support in both the house and the senate. and was re-authorized in the lame duck session last congress. since 2008, the e.p.a. has awarded 500 dura grants for projects nationwide and these grants leverage two state and local dollars for every $1. and they provide $13 of economic benefit for every $1 spent. these leverage dollars buy us cleaner air and more green jobs in every state of our nation. perhaps more importantly, recent studies indicate that black carbon like that's mitted from diesel engines, is the worst kind of pollution. . the technology reduces black carbon emissions by 90%. the e.p.a.'s third national assessment of toxic air pollutants found that 2.2 million americans now live in areas where the air they bree breathe increases their risk of cancer to levels being grossly unacceptable, one in 10,000. give be these findings, we owe

it to our constituents to continue to support clean air technology. mr. speaker, there is a win-win program, it supports green american jobs and improves the air quality for all americans and i would urge its -- that it does not pass. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. richardson: i rise today to speak in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, section 1709, however i want to say for the record i am completely supportive of the program that he spoke of today. this particular amendment however seeks to eliminate funding for the diesel emissions reduction act, a vital public health and environment and infrastructure program that was re-authorized with huge bipartisan support that representative calvert referred to through a bill i offered -- authored last year. and that is the purpose of my

standing, is because i was an author of that bill this year. it is a proven program that improves air quality by reducing diesel emissions. it has strong bipartisan support in both the house and senate and from a diverse coalition of transportation, health and environmental organizations. i thank congressman moran and i applaud his leadership efforts to protect and preserve our environment and natural resources. he has been a stalwart advocate in the struggle to reduce harmful emissions from antiquated coal-fired power plants and protect green space and green infrastructure. however, today is a rare moment that he and i do not agree. dura is a voluntary, national and state level grant and a loan program that reduces the diesel emissions by upgrading and modernizing older diesel engines and equipment. for someone like me in my district, this is important. it's the lives of my constituents. by design it looks to reduce the

emissions from 20 million existing diesel engines in use today by as much of 90%. half of the authorized level and already a 20% cut in the program from last year's funding. although i would say for the record that it has not been terminated, it is merely a recommendation by the president at this time. eliminating funding entirely would be a huge mistake and cost substantial detriment to the economic health and environmental interests, particularly of communities that are along port areas. since funding began in 2007, more than 3,000 projects nationwide have benefited from this program. creating considerable employment opportunities in the area of manufacturing, insulation and servicing of emissions-related technologies. the bill i authored this last year which passed in december will actually amplify job

creation further by expanding the program and increasing the number of eligible beneficiaries. additionally it is widely considered one of the most cost effective federal programs in the nation. the e.p.a. has estimated that in california alone the program averages more than $13 in health and economic benefits for every $1 that it receives in funding. projections estimate that nearly 2,000 lives will be saved by 2017 in direct relation to dera's impact on air quality. in high district, the positive benefits of dera are far reaching, home to the two busiest container ports in the united states. on average, 35,000 trucks commute to and from these ports daily. by the year 2030 this number will be expected to triple. just imagine for a moment the pollution caused by these vehicles in a single day. now think of those americans who live along those freight corridors and are exposed to the

pollutants on a daily basis. would you want that for you and your family? in my district these folks already suffer from asthma and cancer rates far above the national average. and it's documented. air quality improvements and reductions in emissions are vital to the quality of life and health of these families and countless others throughout the nation. i would also like to add that dera is often mentioned in association with the trucking industry and freight movement. there is another important area where diesel engines are most frequently uteliced and where dera will create a substantial necessary improvement in our public transportation and our school bus system. these vehicles are vital to the millions of americans who rely upon them every day to get to work or school. many of these folks, including young children, whose lungs and immune systems are still developing and who are especially susceptible to health problems. we owe it to these young peep and their families to give the dera program our full support and to seek its funding

maintained. dera has been endorsed by a large coalition of leading environmental health and transportation organizations who also believe in its effectiveness as protecting and creating jobs. promoting healthy economies and healthier citizens. at a time when our future is so heavily dependent upon economic growth and infrastructure investment and improving the quality of life of average americans, it seems counterintuitive to cut funding for a program that provides with us so many benefits. for these reasons i urge opposition to the amendment but i seek to work with my colleagues to support other funding to support the program that he laid out. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time -- the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: mr. chairman, i rise to first very strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and associate myself with the remarks of the gentlelady from southern california.

before going to that, though, mr. chairman, i'd like to take a moment to express my deep appreciation to both the work -- mr. lewis: both of my chair mnds an ranking member, putting together what i consider to be an overall very fine bill. i know mike simpson's concern about those issues that relate to our environment and the interior especially, he's a fabulous chairman, assisted today by a very, very fine young person who is his staff director, not so young as he used to be, dave lestrang. but this fine bill also is put together by a cross section of great staffers who are doing all they can to improve the condition in which we live. i rise to oppose this amendment in no small part because mr. calvert and i over the years have shared the same problem. we live in a region that is surrounded by beautiful, beautiful mountains. it's a wonderful area. but during much of our lifetime,

indeed for decades, for 250 days-plus a year, you could not see the mountains. how come? it wasn't because of fog. it was because of seven million automobiles starting their engines in los angeles and that which was spewed out going up against the mountains, crystalizing the sight in, creating a thing called air pollution or smog. indeed, the battle against air quality problems began many, many years ago for us. efforts to create a new standard of regulatory enforcement that would make a difference in the region. today you can see that beautiful valley, almost every day of the year. because of the progress that we've made in terms of cleaning the emissions from mobile sources. we're very proud of the fact that we've controlled stationary sources, it's easy to point the finger at the big smokestack and say, oh, my god, that's the

problem. indeed we've solved 99% of all of those emissions and air quality still is a challenge. when you come to this question today, we're talking about serious efforts to improve the emissions that come from largely trucks, but diesel-using engines. and those emissions have a tremendous impact upon air quality as well. over the years all of our efforts have saved i don't know how many tens of thousands of lives because we've improved the condition in which these people have to live and breathe. but to suggest that we ought to begin to break down the progress being made on these engines by way of just relatively easy, but i must say simplistic, kind of transfer is a very, very big mistake. so, mr. chairman, in the strongest way i'd urge our me members to vote no on this 50ds million transfer and recognize it's a lot more important to save the lives of those breathing foul air than to give

a pittance to a very important environmental problem. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. anyone else seek recognition on this amendment? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. the clerk: page 265, line 22. section 1710, the level for department of the interior, united states fish and wildlife service, neotropical bird conservation, $430,000. section 1711, the level for department of the interior, united states fish and wildlife service, multinational species conservation fund, $7,875,000.

section 1712, levels for the department of the interior, united states fish and wildlife service -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. i will be very brief. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i was very disappointed -- i strike the words. i was very disappointed that committee zero, the state and tribal wildlife grant program, i think this has been a great program that's helped the states do plans on how they can use their habitat to protect endangered species. this is the kind of work that's necessary so that we don't get future listings. i know my friend from idaho and others aren't concerned about the endangered species act and the number of listings and we'll talk more about that later. but this was a very important program and one that as chairman i strongly supported and actually created and so i just

want to mention that i hope in conference we can at least maintain some level of funding for this program. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 266, line 9, section 1713, before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment, the secretary of the interior -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from wyoming rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. it's number 194. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 194 printed in -- amendment number 194 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. lummis of wyoming. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from virginia rise? >> i vemb -- reserve a point of order on this motion. the chair: the gentleman

reserves a point of order. the gentlelady from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. first of all i want to thank you personally as well as your colleague from utah, mr. chaffetz, also mrs. mcmorris rodgers of washington, for your work on this amendment. the continuing resolution as written would reinstate a 2009 fish and wildlife determination that the gray wolf in montana and idaho should be removed from the endangered species list. this amendment would replace that 2009 determination with an earlier approved fish and wildlife determination, the one made in 2008. and that expands the scope of delisting of the gray wolf to include the full range of the northern rockies wolf. you know, mr. chairman, after gray wolves were introduced in 1995 into yellowstone national park in my home state and placed

on the endangered species list under section 10-j which is the nonessential experimental population section of the endangered species act, a list was determined about what it would take to recover the species, when would we consider it recovered. and it was determined by experts at the time that the recovery would be complete if the population of wolves grew to 300 wolves with at least 30 breeding pairs. that was the target. that was the goal. 300 wolves. 30 breeding pairs. so how many wolves are there today, mr. chairman? here we are 16 years later. there are more than 1,600 wolves and 113 breeding pairs.

by every reasonable definition the wolf has recovered. and yet these wolfs remain main on the endangered species list. they remain protected even as they overwhelm and decimate other wild game herds. . for example, the moose population in terms of young calves has declined 90%. and it is due to wolf deprivation. wolves remain protected in each state because of court determinations, not because of science. and it's now time to be honest about the wolf and its recovery. its continued inclusion on the endangered species list has to

do with special interests and emotion and nothing to do with science. organizations that repeatedly sue the government at taxpayer expense orchestrate these strategies and make people believe that the wolf is not recovered. the simple truth is, the wolf is doing very well. lest be confused rkts my amendment will not create an open season on wolves but return management of the wolf populations back to the states and they're the ones who suffer the effects of the wolves. it will allow for appropriate management of wolf herds. wolf hersd by any definition that have fully recovered. it's time to be honest and time to delist, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields

back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties beyond what is legislatively authorized. so i now ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: any other member who wishes to speak to this point of order? the chair will rule. the chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the secretary to re-issue a different final rule that is required to be re-issued by the pending section. the amendment constitutes a

violation in in -- and the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i strike the requisite number of words. even though you had a broken heart, you made the right ruling. the chair: i don't think the gentleman from washington was recognized. the clerk: section 1714, the levels for department of the interior national park service operation of the national park system 2,64,. 1715, level for the department of interior national park service, partnership partner grants zero dollars. section 1716, national park service, national recreation and preservation, 56 million. section 1717, level for the

department of interior, national park service, historic preservation fund $64,504,000. national park service construction $171,713,000. section 1719, contract authority provided for fiscal year 2011 is rescinded. section 1720, level for the department of the interior national park service, land acquisition and state assistance $14,100,000. section 1721, level for the department of interior, united states geological survey, surveys, investigations and research, $1 billion. section 1722, the level for the department of the interior, minerals management service, royalty and offshore minerals

management, $239,478,00. minerals management service oil spill research, $10,6323,000. during the fiscal year 2011, the secretary may establish accounts and transfer funds amongst and between the offices and burros affected by the reorganization only in conformance with the house and senate committees on appropriations. section 1725 -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we are fortunate that the new republican majority brought their proposal before this congress the day after president obama submitted his budget plan for next year. we are fortunate because it gives the american people the

opportunity to compare very different approaches. the president's budget is tough, but it is responsible. it's tough because it cuts nonsecurity discretionary spending by $400 billion over the next decade to the lowest share, lowest share of the economy since the eisenhower administration. it's responsible because it steadily reduces the deficit while making targeted investments in areas like education, clean energy, infrastructure and scientific innovation, investments that will strengthen our economy and make sure that america wins the future in a competitive global marketplace. one of those key areas of investment the president proposes is infrastructure. the american society of civil engineers, hardly a left-wing group, issued a report card on the state of america's deteriorating infrastructure.

they gave us practically failing grades, mostly d's and d-minimum uses for the state of our roads, schools, transit and drinking water, not grades we would want our kids to bring home from school. i'm very pleased that the president has announced he wants to make critical investments in this area. as reported yesterday in "usa today," using the analysis of the associated general contractors, again not a liberal group, his plan could create 5.4 million construction jobs and 10 million more jobs in related industries in the broader economy. at a time when the construction industry is facing over 20% unemployment, over 20% unemployment, those are exactly the kind of smart investments that will help grow our economy. and this proposal and this investment is supported by a diverse range of groups from the u.s. chamber of commerce to the

afl-cio. the president's tough and balanced approach stands in stark contrast to the proposal we are seeing on the floor today. the proposal that we're talking about today with very immediate and deep cuts is a reckless approach when too many families are struggling to make ends meet and it will do virtually nothing to address our long-term structural deficit. the economic policy institute found that the proposal before this house today would likely put 800,000 americans out of work. indeed, that's why the bipartisan commission, the bipartisan commission charged with reducing our deficits and debt, along with the bipartisan along with the commission, recommended against taking deep, immediate cuts. yes, they are coming together now to put a plan together to

reduce the deficit in a stable way. no, to immediate deep cuts that could hurt a very fragile economy. and let me read you what the bipartisan commission on debt and deficit reduction said. quote, in order to avoid shocking the fragile economy, the commission recommends until 2012 to begin enacting spending cuts, in other words, below the c.r. level and that's what the president's budget does. why should we cut essential investments in head start, in education, rather than eliminate huge taxpayer subsidies to the oil industries? the g.a.o. came out with a report talking about the huge bonanza oil companies are getting for lack of royalty payments on many of their lands.

just yesterday in the budget committee, we had the o.m.b. director jack lew testify. mr. lew reminded us the last time he testified before the budget committee was when he served as the o.m.b. director for president clinton. and when he left office, he left the country with a $5.6 trillion surplus. and the economy during that eight-year period added 20.8 million private sector jobs. unfortunately, we know the end of the movie. those huge surpluses were squandered. the previous administration, the bush administration, cut taxes for the very wealthy and through a number of other policy actions, turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into a sea of deficits. and by the end of that eight-year period, 653,000 private sector jobs were

eliminated. i say to my colleagues, i hope we will oppose this approach and accept the approach the president has submitted. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 270 line 13, section 1725, level for the department of interior, bureau of indian affairs operation of indian programs $2,236,856,000. section 1726, department of interior buyer of independent i can't remember affairs, section 1727, level for department of the interior bureau of indian affairs, indian water and land settlements $46,480,000. section 1728, level for the department of interior, departmental offices, office of

the secretary, salaries and expenses $117,336,000. section 1729, level for the department of the interior, departmental offices, insular affairs, assistant to territories $78,516,000. section 1730, level for department of the interior, departmental offices, insular affairs, compact with free association $5,423,000. section 1731, level for department of interior, departmental offices, offices of the solicitor, salaries and expenses $64,845,000. section 1732, level for department of the interior, departmental offices, office of the inspector general, salaries and expenses $48,389,000. section 1733, level for department of the interior, departmental offices, office of the special trustee for american

indians, federal trust programs $168,115,000. section 1734, level for department of the interior, department-wide programs wild land fire management $769,897,000. section 173, level for department of the interior, department-wide programs, natural resource damage assessment and restoration, natural resource damage assessment fund $6,320,000. section 1736, level for department of the interior, department-wide programs, working capital fund $80,119,000. section 1737, level for environmental protection agency, science and technology -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk chairman the clerk

will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 376 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: this amendment just seeks to reduce e.p.a.'s science and technology account by $64 million and transfers the money into the spending reduction account. it's the level of the agency's expense in science to achieve results or star program funded in fiscal year 2010. intent of this amendment is to zero out this costly program for the rest of the year, something that due to procedural limitations will be accomplished by supporting the cut to the accounts top line. for that purpose and the agency's operational plan that will come forth in 2011. according to the e.p.a., the star program is the agency's primary grants program in funding environmental science and engineering and the e.p.a. boasts that the taxpayer-backed

awards quote ensure the best science -- ensure that best science is being used to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and land we build our communities on. it doesn't mention that these grants average three years and about $1 million. this program was funded roughly $60 million last year and the president requested $87 million for 2011. the committee used $50 million assuming that the funding level based on the c.r. for the rest of the year. if we are printing money in the basement and t there is something that could come out of it but we aren't in that situation now. we have a zebt of $14 trillion. we have an annual deficit of $1.5 trillion and when we are funding research like this, just out of an account to give to grad students it's time to

question whether or not we should do this or not. not all of the grants that are issued obviously is used for good research and not above reproach. for example, here are a couple of the reports we received or the research done on these topics. environmental regulation and productivity benefits in the paper industry. estimating ownership in the use of older cars. transforming office parks into transit villages. public opinion on environment and water quality management in the new york watershed. and ironically, this is the report on a study on experimental programs to stimulate competitive research. i thought that's what this program is, that's what it does. i have talked about a lot of the earmarks we used to have were earmark incue baitors to get more earmarks. some of the funding for studies like these are stud yes, sir that beget further studies.

maybe we ought to swim back a little now and save a little money for the taxpayer, remember, the money saved here will go into the spending reduction account and can be applied against this year's deficit. we have to how can we go back tower constituents and explain, sorry, that $50 million was better spent giving out research dollars to study experimental programs to stimulate competitive research or transforming office parks into transit village or public opinion on environment and water quality management in the new york city watershed? or environmental regulation and productivity benefits in the paper industry. let's say to the taxpayer that we're serious here and we're serious about this debt and this deficit, let's vote for this amendment and put $50 million into the spending reduction account with that i yield back

the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: mr. chair, i rise to strike the requisite number of words in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, the scale of this reduction to e.p.a. science shuts down e.p.a.'s star research grants this year and next. affecting researchers in universities throughout the nation. the science to achieve results program, whose acronym is star, grants money to leverage innovative cutting edge research with universities across the nation. now, i don't know about the way they have titled some of these grants, but i suspect that the gentleman doesn't know much more than i do about the specific grant itself other than the title. what i do know is that this amendment ends funding for the

children's health research centers that focus on the study of children's environmental health hazards including asthma and exposure to chemicals. it ends funding for research for four e.p.a. air research centers that focus on the affects of you are a pollutants on all ages of americans, especially the most physically vulnerable and those in smog-laden communities. it ends funding for peacekeep's -- e.p.a.'s ground-breaking toxicology research effort which enables us to screen literally thousands of chemicals at one time. i've seen how this works. and it's extraordinarily productive and cost efficient. it screens them for environmental health hazards and saves millions of dollars in the process. these innovative and cost saving tools also offer the potential to greatly reduce our dependence on animal testing. the amendment ends funding for critical research to assess risks of nanotechnology and to

develop approaches to ensure the safe development of nanomaterials. the amendment also wipes out e.p.a.'s star academic research fellowships program. it will affect 350 current and future fellows creating real economic hardship in the midst of a depressed economy. cutting funding for the star fellows program eliminates the opportunity to develop the future generation of the best scientific minds to address 21st century environmental problems with new and innovative scientific and technological solutions. it's not the end of the world but it will be the end of a program that works very well, that recruits, trains and integrates some of the very best minds in preserving and protecting our environment. so for those reasons i would urge rejection of this amendment, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. in the c.r. we've already proposed deep cuts with tough choices in the interior and environmental section. we have proposed to cut $4.4 billion and eliminate 26 different programs. mr. simpson: the star program exetively funds research grants and graduate fellowships in numerous disciplines. i would note as the gentleman from arizona knows this is exetively awarded in that they actually, as i said, compete for these. the e.p.a. receives approximately 2,000 to 2,500 proposals each year and funds about 150 research grants and 125 graduate fellow -- fellowships. i'd be leery about coming down here and just naming off the title quhaff a research project is and then saying that's silly because i don't know. i don't know exactly what they're trying to do sw some of these things. you actually need to dig into it

and find out what they're tryinging to find out with some of these research grants. a few years ago some people did this with i think it was the national academy of science research grants and i can remember some of my colleagues brought down amendments to defund this research grant or that research grant and one of them was to defund a research grant on setting brown fat in panda bears. and of course we all on the floor went, wow, that sounds silly. why are we studying brown fat in panda bears? can't we study brown fat in american bears? and when i called out the national academy of science is i funed out who supports that research was nasa because if you're ever going to do deep space research you need to know something about brown fat. guess what animal has more brown fat than any other animal on earth? panda bears. that's why they were doing it. so just to look at what the title of a research project is is kind of a silly way to propose eliminating that and making fun of the program. some of them may be silly. i don't know.

but i know these are peer reviewed and they actually are exetively granted and the gentleman from arizona has always been concerned that we give earmarks that are not exetively granted. here we have a program that is exetively granted so that seems to me the right way to do it. like many other e.p.a. programs, the c.r. reduces the star grant funding. we did so by applying $10 million reduction to fund the grants at $51 million in the c.r. which is $8 million below the 2008 level. therefore while we understand the intent of the amendment is to eliminate all funding for the star grants, there is no longer $61.4 million to the c.r., in the c.r., to reduce the star grants and other research programs will need to be reduced based on the way the amendment has been drafted. in addition i believe we must maintain our scientific competitiveness as we work to bring our fiscal house in order and zeroing out this program i don't believe is in the best interests of our country or the right thing to do. this is a program that we should and will discuss with the e.p.a.

on the record during the 2012 budget hearings and we will either build a case for further reductions or elimination of the program or we will have a better understanding of why we should look elsewhere for additional cuts. therefore i recommend my colleagues vote no on this amendment given that it would unintentionally cut e.p.a.'s research by more than that which is in the c.r. for the star grants and we will be taking a look at this during our hearings and the gentleman sits on the committee and will be obviously involved in those hearings as we have the e.p.a. before us for our oversight hearings. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek recognition? the question then is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18,

further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i rise to offer an amendment designated as amendment 4 op. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 407 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. hall of texas. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia -- idaho, idaho seek recognition? >> i reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hall: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of my amendment directing the united states environmental protection agency to enter into an agreement with the national academy of sciences to perform a comprehensive review of nonmercury hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric generating units and industrial boilers. recognizing the boiler maximum achievable control technology

called m.a.c., is moving toward the end of the rule making process while the utility m.a.c. will debut soon. my amendment requires that the review provide for health and economic data including impacts on job creation, energy supply and reliability, associated with the potential regulation of nonmercury has -- hazard out air pollutants. the clean air act regulates two kinds of air emissions. criteria pollutants which are high in volume and hazardous air pollutants which are low in volume but can be toxic. folks are familiar with the most noteworthy of the hazardous air pollutants for utilities and industrial boilers, mercury. let me be clear, my amendment does nothing to affect mercury controls. the amendment focuses only on those hazardous air pollutants other than mercury. e.p.a. simply fails to do all the necessary homework when it comes to ponings regularlation

of hazardous air pollutants other than mercury. this amendment asks the national academy of sciences to assist e.p.a. in doing its homework and encourages e.p.a. to listen and encourages e.p.a. to learn. this will assist the e.p.a. in establishing a clear and direct administrative record for nonmercury hazardous air pollutants and without adequate study, regulations in this area could place jobs and economic output at risk while threatening household budgets. the power sector faces an average of regulations from e.p.a. and it's important to get each of them right and correct. a recent executive order laid out a new review process for regulation and asked that the agencies consider cost and how best to reduce burdens for american businesses and consumers. the amendment echoes the need for responsible regulations that protect health and environmental but -- environment but also provide for reasonable rates and

dates. the e.p.a. maximum achievable control technology rule for industrial, commercial and constitutional boilers -- institutional boilers and process heaters could impose tens of billions of dollars in capital cost at thousands of facilities across the country. i along with a large number of my colleagues sent a letter to e.p.a. administrator lisa jackson expressing our concerns with the proposed rule. it's my understanding that although the boiler m.a.c. rule will come out later this week, upon reconsideration of the rule, the information gathered by the review required under this amendment may be useful. i remain concerned as the e.p.a. moved toward a utility m.a.c. rule, logically i bring this to the floor today to protect a simple way of thinking, the government should not regulate without sound science to back it up. let's remind the e.p.a. to slow down and allow for reasoning along with regulation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from idaho.

mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i understand the concern of the gentleman from texas and we pledge to work with him as the e.p.a. comes before our committee to address this issue but i mist muft insist on my point of order -- but i must insist on my point of order. i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation and an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states an impertinent part of the amendment shall not be in order if it changes existing law. this amendment gives affirmative action in effect and i ask for a ruling by the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? seeing none, the chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting direction. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained, the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise today in opposition to

the drastic cuts in this continuing resolution and the amendments that make further cuts that threaten to weaken our economy and destroy jobs. it's critical that while we face growing budget constraints we do not shortchange investments that will create jobs or provide vital services that new mexico cans rely on. unfortunately many of the cuts proposed in this bill and in a number of amendments would negatively impact our communities in new mexico. for example, in the wake of a natural gas outage that left thousands of homes across the state without heat, this bill cuts the low income home energy assistance program that helps working families, senior citizens and disabled individuals heat their homes. . new mexico needs to prepare the next generation of leaders, the plan makes drastic cuts in education, early education. republicans cut the head start program which helps bring build a strong foundation. the cuts for school districts

and new mexico students failing to graduate from high school, we must do more, not less. in addition, the republican bill cuts pell grants that our young adults rely upon. arbitrary cuts to new mexico's national labs that are contained in this bill will hinder their ability to promote u.s. competitiveness and job creation. we are ending our ability to end the race before we can even begin. instead of making these cuts we need to innovate the rest of the world in order to grow our economy and put back people to work. as we debate amendments, i'm concerned with the amendments that will be proposed today that cuts the land and water conservation fund. in new mexico, we take pride in our beautiful landscapes and protection of our water. we have many icons such as the

rio grandee national george, just to name one of many. this would eliminate a bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years by preventing revenues deposited in the account from being used for their authorized purposes such as protecting public lands and promoting recreation. the land and water conservation fund was established by congress in 1964 as a bipartisan conservation agency for offshore oil and gas drilling. under current law, outer continental shelf receipts are deposited in the dedicated account in the treasury. a fraction of the annual resets depositted are appropriated despite a surplus of over $17 billion. outdoor recreation is part of the economy. when i visit with many of my

colleagues here in the congress, everyone is eager to get out to new mexico. the outdoor industry association reports that recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the u.s. economy and supports 5.6 million jobs across the country and $88 billion in state annual and national tax revenues. a recent study found that every dollar invested returns $4 in economic value. protecting the land and water conservation fund will expand opportunities for all americans to have access to parks and for hunting. protecting the land and water conservation fund has immediate relevance to our efforts to create jobs and critically important we ensure funding for this important federal program is protected. we are working together to find a permanent solution to the funding shortfalse and i urge my colleague to oppose these

amendments and vote no on this spending bill that will hurt families and put more people out of work. the people of new mexico deserve better. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. clerk will read. the clerk: section 1738, level for environmental protection agency, environmental programs -- the chair: for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 84 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. pom peao of kansas. mr. pompeo: i offer this return money to the united states taxpayers by sending $8.5 million to the deficit account. in november, america elected a different set of leaders to this house of representatives.

they elected a set of leaders that understand job creation but the e.p.a. has not gotten the message. this congress has refused to pass cap and trade and yet e.p.a. continues down the road to try to implement cap and trade through regulations when there is no statutory authority to do so and it's beyond its constitutional powers. now my amendment takes on only one very costly piece fft e.p.a.'s effort to destroy jobs, the greenhouse gas registry. i'm not against bridal registries, but forcing businesses to comply with these unnecessary and burdensome regulations will destroy jobs in kansas and all across america. this drives up the cost of doing business all with the asserted mission of satisfying the left's obsessions with regulating every nook and cranny. e.p.a. would tell you they are caught in a little bit of data

on gene house gases. but this registry is an effort to learn more who is emitting greenhouse gases, who or what. but this data is the very foundation of the e.p.a.'s effort to pursue its radical anti--jobs agenda. continuing the greenhouse gas registry will permit the e.p.a. regulatory those inside the job-destroying tent and cannot head down this path. the amendment i'm proposing is very modest. in 2006, the registry had $3.2 million appropriated. that was increased to almost $16 million. i'm trying to roll back the amount of money that this registry has to 2008 already bloated levels. mr. chairman, until about 45 days ago, i was in the private sector. i was running a small business.

i can attest that this greenhouse gas registry and an amendment to implement cap and tax will destroy jobs in kansas and increase the costs of manufacturing for every kansas airplane manufactured and increase the cost of energy for every kansas farmer and increase the cost of energy for every kansas family. and with unemployment at record levels and energy prices already high, america cannot afford this additional government mandate and our taxpayers would be well served by reducing the funding to this misguided greenhouse gas registry. join me in rolling back to 2008 levels the amount of funds appropriated for the greenhouse gas registry. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. moran: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: i rise in opposition to the amendment which would strip funding from e.p.a.'s

greenhouse gas reporting program. it's part of the effort to ignore what scientists tell us is the most serious environmental problem of our time, climate change. some republicans have introduced legislation that would repeal a scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health. the underlying bill we're considering says that no source, no matter how large, should ever have to reduce its carbon pollution. this amendment goes even further. it says that we should not even bother to find out how much pollution is being put into our air. i guess you could call it the ignorance is bliss amendment. the greenhouse reporting program simply requires the largest sources of carbon pollution, power plants, refineries and the very largest factories to tell e.p.a. and the public how much

they pollute. if we are ever going to deal responsibly with this pollution, we need to know where it is coming from and have some idea of how much is being emitted. this amendment is yet one more example of putting profits and pollution ahead of people and public health. americans understand that pollution is dangerous to their health. the scientists tell us that. we know it intuitively. it makes us sick. let's allow e.p.a. to fulfill its legal responsibility to collect this information. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the pompeo amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i move to strike the last word in opposition to the last amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latourette: i congratulate

mr. pompeo for a thoughtful amendment and he is jumping right into the fray of some 45 days he has assumed office here. i was here for two years before i gave my first floor speech. sadly, we have to oppose your amendment and this was an account that the committee and staff looked at hard as the c.r. was being prepared. it has been reduced by $5 million in the continuing resolution. and the feeling continues to be that cutting it further would be irresponsible because cutting the funding does nothing to change the mandate that's in law of march 31 of this year that the industry has to report their emissions by that date. since this is the first time through this reporting requirement, there are a lot of questions that businesses and industries all across the country have and they are calling the e.p.a. for technical assistance on how to be in compliance.

if the program is reduced, as the gentleman's amendment would suggest, would leave companies high and dry with the reporting requirement with no one on the other end to answer the telephone to help them out to meet their obligations. considering that, we felt we could achieve the $5 million in savegs now and i can tell the gentleman at least the majority of the committee's feeling that we will review this issue in a more comprehensive manner as we proceed with the budget. as such, i recommend our colleagues vote no on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: may i request a roll call vote? the chair: the gentleman from kansas requests a recorded vote.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 273, line 15, section 1739 matter pertaining to the environmental protection agency in las vegas, nevada, under the heading environmental protection agency buildings and facilities in disks a of public law 111-88 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1740, level for environmental protection agency hazardous superfund $1,765,000. section 1741, level for environmental protection agency, leaking underground storage tank trust fund $106,100 000. section 1742, level for environmental protection agency state and tribal assistance grants $2 --

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the chair. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment the gentleman will suspend for a moment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 379 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. reed of new york. mr. reed: i rise today in support of my amendment. but before we talk about that, i want to say i'm proud to be part of this process. last night i heard one of my colleagues say that what we should do because the president threatend to veto this process at the end of the day, pack it up, go in the back room and try

to resolve our differences there. to me, this is what the process is all about. to have this debate on the floor of the house so we can have an open and vigorous debate about the spending issues. because ladies and gentlemen, today we face a national crisis, and that national crisis is a national debt that is going to destroy us as a nation and destroy it for our children and grandchildren. i'm proud today to stand up and say we need to shine the light on every aspect of every dollar that is spent in our federal budget. and today, i rise to ask that we rescind and amend the continuing resolution to remove $10 million of spending on a sewer project in tijuana, mexico. when we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar on the backs of our children and grandchildren, why are we spending $10 million

so a sewer can be constructed in tijuana, mexico? i empathize with my friends in san diego where waste apparently washes on the shore because they aren't acting responsibly with their matter. but i say this, today, it is to hold the country of mexico accountable for the situation and rather than use our dollars, our board dollars that are being absorbed by our children and grandchildren, we hold them accountable. and this is exactly what we should be doing in standing and calling out this kind of wasteful spending, in my opinion. and i'm proud and ask that my colleagues join me in approving this amendment. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio

rise? mr. latourette: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latourette: mr. reed is a new member of the body and i appreciate him coming to the floor to offer the amendment. the seed mr. reed holds used to belong to our dear friend mr. holton who was a champion for many years in this body. although we welcome mr. reed to our company, we oppose his amendment. in the c.r. we reduced the u.s. mexico border program by $7 million, from $17 million in 2010 to $10 million in the continuing resolution. it's a 41% decrease. this action taken on behalf of the committee reduces the c.r. level to a level below the increase that was added in 2010 by the previous majority party

over and above president obama's request. this is a plan we plan to have actions with the e.p.a. we hope to have a better understanding to why we should look elsewhere based on programmatic needs. i recommend our colleagues vote no on this and given what we achieve we intended to achieve given the c.r. and that is to take the necessary first step in passing programmatic process and look at the needs of 2012 and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. reed: i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: the gentleman asks for a roll call vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 , further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 415. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 415 presented in the congressional record offered by ms. edwards of maryland. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> i reserve the point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the point of order on the amendment is reserved. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for five minutes. ms. edwards: i understand the point of order is reserved and i have the amendment as modified with language that would ensure that the amendment is budget neutral. and i ask unanimous consent for the modified amendment. >> object.

the chair: does the gentlelady have a modification to submit to the desk. ms. edwards: the modification is at the desk. >> mr. chairman, i object to the modification of the amendment. the chair: the objection is heard but the desk has no modification here to be before the body. the gentleman from idaho has reserved the point of order. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for five minutes. the point of order is reserved. ms. edwards: thank you. i'll speak on the amendment. the amendment before you takes

rescinded funds, increases the amount of state tribal assistance grants to make sure we can fund our water and sewer infrastructure. the continuing resolution really deals a death blow to our water and sewer infrastructure in this cub -- in can country. that means jobs all across the country in every single state. i would ask support of the amendment and note in april of 2000 the water infrastructure network released its first report, clean and safe water for the 21st century and that report documented significant improvements in water quality and public health that was associated with america's investments in water and wastewater infrastructure. but it also documented unpress dentional financial -- unprecedented financial problems in the coming years. the wastewater systems will have to invest $23 billion more than current investments to meet the health priorities in the clean water act and safe drinking water act to replace aging and failing infrastructure.

the epidemic isn't isolated. eroded infrastructure is prominent in every neighborhood across this country and nationwide, wastewater infrastructure ranges from $$300 billion to $400 billion in the next 20 years. my home state in maryland self-reported it has an $8.4 billion deficit in water infrastructure needs. just last month in my district in the cold winter morning, not far from capitol hill, 54-inch water main broke and created massive destruction, overturned cars, destroyed businesses and left residents like me without safe drinking water for days. it stopped the traffic along the nation's beltway, the trucks that travel up and down the eastern seaboard were stopped and stopping commerce along the way. this happens all across the country. we've had at least 278 water main breaks just since january 1 in the counties i represent. i would note that under the

continuing resolution, states like maryland would lose $33 billion in funding. 937 jobs, $33 million, 937 jobs in states like idaho, for example, in that state alone, there would be a loss of $6.9 million and 192 jobs. and this at a time we need to do real job creation. overall, the continuing resolution would see a loss of about at least $1.4 billion in funds from wastewater and water treatment to the tune of 39,253 jobs at a time when the economy is really staggering. so i would urge -- strongly urge consideration of this amendment and whether or not it's done in this continuing resolution, the fact is that our water infrastructure is failing and failing all across the country.

we have needs that are unmet. local communities cannot meet those needs and it's really incumbent on us to improve the nation's water infrastructure so we improve our competitiveness and we ensure that we have clean drinking water. i would not like any other community across the country to have to do what i've done three times just during this last year in boiling every single bit of water that i use because of our failing infrastructure. and this isn't just about my community in maryland, it's about communities across the country. and i think, if anything in this continuing resolution, we need to be thinking about economic development and job creation. and the resolution in front of us does exactly the opposite. it takes millions of dollars away from communities for wastewater and water infrastructure and ensures that we won't be competitive over this next century. so i would urge strong consideration of the resolution, and with that i would yield the balance of my time.

>> continue to reserve my point of order. the chair: the gentleman from idaho continues to reserve his point of order. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: i want to be on the record and strongly agreeing with the concept of the gentlewoman's amendment to add $200 million to state and local grants. our congressional districts on either side of the potomac river. we can also see the blue plains sewage treatment plant. we've made strides in cleaning up the potomac river which all of us see and most of us cross every day but much work still lies ahead. this bill's cuts to state and local infrastructure grants will undermine the progress that we have made on this river and will cripple state and local government efforts throughout the country. the republican bill slashes the

clean water and drinking water state revolving funds by $2 billion or 56%, reducing the number of wastewater and drinking water projects by about 750 nationwide. now, the needs of our nation's aging water infrastructure exceeds $660 billion. this would also be a missed opportunity to add thousands of engineering construction and other support service jobs if we cut these programs. additionally, the bill includes an undesignated $300 million recision to e.p.a. already that will most likely also impact these revolving funds. so the gentlelady's amendment does have great merit, albeit technically it may be out of order, it should be offered because it addresses a very important problem with this continuing resolution. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i must insist on my point of order. the amendment sets to amend portions of the bill. it may not be considered enblanc on rule 2 f of rule 21 because the amendment proposes to increase a recision to offset and increase an appropriation and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. to be considered en bloc pursuant to 2-f, the amendment must propose to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill. because the amendment offered by the gentlelady from maryland proposes also another kind of change in the bill, namely to increase the amount of a recision, it may not avail itself of clause 2-f to address portions of the bill not yet read. the point of order is sustained. and the amendment is out of order. the clerk will read.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to take this opportunity to enter into a colloquy with subcommittee chairman simpson, and i'm wondering if the gentleman would be willing to engage in a colloquy with me considering the climate change provision in the bill. mr. simpson: i would be happy to. >> i want to ask the gentleman, first of all, if he could explain section 1746 of the bill to me. mr. simpson: i would be happy to. section 1746 hits the pause button on the e.p.a.'s record because of our unfounded fears on global climate change. as the chairman knows, and as mr. whitfield knows, over the last two years, the e.p.a. administrator jackson has been busy creating an enormous body of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and the regulations will cost jobs, drive up energy costs and imperil the american economy. the e.p.a. greenhouse gas

regulations need to be stopped in their tracks and that's what section 1746 does. it provides a time-out for the balance of this fiscal year during which time the e.p.a. will be prohibited on acting on them or enforcing them. section 1746 is intended to put a halt to the regulations that we feel will harm this economy. it's not intended to affect permitting or other matters unrelated to greenhouse gas emissions such as construction starts or permit approvals. mr. whitfield: i thank the gentleman and i agree with you wholeheartedly and i might also add congress and the u.s. senate have specifically addressed this issue on three separate occasions and on every one of those three occasions had said no to e.p.a. regulation. i might also add that last week we had a hearing with administrator jacks and mr. green, our colleague from texas, on the democratic side asked her a question, and he

said, my question is this, what happens if only the united states acts to reduce that's missions while major emitters like china or india do not take action, do not follow suit? can we really address climate change without strong mandatory reductions by other major emitters around the world? and mrs. jackson, the administrator of the e.p.a., said, we will not ultimately be able to change the amount of co-2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone. so i would say to you, mr. chairman, that the e.p.a.'s regulations will lead to higher costs for the coal industry, the oil industry, and natural gas industries that comprise 85% of america's energy mix, burdening both individuals and businesses and most important of aurl, destroying jobs. so let me ask the gentleman, is

this a debate about global warming science? mr. simpson: no, it's not necessary to be a climate change skeptic to be a greenhouse gas skeptic. these regulations are all economic if for little gain. the e.p.a. can only regulate american companies and exean emits more carbon dioxide than we do and the rate of emission is many times faster than ours and the chinese government repeatedly made clear it will never propose such job destroying regulatory measures on themselves. even the administrator, lisa jackson, has said unilateral action would have little or negligible impact on further temperatures. . the bill does not weaken

the clean air act, however, it would have no effect on the agency's ongoing efforts to deal with smog, soot, lead, mercury and all the other pollutants that have been addressed under the clean air act. mr. whitfield: it is simply a bill to stop the agency and bureaucrats from issuing regulations absent congressional approval. as our former chairman john dingell said, avoiding the glorious mess, is what we would be doing, because the clean air act was never designed to regulate greenhouse gases. as it is, e.p.a.'s global warming regulatory agenda, which is just beginning to roll out, is so open-ended that it is already having a chilling effect on investment and job creation. and the longer it moves forward, the more domestic manufacturing jobs will be forced overseas to countries not similarly burdened.

mr. simpson: would the gentleman yield? mr. whitfield: yes, sir. mr. simpson: when do you expect congress to act on the regulatory hearing act? mr. whitfield: we've had meetings on january 9 and i expect us to be moving this legislation in the next month and a half. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i rise to strike the lasted were. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: in light of the last colloquy, i find it necessary to say a few points about the underlying bill. it contains language that stops e.p.a. from limiting greenhouse gas emissions from the term of the continuing resolution through the end of fiscal year 2011. first, let me point out that this issue should not be debated on an appropriations bill that has received zero tais in the propings committee for debate. i do understand that the energy and commerce authorizes a

working decision -- authorizersers are working this issue through the regular process but this ising in but regular order. not that we would necessarily agree on the language that they're working on. but the reason you don't deal with complicated policy issues in eight lines of bill text is because often the only thing you achieve is unintended bad consequences. and this -- in this instance, i believe that's exactly what has happened. e.p.a. has a new permitting program that's exurntly in place as ofian. it is to be implemented by both the states and e.p.a. there would be serious inch cakeses -- implications from this c.r. language since new and modified large facilities are required by law to hold greenhouse gas permits before construction and the language would prevent federal and state permitting authority to take action to issue the permits. this would subject large facilities to legal challenges

from citizens for failing to obtain permits and will lead to construction delays and effectively eliminate thousands of american jobs. this is going to be held up in the courts indefinitely because of this language. we heard the arguments that these regulations will stop power plants an refineries and other big industry from creating jobs. but e.p.a.'s regulations encourage companies to make major new investments and to find cleaner ways to do business. this language is an assault on jobs. the chair of the republican energy and commerce committee stated last week at a hearing, since in the last colloquy the chinese government was mentioned, he stated, and i quote, the chinese government and other competitors have no intention of burdening an raising the cost of doing business for their manufacturers and energy producers the way e.p.a. plans to do here in america. now, mr. chairman, to suggest

that we should be taking our cues on public health and environmental policy from china, the people's republic of china, exposes the majority -- a majority party that's clearly on the side of industry but not of their constituents. this language is not about deficit reduction. it's a free pass to allow certain industries to produce -- to pollute at whatever daniel choth public health to whatever level they choose to pollute. we know that pollution is dangerous to the public health. we know that e.p.a. has a legislative responsibility to limit that pollution and yet this language would gut e.p.a.'s legal responsibility to carry out that legislation. i yield back my time at this point, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields pk. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia, a

member of the committee, rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gingrey: i want to -- >> i want to thank you for your attention to this process. i want to go back to my good friend from new york, mr. reid, there are those who have been working extremely hard, members all across the house and mr. reed dug very deep and he found something that i think all of us wanted to see, something that the american people pointed out clearly that the federal government has been spending money where it does not need to be spending money. think about where we are as a nation. mr. graves: $14 trillion in debt. unemployment, unacceptable. g.d.p. dropping. $1.5 trillion of a deficit which is almost $150 -- which is almost 150% of what the federal government takes in. think about where we are and then children, upon conception,

you ask any economist, they'll vary between $42,000 and $47,000 of debt inherited upon conception. and yet, mr. reed points out here today, a great find, that this government is finding a tijuana sewer rehabilitation project. something about that stinks. i would hope that this house, that americans all across this country that members of this house would see that just $10 million being funded for a rehabilitation project of a sewer facility in mexico, yet we're at this position of this fiscal house being out of order and in disorder. i would hope that this house would see and recognize that this central amendment, only $10 million a small amendment compared to the $1.5 trillion deficit is worthy of a yes vote of amending out of this c.r. and that we would send a mess

amming to the american people, doesn't matter if it's $1, $10 million, $1 billion, if it's unnecessary funding coming from this government, we're going to get it out and get this fiscal house back in order. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 275, line four. the matter pertaining to grants to communities to develop plans and implement projects which reduce greenhouse gas emissions shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1744, the amounts authorized to transfer under the heading environmental protection agency, administrative provisions and virpal protection agency shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division by substituting $225 million for $475 million. section 1745. the unobligated planses for the environmental protection agency, $300 million, is

rescinded. section 1746, none of the funds made available to the environmental protection agency may be expended, denying approval of state implementation plans or permits because of the emissions of greenhouse gases. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> i have an amendment, number 521 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 521, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. braley of iowa. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise in mr. simpson: i reserve a point of order on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. braley: we've been hearing about job-killing regulations but section 746 is -- 1764 is a job-killing statute that would block the renewable fuel standard established four years ago. the braley amendment would

allow it to move forward and allow the burgeoning industry which is reducing our dependence on foreign oil and creating thousands of jobs all other the country to move forward. the continuing resolution prevents renewable fuels standard from promoting clean, renewble homegrown fuel that reduces our dependence on foreign oil. prior to the r.f.s. my state of iowa prodaused less than $1 -- less than one billion gallons of ethanol annually and in large part because of its implementation, we now produce more than 3.5 billion gallons per year. ethanol and biodiesel support 49,000 jobs throughout the iowa economy this accounts for nearly $550 million in state tax revenue. without the renewable fuel standard, we would take a huge step backwards, potentially having a deaf stating impact on rural economies across the country in every congressional district. the r.f.s. promotes biofuels by ensuring that transportation fuel sold in the united states

contains certain volumes of renewable fuels, including advanced biofuels, cellulosic biofuels and biomass based diesel. that includes advanced biofuels, including ethanol from waste material, from vegetative waste, yard waste, biomass based diesel, biogas and butte knoll. the r.f.s. promotes biofuels and is supported by the american coalition for ethanol, the national corn growers association and the renewable fuel association and this particular legislation was described by the american advanced ethanol council as language that would defund efforts to implement ea the r.f.s. the required volume of each type of fuels established annually by the e.p.a. and this summer, e.p.a. needs to propose requirements for calendar year 2012. but the republican provision in

this section would prevent e.p.a. from doing so. if e.p.a. can't set the volume requirement, reform f.s. won't function next year and renewable fuel producers across the country are counting on these requirements. in fact, mr. chairman in your area, there are two plants, white plains energy in plain view and hereford renewable nrnl and white nrnl in hereford that will be affected if this provision becomes law. in fact, the gentleman from idaho has specific ethanol in buehrle, a 50 million gallon producer and idaho sustainable nrnl which is on the front edge of biofuels with algal diesel. so instead of investing in certainty that allows these producers to move forward this provision would pull the rug from farmers and refiners all across the country. that's high i urge my colleagues to oppose this flawed funding language and

support my amendment to ensure the renewable fuel standards is allowed to move forward. it's a bad policy to have job-killing statutory provisions that are going to increase our dependence on foreign oil and move us backward, not forward, in the important area of bioenergy. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from idaho continue to reserve his point of order? for what purpose does the gentleman the gentleman from iowa a member of the committee, rise? >> to strike the last word, please. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i appreciate the gentleman's concern in section 1746 that some think would impact the renewable fuel standard. mr. latham: it prohibits the e.p.a. from regulating

greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. however, reports that this provision will also block e.p.a. from setting standards for the 2012 renewable fuel standard are totally unfounded and the energy and commerce committee confirms this, everyone else, the gentleman i know used to be a member of that committee. i think it's really important to clarify that the rider in the c.r. is narrowly focused on e.p.a.'s new stationary source permitting authority and does not affect e.p.a.'s renewable fuels program. under the 2007 energy independence and security act, which was referred to, congress expressly stated that renewable fuels standard does not, and i say not, constitute regulation of greenhouse gases under the clean air act. the fundamental purpose of the renewable fuel standard is to ensure our nation's energy security and to reduce our

dependence on foreign sources of oil while providing a valuable incentive for the production of agriculture. as an iowan, i understand the vast importance of agriculture to our economy by creating thousands of good-paying jobs and contributing numerous economic benefits to our rural communities and i understand concerns that may have been expressed. however, it is very clear, very clear that the renewable fuel standard falls outside e.p.a.'s rule-making authority in addressing climate change. i want to assure my colleagues and the people of iowa that this legislation will not affect the renewable fuels standard or bring an end to the program as some have erroneously suggested. mr. chairman, this -- rules have already been written. anything in this bill is perspective. we already have a standard in place. and this does not affect that

anyway. i find it interesting that people would now talk, in the senate, senate rockefeller a democrat over there, i hate to see this be politicized because it should not be a political issue, but the democrat senator from west virginia has identical language and no one said anything about that. he wants for two years to have a prohibition. the energy and commerce committee is having debates as to make it permanent as far as the prohibition. . i have not heard any concerns about that. so it is, i think, very unfortunate some information is being put forth on the floor of the house here that is not true. the energy and commerce committee has said over and over again that this does not affect renewable fuel standards, will have no impact as far as ethanol is concerned. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman from idaho continues to reserve his point of order. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise. mr. dicks: i move to strike the last word. and i would like to have a colloquy with mr. braley for purposes of explaining. mr. braley: the problem of the language is it is so poorly drafted it affects the renewable standard and why all the advocate groups i mentioned in my remarks are in support of the amendment that i've offered. it promotes biofuels by ensuring fuels sold in the united states contains the requisite number of volume for each type of fuel that's established annually. and this summer the e.p.a. has to make sure that those standards are identified for each one of the various categories. but if they don't have the required guidance available to them because of the confusing

language, that's currently in this provision, it is going to create confusion and those same industries that waited and waited and waited for a tax extender's package to be passed the end of the last congress are going to have the same type of uncertainty governing their investment decisions moving forward, which is why those groups i mentioned earlier are so concerned about this matter and are in support of the braley amendment. they are growth energy, the national corn growers association, the american coalition for ethanol, the renewable fuels association and the advanced ethanol council. if the advanced ethanol council believes this language is so vague it would defund efforts to implement the r.f.s., that is not me speaking but that's the very groups that would be subject to regulation by the e.p.a. and that's why this amendment is important to clarify that that is not within the scope of e.p.a.'s powers and i would yield back to the

gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i still reserve the point of order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i yield to the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: if there are people concerned about this, why didn't they come to us and talk to us before? we talked about the different groups out there an that's because they've been given bad information that's not true. it is clear from the 2007 bill, and if someone would read it around here, they would understand that the renewable fuel standard is not affected by this. it is specifically outside the jurisdiction of what we're talking about. and so to make any assertion otherwise is simply giving erroneous information puposefully on the floor and that's very, very unfortunate because you do have people that are being told something that is not true and now they're getting all worked up about it. i think is very, very

unfortunate. we had a meeting this last week about iowa delegation talking to each other. if you have concerns, why don't you bring it forth so we can take care of the problem. if you want to have the amendment, i would have supported it but it's not needed. it is simply fictitious this idea this is somehow going to affect the renewable fuel standard and i think it's very unfortunate that this issue has become something that has been dreamt up for other reasons i think. that's very, very unfortunate because we should need to work together for energy independence in this country and to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy and i thank the gentleman and i yield back to him. mr. simpson: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 2 1. the rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing

existing law. the amendment gives direction in effect. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds section 1746 of the bill contains legislative limitation on the use of fund. such a provision may be properly amended by nonlegislative exception or by germane, merely perfecting change. the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa, while merely exempting 2110 from the clean air act of terms of the limitation seeks to impart direction to the e.p.a. administrator with regard to the application of that section of the clean air act. the amendment transfer constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is

the committee will come to

order.

the chair: if members would kindly remove audible conversation so the committee can continue its work through this bill.

the chair: will members clear the well, clear the aisle. the chair: are there over amendments to this sex of the bill? for what purpose does the

gentleman from washington rise? >> to address the -- to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, i rise -- mr. dicks: it's mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. chair requests that members and staff in all the aisles remove audible conversations. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. inslee: mr. chairman, i rise to ask what happened to the party of teddy roosevelt? what happened to the party that

helped us adopt, under richard nixon's leadership, the clean air act in what happened to the republican party that used to be allied in the adoption of the clean air rule that was so helped the health of americans? what happened to the party that adopted the clean air act 40 years ago which has helped save over 200,000 lives. i ask why, today, in this continuing resolution, the republican party has abandoned any pretext whatsoever to stand for clean air when they eviscerate the clean air law in their continuing resolution? this is a sad statement, to think that a party that at one time helped us clean up the air and reduce cancer deaths, reducing respiratory element,

reducing heart attacks have seen fit to go and lead with the polluting tri-s to gut the clean air act. i want to make clear so people know what the republican continuing resolution does. even though the clean air act today requires the environmental protection agency to clean up our air against dangerous gases like carbon dioxide and ozen, even though the supreme court has ruled that americans are entitled to this protection, the republican party has decided to make it illegal for the cops on the beat to do their job. this bill, amazingly enough, the republicans have passed a provision or want to in this bill that would make it illegal for the environmental protection agency to protect the environment. now why would you want to make

it illegal for the environmental protection agency to protect the environment? i want to make clear how radical this action is. there's no fiscal reason for this this is just an assault on clean air. the dirty air act is not going to revise any proposed rules of the environmental protection agency. it isn't going to modify any clean air laws. it's going to eliminate them. by saying that it's illegal for the e.p.a. to enforce these clean air laws. the sad thing about this, mr. chairman, mr. chairman, this is an assault on science. you read the specific scientific conclusions of the thousands of scientists who have reviewed this and here's what the scientists and the fi cigs say. not the politician the

physicians. here's what they say. greenhouse gases are the primary drive of climate change which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor, or elderly. increases in ground level ozone pollution linked to asthma, and other respiratory illnesses, as well as other threats to the health and welfare of americans, close quote. now why would the republican party want to make the air more dangerous for our kids who are using those inhalers to try to prevent asthma attacks? in our commerce committee hearing, we had a young woman from north carolina. she talked about the fact that increasing ozone increases and aggravates her asthma. what reason on this green earth do we have to increase the rates of asthma of our kids? that's what the republican party wants to do in this

continuing resolution. now that's kind of a harsh statement. it's a harsh statement to say that one of our buddies wans to invees -- increase the availability of ozone to damage our kids' health. but facts are stubborn things. this is what the republican party is sthnsing our kids to, more dangerous air. it's a real sad statement when you consider che past history of the republican party which held, under richard nixon and teddy roosevelt, adopt these environmental laws system of mr. chairman, i hope that at some point we will get a little more bipartisanship here for clean air, we will abandon this commitment to the polluting industries that are running this effort and reject this continuing resolution and these anti-clean air laws. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the

gentlelady rise? >> i move to strike the last word. >> today we are here because the 111th congress failed to do one of their most basic jobs, approve a budget to fund the federal government. it is clear we are in a state of financial crisis. our debt requires immediate action and the c.r. is just the beginning. i came to congress because like many other new republican members of the fresh map class, i run a small business. mrs. ellmers: sticking to my budget and trying to make plans for the future, all the while i was watching washington politicians drive this country's economy into a ditch. i knew that something had to change. my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying all the same worn out tricks but i'm here to say the american people

-- to the american people, this is not about tricks or politics, this is about preserving the greatness of america. no one in this chamber finds joy in the tough decisions we have to make but we can no longer ignore them. the american people have elected this congress to be good stewards of their money. today is not a happy day. this is not a happy speech. government spending and burdensome regulations have driven the american people to anger and frustration with good reason. sadly, our nation stands on the edge of bankruptcy. our love for future yen rations of americans requires that we not ignore today's problems, only to find them years from now in irreparable financial ruin. regardless of the program, today's deficit spending is tomorrow's tax increase. in my neighborhood, there have been three babies born recently. each of those babies now owe $45,000 in federal debt.

we are fighting for our very survival. at risk are the freedoms representative of a free market economy and free society. the freedom to choose. freedom of private industry to compete. freedom from burdensome taxation and freedom from mandated government programs. washington today is slowly smothering the personal liberty americans so greatly esteem. as the 112th congress struggles to meet the nation's challenges, fundamental disagreement remains. unfortunately for the american people, the debate is being framed as vital -- vicious cuts to vital programs by republicans who don't care. hear me now when i say, this has never been farther from the truth. today we come to terms with the fact that we cannot spend money on everything we want regardless of the good intentions. for years, politicians ignored these problems. not this congress, not this

congresswoman. the people elected us to end the talk and take swift action and we must. as a small business owner, when finances get tight, we cut where necessary. raising prices isn't always the option. as painful as it may be, you make tough decisions to cut waste, operation, production costs and eventually jobs as a last resort. why should the federal government be any different? . liberty allows people to work hard and achieve what they want, be responsible for their own actions and be free. no one shackled by debt is free. today's budget crisis is dangerous and threatens our basic freedoms. free society's value every citizen equally facing no preference one over another. i believe no one should be entitled to another's hard-earned provisions and government should support its citizens, not burden them with cumbersome debt and obligations

they cannot fulfill. government spending is not the answer to our looming problems. i know there are those who argue my rhetoric is too harsh and that the financial crisis is not as bad as it seems. this crisis is real. and without immediate action, america will continue spiraling toward financial disaster. today i challenge my colleagues to let real leadership begin. no longer should we turn to china to finance that which we cannot afford. let us have the courage to right our wrongs. the strength to see it through. and the vision to lead with the powers entrusted to us from the consent of the governed rather than selfish ambitions. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise to oppose the bill in the priorities and the values it

represents. republicans repeat like robots the same talking points we've heard again and again tonight that to get our debt under control, middle class families are going to have to suck it up. we face tough choices, hard choices but there is no choice, we'll have to cut public education drastically along with head start for children who will start kindergarten too far behind to catch up and job training for workers who lost their jobs, pell grants so middle class kids can afford a college education, research at the national science foundation and the department of energy and on and on. mr. speaker, we do have choices. we have this deficit because of choices we've made. . just a decade ago the debate here was what to do with the surplus. alan greenspan who was the chairman of the federal reserve board worried it might unsettle the economy if we paid off the national debt too quickly.

president president urged we use the surplus to shore up medical careo my generation can live in dignity when we retire. mr. miller: a republican president and a republican congress decided instead to cut taxes sharply for the richest of the rich, the deficit we face now is because of that choice. and we saw just two months ago that protecting those tax cuts for the richest of the rich, even americans making more than $1 million a year, was their first priority. so despite all the weeping and wailing, the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments about the deficit now, just two months ago they said not a word about the deficit when they were voting to cut taxes to explode the deficit by cutting taxes on the very richest americans. now congress is voting to cut to kick 200,000 kids out of

head start so that americans who work and strive to be conceived to the right parents will have to pay nlingts inheritance taxes. now congress is voting to fire teachers and special ed indicators so people making more than $1 million will not have to pay the income taxes they paid in the 1990's. and much of the bill obviously has nothing to do with saving money or whether the government is too big or too small. it's about whose side the government is on. this bill cuts drastically the funding needed to protect middle class families from the gouging that has lurked in the legalese, the fine print, the financial contracts, the tricks and traps written by banks lawyers. that cut has nothing to do with saving money. it is all about putting government on the side of financial predators, not on the side of hard-working, honest americans trying to make an honest living. we've seen clusters of rare

cancers and birth defects we know are the result of a environmental exposure to something, and this bill devastates environmental protection. middle class children are facing life with lower i.q.'s because of unchecked environmental exposure so polluters can have bigger profits and c.e.o.'s can award themselves with bigger bonuses. many of my colleagues have argued this bill is pennywise and pound-foolish, it is shortsighted and will hurt the economy. all of that is true. but i am most disturbed this bill represents values that are incompatible with the values i learned at my mother's knees, the values of the generations of america and the values of most americans, including me, the values that have been the glue that held our country together in tough times. i will vote no. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise?

>> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i am opposed. i know when we cut taxes we will be cutting service for the working poor, children and disable. ms. brown: the house republican c.r. in fact is very similar to the last december tax cut bill which included billions in tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of americans while driving up the budget deficit an extra $700 billion. the proposed continuing resolution is using what i usually call reverse robin hood, will rob from the poor and working people to give tax breaks to the rich. in my area of specialization, transportation and

infrastructure, this bill would rescind $2.5 billion for high-speed rail projects already awarded as well as cancellation of 76 transportation projects in 40 states bringing about a loss of 25 new construction jobs, pink slips. while the unemployment rate is still 9% in our nation, it is critical to invest in infrastructure at this time, as i always said, transportation and infrastructure funds is essential to job creation and for every $1 billion invested in infrastructure projects, over 42,000 well-paid, permanent jobs are created. and over $2 billion in economic development. this resolution also cuts programs to assist homeless vets. over 130,000 of our nation's 24

million veterans are homeless at any given night. in this time of foreclosure and uncertainty in the housing market, it is inconceivable we would limit the help available to those who serve and protect our country, freedom as we hold so dear. so we're going to give pink slips to over 130,000 veterans. i want to say that that will not happen, but pink slips to the veterans. in addition, over 200,000 children, we're going to kick off of head start. a pink slip for the head start program. reduce the maximum pell grant, $800,000 per student. take away over 20,000 research support at the national foundation. and a program that is near and dear to my heart, over 1,300 cops off the beat. this program was started under

president clinton where we put an additional 100,000 cops on the beat and cut down crime. we cut another 2,400 firefighters, pink slips for the firefighters, and cut $2.5 billion in the national institutes of health. budget decisions by congress and the president should prioritize the most needy communities who are struggling to make ends meet at this difficult economic time, not the wealthy and the powerful. today's bill on the house floor does absolutely nothing to create jobs or improve our nation's economy, but is a direct assault on the most vulnerable by cutting the budget in every single area from transportation to our nation's veterans to our nation's children, to police on the beat protecting our citizens. once again, the republican party is asking our seniors, our students, our children, and working families to make fiscal

sacrifices while millionaires and billionaires and powerful special interest groups get to walk off without a scratch. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. if there are no further amendments to this section, the clerk will read. the clerk: page 276, line 12, section 1747. none of the funds made available may be used by the environmental protection agency to force a change to a rule or guidance pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the federal water pollution control act. section 1748, the level for department of agriculture forest service, forest and rangeland research, $2 97,252,000.

section 1749, the level for department of agriculture forest service, state and private forestry, $232, 680,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment, number 85. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 85 presented in the congressional record offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment that will reduce spending for the international forestry program by $7.4 million. some on the other side said $7.4 million isn't a lot of money when we have a deficit over $1.5 trillion, in kansas that's still a little bit of money. this program started out a long time ago to provide funds for saving the brazilian rain forest. but like so many programs that had good intentions, it's morphed, it's morphed into

something terribly different. just this past year, this program funded field trips for students in mexico to follow the migration of monarch butterflies. it funded research in china to protect panda habitat and make sure we didn't have the infestation of forest fests in china. i think the chinese can fund that themselves if someone thinks that's a worthy task. last year it funded the international forestry program, funded a study on declining hummingbird populations in the western united states, canada, and mexico. mr. chairman, there are difficult decisions to make when the country is at this point in its economic life but this is not difficult. these are precisely the kind of programs americans and a sent a new congress to take care of, to make sure we're not doing things that make no sense for america, so i'd urge support for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i yield to ms. mccollum from minnesota to explain why the democrats on the subcommittee are very strongly opposed to this amendment. ms. mccollum? ms. mccollum: i want to make it clear while the congressman says it eliminates the u.s. forest programs, it does not. it only calls for a reduction in the budget for the department of agriculture forest service, state and private forests. should this shortsighted amendment pass, the agency would decide what to cut within this budget. that being said, the gentleman from kansas is unfairly maligned an important agency that's doing unsung work. the u.s. forest service international programs play a unique role as one of the few federal agencies working with international governments and n.g.o.'s. stops the flow of illegal wood undercutting our u.s. timber industry and costing us jobs.

another example, protecting canada's western forest in partnership with ducks unlimited to ensure future generations of hunters will have access to waterfowl habitat. this area is the second-most productive breeding ground for ducks that migrate to the united states. the examples of working with china and russia are important. working with china and russia to address such invasive species as emerald ash forest and the asian gypsy moth, both of which are currently threatening millions of forest acres in my home state of minnesota and have devastated parts of the eastern part of the united states. . similarly all salmon migrate from the eastern north north korea russia, and we're working with the russians to clean the waters to preserve this wild stock for future yen rations.

one of the i thinks that disturbs me most is the way a program has been described that allows students to interact with one another an learn about forestry management, biology, and how we are interconnected in this world. there are nomex can students that go on field trips here in the united states. but there is an exchange of classrooms in canada and the united states and in mexico where teachers online follow the migration of the monarch, students learn about, yes, insects, they learn about the trees that are important to them and they learn biology. these are very, very important programs, they should not be maligned. and this amendment, while it does not eliminate the programs, should still be obosed -- opposed. with that, i yield back. >> i would associate myself strongly with the a --

mr. moran: i would associate myself strongly with the remarks from the gentlewoman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: i rise in opposition to this amendment. this is funded at $74 million in the c.r. in fy-2010 it was funded at $100 million. it brings in approximately $3 for every $1 invested. this program, regardless of the amount of money it spends, it's still a lot of money in idaho just as it is in kansas. this program is critical proprotecting forestry and forest products in the united states. it's the only forestry entity representing the united states at trade summits. it's the only one working to counter the flow of illegally

harvested forest products abroad. the u.s. negotiators from the department of state, the u.s. trade representatives, rely on the international program to provide technical input to effectively advocate for the domestic forest products industry. these agencies do not have this expertise. the international program also permits the -- prevents the spro ducks of invasive and nonnative pests that would cause millions of dollars of daniel to u.s. forests and the u.s. economy. the international program, through funding from usaid, plays a critical role in protecting u.s. security interests in conflict-prone areas, unrelated, illegal, resource extraction, many times lead to the unrest and corruption. i would oppose this amendment even though i understand that the gentleman, it's easy to go after international programs when we have such problems here, the fact is that they protect industry here in this country, in the u.s. forest products tri-in this country because as i said, they're the

only ones representing the u.s. forest products industry and forestry in scren in international trade agreements. i oppose this amendment and hope my colleagues would also. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> to request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment by the gentleman from kansas will be postponed. the clerk will will read. the chair: page 277, line 10, section 1750, the level for the department of agriculture, national forest system, $1,525,339,000. section 1751, the level of department of agriculture, forest service, capitol immaterial prove and maintenance $409,495,000.

section 1752, the level for department of agriculture, forest service, land zack -- acquisition, $991,000. section 1753, the level for expect of agriculture, forest service, wildland fire management, $1,978,737,000. section 1754, the authority provided by section 33 of the department of the interior and related agencies appropriations act, 2005, as amended. section 1755, the level for department of health and human services indian health services, $3,883,886,000. section 1756. the level for department of health and human services indian health service, indian

health facilities, $255,497,000. section 1757. the level for department of health and human services national institutes of health, national institute of environmental health sciences. $77,546,000. section 175 . the level for department of health and human services agency for toxic substances and disease registry, toxic substances and environmental public health, $74,039,000. section 1759, the level for executive office of the president, council on environmental quality an office of environmental quality, $2,848,000. section 1760, the level for chemical safety and hazard investigation board salaries and expenses, $10,799,000.

>> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 281, line 17 be considered read and printed in the report. the chair: is there objection? are there amendments to this portion of the bill? if not, the clerk will read. the clerk: section 176 , the national endowment for the arts grants and administration, $145 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> mr. speaker -- i have an amendment at the desk, number 196. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 196, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. walberg of michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes on his amendment.

mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. currently the continuing resolution funds the national endowment for the arts at the approximate fiscal year 2008 level of $145 million. amendment number 196 takes the funding levels back to the fiscal year 2006 levels at $124 ppt 4 million. if accepted, this cut returns 20.6 -- returns $20.6 million to the account. some would call for full defunding of the n.e.a. i'm not doing that. you see, i believe in the true fine arts. and of course that's defined by individual standards, i understand. i found that fact as the financial chair of a symphony orchestra for a numb of years. people support what they appreciate. however, at a time when our government is in a position where it must cut federal spending, i believe one of the main sources of the funding for

the arts needs to be through philanthropy but that only happens best in a sound and growing economy. this budget crisis, this economy, continues to be frustrated by the spending of government that frustrates individuals who indeed would be willing to support and in fact still do support the arts as well. the national foundation for the arts does provide benefits to our country and helps fund some fine and true arts. however, we are asking them to only fund true priorities. priorities approved by the majority of taxpayers of -- taxpayers, citizens, sponsors and patrons of the arts and limiting resources sometimes refocuses and defines that

focus. we know that the public has had questions on some of the programs that the n.e.a. has supported. major questions. major concerns. attention to those concerns will gain the support of the taxpayer as well as the philanthropist. our country is a financial hardship and we're not taking programs like the n.e.a. off the table. i refer to a letter i received last night from a very strong patron of the arts of a symphony that i served as finance chair of. a major manufacturer in my district. a chairman of that manufacturing corporation. talking about what they have just gone through as a business. i just read excerpts. he says, until today we have been operating under a fore bearance agreement that fan in 2008. it's been a struggle. our leadership group accepted

15% to 50% cuts in salary and our hourly staff accepted 10% wage reductions. our salesmen continue to find new opportunities. we reduced spending tremendously and only spent for essentials. our belt was very tight. we did all we could to help ourselves and we all made many sacrifices. above all, we never stopped believing in our future. that's the type of impact that goes in the private sector, that we even in programs we enjoy benefit from, and help out on need to understand. our country is in financial hardship and we're not taking programs even like the n.e.a. off the table. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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: i will speak in opposition to this amendment,

mr. chairman. n.e.a. is already cut in this continuing resolution by $22 million. the n.e.a.'s contribution to deficit reduction is really infinitesimal but its elimination would not be. it would be very costly. the n.e.a. represents less than .01 of -- represents less than 1/100th of discretionary spending. the endowment for the arts far exceeds that value. it seems to many when there are too many issues that divide this thation and there remains too much harshness and rain cor, the arts have an even more important role to play because they remain a powerful medium to which we can all transcend our common differences and appreciate beauty, empathize

with all of human kind. this is what the arts are all about. this is what n.e.a. enables all americans to more greatly appreciate. the n.e.a. budget is small but it is such an important catalyst to help create and sustain the arts. last year, actor jeff daniels spoke at an interior appropriations subcommittee hearing as to how n.e.a. supported the revival of a theater in his hometown in michigan. it was a small grant. but in his case it restored the needer -- theater an its prubses so that neighboring owners then restored their homes and turned them into bed and breakfast places, restaurant and antique shops saw a boost in their business and in fact the state of michigan just built an exit ramp off the state highway to serve the increasing number of cars flocking to this hometown

that otherwise was a virtual ghost town. they are a magnet for businesses every place that they locate. and n.e.a. searches out those opportunities. there are 668,000 businesses involved in the creation and distribution of art and millions of jobs. just two examples in virginia, actually, to cey time, i'll give one example. signature at the for the arlington, virm, received n.e.a. grants for their nationally recognized artistic and education programs. i would suggest that all of our members go there sometime, they will invariably see an extraordinary good performance, one that has generated economic activity throughout community and one that could not have gotten on its feet without the help of the national endowment help of the national endowment for the arts.