show much love for the federal government. payment in lieu of taxes was created to compensate counties for lost taxes and federal lands don't pay taxes. western states with lots of federal lands get most of the payments, that's fair. but while the counties don't get taxes on federal lands, they don't provide services on those lands either. in fact, the opposite occurs. the national parks, national forests and b.l.m. lands and the staffs of all these provide very valuable services and substantial revenues and jobs to the western counties and public lands provide ecosystems that are worth billions. without clean water and open space, imagine, you wouldn't have the communities, the agriculture that we seem to take for granted. in fact, the states get fully half of the mineral receipts that come from the coal, oil and gas. the gentlelady makes a very important point and is worthy of consideration. thank you, mr. chairman.

ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman very much. the chair: who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from idaho. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . mr. simpson, this is a bad amendment and leashes me speechless. i'm going to yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah. the chair: the gentleman is recognized is recognized for two minutes. mr. simpson: every three acre is owned by the federal government. this is disproportionate in the west. this of course is ms. kaptur's region. this is my district and until such time as my district

resembles her district in the ability of us to control our future and our resources, payment in lieu of tax is not welfare to the west. it is simply rent on the land that you control. until such time as the secretary of interior's decision, which the inspector general said was capricious and arbitrary does not destroy 3,000 jobs in a county with only 31,000 inhabitants. until such time as $1.9 billion in investment leaves the west to go to the east where there is fewer regulations, until such time as somebody from the east who comes to frolic in the public lands of the west and consumes the entire counties search and rescue budget in one day, until that is changed, pilt is not welfare, it is rent on the land you control. and i want you to look carefully at this map. see where the red is. and then i also want you to look at this particular map. states in red are the states that have the hardest time

funding their education system. that is the slowest growth in education. i hope you realize there is a similarity between the two particular maps because the bottom line is individuals in the west pay more in state and federal taxes than in the east. there are more kids in the west. we have larger class sizes in the west. our education system has a harder time to fund itself in the west because this map prohibits us from developing our property taxes, developing our energy royalties, developing high-paying jobs with income taxes, so kids are hurt in the west. i'm sorry, this map and this situation means that kids are -- may i have -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 second. mr. bishop: the teachers' salaries are depressed and my retirement is threatened because of this particular situation. when this changes, there will be no more need for pilt. but until that time comes, this is not welfare, this is rent on

the land you control. to be honest, we'd rather have the land back but until that time, pay for what you control. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: is the gentlewoman's time -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. simpson: i'd be happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert: the gentlelady from ohio may have stumbled on something and if she can help us for a state like arizona can own the land, great. but until that land you have to understand, only 18% of our state is privately owned, tribal lands, b.l.m. lands, are we ready to start paying the full property tax load? i was the county treasure in maricopa county and huge portions of our county, we can't even touch. if you want a sense of fairness, then we accept up and

-- step up and give the land back to the states. until this time this borders on silly. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. simpson: i yield time to the gentleman from colorado. >> there are over 20 million acres of federal land in colorado and i want to be clear with great respect to my colleague from ohio. this is not in any shape or form a give away. we cannot tax or develop or benefit from. pilt payments are insufficient. they're too low to compensate for the burden of having the land that's not part of our local tax base. mr. polis: it's a burden and many of our counties have to spend money maintaining this land because the federal infrastructure isn't sufficient as well. there's nobody making out like a bandit from this and all we can do to justify the fact the federal government owns a lot of land. yield back. mr. simpson: i have 30 seconds left?

the chair: the gentleman from idaho has one minute left. mr. simpson: i'd be happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona. >> i want to thank the chairman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i have to remind my friend from ohio until the west was settled it was people from the midwest making these laws that created most of the western states to be 80%, 70%, 90% federal lands. mr. pastor: and in order for us to be able to have somewhat of a tax base because of the limited private property we have, we need to ask the federal government to pay its share. you cannot in many cases develop economically these lands because of people from the west -- from the east prohibit us from developing these public lands. and so i just want to throw out the reminder. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. dicks: i want to rise in

very strong opposition. being a westerner, i have counties in my district that receive these payments. i think it's justified. and i appreciate the fact that the new majority has tried to protect these payments. it's very important in the west. and i yield back to the gentleman. >> i have one county that's 96 federally owned. mr. simpson: 4% of the property is taxable in order to provide the services for all of you that come out and enjoy the beauty in the county. do you think pilt payments are appropriate? i think they are and i would hope that we overwhelmingly reject this amendment. the chair: the time of the the gentleman has expired. ms. kaptur: i'd like to ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. speaker. on that i awould ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered on the amendment from the gentlelady from ohio will be postponed. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 46. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 46 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chairman. we all share the goal of reducing the deficit. if we're serious about deficit reduction we need to look at defense as one of the line items, my amendment would save hundreds of millions by reducing our troop count in europe instead of having over 80,000 troops in europe where they're no longer needed we would reduce the amount of troops in europe to 35,000.

this would allow the department of defense to save money by closing bases across europe that don't have any strategic rationale. pulling our troops out of europe and closing these bases is an excellent way to help reduce expend -- expenditures and save money. my amendment would save $278 million, an additional 35,000 troops would be available for deployment to theaters where we have a strategic interest in and enhance our preparedness at the same time saving money. this step would save $278 million and improve our national security. reducing our troop level saves money, personnel costs, housing expenses, the cost of stationing troops abroad. on top of these savings, my amendment will allow us to close bases across europe that quite frankly are relics of a bygone era, rather than fighting the demons of the past we need to focus on the very real threats of the present and future. we are no longer in a battle with the nazis, we no longer are in a battle of the soviets. the need for these bases is understandable in a

geopolitical context, but what is their justification now? the u.s. taxpayer did not send up to defend wealthy european democracies from imaginary threats forever. these bases cost u.s. taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. i fail to understand why we're wasting money to maintain bases where they're not needed. our european allies are some of the richest in the world, why are we subsidizing their defense spengedsnurep autopilot even allies have enjoyed a free ride on the american dime for years now. today they spent on average only 2% of g.d.p. on defense while we spend between 4% and 5%. there's no reason for us to subsidize european defense. while every other aspect of our government we're looking at for cuts. i understand that many of the troops stationed in europe have in the past been deployed to iraq and afghanistan. my amendment is consistent with that. currently 13,000 troops stationed in germany and iraq are deployed in our theaters of operation. my amendment would allow for that to continue and allows for 35,000 troops well within the number currently deployed in actual theaters where we have a

strategic sbfment nor does my amendment signal a weakening to nato. with modern technology we can use troops and weapons across the globe when needed and would allow for 35,000 troops to remain in europe to do joint exercises with nato. it's time for us to rethink our defense spending. we are not under threat in europe. maintaining a network of bases in europe is not a rational order or effective response to the terrorist threat nor fiscally responsible. these cuts are not my idea but based on recommendations from the sustainable defense task force, a bipartisan project organized by congressman frank, congressman paul, congressman jones and senator biden. backed by a number of organizations, cato institute, taxpayers for common sense, center for american progress, center for defense of information, national security network and others, even donald rumsfeld believes it's time to change our policy. this is a quote from his recent book, of the 1/4 mill combron troops deployed abroad in 2011 more than 100,000 in europe with the vast majority in

germany to fend off an invasion by the soviet union that no longer exists. i believe our troops have more to do than serve as symbols of security blankets for wealthy allied nations. even donald rumsfeld admits this policy doesn't make sense and isn't cost justified and we must consider our policy of maintaining bases in regions that are clearly peaceful and pose no threat. let's get serious about balancing the budget and find savings in every agency including d.o.d. reducing our military in europe is low hanging fruit and will save money. the time is now. the time was last year. the time was three years ago after the fall of the soviet union, there fails to be a strategic rationale to maintain our current troop levels or expenditure levels in the european theater. my amendment will save taxpayer money and improve military preparedness for conflicts in zones where america has a strategic imperative to fight the global war on terrorism. i urge a yes vote on the amendment and yield back. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time in opposition to

the amendment? the gentleman from ohio. do you seek time in opposition? >> yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the gentleman from colorado says there's no strategic rationale for these troops but there's no strategic rationale for this amendment. the amendment is completely arbitrary in the cuts proposed and no basis for these levels of cuts that are proposed. in fact, the strategic rationale is for the support of our troops currently serving in europe. secretary gates just wednesday appeared before the armed services committee and while he was there he testified that it is the presence of our military on the ground in europe and other places that assures our allies and provides a deterrent effect to would-be aggressors. these troops aren't just staring down a past soviet union and in fact are providing wartime support currently. they're also providing an

effective deoccurent for our allies and for the puns. mr. turner: this amendment would reduce the army by almost $5,000 and the navy by more than $500 and the air force by more than $5,000 in program strength levels for fiscal year 2011. these are planned troop deployments and presence. this is not something done 10 years ago. the limits on this would damage wartime capability. to reduce manpower halfway through the fiscal year would likely require the abrupt, involuntary separation of many service members, sending the message, thank you for your service, but now please leave. these troops are actively providing protection both to our allies and to the united states and play a vital role in what is wartime operational capability. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i rise in opposition to this amendment. secretary gates has worked out a reduction in the troop force

that will occur later in the year. i think with circumstances with the troops in afghanistan, we're bringing troops out of iraq. and one of the things that's very important about our european bases, we train with the europeans, we work with the europes. when the flights come out of iraq or afghanistan with wounded troops, they come back to germany where the troops are taken care of in the hospital. there is a long-term relationship with nato that is very critically important. . i understand the gentleman has some other advisers on this amendment. i wouldn't exactly be touting donald rumsfeld myself, but any way, i hope that we can defeat this amendment and let the secretary of defense, the joint chiefs make the decision in bringing down our troop forces.

and i do believe europe is still important to the united states. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. turner: although the gentleman from colorado referenced is an accurate quote of donald rumsfeld, he would have serious concerns about this amendment and its immediate effects. we reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: the gentleman from said troops are a effective deterrent, who are we? mr. dicks: why don't we yield back and have a vote on the amendment? mr. polis: how much time remains on my side? the chair: the gentleman from colorado has 30 seconds remaining and the gentleman from ohio has two minutes remaining. mr. polis: i will be happy to yield my 20 seconds to the gentleman from ohio. who are we to deter from

attacking, germany and italy? mr. turner: i think it's important for us to understand who might attack us and this is not an issue of these troops being a realic but an issue of -- mr. polis: reclaiming my time, you said this was deterrant. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: i think it's important for us to continue to honor our obligations to our allies and to protect our country. secretary gates just recently as this week on wednesday reafffirmed the need for these troops so we can continue to support oural jice and the -- our allies and the united states. the chair: the question i on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. polis: i request the yeas and nays, a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. turner: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment 498. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 498 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. johnson of ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson and member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. johnson: my amendment would stop the department of interior and enforcement from going forward with the proposed revision to the stream buffer rule that could, according to the obama's administration own analysis eliminate up to 29,000 coal industry and coal-related jobs. cut coal mining production by

50% and increase the cost of electricity for families and businesses. in december, 2008, o.s.m. issued a clarification of the stream buffer zone rules after a five-year process that included 40,000 public comments, two proposed rules and 5,000 pages of environmental analysis from five different agencies. the final rule clarified and codified coal surface mining practices that had been in effect for over 30 years. but an entry in the federal recommending industry from june, 2009, shows that early in the first days of the obama administration, the decision was made to re-open the carefully crafted and properly busted stream buffer zone. the proposed sweeping regulatory action would alter the definition of a stream as well as how the agency measures material damage outside of the permit area. to date, the agency has provided

no studies, no data or support to justify these radical changes. given the complete lack of justification, analysis or rationale for these proposed changes, it can be said this is a political decision and not one based on science or fact and this flies in the face of the administration's pledge to base rule-making decisions on science and not on political factors. furthermore, several states have expressed serious concerns about the need and justification for the proposal. mr. chairman, the unemployment rate in my home state of ohio is 9.6%. in parts of eastern and southeastern ohio that i represent, we have double-digit unemployment. the average unemployment in the 12 counties i represent is 10.9%. there are entire communities that depend largely on the coal industry, both for direct and indirect jobs and these jobs would be threatend by this proposed rules change.

to be clear, my amendment does not stop the issueance of permits, nor does it prevent o.s.m., army corps of gears and e.p.a. from their regulatory responsibility. it would prohibit any funding to be spent on developing, carrying our carrying out this proposed job-killing rule. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to stop the obama administration from going forward with the regulation that will result in thousands of hard-working americans losing their jobs. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition in opposition to the amendment? mr. moran: i do rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: this amendment stops the interior department from protecting nearby streams and rivers from the toxic disposal of coal mine waste.

so let me give you the top seven reasons why this amendment should be defeated. one, it will allow for the continued destruction of america's forests and native vegetabletation, contrary to the statutory requirement to protect that regularstation. it will interfere with the new requirement for the clean water act, preventing updating regulations based upon the best science level. three, it will perpetrate the uncertainties that citizens and industry and state regulators are currently experiencing under outdated regulations. four, it will continue to allow the worst of the coal mine prapetors to destroy and pollute america's streams and by doing so gain a competitive advantage over the responsible operators. five, it will deny the state regulatory first the ability to

issue permits that would withstand legal challenge. six, it will prevent the gathering of information needed to predict adverse impacts to land and water resources. and seven, it will prevent the completion of the national environmental policy act process, which provides valuable information to enable and form a decision to the best alternatives to protect society and the environment while helping to meet america's energy needs. that's why i would oppose the johnson amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. johnson: i yield to my colleague. the chair: gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. rogers: i appreciate offering this much needed amendment. almost immediately after taking

office, the administration put a bull's eye on appalachian colin cluding from the o.s.m. as ap representative of appalachian kentucky like ohio where the gentleman is from, we are losing thousands of jobs because of these policies and now by its own admission, the o.s.m. and department of the interior is placing 7,000 mining jobs across the country on the chopping block representing 9% of the industry by reopening the long settled stream protection rule. and so i congratulate the gentleman for bringing this to our attention with this amendment. a report that was leaked by o.s.m. indicates amending this rule will cause coal production to drop drastically or remain stagnant in 22 states. so it comes as no surprise to me that officials from kentucky,

west virginia, utah, wyoming, texas and others have blasted this proposal as nonsensical and difficult to follow. mr. johnson has the right idea with this amendment, which would prohibit o.s.m. from moving forward with this rule during this fiscal year. i thank the gentleman. mr. johnson: i just want to take this opportunity to remind, the rule was reclarified in a five-year process that ended back in 2008. and now the current administration wants to reopen that rule and redo it completely in just a matter of months with no science, no data to support it and no justification. and i would remind my colleagues that the only reason, the number one reason for passing this amendment is for -- up to 29,000 jobs that is potentially going

to save. chirmente time of the the gentleman from ohio has expired. mr. moran: may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: three minutes. mr. moran: at this time, i yield a minute and-a-half to mr. garamendi, who worked -- i yield one minute to mr. garamendi who worked in the interior department who worked on this issue and is expert on it. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm from california, so forgive me but i was also the department secretary of the department of interior in the mid-1990's and set up a program to deal precisely with the issues that have arisen over the years from the pollution and contamination from the various coal mines and including mountain top removal. this effort under way by the

department is to deal with the continuing problem. it does contaminate and does destroy streams. i could not believe the clarity of the water in the streams when i visited west virginia. they would make the swimming pools in los angeles envious. nothing was alive. nothing at all because of the contamination from the mines. i just ask for the dunt to go ahead. i'm going to yield the remainder of my time to my colleague. i yield back to mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman from california's time has expired. mr. moran: i appreciate the insight from the the gentleman from california. i yield two minutes to mr. yarmuth of kentucky. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. yarmuth: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. this amendment would destroy efforts to put an end to the damage that is wrought by mountain top removal.

for many of my colleagues who aren't familiar, what happens is, you take mountains that look like this and then you turn them into this. this is what happens. and the consequence of doing that, you blow off the top of these beautiful mountains. you push all the stuff that you have blown up into the valleys that surround them, poisoning streams, poisoning the people who live nearby and the water supply that feeds the people of appalachian. it is irreversible and nothing grows here. now, i know a lot of people try to justify mountain top removal by saying this is an economic boom for the region. since mountain top removal became a prevalent practice, mining jobs have actually declined by more than 50%. 50%. this is not good for the people

of kentucky and ap lash iowa -- appalachia and not good for the environment. ladies and gentlemen we have had numerous efforts now in the federal government finally trying to put an end to this destructive, i am moral practice. many gathered in frankfurt last week to protest what is happening here to our state, to our children and to our economy. we can do much better. the last thing we need to do right now is to say to our country and to the people of appalachia, we're not going to try to preserve these beautiful mountains that god gave us. this is a tripping point in our history. generations from now, our grandchildren will ask if we don't stop this practice now, if we don't give the government the resources, they will say how could you let this become this? i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek -- mr. garamendi: asked for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. . for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment 583 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. reed of new york. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, mr. reed and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognize the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i have an amendment that addresses pay for foreign service officers and will ensure the 24% pay raise does

not go into effect in fiscal year 2011. it is my understanding we have an agreement between the majority and minority on this issue, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. does anybody claim time in opposition to the amendment? seeing none, 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 ayes have it. and the amendment is adopted.

the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from utah. >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 38. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 38 presented in the congressional record offered by mr. matheson of utah. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february

17, 2011, the gentleman from utah, mr. matheson, and a member opposed control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. matheson: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment would eliminate funding for the community grant program which is administered by the department of agricultural rural service. eliminating this program would save over $13.4 million. it's endorsed by citizens against government waste. we're all for broadband development and rural broadband development. it turns out there are a lot of federal programs that try to do this. this is one in particular that does not have a good history. in fact, in 2005 and 2009, inspector general reports raised questions about this specific grant program and this is why i have raised this issue today. as a supporter of rural broadband development i want to see programs that work and are effective and this one has serious questions about it and that's the substance of my amendment. in the interest of moving this project along, mr. speaker, i will complete those comments and reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from kentucky. >> we reserve the balance. the chair: does the gentleman from kentucky seek time in opposition? mr. rogers: i do not. i do not seek time. the chair: the gentleman from washington seeks time in opposition. mr. dicks: do i really have to be in opposition? the chair: the gentleman from washington will get such time by unanimous consent. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentleman from washington recognized. mr. dicks: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back his time. the question is on the amendment as offered by the gentleman from utah. as many as are in favor will indicate by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. matheson: i have an amendment 496 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 496 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. matheson of utah. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house february 17, 2011, mr. matheson and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from. utah. mr. matheson: my amendment addresses nonessential travel by federal employees not involved in the departments of defense and homeland security. simply stated the amendment says that appropriations made available by this act are hereby reduced by $600 million for all departments except for departments of homeland security and department of defense. i originally was going to do an amendment that specifically talked about reducing nonessential travel, was concerned about a point of order, so this amendment does

not specifically mention nonessential travel, however, based on advice of the fiscal commission, the travel cuts could be proposed and both democrats and republicans on the fiscal commission thought this was a productive area to look for savings. i decided to structure this amendment in a way that would not be subject to point of order. but its intent is to reduce nonessential travel by federal employees in departments outside of the department of defense and the department of homeland security. that is a description of my amendment. and i'm happy to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves his time. does anyone seek time in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: mr. chairman, we in this bill made it a point of being very careful about the cuts to the d.o.d. and homeland security. we think it's the reasonable approach that's in the base bill.

we do not need this type of a heavy, deep cut in the defense of the country here and abroad. mr. matheson: will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: he's doing all but d.o.d. and homeland security. mr. rogers: i yield to the gentleman. mr. matheson: my bill affects departments other than d.o.d. and homeland defense. it's for federal employees in departments outside of those two. mr. rogers: across the board cut. mr. matheson: all the other departments, the appropriation areas outside defense and homeland. mr. rogers: it's across the board? mr. matheson: that's correct. mr. rogers: we were elected to make choices and on this bill we made our choices and think we've done a fairly decent job of spreading it across the board. but to have an across the board cut would mean putting our decisionmaking on automatic

pilot, refusing to make decisions, and that's what we were elected to do so i oppose the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. rogers: reserve. mr. matheson: i don't want to prolong this debate. i just want to point out, absent concerns of a point of order, i would have prescriptively said the specific to do with nonessential travel of federal employees, due to concerns about a point of order we structured this amendment where it says it's a cut of $600 million. however, the intent and hopefully the report language when folks in these agencies look at the debate that's taking place here on the house floor say it's nonessential travel and with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. does anybody seek time? mr. rogers: yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. as many as are in favor will indicate by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment, number 274 at the desk. the chair: the the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 274 offered by mr. mcmother miss. the chair: the gentlelady from washington, mrs. mcmorris rogers and a member opposed each will control five minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman reserve as point of order. the gentlelady from washington recognized. mrs. mcmorris rogers: my amendment complements the amendments by mr. rehberg. it prevents the i.r.s. from using any funds in fiscal year 2011 to pay any employee or contractor or grantee to

enforce the individual employer mandate or any other part of the health care reform act including tax increases. it didn't take long for the i.r.s. to move in after passage of the health care reform act to enforce all these new tax provisions. indoor tanning services saw taxes rise by 10% within five months of the bill's enactment. this year brand name drug manufacturers will see their taxes go up. next year it's medical devices and the list goes on. yet two weeks ago there was a glimmer of hope. federal district judge roger vincent became the second federal judge to declare the health care law unconstitutional. but we know these rulings are not enough to keep the administration from moving forward with its takeover of our health care system. in fact, the headlines the day after the judge's decision read, white house, we won't compromise on the individual mandate. just this week, the administration proposed to increase the i.r.s. budget by

9% and expects to hire more than 5,100 employees to get the job done. and in making its request, the i.r.s. explained the tax changes associated with the health care reform are huge. implementation of the affordable care act of 2010 presents a major challenge to the i.r.s. a.c.a., the health care reform act, represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years with more than 40 provisions that amend the tax laws. mr. chairman, we've been forced to enter into a new era in our health care system and one that's driven by the i.r.s. the congressional budget office predicted last year the i.r.s. will need to hire 15,000 new employees and will need at least $10 billion in order to meet its responsibilities under the act. this is not what americans expect or deserve. the only way to keep the i.r.s. from intruding into our health care system is to take away its funding. this amendment is a step by

appropriating any funds from being used to hire anyone to enact this bill as we move forward. i urge my colleagues to support individuals and families and our nation's small businesses by supporting this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. does the gentleman from new york continue to reserve his point of order? >> mr. chairman, i insist on my point of order. mr. serrano: it proposes a net increase in the budget authority in the bill. the amendment is not in order under section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5 of the 112th congress which states it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in

the bill in violation of such section. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of order? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i wish to be heard. mr. chairman, my colleague alleges any amendment would create a net increase in budget authority in the bill, thus giving rise to the point of order. i respectfully disagree for the following reasons. number one, the challenge provision in this point of order relates to the i.r.s.'s ability to ensure small business owners do not take advantage of the limited tax credit that currently exists. this tax credit is already in place. the i.r.s. has already supposedly enforcing this provision so i do not agree with the conclusion that this amendment which simply limits the i.r.s. from hiring more employees would allow abuse of the tax credit. number two, i would remind my colleagues that last session during our consideration c. bmple o. indicated the next 10

years the i.r.s. will require between -- mr. dicks: i would object. i don't think the gentlelady is addressing the point of order. she's reiterating the argument. the chair: the chair would like to hear further remarks from the gentlelady from washington on this point of order. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. chairman. number two, c.b.o. indicated over the next 10 years the i.r.s. will require between $5 billion and $10 billion in funding for implement this law. number three, the i.r.s. said it will need at least 1,054 new employees and new facilities at a cost of $359 million in fiscal year 2012. 81 workers will be responsible for ensuring that tanning salons pay a new 10% excise tax that went into effect in 2010 and is enforceable in 2011. total cost, $11.5 million. mr. chairman, with the points raised above and the established savings, it is clear the offsets are not

needed and my amendment is in order. the chair: does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. serrano: we'd appreciate a ruling from the chair. the chair: the gentleman from new york makes a point of order the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington violates section 3-j-3, and it establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. the chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair of the committee on budget that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. . . the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment. the chair: will the gentleman classify the number. >> i think it's 467. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 467 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: for the past two years we've seen the administration and the environmental protection agency take overzealous action in the chesapeake bay watershed with a potential to dramatically affect jobs, the economy, and local government budgets throughout the six-state region. the e.p.a. has proposed arbitrary limits on the amounts of nutrients that can enter the chesapeake bay and how these nutrients enter the bay. .

at the same time, e.p.a. is seizing thorget granting -- granted to the states and converts it into a process that's a top-down approach with mandatory regularizations. these regulations will affect everyone who lives, works and farms in the chesapeake bay watershed and the cost of complying with these requirements will be devastating in our current economic downturn resulting in many billions of dollars in economic losses to states, cities and towns, farms and other businesses large and small. the e.p.a.'s approach is far from the best approach to restore the chesapeake bay. i believe that each individual state and the localities in each state know better how to manage the state's water quality goals than the bureaucrats at the e.p.a. i'm sure there are some who wonder why what is happening in the chesapeake bay watershed is important to their district. while e.p.a.'s uns predened actions are starting in the chesapeake bay, they are coming to a watershed in your region

of the country in your state. the e.p.a. stated in the document a coming together for clean water: e.p.a.'s strategy for achieving clean water," that, quote, the e.p.a. will use the chesapeake bay as a model plan. it will be a model for watershed protection in other parts of the country. it's important that we in congress tell the e.p.a. to slow down. the e.p.a. does not have the authority to micromanage states' water quality goals and we must stop their power grab. we all agree more must be done to restore the bay and this is not meant to cut off the work done in the bay watershed. we have made substantial investments to clean up the bay. this amendment will not stop work going on in the state or the voluntary programs managed by the agency on the grounds -- that work with those on the ground to restore water quality. what this will do is stop the

e.p.a.'s regula power power -- regulatory power grab and taking over responsibilities that have traditionally been left to the state. i will be happy to yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward i appreciate him bringing the amendment forward. >> i thank the gentleman and reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does the gentleman from virginia claim time in opposition? >> i claim time in opposition to this extreme amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: six states, include plgs goodlatte's own state of virginia and the district of columbia ended years of staaling and released detailed planned to reduce chesapeake bay pollution to meet minimal water quality standards over the next 15 years. meeting those science-based and legally-required goals is going to require a significant and sometimes costly effort from all the citizens, towns, cities and states that are part of the chesapeake bay watershed.

this year's chesapeake bay foundation state of the bay report suggests that pollution-cutting measures are beginning to show results. we've seen increased crab and oyster populations and increased under water grasses. the bay is coming back to life. the agreed upon multistate plans have the potential to restore chesapeake bay if everyone does his part. the amendment would block any federal agency's ability to work with the states in meeting pollution reduction targets for the entire chesapeake bay watershed. if we don't meet this obligation, the states, farmers, municipalities, businesses and all the stays will be economically harmed. if this amendment were to pass, it would not relieve the farms, businesses, and municipalities from their requirements in the court-ordered settlement but would turn the pollution limits into an unfunded mandate, since it would also block any federal agency from providing technical and federal assistance to bring

farms, businesses, and municipalities into compliance with pollution reduction costs. clearly this amendment is designed to and will unravel the current effort to finally put a limit on nutrient and settlement pollution in the chesapeake bay. agriculture counts for 42 pk of today's nitrogen and 72% of the sediment entering the chesapeake bay. this amendment would break up the existing federal, state, local and private partnership by prohibiting any federal financial assistance to farmers, municipalities and businesses working to improve the chesapeake bay watershed. it's set aside the tremendous progress this congress has made in restoring the bay. pollution of the chesapeake bay also is a jobs killer for the sints in this watershed. if this amendment passes, it will ultimately result in the los of thousands of fishing, crabs and tourism jobs. the fact is, mr. chairman, now is not the time to retreat on our commitment to restore this

grand estuary or to kill the thousands of jobs that they -- that bay survival depends upon. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. good lat. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield to the chairman of the conservation subcommittee, mr. thompson, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: i thank the good man, the gentleman from virginiaism rise in strong support of the gentleman from virginia's amendment. the total maximum day load is the amount allowed into the watershed. the bay is in need and truly worthy of our support but this is just one more example of how e.p.a. is trying to by pass congressional authority -- to bipass congressional authority through mandates. they have based it on its own

model even though that's inkynt with the models of the department of agriculture. they've recently gone so far as to say the e.p. ample's data is erroneous. agriculture is not receiving the credit it deserves twabbedry deucing nutrient and sediment run off. yet e.p.a. is forcing the bay states to move forward using their flawed model. esm p.a. won't even perform an economic analysis of the plan when it will have severe economic impacts on our nation's farmers and rural communities. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote in its favor. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time is expire. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: may i ask hough time we have? the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, has 2 1/2 minutes, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, has one and a half minutes. mr. moran: i wreeled to mr. scott for a unanimous consent

request. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this amendment. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. moran: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the chesapeake bay is a national treasure. it's the largest estuary in the united states of america and the health of the chesapeake bay is under constant assault from all sources of pollution. urban runoff, farm runoff, storm water runoff and we've been working for years and years, in fact decades to try to clean up the bay and it's been like running in place because every time we take action, more pollution flows into the bay. that's why under the obama administration they've taken important action to try to finally get ahead of the curve and restore the health of the bay and will baker, the head of the chesapeake bay foundation,

described the approach as something that may well represent the bay's best and last chance depr restoration. as mr. moran pointed out if we don't gdo that, the watermen, the sports fishermen and the tourist industry will be badly hurt. i'm not sure the gentleman from virginia who introduced this amendment recognizes the impact it might have on farmers. what it does, it says none of the funds in this act, including e.p.a. and agriculture department, may be used for a number of purposes, including watershed implementation planners in chesapeake bay watershed. we spoke to usda's general council -- counsel. their office told us this could well deprive farmers of some of their valuable agricultural conservation funds. last i checked, maryland received in fiscal year 2009 $28 million and the state of virginia, the farmers in virginia, reseved about $16 million to help them with their conservation efforts because as

good stewards of the land, they have been part of the team effort to protect the chesapeake bay. as mr. moran said if you take these funds away, you're denying them some of the tools they've effectively used. this won't only hurt the watermen and sports fisherman, it's going to hurt the farmers and collectively it will hurt the largest estuary in the united states. let's work to save the bay, not undermine its health. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the -- mr. moran: who has the right to conclude, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran has the right to close. mr. moran: which gentleman from virginia in the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran has the right to close. mr. moran: i will reserve. -- mr. goodlatte: i yield myself

the remainder of the time. the chesapeake bay is getting healthier, a very, very good thing. all of which is happening because of the voluntary, incentivized, state-controlled process. none of it has occurred under the tmdl provision that the gentleman from maryland referred to because of the fact that it is only now being imposed on farmers and they are very concerned about it. as are small cities and towns. as are home builders and others. this will have a deaf stating economic impact then entire bay region, small cities and large included. second point. none of the funds made available in this act to e.p.a. may be used to develop, promulgate -- that's the -- we checked with the department of agriculture.

we checked with counsel on the agriculture committee and they agree this restricts only those purposes described in the legislation related to the implementation of this language related to what the e.p.a. is trying to do with their tmdl. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. mr. moran: mr. chairman, this is very important. we talked to the general council -- counsel for the department of agriculture. mr. goodlatte, as fine a person as he is, heast wrong on this. maybe he meant to say only the e.p.a. but he didn't. they would lose about $100 million in conservation efforts if this amendment is approved. miles of the chesapeake bay have died largely because of the fertilizer that wash into that bay, the reg station at the bottom feeds on that

nitrogen and it grows like it's on steroids and when it decomposes it sucks up all the oxygen. as a result, nothing can live in the chesapeake bay no crab no oysters, no fish this amendment needs to be defeated. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the rule offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment 497. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 497 printed in the congressional

record, offered by the gentleman from utah -- utah, mr. mathesonful the chair: the gentleman from utah, mr. matheson and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. matheson: thank you, mr. speaker this amendment would cut funding in the c.r. other than for the department of defense and the u.s. postal service, other than those two, by $280 million. that's the amount of money that would be saved if federal civilian agencies except d.o.d. and the postal service were to reduce their vehicle fleet by 20%. if adopted, it is my intention that these federal agencies determine where to cut their portion of the $280 million in cuts specifically toward finding savings in their vehicle fleet budgets. . this is a bipartisan idea supported by the chairs of reform. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i would like to yield to my colleague from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. the bipartisan deficit reduction commission has looked

at the work of the g.a.o. on this issue. the g.a.o. has tried to get governmental agencies to look at reducing their vehicle lear -- vehicle fleet. one of the examples is where the g.a.o. found automobiles in a parking lot that had not even been used for three years that had been purchased. their point is this. with 650,000 vehicles that the government uses now, there is a way to put in place, if you followed the recommendations of the g.a.o., a way to reduce that fleet and save money. and the general accounting office said the government agencies are badly managing their vehicles psms we know with one agency, the department of energy, that decided to put in place these recommendations, they reduced their fleet in their budget going forward, they can reduce their fleet by 35%. what we're saying with this amendment is let's follow the recommendation of the g.a.o., the heritage foundation endorse

this is, it certainly was supported by the bipartisan deficit reduction commission. we've got a deficit of $1.5 trillion and growing. this is a way to shut it down and a way that has been recommended to us by the gamplet a.o. to move forward so we support this amendment, this bipartisan amendment. i yield back. mr. matheson: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i am opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, there the gentleman goes again. he's attempting to cut without specifying where the cuts come from. there's no tough choices. identified in the amendment. all it says is to reduce the appropriations for -- by $280 million. exempting d.o.d. and postal service. but across the board cuts is a

way for us to escape responsibility for making choices that people elected us to do. and this amendment does not specify where the cuts come from or who's to make the cuts. i guess he would leave it up to the bureaucrats to decide where to cut. but that's what we -- what we were elected to do, mr. chairman. so i have to oppose the amendment. i sympathize with the desire to cut more spending. but i want it done in a judicious and specific way. and so i have to oppose the amendment. and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. matheson: i appreciate the comments from my colleague from kentucky about the challenges on across the board cuts. if i could draft an amendment that would be ruled in order i would specifically say it should be about the spending cuts but i can't legislate on

an appropriations bill. so i would hope that as we look at this amendment we understand that people read the record of this conversation, the intent of congress when it looked at this amendment that the agency is supposed to reduce their vehicle fleet by 20%. that's the best mr. royce and i can do under the rules of the house. we're trying to offer a specific opportunity to cut spending. we think we identified it in this discussion and i urge my colleagues to support if and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky yields back. all time expired. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman, to offer an amendment preprinted and designated as number 79. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 79 printed in the congressional record

offered by mr. gardner of colorado. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, and a member opposed control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: this amendment prevents the health and human services committing the exchange. the exchange does not allow the american people to choose the benefits in their health plans and will force the american people into a one size fits all program where government burets -- bureaucrats limit their health insurance options. . government will control which plans will be in which state and which companies will be allowed to sell health insurance plans in each state and control the benefits contained in those health insurance plans. exchanges as they are being designed will only serve to further strain cash-strapped states by forcing them to use their employees or hire new employees to create or run them. i urge the adoption of amendment 79. recently several republican governors sent a letter

criticizing an exchange and asking sebelus to offer the exchange. the freedom to decide which license insurers are permitted to offer their products. i ask this be submitted to the record and urge the adoption of amendment 79. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: without objection, the request to have the letter submitted will be handled in the committee of the house. for what purpose does the gentlelady from -- >> i rise to claim time. the chair: from connecticut rise. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delauro: i yield myself 1 1/2 minutes. i rise in opposition to this amendment defunding the health insurance exchanges that we created in the affordable care act will hurt small businesses which are the driving force of our economy. it destroys jobs, takes away consumer choice and increases the deficit. by gaining access to the small changes, small businesses will prosper from what large employers have enjoyed for years, large group rates, lower administrative costs and greater transparency.

the exchange also gives small businesses and their employees access to a fuller range of plans. they give families across america access to the information that they need in order to be able to buy the best plan at a competitive price that suits their needs. the exchange is created a competitive marketplace for insurance so the small businesses and middle class families across america can benefit from lower prices and more choices. this is basic free market principles at work. one would think the majority would support any attempts to bring competition to health care. but instead they are carrying the water for big insurance companies who do not want competition. they want to preserve their monopoly. they want a captive market, forced to pay whatever exorbitant rates they feel like charging. that will not bring down health care costs or cut the deficit. the health insurance exchanges help slow the surging cost of k by introducing competition into the mar and -- into the

marketplace and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which will threaten our economy, harm our small businesses and destroy jobs and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i would yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. price: if you notice a common theme, mr. chairman, is that these folks want the government to be in charge of our health care. these folks over here want patients to be in charge of our health care. it kind of runs throughout all the issues as they relate to health care. now, the exchanges may seem like a great idea but there's a big problem with the way they're set up. they don't work. you don't have to believe us, goodness gracious, 21 governors have sent a letter to secretary sebelius and they want the freedom to decide which insurers offer the products in

their states. if that were true it would mean the federal government is offering it. they're asking for waiving the costly mandate which means, mr. chairman the mandates are crushing the state across this great land. and they've asked for waiving the provisions that discriminate against all sorts of plans. remember, mr. chairman, that you won't be able to keep what you like. you won't be able to keep what you like. so this is pretty simple. the government -- these folks want the government to be in charge of our health care, these forget want patients to be in charge of our health care. we come down on the side of the patients. support the amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you. i would urge adoption of the amendment to defund the exchanges. as a former state legislator, the legislatures i've talked to urge the same thing i've spoken to, defund exchanges and this bill. let's put real solutions in place to decrease the cost of care, increase the quality of care and we can begin that process tonight. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. p the gentlelady from connecticut. mr. delauro: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, is recognized for two minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. again, the question here is whose side are you on. the only people i talked to who are against the exchanges are the big insurance companies and their representatives because they're the only ones that stand to gain by keeping the status quo and not have the exchanges. the little guy, the consumer wants the exchange. why? because he can get affordable coverage, because he can get a good benefit package, because there's transparency because he can find out what's being offered and how much it costs him and the insurance companies don't want any of that because they want to continue a business as usual, keep raising rates. now, we all know how it works. the large employers, they can go out and get group coverage but if you're an individual or a small business, it's very hard to do that. and that's why we set up the

exchanges because basically it's like a larger insurance pool. and now the small business, the individual can go on the exchange and find out what's going on. they can see what the rates are and there's competition. as the gentlewoman from connecticut said, the republicans always used to be for competition. this is the marketplace. this is capitalism. this is what we're providing here, it's a choice, more choices for the little guy. that's what this is all about. and i for the life of me do not understand again why the republicans would not want to have the exchanges except for the same reason, they're siding with the big insurance companies. they're not worrying about the consumer and the average american. it's also the fact that we're talking about portability. right now if you have a job and you're afraid to go to another job and maybe a better job or something that you'd like to do because you're afraid you're going to lose your health insurance, well, now you don't do that. you can change your job and do something better and improve your life. you can live the american dream

because now you don't have to worry about not being able to find a good, affordable insurance policy. this is another aspect of the exchanges that are really so important. really, the exchanges are the heart of what we're trying to do which is cover all americans , provide access to good insurance coverage for all americans and make it at a reasonable cost. that is not the case now and it will only be the case if these exchanges as part of the larger health care reform become law and continue to become law. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i'd like to inquire, are there any other speakers speaking tonight from the other side on this amendment? ms. delauro: yes. the chair: the gentlewoman has time remaining. mr. gardner: are there any other speakers other than the closing? mr. delauro: i have speakers on my side. mr. gardner: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado continues to reserve.

ms. delauro: how much time? the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut has 1 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from colorados that 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. delauro: does the gentleman have any speakers? ok. i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for yielding. for 15 million americans, this is another friday night without a paycheck. and instead of working together to create jobs, here we are again, relitigating the health care bill. the bill we talked about last year, last month, last week, yesterday, this morning, here we are. we should be creating jobs but here we are. now, the exchange does three things. it says that small businesses and families and individuals can get the same purchasing power that big corporations do

when they buy their health insurance. it says you can choose among private competitors, insurance companies, and see who makes the best offer to you, and it says you make the choice that you want. this should sound very familiar. to the members on the other side because it's exactly what they have as members of congress in the federal health insurance program. so i would think that the members on both sides want their constituents to have the same health care opportunities that they do. if you believe that's the case, then the right vote on this amendment is no. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: how much time is left? do we have time on our side? the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut has 13 seconds remaining.

ms. delauro: in my 13 remaining seconds, to quote mr. garamendi here, what are the health insurance exchange? it's called the federal employees health benefit program. we in the congress have the benefit of enjoying a health care exchange where we can have our choice, pick the plan that suits our needs and get it at a competitive rate. why do we not want to extend this to the rest of the country. it should not be just a purview of those that serve in the united states congress. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. and i will remind my colleagues of testimony that was given before the budget committee, the house budget committee by mr. foster, the chief actuary of medicare who blew a hole in the two primary promises of bookcare. the first promise that people get to keep the health care that they have if they liked it. he said that's not going to happen. the second promise it would lower the cost of health care. he said this would not happen.

this is the chief actuary of health care. i didn't have the opportunity to speak on the floor when the bill came through the house of representatives but i do now because the people of colorado spoke on november 2 when they said enough is enough, let's get congress doing the people's business, creating jobs, getting government out of the way, let's find real solutions for the health care bill. solutions that will actually bring commonsense reforms to lower the cost of health care, increase the quality of care, not result in 800,000 job losses. . not result in promises made to the people that can't be kept. we have got to do something, soon. and i hope it's voting. i urge an -- urge the adoption of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yield p yields back. -- the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment -- >> recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to consider these amendments en bloc? the chair: is there objection to the en bloc consideration of the amendments? hearing none, so ordered. the clerk will designate the amendments. the clerk: en bloc amendments consisting of 329, 330, and 331, prinned in the congressional record, offered by ms. kaptur of ohio. the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i reserve a point of order on the amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentlelady from ohio and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. chairman. these amendments eliminate as no longer necessary the federal administrative subsidy for the southeastern power administration, the southwestern power administration and the western area power administration. these massive energy subsidies amount to what i call unauthorizeding me marks. these energy subsidies that began three decades ago to develop only the west and south now cost the rest of america billions of dollars. in fact, the northeast, florida, the midwest, the great

lakes states are heavily subsidizing the west and south. i have a map here that kind of shows the parts of america that have a federal power umbrella and those that don't. it's really shocking to look at what the utility rates are. in idaho, it costs residential consumers $7.98 per kilowatt hour. but guess what? in ohio with no subsidy, it costs those consumers $11.34 in wyoming with power subsidy, it costs consumers $8.79 but in connecticut with no subsidy, it costs those citizens $19.35 a kilowatt hour. to achieve real budget savings, we must addressing me mark spendings, not just district earmarks but massiveing me mark.

these subsidies over only some regions are privileges that the other regions of the country can't afford anymore. these regions have out-lived their usefulness. in terms of subsidy. those regions need to compete in the free market just like the rest of our regions do. no more free rides because america can't afford it anymore. my part of america can't afford the largess given to the energy power marketing authorities in the other regions. the southeastern power administration has never been operationally self-sufficient. it has cost the taxpayers $545 million, over half a billion, since created in 1950. similarly, the southwestern power administration has never been operationally self-sufficient, costing the taxpayers over $707 million since it was created in 1944. and wpa, the western power

authority, has never been self-sufficient, it's cost the taxpayers over $7 billion since created in 1978. 27 years of continued appropriations to only some regions seems like plenty of time for those agencies to have business plans in place to yield self-sufficiency and compete in the real marketplace like the rest of us are expected to do. in my region of the nation, we have no federal power subsidies. ohioans pay $11.3 cent -- pay 11.3 cents per kilowatt hour. arkansas pays $8.8 cents -- pays 18. cents. norse paying 18.8 cents, they have no power subsidy. citizens where i live tax themselves locally for economic development. the federal government has never helped us on our power costs. our energy is provided through investor-owned utilities an we have no federal dougs depend

on. that's why recession causes tremendous hardship in free market regions like our own. how are federal power subsidies in just some regions fair to all our tax payers? after three decades, it's time to let three unauthorized power marketing administrations stand on their own two feet and compete in the free market just like our region duds. balance our budget, cut the subsidies, cut thing me marks, cut regional favoritism that benefits the few at the expense of the many. i ask to include a full state-by-state analysis so all americans can know who is being subsidized and who is eking it out and trying to compete in the real marketplace, the free marketplace. i ask people, members here to support the kaptur amendment to eliminate the federal ad-- administrative subsidies for power marketing. some of our power marketing authority is doing it right. bonneville, they did it right. there's a way to do it right an

a way to do it wrong. we shopt reward inefficiency, we should allow them to compete in the free market and not make other parts of america that are burdened by high unemployment and high power costs to be given -- giving favor treatment to other parts of the country that are not carrying their own load forward. again, take a look at the privileged parts of america and then ask yourself, who is paying for it? it's pretty clear what's going on here. the southeastern power marketing administration was budgeted to be zero funded in the president's fy-2011 budget. the amendment would allow this 2010 funding to go to zero. under the continuing resolution, they will continue to be funded at their 2010 level in spite of being eliminated in the budget. so you know, there's a lot of bookkeeping going on here that doesn't treat all parts of

america fairlyism ask my colleagues to do what we had to do. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. kaptur: compete in the real marketplace. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: this amendment is not in order which states it shall not be in order ocontinue an amendment unless considered en bloc composing an equal or greater decrease pursuant to clause 2 of rule 21. it proposes a net increase in violation of such section. i ask for a ruling. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky paychecks a point of order that the amendment -- makes a point of order that the amendments offered in en bloc by the gentlewoman from ohio

violate section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: i thank the chairman very much for yielding. only in washington would they say that if you ask organizations to compete in the free market it costs more money to the federal government. only in washington would that kind of thought exist. i am troubled by the point of order but i will just say that i thank the gentleman for expressing his point of view. this will not be the last time we hear about power marketing authorities and their inability to compete in the private marketplace this year. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the chair is repair -- prepared to rule on the point of order. section 3-j-3 establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in

the pending bill. the chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair of the committee on the budget that the amendments propose a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore, the point of order is sustained, the amendments are not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment 126. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 126, print in the -- printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. weiner of new york. the chair: pursuant to thed orer of the house of february 17, two 2011, the gentleman from new york, mr. weiner, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. che -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: to the great relief of those assembled, i don't intend to take the full five

minutes. please contain your enthusiasm. the amendment i propose is one that i think both sides of the aisle will rally around. it's very simple. it limits any aid in this bill going to the kingdom of saudi arabia. why we would be provide anything aid to saudi arabia at all has been an internal mystery to me, given their propensity to exporting terrorists, given that they had exported 15 of the 19 homicide bombers on september 11, given that just in december when the wikileaks came out it was learned from a quote from the secretary of state that it's been an ongoing challenge to get saudi officials to treat terrorist funding as an important priority, ghaven saudis have textbooks that say this, the prophet said the day of judgment will not come until muzz limes rise up and kill the jew.

and year after year we've taken out aid to the saudis and had it come back. in 2005 it was defeated but every subsequent year this house voted to ban aid to saudi arabia and it keeps rising back up like a spakespeern specter. this says no more aid to saudi arabia, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the underlying fy-2010 bill -- the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> the underlying bill already prohibits assistance to the saudi arabia unless the secretary of state determines it is in our u.s. national interest. maintaining a relationship with saudi arabia is critical to our national security and i'm concerned that this amendment could jeopardize that relationship. ms. granger: our two cupries enjoy robust counterterrorism,

intelligence sharing, saudi -u.s. cooperation helped thwart the package bomb from the -- from yemen. they are a strategic ally with whom we share mutual enemies and mutual threats. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentlewoman -- the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. weber: i simply say, madam chair, we have spoken in this body repeatedly, the saudis done need our money, it's the money they use to jack up gas prices, they don't need our money. i understand the presidential waiver this may come as a surprise that my friend want to give the president that authority to override congress. i think we should take it away and say no aid to saudi arabia. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: all time has expired and been yielded back. 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 ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. who seeks recognition. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. weiner: wiener amendment 101. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 101 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. wiener of new york. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house february 17, 2011, the gentleman from new york, mr. wiener and a member opposed each

will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: once again, i have no intention of taking the full measure of my time. this is an amendment that has been discussed on this floor many times and unfortunately it keeps coming back. we provide subsidies, believe it or not -- mr. kingston: we support the amendment. mr. weiner: i'm going to be brief. this is an amendment -- i would say to the ranking member, i'm from queens. i'm from new york city, so i thought mohair was a guy named mo who has hair. this goes back to world war ii and made sure we had enough. it has not been used in military uniforms now for 55 years. congressman chafe et cetera and

i have been trying to eliminate this earmark, the subsidy that is still $1 million going to about 12 farmers. no goats lost anything for the purpose of this picture. i would urge my colleague to end this wasteful subsidy. and i reserve -- i yield to the chairman. mr. kingston: i have to ask my friend from new york if sheep -- do they bite human beings? mr. weiner: i would say -- mr. kingston: i understand they can do that. mr. weiner: show some respect, they are goats. second of all, a press conference that i had that perhaps i might have been bitten by a goat, i will say this, i will say that i believe there is nothing wrong with these animals and want to have as much hair as

they need and want to give them a hair cut, shouldn't be on the taxpayers' dime. mr. kingston: notal subsidy for them because i understand there was an incident and we do support the amendment. mr. weiner: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. neugebauer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 151 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. neugebauer of texas. the chair: pursuant to the order

of the house february 17, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair reckthieses the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. chairman. this discussion we have been having for the last three four days is what the american people said on november 2. they said that these huge deficits are unacceptable the fact that we are going to run a $1.6 trillion deficit this year that our debt is $14 trillion and projections if we continue on this pace, that will double in the next 10 years. the american people said this is unacceptable and what are they doing in their own lives at home? they are addressing needs versus wants and what they are saying is there are some things that they need and some things that they want, but what they understand in these tough economic times where we have a number of citizens unemployed, they have to prioritize how they

spend and maybe there is a fence that needs replacing or deck in the back yard needs new boards. but they are postponing those. this is a very simple amendment. basically the white house has two accounts, one for basically daily maintainance and that account has $13 million and that amendment does not address that account. as they do in washington, you know what happens if you want to get more money, you add more accounts and just rename. and there is another account called innovations and upgrades. there is $2 million worth of upgrades that the white house would like to do like doing a plumbing survey, computer system upgrades. we think those are items that can wait until our economy gets rolling again and until we quit having record deficits. this is a very simple amendment, mr. chairman, we think that the white house can postponethose

expenses, things that they would like, but not necessarily need. this will stay allow the white house to mow the yard, do the painting and maintenance at the white house but says these capital expenditures of over $2 million should be postponed for another year or two until we get our deficit spending down and until then i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from from missouri rise? ms. emerson: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. emerson: i yield myself 1 1/2 minutes. i would like to say there is an account in our financial services bill for repair and restoration at the white house and the funding for that is $495,000 or 20 percent less than

the fiscal year 2010 level and these requested funds would provide for an alternate electric feed which we understand because the power there fails occasionally, computer system upgrades and plumbing system survey to address their leaky plumbing. the language of mr. neugebauer's amendment doesn't just strike funding in the account. this amendment actually states that none of the funds made available by the act may be used for repairs at the white house and this is a sweeping prohibition because it prohibits all repairs at the white house. what happens if a pipe bursts or a hole in the drywall or plaster or electrical fire or broken window. what if a safety or security issue needs to be addressed and most everybody, even if their belts -- if they were tightening

those belts, they have to deal with the emergency issues. the white house is the most visited residence in the country, it's an office, museum and home. regardless who occupies the white house, the building needs to be maintained. we have already reduced the account that pays for repairs and alterations by 20%. do we really want to prohibit all repairs and all alterations at the white house which is our house and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: i would say to the gentlewoman that there is a.m. will money for maintenance involved in the white house as i said in count number 1519, $13 million available for electrical issues, for painting issues, maintenance issues. i think what we are saying to and i would be glad to work with the gentlewoman in conference report if she wants to be more specific but the three projects

that this administration requested actually totalled $2 million, $1.5 million for an electrical system, computer system upgrades of $255,000 and plumbing system survey, this is a set of drawings for $250,000. i would submit to you that the american people are making tough choices and that certainly the white house is a treasure of this country, but, mr. speaker, so are our children and our grandchildren a treasure. and if we don't start making some tough choices here, then we aren't going to have a future for our children which should be one of our more treasured assets and i would be glad to work with the gentlewoman in a conference report, but this amendment has merit because basically it says to the president and i think the president would agree, you know what, other american families

aren't making improvements to their house that aren't necessary this year, i don't think the president would want his either. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from missouri. ms. emerson: does mr. neugebauer have any other speakers? then if he does not, let me say one thing that this amendment doesn't specify the account being reduced if cuts, all repairs and alterations and i yield to mr. serrano, my brother. mr. serrano: i thank you for the time. i recognize that you do not support the amendment but some folks cannot help themselves. it's not about the white house but who lives in the white house. first there was an amendment to cut his staff and then there was an amendment about not allowing him a teleprompter and now it says you can't fix the leaks in

the white house. we have a plumbing system in the white house that hasn't been repaired since harry truman. that is a long, long time. yes, there are difficult times in this country but when you have a house visited by many tourists throughout the year, you should be careful as to the wiring and things that could happen with water and safety. and after all, whether we like this president or not, this is the residential place and the office space for our presidents for the next one and ones to follow. i think this is a proper investment and personally, i think it gets pretty petty when we don't even allow this president to have leaks fixed in the white house. and i yield back the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from missouri. ms. emerson: do i have any time remaining? the chair: the the gentlewoman from missouri has 1 1/2 minutes.

ms. emerson: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. more and. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: i won't take but 30 seconds. i have been around long enough to recall when money was requested for the vice president's mansion when dick cheney was living there. that money was provided. this side didn't object when money was put into the white house when president bush was the resident. this is mean-spirited games and don't do this kind of stuff. i would yield back to the gentlelady from missouri. ms. emerson: i yield back my time and i urge opposition to this amendment as well intentioned as it may be. the chair: the gentlelady yields back and the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. neugebauer: i resent the insinuation that my amendment is addressed to this president. it's not addressed to this

president but to this country. i was over at the white house during the white house christmas party and it looked like in good shape and the plumbing was working as well. there's a lot of people who would want to make excuses why we can't begin to cut spending in this country. the american people are tired of our excuses. this is a good amendment. there have been a lot of good amendments. yes, these are difficult choices, but these are the kind of choices we are going to have to make if we want to ensure that our american families have a future and create jobs and do not leave a legacy of debt for our children and grandchildren. with that, i urge passage of it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having been yielded back, the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

the amendment -- the gentleman from texas. the gentleman from texas request a recorded vote? pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: amendment number 13 offered by mr. rooney of florida. the chair: pursuant to the rule of the house february 17, 2011, the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: my amendment prohibits any funding in this bill to be used and implement, administer the rule entitled water quality standards for florida's lakes. i want clean and safe water but

this debate is not over we want clean water for florida but how we reach that goal and at what cost. this e.p.a. mandate which singles out florida will drive up the cost of doing business, double water bills for all floridian families and destroy jobs. by estimates, this would cost our states -- our state an estimated $2 billion at a time when we should be attracting new companies in florida, we cannot afford new regulations, which will drive businesses out of our state and destroy jobs. our unemployment rate is over 12% and 15% in some parts of my district. new costly regulations is not going to improve those numbers. the e.p.a. has repeatedly refused to allow third-party review, a science behind the proposed mandate and failed to complete an economic analysis. this regulation is not grounded in science. and all florida should not have

to serve as a guinea pig in this sprerment. florida is the first state being required to comply with this washington, d.c., mandate and according to a recent "new york times" article, e.p.a. official said they have no plans to implement the regulations in any other state. i ask you how is that fair. . during the coming month, i'll be working with adam putnam who wrote a letter i'll be entering into the record who says this will impact 14,000 jobs in florida. i'm also willing to work with the florida department of environmental protection and other concerned state and federal agencies to develop a plan that can be agreed upon by all parties. we cannot allow an unaccountable e.p.a. to act dictatorial in this issue that afingts every floridian. until the e.p.a. is willing to consider florida's unique needs

and economy this regulation must not go into effect. a recent poll shows that 68% of floridians do not want this washington, d.c., mandate. dozen os job creators and sorks as well as 60 organization including the chamber of commerce and the farm bureau have sent letters to congress to oppose this mandate. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. mo rap: mr. chairman, this amendment is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. i use that analogy because we're talking about florida. hoping that a growing problem somehow will miraculously go away. back in 2009 a consent the cree

was reached in federal court between e.p.a. and numerous federal environmental groups to set numeric limits for nutrients in the state's lakes, rivers and streams. such knew merrick standards are the only way to make progress correcting ecological problems. the need for this standard was demonstrated repeatedly by florida's department of environmental protection. they pointed out that 1,000 miles of the state's rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of florida's lakes and 900 square miles of its estuaries were con testimony -- contaminated by nutrient pollution from sewage discharms and fertilizer and manure runoff. this amendment would block these standards from being used. i fail to understand how the supporters of this amendment think that it's ok for folks to dump manure, fertilizer and

sewage into lakes and rivers without regard to the health of these waters or the health of the people who depend upon these waters. this water quality rule was published last november but the regulations don't go into effect until march of next year. the major activity by e.p.a. this would prevention is an education effort to help the community's businesses meet these new standards. it would block e.p.a. from improving the regulations to meet the legitimate concerns of the public. that's what e.p.a. is trying to do, reach out and get their ideas. that's a question of how much longer tourists women keep politicing to florida if their lakes, rivers and beaches are filled with cesspools. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: i can't to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

florida continues to reserve. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: may i inquire how much time we have left. the chair: the gentleman from virginia has three minutes. the gentleman from florida has two and a half minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington. the gentleman from virginia has the right to close. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: at this time, i would yield the entire three minutes to the very distinguished lady from florida -- would the ranking member like to speak on this? so i would yield at this point the entire remaining three minutes to the very distinguished gentlelady from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the chair: the gentleman yields the remaining time to the gentlewoman from florida and the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to amendment 13 which would defund

florida's new clean water rules. this will harm florida's economy and threaten the natural ecosystems on which we rely. this past november, the u.s. environmental protection agency approved a final regular leags setting new water quality standards for florida's lakes and streams. this clean water rule is desperately needed to address the muetreent pollution contaminating more than ,000 mies of sates -- states, riffers, and streams an 900 square miles of estuaries. potential tourists often envision pristine beaches, beautiful waterways and vibrant coastal ecosystems with great fishing and recreational opportunities. that's why so many people flock to our states. florida's waters, beaches and ecosystem are critical parts of the engine that drives florida's $65 billion a year tourism industry. without the new clean water standard this cowl evaporate. already, algae outbreaks deplete our lakes and rivers,

suffocating organisms. we have waterways clogged with green slime. we need these standards because the current standard for dering when someone is polluting is vague and unenforceable. waiting in a waterway is choked with manure or fertilizer is no way to manage our water. for over 10 years, florida worked to produce a water rule but never got there. e.p.a. had to affect to protect florida's waters. e.p.a. built a rule based on years of data, based on the best science available. it was also the product of tens of thousands of public comments, numerous public meetings and workshops an years of consultations between the state of florida's department of environmental protection and the u.s. environmental protection agency. e.p.a. did not take a my way or highway approach thafle listened and made adjustments

and incrowded flexibility. to begin twherk final nutrient standards are comparable to the state's own draft stan car. in some areas, they are more stringent. >> the house is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. please take your conversation thafse floor. the gentlewoman -- ms. wasserman schultz: if you would ensure the time hasn't continued. the chair: yes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you very much. to begin with the final nutrient standards are comparable to the state's own draft standards. in some areas they are more strinswrent but in others less stringent. the major difference is that the e.p.a. finalized it rather than continuing the foot dragging. as a practical matter all this amendment will do is hurt the very stake holders its proponents say they want to help. e.p.a. built in a 15-month delayed implementation to allow it to provide technical assistance to stake holders and assure compliance is achieved

in the most efficient, cost effective way possible. e.p.a. is using this time to hold workshops, seminars an other meetings to achieve this end. with this amendment that all goes away. these entities still have to comply with the law but now they'll be on their own. perhaps worse for the regulated entity, will prevent state water managers from utilizing the flexibility of the rule. it would prevent the e.p.a. from working with the state to review and approve site-specific criteria. this makes no sense. this rule -- this rule provides flexibility to regulated entities and for the state. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. wasserman schultz: if the amendment passes, it would be deaf stating. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. rooney: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the noes have it. mr. roonspee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. stearns of florida. the chair: pursuant to thed orer of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. my amendment, my colleagues, is simply to say that the united nations is a very valuable

building and the renovations that are occurring right now are necessary. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is correct, the house, the committee is not in order. i ask all members to take your conversations to the cloakroom. the gentleman deserves to be heard on his amendment. the gentleman may continue. mr. stearns: thank you. the ren rations occurring on the u.n. are ultimately necessary. but the cost that is occurring is not. there's a huge overrun. i want to be clear that the opposition i have with this amendment is not to on stuct the u.n. from making a safe environment for their workers and the visitors that come there but to encourage reform and use best business practices. considering the taxpayers are funding about a quarter of the amount of money they're spending for ren ration vations. we had a hearing here in congress looking at what it would cost to build and renovate the united nations and they presented a figure. well, donald trump, who has

built a lot of hotels and apartment houses came in and he said, i could do the same thing for half the money. that was half the money back when he offered that. so he said using better business practices he could do it for a lot less money. so i believe my colleague at the u.n. has had a history of waiting money. in 2003, the secretary general's bull ten, he banned smoking in the u.n. the u.n. spent $130,000 on a vebtlation system to -- on a ventilation system to allow smoke in the calf tier. the architect was getting into problems so they terminated him. to do that, they paid him $140 million. i think my colleagues have the same confidence i have on the procurement in this building. the g.a.o. expressed concern

regarding the u.n.'s weakness and oversight and procurement. i ask in this time of economy we should hold off continuing to renovate the u.n. until we practice best business practices and we make schauer that they're not continuing to have overruns and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i rides in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> the jines capital master plan address -- the united nations capital master plan addresses a number of safety concerns to saff, diplomats and visitors. mrs. lowey: the u.n. receives 5,000 accredited delegates annually from around the world, 300,000 tourists about 40% of whom are americans. almost 4,300 people work at the u.n. headquarters complex,

including 1,280 americans. the u.n. headquarters complex, the majority of which is 55 years old is not compliant with new york city buildings and safety codes or modern security requirements. the major building systems are inefficient, beyond their useful life, increasingly difficult to maintain and repair. for example, the light safety systems are of great concern, including inadequate sprinkler and alarm systems and lack of automatic shutdown in the event -- of ventilation systems in the event of a fire. hazardous testifies such as asbestos are still present in the facility. providing the u.n. with a safe facile till will allow them to operate more effectively, as we all want. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns p.c. how much time do i have remaining?

the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. stearns: let me just mention a little thing more about my amendment. as i told my colleagues,s that cost overrun on renovations in the u.n. and more importantly that with this huge economic downturn we've had, i think we need to go back and look at the procurement. i want to say something that's different if the u.n. amendment. i had an amendment, 429, dealing with fannie maye an freddie mac. this amendment was ruled out of order and it's because the amendment basically did not specify the individuals whose defense by the internal revenue -- by the united states taxpayers would be deleted. to put it in perfect i have, the amendment i had was saying that people like franklin raines, who was the c.e.o. of fannie maye and these other executives while they were hiding huge amounts of debt while collecting huge bonuses including the board of

directors of fannie maye and freddie mac at the same time, the inspector general found these people were hiding this debt and now taxpayers had to bail them out but the ironic thing and tragic thing is taxpayers have to pay the salaries, have to pay the lawyers to defend all these people that actually were hiding the debt. so my amendment basically is saying we should stop paying tax pay -- taxpayers should stop paying the legal fees for these executives that were hiding the debt. but understanding that this is out of order i'm not going to offer this amendment, i'll look for another opportunity. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman yields back and the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from florida asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from florida will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 414 by mr. bishop of new york, amendment 519 by mr. campbell of california, amendment 246 by mr. broun of georgia, amendment number 263 by mr. broun of georgia, amendment 526 by mr. wu of oregon, amendment 527 of mr. markey of massachusetts, amendment 409 of mr. price of georgia, amendment 296 by mr.

mcclintock of california, amendment number 99 of mr. mcdermott of washington, amendment number 177 by mr. herger of california, amendment number 523 of mr. blumenauer of oregon, amendment 566 mr. borrowen of oklahoma, 546 of mr. forse. amendment 46 by mr. polis of colorado, amendment number 498 by mr. johnson of amendment. amendment 467 by mrgoodlatte of virginia, amendment number 79 by mr. gardner of colorado. amendment number 151 of mr. neugebauer of texas, amendment number 13 of mr. rooney, amendment number 8 of mr. stearns of florida. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on amendment number 414 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will reamendment. the clerk: amendment number 414 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. bishop of new york. thchair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen having risen, a recorded vote is ordered members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. house house -- any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

>> sam goldfarb joins us to discuss debate for the funding bill in the federal government. when we see a final budget? >> the final vote will probably happen tomorrow. it will go until about 2:00 a.m. tomorrow and then they will take a break. the people want to know exactly when tomorrow. they just want to get it done. >> which of the amendments are getting the most attention? >> a lot of the amendments

getting the most attention have already been passed or considered. there was one offered by the congressman from montana that would cut off funding for president obama's the health care overhaul. that did pass. it was a big victory for house republicans. it was one of the biggest surprises. it did cut all funding for -- cut out a program that funded the f35 alternative engine core that fighter. another victim for the obama administration that has been pushing to cut that funding. they think that program is too expensive, but it has been supported for years in the house and the senate. it is not clear whether the senate will support that move. >> how is the bill changed during this whole on the met

process? >> those are two of the biggest amendments. there have been dozen of amendments that have added to the over all spending cuts compared to president obama's 2011 budget request. the underlying legislation cuts spending by about $100 billion. each of these at $80 million to that overall total of spending cuts. it gets bigger and more to the liking of house republicans. >> more on the amendments on planned parenthood funding and that neutrality -- what have you heard about those. >> planned parenthood -- that amendment passed earlier today. it was mostly along a party-line vote.

republicans really do not feel that planned parenthood -- they feel that planned parenthood provides abortion. even today the government is not supposed to find -- provide any funding for abortions. republicans are generally skeptical of planned parenthood. this was important to them. this is one of those amendments that, though is a symbolic victory for house republicans, it probably will not be signed by president obama. >> if they do not pass the bill, how likely is the government shut down? >> the house -- if the house passes the bill, it will go to the senate. it the house and senate cannot agree to a bill, that results in a government shutdown. that would be a major development. it has not happened since the mid-1990's. generally people have a scent that it would not happen, but in

recent days the chances have significantly gone up. speaker john boehner said that he would not accept any bill that was not cutting spending. that is very different from what the democrats want. they want to freeze spending, but they do not want to make any cuts. >> what other options are there other than a full out shut down? >> despite what speaker banner says, i think a lot of people still expect a short-term bill just to keep the government running for a few weeks to give the house and senate a little bit more time to reach an agreement. there is not a lot of time left before the current spending on law expires on march 4. but they cannot agree to an agreement by then, the government would shut down. people still expect some sort of short-term compromise is just so they can have more time to reach

an agreement on a longer-term bill. >> sam goldfarb -- we appreciate your time represent discontinue work tonight on a continuing resolution to find government operations through september. this is the first of 21 votes on a series of amendments. more of those are expected to let the evening. house democratic leader spoke to reporters about the 2011 spending bill offered by republicans.

the chair: on this vote --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 156, the yeas 269. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 514 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by vis vote.

the clerk will redez igthate the amdment. the clerk: andment number 519 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 68, the yeas are 357. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 246 prinned in the -- printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. brun, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 246 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of

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

the chair: on is vote the yeas 378, the nays are 276. the amendment is not adopted. amendment 63 printed in the congssional record offered by mr. broun on which further proceedings were postponed and noes prevailed by voice vote. the chair: the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 263

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 177, the nays are 243. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment 526 prted in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from oregon, mr. wu, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 526 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. wu of

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 87, the nays 338. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment 27 printed in the congressional record and offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote rerequested. a sufficient number having arisen. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 174, the nays 251.

the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 409 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. price of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support for a request of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,nc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. fs

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 241, nays are 185. the amendment is adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 296 printed in the

congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 296 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded te will rise and be counted. a recorded vote is ordered. members will rord their votes by electronic device. . this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of esentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 215, the nays are 209 --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 215, the nays are 210, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 99 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcdermott on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice ve. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 99 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcdermott of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 9 is, the nays are 333, the amendment is not adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 177 printed in the congressional record offer by mr. herger on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 177 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. herger of california. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. . this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 227 and nays are 197. the amendment is adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 323 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 323, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 185, the nays are 241, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 566, printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. borrowen, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 566,

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 277 and the nays are 149. the amendment isdopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 146. printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. focus, on ich further proceedings were poppede and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignatehe amendment. the clerk: amendment number 146 printed in the congressional record offered mr. forbes of virginia.

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 241, the nays are184, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished biness is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 333. printed in the congressional rerd offered by the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, on which further proceedings were ponte and -- postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 333 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. kaptur of

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 32, the nays are 394. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a a recorded vote is ordered requested on the amendment from mr. polis of colorado on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 46 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 74, the nays 351. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request foa recorded vote on amendment number 498 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the cler amendment number 498 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. johnson of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote is ordereded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 239, the nays 186, the amendment is adopted. the finished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 467. printed in theongressional record offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte,

on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 467 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: a vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 230, the nays are 195, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote for amendment number 79 prented in congressional record offered by the gentleman om colorado, mr. gardner,n whichurther proceedings were postponed, which the ayes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 79 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. gardner of colorado. the chr: a recorded vote has been requested of the ose in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. . this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 241, the nays are 184. the amendment is adopted. unfinished business is recorded vote on amendment number 151 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. neugebauer on which further proceedings were postponed and noes prevailed by voice vote.

the clerk: amendment number 151 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. neugebauer of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number ving arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. . this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 63, theays are 362, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded number amendment 13 offered by mr. rooney on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. rooney of florida. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 239 and nays are 199. congressional record offered by the gentleman fr florida, mr. stearns on which the further proceedings on which the noes prailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. stearns of florida. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise.

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

the chair: the yeas are 231, the nays are 191. the amendment is adopted.

the chair: the cheat will come to order.

the chair: the committee will come to order. for what purpose does the minority whip -- mr. hoyer: my staff has talked to the majority leader's staff. i was looking for the majority leader, if he was available to -- perhaps someone on the majority side is available to inform us of the planned schedule for the balance of the evening. the chair: does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for a minute? >> i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i would say, the gentleman from maryland, as we have discussed throughout the day, we ask members to continue to be judicious in their remarks if we want to get out of here at a reasonable hour, that we have been at this for

at least 90 hours. and we continue to debate these amendments. we will anticipate votes again within two hours and we will continue along that to continue to vote throughout the evening. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from maryland has the time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. as i understand what the gentleman just said, we'll probably have the next series of votes approximate midnight. would the gentleman have in mind when the next series of votes would be after that? mr. cantor: i would say to the gentleman again, it depends on how members feel on the other side of the aisle as well as ours as to how expeditious they want their remarks to be. we've been at this, again, for 90 hours. we intend to have votes again probably within a couple hours

after midnight and with will proceed along those lines and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for the information. i will tell him that i believe on my side we have three, perhaps four amendments, one we think is subject to a point of order so we have three amendments left on this side. i'm not sure how many you have on your side. mr. cantor: i would say to the gentleman, the gentleman understands and knows that we have throughout the day offered to reduce debate time throughout, and the gentleman also knows that the majority of his amendments on his side have been debated. and if the gentleman is prepared at this point to accept our offer to reduce the amount of time from 10 minutes per amendment down to six or five, i think we can get that done as well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman's time has expired. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i will yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i gather unanimous consent may be compounded to reduce debate time. i want to stress, we were told yesterday we were debating the whole government. we were then going to debate important public policy questions for 10 minutes. we're now going to get the privilege of debating important public policy questions for six minutes. if this is open government, i think i vote for something else because i think it is, as i said yesterday, a travesty. mr. cantor: if the gentleman will yield? mr. frank: if the gentleman will continue to yield. the chair: the house will be in order. mr. cantor: continue to yield. mr. frank: i think we need to make sure what we're talking about, important amendments being debated three minutes on each side. that is a travesty.

mr. cantor: if the gentleman will yield. mr. hoyer: i don't hear an objection on this side of the aisle. mr. cantor: just for the record, mr. speaker, i think the gentleman from massachusetts may have somewhat of a short memory given that in december, we had a vote on the c.r. for one hour under a closed rule. so with that, just a little reminder. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i'll yield to the gentleman massachusetts. mr. hoyer: i didn't hear any objection -- mr. cantor: i'll yield. mr. frank: i didn't know how long it would take my republican friend from going from talking to the superior virtue to saying they're just like us. it took less time than i thought. but i would also say that -- i would also say that in the bill

that came out of the committee that i chaired, we always had debate and we always had open rules. but if the gentleman is saying he now understands why people on our side did what we did, and i often disagree, as i said, he got there more quickly than i thought he would and that may be the only thing about the way that running the house has happened more quickly than we thought it would. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. i will tell my friend the majority leader, we still do not hear objection. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. >> parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. i was just going to ask what he's saying. i didn't understand. i'm sorry. were did he object? mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the committee will be in order. mr. dicks: mr. chairman, i strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: let me ask, do we know how many amendments are left on your shied, mr. chairman? how many are there? >> 18 which are subject to a point of order. mr. kicks: we understand you have 50 left and 18 subject to a point of order, one of ours is. and we have three and we have one colloquy. you asked us for a colloquy, we got you a colloquy. mr. rogers: all right. mr. dicks: in the spirit of cooperation, i hope some of you who might think about doing what a lot of our members have done and decide not to offer your amendments so we can get the hell out of here. i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. dicks: i yield back. the chair: without objection, the gentleman continues his time. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i

think all of us understand how important it is that we finish this bill tonight. and therefore, the shorter we can make our speeches, the better off we all are, so we hope to ask each one of you as you offer your amendment and rebuttals to be brief, understanding that the rest of us would like to leave here just as quickly as we can. i yield back. >> regular order. mr. dicks: i didn't hear the question, i'm sorry. your staff was asking me a question. let's take a second, guys. mr. rogers: mr. chairman? the chair: the committee will be in order. mr. rogers: i move the

committee rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do rise. as many are in favor big signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the committee will rise. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 1 directs me to report it's come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: mr. speaker,, i ask

unanimous consent that during further consideration of h.r. 1, pursuant to applicable previous orders of the house, each amendment otherwise debatable for 10 minutes, instead be debatable for six minutes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. dicks: is the gentleman from colorado going to offer his amendment? arizona, excuse me. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor.

the house will be in order. will the members please clear the well and take their conversations off the floor? pursuant to house resolution 92 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1. will the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, kindly resume the chair? the chair: the house is in the

committee of the whole on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense and the other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today amendment number 8 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 359, line 22. the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise -- or arizona rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. will the gentleman specify the number of the amendment. mr. plake -- mr. flake: this is number 377. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 377

printed in the congressional record offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed will each control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. the chair asks members to take their conversations off the floor. on both sides of the aisle. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, the taxpayers have subsidized for far too long. this amendment will simply bring that slowly to a stop. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> i thank you, mr. chairman, i want to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's

agreement -- or amendment, excuse me. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes in opposition. mr. latham: i thank the chairman. this amendment clearly limits consumer choice. it's just another attack on our nation's progress to try and achieve energy security, the technology he's trying to prohibit basically would allow individuals to have a choice as to whether -- what percentage blend they'd want, whether e-10, e-30, e-15, e-85, whatever suits their best needs or their affordability and their performance and gas mileage. . it would make us dependent long-term on foreign oil because you are going to limit the choices that are there and without the blender pumps that he wants to prohibit, most americans are left with just one option and that's the e-10. if we continue to limit the

amount of ethanol we can use -- you can be be holden to foreign sources of energy and importing more oil. i urge my colleagues to vote against this. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: this is not a choice at all and have to end it and has been a boondoggle and let's vote for this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: i thank the chairman and i will be very brief. this is limiting consumer choice. it's going to increase our dependence on foreign oil and i would ask my colleagues to vote against this ill-founded amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. as many are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. recorded vote has been requested.

pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. flake: amendment number 367. the clerk: amendment number 367 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. flake of arizona . the chair: pursuant to the order of the house february 17, 2011, the gentleman from arizona and member opposed will each recognize for three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: this amendment would be to save the taxpayers $30.5 million by preventing funding. i withdraw this amendment in the interest of time and work out in committee with the gentleman from florida. so we'll enter into a colloquy for one minute.

i happen to feel that we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on radio and tv marquee. it is seen by very few. the gentleman from florida has a different view. we will take up the debate in committee but i yield such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: we have a disagreement here and i will continue to work on this and welcome -- mr. dicks: would the gentleman yield? does the gentleman say he is going to withdraw his amendment? mr. flake: yes, i will. mr. dicks: i was curious to hear that. mr. diaz-balart: reclaiming my time. so again, i will continue to work on this issue. this is something that i think is cherished by this house.

there is a history of supporting freedom and i know it will continue to support freedom but a.m. will opportunity to debate this and discuss this and other opportunities, so with that, i yield back. mr. flake: i withdraw the amendment. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection, so ordered, and the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 166. mr. dicks: mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. mr. dicks: first flake amendment on ethanol. the chair: the vote was postponed. the clerk will now designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 166 printed in the congressional record ginta.

the chair: the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. ginta and member opposed each will be recognized for three minutes. mr. guinta: i rise in president obama signed an executive order two years imposing p.l.a.'s on federal construction projects. it mandates whenever the government pays for a project, union workers must be hired for the job. this stifles competition and inflates the costs by steering tax dollars straight into union pockets. the previous administration banned p.l.a.'s and the ban saved taxpayers as much as $2.6 billion in 2008 alone. mr. chairman, this is a spending reduction bill focused on saving taxpayer dollars to the tune of $2.6 billion annually.

my amendment states no government money can be used to pay for any project that requires a p.l.a. this solves a significant problem. this is not against our unions. is about providing equal footing between union and nonunion contractors. considering the massive debt and deficit we are struggling under, i feel we can't afford at this point to waste more taxpayer dollars. my goal is to get more effective and efficient government. this creates a level playing field that encourages fair and open competition for federal construction projects funded by this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: claim time in opposition. i rise in opposition to this amendment. it prohibits the use of funds in this act for any government contracts. i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: the amendment is nothing more than another example of the union busting

republican agenda. project labor agreements contribute to the economy and construction of federal projects keep them on time and budget. they bring all the contractors and subcontractors to agree to a set of conditions from the beginning of the project and despite all the rhetoric on the other side that p.l.a.'s increase the cost of construction projects, there is no evidence for that. two years ago, the economic policy institute reviewed a series of studies for and against prevailing wage laws and concluded there was no adverse impact on government contract costs. mr. chairman, this is nothing else but a distraction. p.l.a.'s are nothing new and been used on the most consequential projects in our project, hoover dam bypass bridge and tennessee valley authority just to name a few. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

new hampshire. mr. guinta: currently in my home state, we have a job corps center, $35 million project that is going to help the youth annually in the state of new hampshire. the p.l.a. is what is stopping this project from occurring. we would not only like to expand the opportunity here in new hampshire to get these projects to move forward and do them in a fair and equitable way and our friends from the associated builders and contractors support this amendment, u.s. chamber of commerce, national federation of independent businesses as well as the national black chamber of commerce and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i recognize the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i rise in opposition to this amendment. contrary to what the author has said, there is no requirement that you have only a union

contractor at that. this is the time you come together pre-project to determine how the project shall be developed, whether there will be a training project involved in this, local hires, participation by minority women and others on this job. many my area, some of the largest in the nation are being built by worldwide companies with project labor agreements. and the record is -- continues over and over again, on time, done right the first time and without -- and it's a mix of contractors that get accepted. there is nothing in the executive order that requires union contractors or requires the p.l.a. i know because i tried to get a few and the administration didn't go there. so let's not overstate the case here. it encourages them. p.l.a.'s have worked on public and private projects very, very

well. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new hampshire. mr. guinta: the study shows the ban on p.l.a.'s saved taxpayers $2.6 billion. let's small business owners throughout our country to go after these types of projects. it is fair and equitable and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. woked. mr. andrews: i rise in opposition to this amendment because it is based upon two false premises. evidence shows that contracts performed under p.l.a.'s are not as efficient. the data doesn't exist that shows that. and second is the implication that this is somehow a politically connected decision by governments to reward building trade unions. first of all, doesn't have a

union contractor and most importantly, all kinds of nongovernmental users use p.l.a.'s. the disney corporation, inland street, arco, boeing, harvard university, these are all institutions and institutions that use p.l.a.'s because they believe they have good sound business judgment. why should the federal government of the united states be precluded from exercising a similar sound business judgment? this is a poorly thought out amendment and the right vote is no. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new hampshire. mr. guinta: thank you, mr. chairman. i would finally reiterate, this proposal is a spending reduction bill $2.6 billion annually in savings and allows our small business owners and subcontractors to bid on

projects across our nation and back to work and i ask my col cotion to vote yes. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new hampshire. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. guinta: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: recorded vote is requested, pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on amendment offered by the gentleman from new hampshire will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: move to strike the last word. where's mr. welch. i move to strike the last word to strike a colloquy with the gentleman from vermont. i yield to the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman from washington. i stand to discuss the yellow ribbon program which is critical in my home state of vermont and

is critical that has returning soldiers. in vermont, we recently welcomed 1,500 national guard men and women from a year-long deployment in afghanistan. the program helps deploy national guard reserve members and their families when they get home. prior to deployments, they educate members and their families on what to expect while their loved ones are gone. after deployment they focus on reconnecting members and their families with tricare, department of veterans affairs to ensure a clear understanding of the benefits they are entitled to and need. combat stress in transition and how members and their families can address their families is integral. in vermont, we have the fourth highest per capita rate in the

national guard. these are variable services. and i hope to work with the subcommittee to ensure that any unmet needs of this program are addressed as expeditiously as possible and i yield back to the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield to the chairman of the defense subcommittee, our good friend, mr. young. mr. young: mr. chairman, in the interest of time, i will simply say we support this program. the former chairman, mr. dicks, supports it, mr. young supports it and the committee added additional funding. florida national guard had an extremely large return home and we understand the importance of the program. we support the gentleman and will continue to work with the gentleman. mr. dicks: i gee the yellow ribbon program has been an important program and we have worked tirelessly to make sure they are taken care of.

i will work with the gentleman from vermont and the gentleman from florida to ensure the needs of our troops and families are met. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? . . >> i rise to offer an amendment preprinted in the congressional record and designated as amendment 495. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 495 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. hall of texas. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from texas, and a member opposed will each control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from 4 texas. mr. hall: may amendment will prohibit noaa from creating or implementing a national climate

service. the release of the president's f.y. 2012 budget this week included a significant reorganization of noaa, the largest agency since 1970. this is an action they took ignoring congressional requests to cease and desist. the new line office will take vical resources from the oceanic and atmospheric research office and gutting the research of noaa and shifting the main focus of the agency to climate. this shift threatens to harm important noaa activities such as helping with the restoration of the gulf of mexico to prespill conditions. the present day concerns require attention and focus. as it is, this continuing resolution is going to force noaa to make some official and very difficult decisions with respect to priorities. as a matter of policy, noaa has not even requested funding for

the climate service in f.y. 2011, however we're aware of the implementation the climate service a underway in the form of significant planning, transitioning and reorganizations of resources. my amendment would ensure noaa does not move forward with the reorganization without congressional consideration and approval, specifically from the authorizing as well as the appropriating committees. my amendment does not cut noaa's budget and is not an attempt to hinder the agency from providing useful and authoritative information but rather to communicate congressional priorities when it comes to public safety and economic prosperity. and they're not above complying with congressional requests. i urge members to support the amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise to claim the time in op position. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. fattah: one, this is a budget neutral reorganization of noaa. two, a 1/3 of our gross

domestic product requires accurate information in terms of climate and weather conditions. this would allow, this is the most important point. this reorganization, this climate service would allow the private sector to get data that noaa is already collecting and use it to better forecast for their activities. i would like to take and yield a minute to the ranking member on the agriculture committee, the gentleman from the great state of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in strong opposition. if any of you live in coastal communities, you want to oppose this bill. climate change is happening and the ocean is where climate is born. the coast of california is seriously considering all what the rising ocean will do to the economic value of the most

valuable coastal property in the united states. mr. farr: so you don't want to take out the partner in working with state and local governments on these issues. if tourism is in your community, if fishing is in your community a and in fact if educational institutions. yesterday, hundreds of students from all over the united states, high school students, were here working showing their science projects on ocean acidification. they won awards from government entities and nonprofit entities. their future is about studying these issues. this is the kind of program we want to invest in. smart technology, smart energy. that is the way we're going to handle the problem in the future. those are jobs. no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: i yield the following time to dr. brown, the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. broun: thank you, chairman. this is a half-baked idea.

the chairman and i have written noaa over and over again to try to get information. it's not come before our science committee and not been vetted. it may be a good idea, it may not be. i ask that members of this body vote no so the science, space and technology committee can look at this issue and talk to noaa and find out all about it. it's not going to prevent people from getting climate information or weather information we should not launch out into something when we don't know what the consequences or even maybe bad consequences of this might be. so we need to support this amendment, please vote yes so the science committee can come and totally vet it, find out what noaa is doing, as we should. we have the jurisdiction of the science, space and technology committee, so it's absolutely important for us to do this without noaa just launching off on its own. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. fattah: thank you. this is a budget neutral reorganization that will allow private business to get data that noaa is already collecting. that's all it is. it's critically important information for those businesses and a 1/3 of our gross domestic product is relying on good information about climate so they can have it. it's transparency and makes sense and it's budget neutral. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. all time has expired. the sque is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. hall. as many as are in favor will indicate by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. and the amendment is -- >> roll cal 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 texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: only my colleague can submit her comments for the record. unanimous consent. thank you. the chair: those comments will be covered under general leave. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 233 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. kucinich of ohio. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, and a member opposed will each control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: thank you, mr.

chairman. my amendment would prohibit funds authorized in h. 16r789 to be used for the missile program and doesn't cut spending but places a limitation on spending of the hapless and hopeless missile defense system. according to congressional research service, the u.s. has spent over $150 billion on ballistic missile defense since 1985 and there's no working reliable missile defense system to show for all the investment. h.r. 1 dedicates approximate $10 billion more for space ballistic missile defense and some argued such systems are necessary for national security. in fact, no missile defense under development has ever passed an unrigged test. according to experts the c.r.s. the performance at wartime of capabilities is unknown. in december of last year our ground based interceptors known as g.m.d.'s failed test again, a test that cost $100 million. according to the union of concerned scientists, the suns, quote is no closer today to be

able to effectively defend against long-range ballistic missiles than it was 25 years ago, unquote. missile defense systems are unprune and unworkable and worthless as national security but even though we have never in 25 years created a missile defense system that worked, our misguided commitment to providing billions on the program with a counterproductive effort with other countries. both the bush administrations and obama administrations have mistakenly argued and insisted the missile ballistic defense are strictly a deter tent to future threats. this argument contradicts logic. missile attempts are perceived by our allies as offensive threats. if we increase our arsenal we encourage other countries to increase theirs. i want to conclude by saying that when will congress act appropriately in response to the record of failure in missile defense? shouldn't we apply the same standard of missile defense as we apply to our schools? in no child left behind? if you can't pass the test,

then you lose your funding. reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, the kucinich amendment totally ignores the reality of the real threat against our troops, our allies, our deployed forces. it basically destroyed our missile system. and as you know, the enemies and the potential enemies have continued to develop offensive missiles. we just cannot do this. this is one of those amendments you just can't do. i'd like to yield at this time one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. turner: thank you. this amendment is so 1980's. it's when the ronald reagan proposed "star wars" and the

democrats were opposed and we're well past that. missile defense now has total bipartisan support. president clinton pursued it, president obama pursued it. both of the president bushes pursued it. we know two things. the threat is real. and the system works. the gentleman from ohio says it hasn't passed 100 tests, we haven't funded 100 tests. it's absolutely a system that works and is needed. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. mr. young: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: may i ask how much time we have? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. kucinich: i'd like to say in response to my friends that my amendment will correct a bipartisan error and second, that you can't destroy a missile system that doesn't work. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: has the gentleman's time expired? the chair: the gentleman

reserved his time. mr. young: i'll continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i'll conclude by saying phillip coil, the former assistant secretary of defense, has said the national missile defense system has become a theology in the united states, not a technology. we may have faith that it works but we're taught we have to justify our faith by good works. they don't have any good works connected to this. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, we're talking about patriot missile system, we're talking about the 's eagis missile system, the arrow system we cooperate with israel for their protection. we're talking about basic defense of our troops in the field who are at harm's risk anyway. just can't do this. mr. kucinich is my friend. he's not always right.

he's not always wrong but he's wrong tonight. and this is just not something that we can tolerate. our military would never stand for this. we're not going to approve this amendment, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. as many will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

does the gentleman rise as the designee of mr. stark? mr. lee: i rise as the designee of the gentleman from california, mr. stark, to offer an amendment, i believe it's 141. the chair: the leg the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 141 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentlelady from california, ms. lee, and a member opposed will control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. lee: i offer it with mr. spark, mr. nadler, mr. sanchez and mr. polis. it would reduce the department of defense in this bill to fiscal year 2008 levels. if you want to cut domestic spending to 2008 levels you can't exempt defense. i want to thank representative stark for this amendment and for his leadership in promoting

an era to unlimited spending and no accountability at the pentagon. unfortunately, this week my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing an economic blueprint that would slash federal investment in our nation's infrastructure, education system, health care and programs to meet basic human needs and to create jobs. these cuts trumpetted as a means of long-term deficit reduction come at a time of severe economic distress for american families. . this amendment gives us a chance to put our money where our mouth is. defense spending should be reduced to 2008 levels. if we are serious, we need to apply the same rules mind you to defense as nondefense discretionary spending. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady

reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: the defense budget, we have done something unusual and reduced the budget by $14.8 billion in this bill. to reduce the defense funding to the 2008 levels would cut over $50 billion on the d.o.d., which is really several impacting our troops on the ground and jeopardizing national security -- national security. you want to cancel navy training exercises, then you vote for it. if you want to reduce air flight training hours, you vote for

this. delaying ships and vehicles and you vote for this. delaying important safety and quality of life repairs to facilities and barracks, you vote for this. i don't support of any of that. and in a time of war, it's not the time to be withdrawing from our national defense capability, the readiness and security of our nation. and i reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. . the gentlelady from california. ms. lee: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey. ms. woolsey: i have to express my bafflement at the -- my colleagues went on and on about how we have to restore fiscal discipline and cut all kinds of very necessary programs to the

bone. yet, they won't even bring to our debate one of the most costly expenses we have in this country and that's afghanistan. this war in afghanistan has cost us nearly 1,500 american lives and the taxpayers $79 billion and counting. yet, during this debate, the majority, which is enthusiastic in its support wants to eliminate a homeless veterans' initiative. send our brave men and women halfway across the world and pull the plug on the support they need when they get home. that's what they kale supporting the troops. we need to cut that. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: could i inquire as to how much time i have remaining?

the chair: one minute and 45 seconds. mr. young: i yield to mr. dicks. mr. dicks: i want to rise in strong opposition to this amendment. first of all, working together on a bipartisan basis for the first time, we cut nearly $15 billion from the obama budget request in 2011 for defense and we did it on a very careful basis. this amendment would add another $56 billion to that cut. it would do damage to all of our acquisition programs. it would threaten the people in iraq and afghanistan and our efforts to conduct the global war on terrorism. so, again, i hope in a very strong bipartisan basis, we can

reject this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. gentlelady from california. ms. lee: how much time do i have remaining? mr. hastings: 30 seconds remaining. ms. lee: the bipartisan sustainable task force report released last year identify at least $1 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years without sacrificing our strategic capabilities. according to the g.a.o., major weapons programs have suffered in cost overruns and it's time to end this war in afghanistan. these wars in afghanistan and iraq are costing the taxpayers $1 trillion. we know -- al qaeda is not in afghanistan and we need to put our money where our mouth is. cut the defense budget the same way we talk about cutting nondefense. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady of

california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. lee: i ask for a recorded vote. ch mr. hastings: recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to address amendment 109 previously filed. the clerk: amendment number 109 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. griffith of virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. give igget and member opposed will bib recognized for three minutes. mr. griffith: amendment 109 is a timeout on the e.p.a.

the e.p.a. and its guidelines with water quality coming out of mines came up with a connectivity test, a test which did not go through the administrative procedures act, a test which is relying on science, which is not yet fully counted for or reliable. in fact, in the document in 31 pages, they use words like expect and anticipate what the science will be on 27 of those 31 pages. mr. chairman, president johnson had a war on poverty. there are some in my district and in appalachia that president obama and his e.p.a. have a war for poverty in the appalachian region. that connectivity test is so severe that the -- the distilled water -- it would pass and just

barely make it out of the zone in question but evian water would not pass and it's not good enough and pelligrino would not either. if you think coal is ugly, wait until you see poverty. there are some who believe and there are some in washington who think that southwest virginia and other parts of ap lash yeah should be -- appalachia would be a rich park to visit and those in washington who think ought to be happy, the folks who live there ought to be happy changing the sheets for the rich folks. ladies and gentlemen, that is not good enough and this amendment should pass and put a stop to this regulation. i yield. mr. rogers: i want to congratulate the gentleman. this amendment is well deserved and exactly the right thing to

do. i appreciate the gentleman taking up the fight to save the jobs in appalachia, in virginia, west virginia and kentucky and other states where coal is mined. this administration took war on coal and i appreciate the gentleman carrying the fight. mr. griffith: thank you, and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, this is the second of three amendments designed to kill regulation of mountain top mining. the amendment would prevent e.p.a. working with mining companies to ensure that mountain top mining is carried

out that protects the environment and the economy using the best available science. it removes entire mountain tops to access the coal underneath and deposits mining waste in nearby streams. it can be devastating to the environment and to local economies. it has been long time uncertainty regarding what laws apply and what federal agencies to work with and uncertainty about potential liability. this uncertainty was eliminated when interior, e.p.a. and the corps of engineers agreed to work with mining industries and implement a procedure to implement permits and it was with the plan to lay out procedures. this memorandum of understanding brought clarity for all the parties, environmentalists and federal agencies so that mining could move forward. what we have here is an effort

and good government punished by legislators with an axe to grind. agencies are punished for not working together. and when they do, we punish them for working together. permits will be longer and confusion for companies. this amendment won't change the law. this amendment could extend the permit process for years and cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in delays. that's why this amendment should be defeated and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith. you have 30 seconds remaining. mr. griffith: this amendment will not bring jobs and take our $60,000 a year plus jobs and give us part-time jobs at minimum wage. the data that we do have shows there is a greater diversity

after mountain top mining than there was before. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. more and -- moran. the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. moran: we have three agencies and now they are working together and we have a memorandum of understanding and they know their goal is to strengthen the economy to work with all the parties to bring them together. we have that member rand umh of understanding. this amendment eliminates all the progress that has been achieved. they were attempting to promote good government and good relationship with the mining companies. it's not going to happen if this amendment goes through. this amendment kills that understanding. the law remains and they can't cooperate now if this amendment was to pass. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. mr. griffith has 15 seconds. mr. griffith: mr. chairman, this, if not passed, will bring us unemployment. not a good economy. thank you. the chair: all time has been yielded. 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 ayes have it, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. mr. moran: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. for what purpose does north carolina rise? mr. jones: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 548 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. jones of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house february 18, 2011, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, and member

opposed will each control three minutes. the chair recognizes mr. jones. mr. jones: this amendment prohibits the federal government destroying jobs in fisheries along the atlantic seaboard and gulf of mexico. i'm pleased at this time, i have two co-sponsors and i would like to yield one minute to mr. pallone from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: the fishing industry is a crucial part of our nation's economy and it poses a serious threat to the vitality. cat shares is a system where fishermen have to buy the right to fish and only those are given the opportunity to cash a right to fish. what is perhaps most concerning is noaa's cooperative research