funds in an operation that pressures councils to adopt these programs. mr. jones' amendment would prevent noaa from pushing funds before they get the current system right. despite to make programs that gathers scientific data and keep fisheries open, they have failed to listen and that is why i urge my colleagues to support this amendment by mr. jones. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: at this time, i would like to yield one minute to the jeasm massachusetts, a -- the gentleman from massachusetts, also a co-sponsor of this amendment. . mr. frank: the procedure under the mag newson -- magnuson act where they can propose that but

it includes the men and women of the fishery. much of the east coast people don't like that. what noaa is doing is going around the referendum requirement by a new thing they call catch shares and can do the equivalent in another way. i'm particularly puzzled to have in the obama administration people tell us, well, it's ok, what it does is of course lead to consolidation and says the same amount of income but goes to a small number of larger entities and the smaller individuals are frozen out. and in the area that i represent, the fishing industry doesn't want it. so i hope what we'll do -- the gentlemen's amendment doesn't interfere with the magnuson act and the fisherman can get a system of quotas and transferable quotas which is in the magnuson act, transferable quota with a referendum because they couldn't impose that over the objection of the fisherman

and came up with something called catch shares and what we're banning and need the referendum in place. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i don't believe anyone has risen to claim the time in op position. i would do that. the chair: that's correct. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, niece programs put together by the national oceanic and atmospheric administration are designed to remenish fish stocks. they assign shares to individuals, cooperatives, other fishing communities because what we have seen that has resulted in depleted fish stocks and overfishing is a race to fish where the concern is that stock is being depleted so they run out to get what's

left. noaa is trying to intervene and suggest that we should divide up what's left, what we scientifically understand is left and try to cooperate. now, i can understand there are many fishing communities that don't want noaa's intervention but they have been successful in ensuring sustainable fisheries and preventing overfishing and creating more stable and lucrative fishing jobs in communities from alaska to florida. they bring a lot of economic and biological benefits. they eliminate what many think are dangerous race to fish or what i call derby conditions and they improve safety for fishermen. noaa seems to know what they're doing, where they've done it. it's been successful. i think we should look to the experts and understand that we've got to have greater sustainability in fishing. let me reserve my time and -- how much time do i have at this

point, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. moran: let me yield a minute to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you for yielding. i represent a lot of fishermen in california and up the west coast all the way up to alaska. mr. farr: the catcher program has worked well. you have two systems in fishing, you have a season or limit, a quota. the pounding of all the boats going at the same time regardless of weather is a very risky thing. now we've given that up to share. we give shares to boats. what happens if you're a small fisherman in a small boat, you've got a share, you have your right and can go out when you want to, not just when the weather is foul and it may be dangerous. people like this. it's sustainable and they can get loans on their boats and know they've got all kinds of certainty they never had before. to wipe this out it may be

uncomfortable in some other communities but if you'd much rather direct it, do it to those communities. wiping it out this way you'll hurt where it works and where it works it works really well so please. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: mr. speaker, in closing i must say this is an east coast issue and why you have mr. pallone and mr. frank and myself speaking. and with that, the fishermen on the east coast need fairness from their government and this amendment will help give fairness to the commercial and recreational fishermen on the east coast of america. with that i will yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i can understand where my very good friends are coming from and they represent a lot of professional and very responsible fishermen. and i know they know what

they're talking about. on the other hand, noaa does, too, and noaa has been successful. they've been successful from alaska to florida in allocating assigned limits to various fishing entities because we are losing our fishing stock. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. moran: i think there's only 15 seconds but if you take five seconds. mr. frank: when you get from alaska to florida, don't you have to pass massachusetts, new jersey and north carolina because the three of us think it's a terrible idea. mr. moran: i said from alaska to florida. reclaiming my time. the point is noaa's objective is to sustain the fish supply so these fishermen will continue to have jobs, not just now but in the future and for their children and grandchildren. that's noaa's objective and why i think we should reject the amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. jones: mr. speaker, i would like to request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the amendment from north carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk, number 47. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 47 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri. the chair: mr. luetkemeyer and a member opposed will each control three minutes. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: i rise in support of my amendment which would limit funding for the

missouri river study also known as mr. raps. this study was under review of the 1944 flood act and court rulings to determine if current authorized purposes are contemporary. it comes on the heels another comprehensive 17-year study completed in 2004 that showed that the current authorized purposes are appropriate and do not need to be altered. for river communities, two issues are important as water fly, power and navigation and this study puts in jeopardy the flow of the lower missouri and mississippi rivers which would mean -- have devastating consequences for navigation and transportation along those rivers and barriers to agriculture, waterways operation and every product that depends on the missouri and mississippi river to get to market. it is duplicative and wasteful in taxpayer dollars and we already spent $35 million to examine the missouri river master manual and after 17 years hundreds of public

meetings and countless lawsuits, the u.s. army corps of engineers feel the current uses of the river are appropriate. it is careless and irresponsible to conduct another multiyear, multimillion dollar study at taxpayer expenses particularly in the dire state of our nation's economy. with that i yield one minute to the gentlelady from missouri. the chair: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for one minute. mr. hartzler: i wholeheartedly support this amendment which saves taxpayers from a study that is unnecessary and ill-advised. the corps of engineers just depleted a 15-year study at a cost of $35 million. the missouri river master water control manual has been published in businesses, municipalities and utilities have been planning accordingly. there's no need to restudy the issue of the missouri river again and at an additional cost of $25 million. farmers, businesses, and cities in missouri's four congressional districts support

this amendment and i urge my colleagues to support this commonsens proposal. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back her time. mr. luke hire: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the gentleman from arizona is recognized for three minutes in opposition. mr. pastor: to my colleague from missouri, i would tell him the objective of this amendment has pretty much been accomplished. and that happened the last funding that occurred for this study was in i think 2009, which was an earmark. so now that earmarks have been eliminated in the c.r. and eliminated for the future, you will not have that funding as a possibility for this study.

also, the administration has not put any money in its budget and therefore there's no money in the budget. so for all practical purposes, the funding for this study is not going to continue. so therefore it's very unlikely the funding level provided in the bill will receive anything more than the amount to close the study. and i would tell my friend that the reason i oppose it is that this language i think may be unnecessary because it may impact the orderly termination of the study, and that's why i rise in opposition because i believe since this study at least in my opinion has been terminated, that we at least go through an orderly order with the few funding that -- the funding that's available so we can have an orderly termination and i'll reserve the balance of

my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: with all due respect, i would appreciate certainty and i think that's what the purpose is all about. you indicate it's still in existence and still being funded. we want it out. we don't want to fund it any longer. the purpose of it is duplicative. the study has been done before and i think it's time we call a stop to it. with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i think i heard the gentleman tell me that the last time the study occurred was in 1944. and i -- because earmarks are no longer the practice and the administration is not providing any funding, i -- it's my belief and my opinion that this study will not go further and a few dollars that may be left from the former earmark will be used to terminate the study in

an orderly fashion and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: i'm ready to close. the chair: the gentleman from arizona has the right to close. mr. luetkemeyer: with that, mr. chairman, the last study was done, completed in 2004 at a cost of $35 million, took 17 years and now we want to do it again. i don't believe it's appropriate for the taxpayer dollars to be used in this manner and with that i ask for the support of the body. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from arizona. has one minute remaining. mr. pastor: again, i would ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment because the objective of the amendment has pretty much been met. there's no funding available to continue it. the few dollars that remain will only be used to terminate the study in an orderly manner. that's the proper way of doing

it. and i would ask my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. luetkemeyer: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. luetkemeyer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 149 presented in the congressional record offered by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer and a member opposed will control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: i rise in support of my amendment which would prohibit the u.s. contributions to the

international government panel on climate change and it's fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science. the ippc advises governments around the world on climate change and supporters of cap and trade legislation have used the questionable science, the findings, as reasons to support onerous legislation. critics of this science intensifies in two years when emails publicly released from a university in england showed leading global scientists initially manipulated climate data and suppressed arguments in peer review journals and researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails to a small number of climate alarmists could advance their environmental agenda. . scientists have challenged the claims made by the ipcc in this report. these 700 scientists represent some of the most scientific institutions from around the

world including u.s. department of energy and defense, us air force and navy, nasa and environmental protection agency. for example, famed princeton scientist dr. austin who has published 170 scientific papers and member a member of the u.s. national academy of sciences and said climate has become a political science. it is tragic that some perhaps well meaning but politically motivated should know better and whipped up a frenzy which is questionable at best. families in my district have been able to tighten their belts and surely the federal government can do the same and stop funding an organization. my amendment says that no funds in this bill can go to the ipcc and would save taxpayers millions of dollars in years to come. the president has requested an additional $13 million in his

fiscal year 2012 budget request. our constituents should not foot a bill to support corrupt findings. they deserve better. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise to take the time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, this amendment would eliminate funding to the intergovernmental panel on climate change. the u.s. contributes only $2.3 million to the ipcc and our $2.3 million contribution gives them global outreach and global technical output a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt

without u.s. support. their work on climate change is unparalleled and its reports have brought together scientists from around the world from atmospheric science to forest ecology to economics to provide objectives in policy-neutral information. the panel has attracted the best u.s. scientists. the majority of the research that is reviewed is undertaken in u.s. institutions. the ipcc's work has been lauded by the u.s. academy of ns sciences and a body comprised of the national academies of the world. in fact that organization won in 2007 the nobel prize for its assessment work. this institution is nonpartisan and technically extraordinarily sound organization. the republican majority has

already voted to prevent e.p.a. from using funds to regulate greenhouse gases. now we're being asked to defund the work of international scientists to learn about the threat. now the assumption, i assume, that there is no threat and therefore, lots' not study it. i don't think that is a wise assumption but a shortsided proposal to cut these funds. it's putting our heads in the sand, denying the science and then stopping the scientists from working because they might come to a different conclusion than the republican majority's ideology in believing that there is no such problem and therefore we don't need to know about it or do anything about it. if we aren't going to do anything here at home at least work internationally to understand the threat and to deal with other countries to

combat it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. >> i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. lutelute the international panel has been funded at $12.5 million and the president has it in his budget of $13 million. this group has been in the headlines for their activities with regards to how they are trying to tinker with the data that they put out. why would we want to fund a group of folks who give us incorrect information? it's beyond me. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i

don't understand or how he could see these people are nefarious. they won the award from the nobel prize for their scientific activity. i used to think that people from missouri were the show me state and what this the gentleman from missouri is suggesting, i don't know what -- about it. let's learn the facts and then decide what to do about it but not stop trying to know what the science is behind the global threat. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to offer to amendment amendment 569. the clerk: amendment 569 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. issa of california. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. issa and a member opposed will each control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: president obama announced a pay freeze. within his executive order, he froze all pay he could freeze. the one he could not freeze were step increases. this simple amendment adds to president obama's two-year

freeze and the seven-month freeze for the period he was unable to cover of step increases. step increases are simply pay increases because you are on the job, period. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i rise in opposition to this. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: we all agree that we need to be financially responsible with regard to the federal budget. but this continuing resolution already substantially reduces funds for every single agency of the government. a freeze in civilian pay for federal employees is already in effect for two years. it prevents inflationary and locality pay increases for the entire federal work force including civilian employees in the defense department, although uniformed employees can get raises, but preventing periodic

pay increases is another matter. perhaps the authorizing statute should be changed but the reality is that that requires legislation. this doesn't address that. what this does is say if you are a political appointee, you can get an increase but not a civil service employee. mr. chairman, a little over a majority of the federal work force is eligible for retirement over the next five years. we are going to make their lives far more difficult with the restraints we are putting in this bill and then say they aren't going to be compensated? we are going to lose our best and brightest and as a result, the american people are going to lose. with that, let me reserve my time because i want to yield some to swished gentleman, mr. wolf. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. >> i continue to reserve.

the gentleman from -- has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to this amendment. mccarthy who was the secret service agent who stopped the bullet that would have killed ronald reagan would have deserved a step increase. dr. collins dealing with breast cancer can go outside and get a job anywhere would deserve a step increase. f.b.i. agent working to find al qaeda and terrorism. and lastly, lastly, some members of this congress have employees who have done such a good job many of them who are perhaps on the appropriations committee

would deserve a step increase. if you vote for this, you can never give any of your employees a step increase. it's a bad amendment and i urge defeat. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i just want to clear up some facts because i believe in the effort to try to make a point, people have failed to be quite as accurate as they should. political appointees, the president has frozen their pay. second of all, awards, raises and bonuses are not limited by this sfreeze. the fact is if somebody is meritorious of raise, award or bonus, they would still be able to get it. when they say budgets have been cut, if budgets have been cut, not having this half billion dollars first year and in the second year will allow those budgets to go further.

and when they say that these are effectively meritorious, from the office of management and budget of the obama administration, we received a figure, 99.94% eligible federal employees, six out of 10 employees fail to get this increase. this saves over half a billion over seven months, $700 million the next year. it is consistent with president obama's freeze and the freeze is what we are trying to do, give the president what he said in the spirit in which he said it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i understand we would close. the chair: the gentleman from virginia has the right to close. mr. moran: with 30 seconds i should let the gentleman conclude his remarks. the chair: gentleman prepared to close? mr. issa: how much time do i

have left? the chair: one minute and 15 seconds remaining. mr. issa: it has been a long night and the american people hopefully are still watching. and as they watch, what we are doing here and they see people coming and crying for the federal worker. i hope what they realize is the federal worker is not losing a day's pay and not eliminating federal workers and federal workers will be able to get awards, bonuses, any meritorious increase or promotion. we are saying for 99.94% of all federal workers, nonuniform, to simply get longevity increases after the president has ordered a pay freeze is disingenuous to the process and we want to be genuine to the process here. the house of representatives rolled back our funding by 5% and that was a good start. but if we don't do this, we

aren't even genuinely freezing the pay of our own federal work force. i urge support for this amendment, keeping the promise of the president and the promise to the american people. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i yield 15 seconds -- mr. dicks: i'm in support of opposition to this amendment and i want to associate myself with the remarks of mr. more and and mr. wolf. mr. moran: we are the world's superpower and many of the responsibility for maintaining the status of being that superpower falls on the shoulders of our federal employees. they get a third less than what they would be getting in the private sector with the same responsibilities but we need the best and brightest from all this country to serve the american people. if we punish them by limiting their salaries and making them

-- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: let's not do this. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. issa: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: recorded vote is requested, pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. . for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> i have an amendment 94 at the desk. the chair: the clelling. the clerk: amendment 94 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. sullivan of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. sullivan, and a member opposed will control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. sullivan: thank you,

chairman. my amendment would delay the implementation of the e.p.a. e-15 waivers for the remainder of the fiscal year that would allow congress to address the safety concerns related to the higher blend of ethanol gasoline before the e.p.a. puts it in your general fuel supply. despite alarming consumer and environmental and economic concerns, the environmental protection agency has approved a 50% increase in the amount of corn-based ethanol allowed in gasoline used by cars and light trucks manufactured in 2001 model year and newer. this is simply another attempt by the e.p.a. to engineer ethanol mandates to drive ethanol subsidies forward. and yes this is a mandate. the e.p.a. has mandated we use 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels like ethanol annually in our motor engines by 2032. and by incremental steps and back end steps like this, the e.p.a. is mandating. the e.p.a.'s move from e-10 to

e-15 fuel over the next several months is in effect a backhanded 50% increase in the corn ethanol mandate putting consumers, enginemakers and gasoline retailers at risk. gasoline station owners are terrified of how they will comply with the e-15 mandate because not all the existing infrastructure is certified for the fuel. under the e.p.a. waiver they will have no liability protections. quick trip, a major gasoline retailer across the midwest which is headquartered in my hometown of tulsa, oklahoma, offered an unconditional guarantee on every drop of gasoline they sale. because of the lack of liability protections they will be left on the hook if someone puts the wrong blend of gas in the wrong kind of car. that will open up a litigation nightmare. why do we want to further mandate a fuel consumers don't want and retailers are afraid to sell? this is a major consumer safety issue that could adversely impact up to 60% of the cars on

the road today. it also is important to point out the environmental impacts of this as well. the higher the fuel blend of e-15, the higher the toxic air pollutants. since ethanol contains 66% of the energy gasoline does, e-15 will lead to an actual drop in gasoline mileage. the e.p.a. even said you get 5% lets fuel economy with e-15 than clear gasoline. the e.p.a. completely ignored calls from lawmakers, industry, environmental and consumer groups to address important safety issues raised by the 50% increase in the ethanol mandate waivers. putting the brakes on e-15 is the right thing to do for the people that we represent. i ask my colleagues to join me in passing this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: thank you, but at this point i would yield to a very thoughtful, informed expert on this issue, mr. latham. mr. latham: i thank the gentleman have much for yielding. and i understand the gentleman from oklahoma represents oil and the reason he's doing this, but current government regulations restrict the ethanol blend by 10% per volume and ethanol producers hit the 10% cap in producing more ethanol can currently be used under the restrictions that are in place. and i have to correct the gentleman when he said e.p.a. mandates this. it's congress, us that mandates the 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. and it's essential with that mandate from congress, this is

not e.p.a., that we increase e-10 to e-15 to ten our investment in renewable fuel for the economy. raising the limit will accelerate the use of renewable fuels made in the u.s. we're not importing this oil, mr. chairman. we're lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil and encouraging continued investment in research in advanced biofuels like celulosic ethanol as well. raising the limit will grow our economy here in the u.s., create about 136,000 jobs in the united states. this is all that we're not importing from overseas and spending billions and billions of dollars with our military to defend the oil coming into this country. these are good-paying jobs. they're very excellent as far as jobs in rural america. they cannot be outsourced

overseas. science supports e-15. it's the most tested fuel in history. with the e.p.a. and the department of energy stating that higher ethanol blend does not harm engine durability or emissions equipment for vehicles age 2001 and newer which represents more than 70% of the vehicles on the road today in the united states. it's clear science supports the decision. there's no doubt the e-15 blend limit is good for our economy, it's good for our energy, independence, and everybody talks about all of the above. this is part of all of the above of energy independence for the united states. it's good for continuing investment and renewable fuels energy and for the rural parts of this country that need an awful lot of help these days. i certainly oppose this amendment. and i would yield -- or reserve -- or yield back to the gentleman to reserve.

mr. moran: mr. chairman, how much time do we have left? the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma's time has expired and the gentleman from virginia has 15 seconds remaining. mr. moran: i yield the remaining time to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. green: i want to thank my colleague from virginia for the 15 seconds and associate myself with the remarks from my colleague and member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. sullivan. i think we need to think how we're doing this with ethanol. it costs more. i don't want to import oil either and why we need to produce it in our own country, mr. speaker, and i yield back my time. the chair: the time of the the gentleman has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. as many as are in favor big signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: which amendment is it? >> in 216, mckinley. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 216 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed each will control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. we all should be concerned about the recent actions by the e.p.a. and how it continues to destroy jobs by exceeding its statutory authority as envisioned by congress. in west virginia, our state's

economy is highly dependent on the coal and natural gas industries. on january 13, 2011, the e.p.a. took an unprecedented action by retroactively revoking a lawfully issued 4-year-old permit for the spruce number one surface mine in logan county, west virginia. this permit had been issued by the secretary of the army under the clean water act and was approved by the corps of engineers in january 2007. for nearly a decade, the core of engineers worked with the e.p.a. to rigorously review the spruce mine project before it was approved. the permit was issued after this extensive environmental review. which included a 1,600 page environmental impact statement in which the e.p.a. fully participated and agreed to all the terms and conditions included in the authorized

permit. just to be clear, the e.p.a. had every opportunity to address any concerns and work together with the corps of engineers prior to the permit being issued. by giving the e.p.a. funds to retroactively veto this permit, a dangerous permit is being set for future job producing ventures by businesses and industries throughout this country. these actions by the e.p.a. continue top justify why so many americans worry about the e.p.a.'s relentless war on coal. if the a.p.a. can be allowed to retroactively revoke a permit in west virginia, they can continue the onslaught wherever water permits exist. any entity discharging water is vulnerable to having its permits pulled and will put at risk city sewage treatment plants, farms, mines, steel mills and chemical plants.

e.p.a.'s veto with spruce mine caused a loss of 253 mining jobs and 298 indirect jobs in west virginia. in addition, it prevented the investment of nearly $250 million. the e.p.a.'s actions had a chilling effect on many types of companies all of which rely on the uncertainty of the permitting process in order to make crucial business planning decisions and is virtually impossible for the companies to take the necessary steps to obtain financing and create jobs if they must endure the threat of retroactive revocation of the very permits that allow them to do business. today this injustice that happened at spruce mine in west virginia. tomorrow the e.p.a. could very well pull an existing water permit at a steel mill in indiana, a chemical plant in texas, a sewage plant in iowa. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia.

mr. moran: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, the gentleman from west virginia's amendment tries to prohibit e.p.a. from carrying out section 404-c of the clean water act. it's one more effort to deregulate all aspects of mountaintop mining. section 404-c authorizes e.p.a. under especially serious circumstances to pull back permits for dredging and filling material if they would have a substantially adverse affect upon the quality of water, wildlife, and fishery areas. e.p.a. has only used this 404-c authority 13 times in the 39 years of the clean water act. but this amendment and its backers don't want e.p.a. using

that authority to prevent the coal industry from polluting the contiguous waters to their mountaintop mining. but we know mountaintop surface mining removes entire mountaintops so that they can get to the coal underneath but then in the process invariably deposits toxic mining waste in the nearby streams and then that gets into the full water supply. it costs substantial sums of money to subsequently clean it and really cannot only be devastating to the environment but devastating to local economies. only in the most egregious instances has e.p.a. used this authority. they should have the right to pull permits when companies seriously harm the environment. that's their responsibility. it's understandable that mining companies don't want any restriction on their mining, but it's not excusable for this congress to prevent the e.p.a.

from carrying out its lawful responsibilities and not to heed the long-term health impacts of the american people and of the quality of the water in these regions. so i urge the defeat of this amendment, mr. chairman. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia's time has expired so the only time remaining is your time. mr. moran: how much time might that be? the chair: the gentleman has 45 seconds remaining. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i think that the body knows where we stand on the side of responsible environmental preservation, but at this point in deference to the chairman of the full committee, i would yield what time remains to mr. rogers because i see him standing and i suspect he wants to be said on this -- heard on this. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i appreciate the gentleman's kindness. mr. chairman, i wanted to thank

the gentleman from west virginia for offering this amendment. this retroactive veto of the spruce mine is the poster child for e.p.a.'s regulatory overreach. but there are thousands more permits like this throughout appalachia that the e.p.a. could put on notice, but coal is not the only industry relying on these 404 permits. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: the e.p.a.'s action at spruce will have severe implications for agriculture, construction, transportation sectors because it sets a dangerous precedent that e.p.a. can revoke any permit at any time for any reason or for no reason. . we need these jobs and our job-creating industries need regulatory certainty, not more of the same regulatory roulette

from the e.p.a. mr. mckinley's amendment would inject certainty into the regulatory environment by stripping e.p.a. to retroactively veto permits at their whim with no appeal. we in congress need to keep our hand on the reins of e.p.a., which is running rough showed over small businesses and families and the constitutional authority of this congress. i thank mr. mckinley for offering this amendment. i ask for support. >> i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i rise in support of my colleague's amendment.

this permit is an insult to the surprise mune and the mine is located in my congressional district and permit was negotiated with the e.p.a. in good faith by the coal company over a space of 10 years. the permit was granted three years ago and just recently was revoked by the e.p.a. it goes against the grain of what i think should be good faith efforts by coal companies to negotiate with the e.p.a. recognizing they can't get what they want in a permit application, some withdrawal and some compromise was necessary. that was done in this particular case and in a process over 0 years and the permit was granted. and now to have it revoked is an insult to the mine permitting process and i yield back to the distinguished chairman. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, let us work, give us the jobs.

give us the jobs. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from west virginia. a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. mckinley: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 217 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley and member opposed will each control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia.

mr. mckinley: i want to thank my colleague cliff stearns for offering a similar amendment. this amendment will specifically bar the use of use of funds to carry out the regulation of fossil fuel combustion waste under subtitle c of the solid waste disposal act. in 2010, the e.p.a. proposed this regulation and we are standing against this emotional reaction. what happened in tennessee is tragic and should be dealt by the proper agency regarding the dam's integrity and should not be used to advance an idealogically agenda regarding the environment. fly ash is a by-product using coal. it is captured before being emitted into the atmosphere. the fine grain parallels are recycled for roads, bridges and

buildings. it is in masonry production, concrete blocks and bricks and been used in houses, schools and offices. the fly ash is even used in fertilizers and agriculture and solar. if the e.p.a. continues their plan to designate fly ash as a hazardous material, all of these would come to a halt. the expense of handling the product would increase and so would our electric prices. to increase the prices causes the price of producing american-made products to increase and puts america's businesses at a disadvantage against our foreign competition. this e.p.a. rule would be an unmitigated job killer. the coal ash and disposal has

been studied by the e.p.a. for over 20 years. the resource conservation and recovery act has studied the adverse effects if any, of current practices for disposal and out lization of foice i will fuel combustion waste. the conclusion was that these wastes do not warrant regulation under subtitle c. how many more reports need to be conducted by the e.p.a. to show that fly ash is a nonhazard? enough is enough. according to various environmental groups, for every ton of cement manufactured, about 6.5 million b.t.u.'s of energy is consumed. if we can replace that ton of cement with fly ash, we would save enough electricity to power the average home for 25 days and reduce the emissions equal to a

two-month use of an automobile. even the e.p.a.'s headquarters right down the street from us was built with a significant amount of fly ash mixed in. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to claim time in opposition. charkte the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: the house is not in order the chair: the house is not in order. the chair asks members behind the individual that has time, to take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: this amendment would stop e.p.a. from identifying coal ash as hazardous waste and therefore present vebt any regulation of that waste. the fact is that coal ash contains dangerous contaminant such as mercury and they could

be dangerous. this ash is stored onsite on many large power plants where it goes into the ground water and into nearby streams and communities across the country where coal ash has polluted surface water and affected wildlife. it has been developing a rule. in fact, it has received more than 450,000 public comments. had web-based seminars and do everything to get opinion on both sides of this issue and conducting risk and economic analyses of the options available. suspending work on a final regulation isn't going to satisfy anybody. but one thing, you have to continue to have the coal ash at risk of contaminateing drinking water and create uncertainty and potential markets for coal ash

for reuse and won't buy it if they think it will cause liability. it would allow coal ash and eliminate the risk. that's why the amendment should be defeated. how much time do i have, mr. chairman? the chair: gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. i would yield the 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman. the chair: recked for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. waxman: i want to tell you a story. on december 22, 2008 in kingston, tennessee, a coal ash impoundment failed and they released 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge. this sludge blanketted the nearby river and 300 acres of

surrounding land creating a superfund site that could cost millions to remediate. if it had been stored safely, this tragedy would never have happened. the wastes are dangerous. what e.p.a. is trying to do is to make sure that the hazardous waste is disposed of safely to protect the health of the community. and i find it somewhat amazing to hear the author of this amendment saying that e.p.a. is acting on an agenda. how ideological do you have to be to act when you have an example of coal ash poisoning areas and threatening drinking water? is that ideological wanting to make sure it is disposed of in a proper way? that's what we want e.p.a. to do. i urge opposition to this

amendment. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment the gentleman from west virginia will be postponed. the clerk: amendment 545 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo and a member opposed will each control the time.

mr. pompeo: this amendment is straightforward. the consumer product safety act called for the creation of a public consumer information data base and last year, the agency adopted data base rules to uphold the statute. the statute required that the agency not allow inaccurate information to be on the data base and the rule actually requires the agency to post materially inaccurate information and requires them to post that information within 10 days. this will drive jobs overseas and increase the cost for manufacturers and consumers. the national association of manufacturers has announced its support for this amendment. the home appliance manufacturers' association, consumer specialty association have recognized that this regulation is terribly owner

rouse. and ask for some time from the committee to review this regulation and come up with a regulation that makes sense and consistent with the statute. i urge support of the amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. waxman: i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: this amendment would dn eye the consume peril products safety commission the implementation of a searchable public consumer safety information data base. now this data base was part of a bill that passed this house by 424-1. we required the data base and cspc is ready to release this

data base. it is based on data bases run by the food and drug administration and national highway traffic association. it would allow consumers to report harms associated with consumer products and then to research risks associated with these particular products. this is exactly what the american people want. they want information. they have a right to know. and in fact, every opinion poll indicates this. this amendment is a key for -- is keep scupers in the dark amendment. parents want to know if a toy is dangerous. this amendment would take a way their right to go to a data base that would give them this information. the claims again the data base are pretty shocking. the manufacturers say well, this is going to be a problem because they are going to put things on

the data base that are trade secrets or inaccurate. this is simply not the case. it is a safeguard. in fact there are safeguards after safeguards to protect manufacturers. the statute provides more procedural safeguards than any other public data base in a federal agency. anonymous complaints are not allowed, but only safety-related information. they get to see every harm before it is placed in the data base and have the opportunity to correct inaccurate information and provide their own comments. i resevere the balance of my time and i urge members -- the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kansas. >> i yield one minute to the gentlelady from missouri. .

mrs. emerson: the intent of the data was to provide consumers with information on dangerous products. some people have compared the database by the one offered by the national highway and traffic safety administration, however, the two are very different because the nisa database is therefore much more reliable. from a government perspective we should be concerned there would be accurate information on a dot-gov website. the end of the day the most important factor is this, if the database isn't accurate or reliable, it will be totally useless for consumers looking to avoid unreliable or dangerous products. it's already dost $29 million and i say if you're going to set up a database, do it right. woe as a congress have a duty to fund things that are in the best interest of the american people and the cpsc database is not. it should not go live next month with inaccurate information. i strongly support this amendment.

the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. >> mr. chairman, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this issue, mr. butterfield. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. butterfield: i thank the gentleman. i rise in opposition to this amendment. as part of the consumer products safety improvement act, the consumer products safety commission was charged with creating a publicly available, searchable database for complaints regarding consumer products. the amendment offered by the gentleman aims to move forward with this database. the food and drug administration and the national highway traffic safety administration both have publicly available databases for consumers to report harms or potential safety problems about cars and medical products. those databases don't provide any due process to

manufacturers to contest those claims. however, this database provides exhaustive due process, including allowing manufacturers to refute materially inaccurate claims and have found to be inaccurate and have the complaint removed. the commission database allows manufacturers to issue a response and have those responses appear along with the consumer complaint. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i yield 15 seconds to my colleague, mr. barton. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. barton: mr. speaker,, i ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter dated november 23, 2010 on this issue i sent to the chairman of the u.s. consumer products safety commission, the honorable inez tannenbaum and rise in strong support of the gentleman from kansas' amendment. he's exactly right on this and we should support him. the chair: the request has to be made in general leave.

the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: may i inquire how much time each side has left. the chair: if the gentleman would state his parliamentary inquiry. from barton: i thought i had partmentry leave to put things in the record. the chair: in the committee off the whole. the gentleman from california has seven minutes remaining. and the gentleman from kansas has seven minutes and 45 seconds remaining. the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. waxman: i want to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts who authored this particular provision in the consumer products -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman from from california. this language is going to destroy the early warning

system that has been put in place in order to give parents the information they need in order to protect their children. if this amendment passes it will grant industry's wish to make the government its secret partner in crime by keeping reports of serious injury or death hidden from public view. mr. stark: the safety products safety commission documented children suffering intestinal injuries after swallowing small but powerful magnets that had fallen out of toys and the public didn't know and the cpsc did nothing. by mid 2005 after more reports of safety concerns associated with the magnets and two reports of serious life-threatening injuries, the public still didn't know and the cpsc still did nothing. on thanksgiving day 2005,

22-month-old kenny sweet of redmond, washington, died after swallowing magnets that had fallen out of magnet toys, it was only after kenny's death an additional four hospitalizations that the cpsc finally gave the public an inkling of what was going on. but it actually took until april of 2007 at the seven years of reports of risks, numerous serious injuries and a death before a full recall of all the products was undertan and that is not the only example of deaths and injuries that could have been avoided had parents known of the risk to their children. in all of these cases, we heard the same story, this simply aren't enough resources for the cpsc to quickly and fully investigate every complaint. in 2005, the cpsc investigated only 1%.

this is a no vote, otherwise we are going to see the choking hazards that kill are once again hidden in public. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i urge support of this amendment and with that yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: my last 30 seconds, let me say this is an issue of the public's right to know. let this database be available to them so they don't go buy a toy they could have checked out on a website and found out it was poisonous. i urge a defeat of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. 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 gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule

18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 515 presented in the congressional record offered by mr. bishop of utah. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, the gentleman from utah and a member opposed will each control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. chairman, the nlcs is a reduntant system was codified by legislation in the 1120th session of congress. the house passed an amended bill that went over to the senate and died. the 11th session the senate picked up that bill, stripped all the house amendments off and put it in the omnibus lands bill without any hearing or debate it was hidden in the bowels and sent over to us

where once again we had no hearings, limited debate, none of which was on this particular system. this reduntant system since i have introduced a resolution to try to streamline the department of interior by streamlining those functions, i've heard some of the most amazing accusations of what would happen if we were to indeed do that, everything from having the sun coming up in the west to the beginning of the immediate beginning of the mayan calendar. with the time we are at right now, with the further indication that during this session our committee will definitely review this particular administrative system for further investigation, i would ask with permission of the chair that i withdraw the amendment. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the amendment is withdrawn.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. will the gentleman specify which amendment? >> 200. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 200 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, and a member opposed will control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i thank you for the recognition. this amendment would allow no funding made available in this continuing resolution is to be used to pay for the salary of any officer or employee at the center for consumer information and insurance oversight within the department of health and human services. the patient protection affordable care act never mentions, never authorizes, never appropriates money to the

center for consumer information and insurance oversight formerly known as the office of consumer information and insurance oversight. so without congressional authorization of ciio proceeded to hire staff which is estimated to be 200 people and rented office space in bethesda. tasked with implementing some of the largest and expensive protections of the patient affordable care act by the secretary of health and human services, this agency began issuing regulations, including those relating to state exchanges, medical loss aireos, grandfather plans and the granting of waivers of businesses on meeting the requirements of the affordable care act. currently this agency has granted 915 waivers accounting for 2.5 million americans representing about 1% of americans who have private

health insurance. this eanings' operation is outside any -- this agency's operation is outside any boundaries and drew criticism forcing them to be brought back under the jurisdiction for the center of medicaid and medicare services effectively making c.m.s. the most powerful health care agency in the universe with jurisdiction over medicaid, medicare, the state children's health plan, and now private insurance. this center has been allowed without congressional authorization, without congressional oversight to make the decisions that will affect all sectors of the american population. without any due diligence or congressional oversight, no agency or center should be able to obtain funding, carry out their own agenda, implement policy, write regulation and remain largely unchecked before any further funding is allowed to be provided by this body, we need to know where the previous funds came from, how the money was spent, and fully review their operations. i'll reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: i yield myself 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. delauro: before we pass the affordable care act americans bought coverage that they thought was comprehensive only to realize it had huge gaps once they got sick, even when plans looked similar on the outside with comparable deductibles, co-paces and out-of-pocket limits it results in drastically different levels on the out-of-pocket medical expenses which is probably why more than 50% of bankruptcies in this country are the cause of medical debt. the affordable care act created the office of consumer information and insurance oversight to -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. i cannot hear the gentlelady. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the house -- the committee will be in order.

i ask members to take their conversations off the floor. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delauro: thank you. the affordable care act created an office of information and oversight to provide better information to consumers, to hold insurers accountable at the federal level and help states with oversight responsibility. it requires insurance to provide clear information to consumers on what is really in their policies such as standard definitions of medical and insurance terms because hospitalization should mean hospitalization. it requires insurance to disclose data on payment policies and practices, claims denial rates, medical loss ratio, and other information so that consumers can make informed choices. and so regulators can make sure the rules are followed. it's also responsible for confirming that the insurance companies get approval to raise

rates by more than medical inflation. in short, it dramatically increases transparency and accountability in the health insurance market. why wouldn't we want to have -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. delauro: i yield myself 30 second. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delauro: why wouldn't we want consumers to know what they are buying so they don't go broke, that they get the health care they need when they are sick. quite frankly, what this does is to help keep the big insurers honest, and that's probably why the majority has put the desires of the insurance companies and the interest of the insurance companies before the well-being of the american public. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: what the gentlelady asserts may or may not be true. the fact is we don't know. we never authorized this agency. in a 2,700 page bill passed in

the dead of night on march 23, no authorization for this agency existed. . the head of this agency was hired a year ago last wednesday. the administration knew what they were doing but didn't want congress to know. the language was left out of the bill and we forward funding. this amendment is necessary. keep those foot soldiers under wrap because in c.m.s. they are under direct control by a man who has never been approved. ms. delauro: i yield the balance of our time to mr. pallone from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: i respect dr. burgess but i have no idea why he is opposed to an agency that would put a check on the insurance agencies. mr. burgess: would the gentleman

yield? mr. pallone: the insurance companies keep raising rates and don't show the consumers what the real benefits they are receiving are and what we need is more transparency and way to review the insurance premiums rates so they don't get out of hand. the fact of the matter is -- the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has the time. mr. pallone: the fact of the matter is this agency working with states has had great success. in connecticut, regulators rejected a 20% rate increase by blue sclsh blue shield. in maine they declined to raise rates. colorado, also. in california, the review prompted and them blue cross to withdraw a premium increase. why do you object to put a check on these insurance companies that keep raising their rates at outrageous levels?

i oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the amendment offered by mr. burgess. those opposed, no. . the ayes have it. gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? >> got an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. heller of nevada. the chair: wurnt to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from nevada, mr.

heller and member opposed will each control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment with my friend from idaho to prohibit funds being used to designate national mon youments under the antiquities act. new national mon youments would threaten grazing rights and end mineral exploration and mining and impact private property. and this is the last thing we need in this economy. a transparent public process that includes input from communities and stake holders for any new federal land designation is in the best interest of the residents of our public lands communities. that is why i support efforts to require all actions to have congressional approval. government that works in the

best interest of the people ensures that all stake holders have a seat at the table. such as the grand staircase national mon you metropolitan which in the last days of the clinton administration obliterated massive economic development with a stroke of a pen. i don't want this to happen in nevada or anywhere else. i ask my colleagues to join us from the heavy hand of the federal government. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who claims time in opposition. the gentleman from virginia, what purpose? mr. moran: i rise in opposition to claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: mr. chairman, this is a bad amendment. presidents of both parties have used this act to increase protection to lands and waters that are already u.s. government control. the act has no impact on private land. it's a law that was passed by a

republican-led congress and signed by a republican president, theodore roosevelt. since then, 15 u.s. presidents have declared 131 national monuments, and must be remembered that the lands withdraw are federal lands owned by all americans, not just the residents of certain states or localities in which they happen to be located. the nation, not just a sing the state has a vital interest in the future of these lands and have unique qualities. at this point, i would reserve my time and ask how much i have so i can allocate it. the chair: you have two minutes remaining. mr. moran: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. farr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: this is a bad amendment and i urge all my friends to carefully consider it. mr. heller may have an issue in

nevada and he says he wants to have legislation to require congress to make these designations, but that's not what's here today. he's wiping out the money to give the president the ability to make these monuments. we made one in california for all the rocks and islands. the largest monument in the united states. it was overwhelmingly endorsed by all the communities along the coasts. let local governments be involved so they can petition the the president. it is a -- it affects all of your states. grand canyon was a monument before congress made it a national park. taking away this tool in the tool box would leave these lands fallow. and you get into -- you can't get into the other activities that b.l.m. has. this is a great tool.

don't throw it away. mr. moran: i would yield the remaining minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. markey: monument designations do not take non-federal land. the act only allows designations on land the federal government already owns. there is nothing improper about these designations, this authority has been upheld by every court which has reviewed it since 1906. monument designations do not lock up resources. monument designations valid any existing rights to mining or any claim existing before the designation can move forward. if members object to this act, they should file legislation amending the act and then come on over to the natural resources committee. doc hastings and i will be sitting there waiting for you to

you to amend the act. it is based on extreme ideology that the federal government should die investigate itself of the stunning national treasures managed by the department of interior and enjoyed by mill ons of each year. vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nevada has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. heller: i yield to the gentleman from idaho. >> i rise today with my friend, mr. heller, to join in this great amendment. an internal document was leaked from the department of interior. and it described the administration plans to lock up more than 140 million acres of land and proposed using its land management authority to sidestep authorities. when the plan was brought to light the administration back tracked and claimed it had no

plans to lock up millions of acres of public land and wanted us to forget how the president locked up millions of acres of land. i can't say for the administration will follow through with that commitment, but i already know they have betrayed us and they have betrayed our trust. once again, they acted to restrict public land use when secretary salazar rolled out a new plan cooked up in secret to cook up wildlands. it has proven to me they cannot be trusted to designate monuments without congressional oversight which is why i have joined congressman heller in offering this amendment. and i urge my colleagues to spart this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from nevada is recognized. mr. heller: yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from nevada. 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 nevada rise? mr. moran: mr. chairman -- mr. chairman. >> amendment 174. the chair: hold on. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: gentleman was on his feet and trying to ask for a

recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been asked for. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada will be postponed. the gentleman from nevada. have you requested your next amendment already? the clerk: amendment number 174 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. heller of nevada. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house on february 17, 2011, the gentleman from nevada, mr. heller, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair -- three minutes, i apologize. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, mr. chairman. yucca mountain as a storage location for the nation's nuclear waste is dead. even the administration understands that transporting the nuclear waste to a state with no nuclear activity

jeopardizes the security of our nation and it's a bad investment of precious taxpayer dollars. unfortunately, this bill not only tries to keep yucca mountain project in limbo, but seeks to block information regarding viable alternatives as a waste dump. yucca mountain in my district and we have been dealing with this for decades. according to the government accountability office over the past 20 years, the proposed site has suffered from gross mismanagement, faulty science and research, contract mismanagement and questions about safety and design of the site and its impact on its surrounding environment and people. i'm a strong supporter of the need of the responsibility to develop all of our nation's energy resources including nuclear energy. however the key to my position

is the need to be responsible and continued investment in the storage of nuclear waste and yucca mountain does not meet this litmus test. i continue to be disappointed at the house's insistence in re vifing yucca mountain and most recent costs place it at nearly $100 billion. not surprisingly this estimate increases with each passing year. given our current economic climate and serious debt problem, our nation cannot afford to continue with this poorly managed project. congress needs to have a serious discussion about studying reasonable alternatives. if you are concerned about the safety of american citizens and wise stewardship of tax dollars, then join with me to keep this project out of limbo, acknowledge reality and move forward on a responsible solution to our nation's nuclear

waste storage issue. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who claims time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition. frelinghuysen the gentleman's amendment would prohibit funds to yucca mountain and stop the nuclear regulatory application and review process. the house has voted multiple times over the last several years to reject the administration's closure of yucca. the gentleman's amendment would do nothing but support the administration's political manipulations and it will waste over $12 billion of rate pairs' money. at this point, i would like to yield to my ranking member, mr. pastor for 15 seconds. . the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. pastor: i oppose this amendment and wish my colleagues to join me. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas recognized for -- mr. frelinghuysen: 45 seconds. mr. barton: i rise in strong opposition to my good friend mr. heller's amendment. u.s. taxpayers and ratepayers have spent billions of dollars on this project. it is my assumption and opinion the obama administration has acted without authority to close it down. they certainly acted outside the confines of nuclear waste act of 1982. i support the opposition of my good friend from new jersey and would urge a strong no vote on this amendment and i thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. i yield back. mr. frelinghuysen: to recognize mr. hastings for 45 minutes. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i understand why my good friend

from nevada is offering this. he's representing what he thinks is right for his constituents and i commend him for that. but the fact of the matter this is the law of the country. this is the repository, period. yet the department of energy, in my view, has been operating outside the law the last year. ratepayers already spent $10 billion on this. if we terminate this site we'll have other liabilities. in fact there are other contractual lablets of $2 billion that have been let already. plus the expense if we have to find another repository will cost taxpayers further billions of dollars. i understand why the gentleman is doing this. i think he is incorrect but urge members vote against his amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey has one minute remaining. mr. frelinghuysen: i'd like to let mr. sliss loss kid -- mr.

visloski take the rest of my time. mr. visloski. i will insert my comments in the record. i however believe this is a misguided amendment and yield the remainder of my time and insert my statement in the record. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. vislosky jimbings there is an appeal taking place before the nuclear regulatory commission and a number of states have filed and will be in court this spring. this is not an issue we should be deciding tonight. i'm strongly opposed to the amendment and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey actually has 30 seconds remaining. mr. frelinghuysen: i urge people to vote against mr. heller's amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from nevada.

mr. heller: i yield back. mr. dibs: mr. chairman? the chair: for what purpose does -- mr. dicks: i strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i completely agree with my friend from washington state, mr. hastings, the chairman of the natural resources committee, that this violates the law of the land. and there is no scientific basis for what is happening here. we have submarines and nuclear power carriers that are offloading waste in birmington, washington, that go to idaho that are supposed to go to yucca mountain. and we made a commitment to the people of idaho we would move that waste out of here in the 2025 time frame. now, this is -- this project is being stopped without -- i was here when we passed the law, and this is being stopped without congress changing the law. and i think it's a travesty,

and we're wasting billions of dollars. we should go ahead and finish this project and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. does anyone stand up? the amendment is not agreed to. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from south dakota rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 563. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 563 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. noem of south dakota. the chair: the gentlelady from south dakota, ms. noem and a

member opposed controls three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from south dakota. ms. noem: i'm concerned about an e.p.a. rule on the national primary and secondary ambiem air quality standard that would make the standard of the coarse particulate matter in the air more stringent. last summer the e.p.a. laid the groundwork to regulate dust at an unprecedented level. we must stop the e.p.a. from any further regulation of farm dust. anyone who has driven a combine through a field or pickup down a gravel road knows that dust is a part of rural living. potentially fining farmers and livestock producers who practice good management with new dust regulations would be excessive and extremely detrimental to our nation's vital agricultural industries. mr. chair, it's hard to think of something more emblematic of washington's regulatory overreach than the potential punishment of farmers and

livestock producers for kicking up a little dust. expanding the coarse particulate matter standard on dust would be a burdensome regulation for farmers and ranchers. ndndndmeme would prohibit the e.p.a. from using any of the funds made available under this act to modify the standards for coarse particulate matter under the clean air act. there is enough uncertainty in farming in rural america. we do not need to add to that uncertainty with the threat of more strict e.p.a. regulations on farm dust. farmers are certainly looking for certainty about the future. burdening them with greater regulations on dust is excessive and unreasonable. for this reason, my amendment is supported by the american farm bureau and the national cattleman's beef association. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the

time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, the noem amendment would prevent the e.p.a. from updating standards for dangerous pollution. the clean air act requires e.p.a. revise the limits on this type of harmful pollution when new science tells us it's necessary to protect human health. e.p.a. hasn't changed the standard since 1987. the amendment would tell e.p.a., though, it would require e.p.a. to ignore the science. if new science has emerged in the last 24 years that shows that such pollution is more dangerous than we knew 24 years ago, e.p.a. would have to ignore any new sign terrific findings. this amendment applies to one dangerous pollutant, coarse particles. they're so small they get past the respiratory system's natural defenses and lodge in our lungs. scientific studies linked these parms to a variety of serious

health problems, including increased respiratory symptoms in children and premature death in people with heart and lung disease. why is the majority party so afraid of science? i don't know as much about particulate matter as the scientists at e.p.a., but i don't really think you do, either. it seems to me we ought to defer to the scientists and respect the public's health. e.p.a. is charged with protecting the public health and they're doing a pretty good job and we ought to let them do it. at this point i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentlelady from south dakota. mrs. noem: i'd like to yield one minute of my time to mr. crawford. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. crawford: thank you, like me and my colleagues, i represent a largely rural district. agriculture is the number one industry in the first district of arkansas and farmers there and across the country, i might add, are facing tough economic

challenges like many other businesses today regardless of the product they're engaged in, poultry, cotton, rice, soybeans, whatever. the chief complaint of farmers in my district is the continuous pressure placed on them by the burdens of the e.p.a., now under the auspices of clean air the e.p.a. wants to regulate dust? american farmers produce the safest, cheapest and most abundant food supply on the planet. there are over three million mouths to feed and less than a mill crop farmers engaged in the process of meeting that demand, not to mention global demands growing where by 2050 there will be a population of over nine billion people. for centuries americans led the way in agricultural production and will continue to be the leading producer of commodities as long as farmers aren't being stifled by crippling e.p.a. overreach. the government should lead the way in agricultural production, not hinder them. the regulatory regime must come to realize our food is grown in the dirt and in the process the production of that food, farmers will stir up a little

dust. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. moran: we would close it. does the gentlelady have other speakers? mrs. noem: yes, i do. the chair: the gentlelady has 15 seconds remaining. mrs. noem: i'd like to yield the balance of my time to mr. simpson, the gentleman from idaho. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. simpson: how much? the chair: 15 seconds. mr. simpson: it's a dang good amendment and should pass. the e.p.a. continually claims they want certainty in what they're creating is uncertainty and i can tell you every rancher and farmer in idaho and across this nation is concerned about what the e.p.a. is trying to do with dust regulations and the impact it will have on food

production. pass this amendment regardless of what they say. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. boy, that simpson is good at this. i would yield at this point the remaining 1 1/2 minute to the very distinguished ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: you would think the e.p.a. is about to regulate these fine particulate matter for the very first time. but that's not accurate. pm-10 has already regulated because e.p.a. had a set to set a standard to protect the public health because this small particulates can get into your lungs and cause increased respiratory symptoms in children, premature death with people with heart and lung disease. so e.p.a. sets a standard to protect the public health. what this amendment would do

would be to stop e.p.a. from setting a standard that might be tighter if the science dictates it. now, once they set a standard, e.p.a. does not regulate. e.p.a. leaves it to the states to decide how they will meet that standard. the e.p.a. is already talking to the stakeholders in the agricultural communities. usually they don't have the -- they don't get -- in the past vast majority of states have not required farms to take any action that require reductions of this pollution. instead states have typically reduced particles from industrial processes. california and arizona are addressing agricultural pollution by incorporating usda approved conservation measures in some areas. but the e.p.a. does not target monitoring in rural areas.

they are reaching out to the stakeholders. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from south dakota. as many as are in favor big signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from south dakota will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 430 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. pitts of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and a member opposed will each control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a simple, straightforward amendment. this amendment prevents funds

from being used by the department of health and human services to implement rules regarding obamacare's essential benefits pack imming. as if obamacare's mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance wasn't enough, the law went one step further. the federal government will now tell every single american and business what their health plan must cover. . obamacare grants this unprecedented power to a single person. gives the power to the secretary of health and human services to determine which benefits affect every man, woman and child in america, not to mention the more benefits that h.h.s. determines to be essential, the higher the premiums will be for coverage, thus increasing overall costs for small businesses and families across america. behind me is a chart of all the

new powers granted to the secretary under obamacare. it was meant to be printed on a five foot by 10 foot chart. even at this size, it's difficult to ride. if you have a magnifying glass, you can read this. obamacare has 2,000 of the secretary shall statements. the new powers of the secretary are systemic of the virginias control that in many cases you supers authority and this bureaucracy at its finest and it is most destructive. the ability to define minimum benefits is one of many of the new powers but one of the pivotal ones and why we have pointed out that this is a

government takeover. americans are capable of deciding which best fits their needs not a government bureaucrat. the federal government shouldn't tell mormons in utah they need to buy coverage for alcohol counseling but the secretary is in a position to do just that and many other ridiculous examples like this. form h.h.s. perfectly describes the outcome of obamacare and said quote, it puts more power into the hands of one person and not an answer to a national health care crisis. there is too much power in one office. i urge the house to adopt my amendment and stop the personal takeover of personal health care decisions. i yield back snf time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise?

ms. delauro: i claim time in opposition. i rise in opposition. i think i'm in the movie "groundhog day" how many times do we have to vote to defund the affordable health care act in one day? this will stop essential benefits. these rules will ensure that a minimum level of quality health coverage will be covered by plans available on the exchanges. we are talking about benefits related to things like hospitalization, emergency services, maternity care, new born care, mental health care. this ensures that every plan on the exchange meets minimum standards. it protects individuals and small businesses. it allows them to pick out their plan with the confidence that they will be able to get the adequate kinds of coverage that they need. why, why does the majority want

to stand between consumers and the information that they need. i urge my colleagues to please oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: i would advise the gentlelady from connecticut that the time of pennsylvania has been yielded back. ms. delauro: how much time is remaining? the chair: 1 minute and 45 seconds. ms. delauro: i yield to mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute and 45 seconds. mr. pallone: the problem for the american consumer is that the insurance company gouges them with high premiums and gives them lousy benefits. all we have been trying to do in the health care reform is make it possible for the consumer to get an affordable policy and have a decent benefit package

and i don't know why the republicans don't want that to happen, get affordable insurance and decent benefits. people expect that their policy is going to provide emergency care, prescription drugs and oftentimes it doesn't provide these things. there should be an essential benefit package. if you are a big corporation you can get that package for employees but if you are a small business or individual, you can't do it. so all we're doing is trying to level the playing field so that the level guy can get the good benefit package and insurance like the big corporation. i don't understand why our republican friends would not want that to happen. and it's just practical, a practical solution here. if you pass this amendment, then we will go back to the same thing again where the average

american can't get the good policy. it's not fair. it's an issue of fairness, so oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. delauro: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from delaware rise? >> amendment 241. the clerk: amendment 241 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. carney of delaware. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 18, 2011, the gentleman from delaware, mr. carney, and a member opposed will each control three minutes.

mr. carnahan: it would -- -- mr. carney: my amendment would fund and this cut which the president proposed in his budget would save the taxpayers money and end an unnecessary subsidy to the oil and gas industry. i'm proposing elimination of this r&d program because the research is being done and should be done by the industry itself. don't take my word for it, the industry itself is doing the job and says so. there is an ad on today's edition on the back of "the hill" newspaper placed by the oil and natural gas industry. they said they are investing hundreds of billions dollars in innovative technology and capital projects. we should be using our scares

federal dollars on clean energy innovation that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save jobs. this continuing resolution would cut over $2 billion in renewable energy research and development. at a time when we are looking to cut unnecessary spending, the oil and gas program should be on the chopping block as well. the oil and gas industry has a.m. will resources to develop these technologies without the federal subsidy. a recent g.a.o. report found it spends $2 billion annually on r&d. this cut for the oil and gas industry is the right way to cut spending and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment. and i reserve my time. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition.

the amendment is a heavy-handed approach to shut down important programs. fossil energy forces sources of supply more than 80% of our total energy. using these more efficiently and clearly in developing technology can access new domestic sources are extremely important when so much of our energy depends on fossil fuels. this amendment would stop programs that do just that. it would prevent work like the development of ultraclean fuels. there may be areas of research where the private sector does not need help but other areas of research that are too risky nor industry to take on. i'm opposed to the amendment and i yield to mr. pastor for any comments he may wish to make. mr. pastor: i rise to oppose the amendment. the amendment prohibits funds being used for oil and gas research. the department of energy would

spend $38 million during the year. fossil fuel sources are and will continue to be a large part of our energy mix. given the importance, research and development in this necessary is necessary to improve the efficiency and environmental costs of fossil fuels. further, stopping programs mid-year results in costs associated with terminating ongoing work. i'm committed to working with the gentleman to review the balance of funding and as we move forward, but i cannot support the amendment at this time and i yield back to my chairman. >> i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from delaware. mr. carney: the industry itself is doing this research and development and should do it without a federal subsidy. i mentioned the full-page ad in today's edition of "the hill" newspaper says they are doing

this. we shouldn't do this on an industry that is mature and profitable. we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and instead, we are cutting $2 billion at a research and development for new energy sources. i don't object to research and development going on for traditional oil and gas industry, but the industry itself ought to be doing that research. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from delaware. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. carney: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, amendment offered by the gentleman from delaware will be postponed. >> i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 164 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney and member opposed will each control three minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i understand the historic nature of what has been hearing than. but i rise because the debt and deficit problems facing are greater in this nation. the circumstances demand that we go just a little bit further than we have. nondefense discretionary spending. instead of 2008. that represents an additional 3% savings which on one hand doesn't sound like that much but on the other hand, saves $134

billion of the $900 billion worth of deficits that we will incur between tomorrow and the rest of this year. folks have asked me why i waited three years to do it and why we are here at 1:00 to hear this amendment and i'm doing it because i feel most of the folks don't grasp the size of the difficulty and i know most of the folks don't grasp it yet and i have been struggling how to explain what a $1,trillion debt. we put this together using numbers from the baseline and this number shows when we will use 100% of our revenues, 100% of our revenues to pay our debt. and that number using the c.b.o. estimates is in 2055. this is the equivalent of going back to your family saying

everything we make will go to pay down the minimum payment on our credit card and this number is probably too late. the estimates on interest are much lower than what we are experiencing in the market these days. the scary part is if we don't do anything, the scary part is if we don't business as usual, this will happen. this will happen unless we make dramatic changes to the way we do business. i heard the gentleman from virginia earlier today, mr. moran he thought h.r. 1 was an economic death spiral. this is an economic death spiral and no coming back where you use all of your money to pay your debt. we will begin work on this this year in the budget and we will work on this as we go through the debt ceiling debate and with everything that we do, we can start tonight by approving this amendment and i reserve the

remainder of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington i rise? mr. dicks: take time in opposition to the amendment. to take cuts back to the 2006 level would be -- for defense, homeland security and veterans affair would do enormous damage to the country. i mean, we would be talking about 65, 70 billion in defense, homeland security and v.a. would be very substantial as well. and i just think of the v.a. health care benefits that were increased by this -- by our members of congress working on a bipartisan basis, our former colleague chet edwards, we increased health care to take care of the problems associated with the veterans coming back

and needing post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, needing all kinds of help. we have thousands of veterans today who are homeless. so taking these levels back to 2006, in my judgment, would do devastation to this part of the budget. so i urge a no vote on this amendment and i reserve my time. . the chair: the gentleman serve reserves his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: this amendment does not take homeland security or v.a. to 2008 levels, only nondefense discretionary spending. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i would yield to the gentleman just to say we have a different description of your amendment. i regret there were some

inaccuracies. but even for the rest of the government, i think the amendment going back to 2006 is too severe. and as the chairman would say it's an across the board cut, give the authorityo o.m.b. i'm with hall rogers, it's not a good idea. let's defeat the apartment. -- defeat the amendment. the chair: all time has been yielded back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman, request for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina 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 377 by mr. flake of arizona, amendment number 166 by mr. guinta of new hampshire, amendment number 445 by mr. hall of texas. amendment 141 by mr. lee of california, amendment 109 of mr. griffith of virginia, amendment 548 by mr. jones of north carolina, amendment 47 by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri, amendment 149 by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri, amendment 569 by mr. issa of california, amendment 94 of mr. sullivan of oklahoma, amendment number 216 of mr. mckinley of west virginia, amendment number 217 by mr. mckinley of west virginia, amendment 545 by mr. pompeo of kansas, amendment 200 by mr. burgess of texas, amendment 482 by mr. heller of nevada, amendment 563 by mrs. noem of south dakota, amendment 430 by mr. pitts of pennsylvania, amendment 241 by mr. carney of delaware, amendment 164 by mr. mulvaney

of south carolina. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first series of votes. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 377 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, in which the proceedings wedings were po and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 377 printed in the congress am cord offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be cnted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded te 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. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 261 and nays are 158. the unfinished is recorded vote on amendment number 166 offered by the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. ginta in which

further proceedings were postpod. the clerk: amendment number 166 inted in the congressional record offered by mr. ginta of new hampshire. the chair: a recorded has been requested. 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 prohibit by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the vote is 210 four and 210 against. the amendment not agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment 445 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. hall on which further proceedings were postponed and in which the yeas preveiled by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 495 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. hall of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of thquest for a recorded vote will rise

and be counted. a sufficientumber 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 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 233 and nays 187. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 141 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlelady from california, ms. lee, in which

further proceedings were postponed and in which the noes preveiled by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 141 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: a's 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 twom. -- this is a two-minute vote. [captioning ma 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 ve the yeas are 76, the nays 344, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment 109 printed in the

congressional record offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith, in which further proceedings were postponed and in why the ayes preveiled by voice vote. the clk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 109 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. griffith of virginia. quhoip a recorded vote is 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 unitestates house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 235. 184.

on this vote the yeas are 235, the nays are 185. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 548 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, on which further proceedings were postponed and in which the noes preveiled by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 548 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. jones of north carolina. 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 devi. 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 represtatives.]

the chair: on this vote the

yeas are 259, the nays 189the seament not agreed to. the unfinished businesis a request for a vote on amendment 147 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from missouri mr. luetkemeyer on which further proceedings were postponed and thnoes preveiled on voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 147 fered by mr. luetkemeyer of mod. 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.

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 245 and nays 176.

the unfinished business is recorded vote on amendment 149 offered by mr. luetkemeyer in which proceedingser postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 149 printed in the congressional record. the chair: a recorded vote was requested. 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 othe 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 -- on this vote, the yeas are 244, the nays are 179, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is

request for a recorded vote on amendment number 569 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. issa, on which further proceedings were postponed and nays were prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 569 offered by mr. issa of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in fav, 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 191, the nays are 230 and the amendment is not agreed to.

unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on number 194, offered by mr. sullivan on which the further proceedings were postponed and yeas prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 94 presented by mr. sullivan of oklahoma. the chair: a recorded vote was requested. a sufficie 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

the chai on this vote, the yeas are 285 and the nays are 136, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on

amendment number 216 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from west virginia, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 216 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes electronic device. . this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning instite, 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 240 and the nays are 182 and the amendment is agreed to. the unfished business is request for recorded vote on amendment 217 printed in the congressional record offered b