absolutely dedicated to within the next 90 days pursuing that as vigorously as possible. i will say that when this extension that we are faced with right now is passed, last february 25, one year ago, that brought to an end any discussion, any hearings, that brought to an end any hearings through the entire rest of that congress once the extension was put into place. . i would say that any member who wants a classified briefing can request it. the opportunity for classified briefings is there for members of this body. so, mr. speaker, it's clear to me, we have a 90-day extension that's come back from the senate. it'll expire in one legislative day. we want mr. sensenbrenner to begin working with mr. lungren and others on dealing with the questions of the lone wolf and

roving wiretaps and all that. we need to have that addressed as quickly as possible. let's do it. let's do it now. let's pass this thing in a bipartisan way. with that, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is order. the question is on dotchings the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the resolution is agreed to. mr. polis: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are ordered. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having

amendment number 223 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, had been postponed. and the bill had been read through page 263, line 9. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on

the committee will be in order.

the chair: committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i rise in strong opposition to this deeply flawed republican funding resolution.

the bill is a reckless and sweeping attack on the public health and environmental protections that keep our air safe to breathe and our waters safe to drink. i make a point of order that the house is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman is correct. the committee will be in order. members are advised to please take their conversations off the floor. mr. waxman: one of the most egregious assaults on public health and the environment in the legislation is section 1746. mr. burton: madam speaker, i cannot hear. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman deserves the respect to be heard. members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: this provision guts the clean air act and bars the

environmental protection agency from addressing the grave threat to public health and the environment posed by carbon pollution. and it does so while destroying thousands of jobs. the science is clear and the evidence is overwhelming, according to the national academy of sciences and the premier scientific organizations of all the world's major economies, carbon pollution is changing the climate and endangering the environment. but section 1746 prohibits e.p.a. from taking commonsense, reasonable measures to address this threat. . the clean air currently requires the new power plants, new oil refineries and other major new sources of carbon emissions take steps to reduce their carbon emissions. this requirement makes sense because it is easier for facilities to plan for emission reductions before construction

than to install retrofits afterwards. e.p.a. says sources should be able to comply just by being energy efficient. section 1746 would prevent e.p.a. from implementing this commonsense requirement. e.p.a. has also indicated a plan to set minimum federal standards for the two largest sources of carbon pollution, power plants and oil refineries. this section would prevent e.p.a. from even proposing these standards. instead of gutting the clean air act, the top priority for this congress should be getting americans back to work. but section 1746 does exactly the opposite. it imposes a de facto construction ban on many areas of the country. the clean air act requires the largest new or expanding facilities to obtain carbon pollution permits before they

begin construction. the republican bill doesn't change this legal requirement to have a permit, but it does prevent e.p.a. from actually issuing the needed permits. this affects every jurisdiction where e.p.a. issues permits. this construction ban would apply to all or part of the 13 states including my own state of california, it would rock dozens of major projects including power plants, refire fineries, cement kilns and large manufacturing plants. the result would be the loss of thousands of construction jobs and permanent jobs at these facilities. members have different views about how to reduce carbon pollution. but we should all agree that a multi-state construction ban is a terrible idea. the republican bill has other damaging impacts. the bill blocks requirements to reduce carbon pollution emissions that congress

established in the 1990 clean air act amendments and expanded a few years ago. the bill even blocks successful voluntary programs that partner with industry like energy star and it blocks receipt newable fuel standard that congress established four years ago which aims to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. this is a sweeping, reckless and irresponsible bill. i urge all my colleagues to oppose it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri, a member of the committee, rise? >> i move to strike the word and enter into a colloquy with mr. denham from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. emerson: i yield to mr. denham. mr. denham: i'd like to have a colloquy regarding the need to save taxpayer money by selling unneeded federal properties. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. denham: i originally planned on offering an amendment to cut the general services administration's budget to force it to sell unneeded federal properties. my purpose was to get g.s.a.'s attention and compel it to stop wasting billions of dollars on federal buildings we no longer need or barely use. however, through this colloquy i hope our committees can make a commitment to work together and accomplish this same goal. just last week i held my subcommittee's first hearing in a freezing cold, vacant federal building on pennsylvania avenue. it sits on one of the most famous streets in america. within walking distance of the u.s. capitol and the white house. yet it's been empty for over a decade and loses over $6 million in taxpayer money each year. i'm sad to say there are buildings like this across the entire nation. according to g.a.o., federal agencies reported over 45,000 underutilized buildings that cost $1.66 billion annually to operate and maintain.

at g.s.a.'s current rate of disposal, it will take over 800 years to get rid of excess and surplus properties. our nation is facing financial distress and this wasteful spending must stop. g.s.a. needs to get serious about selling wasteful properties. to date g.s.a. has failed to provide my office with detailed information about the federal government's inventory of properties. congress needs these lists of properties so we can hold g.s.a.'s feet to the fire, sell wasteful properties and save taxpayer money. madam chairman, i would gradly appreciate your commitment to work with our committee on the following items, to compel g.s.a. to provide detailed property lists of unneeded or money-losing properties to our committees as well as an inclusive list of the entire asset inventory under its jurisdiction. second, to compel g.s.a. to greatly increase the number of properties it sells or redevelops and, third, to work

with the transportation and infrastructure committee on a legislative initiative to consolidate federal employees into fewer federal buildings. thank you. mrs. emerson: let me thank chairman denham for calling attention to these important issues and offering to work with our subcommittee on thoo your three initiatives. the appropriation committee shares your deep concerns about the number of wasteful properties in the government inventory and i commit to working with you on the three ones you mentioned and -- so that we can together save taxpayer money. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: h. 263, line 10, title 7, interior environment and related agencies. section 1701, the level for department of the interior, bureau of land management, management of lands and resources shall be -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk

that was preprinted this the congressional record under the rule. the chair: account clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: offered by mr. burton of indiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: i've talked to the leadership of the committee and i think that this amendment is agreeable to them and i don't think there's going to be a great deal of opposition to it. what i want to do is i want to send a message to the bureau of land management. this amendment only cuts about $2 million from the bureau of land management's management of lands and resources committee. and i know that's not much when you're talking about a $1.65 trillion deficit this year. but the problem that i'm addressing is the wild horse and burrow management program they have. this program was started in 197157ped since then the secretary of the interior's been charged with managing these mustangs that live on public

lands out west, primarily. and by any stretch of the imagination, this program may have been successful to a degree, but it's very, very costly. the cost has gone from $20.4 million in fiscal year 2000 to $64 million in 2010 and the president's asked for $75.7 million in this coming fiscal year. now, as far back as 2008, the nonpartisan government accountability office has warned that the cost of this program will get completely out of control unless we deal with it in an efficient way. and this is not -- this has not happened. and so, what's going on right now is they're taking these mustangs and they're transporting them from their habitat where they live now as far as 1,000 miles, they're putting them in holding pens and they just recently -- recently rounded up about 10,000 of these wild horses, they ship them to a holding pen halfway from, let's

say nevada to oklahoma, and then they transfer them the rest of the way, about 1,000 miles. it costs about $2,500 per horse to keep them in these pens and there's other ways to handle this problem. and so the bureau of land management really needs to get on with the problem of dealing with these wild animals in a very efficient and humane way. and they're not doing that. and so i've talked to the people over at bureau of land management, told them we were going to bring this up and that it was very, very important that they come up with a program that's a responsible way to deal with these animals. and do it in a humane way. now, they're talking about, in addition to coraling them, to killing many thousands of these horses through euthanasia and a lot of people in this country, in the humane society and animal lovers, think this is a very inhumane way to deal with this problem. so the bureau of land management needs to talk to people who are

interested in this issue and come to a conclusion that is acceptable to people all across this country that believe in the mustangs that are out west. and so as i said, my amendment only cuts $2 million, it's just a drop in the bucket when you're talking about this overall cost problem we're facing, but it is one that i hope will send a very strong message to the bureau of langment -- land management, to treat these mustangs in a humane way and solve this problem in a way that's acceptable to the congress of the united states and the people of this country, across america. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho, a member of the committee, rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> we agree there's a major problem with wild horses and burrow policy. it's introduce expensive and problematic for uses on public lands.

i'd like to work with mr. burton and mr. hastings and mr. bishop on this problem. the true problem is the law, not the funding of the law. in recognition of the problems that mr. burton raises, we will accept this amendment but first i'd like to make some important points about the program. the wild horse population is not native to north america and can double every four years. if horses aren't removed from the range it can cause degradation and reduce foliage for wildlife and livestock. if this program isn't appropriately funded and horse aren't removed from the range, wild horses will continue to reproduce, overgraze and eventually have a population crash which means starving horses. mr. simpson: i would also point out that it is already illegal to slaughter wild horses in the and the b.l.m. spends no funds onslaughtering them but i'd like to -- i appreciate the gentleman from indiana pointing out the problem and i would like to work with him to find a reasonable solution to this that doesn't cost the kind of money that it currently costs. thank you.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: we're going to hear some opposition to the intent of this legislation so let me share some thoughts about it. despite so much public support for allowing wild horses to remain wild, despite multiple scientific studies of their management that exposed poor analysis, no use of preventive methods, the b.l.m. continues to use helicopters to round up and remove horses from the range and place them in long-term holding facilities. there are about 40,600 horses in these pens currently. now, most recently, holding costs accounted for $37 million out of a total budget of $64 million. the average life span of a wild horse in cabtivity -- captivity

is about 30 years. holding and maintaining one wild horse in these long-term holding facilities costs about $500 a year. last year b.l.m. received a 30% increase in their budget, instead of using that to fix this broken wild horse management problem, they permanently removed another 10,000 wild horses and burros and put them into tax funded pens. b.l.m.'s approach has been enormously wasteful and misguided. instead of capturing wild horses and holding them in pens for life, they should have already implemented a less costly preventive and more humane option, that of controlling herd size through contraception. according to a study by the u.s. geological survey, the b.l.m. could save up to $8 million a year with the implementation of herd reduction through birth control. it will still round up and remove nearly 10,000 others they feel are excessive in their words.

the same time we have private citizens who are willing to use their own money to form public-private partnerships that will preserve these horses in the wild, promote economic activity, reduce the cost to the federal government. instead of embracing these opportunities, such as a generous plan, b.l.m. has relied on procedural arguments to block such initiatives and maintain the status quo. that's why this amendment is important. as we expanded into the last two centuries ago, we found millions of wild horses thriving on the american prairies and high deserts. they became part of our american heritage. helping us reach the west and developing and thriving as a nation. they've been our campaign yons and our inspiration, but we've already destroyed too many of them. the small herds that still run free symbolize our growth as a great nation. that's why congress declared them protected in 1971. we said that they are entitled to the greatest protection possible as they were fast disappearing from the american landscape.

but rather than maintaining them in their natural state and allowing them to be free, we captured them, often causing harm and even death, and we contained them in these long-term holding facilities. we have millions of wild horses at one time now reduced to only 30,000 still living on the range. we have more in captivity than we have on the range. the fact is, and i'll wind this up, it's time for the bureau of land management to take this seriously, work with the stake holders to fix an unsustainable situation. mr. burton's amendment is intended to make this point abundantly clear to the bureau of land management. that's why we accept this amendment. thank you, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wyoming rise? >> to move to strike the last

word, madam speaker. -- madam chairman. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: we have more than 30,000 wile horses in our state alone. they have no natural predators and i have ridden b.l.m. wild horses. my sister adopted two of them. i've ridden them, we've used them on our ranch and i know whereof i speak. wild horses overgrazing our fragile ecosystems in the west on lands that were not conducive to the type of grazing that occurs when a hoofed animal that does not have a split hoof is grazing causes the soil to be tamped down. horses are a solid hoofed animal. when they run, they tamp the

soil. when we have our spars rains, it runs off, thereby causing soil erosion and causing difficult grazing situations. the natural grazers on that land for millennium for plit-hoofed animals, elk, bison, and that is why sheep and cattle are more conducive to protect the grazing of that spars, fragile resource than a solid-hoofed animal. when you put too many solid-hoofed animals tamping down that fragile grass with a very shallow reservoir of topsoil, you cause over grazing and you are loving horses in a way that causes the fragile grass ecosystem to the western states to death. it is this congress that has

caused the problems by saying that we cannot slaughter horses, yet we're not supposed to keep them in pens, we're supposed to allow them to overgraze the west. when the gentlelepeople east of the mississippi will take these excess -- gentlepeople east of the mississippi will take these excess horses into their back yards, i will support this amendment. until then, i oppose efforts by those well-meaning people. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana, those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the eas visit, the amendment is agreed to. dethe ayes have it.

the amendment is agreed. to for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: over the past 40 years it has protected americans in every state. it proect the air we breathe, it protects our children from developing asthma. according to the american lung association in 2010 alone, the clean air act saved over 160,000 lives. ever since 1990, the e.p.a. estimates the clean air act prevented an estimated 843,000 asthma attacks. 18 million cases of respiratory illness amongst children. 672,000 cases of chronic bronkice. 21,000 cases of heart disease.

and 200,000 premature deaths. yet in the irresponsible republican spending bill, there's an attempt to eliminate all funding from the implementation of the clean air act. it's clear the republican majority is doing all it can to stop e.p.a. from carrying out its mission of public health and helping our environment. many claim the e.p.a. is moving at a faster pace than any administration in history. however, they have proposed fewer clean air act rules over the last 21 months than in the first two years of president bush or president clinton. that's why in december of 2010, 280 groups, including the american heart association, the american lung association, the american public health association, and others sent a letter urging the congress to reject any measure that would block or delay the united states environmental protection agency from doing its job to protect all americans from

life-threatening air pollution. the irresponsible republican spending bill is not the place to legislate these types of changes. these policy changes should not be made in this sort of process. the clean air act is promoting innovation and breaking american oil dependence but republicans would give big polluters a loophole to roll back our clean energy progress and continue our addiction to foreign oil. the clean air act is good for our economy. many studies have shown the clean air act's economic benefits to far exceed any costs associated with the law. by as much as a 40-1 ratio. as president obama so eloquently spoke of in his state of the union address, we must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build our global competitors to build the future. rolling back a law that protects the air our children breathe, to allow oil companies the ability to spew chemicals, smog, soot, and pollution into

the air just to please a lobbyist or big oil corporation is irresponsible and extreme. the clean air act has been on the books for decades with positive results for our economy, our environment, and our businesses. rolling back these protections will only hurt our most vulnerable. we simply cannot afford to go backward. with that, i thank you madam chair and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- rise? the gentleman will suspend. the clerk will eread. the clerk: page 263, line 20, section 1702, the level for department of the interior bureau of land management construction shall be $2,590,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new

mexico rise? >> madam chair, i request unanimous consent to modify amendment in the form at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman specify the amendment he seeks to offer. >> number 554. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 556, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. pearce of new mexico. mr. pearce: madam chair. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? the gentleman from idaho. >> i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for five minutes. mr. pearce: madam chair irk request unanimous consent to modify the modified amendment. and it's just language is put

in that was there extraneously. the chair: the clerk will report to the modifications. >> we object to the modifications. the chair: objection is heard. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: madam chair, whenever a family is running behind on its obligations, the family begins to stop its investments, its purchases. madam chair i would draw the attention of our body to the chart in front of me. we're spending $5. trillion a year and bring in $2.2 trillion a year. that means we have $1.3 trillion of deficit that goes into our debt barrel. currently our debt is around $15 trillion a year. that's on top of the $89 trillion unobligated -- obligated funds we have to pay in the future for social security, medicare, and medicaid.

madam chair, it is time for us to live within our means as a nation. so my amendment simply strikes the ability for b.l.m. to purchase new lands and buildings. it removes $15 million from fish and wildlife for land abblingsigses. it removes $14-plus million from national parks for land acquisition. it removes $9 million from forest service for land acquisition. it removes $2.5 million from the b.l.m. for new construction. it removes $23 million from wish and wildlife service for construction funds. it removes $171 million from national park service for construction funds. as we look at the picture here of us as a nation and we're seeing that that -- we're seeing that literally we're in the process of wrecking our economy, the same as a family would be wrecking its economy,

it's time for us to not stop the purchases of land but simply put them off to a future time when we can get our economic house in order. we're not talking about stopping these programs forever. just during the next -- during the rest of this fiscal year. it's not the time for us to be spending money in this way. our future is at risk. we're having to look at cutting significant funds from programs that matter. we are running a $1.3 trillion deficit this year, next year, the president's budget says he wants to run a $1.6 trillion deficit. we're looking, c.b.o. and o.m.b. both have a chart here that shows our economy simply discontinues in the 2030 range. when we're talking about the fiscal instability of our economy, when we're talking about this picture for our ability to pay our debt, when we're talking about this picture for the nation, then it only makes sense for us to look and prioritize our funding and

to prioritize our expenditures the same way any family would. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman from idaho continue to reserve his point of order? >> i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state. mr. simpson: the amendment may not be considered en bloc under cause 2f because it does not propose to transfer obligations among obblets in the bill but also proposes changing those amounts. i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard? the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: in addition to a point of order, i think it should be made note of that what we're talking about in visitation are huge industries, responsible for three million

jobs. the park service has a back log in deferred maintenance of at least $6 billion. we can't be cutting construction. and in fact, these funds enhance national parks -- the chair: the gentleman will confine his remarks to the point of order. mr. moran: i support the motion that this is out of order and trust it will be ruled as such. thank you, madam chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be herd on the gentleman's point of order? if not, the chair will rule. to be considered enblonk amendment must propose only to -- en bloc, amendment must propose only to move objects in the bill. because the gentleman also proposes another kind of change in the bill, namely, a new limitation on funds in the bill, it may not avail itself of clause 2-f to address portions of the bill not yet read. the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> there's bipartisan agreement that congress needs to recite -- create jobs but the pill before us today goes too far with irresponsible and arbitrary cuts that will threaten the economy and cost us more than 800,000 private and public sector jobs. included in today's bill is reckless language that will cost thousands of jobs in coastal communities in my district and in oregon by destroying the recreational and commercial salmon fisheries. mr. thompson: over the years, my district has been hit hard by politically motivated water management decisions that have resulted in dramatic declines in salmon stock. for example, in the central valley, we witnessed a peak of 76 ,000 fall run salmon in 2002. followed by a collapse to an

historic low of only 39,500 fish in 2009. these declines have led to an timented $1.4 billion lost economic activity in 2008, 2009, and 23,000 lost jobs. in these two years they are commercial fishery was completely shut down. last year, only 14,500 salmon were caught by the california salmon fishery, which is about 20% as many as were caught during the 2006 disaster. this only exacerbates the economic crisis facing fishing families and communities in my district. these fishing families have been put out of work in my district and up through and into oregon. some have lost their homes, their savings, and their livelihoods. water management decisions in the collapsing bay delta ecosystem need to be based on science, not politics.

in 2002, the science on minimum flows in the river was ignored, resulting in the death of some 80,000 salmon and the loss of countless fishing community jobs. . this waives protections which threaten fishing jobs and the biological opinions, this bill threatens water supplies for southern california farmers and cities by placing the burden to comply with the california endangered species act solely on the state water project. we know with the right tools and careful water management, we can meet our water needs in a cost-effective way and restore salmon runs in coastal communities. we need to continue the ongoing negotiations aimed at reaching balanced solutions for california's water challenges. this bill undermines that effort. for these reasons, and many more, i urge my colleagues to

join me in opposing this reckless piece of legislation that hurts jobs, hurts the economy and hurts my district. thank you. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does gentlelady from california rise? mrs. capps: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capps: i'm troubled to be on the floor this afternoon. americans still are facing staggering unemployment rates. our economy has not yet fully recovered. but instead of talking about the many ways we can generate jobs, especially clean energy jobs that can't be shipped overseas and ways to improve the health of american families, we have an extreme piece of legislation before us. americans all agree that fiscal discipline is a must. but special interests giveaways and legislative earmarks to protect polluters won't balance our checkbook.

putting protection on the chopping block is dirt year air and water and more children's lives at risk. one of the most egregious things in the bill would block the e.p.a. to protect our health. not allowing the e.p.a. to address carbon pollution under the clean air act is flat out dangerous. climate change is a serious problem. the scientific evidence is clear. the debate is over. climate change is real. it is happening. and human beings are largely to blame. 2010 was the hottest year on record. and in the last decade the earth experienced nine of the 10 hottest years since data has been recorded. we are starting to see the irreversible damage to our economy and our environment. sea levels are rising. acidification is happening in our oceans. the wormed is witnessing rainfall, droughts and wildfires and our capacity to grow enough food will be several challenged

in the years ahead. the only -- the longer we delay taking action to address climate change, the more difficult and expensive the solutions will be. that is why the e.p.a. is taking a cautious, flexible and balanced approach to addressing carbon pollution. each of the steps they have taken so far has followed the letter of the law. for four decades, the clean air act has protected the health of millions of americans, including our children, our seniors and the most vulnerable among us from all kinds of dangous air pollutants. the law has a tremendous track record in providing certainty to businesses and delivering economic benefits. since the clean air act was enacted overall, air pollution has dropped while you go g.d.p. has risen 207%. we have also seen major health benefits including asthma reduction, lower lung cancer rates and much greater productivity. by 2020, the benefits of the clean air act are expected to

reach $2 trillion exceeding any costs by 30 to one. all of these are jeopardized by this rollback included in the republican omnibus spending bill. groups from the american lung association to the american sustainable business council have decried the harm of this proposal to people's health and our economy and why i stand with them today in opposing the extreme earmark to gut the clean air act. this sweeping proposal has many impacts and would block new construction and tampers with the clean air -- clean car agreement between the auto makers, the states and the obama administration and would stop the renewable fuel standards in its tracks. madam chair, our constituents want us to create jobs and stand up for the health of their families and not stand with the big polluters. this attack doesn't make sense. last month, president obama stood on the house floor and

talked about winning the future through innovation and used clean energy as a central example. we know that clean energy will put americans to work and will help our economy grow and it will help america compete in a global marketplace. let's create jobs by investing in cleaner forms of energy and not obstruct the e.p.a. from doing its job from protecting the public's health and environment. these are crucial issues, madam chair, for the public and our planet. it's our duty here in this place to ensure both are protected from harmful carbon pollution. unfortunately, this extreme legislation does not meet this test. this crucial test. congress should be investing in america's future not moving backwards. i urge my colleagues to say no to this irresponsible omnibus with all of its reckless spending cuts. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the

gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: i move to strike the last word. this spending bill is simply unacceptable on many levels. this is a bill drafted for a sound bite, not sound policy for the american people. handcuffing the e.p.a. is proof of that fact and i have and will continue to oppose these attempts and oppose these amendments where possible. this c.r. ash temporarily kills jobs, hurts the public health and slap in the face to protecting our environment and clean air. this c.r. will set our country back by curtailing scientific research because republicans don't like what some of that science says. worst yet, it puts our children's health at risk by handcuffing the e.p.a.'s ability to police polluters. the american public needs real solutions and thoughtful policy, not sound bites. this bill is a backhanded way of achieving a policy objective just because the republican party does president like what the science is telling us and

stop time and time again any meaningful reform and are attempting to recommendation late in the spending bill. this continues the false logic employed by republicans. underfund an agency, then complain about its ineffectiveness and then call for further cuts because the program didn't have the funds to work in the first place. e.p.a. is working hard to protect us from pollution in a responsible way that spurs the economy. this c.r. prohibits any funding to carry out its pollution safeguards. the rules are targeting largest power plants and prevent from polluting our air. it spurs economic growth. the recent study found that 5.1 million could be created by letting the e.p.a. ensure that power companies move toward cleaner power plants. 1.5 million jobs cut by this c.r. this provision only harms an industry by giving increased uncertainty and not allowing them to plan for the future and

might lock up permits. we don't need sound bites. we need sound policy. the clean air act guards the most vulnerable americans those with asthma, lung disease, people with heart disease and diabetes from the real danger of airborne pollutants including threats from mercury, carbon dioxide and methane. the act prevents thousands of ill-health effects preventing asthma attacks and heart attacks and preventing premature deaths. the clean air act will save more than 160,000 lives, according to estimates by the environmental protection agency. 40 years of evidence shows that these health benefits come not only without harm to the economy but with benefits to the economy. since 1970, the clean air act has cut emissions by 60% at the same time the economy has grown by more than 200%. i implore the majority party to stop making grand gestures.

let us -- let it do its job from protecting families from dangerous pollution and keep our air and water clean. this c.r.'s is a polluter's dream. i urge a no vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: we all recognize the need for us to reduce the deficit and curtail unreasonable spending, but this continuing resolution obviously goes far too in the extreme direction of harming our economy and harming many of the services that our citizens who come to rely on to finish and bring their lives together whether they are working, whether they need health care, whether their children need education. and this resolution is harmful to that. but i want to speak for the moment on section 1475, which is the rider that is added to this legislation that will harm the california economy, harm our

ability to plan into the future for the use of water. we have a water system in california that's dramatically oversubscribed. and we are in the process now of bringing that together to make sure that we can meet the future economic theeds of our state and also the various sectors of that economy, whether they be the fishing sector, they be the energy-producing sector, the farming sector or settlement of our cities. but with this rider, this rider throws out 18 years of litigation that successfully brought to the end of long conflict on the san joaquin river to provide for that settlement, a settlement that is agreed to by almost everyone. more importantly for the sake of the long-term water use, this amendment defunds the biological opinions that are going forward that are the cornerstone to provide for the final elements

of the plan to provide california and the apportionment of that water for the protection of the fisheries and the economies in northern california, for the protection of the water supplies of the central valley's economy and the needs of great urban areas of southern california. that planning must be completed. this is as close as we have come after decades and decades of water waters in the state of california. we have the opportunity now to bring the various parties together from all regions, from all sectors of the economy and plan the future of our state so we will have the water that is necessary to secure our economy, to secure our families, to secure our agricultural areas of the state and provide for the great ecology of the state of california. we have gone through some disasters, if you will, because of the droughts, because of water cycles and from my colleagues further north, mike thompson, laid out this. we saw lots of job lost because of political water decisions

that were made over the last several years that decimated the salmon run. not only affecting the san francisco bay delta but the coastal regions of our state and the coastal regions of oregon and washington. these are important fisheries and important part of our economy and renewable part of our economy if we take care of it. if we have mindless riders that are put on the legislation like the one that's provided in section 1475, it will bring an end to these negotiations. it's taking a long time to get the water parties from industry, the water parties from agriculture, from the environmental community from the federal government and state government together, sitting at that table working it through. in the last couple of days, we see the delta planning organization put forth its first document to say what the requirements will be for the conservation habitat plan that all of these elements from north and south california are working on. this amendment kicks that

negotiating table over and drives the parties away from the negotiations and california goes back into a water uncertainty, economic uncertainty and ecological uncertainty that our state cannot continue to have if we are going to grow our economy and come out of this recession. i would hope on passage that members would vote against this continuing resolution understanding the kind of damage that these kinds of riders that were inserted in the middle of the night on behalf of a few special interests to have the opportunity to really destroy, destroy bipartisan geographical negotiations that are the most promising in the last 40 years in the history of our state. the opposition from so many of the water users across the state no matter where they reside to this rider is well known, to the fishing community, to so many parts of our economy in the san joaquin, sacramento bay delta

and future of our ability to get a handle on these water issues that have plagued us for so many years in california and i would hope we reject this provision of this legislation. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does gentlelady from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. matsui: this continuing resolution goes in the wrong direction and affects my state and district adversely. . as we pry to repair the delta and prepare the water system for generations to come, it's imperative we make progress and not take steps backward. that means finding a way for

california users to receive water without hurting the delta. cutting funding from the san joaquin restoration, and the biological delta smelt and salmon are steps backwards. the balance we have been trying to achieve in california is a negotiation that must not be thrown off balance. decades of work toward a more certain future in california water is only attainable when everyone works toward a solution, rather than throw up roadblocks that cost us precious time. that road started in the bush administration and continues to this day. i urge you to oppose the language in the continuing resolution and allow the work by key stake holders to continue. i yield back the mans of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. yarmuth: in my hometown of louisville, kentucky, a provision of h r. 1 will effectively ban new construction on power plants, refinelies and manufacturing facilities. by freezing the environmental protection agency's ability to issue a mission-based -- issue mission-based construction permits it would halt ongoing construction projects in places like louisville. thousands of jobs in construction, contracting an manufacturing could be lost. in louisville alone, plans to improve ford's kentucky truck plant could be derailed, jeopardizing the jobs of thousands of hardworking kentuckians. i know what you're thinking, what i'm saying can't possibly be true.

but it is. you're thinking this must be an unintended consequence of section 2746 or an error in drafting but it's not. apparently this is exactly what the republicans on the appropriations committee intended to do. they will let nothing stand in the way of their feverish rush to handcuff the e.p.a., not even american jobs. in their effort to slam through a package of irresponsible cuts and to thwart the work of the agency charged with protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink, the casualties aren't just limited to our national environment but real people and real jobs. plups in the house are trying to shut down the e.p.a. at all costs except they aren't the ones paying the price. i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 1. it is reckless, it is irresponsible and it is politics at their very worst. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york a member of the committee, rise?

the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. engel: for many years i have worked closely and been dependent on e.p.a.'s collaboration to address the impact that poor air quality has had on residents of my district. the funding limitations that stops the -- mr. serrano: this will negatively impact air quality not only in my district but throughout the nation. this will also cause the cancellation of numerous projects which would eliminate thousands of jobs. the national endowment for the arts and humanities are also facing severe cuts. what kind of society have we become if we cannot encourage and fund the arts and humanities? are we focusing on jobs? we must remember that giving our young people the

opportunity to experience the arts leads to a more qualified and educated work force. the funding for the n.e.a. and the n.e.h. helps to provide an important investment in our lowal -- local arts organizations. our national parks crib to the standard of living that many americans enjoy. our national parks are one of our greatest treasures, available to all of us. we must continue to improve and protect this valuable resource. the cuts to the national park service will also negatively affect many historical and conservation projects. with cuts to the drinking water fund, we will be eliminating communities' abilities to provide clean and safe drinking water to their residents that we, as elected officials are stewards of. i know that we continue over the last 24 and the next 24 hours to discuss these very serious cuts. all i would hope is that as we go forward and we deal with

cuts that many of us agree have to be made that we pay special attention to the future of our country. one thing is to simply say cuts, re-- cut, reduce the deficit, the other is to say, what are we going to do to parks? what are we going to do to drinking water? what are we geng to do to the air we breathe? what are we going to do to all the things we've done over the last 40 or 50 years. as we cut budgets, we take that into consideration. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the lance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from guam rise? ms. bordallo: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. bordallo: i will not be offering my amendment number 487 in the congressional record. it would restore funding to the assistance to territories account under the u.s. department of the interior office of insular affairs to fiscal year 2008 levels.

the 7% reduction in funding offered by the republican majority would cut necessary assistance to the governments of guam, the u.s. virgin islands, american samoa, puerto rico and the commonwealth of the northern marianas islands. the u.s. territories are provided assistance through the office of insular affairs and provided by the account to be cut has allowed our -- us to fund disaster mitigation programs, coral reef programs and environmental preservation. in fact, madam chairman, the constitution under article 4, section 3, clause 2 gives this congress explicit authority to, and i quote, the congress shall have power to dispose and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property

belonging to the united states. unquote. while this impacts all territories, on quam in particular -- on guam in particular, funding on o.i.a. has been critical to management of the coral reef conservation programs, technical assistance to modernize and develop our port which provides direct economic benefit as well as assistance in modernizing our tax collection and auditing systems. if my colleagues on the other side want to help develop the economy os they have territories, it is essential we continue to provide this technical assistance in a targeted fashion as it's done now to jump start that development process. my colleagues from the u.s. territories, mr. faleomavaega, mr. pierluisi, mrs. christensen an mr. is a plan all agree that

this funding cut is yet another example of the majority's lack of concern for over four million residents of the u.s. territories. while the majority's removal of our symbolic voting rights at the beginning of the 112th congress did not affect the livelihoods of our constituents, this funding cut would tangibly result in a reduction of public service in each of our districts. and i oppose the republicans' continued neglect of our local governments in the territories. i yealed back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from american samoa rise? mr. faleomavaega: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is reich niced. mr. faleomavaega: i appreciate the goal to cut spending and reduce the deficit which is expected to hit $1.6 trillion

this year. i'm pleased with the approach laid out by president obama in his budget proposal for fy-2012 and beyond. president obama is making the case for selectively cutting spending while increasing resources in areas like education an clean energy initiatives that hold the potential for long-term payoffs in economic growth this common sense approach will help bring down annual deficits to more substantial levels but not at the peril of programs that are vital to economic growth, job creation and the well being of our fellow americans. madam chairman, this spending bill, h.r. 1, which proposes to cut programs and funding under section 1729 and 1730, does not help our economically struggling fellow americans through initiatives involving education, the environment, housing and employment. it will cut critical programs and projects that are essential

to economic development and job creation not only in the 50 state bus also in the insular areas. the proposed bill will cut approximately $6.6 million from the current budget outlay so the department of the entire year's of the -- of the interior's department of insular affairs. it also has a 4% reduction in salaries. the o.i.a. has maintained relatively constant levels since 2009 despite disproportionate need in the territories. it provides critical support not otherwise nable -- available to insular areas. it maintains the momentum needed to make meaningful, systematic changes. reducks in the o.i.a. and compact association funding will translate to cuts to vital

projects including but not limited those projects that foster development insular areas in tax procedures an others. the whole thing, madam chairman. these projects are also critically needed funding for implementation of our obligations under the free association for the republic of palau, the republic of the marshall islands and the federal states of micronearbya. i urge my colleagues to continue support for the needs of the insular areas and our obligations to our compact friends in the pacific. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i neu strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is

recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in support of ms. bordallo's amendment this will hurt american families and communs across the country from the northern mariana islands to the northern border of maine. ms. chu: it hits our outlying territories particularly hard and the american citizens and families who live and work there. this bill takes more than 7% out of the assistance to territories account which funds critical programs at the local level in guam, the u.s. virgin islands and the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands. these communities have knew unique needs and this account helps them address those. it helps when dast -- helps fund disaster mitigation programs, particularly important in low-lying islands susceptible to tropical storms. it helps ensure a strong and robust judiciary in american

samoa, a crucial program to ensure that the american constitution and u.s. laws are upheld in every corner of our nation. it helps these areas make needed infrastructure repairs which creates jobs that are critical in this sufficient -- in this tough economic time. this amendment would restore the funding an just because the communities may be farther away means they are no less american and in no less need of the services this funding provides. just because they are farther away does not mean the slashing of programs will go unnoticed. as chairwoman of the asian-pacific american caucus, i express strong support for the amendment offered by ms. bordallo and oppose the cuts offered by the republican majority in h.r. 1. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern

mariana islands rise? mr. sablan: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: people on the northern mariana islands pay four times the national average for electricity because we're dependent on shipped oil. a grant has helped identify a possible source of geothermal energy on one of the islands. further exploration and more investigation is needed to be sure this will work for us. but without the technical assistance grant, we wouldn't even know we have this possibility of getting off our dependence on expensive foreign oil. now h.r. 1 proposes to cut the funds to help the northern marianas -- marianas and other places. this kind of thinking is penny wise and pound foolish. helping us get free of foreign

oil is only one example of how the interior department funding helps us. these cuts threaten the brown tree snake program. i know this may sound like a joke to some but on guam there are half a million or more on these snakes. a few came in on military aircraft and spread quickly. they have caused millions of dollars of damage to electrical system and desthroid rare indigenous bird life. we don't want to see this spread to the northern mariana islands or hawaii or the mainland united states and entiror department funding is keeping the snakes in check. do away with this funding and this unwanted -- these unwanted immigrants will break through our borders. the interior department funding that h.r. 1 cuts supports training programs for high school an college students in the islands. it supports training for professional people in financial management, accounting and auditing to help us manage our money to u.s.

standards. take away the training money and you'll make it even more difficult for us to build capacity and become fully integrated into the american family. our economy is based on tourism. tourists come to enjoy our warm oceans and beautiful coral reefs, but these reefs are at risk. runoff from the development of land kills the coral, funding that h.r. 1 is helping to protect the coral that underpins our tourism economy. take away the funding and you hit our fragile tourism industry. . we know the federal government has to cut spending and we need to weed out wasteful programs and get more efficient with our own spending but the money that helps the insular areas is not wasted. it is effective and targeting the problems that the insular areas confront. it will be a mistake and it is a

mistake to cut this amount of money that has a large effect in the islands and all of the u.s. insular areas. thank you, madam chair and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? >> i move to strike the last word. mr. heinrich: our nation's unsustainable budget is starring us in the face and we must approach our nation's greatest challenges with responsibility and prudent. what's at stake here is grand in scope and we could have grave consequences for our nation's security, infrastructure and our economy. just this morning, secretary of defense, robert gates called the republican stop-gap spending plan, quote, a crisis on our doorstep, in terms of our

national security and that these short sighted budget cuts could lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later. the approach we take must focus on responsible cuts, which will have a lasting impact on our deficit, not arbitrary short-term cuts to programs to win a few votes back home. we should be making a decision based on the best available science, not the worst possible politics. for example, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are focused on defunding the mexican wolf recovery program, instead of protecting the critically important jobs at the national security administration. it is responsible for the management and security of our nation's nuclear weapons and nuclear nonproliferation and provides funding for the work being done at our national labs. and sandia have a tremendous

impact on our local communities and defense. sandia labs hired 700 people, 203 graduated from the new mexico university. i'm in favor of reducing spending. in fact, this weekt i voted to cut $3 billion in unnecessary spending. installations critical to our national security which are private sector economic drivers like sandia national lab should not take the hit. republicans want to gut the land and water conservation fund, a proven economic multiplier that has yielded $4 in economic activity around national parks for every dollar a federal investment. they want to slash the antiqities which has provided an economic lifeline to rural communities surrounded by public

land. outdoor recreation and public lands means jobs. they mean hunting and fishing and camping and a western way of life. also on the chopping block are vital funding for women's health care and service agencies like amere corps. the republicans' continuing resolution cuts key investments. just this month in my home state of new mexico, we experienced a major gas outage emergency. on the coldest night of the year with temperatures as low as negative 32 degrees, families distribution infrastructure failures across the southwest. in an era of infrastructure failures, which wreak havoc on communities, cutting key transportation and infrastructure investments would leave america dorningously vulnerable. at the same time, -- dangerously

vulnerable. and they result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. the middle class is on a shaky path to recovery from the worst recession since the great depression. let's not pull the rug out from the hard-working people we came here to represent. it has been two months since the republicans have taken over the majority and haven't introduced a jobs package and it was bad enough they were ignoring jobs, but with this c.r. they are actively trying to cut jobs. i don't know about you but a so-be-it attitude isn't going to cut it to the families i represent back home. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to politicize . that is the only way we will ever rebuild the public's trust in government and grow our economy. i withdraw my amendment.

the chair: for what purpose does gentlelady california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. napolitano: i'm going to speak on the issue of water. i represent an area where we have a superfund site called the ground water contaminated site which continues this resolution will risk the water supply of over 30 million people and directly affects the ability to continue the 20-year cleanup that has been in effect with another 15 years to run on the contaminated site. the site of connecticut, which undermines the agreements of the local, state and federal and potential responsible parties have come together in doing the bay delta conservation plan. in regard to climate supplies which helps secure -- clean

water supply to farmers in the san joaquin valley. it impacts the settlement impacts an agreement developed by not only farmers and tribes and conserves groups, the power companies and the states of california and oregon negotiated by no less than the bush administration for voluntary removal of these privately owned dams. this will prevent fair congressional consideration of the klamath agreement. the sangab real restoration fund, the list i cited before is the last line of defense against migrating ground water contamination which has affected our basin for the past 35 years which was due to pest is idse and other contaminant. has treated groundwater and

helped fund the construction of 24 treatment facilities and removed thousands of volatile organic compounds and it also threatens the health of some 40, 50 communities in the southern california area. needed to complete this clean up, the funding to fight the spread of this contamination must not be eliminated. in the bay delta, the further cuts would abolish key cuts in the restoration program and the implementation of two, two, biological opinions on endangered species protecting wild fisheries and risking millions of people's water supply delivery. fish is a species and so is the human race another species. i have two letters that i would like to submit to the record supporting one of the programs that apparently is not on, but i

would like to submit it for the record. the chair: that request would have to be offered to the full house. mrs. napolitano: conservation and water recycling create jobs and save money. cuts is not warranted. we need that water. our economy needs the water and all the jobs these will produce. our communities is developing sustainable water supplies through all the programs. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. castor: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. castor: i'm committed to cutting the deficit and i have a seat on the budget committee to do so but i rise to express deep concerns over the congressional republicans' irresponsible fiscal scheme that will harm communities and students back home that i represent.

we need a multi-year strategy to cut the debt and the deficit. but a strategy that ensures that america retains a superiority in education, innovation and research, we must cut waste and close the huge tax loopholes written by lobbyists like the one for oil companies. the congressional republicans do not do this. instead of tackling the debt and deficit in a smart and strategic way, congressional republicans' scheme will result in job losses and will make economic recovery more difficult for american families and businesses. and here are some stark examples from the community i represent back in florida in the tampa bay area. first on education and the pell grant . i represent an education community with a large public research university and a private college and many community colleges. when the republicans propose

cutting the pell grant in support of students, this harms our ability to maintain our superiority in education when we're competing with countries all across the globe. you know, over nine million students and families rely on the pell grant every year in america. and we have worked very hard through the economic recovery to help those students maintain that same level of pell grant . so don't take us backwards. you shouldn't be taking us backwards. do you know what it is for a hard-working family to pay tuition. is tuition and books being cut? no. let's not turn our backs on our students and families at the same time. thing thing for head start. we have an award-winning nirnttive and it gives students a boost in life is very well known. parents have to be involved and we wish all eligible kids could get that boost. even now before the

congressional republican cut, we have 2,400 families on the waiting list and 1,000 infants and toddlers on the early start list. the republican cuts take us backwards. i hear 452 families will be told there's no room for their child. they will also lay off 123 teachers just in my home county alone because in the state of florida they predict they have to lay off 2,000 teachers under your cuts. schools and students, republicans again are off base in cutting my local schools, title i school kids that need a little extra attention. we estimate that republicans will be eliminating 20 to 30 jobs in my home district that serve students that need that achievement gap boost. you are hurting students across the bay that recently was able

to expand beyond elementary school. colleagues and madam chair, rather than close the tax loophole for the oil companies that are making multi-billion dollars, they cut my local police and sheriff's department, like the help we get under cops for the anti-methamphetamine initiative and for our juvenile justice initiatives to prevent gangs from forming in the counties. these initiatives have received national awards from the attorney general and it would be a real shame if we had to turn these back. also in my home county, we rely on robust ports in the tampa bay area. you are going to cut that economic engine that supports to dredge the canals and ports so ships can come in and we rely on those for jobs. you are also going to cut the national oceanic atmospheric administration. after the gulf of mexico

suffered the economic hit under the bp oil blowout, our coastal communities were hurt badly, tourism, seafood industry and wildlife habitat suffered significant damage. coming from florida when you say you are going to turn our backs on our ability to monitor our oceans, that's very harmful because clean oceans and clean beaches mean a healthy economy. certainly closing the oil company tax loophole would be a wiser course of action. . it has hit us especially hard. so hard that a local expert told me yesterday that the republican budget cuts to the magnitude being considered would greatly and immediately increase homelessness, place more than 1,000 families at risk and seniors on the street. vote no on this underlying bill. the chair: the gentlewoman's

time has expired. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 264, line 1, section 1703, the level for department of the interior, bureau of land management, land acquisition, $2,750,000. >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 193. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? the gentleman reserves a point of order. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 193 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. lummis of wyoming. the chair: the gentlelady from wyoming is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, madam chairman. in december i voted for that historic agreement between president obama and congress to keep american taxes low and could extend unemployment benefits.

-- and to extend unemployment benefits. and now we're here to debate how to pay for that and i have an idea about how to help pay for that. my amendment, number 193, would strike the remaining funding for this six months and this year, totaling $35 million, from the budgets of the u.s. fish and wildlife service, the b.l.m. and the forest service for the purpose of buying new federal land. there are many alternatives to buying land with cash that would allow them to continue using yankee ingenuity and those include land exchanges. in my own state we have over half a million acres that have been designated for disposal by federal agencies because these lands don't fit into good land management and yet there are other lands that these same federal agencies would like to

acquire. they can do exchanges. they can do sales of this lapped that's designated for -- land that's designated for disposal and purchase other lands that work better for the fragmented land ownership patterns that we sometimes experience in the west. this is a much better alternative to using $35 million to pay cash to buy new land that adds to the management base and responsibility. at the same time it would free up land that would be disposed of for people to buy and begin to earn a living on. so this is a way to create jobs, not to burden the federal government and to recognize that good stewardship and good conservation can be practiced by good federal and private partnerships and those are the opportunities that are available if we adopt this amendment. it saves the taxpayers money, it helps pay for those unemployed

people on unemployment benefits and this is a win-win amendment. it's only a moratorium and when we begin the next fiscal year we would have an opportunity to have reviewed projects between the natural resources committee and the interior subcommittee of the appropriations committee and have a better understanding of the ultimate goal of our land acquisitions programs within these federal agencies. so, madam chairman, i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. does the gentleman from virginia continue to reserve his point of order? >> i will withdraw the point of order but i will rise to speak against the amendment. the chair: the reservation is withdrawn. the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: madam chair, let me give this body the top 10

reasons to defeat this amendment. number one, these are not really taxpayer dollars. number two, this amendment represents a complete elimination of a bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years. the third reason is that this amendment will eliminate all the land and water conservation funding, even the few dollars remaining under the continued resolution for management of these programs. the fourth reason is that this amendment would force land management agencies to end all the work on congressionally approved projects that are now under way using previous year appropriations. it will hurt land owners by preventing agencies from finishing out commitments that are already in place. fifth reason, many land owners, ranging from elderly widowers

and family trusts, to ranchers and forest owners, have pressing financial needs that now depend on completion of these ongoing land and water conservation projects. sixth reason, by eviscerating the land and water conservation fund yureks going to cause severe impacts on many others as well. including school children in the state of wyoming. the amendment will bring to an immediate halt the negotiated agreement between the state of wyoming and the national park service to transfer $107 million of school trust lands to grand titen national park. without the land and water conservation fund, the state can't meet its mandate to sell those lands and generate revenue to support its educational system. seventh reason, the amendment would frustrate land exchanges that are currently in process, many of which have been years in the making and are important for local-private -- local private

economic development and land management. eighth reason, under this amendment the staff would not be in place to even accept and process donations of important natural historic and other properties to the public. ninth reason, without staff right of lay work to provide and maintain access for key public needs would be rendered impossible. the public would be unable to secure critically needed routes for fuels and wildfire management, watershed management and access for sportsmen and other recreational use. 10th reason, the amendment would exasser baste bait an already draconian cut to -- exacerbate an already draconian cut to a program that's already paid for using a very small percentage of oil drilling receipts. this amendment should be rejected. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chair. in every state of the united states, the land and water conservation fund has been one of the most successful programs for preserving open space and our environment for future generations. it's important to note, as the ranking member has said, that the lwcf is not funded by taxpayer dollars but by fees charged to industry for the extraction of oil and gas from lick lands. mr. holt: congress created the lwcf 45 years ago on the present that some funds garnered from extraction of resources should be devoted to the preservation of other resources, in fact, protecting permanently important lands and waters and access to recreation for all americans. the lwcf is the only environmental preservation program in the federal

government that is fully offset. and under the lwcf polluters, not taxpayers, pay to protect the environment. so cutting this program doesn't save taxpayer jobs -- dollars, it robs taxpayers of the returns and actually, as in so many things in this continuing resolution, it does away with jobs. it's my belief that the lwcf should be fully funded at the authorized level of $900 million and the state side program should receive at least $200 million to match state funds. this is what the president requested and it is -- in his fiscal 2011 budget and i think it's a fair proposal. the draconian continuing resolution in front of us not only would zero out the state side portion of the lwcf, it would cut the lwcf overall program to the to the lowest level in its history.

ending much-needed balance between resource extraction and resource conservation. we should reject soundly this amendment. the budget before us and this continuing resolution would really turn back the clock on efforts to preserve open spaces. the state side portion of lwcf, which i helped revive in one of my first acts when i came to this congress, through its matching grants has saved over 73,000 achers in my state of new jersey and in our 12th district, which i have the privilege to represent, we received tens of millions of dollars in state side lwcf funding. every family that visits veterans park in mercer county or the sickles recreation area or colonial lake playground, to

name a few of the hundreds of lwcf projects, has benefited directly from this successful program. preserving open space is more than an environmental issue, it really is a quality of life issue. it's not about just preserving beautiful vistas, it's about preserving nature's way of cleansing herself, it is about providing recreation and parks, it is particularly important for states east of the mississippi, but it is no less important for states -- all 50 states. every state has positive stories to tell about lwcf. voters consistently have supported funding open space preservation. recent polling found that 86% of americans are supportive of

reinvesting funds from offshore drilling fees to land and water protection. president johnson said, if future generations are to remember us more with gratitude than sorrow we must achieve more than just the miracles of technology we must also leave them a glimpse of the world as it was created. not just as it looks when we get through with it. the land and water conservation fund is one of the few government programs that really benefits all americans, does not use taxpayer dollars, receives the overwhelming support of the nation, i ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from idaho, for what purpose does do you rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i understand and sympathize with the amendment that the gentlelady from wyoming is proposing. mr. simpson: we in the west

sometimes have a little bit different point of view. when regardless of where the funding comes from, whether it comes from money that comes from oil sales or other things, when you're buying additional land in a state that's 64% federal land currently, that causes concern to westerners. i understand why sometimes people from new jersey and massachusetts and other places that don't have a lot of public lands sometimes don't understand the same concern that we share out there. so i sympathize with what the gentlelady is saying in this amendment. but i would point out, this started out in 2010, there was $450 million in the land and water conservation fund appropriated for this year. and we have reduced that in this bill to $58 million. it already terminates funding for any new federal land acquisition projects, an action we had to take in order to meet the subcommittee's allocation half way through this fiscal year. all that remains is enough funding for managing projects funded in prior years and for

emergencies and inholdings for small acquisitions that make sense and save taxpayers money in the long run. so, we've reduced this fund for any new land acquisition. i can't tell you what's going to happen in the next bill. but this one would allow for those inholdings to be purchased, those things that are ongoing and currently under negotiation, so i think it's the appropriate thing to do, terminating this program -- these program would pull the rug out from under private land owns that are have already made commitments that -- that we've already made commitments to, many of whom have fallen under hard times in this economy, who need to sell their lands and who would want to conserve those lands for all americans. so as much as i sympathize with what the gentlelady is trying to do, i think reducing all of the funds out of that account would be inappropriate and would oppose and urge my members to oppose this amendment. and yield back the balance of my time. .

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. markey: i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: the water fund is a 50-year-old promise to the american people. if we're going to allow giant oil companies like b.p. to decomplete our ocean energy resources, we will take a small sliver of their massive profits and deposit it into a conservation fund. since its creation in 1965, the land and water conservation fund has allowed federal acquisition of critical acres inside the national parks, vital wildlife habitat, conservation easements, and water rights, as well as construction of local recreational facilities through grants to states. the fund has served as one of the most important tools in building and protecting our national resource heritage. the underlying bill devastates this revered program by

slashing the amount to be paid out of the fund for conservation by all -- by almost 90% compared to current levels. almost 90% of a cut from current levels. the funding level contained in the underlying bill is the lowest proposed amount since the program was created in 1965. this is not a return to fiscal year 2008. this is not a return to fiscal year 2009. this is a return to fiscal year l.b.j. that's their goal, to go back right to the very beginning, and if they could, to the year before when it did not exist at all. that's 8 -- that's the real goal of what this debate is trying to accomplish from the republican side. and now this amendment proposes a further reduction in the land and water conservation fund. to be clear, this amendment

does not save this money, rather it borrows this money from a trust fund and uses it to offset spending that has already occurred. this is diverting oil money from the intended conservation purpose in violation to a promise made to the american people. the outdoor industry association points out that outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the united states economy and supports more than six million jobs. the land and water conservation fund is good for the environment. it's good for the economy. and it's a 50-year-old promise to every american. the cuts contained in the underlying bill would cripple the land and water conservation fund. further cuts could kill it. this amendment should be

defeated, and it should be seen in the context of this massive attempt of -- by the new republican majority to take the e.p.a. and turn it into every polluter's ally. to take the clean air and clean water laws and begin to undermine them systematically. to take each and every one of these environmental areas that we've made tremendous progress in the last 30, 40 and 50 years and begin to roll back those gains as though america was not the beneficiary. there's a good reason why america is the number one box office smash in the world, and that's because they look at us and they appreciate the commitment that we've made to the public health, to the public lands, to clean water, to clean air. and if we begin to undermine that image, then we will be hurting our country, we will be hurting our tourism, we will be

hurting our ability to be able to pass on this planet in a better condition than the way we found it. i urge a that -- i urge that under no circumstances we support a provision which would accomplish all those goals. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. anyone else seek recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wyoming. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote is ordered. the chair: a recorded vote is ordered -- a recorded vote is ordered is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wyoming will be postponed. the gentleman from michigan, for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> mr. chairman, i thank you for the recognition and i ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. kenny: without objection. mr. dingell: i rise more in sorrow than anger in the legislation before us. all members will agree we have to confront our budget deficit but we have to do so, i think, in a sensible fashion. i grieve that does not happen here and that the cuts of the magnitude we are making today and the places they're being made is destructive beyond belief. we risk a continuation or indeed reigniting the recession which has plagued us, and we risk seeing to it that the great needs of our country are not met. we are looking at strong

possibilities of loss of jobs. the economic policy institute estimates 800,000 jobs will be lost, jobs that are not only important but indeed a major national priority being put on the chopping block. let us look at some of the things about which our republican friends are dismissive, the education of our children, the concurrent resolution will eliminate or reduce aid for almost 1.r5 -- 1.5 million middle and low-income students paying for their college. it will hamstring the food and drug administration's ability to implement food and safety legislation, leaving us vulnerable to food-related illness and death. americans' health. the concurrent resolution cuts billions from the department of health and human services over

and over -- over $1 billion from the national institutes of health and over $1 billion from community health centers. the welfare of our homeless veterans, even housing vouchers for homeless defenders of our country are eliminated. this is disgraceful, and indeed it is a dishonor to those who have served their country. job training. the continuing resolution cuts billions from the job training for displaced workers, turning our backs on those hit hardest by the recession. u.s. exports which make jobs, even though both democrats and republicans have called for a reduction in the trade deficit, the concurrent resolution -- the continuing resolution cuts into our primary promotion of exports. the security of our streets, millions will be cut from the

funding for state and local policing activities to fight drugs, gangs, and terrorism. moreover, the continuing resolution eliminates federal grants to help police departments around the country to rehire or to hire police officers. critical conservation programs, the land and water conservation fund and the north american wetlands conservation act, all of which are solid bipartisan programs would be either completely or effectively gutted. additional legislation prevents the environmental protection agency from taking important steps to protect the waters of our nation. mr. chairman, with employment hovering around 9% nationally and much higher in my own state, and many americans still struggling in this recession, we cannot pull the rug out from under them. politics aside, cuts from this -- of this magnitude would be

unhealthy, untimely, and provide uncertainty for our nation as we try to get back on our feet. instead of draconian cuts, we should be looking to see to it that we have wise and prudent cuts. but at the same time, we have an investment in the future of our country. and in our people. i do not see that in this proposal before us at this time. as the president has said, we can and indeed we must outeducate, outinnovate, and outbuild our competitors. that is the only way that the united states can achieve the kind of hoped-for recovery and economic activity that will benefit our next generations. contrary to h.r. 1, we need to balance investments that will help our economy recover while also committing to decreasing the federal deficit. it is clear that neither the goals will be achieved

overnight, and they certainly will not be achieved in this legislation. i stand ready to work with my colleagues and with the president to find responsible and effective ways to trim the budget, but i refuse to permit my republican colleagues to gut vital government programs and bring our economic recovery to a stand still. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: i offer this motion to speak out against the blatant attack on clean water contained in section 1747 of this republican continuing resolution, a provision that does not save the taxpayer one single dollar. the clean water act became law, as we know, in 1972, with the stated purpose of cleaning up america's waterways and wetlands. since then, this landmarked legislation has served as a framework for protecting our drinking water from deadly

toxins and preserving the ecological integrity of our waterways. in my home state of new york, from the mighty waters to rivers like the hudson, to the many lakes of the adirondacks, this legislation has been absolutely critical. where 95% of our population relies on public drinking water in some form. unfortunately in the last 10 years, millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams have lost clean water act protection. healthy streams and wetlands naturally filter and replenish our drinking water supplies. they absorb floodwaters and protect coastlines and support local hunting, fishing, boating and recreation industries. 1/3 of americans get their drinking water from the types of streams that are vulnerable to pollution under recent rollbacks, and this bill includes a provision that would ban e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers from working within their legal authority to mitigate that threat. this is an proceedings bill.

according to my colleagues across the aisle, it is a bill with the sole purpose of reducing the deficit. a noble goal. however, the clean water rider in section 1747 of this bill does not save one dime of taxpayer money. it is not about funding, it is about restricting the legal authority of the e.p.a. and the work of the army corps of engineers in an underhanded, politics-as-usual attack on our drinking water, our environment, and the thousands of recreational fishing, hunting, and boating jobs these water resources support. we may have banned formal earmarks this year, but this rider amounts to a handout to big polluters at the expense of basic public health protection. mr. chair, i again thank you and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona -- the gentlelady from -- who

actually wishes to claim time? the gentleman from arizona, for what purpose do you rise? mr. grijalva: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you very much. the legislation before us, the continuing resolution is a -- i believe a full throttle extremist assault on the environment, the health of the american people, and the jobs and economic well-being of our nation as a whole. in these disk times we're in, it is the economy and jobs that should be the top priority for this congress and for the republican majority. this c.r. does irreparable harm to the environment, including air, water, our lands, our public lands and wildlife. the virtual elimination of public health protection by the reckless dismantling of the jurisdiction of the e.p.a. and the funding of the e.p.a. will bring health crisis to the

american people and endanger families and children. and today the president is announcing his great outdoors initiative, and at a time when he is asking for private, state, local, and federal cooperation and the protection of public places, in the enhancement of recreation and outdoor activities for the american people, this c.r. talks about the elimination of state and tribal wildlife grants which are essential in that coordination. . it talks about reducing by 90% the lapped and water conservation fund which is essential to promoting that cooperation and promoting the joint planning and joint jurisdiction of many of our special places in this country. and the upcoming attempt to eliminate the national landscape conservation system will leave 800 public units abandoned without coordination and without the ability to plan for the

future and to be coordinated in such a fashion that they save money and serve the american people the best. this c.r. places our special public places of land on the endangered list. with the cuts and ending the shared responsibility to protect and conserve. big oil and gas and mining do not own these public places and lands. the american people do. and to turn to extraction as the only goal for these public lands denies history, ignores science and welcomes the ex employeetation of a shared resource by -- exploitation of a shared resource by the american people. and if deficit reduction is the item on the agenda and we all agree that we must confront that and be prudent, be pragmatic and be realistic in cutting programs , then we also should put everything on the table because if it is indeed an issue of deficit reduction, then let's

talk about some items that the majority did not put in their c.r. some of the subsidies, some of the give aways to industries that are part of the public land agenda and part of what happens within the interior department. expensing reforestation expenditures, $600 million under public lands, cost depletion for nonfuel minerals, $500 million. expensive exploration for nonfuel minerals, $400 million. intangible drilling costs, $8.9 billion. oil and gas royalty relief, $6.9 billion. domestic manufacturing and tax deduction for oil and gas companies, $6.2 billion. and if you keep going down that list, with coal subsidies, nuclear industry subsidies, oil and gas subsidies, public land subsidies, you end up with a figure of $100 billion to $200 billion. i'm not saying that awful those cuts should be eliminate, i don't think we should tax an axe to those areas, some are productive and needed, but if we

are going to scrutinize this budget, let's do it in a fair way that shares and balances what we're going through, what we protect important things in our public lands and in our public health. i urge all my colleagues to balance public health of families and children, the public lands we love, the shared responsibility we have to clean air, water, public health and our national resources, balance that with the narrow agenda that is confronting us today. an agenda that punishes taxpayers and the american people at the expense and for the profits of private oil and gas interests in this country. as we confront this issue i would suggest to my colleagues that the legacy of our public lands and our environment, the legacy of our clean air and water, the public health of our people, should be the priority. if cuts need to be made, then all cuts should be placed on the table, all cuts should be looked

at, including subsidies and including give aways and deductions that are now part of the norm with our public dollars. that would be good for the taxpayer, it would be good for the environment and it would be good in reducing the deficit and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts rise? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. tsongas: i rise in opposition to the underlying bill. i was an early and strong supporter of the president's bipartisan commission on the debt. and while i do not agree with all of the commission's recommendations, i recognize that their report to the president offered an important starting point for debate on an issue that affects the lives of every american as well as future generations. in the report the commission warned against disrupting our fragile economic recovery, quote, we need a comprehensive plan now to reduce the debt over

the long-term. but budget cuts should start gradually so they don't interfere with the ongoing economic recovery. growth is essential to restoring fiscal strength and balance. we should cut red tape and government spending that behinders job creation and growth. but at the same time we must invest in education, infrastructure and high value research and development to help our economy grow, keep us globally competitive and make it easier for businesses to create jobs. end quote. the bill before us fails to heed this sound advice, making short short-sighted decisions that will sabotage our short-term recovery and undermine our long-term competitiveness. the reckless decisions made in this bill will lead to lost jobs in my district, throughout the nation. some of these job losses are obvious, deep cuts to cops and safer funding will ensure that

we will lose thousands of police officers and firefighters protecting our communities nationwide. but other losses may be less obvious but just as painful. for instance, this legislation imposes deep cuts on the food and drug administration. every single drug, vaccine, biological and medical device must be approved by the f.d.a. before it can ever be offered to patients. this means that not only do patients rely on the f.d.a., but also american pharmaceutical and medical device companies that need an efficient and effective f.d.a. to make sure they can continue to innovate, grow and create jobs. we are lucky to have a medical device industry in this country that is on the cutting edge of technological advances in medicine. what we should be doing is modernizing the f.d.a. to make it more efficient, transparent, predictable and rigorous. and to do that we need to ensure

that the f.d.a. has all the necessary resources to conduct proper and speedy review of life-saving devices that not only benefit patients but our innovative businesses so many of them can get to work putting people to work. for these private sector firms, cutting f.d.a. resources means slowing down their approval process, driving some of them overseas and losing many jobs here in our country as well. likewise, cuts to local funding included in this bill will harm communities, -- communities i represent, particularly the deep cuts to the community development block grant program. when i have asked leaders in the cities i represent how we can best help their recovery efforts, the answer has been unhesitating, cdbg funding. last week the city manager at my hometown wrote saying, quote, this is probably the most valuable tool that the federal government offers cities, to

address economic development, infrastructure and community needs. what is most discouraging about the attack on cdbg funding is that it does just what my colleagues say they support, it provides local flexibility, allowing stakeholders to decide what makes sense for their communities while ensuring an extremely efficient use of funds. for example, last year in the city of local, every $1 in cdbg funding generated more than $16 in additional funding. over the years lowell has successfully used cdbg funds to develop a historic building into a much-needed senior center, turning a blight into a landmark, and prompting the entry of private businesses nearby. it has used funding to spur the development of a mixed youth development that is bringing in millions of dollars in private development and restoring architectural treasures key to the city's identity. and it has provided seed money

to nonprofits like the united teen equality center recognized nationally for the revolutionary work they're doing every day to curb gang violence in the city of lowell. all of these action have improved the quality of life and created jobs for lowell residents and none might have been made possible without this modest federal investment. so i encourage conscious i do not support the underlying bill and i encourage its rejection. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: i rise today to let people know that this continuing resolution is an unprecedented assault on our public health and environment. we know that the federal can budget is in crisis. we know we must make tough choices. but those choices must be prudent, wise and invest in our future. it should not put the basic

health of americans at risk. the republicans' before us proposes to cut $3 billion from the e.p.a.'s budget, the largest percentage cut to this chriscal agency in 30 years. the bill also proposes radical policy language to keep the e.p.a. from carrying out its historic mission. a mission to protect the health of the american people by -- limiting the e.p.a.'s ability to ebb force -- enforce the clean air and clone water act. the e.p.a. needs to be allowed to do its job and it needs the resources to do this job. this bill would cause the e.p.a. to lay off 80% of its employees who are responsible for protecting public health. state clean water programs are gutted by $2 billion in the republican budget. our local communities are struggling with their own budgets and these vital funds allow for communities to hire engineers, construction workers, to upgrade water plants and

drinking water projects. the e.p.a.'s investment in clean water, that allows -- it is the e.p.a.'s investment in clean water that allows parents to know that if their child walks up to a drinking fountain anywhere in america they can have the peace of mind that that water is safe for their child to drink. these irresponsible cuts jeopardize that peace of mind. the e.p.a. does important work and the work that the e.p.a. does saves lives. and i strongly oppose these reckless republican cuts and radical deregulation proposals that endanger our communities. congress needs to make difficult choices. mr. chair, i believe that these are full -- fool hardy choices to change clean air, clean water and the health of our families. yesterday i received over 1,000 valentine's from minnesotans. and those valentine's were dedicated to the e.p.a.

my constituents understand the important work that the e.p.a. has done to protect our water, our land and their health over the past 40 years. and it's work that they feel must continue. this continuing resolution would turn back all the tremendous progress we have made in cleaning up our environment and firmly reject it and urge my colleagues to do as well. mr. chair, with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oregon, for what purpose does does he seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate speaker boehner and my republican colleagues providing for an open discussion on this legislation. and i appreciate the speaker's request that we be respectful of the process. i think that is important. but i think it is important to come to the floor at this point to make a couple of very

important observations that are critical to the people i represent. we're ready to move forward to actually deal with cutting the budget. we've already seen today a significant amendment adopted dealing with defense. there are opportunities for us to accelerate health care savings in medicare. and from the beginning of my coming to this body, i've been working on a bipartisan basis to deal with reductions in unnecessary and wasteful agricultural subsidies. but there are several items that we are dealing with in the continuing resolution that have nothing to do with saving money. indeed they are actually going to cost money and economic impact in my community and around the country. i note, for instance, the policy writer that would prevent the e.p.a. and the corps of engineers to from clarifying provisions of the clean water act, as a result millions of acres of wetlands and thousands

of miles of stream will lose clean water act protection. because these affect so much of the head water stream supply, to deal with public surface drinking water in my state, it could end up threatening drinking water quality for almost two million people. the cut to the state revolving fnds -- funds are extraordinarily imprudent. this money leverages a great deal of activity and helps us deal with the massive infrastructure deficit with water quality. e.p.a. estimates that the society of civil engineers backs this up. we were talking about hundreds of billions of dollars we need to be investing in the next 20 years, cutting the revolving fund is a dramatic step backward. in the area of air quality there's a write that are attempts to prevent e.p.a. from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. now, i will tell you, on its merits, dealing with greenhouse

gases, that this will look foolish for the people who are proposing it to their children and grandchildren. they will wonder, what were you thinking? but put aside for a moment the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon pollution. the language will have far-reaching and i hope unintended consequences. it would hinder e.p.a.'s ability to relax requirements on biomass plants, that matter, for example, to my friend from idaho and others in the northwest, very important to us. . the way it was drafted, it prevents the issue of permits. the language would propose a de facto construction ban on new sources in many states, including oregon, block not only new and expanded power plants, but refineries and large manufacturing plants. with unemployment rates high in my state and around the

country, this construction moratorium hardly seems to make sense. the budget decimates the land and water conservation fund. this was a program that represented a commitment to offset some of the destructive effects of oil and gas production by preserving many of america's high-quality recreational opportunities and vital wildlife habitat. this is violating a commitment this body has made to finally allow these funds to flow. unfortunately, future investments are going to be at risk if this c.r. passes with the existing funding level and missing opportunities to complete landscapes and protect watersheds, turlly preventing agencies from meeting commitments already in place. my final concern at this point deals with the assault on energy investment. the united states invests

approximate .5% of the trillion dollar energy sector. if anything, we should be ramping this up. we are losing our competitive edge around the world. we are losing economic opportunities and opportunities to preserve the environment. mr. chairman, i have other concerns and there are other people that have things to say. i will yield back at this point. but i hope that we can reject these provisions in the c.r. that actually make no difference in terms of reducing the budget and violate commitments that we have made. the chair: the gentleman yields back. read. the clerk will continue reading. the clerk: page 264, line 9, section 1704. the level for department of interior, united states fish and wildlife service, resource management, $1,204,247,000.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask to take up amendment number 295. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 295 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, the national fish and wildlife foundation is a government established, government financed so-called private nonprofit set up to act as a conduit to funnel public dollars to private environmental advocacy groups. the authorization for these grants has expired. i'm going to repeat that. there is no congressional authorization for this program, and yet the money just keeps rolling on. if we are actually serious about spending taxpayer money as carefully as they spend, what they've got left after they've paid their taxes, then

we ought to start by insisting if congress is not authorized a program, it should not be funded. if we ignore this principle, then why do we have any committees other than the appropriations committee. when ronald reagan very reluctantly signed the original legislation, the budget was $100,000. it has grown to $7.5 million, 75-fold. ronald reagan's signing the statement is not exactly a ringing endorsement. he said, i must convey my serious reservations about the bill. the statements in the bill to the affect the foundation shall be a nonprofit, charitable corporation and shall not be an agency or establishment of the united states are contradicted by the facts. establishment of the foundation under the terms of this bill is an unwise and dangerous

precedent. reagan's serious reservations about an unwise and dangerous precedent, his words, were well-founded, and at the very least there ought to be a full congressional review of this program and a decision made to re-authorize it before we throw more money at it, money, by the way, if you haven't checked the newspapers recently, that we don't have. in this particular case, these are public dollars being funneled to private concerns, many of which have a disconcerting habit of then turning around and suing the government. that is, suing taxpayers over environmental issues. as we all know, all funds are fungible, so in essence, through this agency we are using taxpayer money to give to groups to sue taxpayers. not only these private foundations are even domestic, these grands have gone to such

foreign groups as the procatic society for india, the city of dolphin studies of nelson mandela and to mozambique and to the san lorenzo outreach program in panama. with our nation facing the worst peacetime fiscal crisis in our history, do we really need to continue these expenditures? and shouldn't we at least review the program and renew the authorization before we throw more money at it? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia, for what purpose? >> i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i oppose the gentleman's amendment. mr. moran: it reduces the fish and wildlife service by $7.5 million. the gentleman says it is aimed at the national fish and wildlife foundation although it doesn't sayo so. but whether it is or not, it's still a bad idea.

the national fish and wildlife foundation raises private funds with minimal federal dollars. it should be encouraged, not eliminated. last year the foundation leveraged $40 million in federal funds into more than $ 180 million for on the ground conservation projects, that's a leverage ratio of 4 1/2 times. the fish and wildlife foundation continues to be the best financial investment of public dollars to leverage private funds that pay for federal priorities. in 1984, a 1/4 century ago during challenging budget times, as well as we have today, the foundation was created by a bipartisan group of members of the house and senate to leverage taxpayer dollars with private dollars. this amendment would affect more than 400 conservation projects this year, in most u.s. states and territories.

these programs are nonregulatory, community driven. they promote working landscapes and foster innovation. and in this critical time of constrained budgets, you would think we would want the national fish and wildlife foundation more than ever. so i would urge a no vote on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 264, line 18, section 1705. the level for department of interior, united states fish and wildlife service construction, $23,737,000. section 1706, the level for department of interior, united

states fish and wildlife service land acquisition shall be $15,055,000. section 1707, unobligated amounts under the heading, department of the interior, united states fish and wildlife service, land donor incentive program from prior year appropriations, all remaining amounts are resubsidied -- rescinded. section 1708, the level for department of interior, united states fish and wildlife service, endangered species, $2, 479,000. section 1709, the level for the department of the interior, united states fish and wildlife service, north american wetlands conservation fund. zero dollars. >> mr. chairman? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 338, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. moran of

virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm surprised that this continuing resolution eliminates all funding for the very successful bipartisan sponsored north american wetlands conservation fund. it cuts $48 million. my amendment simply adds $50 million for the north american wed lands conservation act. the offset is the e.p.a. diesel emissions program, which in fact has been eliminated in the budget just proposed by the president. now, both houses unanimously re-authorized what's called nawca, it's pronounced nawca. so that's what i'll use in the discussion. we re-authorized it unanimously in 2006.

the appropriation authorization for nawca was increased to $75 million for fiscal years 2007 through 20126789 it's wildly popular with all sportsmen and those who value our wetlands. so i'm surprised that h.r. 1 would eliminate it. this frankly show what is a meat axe approach has been taken here today by some in the republican majority. the north american wetlands conservation fund conserves our waterfowl, fish and wildlife resources while at the same time generating environmental and economic benefits. this is a successful partnership involving federal, state and local governments, and especially nonprofit organizations like ducks unlimited. the current c.e.o. of current ducks unlimited, dale hall, who incidentally was president george bush's fish and wildlife services director wrote, and i quote, if these cuts and actions take place, waterfowl,

waterfowl hunters and wetlands conservation would lose in a big way. in short, these actions would adversely affect all of us who care about and have funded wetlands and waterfowl conservation. we should remember conservation in america pays for itself through the economic return from hunters, anglers, and other outdoor enthusists. i could not have said it better than the spokesperson for the -- the c.o.e. of ducks unlimited who served in the bush administration as the u.s. fish and wildlife service director. every federal dollar provided by nawca must be matched by at least $1 from nonfederal sources. because the program is so effective, nawca funds are usually tripled or quadrupled on the local level. in short, this is both a highly popular and very successful program since its inception. in 1989, more than 1,600 nawca

projects have contributed to the conservation of more than 25 million acres of habitat across north america. the offset we use, the diesel emissions grant program is a good program but sometimes we have to make hard choices. the president's fiscal year 2012 request also eliminated the diesel grant program, so as to encourage the truck industry to increase its own diesel r&d. i ask members to support this amendment to protect our wetlands or wildlife and support the people who enjoy them. thank you, mr. chairman. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. moran: i would be happy to. mr. dicks: this has been one of the most successful conservation programs and brings in the private sector and they add two or three times to the contribution here, and i think this is a program that is very worthy and should be supported, and i hope the gentleman's amendment will be accepted. mr. moran: i greatly thank the chair and the full committee. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: the conservation fund is a good program. i have no objections to the program. it's just a bad offset that the gentleman is choosing to move ahead with. mr. speaker, the $50 million included in the continuing resolution to support diesel emissions act grants is a good program. mr. calvert: because heavy diesel engines can operate 20 to 30 years after they enter service, many of these engines operating today were manufactured years before the modern clean air standards. the grants retrofit 20 million aging diesel engines currently used with modern technologies to reduce toxic emissions and improve air quality. the successful environmental program is supported by a unique, broad coalition of environmentalists, industry, state, and local governments. this program was enjoying -- enjoys strong