alternative fuel cars, have to be bought from them. what it does is to ignore the many other american citizens and taxpayers that produce american made passenger vehicles in this nation. but they are manufacturers that are not the big three. i view this as something that is bad policy. it is bad environmental policy. it's bad appropriations policy. bad economic policy. there are 209 vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles, that are going to be purchased to go

into these different agencies as stipulated in this bill. and the way this manager's amendment is written, it is an earmark for the big three which have already received billions of bailout money. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. boren: still reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm prepared to yield back. the chair: the gentleman yielding back -- yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. boren: thank you, mr. chairman. i firmly believe that these changeses are will greatly help the integration of natural gas vehicles in the marketplace. i think we have a real opportunity today to invest in a cleaner independent energy future for america and move away from our dependence on foreign oil. i want to thank my colleagues on the other side, especially my friend, john sullivan from oklahoma. i want to thank the chairman for accepting our amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. frelinghuysen: i call for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 111-209. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan rise? mrs. miller: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 8, printed in house report 111-209 offered by mrs. miller of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 645, the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan. mrs. miller: thank you, mr. chairman. you know there's been a great deal of discussion for decades, really, about the issue of energy, specifically the need for our nation to generate and to utilize renewable and clean energy. i have lived my entire life on the shores of the magnificent

great lakes and i spent an awful lot of time voting -- boating as well on those waterways and i've always been you aed by the power of that water, flowing from lake superior all the way to the atlantic ocean, fought toly. i've watched the st. claire river and i've been amazed at the swiftness and consistency with which that water moves. i believe that the energy created by that water flow is a source of energy that we must do more to harness for the use of our people and for industry and to that end, mr. chairman, my amendment would increase by $10 million the water power energy program within the department of energy. increasing this vitally important program by $10 million will restore that program back to f.y. 2009 funding levels. the water power program within the department of energy is such an important program to our overall goal of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and becoming a nation more reliant on renewable and green sources of energy. the water power program, energy program, is a program designed to develop, to test and evaluate

new water technologies and to address barriers to development of hydrokinetics and hydropower. the program conducts important research and development and employs new innovative water technologies to get those products out in the market. additionally, this program allows for testing and modeling of existing technologies. hydropower technology has literally been around for hundreds of years beginning with the earliest water wheels and then water mills which helped produce flower -- flour for grains, sawing timber and powering tects tile plants to today's more advanced technologies from hydroelectricity to harnessing wave and tidal power. hydropower currently accounts for approximately 19% of the world's electrical needs and produces no harmful emissions but it accounts for less than 6% of the total united states electricity needs. compare that to our neighbors of the north, canada, who use hydropower to meet 61%, 61%, of

their energy needs. why hydropower only accounts for less than 6%, as i said here in the united states, it makes up 71% of our total renewable electricity and produces enough electrical power to power 28 million households. there are two exarms from the great state of michigan where this technology is being examined and needs to be lookedality further, i think, mr. chairman. i already mentioned the st. claire river but i should also mention the detroit river. these are known for their very strong currents, moving along at approximately six-plus nots. it quickens through the detroit river before entering lake erie where that energy is just dissipating. this technology can be put to work in rivers, harbors and other coastal areas to capture energy from currents and tides and the best part is that this can be achieved with minimal impact on our environment or the flow of the river. harnessing this energy will create a truly renewable and green source of clean energy.

mr. chairman, again, a lot of interest, a lot of talk about alternative energy sources in the past week. i've heard many express strong support for wind power and certainly share their enthusiasm for that energy source. but i will remind my colleagues that sometimes the wind doesn't blow but the water always flows. with that i would ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. who rises in opposition? >> to claim the time in opposition although hime not in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: first off, to the manager's amendment and to the idea of purchasing cars, i have been told that the current g.s.a. policy that has jurisdiction in purchasing of cars over the agencies in which this committee has jurisdiction thereof that we have just restated that policy. so it's not intended to be an

earmark. it was not intended to do anything different. it's not authorizing on an appropriation bill. it's a restatement of g.s.a. policy. if there's a reason against it it would be because it's redundant. but we did not create any new legislation. we're restating g.s.a. policy as it concerns with the purchase of cars. i rise in support of the amendment of the gentlelady from michigan. it supports strong investment, renewable technologies such as solar, wind and geothermal power. water power is an important piece of this portfolio. refining conventional hydropower technologies can increase the efficiencies of dams and cost efficiency increase clean power generation without the need of new dams. research and development of technologies that use power in waves, tides and streams can

deliver a new source of virtually untapped renewable energy. and so we continue to be with the flow and support the young lady's amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. pastor: i yield. mr. frelinghuysen: i commend mrs. miller for being a strong and articulate advocate. i support her amendment. thank you for yielding. mr. pastor: i yield back the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. frelinghuysen: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 111-209. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise?

mr. heinrich: i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 9 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. heinrich of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 645, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. heinrich, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico. mr. heinrich: mr. chairman, i offer this amendment in a strong support of research and development at our national laboratories. specifically, my amendment provides a 1% increase in the laboratory directed research and development which is commonly referred to as ldrd. ldrd increases the ability of laboratories to retain expertise and pursue innovative projects by providing additional discretion for department of energy laboratories to select research activities. these high-risk, high-reward projects yield cutting edge advancements in science and technology and produce some of our most successful research and development initiatives.

these are projects with an immediate relevance and a direct impact on our national security and on energy independence. many ldrd projects have formed the basis of some of the national lab's most successful research initiatives. for example, at san dia national la are atories in my district, a researcher developed the chemistry for decontamination foam that is used by our military to protect us against chemical and biological attacks. in fact, this was the foam that was used to decontaminate the senate heart office building after the anthrax attacks of 2001. we know all too well that those who wish our country harm are constantly adapting their methods, making these ldrd projects vitally important to our national security. ldrd is equally relevant to the goal of energy independence. and ldrd project -- an ldrd project developed a process that would substantially reduce

the process of ldrd light bulbs. these ldrd light bulbs will less electricity by more than 50% by 2025. this will translate into meaningful cuts in utility bills for our working families and real savings for our small businesses. energy independence is a critical element of our national security, and l.e.d. efficiency will significantly reduce our demand for energy. these advancements represent just two examples of the multiple innovative science and tech achievements made through ldrd initiatives. under the 2009 omnibus appropriations bill our labs were granted authority to use up to 8% of their budgets for ldrd initiatives. yet the bill before us today would reduce that amount for 2010 to only 6%. my amendment would allow our labs to dedicate up to 7% of their budgets to ldrd. it's important to note that my

amendment does not require any additional spending as the ldrd funding percentage is derived from the lab's overall funding level. nor does my amendment cut any other program. simply put, my amendment encourages innovative research and development that will promote our national security and help us to reach our goal of energy independence. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield to the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: may i inquire how much time i have? the chair: the geneman from new mexico has 2 1/2 minutes remaining on his time. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, first of all, i'd like to thank the gentleman from new mexico for yielding to me and to inform him that we will support the amendment as offered. however, i have some concerns about increasing the percentage of laboratory directed research at this time. i hope that this increase in lab directed research development will in this tight budget environment produce a

net increase in the national security output of the laboratories. i look forward to working with you to ensure this increase is tightly mission oriented and will be compatible with meeting other challenges of the laboratories. and with that i will inform you that wre supporting this amendment. mr. heinrich: i'd thank the gentleman from arizona and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who rises in opposition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition although i am not in opposition of the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i'd like to share my comments with chairman pastor. these are tight budget times and i think we worked hard to provide the right balance for priorities in our energy and water bill. many of us would have like much more money spent on the safety and security of our nuclear weapons stockpile but quite honestly that was not to be.

we all had to compromise, and this package is a fair balanced one. a few comments about the ldrd lab directed r&d programs. these programs often allow our laboratories to skirt congressional priorities laid out in these bills. it would provide research and development on issues that are at times not at all germane to the department of energy. i've seen it firsthand. at the same time these programs can be most innovative and give our researchers creative opportunities for work. so i don't oppose the amendment , but i want to make it clear that all members of the committee i'm sure will be watching very carefully to ensure that these funds are used to support the mission of the department. and i reserve the balance of my time.

i'm prepared to yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. heinrich: i'm prepared to close. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. heinrich: i want to add real quickly that the gentleman mentioned our nuclear stockpile, and one of the other ldrd programs that i think was particularly important was the creation and assembly of safety devices for our stockpile like the gel compass tores that are used in the w-61. i think the bottom line is that these programs represent some of the most cutting edge research that we do. they are critical to our national security. they're critical to our energy independence. and i would urge the support of my colleagues, and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part a of house report 111-209. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. cao: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. cao of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 645, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cao, and a member opposed, will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. cao: thank you, mr. speaker. mr.peaker, i submitted an amendment to h.r. 3183, the energy and water appropriations bill to reduce the amount of time the regulatory commission has to report to congress. the purpose of this amendment is to encourage agencies to be

good partners in the regulatory process by completing their requirements to report to congress for oversight in a timely manner. what is the motivation for this amendment? during the last administration, the agency was charged with identifying ways to streamline its licensing and review process. though the commission stated in an article that it would shorten its review time to 30 months, recently a number of companies have complained of the process taking anywhere from 36 to 42 months. also, in june of 2008, the agency was the subject of a "new york times" article on lengthy delays in its processing at yucca. it cited a lack of funds to complete the process. in this appropriations bill, the n.r.c. is to provide a report to congress regarding

streamline issuance of construction for new nuclear reactors. as written, the agency was given 90 days to do so. my amendment would reduce it to 60. the reporting which must be done by the commission requires it to report to the committee on appropriations of the house of representatives and the senate identifying barriers to and its recommendations for streamlines the issuance of a combined construction and operating license for qualified new nuclear reactors. the agency was charged with making changes -- i'm sorry. in order for congress to conduct proper oversight of this agency and help it improve its function, the n.r.c. must report its finding to congress in an expedient manner. as we go through the process of reviewing our needs in this country, it's important we have

the information needed to make this decision as quickly as possible. therefore, i ask the members of the house to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who rises in opposition? mr. pastor: mr. chairman -- the chair: for what reason does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: i rise to claim time in opposition even though i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i support mr. cao's amendment because the provision the gentleman is amending requires the nuclear regulatory commission to provide a report on improving its licensing procedure by reducing the time for submission of the report to congress from 90 days to 60 days. this should improve the n.r.c.'s responsiveness to congress and provide more timely information to the congress on measures that can be taken to improve the regulatory process. and with that i support the --

i yield some time. mr. frelinghuysen: we support the gentleman from louisiana's amendment and commend him. it's actually a perfecting amendment of what mr. kingston had in the full committee. so we commend you for your efforts. we'd support it. thank you for yielding. mr. pastor: we are in support of the amendment and i yield back the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 111land 2 ot. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee rise? mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 11, printed in house

report 111-209 offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today on behalf of the american taxpayer to continue my push to rein in federal spending by just 5%. as with the other appropriations bills that my colleagues and i have attempted to amend this year, this proposal would enforce a 5% across the board cut to the energy and water appropriations bill. my amendment would save the taxpayer $1.7 billion and reset the energy and water spending levels for the next budget. spending on energy and water programs has increased by, get this, $18 -- 183% over the past three years. under the majority's control, spending has increased 183%. the very programs being funded

on the house floor this afternoon have already received $51 billion in stimulus funding and $7 billion in supplemental funding this year, this one year. this congress has already spent more than $1 trillion than we have taken in. this $1 trillion deficit is the largest in american history in my opinion, this deficit represents the height of fiscal irresponsibility and is absolutely unconscionable. on top of it, many of my colleagues are proposing another $1 trillion in government-run health care spending. every day we are laying more and more debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren, i ask my colleagues, how do we expect these children and grandchildren, how do i expect my grandsons to pay for college or first home or start a business when they already owe $70,000 to the federal

government? mr. speaker, we have to realize debt incurred is opportunity denied. my constituents keeping me we're tired of the government spending money we have not made on programs we don't want. through this appropriations psyching, i've ait tended to rein in this and i ask the bureaucrats in washington and their patrons in congress to trim a nickel from every $1 that they are going to spend as our deficit and our debt grow to historic and dangerous proportions. it is more urgent than ever that we take action and bring spending under control and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: the amendment proposes a 5% reduction of every account in this bill. if you exclude the recovery

money as i mentioned in my opening statement, this bill that's before you is $1 billion below the president's request and is slightly above last year's 2009 funding. and this energy water bill, appropriation bill, is a key part of ongoing efforts to meet the infrastructure needs of the country and under years of neglect, addressing the -- inadequate is -- inadequacies of our natural energy policies, we're trying to do it with this bill. the water and energy bill is only slightly above last year's enacted level and is $1.1 billion below the budget requests, -- request, as i mentioned. budgeting -- balancing budget requires a bipartisan earth. we ended up with a bill that meets the priorities and supports fiscal responsibility. a reduction of 5% would cut $1.7 billion from the bill and

undercut a number of priorities at a time when we can ill afford to reduce them further. i do not support the amendment and urge members to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. pastor: i will. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i commend the gentlewoman for her hard and her repeated attempts to cut the federal budget. but i agree with the chairman that we have a good bill, the well balanced, it's been done in a bipartisan way. i worry about indiscriminate cuts to a bill that affects the protection and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. that's important. we crafted some good things on the -- out of the energy portfolio which i think are worthy and defensible. this bill also includes funding that only begins to address a $1

billion-plus retirement pension short fall through the individual accounts. that's something which i commend the chairman for his -- and staff leadership -- on. this across the board cut would take $1.6 billion bite across each of these initiatives and i think that would be pretty devastating and as a result i rise with him to oppose this amendment. thank four -- thank you for yielding. mr. pastor: i would request members vote against this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i would remind my good colleagues that this is not federal government money, this is the taxpayer money and every year on april 15, the taxpayers send their portion to the federal government and they charge us for looking after that money. many times they set aside hopes, dreams, college educations. they don't get to pursue their priorities because they have to

send the money to washington and i find it absolutely incomprehensible that this body is not willing to turn to the bureaucrats that line all of these streets and these granite buildings and say, save a nickel out of the dollar, allow our children and grandchildren to have opportunities. we have to realize, as i said, debt incurred today is opportunity denied for these children and grandchildren. and i've heard all these arguments before. when i was in the state senate in tennessee they had this grandiose health care plan called tenncare. oh, it was going to save all this money, it was public option, it was the test case for public option. it nearly bankrupted the state. when i offered amendments to make across the board cuts, oh, those are draconian, those are inscrinlt, it's going to shut government down. well, guess what? they never took the cuts we had but when a democrat government came in and he was faced with

insurmountable seeming odds on balancing a budget because we have an amendment, he made 9% across the board cuts. we need to do this. we need to make the hard choices of where we're going to spend this money. you can't say, well, when you exclude this from the stimulus and when you exclude this amount of money, when you exclude this, $51 billion from stimulus and this $7 billion from supplemental, then it's only this, well, guess what? that money is already spent. you spent the money, so unless they pay it all back, you can't exclude it, so your fuzzy math doesn't add up. it doesn't add up. you've already spent that money. the person that is being undercut is the american taxpayer and it is being done by the selfishness and by the greed of those who refuse to say no to

a growing, out of control federal bureaucracy. i think it is time that we get some backbone on this spending issue. stop the out of control deficit, stop the out of control debt. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. blackburn: mr. chairman. i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendmented printed in house report 111-209 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order, number one, printed in part a by mr. pastor of arizona, number 2 printhood in part a by mr. connelly of virginia, number 4 printed in part a by mr.

hastings of washington, number 7 printed in part a by mr. boren of oklahoma, number 8 printed in part a by mrs. miller of michigan, the chair will reduce to two minut minutes the time f electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 111-209 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. pastor, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which a yes vote prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment, please. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. pastor of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote followed by a series of two-minute votes. [captioning made possible by the

national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 261, the nays are 172. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is on a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 111-209 offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yes vote prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will please redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 2, printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. connelly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has

been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 362, the nays are 69. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the requested for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 111-209 offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, on which further proceedings were

postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. hastings of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a record roed vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote -- the chair: this volt, the yeas are 430, the nays are --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 432, the nays are zero, the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise?

>> colleagues, it's with great pleasure we come before you to announce the incredible success we had last night at the first annual congressional, may i say, bipartisan, women's softball game. we want to recognize our two captains, republican jo ann emerson, and of course our fearless leader who did it all,

mrs. emerson: thank you very, very much from the bottom of my heart. ms. wasserman schultz: and from mine. and the bottom of my foot. mrs. emerson: we've been told this was a triumph for women and a triumph of bipartisanship. i think that says it all. we have proven, i think, that we can rise above any kind of partisanship, work together, come together as a team, and really work hard for something. i think we're good -- a good example for the whole house. ms. wasserman shulingts: in addition to that -- ms. wasserman schultz spks in addition to that we became closer friends than we were when we started, and raised $50,000 for the youngurvival coalition.

so thank you to all the members who came out and all the staff and we especially want to thank the ladies of the republican national committee, the democratic national committee, d.c.c.c., nrcc for participating in doing a great job and we'll get you next year. the chair: without objection, the voting will continue. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number seven, printed no house report 111-209, offered by mr. boren, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number seven offered in part a of house report 111-209. the chair: those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having

risen, a recorded vote is ordered. . this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the ayes are 429, the nays are four, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is a request on the recorded vote on amendment number eight printed in house report 111-209, offered by the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number

eight, printed in rouse e-- house report 111-209. the chair: members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 427, the nays are one.

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 431 the nays are one. the amendment is adopted. it is now in order to consider an amendment printed in the house report 111-209. the house will be in order. the chair: the committee will be called to order.

members take your conversations off the floor. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. campbell: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 2. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 645, the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. before i recognize the gentleman, members, please take your conversations off the floor. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment would strike $1 million earmark that is for -- being from california, i will apologize in advance the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. mr. chairman, the house is not

in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee will be called to order, will be in order. members. members. all right, mr. campbell. proceed. mr. campbell: thank you, mr. chairman. as i said, this amendment strikes $1 trillion earmark, and i will apologize to the gentleman from massachusetts in advance if i butcher the name of the river. the pronounceation of the name of the river but is it husatonic? but the river museum in pittsfield, massachusetts, and it reduces the funding in the overall bill by that amount. now, mr. chairman, it's not

unusual lately to see amendments for funding of museums in local communities and around the country, but this one's particularly unusual, i believe, because as far as i can determine from the website, this museum doesn't currently exist. and if i am reading the website for this museum correctly, there are still in the design and development -- they are still in the design and development phase of this building. it appears this is a $1 million earmark to go to a museum in massachusetts which does not currently exist and which, according to their own website, would not even have construction completed until 2012. and, of course, this is the appropriations funding for 2010. so this funding would be available for the museum two years before even their website indicates they might be completed. so this appears to be an amendment for a museum, $1 million for the museum that doesn't exist. and i will reserve the balance

of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? >> mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge rejection to the amendment before us. in 2006, congress created the upper housatonic heritage area in southwestern massachusetts, in northwestern connecticut based on legislation that was co-sponsored by our distinguished former colleague, representative nancy johnson of connecticut, and myself in the house, and by all the senators from massachusetts and connecticut in the other body. the housatonic river museum is being created by a group of residents of that national heritage area as a venue to

highlight the rich cultural history and explore the hopes for the future of that area. the 13,000 square foot museum is being designed to achieve who sustainable goals. zero carbon footprint and zero-net energy usage. 90% of the money for this project is being raised privately, but the money provided in this bill will allow the museum to maximize energy conservation and efficiency using strategies such as natural lighting, natural ventilation, water conservation, high-performance building materials. and in addition to generate enough power for its own needs, all from renewable sources utilizing photo-voltaic panels, recycled wood boilers and a geothermal well system. the museum will turn -- return excess power to the power

electricity grid when available and possible. all of these techniques and processees for energy conservation and efficiency will be made available for explanation and demonstration to thousands of visitors of all ages, but especially to school-aged children from near and far. the museum itself will be leede certified and will serve as a flagship demonstration project and an example of sustainable construction. it will be the first public building on the east coast to be listed by a department of -- by the department of energy as a zero energy and will join only seven others of similar designation in the nation. this is a good project with high goals and deserves to be funded, and i urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve the balance of his time? the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: thank you, mr. chairman. and i have no doubt that sounds like the museum is going to be a very neat, cool, you know, useful museum in the local area. but i guess i would ask the gentleman a question, does this museum currently exist, and i would yield to the gentleman? does it currently exist? mr. olver: it is under design. mr. campbell: is it under construction? mr. olver: it is under construction, and the money is being raised as we speak. mr. campbell: reclaiming my time. but i asked the gentleman, have all the funds for this -- the construction of this museum been raised? and i would yield. mr. olver: i am not familiar with the day-to-day progress of

the collection of those construction funds. mr. campbell: thank you. mr. chairman, reclaiming my time. this is $1 million of the public's money going to a museum that doesn't exist, that is not currently under construction, and the gentleman from massachusetts can't tell me if it's fully funded. if you don't have enough -- if there is not enough money to build, there may not be money for it. where will this money go to? they have built this raised on private funds. that's outstanding. those how local museums should be done. i support them. i'm sure he does as well. that's the way this funding should be. should taxpayers from california and texas and louisiana and every place else put their tax money towards subsidizing the -- a privately

funded museum in massachusetts, no matter how admirable that museum may be? i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. olver: i continue to reserve. i think i have the right to close, do i not? the chair: the gentleman is correct. mr. campbell: can i ask how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from california has a minute and a half. mr. campbell: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, you know, the fiscal and financial status of this country is at an unprecedented low. we will have a deficit this year of probably over $2 trillion. president obama's budget projected deficit of $1 trillion a year as far as the eye can see. of the $1 million that will go to this museum that doesn't exist and may never exist, $460,000 of that will be borrowed.

much of that money will be borrowed from people in china and india and other places. and i guess i would ask, mr. chairman, in this time of great fiscal strain, in this time when people are losing their jobs, in this time when we have a gigantic deficit, gigantic debt, borrowing money from all around the world and a congress and a president who seem to be unwilling or unable to stop spending and spending and spending, isn't it at least this, can't we at least not spend $1 million on something that doesn't even exist and hasn't been fully funded? can't we at least stop here? i tell you, mr. chairman, if this sort of spending, this sort of $1 million on a local project subsidizing privately funded museum that doesn't even exist, if this is $1 million we can save, then i think the message to the american people is this congress is absolutely unwilling to save any of their

money and to reduce these deficits in the future, which is not just a problem for our children and grandchildren, it's a problem for us. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. olver: mr. chairman, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is yielded 30 seconds and is recognized. mr. pastor: i thank the gentleman for yielding and to inform him and our members that the committee supports the -- and the construction of the museum and opposing the amendment. we are urging no on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. olver: i would just reiterate in thin stance that all of this money goes to achieve those specific goals for providing zero carbon footprint and net zero energy

usage in this to be constructed museum. all of the techniques, an array of techniques, i mentioned five or six, but the array of techniques, all of those will be available as demonstrations for all of the visitors, all of the years of the future of this museum. and he worries that it may never be constructed. well, if they don't raise the money, which i expect them to do and to be able to be in construction quite as fast as a good many of our recovery projects might get into construction, but certainly within this and the next fiscal year, that none of that money gets expended. so there is no harm at all in that, an otherwise we have a very fine museum and a very

fine demonstration project which hundreds of thousands of people will see over the next decade. so i would -- i hope that the amendment will be rejected. i urge a no vote on the amendment. and 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 california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. campbell: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: on that i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: -- the chair: what amendment number does the gentleman seek to offer? mr. flake: number 60 -- sorry. number 1. number 1. the chair: number 1. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 645, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: mr. chairman, before proceeding with the time constraints here, i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified to the form i placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification.

the clerk: modification to part c, amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. flake of arizona. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following -- section, procurement and acquisition of alternative fuels. none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act may be used to carry out or pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 2007. public law 110-140, 42, u.s.c., 171-42. the chair: is there opposition to the modification -- is there objection to the modification? mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i object. the chair: objection is heard. the gentleman from arizona is recognized.

mr. flake: may i inquire why the gentleman objects? we were told this appropriation process, particularly today's bill, was under a modified structured rule, simply because of time constraints. i'm simply offering to modify my amendment to reflect an amendment that was offered but not accepted by the committee. so no more time would be consumed. this is an amendment that is in order, it's germane, and i would just ask the gentleman why the objection is being heard? mr. pastor: the -- mr. flake: i would ask the chair to ask the gentleman. i would yield to the gentleman for a response, if he'd respond to why he's objecting.

mr. pastor: this amendment was made in order by the rules committee, i don't have the authority to change or modify, so rather than get into the debate, i thought it was imp -- it was in proper form to object. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i have to go back to my original amendment. let me make the point and i'll be making it frequently coming up, so if the gentleman or other mace want to consult with the rules committee, we were told at the beginning of this process, we would be restricted in terms of what we can offer simply because of time. we can't have so many amendments that would take so much time, 108 amendments offered, we'd never be able to get them done in time, we were told. here we have a bill, the time constraints are set. we are told that some 20 amendments are going to be offered. we're simply asking to swap out amendments. we were told by the leader that

-- he said, the majority leader said, we have an obligation to get our work done. i'm sorry, the appropriations chairman. so what mr. hoyer and i did was offer the minority leader an opportunity and a compressed number of amendments to select their own amendments, any amendments they wanted. but they did not want to limit the number of time. here we are saying, we will agree to the time, and we're simply asking for unanimous consent to allow us to offer the amendments we'd like to offer. and they're objecting. so, mr. speaker, all you can conclude, again is that the majority simply doesn't want to take votes on these amendments. we're for the first time in years, in decades, we're shutting down an appropriations process and say, you can't offer the amendments you want. you only offer the amendments we want. that's wrong.

i want to make that point, i'll be making it again and again. i don't blame the gentleman from arizona, he's not authorized here but his party has told us, we're only compressing and having basically martial law in terms of appropriations bills because of compressed time. we're agreeing to the compressed time. we're simply say, allow us to offer the amendments that are germane, that we want to offer. we're being told no. you only offer the amendments we want to hear. that's what we're being told here. i want to register an objection to that because we should have the freedom to offer the amendments we've offered like we've been able to do for decades. with that, let me get to the substance of the amendment this amendment would strike $1.5 million for the merit center at crowder college in missouri. may i ask about the time remaining?

the chair: the gentleman has 1:15 remaining. mr. flake: i thank the chair. according to the website, the merit center, it's also known as the missouri alternative renewable technology center, been around since 1992. it's been funded several time with earmacks, received, i think, $3 million in earmarks. when we have a deficit nearing $2 trillion this year, i think it behooves us to find areas where we can save and an earmark that goes to a college to study renewable energy when we're doing that all over in the budget in this bill and others, i believe it behooves us to save the money where we can. this amendment would strike that funding and save it in the bill. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise?

>> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment and yield to mr. blunt of missouri. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blunt: first i want to thank the chairman, chairman pastor, and ranking member frelinghuysen for recognizing the importance of this center, the missouri alternative renewable energy center located at crowder college, i'm even glad that congressman flake created an opportunity to speak about the project. i think the more we determine how we're deciding how to spend money, the better off the country is. i also think that it's good to understand that not every decision on where to spend our research and development money should be made by the current administration or by the current department of energy. in fact, i'm proud of the resedge we're doing in southwest missouri and it has already had and will continue to have an impact regionally

and nationally on renewable energy technology. this center will serve as a living laboratory. it already serves as a living laboratorying modeling the best practices for solar and thermodynamic energy systems and striving to go even beyond zero energy consumption. through these efforts, it has served as a regional center. the project we're talking about today integrates a variety of green construction practices such as earth shelter design, a green roof, rainwater harvesting and low volatile organic compounds interiors and furnishings. this is designed to be one of the very first working examples of a net positive energy structure. in other words, this won't be a structure that just produces its own energy, it actually will be a structure that produces all the energy it uses

and goes beyond a netzero building to put energy back into the grid and provide distributed power to the electric utility company that serves the college. crowder college has long been a pioneer in renewable energy. in 1984, crowder college, a junior college a two-year clg, designed and bill the first solar powered vehicle to cross the united states. these are southwest missouri kids out of high school in their first or second year of post-high school training built the first solar car that did that. the same group, the same school, finished second behind general motors in the first world solar challenge in australia in 1982. in 2001, the fuel efficiency category of the second ethanol vehicle challenge. that's a vehicle, by the way that is still used on the campus as a maintenance vehicle.

this group this school won the people's choice award in 2002 in washington, d.c. for the solar house competition. so they don't come to this competing for federal funds without having had successes. they don't come without having done things that others have copied and shared and looked at, but they come asking for this funding not only to help design, engineer, and construct a center that's about to go out for bid, but also to use that funding to help people learn how to use these building techniques right there on the campus, learning how to create jobs, we talk a lot about, here, about green energy jobs. this is a center that will actually be used as a laboratory in the building process to teach others how to do this green energy job creation and green energy building. as we know, buildings consume 48% of the nation's energy. the merit center will consume zero% of the nation's energy and in fact will put energy

back into the system. programs like this are crucial to the efforts we have for our economy and our national security. our nation needs to have a new energy policy, an all of the above strategy, and this is definitely part of that all of the above strategy system of i urge my colleagues to look at this issue, look at it carefully, look at a program that has already had national impact and help this small two-year college continue to do the things they've been doing for over 20 years now to help establish green jobs and green technology. i'd love to see our colleagues come to southwest missouri and see what's happening at the center because people from all over america will be following their efforts and will benefit from this investment in the future. i yield my time back to my friend from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

mr. pastor: i want to inform our colleagues that the committee is opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. >> i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining. mr. flake: 30 seconds. -- the chair: 30 seconds. mr. flake: this sounds like a great program. there are a lot of other university this is a would love to compete for these dollars. that's the problem with the earmarking process we have. members of congress are able to pick and choose and we typically take from those accounts where we have money set aside for competition. where people can based on merit, rather than political designation, compete for these funds. with that, i ask for support for the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: on that, mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause eight of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: before proceeding with my amendment, mr. chairman, so that i won't gobble up my time, i would move that the committee rise so that the whole house may entertain unanimous consent request to modify my amendment. the chair: the gentleman's request is not in order according to the rule. does the gentleman seek to offer an amendment? mr. flake: i do. i have an amendment at the desk.

number three. the chair: does the gentleman seek to offer amendment number three? mr. flake: yes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number three, printed in 40us report 111-209, offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified to the form i placed at the desk. mr. pastor: i object. chip the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to part c, earment number three, printed in house report 111-to 9, offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the

following section -- mr. flake: my unanimous consent has been rejected already. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: i want to make the point again here, that i offered a unanimous consent request to stick within the time frames we've been given by the majority party. the majority party said to us, they said, mr. obey said, we have an obligation to get our work done so what mr. hoyer and i did was to offer the minority leader to offer a compressed number of amendment, and select their own amendments, any amendment they wanted, but they don't want to be limited by number of time. i don't fault them for that, i'm simply stating the facts. here we are with the facts. we're willing to be limited by time. we have the constraints. all we want to do is have the ability to offer our own amendments. and we're not being given that ability. the majority party has objected to a unanimous consent request

not to offer an amendment that is not germane or that would not be made in order, just an amendment that they don't want to vote on. this is the second time. it'll probably happen again and again and again. i don't fault the gentleman from arizona. he's carrying out the wishes of the leadership. but i want people to recognize what's happening here. we have what amounts to martial law on appropriation bills this year. for no reason other than the majority party wants to select the amendments that they want to vote on. not because of time constraints, we're living within the time constraints, we're ok with going with the time constraints. but we're simply being objected to here and not allowed to offer the amendments we want to aumple with regard to this amendment, this amendment would remove $3 million from the consortium for plant biotechnology research and reduce the overall cost of the

amendment by a commensurate amount. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member seek time in opposition? >> i seek five minutes to speak in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. i'd like to thank chairman visclosky, all of the energy and water subcommittee members for their leadership on this important legislation and their support for this project. this is a good bill and this is a good project. it will protect america's waterways and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. i ask my colleagues to support this bill. this amendment that the gentleman from arizona offers would remove funding for a project that would speed the transition of biotechnology from the laboratory to the marketplace. since 1989, mr. chairman, the consortium for plant biotechnology research has

steered more than $122 million towards energy research projects that are chosen on the basis of scientific merit and their importance for building a renewable energy economy, especially from biomass. the contosh yum works with more than -- consortium works with more than 50 research universities in the united states of america. and matches those universities with private entities which transform their lab work into technology that can be introduced into the economy, creating jobs in the rapidly growing alternative energy sector. this is a picture of a wonderful public-private partnership that so many on both sides of the aisle talk about. through the consortium for plant biotechnology research, the federal dollars made available by this earmark are matched 130% with nonfederal funds so that for every $1 the

government punts in the private sector puts in $1.30 for a total of $2.30 worth of research. recently, mr. chairman, rutgers university in my home state of new jersey, part nerd with the consortium for plant biotechnology and research. rutgers' work is focused on creating plants that will require less fertilizer to grow. the result being less energy used in the manufactured fertilizer, cheaper crops and easily produced biomass that can be converted into clean energy. the result is a tremendously efficient research that is cheaper, will give us better crops and next generation of clean, renewable biofuels. mr. chairman, if we're going to combat global warming and break america's dependence on foreign oil, investing in research into the next generation of locally

generated renewable biofuels is crucial. the consortium for plant biotechnology research facilitates exactly that, and i am proud to support this earmark. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment, and i thank you for the time. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. may i ask of the time remaining? the chair: three minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. one of the 11 co-sponsors -- sponsors of this earmark described this organization to receive it as a, quote, nonprofit corporation. a quick glance at its membership roster shows that in addition to 45 well-endowed university members, 46 for-profit corporations also partner this consortium. among them are prock ter and gamble and -- procter & gamble and midwest veco. there is a lot of money for this institution as well.

and here again we have a deficit of nearly $2 trillion, and yet we're spending $3 million on an earmark for a consortium for plant biotechnology research that already receives funding from a lot of private sector organizations and are simply adding on with another earmark. again, it's the case here that when you earmark dollars in this case you're removing dollars from the account that universities and other organizations can compete for. we have -- we have over at the federal agencies we have a mandate that they compete out these kind of projects. people compete on the basis of merit. yet here when we skim money off the top and earmark it for certain organizations, there's less money for other colleges and organizations and

universities to compete for. and that's simply not right. and as we've said over and over again, it amounts to quite a spoil system because just a few people, relatively few people in the house get the bulk of the dollars that actually go toward earmarks. and so, mr. chairman, i would ask for a favorable vote on this amendment. we simply need to save money where we can. when we're running nearly a $2 trillion deficit by the time we get to the end of the fiscal year,. -- and when i came to congress eight years ago, our fiscal budget was nearly $2 trillion. our deficit will reach nearly that amount. and still we're earmarking dollars right and left to universities and other organizations that have big endowments already or have private sectors partners who already contribute money, and still we're saying they need more. where does it end?

when do we say enough is enough? i would submit that we should say it right here on this earmark, and i urge support for the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. rothman: thank you. may i ask the chair how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes, the gentleman from new jersey. mr. rothman: i thank the chair. i yield to the distinguished chairman, mr. pastor. mr. pastor: thank you for yielding. just to inform mr. rothman that we are against the amendment and support your earmark. mr. rothman: i thank the chairman. there are good investments and there are bad investments. i think one would find it difficult and unreasonable to stay that in the present world climate, economic climate, as well as energy climate that the united states doesn't need to do more to become energy independent. we do need to do more. this is a public-private partnership involving 50 research universities in the

united states where for every dollar of federal money the private sector invests $1.30 to come up with ways to provide renewable energy in a clean fashion and clean green american jobs. i urge the opposition to this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: mr. speaker, on that i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise?

mr. flake: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk designated as number 4 of part c. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 645, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form that i placed at the desk. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, i object. the chair: objection is heard. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i thought the third time might be the charm but apparently not. let me just make the case again. the reason that we have martial law this year on appropriations bills is because we were told we need to stay on a time structure.

that was a bit suspect to start with. we're finished with voting today. we finished i think just before 4:00. we'll be finished with these amendments and be out of here by 5:00 p.m. that's 2:00 on the west coast. done for the night. and we still -- and we don't have time to make in order a few other amendments? but here if that were the case, ok. we're accepting the time constraints. we accept, the majority party believes we should be done at 3:00 or 4:00 today. and so we'll say, let's just substitute one of the amendments we'd like to offer for one of the ones that we had made in order under the rule. yet the majority party says no. we only want to vote on the amendments we want to vote on. not the ones you want to offer. so let's get rid of once and for all the excuse that this is a matter of time, that the minority party simply won't give to live within the time structures.

that's simply untrue. we are agreeing here to live within the time restraints, unreasonable though they may be from the majority party as long as we can offer the amendments we'd like to offer but we're not being allowed that. we've asked for three unanimous consent requests. each have been objected to. mr. chairman, this amendment would strike $5,000 in funding for ethanol from agriculture at arkansas state university and would reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commence rate amount. mr. chairman, again, we see what we know that is probably best referred to as a spoil system. one member -- one appropriator said to me the other day, i wish you wouldn't use that term. i don't know if there's a less term that can be used but here's the case. so far the earmark dollars that have flown out with the appropriation bills so far, powerful members of congress --

these are appropriators and those who are chairmen or ranking minority members. they represent about 24% of this body. yet, when you look at the earmark dollars in c.j.s., 58% went to just 24% of the body. homeland security, 68%. interior, 64%. agriculture, 67%. milcon/v.a., 52%. energy and water, this bill, 58% goes to just 24% of the body. it's a spoil system. i don't know any other term to use. spoilers, i guess. that's the problem with earmarking. it's not that dollars are wasted or that dollars in defense bills are basically given out as no-bid contracts. it's that a small number of people in this body control too

many of the dollars. and we're told that we shouldn't let some faceless bureaucrat over in some agency decide where to spend the money because it's our role under the constitution here in congress. but if you accept that, you have to accept the fact that every member of congress knows their district better than some faceless bureaucrat, as it's always said. but why if that's the case, why do appropriators and other members in leadership know their districts so much better than everybody else around here? so it seems to be a bit of a spoil system here, mr. chairman. on this earmark with ethanol, we're spending a lot of money on ethanol. when you take the farm bill into account, when you take just about everything we're doing into account, with the energy bills that have been passed, it's not as if we're starving this beast. there is a lot of money going, and here, again, we're sending a half million dollars more when we have a deficit nearing $2 trillion.

with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> to seek time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. berry: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank our chairman, mr. visclosky and mr. pastor and ranking member, mr. frelinghuysen, for putting together a really good bill and the staff has done an outstanding job with all of this. and we certainly appreciate all the hard work that they've done and continue to do. it would be the most foolish thing we could possibly do in this country. we have economically succeeded and lived off of the great research, most of it that was begun before world war ii, continued after world war ii and made us the technology leader in the world. it has tremendous economic

benefits. for us to now pursue a course to say that we don't need to do research, that it doesn't serve a good purpose, the research that is being done at arkansas state university by the arkansas biosciences institute that was created and funded by the state of arkansas and tremendous investments have gone into that institute and great work is being done there. some of it, a very small part of it is being funded by the federal government. that is most appropriate. what this does is to make it possible to take the straw that is left after you harvest an acre of rice and convert it to 270 gallons of ethanol. that's after you take the grain off of it.

it makes all the sense in the world to do this. this would also be applicable to other crops. we're talking about using something that right now just lays there and rots, and turning it into fuel that is -- that is environmentally friendly. it makes absolutely no sense not to continue this research and bring it to fruition and put it on the ground and make it work for the american people and renew -- reduce our need for foreign oil. so i rise in strenuous opposition to this amendment and would ask the house to join me in being opposed to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time? mr. berry: i do. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the chair: one minute.

mr. flake: we spend upwards of, cumulative in subsidies, $420 billion, an average of $28 billion on ethanol. we keep hearing year after year after year, we just need a seed corn here, we need to it prime the pump, it'll take care of itself later. 30 years later, we're still subsidizing at $28 billion annually. then we have to mandate use for it. you can make ethanol out of an old boot if you spend enough energy doing it. at some point, you have to question, are we doing the right thing here? when we're already spending $28 billion annually, does it make sense to throw in another $500,000 to arkansas state university? are they going to discover something that $28 billion annually for 38 years has not discovered? at some point we have to say we have a $2 trillion deficit and we have priorities here. so, mr. chairman, i would

suggest we have to start somewhere. please, with this program. let's save some money. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. berry: i continue to be opposed to amendment. i'm proud of the work that's been done at the arkansas biosciences institute. i think it's the kind of investment this government needs to make in research and development to make sure that we continue to be the leader in the world in these areas and with that, i ask my fellow members to vote against this amendment and i yield back the balance of. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

mr. flake: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk designated as number five in part cr. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number five, printed in house report 111-209, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 645, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form i placed at the desk. mr. pastor: i object. the chair: the objection is heard.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. flake: let the record state, four times now, four times asking unanimous condition sent to swap for an amendment we would like to offer rather than one the majority party would like to hear. but again, it's rejected. this amendment would prohibit $2 million funding for the fort mason center pier two earmark and reduce the overall cost of the bill by an commensurate amount. according to the sponsor, and i don't see the sponsor sere today, the fort mason center pier operates as a center for urban planning and on and on. this is not the first earmark for the fort mason center by the same sponsor. that year, the sponsor directed a $13 million earmark to the center for seismic upgrades. according to the sponsor, this year's earmark was requested

for costs associated with repairs related to sustainability and inefficiency as well as seismic safety and patron access. according to its website, the center embodies the essence of san francisco, nearness to nature, combined with a nod to -- combined with novel a tengture, a nod to the past. the center hosts a lot of events annually. i suspect that more than a few of the attendees made their way to the center's cowell theater last year. which is on the same premises, i believe. now, i don't know why in the world we keep earmarking dollars for centers like this. they clearly are in areas, in this case san francisco, where there is other funding or other funding is already used.

but in this case, we have a particularly powerful individual who requested the earmark, who is able to get it time and time again. so we're seeing this earmark funded. at what point do we say, we have to make priorities here? when off deficit that may hit $2 trillion this year, at what point do we say we can't spend another $2 million for the fort mason center pier two earmark? with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: before i get into the substance of fort mason center, what i'd like to announce is there was concern expressed regarding the manager's amendment, especially as it related to the vehicle purchase as outlined in that manager's amendment. i am committing to work with

all members to address that their concerns will be addressed in conference. the gentleman from arizona is right. we have a congressionally directed mark in this bill that will assist this fort mason center to continue its best practices and its development. he is correct. since this base was basically closed down, this area has been developing to assist the people of san francisco and surrounding areas. as a center for culture, education, and recreation. it's located on the northwest side of san francisco and includes a number of buildings

and piers and at least a space -- and leases space to 24 nonprofit organizations. the gentleman from arizona is correct, this is an earmark that continues the development of the center and the attempt of this earmark is to specifically incorporate sustainable design and construction strategies consistent with lead, silver certification and the likelihood it will be better than that certification. the development of this center, the continuing development of the center will now include more and extensive use of solar, wind energy, and will serve as a model for sustainable practices within a historically sensitive context. so with that, i would request an -- a no to the amendment and

reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i would inquire as to the time remaining. the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. flake: i would yield to the gentleman from arizona if he'd indicate whose earmark this is. mr. pastor: this earmark's sponsor is the congresswoman from san francisco. mr. flake: i believe that's the speaker of the house. i mentioned before that the center contains a theater called the cowell theater. last year they can earmark's sponsor went on a 12-city tour with her new book, "know your power: a message to america's daughters." i think that the member who requested this earmark certainly knows her power and that's part of the problem with this earmark process. again, let me point out in this piece of legislation, the energy and water bill, 58% of

the funding is going to just 24% of the body. people who know their power and know that they can get earmarks. we hear a lot of high-minded rhetoric about earmarks, that we're doing it because we know our district better than those bureaucrats and these bureaucrats shouldn't be able to choose because i know my district better but apparently, just a quarter of the members of the body seem to know their district better than everybody else, they keep getting the earmark dollars. we're earmarking dollars because we can here. sometimes to the same organizations or institutions that get it year after year after year. and when we're running a deficit that may hit $2 trillion, i think we ought to say enough is enough. the sponsor of this earmark appears to be associated with, either as loan sponsor or in

collaboration with other members, more than $87 million worth of earmarks last year and more than $94 million in earmarks the year before. knowing your power certainly helps around here. at some point, this body has to stand up and say, we can't continue to do this. we have to be stewards of the taxpayer money and i would submit that when we're returning a $2 trillion deficit this year we may hit that coming up, that now is the time to say we can't continue to fund earmarks like this. i would ask for support of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona, mr. pastor. mr. pastor: i would tell my dear friend from arizona, and he is a dear friend, that this year, we -- our colleagues, at least those from arizona that requested congressional directed earmarks in this bill, are part of that 24% and i'm

happy to belong to it. so we'll continue to work with mr. flake and other members of congress and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk, designated as number 10 in part crmbing. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number 10, printed in house report 111-209, offered by mr.

flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 645, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the manner at the desk. mr. pastor: for the fifth time, i object. the chair: objection is heard. the gentleman is recognized. mr. flake: i can't say i'm shocked by now. this is the fifth time, i guess. this is the fifth time we've asked for unanimous consent to offer the amendment this is a we would like to offer on this side of the aisle, but again, we've been -- this request has been rejected, not because of time constrains. we're living within the time constraints. it's because the majority party seems to only want to entertain amendments that they know they can defeat. they don't want anything controversial on the floor. so we're breaking with tradition that has held for decades and decades if not a

century in this house, where you have open appropriations bills. instead, we have a sort of martial law with appropriations bills where they come under a modified rule that only allows the amendments that the majority chooses to hear, not the ones members want to offer. that's -- that simply disenfranchises most members of this body. i should say on both sides of the aisle. many amendments that were bipartisan amendments or amendments offered by democrats were rejected as well because the leadership of this body and the majority party simply didn't want to hear those amendments. this amendment would prevent $300,000 in funding for the witworth university for stem equipment and to reduce the cost to the bill by a commensurate amount. stem stands for science, technology, engineering, and math. whitworth is a private liberal arts institution. the stem equipment provided by this earmark would b