been willing to support a war is over there. it seems it we're going through history again. we support one side, and other major power supports another side, and it is constant turmoil. it never seems to say need help. we are basically bankrupt in our country. my grandmother is paying for it, and she could barely afford her medicine. basically, the whole statement basically, the whole statement comes down to -- if we are going to more or less higher ourselves how to control one side of the country, is there any way we should be seeking retribution? host: stephanie sanok, it is a common phrase you heard -- here used -- a friend of my

friend is a friend, and a friend of my enemy is an enemy, but in these cases those alliances are constantly shifting. how does the new leon panetta pentagon deal with this differently than the dates pentagon? the guest: i think we have seen the first indication. secretary leon panetta went to iraq and afghanistan. he did not go to pakistan. i take that as a strong message. it is easy when you're in that region to attack on an extra couple of days for an important ally. i think that cross the minds of everyone who planned the trip. it was clearly a conscious decision not to go to pakistan. i think that is in part because when osama bin laden was killed on may 2 there was a list of

things that we would ask the pakistan's to do, the pakistani to do, and i have not acted on any of them. this administration also put a hold on a $10 million in assistance. a great way to resolve that is sending the defense secretary to talk to folks about what is going on, but he did not. you are seeing already how differently the pentagon will treat allies in the region. "the in this morning's financial times" they had this headline -- guest: the withdrawal deadline is aggressive. they're talking about getting half of the troops out during the prime fighting season. they do not fight as much during the wintertime. we are starting to withdraw

troops during a tumultuous situation. the fact that president karzai's half-brother was killed, leaves the leadership in a tumultuous situation. when you hear about the intense fight in afghanistan, a lot of it is happening in the south and east. this is another bad news story. host: for myers, florida, barbara, on our line for democrats. caller: what plans do we have for the soldiers when they are returning? there are no jobs, and there is a need for additional services, and i have not heard a plan for that. guest: that is a very good point. as i mentioned earlier, the price tag for in engaging in a war is not just eight today at a

price tag. continues out into the future. part of that is what we hold our returning troops when they come back, and that is the most support we can give them and their families. a lot of them can use the gi bill for further education, but the questions that i raised our what about their health? we have heard a lot about disorders. that is adding to the price tag. host: tenn., john, on our line for independents. caller: i have a comment about the secretary of defense. -- the secretary of defense going to iraq. in protest, there was a rocket attack. the people do not want the

military presence there. he was there to encourage the iraqi government to extend military presence, like he did in afghanistan, which prompted an increase of attacks against military bases there in protest of his visit. and, before i leave, i would like to make a comment about the financial terrorist attack on the united states economy. look to iceland for the way out. iceland is the only country that is billing itself all very quickly. guest: i have a comment about a rocket attack in the green zone. anytime a high-ranking u.s. official visits there are attacks. it is too easy to say it is because the iraqi people do not want it. it is because a certain kind of

iraqi person does not want that .ignitary their parenre the green zone in baghdad has been hit with rocket attacks every day for the last little while, not just because secretary leon panetta was there. i avoid making a direct correlation. host: talk about your experience working in an embassy in baghdad, especially when folks come over. how much lead time you get before the helicopter lands in the green zone? gee, i am positive the ambassador -- far more lead time than someone like me, i would say they get a least a week. as an embassy staffer, i would not find data until a couple of days before hand. to go back to the rocket attacks, i started going to iraq

in 2005. i would go on high-level visits for one day or two at the time, and we would always come under rocket attack. i was in iraq six or seven times in 2007 alone. i'm most very end december, 2008, in terms of -- with my eyes open in terms of what they meant in terms of danger. in 13 months, we saw a lot of rocket attacks, some of which hit the embassy compound. i just want to add that there are brave men and women that served in iraq and afghanistan, not just military folks, but civilians. host: is there any time frame with regard to the visits? if the defense secretary is there at noon, do we know that at 4:00, we will start getting rocket attacks? haphazard.it is

they are classified until the trip is over. he did not know where the dignitary will be, so that if the itinerary leaks, and he would not want you stink. i think you suck. host: we will leave it there. last words on u.s. policy in afghanistan and iraq? guest: i think our troops have given their absolute best in both countries. we are on a path to leave afghanistan by 2014, as the president laid off. i would argue the bulk of that with a drawl occurring during the fighting season might be something they should reconsider. i would encourage the iraqi government that if they think they need troops to stay beyond

december 31, those negotiations should start now [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> u.s. house should be coming back in in 15 minutes and vote on amendments that limits the e.p.a.'s water quality standards. more live house coverage. a number of hearings on capitol hill today. during one of them, congressman sander levin said that the fight over raising the country's debt limit is hurting congress' ability to overhaul the tax code. his remarks came during a joint meeting. going to bring you a portion of congressman levin's remarks and see the entire hearing in our

video library and later here on c-span. >> appreciate our holding the joint hearing. i think there is an opportunity for the ways and means committee and finance committee to work together. many areas, with the tax reform, both individual and corporate. we have been working together. the precedent has been set. i hope that is good precedent for future cooperation, because both -- with us working together it's clear we are more likely to get something accomplished. an author once wrote, debt is like any other trap. easy enough to get into to but hard enough to get out of.

we share a common goal. we believe the tax code should boost american competitiveness and encourage economic growth and job creation. and it should also not encourage households or businesses to take on too much debt that they cannot get out of. today we will examine the taxation and debt and equity. we are confronting a massive debt problem. the year before the cries, the banks leveraged, 40 in assets there is $1 to cover losses. did this create a major role. as we work to emerge from that crisis and seek to understand how our tax code affect private debt and how does it affect stability and growth. does it encourage businesses and households to become overlerged,

provide for risk year tax structures and did it contribute to the crisis? we did not want to encourage households and businesses to incur too much. we want to ensure that businesses can borrow at modest rates because that is an essential step. today's code will be hard to tell what is considered borrowing and what is equity investments. a business can make an infusion of cash can look like either one and some businesses choose to get the best tax treatments. this requires sophisticated tax planning. debt and equity can both be vital tools in today's economy. but as we work to inspire growth, we must make sure our code does not encourage individuals and businesses to put themselves in precarious positions. we deserve a tax system that we understand and benefit from

without an expensive tax planner. let us work together to address these issues and make our code more competitive and fair and find solutions to our nation's pressing problems. given all the debt discussion, mr. chairman, it's my hope as that proceeds in whatever way it does proceed that we in the meanwhile have hearings, extensive hearings on tax reform, individual and corporate , because i think that will provide a good foundation in whatever we do this year or next or perhaps even in 2013. but let's work together and have our separate hearings, joint hearings, but provide a real service to our country. >> thank you and let me yield to the ranking member of the ways and means committee for his opening statement.

>> thank you very much. i think you know this is the first time i have been in this room. there are tv sets here. i want you to know that i think they have been turned off. i notice that fox news, cnn and espn is on these sets, i'm not so sure why. i missed the baseball game last night, but i think we have turned it off. >> yours isn't off. [laughter] >> i pushed it and it says u.s. house guest. no new messages. as you mentioned, mr. camp, this is the first time since 1940 that there has been this kind of a combined meeting on tax issues. and as we know, it's scheduled

and we will discuss certain aspects of the certain tax law relating to debt and equity. but let me make this comment that i deeply feel. because of a uniquely serious challenge facing this nation, action on the debt limit, today would seem most appropriate if we are gathering to discuss this challenge. the issue, the debt limit is squarely within the jurisdiction of our two committees. that does not mean that the specific topic before us is unimportant. indeed, if we are to seriously address tax reform, issues relating to debt and equity must be considered and like other significant issues, done so in depth and with open debate. as our witnesses' prepared testimony very much demonstrates, the subject is complex and answers do not

always automatically fall into usual ideological frame works. but i fear the chances of the discussion at this joint hearing leading to fruitful action have been dimmed i am measurably by the environment created on the overarching action on the debt ceiling. yesterday, senator mcconnell said, and i quote, after years of discussions and months of negotiations, i have little question that as long as this president is in the oval office, a real solution is probably unattainable, end of quote. in my judgment, this approach politicizes and could poison the well for tax reform. and flies in the face of basic facts. president obama inherited a debt that had risen under president bush from $5.7 trillion to $10

trillion and inherited a record of $1.5 trillion deficit that had wiped out the record surplus inherited by president bush. president obama has said very clearly that we need a balanced framework to reduce the deficit now and in the future while allowing for needed investments to promote economic growth and job creation. it is not helpful to walk away from the table. it is not helpful to insist on an ideological agenda that cannot become law. we should hear and review carefully the testimony now to be presented to us by our distinguished and if you've read these documents in advance, very knowledgeable witnesses. but my fear is that any insights that we gain in the process today will be washed away if the debt ceiling is not raised and we suffer the consequences that

would result from destroying the full faith and credit of the united states of america. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i now yield to the ranking member of the senate finance committee, senator hatch for his opening statement. >> thank you for this historic hearing and thank you for the staff for producing this important report on the tax treatment of debt and equity and we appreciate you witnesses as well. tax reform should be on the three principles, fairness, simplicity and economic growth. i'm looking forward to what our witnesses have to say on these three principles as they relate to the tax treatment of debt and equity. allow me to share my initial thoughts, first with respect to individuals and then with respect to corporations on the topic of debt and equity. on the individual side, we can all agree that savings and investment is a good thing and that the savings rate in the

united states has traditionally been low when compared to many other countries. but an income tax system by its nature discourges savings and investment by taxing the returns to such savings and investment. this was an observation made by john stewart mill over 160 years ago. thus the code encourages consumption and even negative savings, end quote, that is debt. our tax system incourages the use of debt rather than equity, as household finance. if a corporation is in need of additional funds, our tax system encourages the corporation to borrow money rather than raising funds by issuing stock and why? because any interest payments on the borrowing are deductible while any dividends paid on the stock are not deductible. many u.s. multinational corporations are sitting on large piles of cash, yet they are borrowing money. one reason is that their cash is

strapped offshore and the corporations will be is subject to a 35% u.s. tax on repay try ating the cash back to the united states. the increasing of debt by households and corporations makes it more vulnerable to the risks of bankruptcy and downturns in the economy. i would like to thank our witnesses for teapeding this historic hearing. thank the two chairmen and all others on these two important committees and i look forward to the comments of our witnesses here today on the tax treatment of debt and equity. again, chairman camp, thank you for this important hearing that you have called on tax reform. i appreciate it. >> and just a reminder, we will show you that later in our schedule. u.s. house gaveling back in for amendment votes. f the union for further consideration of h.r.

2018. will the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2018 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the federal water pollution control act to preserve the authority of each state to make determinations relating to the state's water quality standards and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-144 by the gentleman from missouri, mr. carnahan, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-144 on which further proceedings were

postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 3 by mrs. capito of west virginia. amendment number 5 by mr. polis of colorado. amendment number 6 by mr. connolly of virginia. amendment number 9 by mr. blumenauer of oregon. amendment number 10 by mr. carnahan of missouri. amendment number 1 by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-144 by the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-144 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. 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 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: on this vote, the yeas are 170, the nays are 252.

the amendment is not adopted. the committee will be in order. members, please take their seats. the committee of the whole will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri rise? ms. emerson: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to speak for a minute out of order. the chair: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. emerson: on behalf of congressman wasserman schultz and myself, we are proud to announce that the women's bipartisan congressional softball team beat the washington female press corps in our recent softball game by a score of 5 to 4.

in the spirit of our u.s. women's soccer team won and on their way to the final world cup, we probably aren't in that category, but perhaps this was the world cup. and we are very proud and we want to thank everybody for the great support that you gave to us. i would be remiss if i didn't explain how we won. and that was in the bottom of the 7th inning, because we only played seven innings -- the chair: the house will come to order. ms. emerson: in the bottom of the 7th inning with the score tied 4 to 4. laura richardson and linda sanchez were both walked because the other team were afraid of them hitting and debbie gets up and hits a single and were it not for the fact that linda

sanchez ran around the bases and collided with the catcher and slided into home, we would not have won. thank you, linda sanchez. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: we are so proud of not just our victory and we are really so sorry that our opposition is not in the press gallery to witness this acceptance of the trophy, but the two things we are the most proud of, one, we continue to be the best example of bipartisanship in the capitol, in the united states capitol, and we hope that our friends friendship will extend to the

rest of the legislative process and hopefully we will continue to be that example. we know it carries over to our friendships. and number two, the beneficiary of the congressional women's softball team is an organization that is dedicated so raising awareness and providing assistance to women diagnosed with breast cancer under 40 years old. i was 41 when i was diagnosed with breast cancer and still here to talk about it. thank you. there are only two women, breast cancer survivors in the house of representatives, myself and sue my rick, that is bipartisan -- mireic, and that is bip as well. and we appreciate the comradey and i can't get through this without being emotional. the women came out at 20

different times at 7:00 in the morning to practice for this game. we raised $50,000 for the coalition. and so many of you came out, so many of our staff came out, we had 875 people come out and watch the game and it was a phenomenal success. we will be back next year. the press wants a rematch. they told us so. and we look forward to beating them next year. thank you, mr. speaker. and we yield back the balance of our time. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue, the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-144 by the gentlelady from west virginia, ms. captain toe, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-144

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 268, the nays are 192, the amendment is adopted. the unfin herbed business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment from the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five, printed in house report 112-144, offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 231, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-1414 -- 144, from the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-144 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 181, the nays are 240, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by mr. blumenauer, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. che clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 9, printed in house report 112-149, offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. 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 risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 183, the nays are 237, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in -- printed in house report 112-144 by the gentleman from missouri, mr. con hahn on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 offered by mr. carnahan of missouri. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. members inport of the -- support of the request for the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. two minutes. [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 173 and the nays are -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 173, the nays are 247. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1, printed in house report 112-144 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed. the clerk will redeath the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-144 offered by ms. israel of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 167, the nays are 254. and the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2018 and pursuant to house rule 347, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2018 and pursuant to house resolution 347 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded? if not, question is on the

adoption of the committee -- of the committee aamendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the federal water pollution control act to preserve the authority of each state to make determinations relating to the state's water quality stands and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. please take your conversations from the floor and clear the aisles. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman oppose todd the bill. >> i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. mcnerney moves to recommit the bill with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments. at the end of the bill, add the following, section 6, limitation on applicability, none of the provisions of this act including the amendments shall affect the authority of the administrator of the e.p.a. as in effect on the day before date of enactment of this act with respect to any discharge under the federal water pollution control act. including arsenic or others that are a source for a public drinking water supply. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for five minutes. first, the house will be in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. members will please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcnerney: today, i rise to offer a straightforward and motion to recommit. my amendment is an important proposal that if adopted will allow a vote on final passage to proceed immediately. my motion clarifies that the provisions of h.r. 2018 do not affect our country's ability to limit pollution of drinking water suppliers, including arsenic. communities across america have suffered from arsenic and other contamination -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman deserves to be

heard. the gentleman may continue. mr. mcnerney: a problem well documented with serious consequences. based on information publicly available on government web sites, there are at least 71 congressional districts that would be directionly impacted by my amendment. these 71 districts have local waters that are contaminated with significant amounts of arsenic. i would like to insert into the record to have these toxins and their waters and urge all of my colleagues especially those affected to vote for my amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcnerney: arsenic has been linked to many harmful effects and include bladder, liver, lung and prostate cancers, reproductive and thyroid complications. these health problems have no

party line and affect both democrats and republicans alike. according to the centers for disease control, the effects of the contamination can either be short-lived or linger in the body for a long time. this could be consequential for children. speaker, may i have order? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman may continue. mr. mcnerney: many of us have experienced these conditions or witnessed a loved one going through a serious illness. it's a heartbreaking experience. no matter what our differences on policy matters or legislationr we are debating today and know we should do everything we can to prevent these diseases. our country has made tremendous progress in improving water quality in the decade since the clean water act was passed. mr. speaker, may i have order.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman deserves to be heard. members, please bring your conversations away from the floor. the gentleman may continue. mr. mcnerney: we have doubled the amount of waters that are safe for fishing and swimming since it was passed decades ago. that is a legacy and one we should strive to continue. one of the most basic things we should do is prevent contamination. as written in h.r. 2018, ties our country's hands and makes it difficult to combat contamination of our dinchinging water supplies. 200 million americans rely on public drinking systems. preserving the quality of water is important to the millions of americans who rely on it for the drinking and farmers who rely on it to grow their crops and

businesses that depend on healthy waterways. my amendment is needed to protect the health and well-being of tens of millions of americans. we can have legitimate differences and vigorous debate about the proper roles of state and federal goosts, but we should be -- governments, but we should be united to preserve healthy drinking waters for ourselves and future generations. if my amendment is adopted, a vote on final passage of h.r. 2018 will proceed immediately. the motion to recommit is an important policy proposal and i urge my colleagues to support it. please do the right thing for families and businesses across america and stand up for the health and safety of our drinking water. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense motion to recommit. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: jabbed. for what purpose does the

gentleman from ohio rise? >> request time to speak in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. gibbs: as we have seen this motion is nothing more than a partisan political move. there's been ample time for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to suggest amendments to this bill through regular order. as we've been doing all year, our republican majority is openly considering bills through the committee process in full consideration by the house. this bill is no exception. yet we're here at the last motion that is designed to ensure the e.p.a. can continue to unilaterally force its own, one-size-fits-all policies onto the states' water quality programs. the underlying bill

reestablishes the states' balanced role in carrying out the provisions of the clean water act. but this motion in effect says the underlying bill will not apply virtually anywhere the clean water act applies. implicitly, this motion also says the states cannot be trusted in protecting the quality of their waters and the health of their citizen and the federal government knows best. the fact is, our bill is a result of bipartisan work that will protect against unwarranted intrusions by the u.s. e.p.a. it ensures the consuation of long standing cooperation between the federal government and the states to appropriately address issue regulations. passage of the underlying bill will stop the e.p.a. from repeatedly creating regulatory uncertainty and forcing unnecessary and endless delays and the time to act is now. with that, i urge a no vote on the motion and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

without objection the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the time necessary for any vote on passage. 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 speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 188 and the nays are 238. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. the question is on passage of the bill. under clause -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair ks the ayes have it. the gentleman from new york. >> mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested.

those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-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 yeas are 239 and the nays are 184 and the bill has passed. the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? . ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of house resolution 306. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 337, rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole. will the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house for further consideration of h.r. 2354 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and realitied agencies for the fiscal year september 30, 2012 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee rose, the bill had been read through page 24, line 23.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? frelinghuysen freeming i ask unanimous consent that all -- mr. frelinghuysen: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five days to include extraneous material and i may include material on the same. the chair: the request must be made in the full house. any member -- for what purpose does the gentleman from mon tan

anna rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 57 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. reberg of montana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. i reserve the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. this amendment directs 2.2 million of research development budget to the risk-based data management system. it's a state governmental agency based information system initiative to help states collect and aggregate essential oil, gas and environmental compliance information, local geology data, fresh water data, area production historical data and information provided by companies with permits.

and this is easier, cheaper and environmental compliance for industry and enhanced enforcement. my amendment is supported by state environmental agencies, state regulators, energy industry and many in the environmental community. providing this funding will allow enhanced production. it improves public disclosure of chemicals for data funding for system operators and disclose chemicals used by any state and the amendment strengthens oil and gas by providing funding for reviews for state and environmental programs like stronger. that is an organization that has done comprehensive reviews of state oil and gas industries of administrative and regulatory administrations using a team of three regulators, three

environmental n.g.o.'s and three industry representatives. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, the gentleman from montana, a valued member. his amendment would provide a reasonable amount of funding to continue work on the risk data management system by tracking and disseminating information and make sure that the environment is protected, benefits to which i hope all sides can agree. i support the gentleman's amendment and urge members to do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to my friend's amendment. since we have been debating this bill, we have heard time and an again and must make tough decisions on what we choose to fund. my colleague made a point that we should not be funding activities where an industry can and should be. this program this program -- we can't argue about the merit of this, but as we talk about subsidies, particularly to a profitable industry, oil and gas, we should be consistent. compiling and maintaining a database on oil and gas wells at this level of detail, i do not believe is the proper role of federal government and is likely to be duplicative of what is currently being done in the industry. further, it is my understanding that states and private industry have had a great deal of success fostering the

recovery of oil and natural gas from far ginal wells with similar initiatives. the state and industry initiatives have been successfully driven by an economic need to have pertinent information on hand. given that that process is working on a local and state level, i do not believe we should rush federal government involvement. it seems to be that we should be looking for smaller government wherever possible and this gives us a chance today in opposition to this amendment to do it right. the gentleman makes the assertion that the system has resulted in public disclosure of all chemicals and hydraulic fracturing fluids. texas is arguably one of the largest if not the strongest laws and it is still far from a requirement to disclose all, i quote, chemicals and the data pace in question is

significantly weaker on wyoming's legislation on disclosure. i do reluctantly strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to engage in a preef colloquy with my colleague in new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, about the energy efficiency in buildings as it relates to funding for the energy administration. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.

>> -- ms. schakowsky: i thank the chair. the e.i.a. seeks to reduce energy costs. -- mrs. biggert: i want to commend them for the commercial energy buildings survey, known as cbes. they had a request for $5 million for e.i.a. in 2012, roughly $9 million above the f.y. 2011 levels. unfortunately, they included language i'm concerned about. does the gentleman from new jersey consider the program a priority for e.i.a.? mr. frelinghuysen: will the gentlelady yield? mrs. biggert: i yield. mr. frelinghuysen: i agree it's an important resource for the building sector. it provides an increase for the

energy information administration and with funding available, i expect that an update of the consumer building survey will be funded. mrs. biggert: i thank the chairman. i serve as co-chair of the high performance building caucus with representative carnahan of missouri. many members of the high performance building coalition have come to us to express their concern about an updated program since the data is nearly a decade old. changes have been made since the last one was published in 2003. the updated data is not only valuable to bidding owners looking to make improvements, but also necessary to inform the annual energy outlook that we in congress rely on. finally, i'd like to point out that the building renovation sector relies overwhelmingly on american-made goods for its work and over 90% of the manufacturing of furnaces, insulation and duct work is

here in the united states. so by making this data available to commercial buildings through sbes, we are directly supporting american jobs. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> mr. chairman, to engage in a colloquy with the gentlelady from illinois. the chair: the gentleman strikes the last word and is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to -- i thank the gentlelady for her remarks and want to engage in a colloquy with mr. visclosky. mr. visclosky: does the gentleman yield? mr. carnahan: yes.

mr. visclosky: i agree we understand the importance of this. the data is essential not just for programs to reduce energy use like energy star for buildings and d.o.e.'s building technologies program, but for private sector efforts like the u.s. green building council's lead rating system as well. mr. carnahan: as you know, the committee report language states that the energy department is directed to fund all data collection, releases and reports on oil, natural gas, electricity, renewables and coal. all previously funded international energy statistics and all ongoing energy analysis efforts before allocating funding to the energy consumption surveys. unfortunately, this language effectively excludes funding for the commercial buildings energy consumption survey, also known as cbecs. this is one of the few tools we have to provide a

comprehensives look at how buildings as diverse as supermarkets and senior centers use energy. i want to thank the ranking member, i want to thank the chairman, i want to thank my co-chair of the high performance building caucus, mrs. biggert, for their engagement on this issue. this in fact, there was a -- there is broad private sector support for continuing cbecs and at this point, i would like to submit for the record two letters submitted by private stake holders to the appropriations committee in support of cbecs and i just want to read one sentence from a letter that i'll be submitting for the record that says, if funding is not provided, work on the 2011 cbecs data will likely not continue and the government and industry will be forced to rely on data that's nearly a decade old, resulting in potential missed opportunities to

increase building efficiency. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's request must be made in the full house. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to commend chairman frelinghuysen and the community for their efforts in developing legislation intended to streamline processes and increase efficiency within the department of energy. throughout this legislation, we can see intelligent savings that will result in less spending and more efficient use of tax dollars.

however, i'm concerned that this legislation as written and reported will have the unintended consequence of destroying the national energy technology laboratories' ability to manage approximately $19 billion in contracts and conduct the necessary research and development to advance safe, natural gas drilling, clean coal technologies, and energy independence. i shared my concerns with chairman frelinghuysen and the ranking member, mr. visclosky in a bipartisan letter signed by my colleague mike doyle, timur fi and mark kris. -- mark chris. we continue to rely on other countries for -- coal for our electricity. it is used to create

electricity in 48 of the 50 states. however, without any research into clean coal technology, hundreds of thousands of squobs across america are -- of jobs across america are in jeopardy. the fossil fuel r&d program being cut in this bill is unique among d.o.e. program because the program direction account includes funding for the operations, maintenance and administration of the national energy technology lab. along with salaries and benefits for all the federal researchers who work there. it's the only government-owned, government operated national laboratory. o.m.b. requires that all federal costs be included in the program direction account. this amendment would restore the funding cut to the fossil energy research and programs -- program direction account in an effort to recognize the

outstanding work being done by nhel and the unique manner in which the laboratory is funded and maintained. these projects are in every state and almost every congressional district in the country. virtually every one of my colleagues has a vested interest in this laboratory being funded sufficiently and effectively so that we can complete these projects. mr. chairman, i yield back -- yield back my time. -- to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank you. your amendment would shift $35 million into the program for research and development. i recognize the important role the fossil energy research plays in securing our energy future especially when 70% of our energy comes from fossil

sources. i certainly recognize your strong advocacy as a gentleman from west virginia and the important role of fossil fuels that your state plays, providing such for the nation. i also recognize the critical role of scientists and their research at our national laboratories including the one in your state, play in keeping our nation in the lead in fossil technologies. our bill demonstrates this support by funding fossil energy research and development at $32 million above fiscal year to 2011 level. the bill will also, however, increase the transparency of these programs out of the program direction and into research programs. with that change included, the department of energy has the authority to fund laboratory personnel doing valuable work at the national labs. however, recognizing my colleague's concerns, i would be happy, we would be happy, to

work with the gentleman as we move forward -- toward conference to ensure that salaries are fully funded while increasing the transparent soif ongoing research. with that, i yield back. mr. mckinley: thank you. i appreciate the chairman's remarks. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the gentleman yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 25, line 1, naval petroleum and oil shale reserves. $9,929,000. strategic petroleum reserves, s.c.r. petroleum accounts, $500 million.

northeast home heating oil reserve, $10,119,000. energy information administration, $105 million. nondefense environmental cleanup, $213,121,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, mr. speaker. number 39. the chair: the gentleman will send his amendment to the desk.

choipt clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: after the dollar amount insert increase by $10 million. page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. matheson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in the report language from the committee report for this bill the appropriations committee included some language talking about concern about the lack of remediation activity taking place around the country at various department-sponsored facilities and small sites under the responsibility of the department and this is in terms of environmental cleanup for nondefense sites. i share that concern. and the committee report language talks about having the department not later than

november 15 of 2011 giving a detailed plan on remediating these small sites. here's the issue. when you've got some smaller sites that need to be cleaned up, you've got your management infrastructure in place, we're spending money each year to maintain the management structure, but if you don't spend the money to do the cleanup, you just extend the life cycle of this project out year after year after year. i think if we focus on these projects and get them done by investing the funds to clean them up quickly, it's actually from a life strikele basis better off for -- cycle basis better off for taxpayers. this is a tough bill to find pay for. i applaud the fact that we looked at reduce spending in this bill, but my suggestion is a modest increase in the nondefense environmental cleanup account of $10 million which will bring the funding level to what it was in the last fiscal year, that is paid for by reducing by $10 million the national nuclear safetied a -- national nuclear security administration's weapons

security account which had been plused up $185 million in this bill. there are a few of these sites around the country that are smaller, there are some sites that are larger. i'm not directing where this money goes, i'm just trying to put money into the nondefense environmental cleanup account hoping that since the committee indicated in its report language it wants the smaller sites to move on a faster basis, that this fnding could help assist in that -- funding could help assist in that effort. in my opinion this is in the taxpayer interest to do this. there are sites around the country, there happens to be one in my congressional district in utah, it's a facility where the department of defense -- department of energy has been cleaning up a radioactive pile that's on the banks of the colorado river, it's a pile where the environmental impact statement indicated that in the long-term it is a near certainty that this pile would be flooded and flushed down the river. there are about 25 million users of this waters downstream and there's been ongoing bipartisan agreement in the house of representatives for years about the cleanup of this site.

and this is just one and i think there are others that also are meritorious as well. again, my amendment cannot direct this one particular site or not but i'm suggesting that increasing funding by $10 million to bring the nondefense environmental cleanup account up to last year's level is a good thing to do, that's the purpose of the amendment and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve time but -- the gentleman yields back. mr. matheson: i yield back, yes. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the gentleman from utah's amendment but i salute his advocacy and passion for his purpose for being here this evening. this amendment seeks to funnel off defense funding that is needed for the modernization of

our nuclear infrastructure. with nearly $500 million -- with a nearly $500 million reduction to the request for weapon activities this bill already takes opportunities to find savings with the account. right now this bill provides for our defense requirements and is well balanced. further reductions would unacceptably impact the ability to meet the goals of modernization and to support the nuclear security strategy set forth in the 2010 nuclear posture review. this bill takes a consistent approach to funding for environmental cleanup, providing a slightly lower but sustainable and stable funding stream to continue work at all the cleanup sites. it is not responsible to increase this account above what was requested for these activities, particularly at the expense of important national defense programs. i urge my colleagues to make defense a priority and devote --

and to vote no on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. frelinghuysen: i request a recorded vote please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of lule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the gentleman and wanted to ask my friend from new jersey to engage in a colloquy. mr. kingston: and the purpose of it is to talk about a nuclear prototype. as you know and as the ranking member knows and the full committee ranking member, mr. dicks, knows that the ohio class nuclear submarine is a critical component of our country's

national security and is 1/3 of our nuclear deterrent, along with bombers and nuclear missiles. these critical systems are aging and are close to the end of their life cycle. as part of the ohio replacement or ssbnx program, we are looking as expanding the nuclear core so that the future nuclear ballistic submarines can have a core life expectancy of 40 years over 20 years. and i yield to the gentleman. mr. dicks: -- mr. frelinghuysen: if the gentleman would yield, thank you. i thank the gentleman from georgia for engaminging this opportunity to calm attention to the strong support -- call attention to the strong support this bill provides for the office of nuclear reactors which reflects bipartisan priorities. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman and want to point out that the ohio replacement nuclear reactor development program was identified specifically by line item within

the naval reactor section and allocated a full $121.3 million specifically for the reactor program. this was done to ensure that the program be fully funded to the requirement amount without delay for n.y. 2012. i want to just get assurance of the support of the committee for this program and would like to yield to you about the committee's position on it. mr. frelinghuysen: i would like to join -- if the gentleman would yield, i would like to join with my friends in support of this program and in doing so we will be providing 100% clarification to this body and all agencies. the ssbnx development program within naval reactors and the

department of energy along with associated programs directly related to the ohio replacement program are indeed fully funded to their requirement within this legislation. these funds have been allocated for a specified purpose. the development of a nuclear reactor prototype and all associated programs. mr. kingston: i thank the chairman for that and just to be abundantly sure, in order to ensure that there's no confusion within the department of energy and naval reactors, is it true that the prototype development for this new and complicated reactor system is fully funded to the required request? mr. frelinghuysen: if the gentleman would yield. mr. kingston: i certainly will yield. mr. frelinghuysen: yes, the level for naval reactors includes $121.3 million to develop a new reactor to design for the ohio replacement and $99.5 million to refuel a prototype reactor in upstate new york that is associated with the

development of the ohio replacement. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman then and then i am hearing that the subcommittee has fulfilled the body's intent to ensure all funding lines related to this, they are allocated to the required amount and i thank the gentleman for your support and for mr. culberson's support and mr. dicks' support. and mr. visclosky's support as well. and with that i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. reid of new york, page 27, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $41 million. page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $21 million. page 35, line 15, after the second dollar amount insert, reduce by $20 million.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. reed: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of an amendment that i asked my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and that which mr. higgins from the other side of the aisle has joined me on this amendment but all due respect to the chairman of the appropriations committee, the subcommittee chairman, i believe this amendment is wise, it is an appropriate amendment and that is because what we are talking about here with my proposed amendment is taking $41 million in funding to nondefense environmental cleanup, to take that money from multiple administrative accounts and utilize the money for in the field cleanup activity for sites such as that which exist in my district, known as the west valley nuclear demonstration project in western new york. my hope is that by doing this amendment we will stop money from being funneled more into the d.c. bureaucracy but rather be funneled and put out into the field and into the nuclear waste

sites so that the sites can be remediated once and for all. the department of energy estimates that by making the investment now in nuclear site remediation we will save our nation hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming decades. if properly funded the department of energy can complete phase one of the west valley project in my congressional district by 2020. this alone is estimated to save taxpayers $120 million. for all of these reasons i would ask both sides of the aisle to join us in our amendment and support this amendment, allocating administrative costs -- dollars that are targeted to go to enhanced bureaucracy in washington, d.c., and have those dollars deployed into our districts that would qualify for nuclear waste cleanup remediation projects under this line. so that those nuclear waste sites are cleaned up once and for all and we can get a bigger bang for the buck in these nuclear waste sites that need to be cleaned up. for that i would ask that both parties and both sides of the

aisle support our amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank my colleague and friend, mr. reed, and, mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of this amendment which would provide an adequate level of funding for the cleanup program. the nondefense environmental cleanup program dress drass -- addresses the environmental legacy of former programs at sites across the country. a large quantity of hazardous and radioactive wastes and contamination that remains is one of our nation's largest environmental liability it's. the department of energy has an obligation to clean up this waste and protect communities against risk to human health, safety and the environment and congress has an obligation to fund the program in a sufficient level, to clean up these sites thoroughly and expeditiously. however, quite simply, the amount of money appropriated in

this bill is insufficient to do so. mr. chairman, continuing to underfund the cleanup of these nuclear sites will delay and extend project schedules, cause communities -- commitments to state and local governments to be missed and increase the overall cost in the long run. in my community of western new york, the west valley site was established in the 1960's in response to a federal call for efforts to commercialize the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from power reactors. the site ceased operation in 1972 and 600,000 gallons of hard level radioactive waste was left behind, posing a significant and enduring hazard. the land is highly erodible and contains streams that drain into lake erie. we have already seen a leak on the site level into a migrating plume of radioactive groundwater. the consequences would be environmentally and economically dire if this radio act of waste makes its way into the great

lakes, the largest source of freshwater in the world with 20% of the fresh water supply on earth -- freshwater supply on earth. progress in cleaning up the waste at west valley has been stimied by perennial funding shortfalls. the insufficient funding in this bill will extend the first phase of the cleanup from 10 years to 14 years. with maintenance costs at $30 million a year, an additional 40 years means $120 million in federal funding will be wasted which could be avoided if we properly funded this cleanup. mr. chairman, we cannot jeopardize the irreplaceable natural resources, the great lakes, the communities and resources near the other nuclear sites across the country by continuing to underfund this important cleanup program. congress needs to maintain its commitment to clean up these sites and take proper steps to ensure the communities and our environment remain safe for future generations. i am proud to work with my friend and colleague, mr. reed, on this important issue and i urge support for this bipartisan amendment and i yield back the

balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment but i recognize the strong advocacy of the gentlemen who just spoke, the gentleman from buffalo and the gentleman from corning. our bill provides $9 million for nondefense environmental cleanup, only $6 million below the request. the total funding requirements of this account have come down as cleanup milestones have been accelerated ahead of schedule because of the large infusion of funding from the recovery act. this amendment goes beyond the base funding needs and attempts to sustain the higher rate of cleanup under the recovery act and understandably, they'd like

to continue that. we know that the levels of spending in the recovery act cannot be sustained. we must transition these sites to a lower, stable, more sustainable level as the recovery act work is completed and those dollars are left. further, this seeks to decrease funding for our national security activities. this bill provides strong support for the nuclear security activities at the nnfa. it will take a skilled and talented work force to successfully carry out these challenging and vital activities. l.a. year's lower level never administration assumed that nnfa would use $20 million in prior year balances to help pay its personnel costs for the queer. these balances are now used up an funding must return to the base level requirements of $420 million.

this cut would result in layoffs, which would make it jeopardize nnfa's ability to carry out its nuclear security responsibilities. i urge my colleagues to join me and vote no on this amendment. i yield back. i would be happy to yield to the ranking member. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding and join in his opposition to the amendment reluctantly, as the chairman indicated. mr. visclosky: i understand the concern of the two gentlemen who offered the amendment regarding cleanup in the state of new york and elsewhere and do share their concerns. we are not adequately -- their concerns that we are not adequately investing in cleaning up neighborhoods and communities, but i also point out that given the constraints faced by the committee, i believe the chairman has made wise choices, the best he could, relative to the spreading of resources and join in his opposition to the

amendment. obviously, we would like to continue to work together to see that adequate funding at some point is provided for these and other programs. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. hastings: i'd like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. mr. chairman, the office of river protection was created to put a focus on the $53 -- on the 53 million gallons of waste

in the 177 underground tanks in my district in washington. these wastes are being retrieve fled tanks and being prepared for the waste treatment plants where they'll be ultimately sent to yucca mountain. for years, domplet e. was clear that a stable funding level would allow for the successful completion and hard start of w.t.p. department -- the department has chamed its mind and would prefer to front load funding. i have been clear that even without increasing the total project costs, spending in excess of $600 -- of $690 million at the waste treatment plant now will have a limit on funds available for other projects. the waste treatment plant is dependent on two elements aside from its own budget. the robust tank farms to get the waste ready and second,

yucca mountain. i appreciate the provisions in this bill to help halt the administration's illegal shutdown of yucca mountain and ask that you work with me to ensure the correct balance of funding is provided when it comes to the waste treatment plant and the tank farms. i yield to the chairman. mr. frelinghuysen -- mr. frelinghuysen: it's been a pleasure to work with you and see the cleanup in your state and the enormity of the problems you're trying to address. overall we've seen some considerably poor planning for the department of energy's cleanup activities, including the very politically motivated termination of the yucca mountain project. my colleague understands his constituents well and how these issues impact the overall plan to clean up hanniford's tank waste, which is considerable. i support his leadership, salute his leadership as we

move into conference, i will work with you, i promise to do that, to achieve the appropriate balance between the waste treatment plant an the tank farm so these projects are properly coordinated. i yield back to you. mr. hastings: i thank the chairman, reclaiming my time. i appreciate his have iting the area and appreciate the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for have iting the area, and of course the ranking member of the full committee, who has had a great deal of interest prior to my even coming to congress on this issue. i appreciate the work that the committee has done in the past. because this is something that has -- a project that has legal requirements and in these difficult times, i'm pleased with the work you have done. i thank you and mr. chairman, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 27, line 11, uranium enrichment decontamination and decommission funding, $449

million. science, $4,800,000,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 65 pinted in the congressional record offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: mr. chairman, this bill, h.r. 235 , reduces the -- 2354, reduces the department of science from about $43 million below this year's level and my amendment would restore that funding so that the office of science can sustain its current operations. i know the subcommittee chair my friend if new jersey and the ranking democrat, my friend from indiana, understand very well the importance of this office of the department of energy and i know they worked hard to fit their bill into the budget constraints but i must ask them to join me in taking

another look at this office. scientific reserming lies at the very heart of the national innovation system that keeps us competitive, that enhances our quality of life that fuels our economy. and improves our national security. the office of science is the nation's primary research into science. it helps maintain america's first rate work force of scientists and engineers who are working daily to address some of the greatest challenges and to push the boundaries of existing knowledge. thousands of graduate students and early career scientists at hundreds of u.s. institutions, the next generation of america's scientific talent, depend on the support of the office of science for support and training. in addition, the office maintains excellent, unique user facilities that are relied on by more than 25,000 scientists from industry and academia and national laboratories to advance

important research that create jobs today and could lead to entire industries tomorrow. the success of the office of science clearly shows the quality and importance of the work supported there. m.r.i. machines, pet scanners, new composite materials for military hardware and civilian motor vehicles. use of medical and industrial isotopes, biofuel technology, the d.n.a. sequencing technologies, battery technology for electric vehicles. artificial retinas. safer nuclear reactor designs. three dimensional models of pathogens for vaccine development. tools to manufacture nanomaterials, sensors, the office of science has been the source of hundreds and hundreds of innovative technologies. some have become the underpinnings of modern scientific disciplines and revolutionized medicine and energy and military technology.

the america competes act, passed in a very bipartisan vote here in congress in 2007, and signed into law by president george bush, recognized that we have underfunded our basic research agencies for far too long. it laid out a vision for doubling the funding at our research agencies, including the office of science. this law was re-authorized last year. the bill we are considering today woefully underfunds the office by this national goal. matching last year's funding level with an additional $42.7 million as my amendment would do is the least we can do. many dozens of organizations, universities, and companies, have joined to advocate strongly for maintaining the current level of work for the office of science. my amendment is fully offset by

transferring funding from the nuclear weapons account, which receives an additional $195 million in the underlying bill before us today. so let's get our priorities straight. investments in our federal science agencies and our national innovation in-- infrastructure are not big government spending programs we cannot afford, they are the minimum down payments for our nation's national security, public health, and economic vitality, all this talk down the street now about how we're going to grow, this is it. we cannot afford to postpone this research. i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. >> mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment but salute my colleague from new

jersey, mr. holt, not only for his keer in science but also his focus as a member of congress on science and science research in so many areas. in order to increase funding for science research, his amendment decreases funding for weapons activities. our nation's defense relies on a reliable and effective nuclear detempt and these capabilities cannot be allowed to deteriorate. there is now a strong bipartisan consensus for the modernization of our nuclear stockpile. it is a critical national security priority and must be funded. with a reduction of nearly $500 million from the request, this bill has made use of all available savings. additional reductions would unacceptably impact our ability to support our nation's nuclear security strategy. further, the amendment would use these reductions to increase funding for science research. i am a strong supporter of the science program. he knows that.

it leads to breakthroughs and innovations that will make our nation's energy sector self-sufficient and keep america's -- keep america competitive as the world lead over cutting edge science. this is why we work so hard, the ranking and i, to sustain funding for this program. but within the realities of today's fiscal constraints, which we all know, we cannot simply afford to add more funding to science research, especially when it means risking crucial national defense activities. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise to speak in favor of the holt hch bishop amendment to support funding for the department of energy office of science. this is a vital investment in

the nation's future. we have tough decisions to make about where to make cuts and there's a lot of opportunity to cut things. there are a lot of things we can't afford to continue with but we don't want to cut things we can't live without. mr. schiff: we're not going to compete with the rest of the world on wages, we're not going to come with the third world on wages. we have to compete on productivity. we can't be the most productive nation on earth unless we informs in science and technology. i have a letter from the energy and sciences coalition in support of mr. holt's and mr. bishop's efforts that talk about the need for scientific research, world-class user facilities, teams of scientists and engineers funded by the department of energy office of science at universities and labs around the country. economic experts have asserted as much, crediting past investments in science and

technology for up to half the growth in g.d.p. in the 50 years following the end of world war ii. at this time when we're being challenged by other nations for leadership in science and technology, this is not the right time to disinvest from this vital research. the amendment by mr. holt and mr. bishop is supported by countless associations of physics and chemistry, countless universities and institutions of higher learning, my own university of california campus at berkley, davis, riverside, san diego, san francisco, santa barbara, santa cruz and also around the country from university of chicago to u.s.c., to university of tennessee and university of virginia, all over the nation, not to mention princeton university. and why? because these institutions of higher learning have been leading the way in path breaking developments that have just boosted our economy and our understanding of energy and the world around us.

this is a vital investment in the future and i urge support for my colleague's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate the recognition and rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. mr. visclosky: while i have stated many times in committee as well as on floor debate that i applaud the chairman's bringing funding into the science account almost to where we were in fiscal year 2011 and have described it as a not insignificant achievement, adding these $43 million to bring it into parity with current year spending is not asking too much and as the previous speakers have indicated are very important to making an economic investment in knowledge

and jobs that we so desperately need in the united states. in the committee report we indicate that relative to the office of science, understanding that harnessing scientific and technological ingenuity has long been at the core of the nation's prosperity. we talk about that national prosperity linkage to scientific research and curiosity. i also, relative to the concerns the chairman expressed about the weapons account, think that that important priority will not be adversely impacted by the shift of funding called for in the amendment and rise in strong support of it and would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york, for what purpose do you rise? >> i'd like to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the holt-bishop

amendment wine crease the office of science budget by $42.7 million, reducing the national nuclear security administration's weapons ac pifts program by the same amount -- activities program by the same amount, protecting jobs and supporting american innovation through scientific discovery. mr. bishop: the office of science is crucial to scientific innovation which is a key component of american job creation and a cornerstone of our nation's long-term strategy for economic growth. how many times have we heard members of congress from both sides of the aisle come to this floor and espouse the benefits of innovation on job creation? how many times have we heard from both the current president and past presidents, talk about moving our nation forward into the 21st century where technology and scientific advancement will fortify our nation's economic growth? the office of science within the department of energy, including our national laboratories, is one of the most powerful tools the federal government has at its disposal to promote scientific innovation, to support private industry

advancements, to foster medical breakthroughs and to gain a better understanding of the world around us. i'm proud to represent brook haven national laboratory, a department of energy lab and one of the largest employers in my district. b&l is also ground zero for many of the scientific discoveries and innovations that have expanded our understanding about physics and nature, many of which have a direct link to developing new materials for industry, more effective drugs and better fuel, the intellectual capital that private industry thrives upon. mr. chairman, earlier this year the republican policies embodied within h.r. 1 would have slashed $1.1 billion from the office of science, choking off federal investment in basic research that is the key to our nation's long-term competitiveness. these draconian cuts would have impacted each d.o.e. national lab with a 30% cut to every science facility and program from the f.y. 2011 request level. the number of jobs that would have been eliminated as a result of h.r. 1 is estimated to be close to 10,000 in the office of

science. how can any reasonable person argue that laying off thousands of the most highly trained, highly skilled scientists the world has to offer moves this nation forward? the holt-bishop amendment would hold the office science spending levels at 2011 levels. this is the minimum required for this nation to remain at the cutting edge of scientific innovation which is essential to our economic competitiveness and which in turn is directly linked to what auts to be our number one priority in this congress, job creation. i encourage my colleagues to support the holt-bishop amendment. i also ask for unanimous consent to include in the record a list of the 2010 fortune 100 companies which delineate those companies relying upon office of science facilities to deliver their products. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. bishop: thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> mr. chair, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: did the gentleman submit it? >> we did. the chair: ok. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 68 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. royce of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment

would decrease the allocation of the department of science and the department of energy budget by $10 million and let me give you an example of what $10 million is used for by way of example in this department. there's $10 million for appropriating money to methane hydrate research and development. now, i was once a capital projects manager and i understand, members, i understand the impulse to invest in technologies that are going to have a payback, that are going to provide a return but to do that not only do you have to be able to figure out whether or not it's possible to get that payback, it has to be a viable alternative when compared against other competing alternatives. and that's what i want to speak to here. the government here in the u.s. has already spent $155 million

on research and development commercialization for this technology, for methane hydrate, over the last five years. taxpayers do not need to subsidize the gas hydrate industry to find equivalent alternatives to replace oil. we are at a $100 a barrel for oil, there is already enough financial incentive in the commercial market to research methane hydrate if it in fact were a viable, a viable energy option. no one, i just have to tell you, no one has tried to extract methane hydrates in a commercial way because it is not economical. it is only found, think about this for a moment, it is only found in the arctic, it's only found offshore, it's essentially methane gas compressed under high pressure conditions at great depths and basically the

point here would be, you'd liquefy it. the reality, the reality is there are real hazards of developing gas hydrates. and because it's such ancreditably hazardous substance i can't -- an incredibly hazardous substance, i can't foresee gas drilling and production obligations adopting this scenario, especially when you consider all the other fossil fuels that would be utilized first before such a technology would ever be deployed. you've got oil shale, you've got oil sands, tar sands, you've got the existing conventional deposits of oil under capped wells. now every one of these challenges could be produced -- a solution could be found much more economically in terms of ex

traggetting energy than -- extracting energy than you would ever find by producing energy from natural gas in this particular methodology. so, the government has spent 10 years researching and developing ways to extract methane hydrates. we are still at a very primitive phase. as i've shared with you, it's very hazardous, if we were ever to deploy such a technology. there's a long list of alternatives which we certainly would go through first before we ever got to this, so it is time to eliminate the funding that can be appropriated toward methane hydrate research and development and use that more productively and let me make one other observation about this. we are in a situation now where we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. when we identify an area of the budget where we can make these types of savings, we should be cognizant of the fact that this

type of borrowing, this sheer amount of borrowing has an impact not only on job creation, on economic growth, but also basically on the long-term solvency of the government. if we're running up debt at these levels and we find areas in the budget where to slice off these sums we can bring down that deficit, the impact on the market is such that the market sees us ratcheting down expenditures to come back into compliance with economic reality and as a consequence of that we avoid some of the adverse impacts that come with the overborrowing. as i indicated, 40 cents on every dollar. the overborrowing that is creating the kind of uncertainty in this economy today. in which employers are reluctant to go out and hire, in which the impacts are not just felt in the

jobless rates that we just saw climb up here in the united states, but are also felt in the way in which we are perceived internationally in terms of our capacity to deal with our debt. now is the time to make some commonsense decisions here and here's $10 million to be saved. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the amendment from the gentleman from california, but i do recognize and agree with his view in terms of the economy, but not the purpose for which he rises. my colleague's amendment would eliminate methane hydrate research at the department of energy. this is a good example of a program that would not be otherwise funded by the private sector and has a potential to

make a significant contribution to our nation's energy needs. vas quantities of methane gas are stuck in frozen deposits deep at the bottom of the ocean and in the arctic perma frost. some of these deposits may evaporate over time and escape into the atmosphere. if we can understand how to use these resources rather than letting the methane float away into air, we could tap a vast new natural gas resource and prevent large quantities of methane from entering the atmosphere. the research for this is too risky for industry to do. the science is too difficult for there to be an economic return. that is the proper role of government research, that the private cannot do substantially to reduce our dependence on foreign imports while inventing new science and technology that puts america in the lead. i therefore respectfully rise to