regions of our country. the fact that in fiscal year 2010, the president designated $1.2 billion of the budget towards climate change research. this is on top of agencies that spent an additional $8.7 billion on climate change research in the same fiscal year. the president's fiscal 2012 proposed budget allocates for funding for this type of research sm as the program hangs in the balance and tens of thousands of jobs, it is time for congress to return nasa's directives back to the original intent and keeping america in front as a global leader in space exploration and helping to rebuild struggling communities in the process. i would like to thank representatives wilsons and posey and chairman wolf agreeing to work with our offices as a regular fiscal year 2012 appropriation process proceeds. thank you and i yield back the

rest of my time to representative olson. . mr. schiff: i'll be brief. it is important with the many space centers around the country in terms of the important jobs it provides. but i don't want to see us rob peter to pay paul within the sciences to go of after the earth sciences budget which is also critically important to the nation's future. when with we look at some of

the breathtaking and disastrous weather patterns we've seen around the world, whether it was the incredible and tragic flooding in australia and that in south america, the ability to understand better the nature of our climate and climate change is not only extraordinarily important in terms of saving lives but in terms of what is happening to our planet. we also drive a lot of commercial benefits from our investment not only in earth science but space science as well. these investments pay enormous dividends and technologies that have become a part of all of our homes now. this is an investment i think we want to continue to make and make strongly and while i again am a fervent supporter of our space program, i don't think any one portion of our space budget or science budget ought to be cannibalizing the other. we do have to make sacrifices and we're going to have to scruletize every program that is not -- scrutinize every

program that is not working well or is not efficient, eliminate any waste and even programs that are working but not working well enough. but in terms of our investment in the future, in terms of our investment in understanding our planet, it would be, i think, very shortsighted for us to be cutting those budgets and cutting that vital research. i thank the gentleman for withdrawing the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 206, line 8, section 1336. the level for national aeronautics and space administration cross agency support shall be $3,131 ,000,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to discuss a amendment i filed with mr. wu of oregon but will not be offering. instead in a minute i will be

engaging chairman wolf in a brief colloquy. our goal is simple, to preserve funding in f.y. 2010 levels for two critical national weather service programs. we drafted this amendment because these are two programs that save lives. many americans might not realize it, but the weather forecast we all get from the internet, the weather channel, or from local tv or radio are all built on the raw data provided by the national weather service. these are the same weather reports that are relied upon every day by emergency responders, pilots, and sailors. my goal is to protect local warnings and forecast centers around the country, along with the severe storm center, the national hurricane center, and the aviation weather center. without these centers, we wouldn't have daily forecasts or flood warnings and air travel would be significantly more dangerous.

the national weather service has been essentially flat funded since 1995. much-needed equipment is needed for repair or replacement. as a country we simply can't afford to cut back any further on the service that saves lives, allows us to plan for it and respond to weather emergencies and enables air travel. i am concerned about the adverse impact that this cut could have on essential services. now, i understand that my colleague from virginia, chairman wolf, shares some of my concerns and i would like to engage in a brief colloquy on this topic. mr. chairman, i know that this legislation requires the department of commerce to produce a plan -- produce a spending plan that explains how we'll implement these cuts. would you be willing to work with me to make sure the plan reflects the important work done by the national weather service and does not adversely affect critical services. mr. wolfe: if the gentleman would yield.

mr. lipen ski: i yield. -- mr. lipinski: i yield. mr. wolfe: we will ensure as we review the f.y. 2011 spend plan, that all activities are sufficiently funded. mr. wolf: i also have a large weather service in my district and appreciate your hard work and is one of the most important things noah -- n.o.a. does with the weather and i will work with him will on the issues to protect the issues the gentleman is raising. mr. lipinski: i appreciate chairman wolf's willingness to work with me on this important issue and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the clerk will read. the clerk: section 1337, the level for national aeronautics and space administration, construction and environmental compliance and remediation

shall be $408,300,000. section 1338, transfer limitations described in the administrative provisions of division b of public law 117 shall not apply to funds available under the following headings. national aeronautics and space administration aeronautics, national aeronautics and space administration space operations and national aeronautics and space administration education. section 1339. none of the funds may be used for the national aeronautics and space administration or the office of science and technology policy to participate, collaborate, or coordinate with china or any chinese owned company unless such activities are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this division. section 1340, amounts are provided for legal services corporation, shall be modified by substituting $350 million

for $420 million. $342,400,000 for $394,400,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 173 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from tennessee may proceed. mr. cohen: thank you, sir. i'm pleased to offer the amendment which many members of the judiciary committee worked on behalf of legal services in the past including -- many members of the judiciary committee have championed legal services over the years and none greater than bobby scott who is a member of the committee for some time and

current ranking member mr. conyers and mr. nadler and ms. jackson lee and others. it is so important in giving people representation and this amendment will restore $70 million being cut, that's 17.5% of the money legal services got in the past. legal service is woefully underfunded. if you look at the funding they've gotten the last 30 years and pro rated it, they've been behind in funds a long time and we tried to make it up in the past years. the funding has turned around -- right now they turn away half of all eligible clients who seek assistance. slashing the funds would make it worse. the fact is in these dire economic times, some of the worst we've seen, though they're getting better, more and more people need legal services. the housing crisis is not over with. and one of the major areas they work with is people who are having problems with foreclosures because of unscrupulous loans that they've been given and there will be more and more people losing their homes or potentially losing their homes needing legal services.

and if they don't have legal representation and they lose those homes, neighborhoods are hurt, individuals are hurt, and that's a major cost on the economy. the executive director of the memphis legal services, harrison mciver set the cuts would be devastating and it remains a resource for low-income individuals for services they have. it would require laying off five attorneys and take seven or 25 fewer cases. the memphis area legal services, as other legal clinics, helps victims of domestic violence with abusive orders as well as assisting folk with foreclosures and elderly who have been victimized. think of how many will be in danger without access to the courts, how many families will become homeless without the foreclosure assistance and how many seniors go prey to predator homes without help. how many will have the courthouse doors closed in their face.

the fact is, mr. speaker, that legal service is more needed in dire economic times than any other time. and while cuts, and i understand the majority's positions about saying they were elected to make cuts, they weren't legislated to make cruel cuts that hurt the most vulnerable people in situations that aren't of their own making and that they fall prey to predator lenders or abusive spouses or people who prey on seniors in abusive ways. this is targeting the most vulnerable people in our society. i realize that there isn't an offset on this and i realize the reason mr. wolf made his point. and i understand, too, somewhat and feel a little bit of kinship with the roman gladiators who when they went into the field of combat, told the emperor that we who are about to die salute you. and knowing kind of what the situation is, i also understand that --

[speaking foreign language] and with that i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. does the gentleman from virginia reserve his point of order? mr. wolf: i do. the chair: the gentleman's point of order is reserved. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to speak in support of what my colleague from tennessee has said. mr. schiff: in the united states, access to justice shouldn't be available only for those who can afford it. i think most americans recognize that we have an out-of-control deficit and debt, that we need tough action to deal with that, and i think americans irrespective of party are ready to make sacrifices. the president's budget i think indicates that there are going to be some tough days ahead and there are going to be some of the efforts that we have supported in the past we can't afford to support any more. but at the same time i think the american people recognize

that there is a lot of waste in government that can be eliminated without harming people, that a lot of inefficiencies can and must be eliminated. but they also don't want in these difficult economic times for our first steps to be to take away vital resources from those who are most in need, or from middle income families that are trying to stay in their homes. one of the things -- one of the reasons why legal services has been so busy the last several years is because of the foreclosure crisis where many who are being forced out of their homes who can't afford counsel have nowhere to turn and have increasingly turned to legal services for help to try to get them to stay in their home. imagine what we're telling those families that are struggling to stay in their homes that we are now going to defund the lawyer that's been helping them. i don't think that's where we need to go in order to balance our budget. legal services corporations, the largest funder of legal

services for low-income americans, and for the growing population of americans who have no income because they can't find work. legal services helps ensure representation before courts is available to all americans no matter what their income, their station in life, or what their circumstances happen to be. the programs help single women trying to keep their families together, victims of domestic violence, elderly americans trying to avoid foreclosures and an increasing number of veterans arriving home from service in iraq and afghanistan who are unable to find jobs. federal funding for l.s.c. makes up 40% of the operating income of those programs and the rest comes from state funding, support from the private bar and lawyer trust accounts. the economy sending more people to the door of legal aid offices at any time in history has also sapped those other sources of funding. the c.r. gives legal services to the poor by $70 million,

which is a cut compared to the current level. there's no question we need to find savings in the budget and we are and will and stand ready to work with our colleagues across the aisle to find cuts that make sense. but to make a drastic cut to a program at a time that's keeping people in their homes and where people are struggling most is not the most proficient place to find savings and i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman from virginia continue to reserve his point of order? does the gentleman continue to reserve -- mr. wolf: i do. the chair: for what purpose does the other the gentleman from seek recognition? mr. scott: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scott: i thank the gentleman from tennessee for offering the amendment and the gentleman from california for his remarks. legal services corporation programs are forced to already reject over half the cases that have come before them. .

this makes matters worse by firing legal services corporation attorneys. our justice system promises fairness to all litigants but when they are unable to afford a lawyer and unable to afford a divorce or solve child custody dispute. we need to make sure justice is more than just an idea. one supreme court justice suggests that the justice one gets should not depend on the amount of money they have. two months ago, we passed the tax cuts that gave tax relief to multi millionaires. it would be tragic if legal services corporation funding for legal aid lawyers was cut to help pay for those tax cuts to multi millionaires. mr. chairman, the legal services corporation needs to be fully

funded and should defeat this c.r. and come up with a solution to fund legal services corporation. i thank the gentleman from california. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized on his point of order. mr. wolf: i reserve my point of order. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: i would like to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: if you stay around here long enough, you see things happening. i think of the chairman of the full committee, mr. rogers, i'm reminded of the fact, two very interesting things. one, that it was mr. wolf and i, and mr. rogers and i who made sure difficult years long time ago that the legal services corporation would stay alive and grow and strengthen itself and

support those who needed help in our community. and as i said if you stay around long enough, then you see the other side, which is the same folks accepting a cut that would devastate this agency. the other irony is that this, as i said so many times years before when i was the ranking member on this committee and some folks have tried to cut, that this was richard nixon, president nixon's baby. this was one of the highlights, i believe, of his career, that he felt that every american had the right to legal representation. and so in the times that we're in and with the desire of some folks to go after certain agencies, legal services corporation becomes a good

target. but it indeed is a bad target to go after, because as we hear more and more talk about protecting, supporting and keeping the constitution alive, what better show than to allow folks legal representation. when we say in the pursuit of happiness, all that has certain meaning to me and all of us. but at the center of that, maybe the ability to have representation and to have your day in court. there are folks who can't afford a lawyer and the legal services corporation is helping. now, mind you, throughout the years, folks like myself have accepted the fact that they have great limitations placed on them. there are a lot of things they can't do, but there are still a lot of good things they can do. i would hope you would support this amendment. more than that, as we look

forward or look sadly forward to this massive behavior of cuts across the board, that we realize there is some basic need and basic protections that we need. this is one of them. and this is a sad day indeed when i see so many of us who work to preserve the legal services corporation now engage in perhaps seeing its demise. and i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman from virginia continue to reserve his point of order? mr. wolf: i do. the chair: for what purpose does gentlelady seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i offered a similar amendment that strikes the elimination of $35 million. rather than do that's correct i'm going to join in support of mr. cohen's amendment.

mine was striking the full $75 million that was being taken from the legal services corporation. and i think it's difficult -- earlier today, i was on the floor explaining what a continuing resolution is, because i know more than my colleagues are listening. what would actually happen if this cut was to go through is frankly that the services to the poor, meaning cases who are now in court, cases that are proceeding, would be suspended in air. frankly, you would deny justice to those who have begun to get some relief. this cut will impact 136 nonprofit legal service offices and frankly cut 300 legal aid attorneys, 136 offices across

america. this $75 million will stop mr. and mrs. jones in the middle of representation to save their home. this cut will stop mrs. smith from being able to get relief from a domestic violence situation because her lawyer or that family's lawyer will be fired. this cut will stop someone who has been defrauded, some senior citizen, who paid a contractor to fix their leaking roof in midextreme, will lose their lawyer. this is a denial of justice. and having had the privilege today of visiting the construction site at the martin luther king memorial, it was interesting i read these words, injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere and for us to cut the

very framework of the constitution that calls for justice, i believe, is something that should halt us on the very floor of this house and we should immediately accept the amendment without the point of order and allow these individuals to have the ability to be served. frankly, this is beyond the imagination of any of us. the board chairman, john g. levy of the legal services board said justice is a hollow promise without the legal services corporation. he is absolutely right. and as i indicated, i, too, wanted to strike the elimination of $75 million from the legal services corporation, but the greater insult is the fact that work that is proceeding as we speak would be eliminated, 300

lawyers, 136 nonprofit offices and how many hundreds upon hundreds and maybe thousands of clients who would not have the opportunity to be served. so i would ask my colleagues to consider what we do here in this place and consider what a continuing resolution will do mid-extreme about resources that could be taken from the section of department of justice. it means you would stop cases dealing with the enforcement of the right to vote. let us not deny justice tonight and i ask my colleagues to support the taking away or the adding back, excuse me, of the $75 million to the legal services corporation. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. does the gentleman from virginia insist on on his point of order? mr. wolf: i do. i appreciate the comments of mr. serrano and the other members on

the other side of the aisle. i share many of those concerns. however, as the chairman knows, there is not an offset to this bill and the amendment proposes a net increase. the amendment is not in order under section 3-j-3, which states it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposed in an equal or greater decrease and such budget authority pursuant to 2-f of rule 21. the amendment proposes a net increase in the bill. thereforeit is a violation. the chair: anyone wish to be heard on the point of order? ms. jackson lee: i respect the chairman and i know that he has as mr. serrano says, his own

commitment. i consider this an emergency and whether or not a point of order could be waived in light of the fact that cases that are now in litigation would be in, essence, left without representation either for the client or the case. i consider it a legal emergency, emergency dealing with justice questions and i would ask that the point of order be waived. the chair: does anyone wish to be heard? seeing none the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from virginia makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee violates section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. it establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. the charetr chair has been gaded by an estimate from the chair of the committee on budget that the amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore the point of order is sustained and the amendment is

not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i won't take the full-time here. the chair: does the gentleman seek to strike the last word? >> i have an amendment to offer. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment number 10 presented in the congressional record offered by mr. cunching and of south carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. dung mr. duncan: this amendment -- deals with the office of economic opportunity, legal services, later renamed. folks, let me remind you we have $1 trillion 5 and $14 trillion in debt and can't afford to pay

for bailouts. if we are serious about cutting spending in this body. this is exactly the kind of program that we will be cutting if we had a committee in place. that's why we need to pass house resolution 82. but this amendment zeros it allowing a small amount for agency audits to continue. this cut is in the reduction act which would eliminate the program entirely. a number of groups have advocated for the the l.s.c. it describes it as one of the top 10 most outrageous government programs. steven moore calls it a slush fund for special interests and the americans for limited government bill wilson says the corporation serves as the legal arm for left-wing causes and should be abottle issued. in noting for taking cases it

has been legislatively barred from, the heritage foundation declares if it would stop wasting funds representing people, it would have more money to spend representing the needy people. americans for tax reform calls it ineffective and notes their services are duplicated by state and private agencies. and just recently, the cato institutes notice it tuesdayes tax dollars in lobbying political activities and adds it should be abottle issued. i go to the amount of debt we have in this nation. the deficit spending that we have in this year's fiscal year. this is low-hanging fruit and if we are serious about cutting spending, this is an easy one to deal with. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

he -- the chair: you move to strike the last word? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. schiff: we can have reasonable debates about the deficit situation and the actions that should be taken but i don't think the hyperbole is add ink to the quality of the debate. when the legal services corporation is described as a trial lawyer bailout, it shows the misapprehension of what legal services does. for many americans, tens of thousands of americans who are at risk of having their house foreclosed out from under them, seeking assistance from legal services, to stay in your home, that's not a trial lawyer bailout. i don't think people go to legal services because they can't afford an attorney and want to stay in their home feel they are giving a bailout to lawyers and asking for help to stay in their

home. . it's also been described as a bastion for left-wing cause. i don't think it's a left-wing cause to help people to stay in their house. i don't think it's a left-wing cause when you have veterans coming back from iraq and afghanistan who need mental health services and need the advice of counsel and need the help of counsel to get services they're entitled to. i don't think it's a left-wing cause or a right-wing cause to want to foreclose on someone or it's a left-wing cause to try to keep them in their home. i think, frankly, this ought to be all of our cause, that people through no fault of their own, who are hard-working but have lost their job as a result of the economy or lost part of their income as a result of their economy and need help to stay in their home and this is the only place they can get it, only place they can afford a lawyer and anyone who tried to hire a lawyer knows how expensive that is.

i don't think that's a left-wing cause. and i just don't think it sheds much light on the debate. are there things that can be cut? yes. is the president's budget cutting them? yes. are there more cuts we're going to have to find? yes. but let's speak frankly about what this organization does and what it doesn't do, and if my colleagues have an issue to take with a particular legal services branch in a particular city, then we should take that cause in our committee, the commerce committee with our chairman mr. wolf. we do oversight to make sure that l.s.c. funds aren't being used to lobby congress, to make sure that only permissible purposes, funds are being used for in l.s.c.'s around the country. and the l.s.c.'s over the last several years have done extraordinarily well in that oversight and that oversight needs to continue and where l.s.c.'s can operate more

efficiently, they're going to have to because it's not just a problem in terms of the federal budget but all the states are cutting back as well. but i don't think we can really get to the heart of what we can -- where we can afford to make cuts, where the cuts will inflict the least pain if we're going to 5 overtize -- pajoatize many who offer their services pro bono who get no compensation whatsoever and demean them by saying this is a trial lawyers bailout. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i won't go into great length. the very fact the president has failed to address the issue of entitlement has walked away from his own commission, the

simpson-bowles, or the bowles commission that had the support of senator colbrunn and senator durbin lead to activities like this. many times the senators are forced to deal with this issue and we have $14 trillion in debt and in a statement i said several weeks ago, i said had i been a member of the commission, i would have voted for it. i think it was a missed opportunity. and i also said that failure to address the issue dealing with medicaid and social security will unfortunately result in many times the poor will be hurt. and in the bible it says in proverbs, when you live to the poor you loan to god. but the very fact that the administration, the president appoints a commission, comes out of a big press conference and then walks away from it leads you to some activity like this. this would wipe out legal services. so i strongly urge members to oppose the amendment and i urge members to contact the white house and ask them to support

an entitlement form for the simpson-bowles package. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. wolf: i will yield. mr. schiff: i thank for you yielding and i appreciate your opposition to the amendment. the big entitlement programs will have to be addressed. and what we're doing here in dealing with this small piece of the federal budget pie which is domestic discretionary spending, there's no way we can find enough savings to make a real dent in the magnitude of our deficit and debt. that has to be done. i can understand your frustration about it. it's a frustration i think we all share. i think the difficulty, frankly, the administration is having is probably the same difficulty that the majority is having, and that is whoever puts the proposal on the table first gets their head taken off. and i think probably the only way to get to yes, and there's no way we'll be able to reform the entitlement programs in a

partisan way, it has to be done in a bipartisan way, but both parties could come together and put something on the table together. i think that's what's going to have to happen. but you're right, there's no way we're going to make even a small dent in things until we have that bigger, more important conversation. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. wolf: reclaiming my time. i believe if president reagan were president of the united states today, he would provide the leadership, because he did in saving social security. it was the greenspan commission. and he worked with them in a bipartisan way. i think if we had a president like ronald reagan, we would be resolving these issues. but with that, i urge an opposition to the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from new york. >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the last thing we want to do, the last thing i want to do is prolong this debate this evening, it's getting late. mr. serrano: but i think what's

happening with these budget cuts under the disguise of budget cuts is we are discussing some very serious issues. and at times we use words or phrases that should not go unchallenged, and so, first of all, i want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his opposition to the amendment because he's got a history of being supportive, and he's a fiscal conservative. he knows that he wants to go after waste and high expenses and programs that don't function well, but he always has always had a belief that the person who may not have the most resources in this society should be given a shot at being protected. and i want to join mr. schiff in that we have to continue to be careful to say that this is a trial lawyers bailout when we in fact have had incredibly

serious bailouts in the last couple years. that's a bad statement to make. lastly, i'm old enough to remember president nixon, and i don't remember he went around creating left-wing causes or left-wing programs. and again, i repeat, and it bears repeating, this was his creation, because within that complex human being known as richard nixon, there were a couple of things that were very interesting to analyze, and one of them was his fundamental belief that everyone in this country needed the ability to be represented and represented properly. four, what's ironic is that the same folks who had destroyed the legal services corporation would not utter a word as we continue to protect people in this society, gain more power and wealth and never need a legal services lawyer for one

of their issues, one of their cases. and so as we look at these cuts, as we look at this desire to bring down the deficit, as we do all these things that i think on a bipartisan basis we believe have to be done, we also have to pay attention to the fact that we can't destroy that which is fundamentally sound in our society. cut here and there, i understand that. that train left the station a long time ago. destroy, totally wrong. and lastly, at the expense of repeating myself, you can on one hand claim we need to protect more than ever the constitution and then tell somebody with a home that's being foreclosed they can't afford a lawyer, that they can't get any assistance. this is the wrong way to go. i hope this amendment is defeated and defeated soundly. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: strike the

last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i appreciate the fact the gentleman from virginia opposes this but i wonder if there's any shame when it comes to legally gutting the legal services corporation, some $324 million and practically eliminating any opportunity for justice. i just want to repeat some of the words that were offered, slush fund for special interests, lobbying and political activities. we spent some time in the 1990's on the judiciary committee looking closely at the legal services corporation. and frankly gave generous oversight on some of the issues that might have suggested that there were other activities going on. when the legal services corporation's nonprofits come from around the nation, you're seeing members of the bar who are from major law firms, major leaders in the community who are on the boards of these

particular legal services, local offices, and they have the highest standard of legal excellence that they try to portray, and therefore try to encourage as relates to the representation of poor people. my brother-in-law to his death was a legal services lawyer in new york. not one time did i see him or hear of him doing anything other than attempting to do justice for people who could not achieve such. and i frankly believe, when you talk about a continuing resolution, make it very clear, it is stopping programs in the middle of operation. it is closing 136 offices in midstream. it is laying off 300 lawyers in the middle of litigation that they are pursuing to keep mrs. jones in her home and to keep an elderly person who has been

defrauded by an unscrupulous contractor, simply trying to fix an old home, they have no other option sometimes but a legal services lawyer. i hope we will see less of this. i might just say it's interesting we have a difference of opinion. frankly, i don't think the president has walked away from any financial commission report . the majority in this house has every opportunity to present their cuts to entitlement and to begin the discussion. the president has not indicated he is not interested. but while we recognize that this house is a revenue-generating house, and therefore with the responsibility now in the hands of republicans, it is appropriate for the chairman of the budget committee and others to present their proposal for such. the president's budget cuts the debt. the president's budget has strength in going forward.

but it has a purpose, competitiveness, morality, and of course to rebuild america. i'm waiting on the republicans to present their proposal. and i'm sure that we will look closely and be able to work in a bipartisan manner. but i would vigorously oppose any cuts of this measure at all to legal services corporation that is a mark for justice in this country. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time is expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> request the yeas and nays be taken. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? >> yes, sir. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered on the amendment by the the gentleman from south

carolina will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 208, line 16, section 1341, section 505 a-1 of division b of public law 11 1-117 is amended. section 1342, of the funds made available in division b of public law 111-117, $1,740,000,000 is rescinded. section 1343, an obligated balances available for emergency steel, oil and gas guaranteed loan program account , $48 million is rescinded. section 1344, an obligated balances are available are rescinded from office of justice programs, $42 million. community oriented policing services, $10 million.

title 4, energy and water development and related agencies. section 1401, all provisos under the heading corps of engineers, civil department of the department of the army, construction, the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act, 2010, public law 111-85, shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. . corps of engineers, civil department of the army, mississippi river and the energy water and development public law 111-85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1403, fifth pro adviceo, seventh proviso under the heading department of interior, bureau of reclamation, water and

related resources in the energy and water development 2010 public law 111-85, shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1404 all under the department of department of energy, energy programs, energy efficiency and renewable program in the energy and related agencies appropriations act 2010, public law 111-85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. sections 1405, all under the heading department of energy, energy programs, electricity deliveries and energy reliability in title 3 of the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act 2010, public law 111-85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1406, under the heading,

department of energy, energy programs, nuclear energy and title 3 of the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act 2010, public law 111-85, shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1407, second under the heading department of energy, energy programs, fossil energy research and development in title 3 of the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act 2010, public law 111-85, shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1408, all under the heading department of energy, energy programs, science in title 3 of the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act 2010, public law 111-85, shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1409, the 13th under the heading department of energy, energy programs, nuclear waste

disposal in title 3 of the energy and water development related agencies, public law 111-85, shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1410, all under the heading department of energy, atomic energy, defense activities, national nuclear security administration weapons activities in title 3 of the energy and water development 2010, public law 11-85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1411, under the heading department of energy, atomic energy defense energies, defense nuclear nonproliferation in title 3 of the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act 2010, public law 111-85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this

division. section 1412, all under the heading department of energy, atomic energy defense activities, national nuclear security administration, office of the administrator in title 3 of the energy and water development and related agencies act public law 111-85, shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1413, the heading department of energy, atomic energy defense activities, environmental and other defense activities, defense environmental cleanup in title 3 of the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act 200, public law 111-85, shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1414, the heading, department of energy, atomic energy defense activities, environmental and other defense activities, other defense

activities in title 3 of the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act 2010, public law 111-85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1415, the fifth under the heading department of energy power marketing administrations construction rehabilitation operation and maintainance, western area power administration in title 133 of the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act 2010 public law 111-85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1416, sections 105, 106, 107, 110 through 20, 502 and 506 of the energy and water development, public law 11-85, shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division.

section 1417, in addition, $-- the chair: for what purpose does gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? mrs. biggert: i have an amendment to the desk and designated as amendment 192. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 192 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. biggert of illinois. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. biggert: my amendment would cut funding for the advanced research project agency commonly as arpa-e and put that funding towards deficit reduction. my colleagues know it is not easy for me to cut energy research. there are two priorities that i believe in and continue to promote. energy r&d is one of them. the greatest investments we can make to secure our economic

competitiveness are those that cultivate scientists and engineers and provide research infrastructure from which they can create jobs. arpa e was called rising above the gathering storm. it was recommended along with dozens of recommendations designed to spur scientific investment. these recommendations were authorized as a part of the first america competes act of 2007. and re-authorized again last year. despite my strong support and leadership for competes and its programs, i have had concerns about arpa-e since its inception. as a senior member of the science, space and technology committee, our minority views on the president's fiscal year 2010 budget accurately reflected my sentiment and i quote, those in

opposition to arpa-e maintain the view creating a new agency for work that is currently being done at d.o.e. is not justified to the funds. and we support the department's previous decision not to establish arpa-e but engage in projects. most importantly, i believe it threatens to divert resources from the office of science, the largest supporter of basic research. that is why i secured language through competes 2007 that would prohibit funding for arpa-e unless the office of science is fully funded. i felt this was the most productive way to move forward and prevent duplication or competition with other d.o.e. programs. when we authorized competes last year, this language is not included and unfortunately my attempts to limit the appropriations were

unsuccessful. supporting my concerns about spreading resources too thin, now secretary steven chu has said the following in testimony before the energy subcommittee in 2006. in funding, it is critical its funding not jeopardize the research supported by the department of energy's science. it is prioritized in its top recommendations in the area of research is to increase the funding for basic research by 10% per year over the next seven years. were it not for the 2009 american recovery and reinvestment stimulus bill, it would have never been funded. i urge my colleagues to reject duplication and stretch resources and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. who seeks recognition? >> i claim time in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. we are here to follow through on our pledge to right-size the government and i appreciate my colleague's amendment for that reason. in addition to enacting addition spending, we are committed to an unprecedented level of oversight that every dollar spent by the federal government is well spent. my colleague's amendment would eliminate the advanced research agency dash energy or arpa-e. this new program is getting positive early reviews for its stropping management and ability to execute and focus on american competitiveness. we certainly can and must debate which programs are the most worthy of taxpayers' dollars and which we should terminate. the debate to end a promising initiative to increase funds for

another federal program as this amendment does must be considered in more than five or 10 minutes. i and the committee would be happy to work with my colleague in the 2012 process to ensure the proper and thorough oversight and evaluation of this program. however, i must regretfully oppose her amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from arizona? mr. pastor: strike the requisite number of words. i join the chairman in his opposition to this amendment. it's a promising program that already has provided not only research, but the taking of the research, finding private exabblization and developing a product that can -- capitalization that can go forward.

one of the problems we have found in the past and for many years that the department of energy has sometimes great problems in doing the basic research or funding basic research and has a difficult time getting out to find capitalization and then being able to commercialize it. and arpa-e is a process that is small but big in talent and is able to take innovative ideas, research and take it to the next step with private capitalization. so it is a program that takes public investment, increases the investment by the private sector and the outcome is innovation of products and new employment and new jobs. it is the way to transform the

department of energy to make it more effective and it would be a great loss to zero fund it at this time. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from west virginia. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment although i had an amendment to follow this amendment seeking to grab in $47 million from the arpa program to fund a jobs program that has been -- to restore the clean coal research dollars that are stricken in this continuing resolution. my amendment would have restored to the fossil d.o.e. program to maintain our commitment to natural gas and coal that powers our nation. certainly, being from the state

of west virginia, this is a jobs issue for us. our coal industry is under serious attack in this administration, both from the regulatory perspective and from other environmental areas. and now we realize that 50% of the nation's energy is powered by coal. in order to use that most abundant resource, we need to find ways to burn it cleaner and mine it more efficiently. for more than a quarter of the century, the fossil energy research has converted taxpayer investment into high-tech advances that touches every single american's lives. it is finding new ways to use coal more clenal and efficiently by improving technologies to clean or capture or store the emissions from coal-fired power 1,000 american pioneers are doing research, many of them

located in our state of west virginia in morgan town, west virginia. the facility is the only national laboratory devoted to fossil energy research. while i'm unable to offer my amendment to strike $47 million from the arpa-e program and restore the $30.6 million into the clean coal research program, i do want to take this opportunity to emphasize the feeling that i have of how important it is for us to move forward in a bold and technologically superior way to find a way to use our most abundant resource, the advanced research projects will help clean affordable energy from our traditional resources as a part of our energy supply while we innovate and research our way to those new energy resources and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields

back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from illinois. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . >> i rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment which would strike funding for arpa-e within the department of energy. there's little disagreement in congress on the importance of fundamental advances in energy technologies to america's future economic and national security. it is a priority that we all share. the challenge lies in how best to structure the federal government's involvement in energy, research, and development to maximize use of limited resources. republican members on the committee on science, space, and technology have had serious reservations regarding the appropriateness of arpa-e since it was first made in the 110th

congress. a primary concern was that arpa-e would focus on late-stage technology development activities that the private sector was already addressing. and we've seen that happen. while language was incorporated in arpa-e's authorizing statute directing the agency to support, quote, technical advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty, unquote, there are numerous instances of arpa-e rewards that indicate the agency is not following these guidelines. mr. broun: instead, providing funding to companies that are already actively pursuing development of the technology area for which they are requesting funding. this is a serious issue. taxpayer funding for r&d should only go toward areas that are too risky for private investment.

due to these concerns, mr. chairman, i, along with chairman hall, chairman of the science, space, and technology committee, have requested that the government accounting office undertake a study to review and report on the extent to which this problem is occurring, with respect to other rewards. at least until the study is completed and congress has had an opportunity to consider its findings, arpa-e should not receive additional taxpayer money. especially in this current environment of fiscal disaster that we're heading towards. i urge support for the gentlelady's amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

mrs. capito: 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 illinois will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i have amendment 395 at the desk, mr. speaker. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 395 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. inslee of washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. inslee: thank you, mr. speaker. we have a simple amendment that will help restore two principles to our budget, one is innovation and two is balance. what our amendment would do would be to add $20 million to the arpa-e account. it will be fully paid for with a balance taken out of the fossil research account, and this is important for two

fundamental reasons. our nation's economic performance will live, or it will die on the ability to innovate new clean energy technology. and tonight when we're speaking, the chinese are investing $786 billion in the development of new clean energy technologies, and yet what does this c.r. do to our advanced clean energy budget? it cuts it by 85%. well, the chinese are racing ahead on clean energy and we're running backwards 85% in arpa-e which has tremendous potential in solar energy, in efficient, enhanced, advanced geothermal, in electric storage, high-capacity grid systems. this is our seed pool of innovation and we've slashed it 85% in this c. rmp.

we are simply asking to reduce that cut to about 65% and add $20 million. let me put this in context. that is the innovation part of this agenda. for those who are critical of arpa-e, let me suggest in the first year of its operation, the first year, it has attracted six private equity investments for $23 million of uncle sam's investment of $100 million has been leveraged for private equity investment. this program has some promise. and we are cutting off tiny little crumbs to cut off the innovation for the budget of clean energy. it's a huge mistake. here's where the balance part comes in. we want to pay for this, obviously. we don't want to create further deficit spending on this program. in the fossil fuel research budget, we've cut that 17%. and it's 10 times larger than the arpa-e budget. that is wildly out of balance

where we've cutaway away instead of 17%, we cut 85%. fossil fuels we've got $556 million in research, for arpa-e we have $50 million unless we adopt the inslee amendment. so i would encourage us to get in the game of competing with china. now, i was talking to former governor ted strickland tonight about a company called willard and kelsey, w.k. solar group, a company that's developed a new way of manufacturing solar cells using a horizontal manufacturing project, much, much more efficient, quicker manufacturing. if we don't start developing these technologies, the chinese are going to have us for lunch. and this is a small thing, but the payoffs could be dramatic. we'd encourage more innovation and we'd encourage more balance for the future and would recommend this amendment. i'd reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman may not -- mr. inslee: i yield back proudly my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i oppose the gentleman's amendment, which adds, as we know, $50 million for arpa-e while cutting funding for fossil energy -- for the fossil energy program. the energy and water portion of this bill strikes a careful balance between national security, american competitiveness and the grave responsibility of deficit reduction. as written, this bill provides sufficient funding to keep arpa-e operational and active in fiscal year 2011 while we thoroughly evaluate the program and its future in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process. arpa-e has shown some promise in advancing our competitiveness within the

light of the tough tradeoffs we've had to make in this bill, and indeed they've been tough, i can't support further increased funding for arpa-e before we've had a broader discussion of the new program. further, to achieve this bill's historic levels of spending reduction, the bill has struck a finely tuned balance of support across programs within the department of energy. the amendment would reduce funding for fossil energy, research and development. the program cut by the amendment ensures not only that fossil energy, which generates nearly 70% of the nation's electricity is clean and efficient, but that it uses technologies invented in america and creates jobs here at home. yet because reducing spending is our top priority, all programs must sacrifice, and the bill cuts fossil energy research and development well below the 2010 mark and 21%

below fiscal year 2008. further reductions to fossil energy can be damaging to the program's important goals, and may lead to excessive job losses. for this reason and because further increases to arpa-e are currently unwarranted, i oppose the amendment. i yield back. mr. inslee: would the gentleman yield? mr. frelinghuysen: i would be happy to yield. mr. inslee: he requested our amendment added $50 million but we ask an additional $20 million. mr. frelinghuysen: the record is corrected and you're right. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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 noes have it. mr. inslee: request the yeas and nays, mr. speaker. i request a recorded vote is ordered. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause 6 of rule

18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 213, line 22, section 1418, no appropriation or authority made available shall be used to initiate a program, project, or activity of the program, project or activity has not been funded by congress unless prior approval is received from the committees on appropriations of the house and the senate. section 1419, no funds made available may be used by the nuclear regulatory commission to conduct activities associated with yucca mountain geologic repository license application. section 1420, the level for independent agencies, appalachian regional commission should be $68 million.

section 1421, the level for independent agencies, delta regional authority shall be $11,700,000. section 1422, the level for independent agencies ddenali commission shall be $10,800,000. section 1423, the level for independent agencies northern border regional commission shall be zero dollars. section 1424, the level for independent agencies, southeast crescent regional commission shall be zero dollars. section 1425, the total principle amount under the heading department of energy, title 17, innovative technology loan guarantee authority loan program is hereby reduced by $25 billion. section 1426, of the unobligated balances for desert

terminal lakes, under section 2507 of the farm security and rural investment act of 2002, $115 million is rescinded. section 1427 of the unobligated balances, $21 million is rescinded by canceling unobligated balances from the yazou basin back water pump mississippi project. section 1428, the level for corps of engineers civil department of the army investigations shall be $104 million. section 1429, level of corps of engineers civil department of the department of the army, construction, shall be $1,690,000,000. section 1430, the level for corps of engineers, civil, department of the army, mississippi river and tributaries shall be

$239,600,000. section 1431, the level for corps of engineers, civil, department of the army, operation and maintenance shall be $2,361,000,000. section 1432, the level for corps of engineers, civil, department of the army, formally utilized sites remedial action program should be $130 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> next section, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: section 1433, the level for a department of the interior bureau of reclamation water resources shall be $9 13,500,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to take up amendment 297. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 297 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman, this is a poster child for what can best be described as greens gone wild. as part of the so-called klamath hydrosettlement agreement, the proposed used taxpayer funds to tear down four perfectly good hydro electric dams on the klamath are producing the cleanest, cheapest electricity on the planet, enough to power over 150,000 homes because we're told of catastrophic declines in salmon. when i suggested building a salmon hatchery instead, i was informed there already is one and it produces five million salmon each year, 17,000 of which return to that river as

fully grown adults to spawn, but they're deliberately ignored in the population counts. . they tear down the dams in the name of saving the salmon and tearing down the fish hatch erie. this amendment targets the study that is under way to do so, manifestly as insane as this is should not require $2 million of additional funding. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new jersey rise? >> we are prepared to accept the gentleman from california's amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: this reduces the water and related resources

account. given the limited nature, i do not object to the amendment. 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 california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? clerk will read. the clerk: page 216, line 20, section 1434, level for department of energy, energy programs, energy efficiency and renewable energy shall be $1 billion 467,000, 000. >> i ask to take up amendment 315. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 315 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment saves $247 million by releaving taxpayers of having to subsidize solar energy research and development. i'm attempted to point out that solar power is not a new technology. photovoltaic electricity was founded 175 years ago. and in 175 years of continuing research and development and technological advancement, we have not yet been able to invent a more expensive way of generating electricity. yet we are comfortable telling our constituents that we are taking another quarter billion dollars from their families to

throw at this 175-year-old technology for no particular reason other than it makes us feel good. i'm attempted to point out not only is the most expensive way to generate electricity but adds nothing, repeat nothing, to our baseline power. our systems operate on an integrated grid meaning we have to match the power going onto the grid with the power coming off the grid. and since there is no way to tell when a cloud is passing over or drop the output to zero, we have to construct an equal amount of reliable conventional power to back up that solar power, in other words for every kilo what the of solar power to the grid we have to add backup power. but the principal objection i have is this. this technology was on the verge of a breakthrough after 175

years and investors would be tripping over themselves to get a piece of the action. if theyr there is no need to subsidize it and if they're not, we have no right to force american taxpayers to make investments that no investor in his right mind would make. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment. mr. chairman, the continuing resolution before enacts historic spending reductions but does so by striking a careful balance between deficit reduction and other important goals. i regret the gentleman's amendment goes far beyond the point and i must oppose it. mr. chairman, deficit reduction is the bill's top priority and our bill already significantly reduces the energy and efficiency and renewable energy

accounts as written our bill cuts that account to 35% below current levels and 38% or nearly $900 million below fiscal budget request. this amendment cuts the excess and provides only enough -- our bill cuts the excess and provides only enough funding to continue past commitments leaving little room left to cut. while i support the gentleman's commitment, we must do so responsibly with the careful balance among deficit reduction, jobs and our nation's energy security. the gentleman's amendment fails to maintain this balance and would to my mind create undo job losses which would be irreversible damage to this particular program and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: in opposition of the amendment. i strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i join the chairman. we need a mix of energy. we cannot just rely on the mix of energy we have today where 70% of our energy is generated through coal or natural gas. rather than sacrifice our future we should be looking at closing loopholes for the oil and gas industry. 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 california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, an amendment numbed number 4 in the congressional record to save

27,500 jobs in home renovation. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: i offer this amendment to section 1434 of the republican spending bill. the section includes language that bans funds allocated to energy efficiency and renewable energy for being used from the state energy program. this rider has nothing to do with reducing funds. it is a policy rider. my amendment would simply strike that language from this bill. this amendment does not add a single dollar to the deficit, the continuing resolution or energy efficiency or renewable energy programs. it preserve the republican cuts, though misguided, to renewable energy and states that weatherization and state energy programs remain eligible for funds. there are many cuts in this bill that we cannot fix for

procedural reasons. and there are many more that republicans will oppose for political reasons. but this is something we can save. this amendment has strong bipartisan appeal. it is about lowering utility bills for people on the brink and about preserving construction, inspection and renovation jobs. it is about states' rights. it has been a harsh and unrelenting winter in many parts of america we should not be leaving our friends and neighbors out in the cold. the state energy program is a 30-year-old program that provides resources to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy and it works. i know this because i used to run this program for new york state as president and c.e.o. of the new york state research and development authority. for every one dollar in funding it yields $7.32. each one dollar from federal funds is leveraged by $10.71 of

state and private funds. states receiving this funding are eligible to energy audits on over 15,000 buildings per year, including residential, commercial and industrial property. they are able to renovate 13,000 buildings per year to be more energy efficient. think of it, energy efficiency as our fuel of choice. the other program my amendment addresses is the weatherization assistance program. some 38.6 million low-income, elderly and disabled are eligible to become more energy efficient and lower their electric bills. for households, this creates $437 savings or more in annual utility bills or 35% off of a typical utility bill. in 2010 alone, weatherized homes nationally would have saved $2.1 billion. the weatherization program

decreases national energy consumption of the equivalent of 24.1 million barrels of oil annually. for every one dollar invested, it returns $2.51 to the households and our society. this is an appropriations bill. according to my colleagues across the aisle, it is a bill with the sole purpose of reducing the deficit, noble goal. but the two riders does not reduce the deficit by one cent. it is not about funding but restricting programs that work and playing politics as usual. we should be focused on creating jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and innovating for our future. my amendment restores our ability to do all three without adding a single cent to this bill. i ask for your support of this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise?

mr. frelinghuysen: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: while the program supports research and development in american competitiveness, the program has seen a 0% increase since fiscal year 2008 and receives $16.8 billion in stimulus funding in the recovery act. now there is the right time to cut the fat and place increases with smart priorityization and oversight. two programs within this account, weatherization assistance and the state energy program do not focus on competitiveness and instead passed funding on to state and local governments. these two programs have $4.7 billion in unspent recovery act funding and have substantial

management challenges in the last two years and i may say substantial. the bill eliminates spending for weatherization and state energy programs whose unspent recovery act funding should sustain them through fiscal year 2011. in fact, its current implementation rates, which have been incredibly slow, unspent funding would last through 2012. the amendment ignores these commonsense facts and the imperative to reduce spending by moving back into an already bloated program. i oppose the amendment and urge members to do the same. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. tonko: i would like to ask for a vote. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it.

mr. tonko: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 259 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. latta of ohio. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latourette: amendment number 259 will cuss dollars from renewable energy office. currently h.r. 1 funds the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy at $1,467,400,for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. this amendment reduces that amount to $1 billion.

this authority receives $28 billion in stimulus funds and it was appropriate in fiscal year 2010. while citizens are struggling to pay their bills, it would be difficult not to cut $70 million from this office. with americans struggling with higher gasoline prices and other fuel costs rising, congress should focus on legislation to utilize resources we have available to drive prices down. the free market is the best price for technological and reducing burdensome regulations to have companies bring new technology when it comes to be cost effective with a deficit and the share of the national debt scheduled to triple, i have serious concerns with spending funds that have massive increases from stimulus spending.

the president released his budget proposal which reflects a pattern of record spending and higher taxes. this continued spending and funds is that the united states does not have as we continue to borrow from other nations. the president signed into law $1.8 trillion in new government spending and $670 billion in new job-damaging tax hikes. my $70 million cut will be a small reduction in an overbloated federal budget and i yield back. . mr. frelinghuysen: the energy efficiency and renewable program supports technology, research, and development to keep america competitive and ensure our access to domestic energy sources. while these are critically important goals, so, too, is meeting our pledge to substantially reduce the nation's deficit beginning this year. our bill cuts energy efficiency

and renewable energy 35% below the current level and 38%, or $888 million below the president's fiscal year 2011 budget request. the bill limits funding for programs that are still supported by unspent recovery act dollars. it also eliminates earmarks and slims down research programs by more than $500 million while preserving core activities supporting american competitiveness and emerging energy industries. after these cuts, there's simply no more fat to trim. cutting the program would cause excessive job losses and defaults on past commitments. while i support the gentleman's efforts to further reduce spending this amendment would go too far beyond the careful balance we've crafted in this bill. i and the committee fully intend to exert unprecedented oversight of this program. so as we move forward, i would

be happy to work with the gentleman as we do. however, i must regret that i oppose his amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i join the chairman in opposition to this amendment. as i stated before, we need a mix of energy to gain energy independence. we cannot just rely on the mix of energy that we have today. 70% of our energy is generated through coal or natural gas. rather than sacrifice our future, we should be looking at methods of closing loopholes for the oil and gas industry. i'm in opposition to the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> 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 ohio will be postponed. any further amendments to this section? hearing none, the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 217, line 4, section 1435, the level for department of energy, energy programs, electricity delivery and energy reliability shall be $139 million. section 1436, the level for department of energy, energy programs, nuclear energy shall be $661,100,000. section 1437, the level for department of energy, energy programs, fossil energy research and development, shall be $5886,600,000.

section 1438, the level for department of energy, energy programs, strategic petroleum reserve, shall be $138,900,000. section 1439, the level for department of energy, energy programs, energy information administration shall be $95,600,000. section 1440, the level for department of energy, energy programs, nondefense, environmental cleanup shall be $225,200,000. section 1441, the level for department of energy, energy programs, uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning funds shall be $513,900,000. section 1442, the level for department of energy, energy programs, science, shall be $4,

017,700,000. the chair: for what purpose does -- >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent the remainder of the bill through page 224, line 21, be considered as read, printed in the record, and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there any objections? hearing none, so ordered. are there any amendments to the portion of the bill considered as read? if not, the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: title 5, financial services and general

government, section 1501, the level for department of the treasury, departmental offices, salaries and expenses shall be $299,888,000. section 1502, the level for department of the treasury, departmental offices, departmentwide systems and capital investment programs should be $4 million. section 1503, the level for department of treasury, office of inspector general, salaries and expenses, shall be $29,403,000. section 1504, the level for department of the treasury, departmental offices, special inspector general for the troubled asset relief program, salaries and expenses shall be $36,300,000. section 1505, the level for department of treasury, financial crimes enforcement network, salaries and expenses, shall be $108,927,000.

section 1506, the level for department of the treasury, financial management service, salaries and expenses, shall be $232,838,000. section 1507, the level for department of the treasury, bureau of the public debt, administering the public debt, shall be $184,658,000. section 1508, unobligated balances available under the heading department of the treasury, treasury forfeiture fund, $400 million is rescinded. section 1509, the level for department of the treasury, alcohol and tobacco tax and trade bureau, salaries and expenses, shall be $99,831,000. section 1510, the level for department of the treasury

community development financial institutions fund program account shall be $50 million. section 1511, the level for department of the treasury, internal revenue service, taxpayer services, shall be $2,187,836,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent the remainder of the bill through page 243, line 5 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: are there any objections? hearing none, so ordered. are there any amendments to the section considered as read? >> section 1588. the chair: does the gentleman offer amendment number 98?

the gentleman will suspend. and the clerk will read. the clerk: section 1588, the level for independent agencies, selective service systems, salaries and expenses, shall be $24,032,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from oregon rise? >> to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: does the gentleman offer his amendment? mr. defazio: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 98, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i had opened -- hoped to be joined by dr. paul who is co-author of this amendment, although given the very late hour, i'm uncertain

he'll make it. however, we're talking tonight about making cuts, and we heard in the earlier debate of programs that actually serve americans, the cops program which puts officers on the beat and helps with drug interdiction, drug prevention, the liheap program providing financial assistance to families who can't afford to heat their homes. you know, the list is long. but there are a few programs in the government which have no constituency and no purpose. and this is one of them. and somehow it escaped the knife, which i assume was just an oversight. so i'm hoping to persuade the committee to adopt this amendment. this is the expenditures for the selective services -- selective service system of the united states of america, i.e., the draft boards. that is, if we believe that at some time in the future the

united states of america is going to reimpose the draft, then one might want to maintain this bureaucracy in deep stand by. on the other hand, it might not. because the few times this agency has attempted to test its capabilities with its obsolete computer systems which could be surpassed by anything available publicly on the internet, they have shown they couldn't have conducted a legal draft. and even if they could have conducted a legal draft, we no longer have a surge capacity at our training bases so we would be drafting people for no purpose. and beyond that, i don't think there are many in this house who believe that we are going to go back to having a draft. the pentagon doesn't want to go back to a draft. the pentagon has said time and time and time again they believe in an all-volunteer military. the all-volunteer military is superior to force enlistment,

as in the years of the draft, we're higher quality, we're using significant incentives to get people to enlist in the military. and we have the best military in the world as a result. so why would we maintain this bureaucracy? well, here's what they spent $25 million on, or intend to this year. it will be used for expenses of attendance at meetings. for purchase of uniforms. now, beyond me, i'm not certain what the uniforms are. i served, actually, on a draft board once and we didn't have uniforms. i don't know, i guess now we've got uniforms for people who are going to go sit somewhere and hear claims if we ever reimpose the draft. i really don't know who they're purchasing uniforms for or what the purpose might be or what a

selective services members uniform may look like. they also will hire passenger motor vehicles and for official reception and representation expenses. all for a dead bureaucracy that does nothing and never will do anything. now, colleagues, truly, if we are serious, if we are serious here, if we are in a crisis and are going to cut programs that actually have large constituencies, my phone has been ringing off the hook about public broadcasting, other people are hearing about other programs. here's one where you won't get a single call except maybe a thank you if you eliminate this useless bureaucracy that will never be activated for any purpose foreseeable in the future. so, colleagues, we have twice actually in the house voted to end the selective service system in 1993 when the democrats were in control, and in 1999 when the republicans were in control.

unfortunately, the termination of the program never became law. now is the time. now is the time. i'm just dedicating the money to deficit reduction. it could be used to restore some meritorious spending elsewhere within this title by somebody else. so with that, i would yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to end this useless bureaucracy. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri rise? mrs. emerson: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. emerson: while most would hope we never need to use this draft again, i think this agency is an important insurance policy against unforeseen threats. if it we eliminated selective service system, it would take us over a year to draft men into military service, whereas now it would take 90-120 days. .

any kind of emergency wartime situation, this could be disastrous. we are six months into the budget year and the selective service has spent money on salaries and expenses and we can't take their money away. this is a small agency with a potential to avert a crisis should the draft ever be reinstated. i urge a no vote on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> i rise to strike the requisite number of words in opposition to this amendment. mr. dicks: the selective service is a readiness issue. if we don't have the process all set up, it would take two years to restore it. and if -- we are in a national emergency. that's why we put it in place because if we were in a until emergency and had to get more

people and didn't get it through the all-volunteer force, we have to have a way to do it. so we put this in place several years ago. it was very bipartisan at the time. i can understand the gentleman's skepticism but this is the first we have heard of this. it would be better for the committee to look at this and maybe have a hearing on this and then we can address it again in the 2012 bill. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 243, line 8, section 1589, the level for independent agencies, united

states tax court, salaries and expenses shall be $52,093,000. section 1590, section 814 of division c of public law 111-117 shall be applied to funds by striking federal. section 1591, none of the funds contained in this division may be used for any program of distributing sterile needles for hyper determineic injection. title 6, homeland security, section 1601, within 30 days after the date of enactment of this division, the department shall submit to the committees on appropriations of the senate and the house an expenditure plan for fiscal year 2011. six 1602, the department of level for homeland security, office of the secretary and executive management shall be

$136,818,000. section 1603, the level for department of homeland security office of the undersecretary for management delsh $239,933,000. section 1604, level for department of homeland security office of the chief information officer shall be 333,933,000. section 1605, the level for department of homeland security, office of the federal coordinator for gulf coast rebuilding shall be zero dollars. section 1606, department for level of homeland security, u.s. customs and border protection, salaries and expenses shall be $8,202,626,000. section 1607, the level for

department of homeland security, u.s. customs and border security office of modernization, $341,575,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill 253, line 12 be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. the chair: are there any objections? hearing none, so ordered. are there any amendments in this section? the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pascrell: bring up amendment 223, i believe. concerning the fire grants. the chair: the clerk will read section 1629.

the clerk: section 1629 the level for department of homeland security federal emergency management, firefighter assistance grants for programs authorized by the federal fire and prevention control act of 1974 shall be $300 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pascrell: mr. chairman, to strike the proper words on amendment 223. the chair: does the gentleman offer the amendment? mr. pascrell: offer the amendment. the chair: the the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the clerk: amendment number 223, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. pascrell of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pascrell: as a former mayor, i have always believed that our nation's first responders constitute our first and last line of defense for the american people. this continuing resolution before us today fails our first

responders. regrettably we're treating these public safety officers as being nonsecurity discretionary spending and have subjected them to drastic cuts. we at homeland security starts on our streets. we all remember on 9/11 when we were attacked on our own soil. it was our brave cops and firefighters who ran into the burning buildings. the federal government was not there. to say that funding our cops and firefighters is not national security spending is ludicrous. all brave local police officers and firefighters who protect our streets day and night are the very essence of our national security. earlier in the process, we debated the cops program.

amendment today, tonight restores critical funding for its counterpart. the fire act and the safer grant programs. the continuing resolution significantly reduces funding for the fire grant and eliminates all funding for safer, over $510 million in cuts in total. this would absolutely devastate -- it would be devastating for our public safety professionals who rely on this funding for equipment and personnel they need to protect our communities. the fire and safer grants help local fire departments equip, train and maintain their personnel preparing them to respond to all forms of an emergency and things changed, didn't they, after 9/11? an independent evaluation of the fire program published by the u.s. fire administration concluded that it was highly

effective in improving the readiness and capability of firefighters across the nation. i may add, mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, that the fire programs and the cops programs are among the highest efficient and effective programs run by the federal government. money goes directly to the communities so states can't skim off the top. and they are effective and they are competitive. and no one has challenged that in 10 years. safer has been critical to many local departments who as a result of recent economic downturns, have been forced to cut personnel and services. what effect would cuts to these programs have? let's go to the real world, not the video. bethesda fire department in cole

man, alabama, they use to purchase fire protective equipment which allows them to enter a burning structure to search for victims and put out the fires. previously, the department did not have the proper equipment to do this. today, they have debately reduced the amount of total lost structures in their region. north county fire prevention district in california. they were able to emergency backup power generators. during the 2007 san diego fire storms, power failed throughout the community early on the first day. it was not completely restored in the community for two weeks. the emergency power generators they purchased with the fire grant allowed them to keep the facilities fully functional. before the bell chase vol untire

department in louisiana received a safer grant in 2008, the department could not comply with the national fire protection association standards. there is such a thing before we cut something, we should know what the alternatives are. it's -- its initial assignment alarm capability was only 20% in that town. that insufficient level of service to the communities and the volunteer firefighters were at considerable risk of injury or loss of life. the department was able to hire 45 firefighters. increase the rate of compliance. and now estimated that the compliance is now 90% and increased its initial alarm dispatch with three more engine companies. together, fire and safer, those two bills -- the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. mr. pascrell: can i request unanimous consent for one more minute? the chair: any objection? hearing none -- mr. pascrell: they have provided over $7 billion in firefighter jobs, equipment and training for local fire departments. serious business. we are talking about life, limb and property here. to me, cutting these critical programs especially when local fire departments' budgets are strained, we are facing it in all of our districts, you know that. my amendment restores the funding to fire and safer to their 2010 levels. $290 million for fire and $420 million for safer. we are forced to take it from science and technology. if this amendment passes, i hope to restore some of the funding during conference and i hope both sides will come together.

it has bipartisan support and we need to protect our firefighters. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: this strikes the right balance between the programs and keeping our discretionary spending in check. let me just say 300 million is included in this c.r. for fire equipment and this only applies to the safer grants. as has been stated there are no funds in the bill for safer grants. five years ago, this program was funded at $65 million. last year it balooned to $420 mill and and included a waiver. 2009, congress provided $210 million for the safer gants

supporting 1,236 jobs at the high cost of $170,000 per job. in the just-released request, department of homeland security plans to create or retain 225,000 firefighters at a cost of $190,000 per job. this seems unrealistic when our nation faces serious fiscal constraints. while we all know local budgets are under fiscal pressures, the hiring of local firefighters at a cost of $190,000 per job should not be borne by the federal government. these cuts will not be easy, but they are long oversue and necessary .and ignores the fact that this c.r. has cut the

science and technology funding. this enormous reduction to a budget that barely amounts to $1 billion would be absolutely devastating. s. and t. is a single organization that performs research and stimulus and funds and initiatives within the private sector, to include work under way at a laboratory in new jersey and pacific northwest national laboratory. the projects that funding supports is crucial to homeland mission and this cut will significantly slow or end their progress. i would urge my colleagues. and i yield back. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. i the bill before us eliminates

the firefighter program known as safer and reduces funding for grants to purchase fire equipment by 23%. if adopted, these cuts will result in over 2,400 firefighters being laid off in 2011 and prevent fire departments from purchasing equipment, breathing apparatus and protective gear that our firefighters depend on during a time of energy. this is simply not acceptable. during my tenure as chairman of the homeland securities committee we ensured not only was funding provided for these critical firefighter programs but these dollars could be used flexibly in this time of economic stress. mr. price: to retain firefighters that might lose their jobs, to rehire firefighters that have been laid off due to economic conditions, as well as to hire new firefighters. repeatedly, i hear from communities that were able to use funds for these purposes. for example, in clemens parish

in louisiana, safer funding was used to retain and hire 73 firefighters, ensuring seven departments had salaried firefighters and the 12 parish fire stations could be manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week. the north las vegas fire department was able to hire 50 new firefighters with the safer grant, permitting them to open an eighth fire station, thereby reducing response times and enhancing the level of protection for city residents as well as the millions of visitors to las vegas. spanish fort, alabama, recently received a safer grant that allowed them to retain their whole roster of firefighters instead of letting some go. in collinsville, illinois, received a recent grant allowing them to retain five fighters who -- five firefighters who otherwise would have been laid off. retaining this funding ensures government departments critical

to our safety. the c.r. exacerbates the layoffs we're already seeing with public safety personnel. this amendment will help keep thousands of firefighters on the job. mr. chairman, i must express some reservations about how the increase in firefighter grants is paid for in this amendment. the gentleman's amendment drastically reduces funding for research and development activities throughout the department of homeland security. it's not desirable or wise to cut the department's research and development budget so much. but unfortunately, the majority has prevented us from paying for these amendments from other parts of the bill and the overall allocation for homeland security and the rest of the domestic agencies is completely inadequate. so i support this amendment. but i will work diligently to restore these funding cuts as the bill progresses and we get down to responsible budgeting

and negotiations with the senate and the white house. mr. chairman, members have a choice to make, support this amendment and support your local firefighters or vote no and see a decline in critical first responder personnel in this country and in the options available to hard-pressed local communities. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from from kentucky rise? >> to strike strike. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> and i yield to the chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: let me say i realize that the importance that these grants do contribute and the bottom line right now is we simply can't afford it in the position we are right now. as we move forward for the f.y. 2012 budget, i'll be happy to work with the ranking member of the subcommittee and the

gentleman from new jersey as we move forward to try to work on this. we can't afford it at this point but i look forward to working with both of them as we move forward in f.y. 2012. but at the end of the day, on the amendment today, i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment we have before us. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: is there an objection? mr. pascrell: mr. speaker -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pascrell: to zero out one of the most effective and efficient programs in the federal government, and all objective observers have come to that conclusion, and yes, we do have to cut, that's why we're here. but we don't have to cut what

is an essential service, when we know what the results of this legislation has brought. i've been on homeland securities from day one. i think i know it. but that's beside the point. today we know what the results have been of this legislation. but for the 2,400 firefighters right off the bat that would be laid off, because this is a three-year plan, there are certain matches that have to go into it, those matches have been reduced so other local communities can get involved. when we see what happens with many federal programs that go through states and never wind up to do what they have to do, this stands out above everything else. it is not enough to pat firefighters on the back, to bring our grandkids to get up

on the fire engines when we are pulling the rug out from under them. when this passed 10 years ago, there were fire companies throughout the united states that had to push their equipment to the fire. and we are here until 1:00 in the morning questioning this is not a priority of ours and we can't afford this right now, i can tell you what we can't afford. we can't afford other things in other places but we need to protect our first responders. if we meant what we said on 9/12/01, then we need to do something right now to protect them. this is a visceral subject, no question about it. i've not heard one argument where this legislation has let us down one iota. in fact, it has delivered what it said it was going to deliver.

whether you be volunteers or career firefighters, you are assisted by the safer bill. and we make it that way. when you look at the fire act itself, that act went to all departments, small departments -- in fact, we skewed it, the first two years of the program was to go to smaller fire departments, not to big cities. and we followed through on that. do you know how these applications are evaluated? they're evaluated by peers. and it costs us very little to do it. that's why it's an efficient as well as effective program. we should all belong to the police caucus and the fire caucus. they don't need our pats on the back. they don't need our words of inspiration. what they need is some help to put enough people out there. these are people's lives we're

talking about. how dare we even consider, we know the condition -- no, we're talking about six years ago, conditions of our municipalities are quite different now than six years ago. they're laying off cops and firefighters. someone mentioned when we were discussing the cops program earlier this evening, last night, they were talking about what happened in camden, new jersey 3 -- new jersey. they're laying off half the fire department, half the police department. don't we have some responsibility in this? and by the way, that part of homeland security which protects the nation and protects them through our first responders since they're the first people there, god knows when a catastrophe occurs, what, are we putting the brakes on them? are we going out on recess? these are the lines between us and perhaps disaster. we cannot -- much of the

equipment that was bought in the fire act, competitive bidding, much of that equipment saved lives already. most of the firefighters, all of the firefighters that were hired, because we wanted to give some in every town an edge when they were down below the ranks, those firefighters saved lives. we need bipartisan support on this amendment. it's good for america and it works. no one has questioned that this evening. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back? mr. pascrell: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is -- >> i ask for a recorded vote is ordered. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i ask for unanimous consent that the bill through page 263, line 9, be considered as read, printed in the record, and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there an objection? hearing none, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the messenger: the committee on the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 1 directs me to report it has come to no resolution there on. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee on the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1 and has come to no resolution throp. -- thereon.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 1507b8g today for morning hour debate. >> president obama spoke about his budget request and the long

term federal deficit. he also talked about political unrest in the middle east. after that, we will hear from the white house budget director. later, house debate on spending. while the house considers a measure to keep the house operating through september, the house debates a bill reauthorize faa programs. -- reauthorizing faa programs. >> president obama says that the long-term deficit problem would have to be addressed on a long- term basis in the coming months. he also defended cuts and his proposal and for a peaceful end to widespread protests in the middle east.

>> good evening, everyone. before i take a few questions, let me say a few words about the budget. just like every family in america, the government must live within its means well still investing in the future. if you are a family trying to cut back, you might put off a

vacation, skip going to dinner, to focus on what you cannot do without. when i took office, led the deficit in half by the end of my first term. my budget meet that pledge and puts us on a path to pay for what we spent by the middle of the decade. it would bring annual domestic spending to the lowest share of the economy since dwight eisenhower. some of the savings will come through left with and more efficiently.

we will get rid of 14,000 of the party that special project, have pledged to veto any bills that have earmarks. reed and the salaries of our working federal employes for the next the years, cutting things like community action program for low income community. we have some conversation -- conservation programs that will be scaled back. these are programs that i would not be cutting if we were in a better fiscal situation. cutting spending alone will not be enough to meet long-term fiscal challenges. that is what the bipartisan

commission concluded, that is what i have concluded. there is defense spending, health care spending, spending in the tax code. some of this we have tackled in the budget, like the $78 billion that secretary gave a identified income defense cuts. we'll have to bring down health care reznikoff, including programs like medicare and medicaid which are the symbol of bitter to long-term deficits. i believe that we should strengthen social security for future generations. and i am willing to work with everyone on capitol hill to supply the individual tax code for all americans. all of these steps will be difficult, this is why they will

require democrats, independents, republicans to work together. i recognize there will be plenty of arguments and everyone will have to give a little bit, from one to come to 12th pelf the budget and flyleaf, we have found common ground for. rove reagan and tip o'neill came to deaf to save social security. bill clinton and the local high if found a way to settle their differences. this is similar to food test safed? made last year. we can find this common ground below have to work. leo the people if a government that live within its means that still face death in the future for with an invitation from a

and 55 and with "fresh off the cuff for -- fell 1545 >> -if with some tough choices

and some significant spending cuts. we will not be adding more to the national debt. to use an analogy for the families are familiar with, philosophy and enough of credit cards anymore. at the same time, we will be making investments in places like education, science, technology, research, development, that the american people understand if required to win the future. we have taken a scalpel to the discretionary budget rather than a machete. that only accounts for about 12% of the budget.

we have a lot more that we will have to do including dealing with entitlements. you have to talk about social security, medicare, medicaid. i am confident that we can get social security done in the same way that long of reagan and tip o'neill were able to get it done fel. i think that we can make it stable and strong her not only for this generation but for the next generation. for health care costs are rising even as

my administration approach is similar to what most americans think about this region. each country if different. each country has its own traditions. america cannot dictate how they run their societies there are some universal principles that we adhere to. one of them is that we don't believe in violence as a way of maintaining control. we think it is fifth and fourth that in all the protests we have

seen throughout the region if staff government respond fifth peaceful protesters peacefully. the second principle that is the life to fund is the right to express your opinion. -- is the right to express your opinion. hopefully, over time, that the r and d? we have sent a strong message to our allies in the region to look at the example. you have the iranian regime pretended to happen what have -- pretended to celebrate what happened in egypt when in fact they have acted in direct contrast by cutting down and feeding the people who are trying to express themselves peacefully in iran.

an important lesson is that real change will not happen because of terrorism or because you go around killing innocent people, this will happen because people come together and apply a moral force for a situation. that is what warner's international support, that is how you bring about lasting change >> getting back to the unrest in the middle east and north africa, what concerns do you have about instability, especially in saudi arabia as the demonstrations spread? do you see any effect on oil

prices to can you comment about the run more? what is your message to the iranian people? -- do you see any effect on oil prices fell? iran more?mment about the ru we were clear then and now that what has been truth in each if if the truth in iran which is that people should be able to express their opinions and seeking more responsive government. what has been different is the full response of the iranian government which is to shoot for and less fearful. my hope and expectation is that arafat continued to see the

people of rough -- my hope and expectation is that the people of iran will continue to see -- we cannot dictate what happens in sign of iran any more than we can dictate what happens inside of each. ypt.f each shigyp we are concerned about stability throughout the region. the message we have sent even before the demonstrations and even if has been that the world is changing, that you have a young 5 regeneration within the

middle east that is looking for greater opportunities. if you are governing these countries, you have to get out ahead of change, you cannot feed behind the curve. the thing that will actually achieve stability in the region is that if ordinary people end up feeling off at their pathways to get an education, as fire to a federal life. for more steps there are formal ability to have definitely come

-- the people can communicate through state run television but they can get on a smart phone for a twitter account and fou mobilized hundreds of thousands of people. my belief is after as a consequence of what is happening, the government in that region are starting to understand this and my hope is that they can offer in a way that is responsive in this for change but also do this in a way that will not lead to violence.

>> if you can explain how you look on page 171, this is the central page. they go down to 607 billion. the total debt is 7.2 trillion dollars on top of what we have. how can you say that we are living within our means food >>

we have piled up, we have if there was a lot of interest to the fed, it is the same way that you have a credit card. we have a big problem in terms of the accumulated interest that we are paying. the second problem we talk about is rising health-care costs. they will go up again because the costs will decline of more

rapidly than income wages and revenues are going up. if you have those problems. what we have done is to try to take this in stages. let's get control of our discretionary budget. that this isre going on on an annual. how do we make sure that we are taking on the long term prospects can start dealing with the deaf? that will deal with entitlement reform and also tax reform. -- how do we make sure that we are dealing with the debt? what is important to do is to

not discount the tough choices that are required to stabilize the situation. if we can get that done, that starts introducing this concept of us being able in a serious way to cooperate to meet this fiscal challenge and that will lay the groundwork for us to solve these problems over the next couple of years. the first step is to make sure that we are stabilizing the current situation. the second step is to make sure that we are taking on some of these long-term drivers. we have to get control of the short-term deficit as well. people will be looking for a signal to that. the choices we have made are some pretty tough choices, which is why we have seen some grumblings about some of the

decisions that we made. >> thank you, mr. president. everything you have talked about -- tax reform, the entitlement reform, two parties coming together just happening in december in your fiscal commission. you had a majority consensus to do all this. it has now been shelved. it seems that you have not taken -- i guess my question is what was the point of the fiscal commission? if you have this moment where you had tom coburn, your conservative friend in the united states senate, sign on to this deal. judd gregg was also on this thing. you had dick durbin, your good friend from illinois, democrat -- everything you just described in the answer to chip and the answer to ben just happened. why not grab it?

>> the notion that it has been shelved i think is incorrect. it still provides a framework for a conversation. part of the challenge here is that this town -- let's face it, you guys are pretty impatient. if something doesn't happen today, then the assumption is it's just not going to happen. right? i've had this conversation for that last two years about every single issue that we worked on, whether it was health care or "don't ask, don't tell," on egypt, right? we've had this monumental change over the last three weeks -- well, why did it take three weeks? [laughter] so i think that there's a tendency for us to assume that if it didn't happen today it's not going to happen. well, the fiscal commission put out a framework. i agree with much of the framework. i disagree with some of the

framework. it is true that it got 11 votes, and that was a positive sign. what's also true is, for example, is, is that the chairman of the house republican budgeteers didn't sign on. he's got a little bit of juice when it comes to trying to get an eventual budget done, so he's got concerns. so i'm going to have to have a conversation with him, what would he like to see happen. i'm going to have to have a conversation with those democrats who didn't vote for it. there are some issues in there that as a matter of principle i don't agree with, where i think they didn't go far enough or they went too far. so this is going to be a process in which each side, both in -- in both chambers of congress go back and forth and start trying to whittle their differences down until we arrive at something that has an actual change of passage. and that's my goal. i mean, my goal here is to actually solve the problem. it's not to get a good headline on the first day. my goal is, is that a year from now or two years from now, people look back and say, you know what, we actually started making progress on this issue.

>> what do you say, though -- it looks like, no, you first. no, you first -- and nobody -- everybody says -- >> but there will -- >> but nobody wants to talk about -- >> chuck, there was this -- this was the same criticism people had right after the midterm election. if you had polled the press room and the conventional wisdom in washington after the midterm, the assumption was there's no way we were going to end up getting a tax deal that got the majority of both democrats and republicans. it was impossible, right? and we got it done. so this is not a matter of you go first or i go first. this is a matter of everybody having a serious conversation about where we want to go, and

then ultimately getting in that boat at the same time so it doesn't tip over. and i think that can happen. julianna goldman. there you are. >> thank you, mr. president. your budget relies on revenue from tax increases to multinational corporations that ship jobs overseas and on increases on the oil and gas industry. you've been calling on this for years. and if you couldn't get it through a democratic congress, why do you think you'll be able to get it through now? and also doesn't it blunt your push for deficit-neutral corporate tax reform? >> well, i continue to believe i'm right. [laughter] so we're going to try again. i think what's different is everybody says now that they're

really serious about the deficit. well, if you're really serious about the deficit -- not just spending, but you're serious about the deficit overall -- then part of what you have to look at is unjustifiable spending through the tax code, through tax breaks that do not make us more competitive, do not create jobs here in the united states of america. and the two examples you cite i think most economists would look at and they'd say these aren't contributing to our long- term economic growth. and if they're not, why are we letting some folks pay lower taxes than other folks who are creating jobs here in the united states and are investing? why are we not investing in the energy sources of the future, just the ones in the past, particularly if the energy sources of the past are highly profitable right now and don't need a tax break? so i think what may have changed is if we are going to get serious about deficit reduction and debt reduction, then we've got to look at all the sources of deficit and debt.

we can't be just trying to pick and choose and getting 100 percent of our way. the same is true, by the way, for democrats. i mean, there are some provisions in this budget that are hard for me to take. you've got cities around the country and states around the country that are having a tremendously difficult time trying to balance their own budgets because of fallen revenue. they've got greater demands because folks have lost their jobs. the housing market is still in a tough way in a lot of these places. and yet part of what this budget says is we're going to reduce community development block grants by 10 percent. that's not something i'd like to do. but -- and if it had come up a year ago or two years ago, i would have said no. under these new circumstances, i'm saying yes to that. and so my expectation is, is that everybody is going to have to make those same sorts of

compromises. now, with respect to corporate tax reform, the whole concept of corporate tax reform is to simplify, eliminate loopholes, treat everybody fairly. that is entirely consistent with saying, for example, that we shouldn't provide special treatment to the oil industry when they've been making huge profits and can afford to further invest in their companies without special tax breaks that are different from what somebody else gets. >> you can't eliminate those -- >> well, what is absolutely true is that it's going to be difficult to achieve serious corporate tax reform if the formula is, lower our tax rates and let us keep all our special loopholes. if that's the formula, then we're not going to get it done. i wouldn't sign such a bill, and i don't think the american people would sign such a bill.

if you're a small business person out on main street, and you're paying your taxes, and you find out that you've got some big company with billions of dollars in far-flung businesses all across the world, and they're paying a fraction of what you're paying in taxes, you'd be pretty irritated -- and rightfully so. and so the whole idea of corporate reform -- corporate tax reform -- is, yes, let's lower everybody's rates so american businesses are competitive with businesses all around the world. but in order to pay for it, to make sure that it doesn't add to our deficit, let's also make sure that these special interest loopholes that a lot of lobbyists have been working very hard on to get into the tax code -- let's get rid of those as well. all right. april ryan. caught you by surprise, april. >> you did, sir.

thank you. mr. president, i want to focus in on the least of these. you started your career of service as a community organizer and now we are hearing from people like -- organizations like the cbc is saying rebuilding our economy on the backs of the most vulnerable americans is something that is simply not acceptable, like the cuts to the community service block grants, pell grants, heating oil assistance, and freezing salaries of federal workers. now, roderick harrison, of the joint center for political and economic studies, says it's not good to make these types of cuts at a time of recession, instead of doing it at a time of recovery. and also i need to ask you, have you been placing calls for your friend, rahm emanuel, for his mayoral campaign in chicago? thank you. >> i'll take the last question first. i don't have to make calls for rahm emanuel. he seems to be doing just fine on his own. and he's been very busy shoveling snow out there. [laughter] i've been very impressed with

that. i never saw him shoveling around here. [laughter] let me use pell grants as an example of how we're approaching these difficult budget choices in a way that is sustainable but preserves our core commitment to expanding opportunity. when i came into office i said i wanted to once again have america have the highest graduation rates, college graduation rates, of any country in the world -- that we had been slipping. and so i significantly increased the pell grant program by tens of billions of dollars. and so millions of young people are going to have opportunities through the pell grant program that they didn't before, and the size of the pell grant itself went up.

what we also did, partly because we were in a recessionary situation and so more people were having to go back to school as opposed to work, what we also did was, for example, say that you can get pell grants for summer school. now we're in a budget crunch. the take-up rate on the pell grant program has skyrocketed. the costs have gone up significantly. if we continue on this pace, sooner or later what's going to happen is we're just going to have to chop off eligibility. we'll just have to say, that's it, we can't do this anymore, it's too expensive. so instead what we said was how do we trim, how do we take a scalpel to the pell grant program, make sure that we keep the increase for each pell grant, make sure that the young people who are being served by the pell grant program are still being served, but, for example, on the summer school thing, let's eliminate that. that will save us some money, but the core functions of the program are sustained. that's how we're approaching all these cuts. on the liheap program, the home heating assistance program, we doubled the home heating assistance program when i first

came into office, in part because there was a huge energy spike, and so folks -- if we had just kept it at the same level, folks would have been in real trouble. energy prices have now gone down, but the costs of the program have stayed the same. so what we've said is, well, let's go back to a more sustainable level. if it turns out that once again you see a huge energy spike, then we can revisit it. but let's not just assume because it's at a $5 billion level that each year we're going to sustain it a $5 billion level regardless of what's happening on the energy front. that doesn't mean that these

aren't still tough cuts -- because there are always more people who could use some help across the country than we have resources. and so it's still a tough decision, and i understand people's frustrations with some of these decisions. having said that, my goal is to make sure that we're looking after the vulnerable. we're looking after the disabled, we're looking after our seniors, we're making sure that our education system is serving our kids so that they can compete in the 21st century, we're investing in the future, and doing that in a way that's sustainable and that we're paying for -- as opposed to having these huge imbalances where there are some things that aren't working that we're paying a lot of money for. there's some things that are underfunded. we're trying to make adjustments so that we've got a sustainable budget that works for us over the long term. and by the way, there are just some things that just aren't working at all, so we've eliminated a couple hundred programs in this budget. on the education front, we're

consolidating from 33 programs to 11 programs. there is waste and inefficiency there that is long overdue, and we identify a number of these programs that just don't work. let's take that money out of those programs that don't work, and put in money -- that money in programs that do. >> say is the president feeling our pain, especially as you were a community organizer -- >> i -- look, i definitely feel folks' pain. somebody is doing a book about the 10 letters that i get every day, and they came by to talk to me yesterday. and they said, what's the overwhelming impression that you get when you read these 10 letters a day, and what i told them is i'm so inspired by the strength and resilience of the american people, but sometimes i'm also just frustrated by the number of people out there who are struggling, and you want to

help every single one individually. you almost feel like you want to be a case worker and just start picking up the phone and advocating for each of these people who are working hard, trying to do right by their families. oftentimes, through no fault of their own, they've had a tough time, particularly over these last couple of years. so, yes, it's frustrating. but my job is to make sure that we're focused over the long term: where is it that we need to go? and the most important thing i can do as president is make sure that we're living within our means, getting a budget that is sustainable, investing in the future and growing the economy. if i do that, then that's probably the most help i can give to the most number of people. jake tapper.

>> thanks, mr. president. house republicans, as you know, want to start cutting now, want to start cutting this year's budget. are you willing to work with them in the next few weeks so as to avoid a government shutdown? there's been talk of a down payment on budget cuts that they would like to make for this year's budget. and also, i was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the attempts to get american diplomat ray davis freed from pakistan. some have criticized the administration for putting pressure too publicly on what is essentially a weak government, and i'm wondering if you could walk us through that process. thanks. >> my goal is to work with the republicans, both on the continuing resolution -- and for those who are watching that don't know washingtonese, the cr is a continuing resolution, a way to just keep government going when you don't have an

overall budget settled. and we didn't settle our overall budget from last year, so this is carryover business from last year, funding vital government functions this year. so i want to work with everybody, democrats and republicans, to get that resolved. i think it is important to make sure that we don't try to make a series of symbolic cuts this year that could endanger the recovery. so that's point number one. what i'm going to be looking for is some common sense that the recovery is still fragile. we passed this tax cut package precisely to make sure that people had more money in their pockets, that their paychecks were larger, were provided these tax credits and incentives for businesses. but if the steps that we take then prompt thousands of layoffs in state or local government, or core vital functions of government aren't performed properly, well, that could also have a dampening impact on our recovery as well. so my measure is going to be are we doing things in a sensible

way, meeting core functions, not endangering our recovery. in some cases, like defense, for example, secretary gates has already testified if we're operating -- even operating under the current continuing resolution is putting significant strains on our ability to make sure our troops have what they need to perform their missions in afghanistan. further slashes would impair our ability to meet our mission. and so we've got to be careful. again, let's use a scalpel. let's not use a machete. and if we do that, there should be no reason at all for a government shutdown. and i think people should be careful about being too loose in terms of talking about a government shutdown, because this has -- this is not an abstraction. people don't get their social

security checks. they don't get their veterans payments. basic functions shut down. and it -- that, also, would have a adverse effect on our economic recovery. it would be destabilizing at a time when, i think, everybody is hopeful that we can start growing this economy quicker. so i'm looking forward to having a conversation. but the key here is for people to be practical and not to score political points. that's true for all of us. and i think if we take that approach we can navigate the situation short term and then deal with the problem long term. with respect to mr. davis, our diplomat in pakistan, we've got a very simple principle here that every country in the world that is party to the vienna convention on diplomatic

relations is -- has upheld in the past and should uphold in the future, and that is if our diplomats are in another country, then they are not subject to that country's local prosecution. we respect it with respect to diplomats who are here. we expect pakistan, that's a signatory and recognize mr. davis as a diplomat, to abide by the same convention. and the reason this is an important principle is if it starts being fair game on our ambassadors around the world, including in dangerous places, where we may have differences with those governments, and our ambassadors or our various embassy personnel are having to deliver tough messages to countries where we disagree with them on x, y, z, and they start being vulnerable to prosecution locally, that's untenable. it means they can't do their job. and that's why we respect these conventions, and every country

should as well. so we're going to be continuing to work with the pakistani government to get this person released. and obviously part of -- for those who aren't familiar with the background on this, a couple of pakistanis were killed in a incident between mr. davis within -- in pakistan. so obviously, we're concerned about the loss of life. we're not callous about that. but there's a broader principle at stake that i think we have to uphold. >> how serious have your threats been to the pakistani government if they don't hand him over? >> well, i'm not going to discuss the specific exchanges that we've had. but we've been very firm about this being an important priority. ed henry.

>> thank you, mr. president. i want to go back to egypt because there was some perception around the world that maybe you were too cautious during that crisis and were kind of a step behind the protesters. i know that, as you said, there was dramatic change in three weeks, and some of us wanted it to go even faster than that. but having said that, i realize it's a complicated situation. it was evolving rapidly. but now as these protests grow throughout the mideast and north africa -- you said before your message to the governments involved was make sure you're not violent with peaceful protesters. but what's your message to the protesters? do you want them to taste freedom? or do you want them to taste freedom only if it will also bring stability to our interests in the region? >> well, first of all, without revisiting all the events over the last three weeks, i think history will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in egypt that we were on the right side of history. on the right side of history.