and ultimately funds were distributed to 31 states with half a million dollars awarded to north carolina. these funds will help our state achieve a goal set long ago to our train service from raleigh to charlotte and i'm happy to report the work is already well under way. and we know what must come next. raleigh to richmond. these planned rail investments will relieve congestion, reduce our dependence orn foreign oil, make our neighborhoods more livable and virbleey sustainable, make our communities -- environmentally sustainable, make our communities a more attractive place to live and do business in the long-term and create well-paying construction and manufacturing jobs in the near term. . rescission of these funds is penny-wise and pound-foolish. it undermines a perhaps project that would create jobs and pay dividends for years and years in the future. if we want to stay competitive

in the international economy, we cannot continue to lag behind countries like china in developing a 21st century infrastructure. rather than cutting funds for high-speed rail, we should be investing further in a high-speed rail network that will enhance our nation's overall transportation system. moving us forward the way the highway system drove us forward in the mid 20th century. madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. miss -- mrs. maloney: i rise in opposition that would rescind all obligated high-speed rail funding. i support the gentleman from new jersey's efforts to address flood, but it should not be taken from such an important investment in the economic

strength of our country. it is also an investment in moving us to energy independence. i would like to address my comments particularly to the northeast corridor. and that is the corridor between new york and washington, and new york and boston. this corridor is the most heavily traveled not only in the united states but probably in the world. and the m.t.a. says that the corridor between new york and boston on day one, if we had high-speed rail, hundreds of thousands of people would travel it and it would absolutely be a positive revenue source. it would literally make money because of the ridership that is in that area and also between new york and washington. in the money that was allocated, the m.t.a. is focusing on high-speed rail between new york

and boston. and they are supporting the $294,000 for the harold interlocking amtrak bypass routes which would create, according to analysis, well over 9,000 jobs immediately as it is shovel ready and ready to go. but this is an investment towards high-speed rail, but it's needed right now to move three lines, the long island railroad, amtrak, and the new jersey transit. in this area the interlocking has over 783 trains moving through this each day from three different transit systems. so this obviously needs to be upgraded to take care of delays and to be able to move people and commerce faster. because of the way the interlocking is currently constructed, conflicts among the three rail lines are frequent and result in delays,

disruptions at penn central and the entire northeast corridor. this funding will be used to construct a bypass that would allow these trains to move conflict-free and quickly. it is fully designed. has undergone extensive environmental review, including a final environment impact statement. this project is shovel ready and will be completed if not interrupted by this action on the floor by 2017. and will very importantly move us towards high-speed rail between two of the major commerce centers in our country. between boston and new york. it would literally make money. to rescind this money would be pennywise, pound-foolish and would move us back wards. -- backwards. we should be investing in the economic corridors of our country which is our rail, our high-speed rail. i strongly, strongly support the high-speed rail and urge my

colleagues for the economic strength of our fuhr two ---future to vote against this amendment, this section that would rescind the money for the very needed high-speed rail that will move us into the 21st century to be able to compete and win in the 21st century, move our people, move our commerce, create jobs not only in the railroad but in the commerce between the two centers. we cannot afford to fall behind in our transportation system. it's one of the things that made this country great. it is an important investment. it is an investment that would literally make money in the northeast corridor, and it would be absolutely tremendously foolish to rescind this investment towards the economic future of our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri rise? mrs. emerson: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. emerson: thank you, madam

chairman. first let me say i deeply respect the words that all of my colleagues have talked about with regard to high-speed rail and i understand very much the concerns that funding for emergency flood restoration and rebuilding would come at a cost to future yields of -- years of high-speed rail development, keeping in mind this money has not been specifically obligated. first let me talk about the flooding that's -- starting in north dakota going all the way down to louisiana, down the entire missouri river system and the entire mississippi river system. we are talking about more than 1/3 of the entire water shed of the united states of america. we are talking about farmers. we are talking about the people who work for the farmers. we are talking about the

hardware stores and the dealers and communities that have been devastated by flooding, and these folks have no recourse. we are talking about billions of dollars in lost economic activity. and we are talking about the safety and protection of people, their families, their children, folks who worship with them at church. if we don't have emergency -- the emergency ability to make it possible for these people to regain their lives and their livelihoods, then we are talking about billions of dollars of lost economic activity for this country. and for people who say, well, it's farmland and not important.

we are talking about farmland. guess what, people. we have the most abundant, safest food supply in the world. we pay less money than any person in any country of the world. for our food policy. we paid nine cents on the dollar. if we don't restore the livelihoods of these people, if we don't restore our levees and our bridges and our roads and the economic activity of these communities, then we are going to be paying a whole lot more for food and people will be screaming about that. but at the end of the day isn't the government's role to protect the lives of people? i just want to say that it wasn't an easy decision for the subcommittee to make. to be able to protect people's lives. but when we are talking about money that is unobligated, that

has been returned to the treasury, and it's that pot of money that can help people be safe, safe from water, safe from flooding, so that they could be rebuilding their homes and producing a lot of economic activity, and, yes, a lot of jobs because there's not a lot of difference between farming and hiring of people and producing and the ripple effect on the economy than there is of a factory. it's the same thing. it's just a little different. so i have great respect as i said earlier for the arguments that my colleagues are making. but at the end of the day i think that it's critical that people's lives and people's livelihoods be protected. we must rebuild and we must restore these levees before the next big flood comes again.

so we can protect our wonderful food source in the united states. and so, madam chairman, i thank you for the time and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. richardson: i rise in opposition to this bill which includes an amendment which would rescind the high-speed rail funding originally improved in the american recovery and reinvestment act. in listening to my colleague who just spoke, i don't think anyone here on this floor disagrees that we support the farmers. we support the people who have been impacted by flooding. but the question is, is whether this particular funds are the appropriate funds that should be dedicated to address that particular issue. i would venture to say that while i believe it's important that the army corps of engineers

has access to funding necessary to prepare for future disasters, i would say that because i'm the ranking member of emergency communications and preparedness and response. but when you consider our long overdue efforts to be able to develop a high-speed rail network that would create jobs and bring rail infrastructure into the 20th century for the united states, that also is a priority as well. i am proud to be vice chair of the bicameral high-speed rail and inner city passenger rail caucus and i'm glad we are working to increase the visibility on this issue. i long fought for bringing transportation systems into the 21st century. after all that's important to americans' lives as well, because if we are not able to traverse from one side of the country to the other, if we are not able to do it in an efficient manner, eventually we will also find ourselves without more jobs and without being able to have appropriate living conditions. when you consider that

high-speed rail pays for itself significantly reducing $700 billion a year of oil purchase, that could be dealt with regarding our trade deficit. high-speed rail pays for and saves lives. we are talking about lives. what about the 43,000 americans who die each year in car accidents? what happens when we talk about that high-speed rail pays for its efficiency and mobility by being able to move people and gods without delay and waste. and also when you consider that high-speed rail pays for by improving air quality which also helps and saves lives. 13 countries around the world are invan hollens hundreds of billions of dollars into their systems and for years the united states has failed to keep up. finally we have an administration that is actually focused on this issue and has made a commitment to this funding. however when you consider that in the united states we only

have one high-speed rail corridor, that's the excela express operated between--acela express operated between boston and washington, d.c. the trains only each 150 miles per hour, far below what we would call a true world class high-speed rail. when we consider being on the high-speed rail caucus and what our efforts are today, thankfully we are looking at a situation where we do have funding that's been allocated. so when we say it's unal located funds. let's talk about that. what's happened is the administration has done an excellent job in considering areas that have said they are not ready to do high-speed rail at this time. so rather than us wasting money as we did in the past, years in the past, of building bridges to nowhere, what we have said is, if a particular area is not ready, let's put the money back where it can now be reallocated. it's not the funds are totally unobligated. we are now in the process of

putting them in the areas ready to build high-speed rail now. we must be forward thinking and proactive to position our country to compete in the global economy. that's about american lives as well. nowhere is it more important than in the area of high-speed rail to take that broad step. it will cost about $40 billion to bring high-speed rail to areas like mine in california. but with it becomes really a revolution in travel and a way that -- in a way we have not touched before. madam chairwoman, i cannot support this bill in its current form in light of the amendment that's been brought forward and i urge my colleagues to vote against these draconian cuts. we had an opportunity to do more funding for army corps and on this very floor many of my colleagues chose not to do so. i thank you for considering this and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> madam chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the question is just how

important is the mississippi river? the mississippi river system connects approximately 30 states in our nation's heartland with the international markets. mr. alexander: 60% of all u.s. grain exports are shipped from the mississippi river. 25% of all large commercial boat ships that arrive in the u.s. come to the mouth of the mississippi river. . the river system facilitates between 8 -- $85 billion and $1 to 04 billion annually in foreign trade through the mississippi river system. it comes up the river to refineries in louisiana. this year's historic flooding carried an estimated $6 -- 60 million cue -- cubic yards of

setment down the mississippi river. this sediment doesn't just float out on the gulf, it settles along the river from missouri to lake providence, louisiana, all the way down to new orleans, where it currently five extra feet of sediment has built up over the normal levels. five feet. and for every foot that's taken away from the draft of a ship it costs that ship $1 million. mr. chairman, one doesn't have to be a mathematician to tell that that's pretty expensive to our economy. the flood has not only highlighted a need for dredging, it has also damaged levees and floodways all along the mississippi. the corps of engineers estimates that the river alone will have to spend an additional $1 billion to $2 billion to repair levees and floodways damaged by the recent flood waters.

this is work that must be done to allow these levees to again protect americans from future floods. madam chairman, i know that there aren't many out there speaking against the mississippi river and need for maintenance, they're just arguing that the money does not need to be offset , since we could call it emergency funding, and, yes, we could go that route, but as we are in the middle of negotiations and debate about raising the debt ceiling, the last thing we should be thinking of is adding more to the pile of debt. we cannot continue to do this, madam chairman, especially when we have seen the national debt increase at an average of $3.9 billion per day. especially when the treasury department now projects that the u.s. debt will exceed the g.d.p.

by the end of this year. the congressional research study reports that if supplemental operations have been fully offset over the last three decades the federal debt could have been reduced by at least $1.3 trillion. that translates to a reduction of public interest payments of $57 billion per year. ignoring the need to offset spending is a mistake, madam chairman. a mistake that our children cannot afford us to make. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who claims time? for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: madam speaker, included amongst the multitude

of misguided policies in this bill, the republican majority has on the floor today -- bill the republican majority has on the floor today is the rescission of high speed rail funds that would otherwise create good middle class jobs, strengthen our economy, allow us to build a 21st century infrastructure that we need to compete with the other economic power centers around the world. over six months in the majority and my republican colleagues have proved very capable of ending medicare, rolling back health care reforms, namely for women, and choosing to reduce the deficit on the backs of working middle class families and the most vulnerable. one thing they have chosen to do , to zero out job creation. and in fact cutting funding for high speed rail projects in this bill, the majority's threatening as many as 60,000 jobs. this is the majority's answer to the last week's extremely disappointing jobs report that showed that we are mired in unacceptably high 9.2% unemployment after adding only 18,000 jobs in june, with a

construction sector that has 16.3% of its workers unemployed. this is the majority's answer to the 14 million unemployed in this country, real people, real families looking to make their way through this crisis. in connecticut the majority's decision to rescind a $30 million investment, and i might tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this $30 million has been obligated, it is an investment in the new haven-hartford-springfield line that would inhibit the ability for the best inner city passenger rail networks in the country. the line represents critical opponents of a larger regional plan for passenger rail to integrate the new england rail system, connect it to new york, the middle atlantic states and to canada. the improvements that would be made with the investment my colleagues on the other side are seeking to eliminate are

essential to meeting the needs of the entire region and achieving the benefits of the federal and state investments that arered -- have already been made there. high speed rail is desperately needed in connecticut. this is the most heavily trafficked commuter region in the country, new england's traffic has increased two to three times faster than its population since 1990 and 80% of the connecticut commuters drive to work alone. when it's completed the line is expected to reduce the number of vehicles on the road by approximately 4,000 cars a day, saving one billion gallons of fossil fuel a year and reducing carbon emissions over that time by 10,000 tons. just as important, the line has been a high priority for connecticut, for its representatives on both sides of the aisle for many years. it means opportunities for economic development and expansion throughout our state. but expanding the economy, creating jobs is simply not a priority for the majority. they appear perfectly content to allow us to fall behind our

global competitors like china with its plan to invest $1 trillion in high speed rail highways -- rail, highways and other infrastructure in five years. and the shortsightedness is further exemplified by what has been put forward this week in the $230 billion, six-year surface transportation bill that the u.s. chamber of commerce calls unacceptable. the cuts will destroy rather than support existing jobs which would be devastating to construction and related industries, leading to a less competitive economy and a drag on the g.d.p. due to underperforming infrastructure. i want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i have a great appreciation for disaster assistance. a great appreciation for the commercial value of the mississippi river. i'm there. i've been there for disaster assistance. now, if you don't want to do an emergency declaration then let me tell you where you can get

some of the money from in order to do this. $40 billion to the oil industry every year in a tax subsidy. nobody here believes that they are suffering. ask the farmers -- as the farmers in our country are suffering. they don't need money for the levees, they don't need any money at all but, no, the other side doesn't want to take any money from that $41 billion. to do something about those who are suffering in these states due to natural disasters. or what about the $8 billion we provide to multinational corporations to take their jobs overseas? let's take that money and use it for the people of this great nation who are in difficult straits, difficult times, and their jobs and their levees need to be dredged. let's get that army to the -- money to the army -- -- to the army corps of engineers and we support brazilian cotton farmers.

we give them money every single year. i suggest we take that money from the brazilian cotton farmers and spend it on the people in our country who are in desperate need. don't take it from high speed rail. don't -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. i'd like to congratulate the appropriations committee on their -- and the chairman for their fine work on making some difficult choices. obviously our budget times are tight, we have to prioritize our spending and we have some emergencies here in this country where are abnormal, extremely abnormal from the standpoint that our weather patterns have changed dramatically this past year, we have a lot of our citizens that are really suffering right now. and in my district i have the mississippi river along one side, i have the missouri river running through the area as well. so both of those have been

dramatically impacted by the massive rain storms that have run through the area as well as some of the tornados that have gone through the area as well. and so i want to put a face on some of this for just a moment. mr. luetkemeyer: you know, we have today a number of farmers who no longer can drive to their homes, they have to take a boat to their homes. they have five feet of water, some of them are looking at the roofs instead of their homes and their republicans -- crops are gone. and when they're gone, whenever a flood occurs, it doesn't just occur and wipe out that year's flood -- that year's crops. quite oftentimes it takes two or three or four years and sometimes the ground is damaged to the point where it can never be reclaimed. the gentlelady from the southeast portion of our state, some of her area that was devastated by the levee that was blown up, those crop lands may never return to fertile ground because of what's happened. and again people say, well, it's just farm land. no, it's not.

this is the business of farming. these people, this is their business location. and if you look at their farms, they're not just land that's laying out there, they have irrigation systems, they have thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in irrigation systems and the ground that's been cultivated and excavated in a way that it can utilize all the waters that they irrigate with or whatever. so they have a huge investment in this property. it's not just the land. it's a huge investment in their business. and so we're interested in continuing to help those folks rebuild those levees, rebuild their lives, rebuild their businesses because this is what they're about. one of the things that's happened in my area right now is with the basically tsunami coming down the missouri river basin. in montana they had an unusual. a snow that fell this year, a late snow melt, and then on top of that they had a whole year's worth of rain in a two-week period and we had literally a tsunami coming down the missouri

river basin. fortunately we had a flood control set of dams in there that minimized it but even at that this is a flood that's devastating everything in its path. those folks, in fact right now we have -- from kansas city on north there isn't a single private levee that isn't either breached or topped. let me repeat. that there isn't a single private levee north of kansas city that is not breached or topped. that's how severe, how devastating this situation is this year. and we start talking about the uses of the river. it's important to note that barge traffic on rivers, the gentleman from louisiana a moment ago talked about the usage of how much corn and grain goes up and down the mississippi , a normal barge can carry 900 trailer loads of grain, 900 trailer loads of grain. think of all the vehicles we're talk taking off the roads, think of the environmental impact of those vehicles not being on the

road. it's very significant. and yet in our area, the missouri river is being underutilized because of some of the new mandates that are being put on it by different bureaucrats here in d.c. with regards to trying to worry about a fish or a bird that lives along the shore and/or for recreational purposes. so we have some interesting debates going on right now, those we'll can decide at later date but the problem we're facing today is the devastation that's had to life and property and the safety of those and we believe that these funds are necessary for people to recover from this devastation that's occurred -- occurred and as a side line here we thank the appropriations committee for not only finding a way to do this and reprioritizing federal funds without adding to our debt but there is an interesting fact here as well i want to note. it was from a report back in january of 2009 with regards to

the conventional research service that said, supplemental appropriations been fully offset which this is since 1981 federal debt held by the public could have been reduced by at least 23% or $1.3 trillion. this could have reduced interest payments to the public by $57 billion a year. so i think while it's difficult, i know that the friend as i cross the aisle and some of the folks here are discussing the priorization this morning, are not happy with this, i think these are difficult times, we all have to be to realize that reprioritizing things sometimes is not easy but in this situation i believe that it's justified and we certainly support the final work the appropriation committee has done. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? the gentleman from texas is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. green: to speak before the house for five minutes, to revise and extend, to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. green: thank you, madam chairman. madam chairman, it is just a matter of time before we will rue the day that we did not build out the infrastructure across the length and breadth of our country. our president has proposed that we have an infrastructure bank such that we can take care of the needs on this side as well as the needs on this side. . we will rue the day that we did not build out our transportation infrastructure. one example, in all five, in houston, texas, rita hit the gulf coast. we had thousands of people being evacuate interested a major urban area. and as they were moving away, the highways became clogged. they were stopped on the highways. people spent nights on the highways. trains are a part of the emergency evacuation system in this country, and we need more

rail so that we can evacuate people in times of emergency. 9/11, 2001, who can forget the skies were cleared. there was a full ground stop. more than 4,000 planes were grounded. no one could fly. trains became a part of the emergency evacuation system so that people who could not fly could still make their destinations. it is time for us to wise up and realize that the president is right. it is time for us to in the parlance and vernacular of those in the streets of life to fess up and tell the truth. we should not put peter ahead of paul. we should not rob one to pay the

other. it is time for us to take a holistic approach and show some vision. let's move to create jobs across the bidth and breath of this country -- widthth and breadth of this country. let's take architects who have office who is do business and laborers and engineers, let's give them jobs to do. and the good news is, you cannot export these jobs overseas. you don't have to worry about them being outsourced because they will all be done right here in the united states of america. let's rebuild this country. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, madam chair. first i want to congratulate and thank the chairman of the energy and water subcommittee for setting as a priority making sure that our waterways,

especially the mississippi river, are restored after the devastating floods that we experienced throughout our country. was wasn't just a few states, it was throughout many parts of the midwest, the south, other parts of our country that not only experienced tornado damage, experienced unprecedented flooding going back to 1927, but now if you look at where we are, and you look at what is being done here, this is not money that's adding to the deficit. we are at a point right now as we face this debt ceiling, and there is a divide in congress. there is a divide in washington. and the question is, are we going to start living within our means in truly setting priorities in this country or just continue going down this spending binge acting as if nobody's going to pay the tab? and of course i think what the chairman has done, with the full chairman of the appropriations and so many other members of this new majority have said is, that game's over. the game of spending money we don't have is over. and we got to make the tough choices of setting priorities in

this country. and so if you look at some of the money that was moved over from high-speed rail and there were billions of dollars set aside in the stimulus bill that was such a failed disaster, over $787 billion of money that we don't have with the promise that unemployment wouldn't go over 8%, it's very clear that that failed. but what we are saying is, let's take some of that money and move it over into something that's much more important right now as getting our economy back on track. getting people back on track. getting their families back together. if you look at what happened on the mississippi river, just a few weeks ago i flew over the more gansa spillway -- morganza spillway, where some of the flooding was, where you had people in harm's way and there were areas flooded to keep other people from flooding. it was one of those terrible choices no one wants to have to make. those families were put in that situation. their communities were flooded so other communities wouldn't. if you looked at the extra silt that came down the mississippi

river that now threatens to impede the ability for us to move commerce through 30-plus states of this country, so that we can get those exports, so that we can create more jobs and be able to be competitive with these foreign countries. because if you are a farmer in iowa, if you are trying to move commerce in missouri down the mississippi river, if you don't have the ability because we are not able to dredge the river, all of a sudden now brazil's going to get that contract for that product. because you can't be competitive anymore. not only are we talking about tens of thousands of jobs, but we are talking about pry yorlts. if you -- priorities. if you look at the high-speed rail projects, many states have turned the money down. why? because they realize it's a money loser. they lose money on the deal because it just doesn't pay for itself. of course states have balanced budgets. most of those states have to balance their budget every year so they can't just take what looks like free money to go and engage in a process that's

ultimately going to cost them money every year that they don't have. but because they have to balance their budget, many of them have trned that money away. so you look here in washington, there is no balanced budget requirement. frankly shows you one of the reasons why we need a balanced budget amendment to our constitution so that we are forced to live within our means, too, so we can't just keep spending money as if there is no consequence. because there is consequence. our children, our grandchildren are counting on us to make those responsible decisions. to set the priorities. to not just tell everybody that comes in the door you got an idea here's, some money. nobody has the money. they'll just go print it, raise the debt ceiling, and just keep giving it as if it's not going to have an effect at some point. it has a real effect. it has a real impact. we've got to make the tough choices and set the priorities. and so there is devastating flooding throughout our country. you had so many states that saw tornado damage, flooding damage. and they are trying to get back on their feet. and then there's this high-speed rail money.

and so much of the money in the stimulus bill that went to waste that was squandered, that we have nothing to show for, the promises of no more than 8% unemployment. that didn't work. it was a failure and everybody recognizes it. so we are saying we are going to make those tough choices. none of these choices are easy. but we didn't come up here to make easy choices. we came up here because we've got to set the priorities of this country. that means balancing a budget. and not just saying everything can get all the funding it wants. if something is a priority, that means we got to find the money somewhere else. that's what's being done here and that's why i commend the chairman for making that tough decision. yes, we are going to have to have a fight over this, a discussion over this as we should. this is the people's house. but that's no what this discussion is about. it's about setting our priorities and shifting the old way of doing business of just spending more money we don't have and every idea that sounded good, you just keep doing it. we can't keep doing that. that's why i support what the chairman's doing.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. brown: i rise to strike the last word and revise and extend my remarks. first of all, i want to be clear that i support the funding to protect the citizens of the midwest from flooding and in fact louisiana having gotten more money than probably anybody else. i come from florida. we have disasters, natural disasters all of the time. but the reason there is no funding for flood protection is because the republican leadership cut the funding and the republican members supported it. let me be clear. i support the funding for the disaster. as a ranking member of the transportation subcommittee on rail, i find that this funding cut, which would block all of the remaining unobligated high-speed rail funding, approved by the economic stimulus, is entirely

unacceptable. and i am sick and tired of members coming to the floor saying that the stimulus money was a disaster. it is not a disaster that we put people to work in florida and throughout the country. in fact, if it wasn't for the stimulus dollars, teachers would have lost their jobs. the one area -- and firefighters and police officers. we kept them employed. and that is a job. while this economy is turning around. let's don't forget how we got in this mess. i mean i.n.s. tugal memory is important. when you have your head in the lion's mouth, you pull it out. you ease it out. what's happened? how did we get here? when bill clinton left we were operating with a surplus. but we had eight years of bush and two wars and you think this

mess started 18 months ago? no, it did not. it did not start. we have been practicing what i call reverse robin hood for eight years, nobody remembers that. when you kept giving tax breaks to the rich and billionaires, what happened here in december, almost $800 billion that you gave to the -- not just millionaires, billionaires. and yet you come up saying in june and april, we can't send the pension checks. yeah, we are spending money up here, but it's the priorities that you have. you don't have the priorities of taking care of the elderly people. you want to cut medicaid and medicare and social security while you give billionaires, billionaires tax breaks and

millionaires. and now you want to cut money for high-speed rail. but we know for every billion dollars we spend for high-speed rail, it generates 44,000 permanent jobs. but, yes, we have some governors that's shortsighted like my governor, rick scott, of florida, that sent back almost $3 billion. we have 11% unemployment. what was he thinking about? i guess he was thinking about he didn't want to see those people going to work and make barack obama look good even though we have the most congested -- congestion in the area. and our competition is there. if you look at spain, if you look at france, you look at germany, 200 mouths -- 200 miles, 1:15, that is the future of our country. but we have some shortsighted

people here. people who only want to see, well, we need to balance the wugget. -- budget. where were you when they was giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires? and you do it over and over again. that's the sad thing. if you put it on the board, put it on the board today, you would have the same vote. you would have the exact same vote. and every opportunity you have to vote you vote to give billionaires and millionaires tax breaks. so you know we started the rail system and we are now the caboose and we don't even use cabooses anymore. i am hoping that the american people will wake up. it is shameful that over and over again in the people's house, in the people's house we are -- do not have lobbyists in capitol hill. i yield back the balance of my time. but i do know that elections

have consequences. but the american people are watching you. i have voted five times to raise the debt ceiling. why did i do it? under bush, because i -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. brown: and not the politics at the time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. members should be reminded that they should address their comments to the chair. the gentleman from arkansas, for what purpose do you rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairwoman, i think we are going to have to extend the space shuttle for an extra day to retrieve that thought process it got so far out there in orbit. mr. womack: but let me just be very clear, to kind of bring this back to the subject matter at hand. we are talking about taking funds that have been designated

for a project in the future, near term or long term, but in the future, to satisfy an emerging issue that is in the present. future versus present. in my district of arkansas, the cresting of the illinois river has ripped apart roads, washed out bridges, flood have taken lives of constituents of mine. young people that will grow up without a mother or father. we have people living in tents. we have an urgent issue that is facing us today. the flooding has done damage across our entire state, leaving hundreds of arkansans without homes and crop losses estimated at over $500 million. it has even been asserted by the other side that it's just farmland. just farmland. well, let me say to the people who make that argument, don't

make that argument with your mouthful. it has also caused about $100 million in damage to dams, parks, roads, and waterways under the control of u.s. army corps of engineers that left unrepaired will result in additional devastation in the next season, but it isn't just about what's happened in arkansas. the entire mississippi river and its tributary system has been imperiled by these tragedies. they are the lifeblood of our nation's commerce and bordering farmlands are rich with fertile soil able to provide food for so many american people, allowing these lands to be so vulnerable to future flooding will only imperil our nation's flood 134r50eu. . offset or not to offset. it is an emerging issue and on offsets, as you have already heard from my colleague there from louisiana, my colleague from missouri, that supplemental

appropriations if fully offset over the last three decades would have reduced by at least $1.3 trillion, $1.3 trillion in debt and reducing the public interest payments on this debt of $57 billion a year. now, my friends, $57 billion of interest payments would build a lot of high speed rail. i congratulate the chairman for his work on this energy and water bill, i support it, it is prudent, it is wise, it is necessary and i commend it to the leadership and to this entire house to pass it and restore the fiscal integrity of our country and give relief to the people who need it so desperately and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i have a written prepared statement but i'm going to put that aside because it talks

about california and the need for investments and i don't think anybody's going to argue about the need for this country to invest in its future or in its infrastructure. hondhond i'm trying to figure out -- honhon i'm trying to figure out -- mr. honda: the chairman has a difficult challenge that with limited funds, it's a terrible job. i think that we ought to look at the process and be thoughtful. let me explain to the people out there who are watching this that we can be smart, we can be compassionate and we can do that without allowing ourselves to be fighting among ourselves and try to make decisions between jobs, the economy, infrastructure and taking care of those who need to get back on their feet.

i have no arguments with that. my mother used to say that when unexpected guests come to our house during dinner time, you don't turn them away, you just add more water to the soup. and then you enjoy each other's company. congress is a living organization -- organism responsible for its past, its present and its future. in the past according to g.a.o. we spent about $150 billion on katrina. in afghanistan we spend $325 billion -- million a day and in iraq we've spent about $100 million a day. that's almost $1 billion a day.

we're talking about $950 -- almost $1 billion in light rail. we can both be right and smart and compassionate if we do the right thing. in our budgeting process we should have an unexpected fund for unforeseen circumstances, we should have learned from katrina. we're looking at probably about $4 billion in term of army corps of engineers. i think our leaderships need to get together and just say that we can do this without fighting among each other, without making each other wrong. because that's wrong. in the eyes of the public, they want us to do the job that needs to get done and have our leadership do that. and so my plea is that we can be fiscally responsible and we can

be compassionate and we do that with good planning and good budgeting process, including having contingency funds that should have been there. and so we have an opportunity right now to show the public that we can do all these things and still come out winners for those who need the help and those who need jobs and still take care of the nation's infrastructure needs. that's what america's all about. it's a can-do spirit, without having to fight within our own familyless. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time -- families. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. i want to thank subcommittee chairman and committee chairman for bringing this bill forward

in the way that they've done it. particularly i want to thank them for the fact that this bill provides $1 billion in emergency funding for the army corps of engineers to repair damages caused by recent storms and floods and to prepare for future disaster events. this funding's offset by rescission of the remaining emergency high speed rail funding that was originally allocated in the stimulus bill. mr. nunnelee: now our friends on the other side have told us they're not opposed to the emergency funding because of the storms and floods, they just don't like the offset. in fact, i've heard it said, you know, we've always done it this way, when an emergency comes up, when a disaster occurs we've always just funded it without a spending offset. madam chairman, on april 26, 2011, the people of smithville, mississippi, had hopes, they had dreams and they had plans.

and some of those plans were budgetary and financial. but on april 27 at approximately 3:00 p.m. those plans changed. they changed drastically, when a historically devastating storm swept through the southeast, smithville, mississippi, was struck by an ef-5 tornado and wifed off the face of the earth. let me make it quite clear. the people of smithville are very grateful for the outpouring of supplies, of materials, of food that have come from around the nation. they're grateful for the outpouring of help that have come from the various yeg ags of federal and state government -- various agencies of federal and state government but those same people have also redirected plans and priorities in their own lives. they didn't proceed forward with the plans that they had the day before. and, madam chairman, if the men

and women in smithville, mississippi, many of whom are living in trailers, many of whom have seen their lives disrupted and houses destroyed, if they are making the difficult choices in their own lives, they have every reason to expect their government to do the exact same thing. that's the basis for budgeting. deciding how to allocate available resources for both planned and unplanned events. but they continue to say, but we've never done it that way. madam chairman, if over the past three decades, if we'd had leadership in this body like the leader of this subcommittee and the chairman of the committee and had done it the way that they're doing it today our national debt would be at least $1.3 trillion lower and we would not even be in this debate about

considering to raise it. i want to thank the chairman for their leadership -- chairmen for their leadership and commend passage of this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: 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. >> madam chairman, i rise in opposition to the underlying bill and the provision in this bill that i think is simply plain highway robbery. plain and simple. once again my friends on the other side of the aisle are ignoring an opportunity to invest in our infrastructure, to create more jobs and to build a modern 21st century system of transportation that utilizes our highways, our air transportation system and, yes, our rail and the state of high speed rail systems that are part of america's future. mr. costa: now i support, like i think the majority of my colleagues do, providing the funding for the mississippi

delta. we should and we must, as we have with every area that has experienced a disaster over the history of our nation. but there are other ways to provide that funding. in may of this year secretary ray lahood, a cleefing ours, a republican, announced that $368 million of our tax dollars would go to california to invest in the san joaquin valley to construct the nation's first true state-of-the-art high speed rail system. it's a system in california that the people support. in 2008 california went to the polls and voted overwhelmingly for $9 billion bond measure to construct high speed rail that will create hundreds and thousands of jobs throughout the state and create economic opportunities not home in the san joaquin valley but throughout california. but this provision stills that money and the promise of new jobs right from the hands -- steals that money and the

promise of new jobs right from the hands of the people it's intended to benefit. the great recession hit my part of the country probably harder than any other place in america with double-digit unemployment levels that exceed 20%. too many people can't find jobs to keep a roof over their head or to afford a decent healthy diet. but at a time where everyone in washington says we should be focused on job creation, this provision is the only one i can see that's about job destruction. high speed rail will create over 600,000 construction jobs over the life of the project over the next 10 to 20 years in california. but this provision says no. high speed rail will create 450,000 permanent jobs over the next 25 years but this provision just says no. high speed rail will spur economic development by connecting our san joaquin valley with the bay area and southern california to create a system that will provide high

speed rail for 80% of california's population but this provision just says no. high speed rail will improve our air quality and reduce traffic that clog our freeways. of course this provision just says no. high speed rail is proven to be a smart investment over the five decades that it's been developed in europe and asia. but this provision says no to america, no to california. high speed rail will ensure that california is competitive well into the 21st century but this would attempt to block that area, to move into the next phase of a 21st century system of transportation. the people of california want high speed rail, they voted for it, and the jobs that it will create but this provision of course just says no. now we've talked about our current financial situation and it is difficult times for america. there is no doubt about that and we must focus on our deficit and

we must come together in a bipartisan fashion. but i submit any of to you tell me that we have a more difficult time today than we had in the 1860's when our nation was being tore apart by the civil war in which inflation was running rampant, in which deficit spending made our situation today look tame by comparison and in which we had the first issue of paper money in which a lot of people doubted the credibility of that paper currency. yet we had a great republican president, the emancipater, during that time in our nation's history when our country was being tore apart, who had boldness and who had vision and decided we were going to build a railroad across the country and invest in our nation even though we were in that civil war. and that's what he did. so this provision attempts to take on an effort notwithstanding the difficult financial challenges that we have but to in essence say what

president lincoln said in the 1860's, we can do better, we can build a transcontinental railroad. president obama believes that we can get ourselves out of this financial situation by working together and at the same time invest in our nation's infrastructure. just as president eisenhower did in the 1950's when he decided to embark upon the effort to build an interstate freeway transportation that we all benefit from today. so, ladies and gentlemen, i ask that -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. costa: this provision will be slipped into law, that we defeat this provision and we keep our faith to the voters of california. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i would like to congratulate and recognize the tremendous work the appropriations committee in responding to the flooding disasters during a time of tight budget restrictions. there were tough choices that had to be made but i believe the

committee effectively prioritized the needs of the american people. my district in arkansas was severely impacted by the recent floods that wrought devastation in the midsouth and lower mississippi valuey. preliminary estimates of crop damage surpassed half a billion dollars and communities were evacuated because the levees struggled to retain flood waters. the st. francis levee district suffered the most damage because the water enclosed entire areas and almost completely flooded blingts -- counties in my district. mr. crawford: in st. francis county alone hundreds of homes were under water an tens of thousands of acres of farmland was flooded as well. in another part of my district heavy flooding devastated all areas of two counties, the community of spring lake which is home to 32 families was completely flooded with several feed -- feet of water. so far only three of those families have moved back into their homes. . the commupet of smith road home to 18 families was flooded as well and so far not one has been

able to move back home. on top of the damage to these communities, more than 50,000 acres of farmland was flooded. the entire corn crop was wiped out and most of the rice crop as well. mr. chair, flood disasters across the south have taken a huge toll on our way of life and touched nearly everyone in our district. we must ensure we retain the vital funding to the corps of engineers so we can repair and reinforce our levees so citizens can live in safety and our economy can recover. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: thank you. this has been an interesting debate. i have been able to sit down here and listen to a lot of folks on both sides talk about really investments that we need to make in the united states and i'm glad that there are some investments that our friends on the other side actually think are important to the country,

because it seems in many ways the national narrative is that there isn't anything the government can make investments in that is important for our country. to hear some members talk about natural disasters and to hear some members talk about the barges going up and down and farmland, there's a huge subsidy program where billions of federal dollars are spent to support farmers. there are obviously dams that need built and that is federal money. and when it applies to certain members' districts where they are actually affected and families affected, it's their responsibility to come to washington, d.c., and advocate for those investments. i think what you are seeing here on our side is that we have members on this side of the aisle who believe that investments need to be made in

our communities, too. and that over 30 years if you take cities like youngstown or cleveland or detroit you will see cities that need investment. and we may not have had a natural disaster, but over the last 30 years we have had an economic disaster. where we have had a lack of private investment. and i'm rising here to say that high-speed rail can have -- can be a force multiplier in our economic improvement in our community and across the country. and many -- the gentleman from california just cited the number of jobs, the billions of dollars that could be invested. and in youngstown, ohio, we would be linked up to a pittsburgh to cleveland corridor that would then go over to toledo and detroit, that would make its way over to chicago. this is essentially connecting the united states of america. but you take an economic region

like ours with two major powerhouses in education and in health care, that would be connected by high-speed rail, and in ohio we gave away the high speed rail money, too. our governor gave it away. there were hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment that was going to follow the public investment. that needs to be made. but if we are going to connect, if we are going to try to resuss tate some -- resuscitate some of these older areas in our country, high-speed rail can do it. these are investments that can be made. we can connect the cleveland clinic with the university of pittsburgh medical center. we can connect case western reserve with carnegie mellon and they can partner and research. get on the train and help lead some economic development and commercialization of products. you could take a region of our country and connect it through high-speed rail. and so the problem is, and i

will end with this, all of these investments need to be made. this is the dirty little secret in washington, d.c. we are only spending 2% of our g.d.p. on our infrastructure. and while china and india are spending 10% of their g.d.p. reinvesting back into their country, and we will lose the future if we do not make these investments. these are critical to the competitiveness of the united states. these -- both the dams that need to be built and the high-speed rail. and the roads and the combined sewer and the airports and the ports and the highways and the bridges. we need to invest in all of these things. our country is crumbling. and we can't have members say we only need to make this one investment for this one dam because it's in my district and because i know families who have been hurt.

we've got to elevate ourselves and look what needs to be done in the entirety of the whole country and how are we going to compete against china, how are we going to compete against india, how are we going to be globally competitive. all of these investments need to be made, including the economic development and the private investment that can be drawn in through high-speed rail. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i do want to thank our appropriators. this is a tough, tough business. i certainly want to thank the ranking member who i have had the privilege of working with and thank the chairman as well because this is a tough dilemma we are facing. i think i come with a very unique perspective. i live in hurricane and flood country.

houston is the site and was the recipient of hundreds of thousands of katrina survivors coming in from new orleans. we have faced our own ups and downs, most recently with hurricane ike. i walked the beach with both former president clinton and former president bush when we went down to galveston and looked at the amazing devastation. so many of us who are concerned about the tragedy in diop pin, missouri, and other places -- joplin, missouri, and other places, and i talked to members of congress who there is flooding going on in their district as we speak. here's the dilemma we have and the reason i rise to raise the question of the recapturing of already designated funds. and to realize that these are not funds that were just sitting in a pile unused. these funds are not only already designated, i'd like to say

appropriated, high-speed rail dollars, but as well these funds will generate thousands of jobs. and as i read the amounts of moneys that were designated, $450 million were going to be utilized for necessary repairs in new jersey. that means that my friends on the floor of the house made a sacrifice. and i appreciate that. but high-speed rail is a valuable and necessary investment in america's future. i truly believe that there could have been a compromise, where resources could have been used for the flooding problems in the area of -- that my colleagues have spoken about, the needy areas, and still leave an amount that would have been chaired for high-speed -- shared for high-speed rail. let's create jobs together. that is the restoration of those flood areas. i would almost ask the question without knowing as a member of

the authorizing committee for homeland security, what other opportunities might have been in place to be able to utilize those dollars for the disaster that has occurred? but i will tell you it is no doubt as you go across europe and see the value of high-speed rail, new technology, that america is far behind with its high-speed rail investment. the new technology, the new science, the new kinds of cars that are being produced that will create jobs. in essence putting the cars together, manufacturing the cars, but the assembling of the cars now being placed in cities around america. those are real jobs, long-term jobs. and so the decision that the administration made was a thoughtful decision. let me thank secretary lahood for understanding the value of high-speed rail. i would suggest that the proposal that we have for texas does impact rural texas. it is a proposal for high-speed

rail from houston to dallas. going through our rural communities. creating the opportunities for job or creating opportunities for investment in the purchase of land, the growth of business, all of that has an impact in creating jobs. that's what we are all here for. we are here to be the rainy day umbrella for americans who are in trouble. and as well we are here to create jobs which americans are so desperately in need of. so i'm disappointed we didn't find the happy balance. and i believe that we could. that we couldn't measure the amount of resources that might have been able to be utilized for our friends who just experienced a disaster and not completely gut moneys that are already designated, appropriated. it's almost as if we came in and said there is a pile of cash and i'm not going to bother to identify what it's supposed to be used for. and i would hope that there would be a method of reconsideration. these are fair gentlemen on the floor of the house. i have worked with all of my

colleagues here and i would just raise the question of why would we in essence zero out high-speed rail not only for our urban centers but for our midwestern areas in desperate need of jobs and for the southern areas that now are looking to the future for high-speed rail to create jobs and create the quality, excellent, superior mobility system that americans deserve. not the country of america but the people of america deserve. i would argue vigorously for a reconsideration of the funding and the restructuring of the funding to ensure that we have high-speed rail, create jobs, and deal with our friends who are in need. with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chairman. i a -- i'm urging this house to spend the high-speed rail money on what it's designated for. high-speed rail projects. much of this money or a good portion of it was turned down by governors of other states. so i'm here as a representative of michigan's 13th district. i want to go on the record right now of claiming that money because michigan and metro detroit, the district i represent, we need jobs. jobs that would be created by the high-speed rail project. jobs that would be created when that high-speed rail that links detroit to chicago is tied into a regional transit system around metro detroit. that's going to attract businesses all around that system. companies and employers are more

likely to stay in detroit, move to detroit when they realize they are going to have close access to chicago and other midwestern areas. but jobs not only as an indirect result of this transit system and high-speed rail system, but by manufacturing the rails and the passenger cars that are underused. by creating jobs that is the most effective way to create a long-term resilient enduring economy. that's the best way to pay down our debt. i understand the point that we should allocate a funding source to provide funding to the flood victims. i'd like to propose one. over the last 10 years this congress has authorized the spending of over $50 billion,

with a b, in economic aid to afghanistan. each fiscal year, including this current one, we are spending at least $4 billion on economic aid in afghanistan. i'm proposing, let's just take a share of the money we are sending overseas to help serve and protect people in another country, let's redirect american tax dollars back to serve americans. and that's my fundamental point is this, we need to be more conservative with our tax dollars. yes, there's needs all around the world. but our people need help right here. this budget shortage we are faced with right now underscores that. this is a choice that we should not have to make. we shouldn't have to choose between serving flood victims and providing the long-term jobs that we need in michigan and metro detroit through high-speed

rail. you know, there's another fairness issue. folks, where i live, the auto capital of the world, they can't afford an automobile because of the high cost of automobile insurance. they need high-speed rail. again i urge you, let's use this money for its intended purpose to ultimately create jobs. that's the best way that we can pay down the federal debt and also it's the principle of it. and these tough economic times, let's redirect american tax dollars to serve americans. high-speed rail in america will create jobs and make a difference for our people. a positive difference. i yield back my time. . the chair: the gentleman yields back.

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 -- an amendment by mr. matheson of utah. an amendment by mr. reed of new york. amendment number 65 by mr. holt of new jersey. amendment number 68 by mr. royce of california. amendment number 43 by mr. broun of georgia. an amendment by mr. schiff of california. amendment number 48 by mr. broun of georgia. an amendment by mr. shimkus of illinois. an amendment number 47 by mr. broun of georgia.

the chair will reduce to two minutes after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman from utah, mr. matheson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. matheson of utah. 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 will be 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 168. the nays are 257. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. reed of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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 261. the nays are 162. the amendment is agreed to.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 65 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 65 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 164. the nays are 261. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 68 printed in the conrecord and offered by the gentleman from california -- in the congressional record and offered by the gentleman from california, mr. royce, 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 68 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. royce of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, -- 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 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 136. the nays are 291. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 43 printed in

the congressional record and offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, 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 43 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 99. the nays are 327. the amendment is not -- the chair: i stand corrected. on this vote the yeas are 99. the nays are 328. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 214, the nays are 213, the

amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 48 printed in the congressional record and offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, 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 48 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. 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 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 114, the nays are 309, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offer by mr. shimkus of illinois. -- offered by mr. shimcuffs illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 297, the nays are 130, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on

amendment 47 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 47 printed in the congressional record offered by will broun of georgia. -- offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 187, the nays are 239, the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i hove the committee do now rise. -- i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the motion 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, having had under consideration h.r. 2354, direct mess to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole on the state of the union reports that the committee has -- the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i write to inform you that i have notified chairman bonner and ranking member sanchez of my resignation from the ethics committee of the house of representatives. it is because of my high regard for the ethics committee and its vital nonpartisan role in enforcing the standards of official conduct in the house of representatives that i make this decision. having recently announced my

candidacy for the united states senate, i want to ensure my status as a candidate for higher office does not in any way cause the work of the ethics committee to become fodder for politics or partisanship. it has been a privilege and honor to serve on this committee. signed, sincerely, mazie k. hirono. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 350, resolved that the following named member be and is hereby elected to the following standing of the committee -- standing committee of the house of representatives. mr. larson: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, please take your conversation elsewhere, take a seat. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of h.r. 2354 the committee of the whole, pursuant to house resolution 337, no further amendments to the bill may be offered except pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chair or ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate. amendments printed in the congressional record are numbered 21, 26, 27, 53, 63, 66, 67, 70, 75, 76, 80 and 81. an amendment by mrs. adams

regarding limiting funds for a department of energy website to disseminate information regarding energy efficiency and educational programs for children or adolescents, two amendments being mrs. blackburn regarding across the board cuts d. funds for certain projects in any programs, science. two amendments by mrs. capps regarding limiting funds from the debe a low canyon nuclear power plant. an amendment by mr. cohen regarding funding levels for the solar energy program. amendment by mr. denham regarding limiting funds to implement section 10011-b of public law 111-11, amendment by mr. engel regarding limits -- limiting funds for lease of purchase of new light duty vehicles. an amendment by ms. eshoo regarding limiting funds for

contracts with business entities that do not disclose political expenditures. an amendment by mr. flake regarding limiting funds for advanced research projects, agencies, energy. amendment by mr. flake regarding limiting funds for fossil energy research and development. amendments by mr. frelinghuysen regarding funding level. an amendment by mr. gotow regarding the bacon act. amendment by mr. graves regarding limiting funds to be used in contravention of the 2006 missouri river master manual. amendment by mr. hastings of florida regarding limiting funds to be used in contravention of executive order number 12898. amendment by mr. hafings of washington regarding limiting funds for the mcnairy shoreline management plan. amendment by mr. hastings of washington regarding limiting funds for the office of nuclear security. amendment by mr. hastings of washington regarding limiting funds for federal energy

regulatory commission project number 2342. amendment by ms. jackson lee regarding limits funds used in the controvention of the department of energy organization act. an amendment by ms. kaptur regarding energy efficiency and renewable energy. amendment number mr. luetkemeyer regarding the study pursuant to 5018-a-1 of the water resources development act of 2007. amendment by mr. rohrabacher regarding limiting funds for loan guarantees for carbon capture and sequestration. amendment by mr. rohrabacher regarding 10% loan guarantee funds for nonwater nuclear advanced reactors. amendment by mr. rohrabacher for carbon capture and sequestration projects not exceeding funds for the nonwater advanced nuclear

reactor loan guarantees. amendment by mr. -- mr. scalise regarding funding for the corps of engineers construction. amendment by mr. sherman regarding limiting funds for activities at the office of energy efficiencies and renewable energy. and further, that each such amendment may be offered only by the member named in this request or a designee or by the member who caused it to be printed in the congressional record or a designee shall, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or a special designee each may offer only one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate and shall not be subject for demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. and further, that each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. and further, an amendment shall

be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 337 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further h.r. 2354. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2054 which the clerk will report by title. the chair: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee

of the whole rose earlier today, the bill had been read through page 62, line 2. pursuant to the order of the house of today, no further amendment may be offered except those specified in the previous order which is at the desk. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cole of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, in april, the draft executive order was circulated that would force

companies as a condition of applying for federal contract to dispose -- to disclose all federal campaign contributions. in my opinion, if implemented, this executive order would lead to a significant politicization of federal procurement process. instead of judging companies on the basis of their past work performance, their demonstrated ability to do the job or the price, we would actually introduce potentially the element of their political participation and contributions and activities into the consideration process. this executive order would not in fact lead to more object tift in the evaluation -- objectivity in the evaluation process. it would protect the constitutional right for people that contribute to whatever political candidate or party they choose to.

the draft order claims that these burdensome and intrusive disclosure requirements are necessary to ensure that contracting decisions are, quote, deliver the best value to the taxpayer and are free from undue influence by extraneous factors such as political favoritism. delivering the, quote, best value to the taxpayer, would require such disclosure from anyone receiving federal dollars. this executive order would not apply to federal employees and negotiate with the government to provide billions of dollars of benefits to their members. nor would it apply to many nonprofits that receive federal grants many of whom have strong political agendas of their own. my amendment would prevent any funds from this act going towards the implementation of any rule, regulation or executive order regarding political contributions that

takes effect on or after the date of the enactment of the act. it's important to recognize, mr. chairman, my bill does not change federal campaign law in any way. it does not change the current disclosure requirements. my amendment's already been agreed to on three previous pieces of legislation. the defense authorization bill for f.y. 2012. homeland security appropriations bill and also the defense appropriations bill. mr. chairman, pay-to-play has no place in federal contracting process. requiring the disclosure of campaign contributions for government contract in my opinion does just that. congress considered the proposed executive order, something like it during the 111th congress as part of the disclosure act and rejected it. this executive order is a back door attempt to implement the disclose act by executive order. for this reason i urge adoption

of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, i rise to support the amendment. the department of energy relies on a contractual work force to help our national laboratories. such an executive order would impact nearly every program at the department of energy. i do support the amendment and urge a yes vote on the gentleman from oklahoma's amendment. mr. cole: thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i raise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mr. eshoo: i thank the chairman. i rise once again in strong opposition to representative cole's amendment to block transparency and disclosure for taxpayers. that's what this issue is about. now, it is with continuing

curiousity that when i listening to the gentleman, mr. cole, present his view, if in fact you believe in disclosure, bring a bill to the floor. the reason that the house has passed what you keep offering is, the house is not presented with an opposing view because my amendment is continually blocked and not accepted to be debated on the floor. look, what this is about is the following -- there are businesses, large and small, that receive billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars for services and product in doing business with the federal government. in return for this public money, they should have the obligation, which is not burdensome, to simply disclose how they use it. that's all this is. when they spend it in our

elections, they know it. the recipients know it, but the taxpayers don't know it. that's one hell of a deal. for those that want to keep it in a dark corner, it's a great deal for them. the american people have spoken clearly. last year, a cbs/"new york times" poll say most americans agree to disclosing campaign contributions. i will submit my amendment again to require the disclosure which representative cole's amendment forbids, and i except, once again, that the majority is going to block it. it's an unfortunate turnaround, i think, from just a few years ago when republicans led the fight for disclosure.

they were for it before they decided to be against it. does that tag line ring some bells for you. if they think it would be restricting contributions, that was the thinking at the time. now the supreme court allows unlimited corporate spending, they're against any restrictions whatsoever. we should oppose any amendments that are designed to keep the public less informed rather than more informed about what happens with their tax dollars. that's what this is about. now, the majority has made a big deal about and talked insessently about spending. what about this spending? does this not mean something in terms of the federal government and the taxpayers? i think with public dollars

come public responsibility. this does not present any constitutional issues, no freedom of speech issues, it is not burdensome. it is simply disclosure. so if you want to stand with the uber lobbyists who are representing lobbyists in support of mr. cole's amendment, hey, be my guest. i didn't come to congress to do that. i think that the president's executive order is sensible. i think it should be put into place. i think any legislation brought to this floor to prevent that from happening is really on the wrong side of history. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i thank you, mr. chairman. i would just remind my friend from california that when republicans brought disclosure they didn't link it to the contracting process which this potential executive order does. i think that's out of bounds. i'd also remind my friend, the

democrats opposed that. when democrats were in the majority, in the overwhelming majority, they failed to enact legislation similar to what you suggest in the disclose act. i think this is something that this legislative body has looked at. my friend from california wants to introduce a bill to do it. that's appropriate. but doing it in the contracting process is simply wrong. people submitting bids will somehow think inevitably that they will be helped or hurt by their political activity. that has no basis in judging the ability of a federal contract. frankly, my friends never wanted to apply that same standard to labor unions or to affiliated groups applying for federal dollars. i'd actually agree with them on that. i don't think it has any place in disclosure in those areas either. there's a place to do this and there's a place not to do it. doing it on a contract is inevitably metropolitan to try to use the federal dollars --

enevidentably to try to use the federal dollars. that's wrong. we shouldn't allow it and we should never, ever risk politicizing the political process. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ms. eshoo: how much time do i have left, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentlelady has one minute. ms. eshoo: i'd yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews, the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for yielding and the chairman. i'd say to my friend from oklahoma through the chair he makes a very compelling case. i agree with him. i think that the secret groups that are funding massive usually negative ad campaigns against people running for office should be held in the exact same standards as labor unions. if they pack money to advocate for or against a candidate or cause they must disclose it to

the public and their members. that's precisely the principle that ms. eshoo is standing for and i'm proud to stand with her. if you really believe in something that you say, then you shouldn't be ashamed to let everyone know that you said it. if you really believe that what you're advocate something right for the country then you ought to let everyone know that you said it. it's a simple principle of disclosure, it is something that i think is long overdue. let's not have anybody hide in the shadows of the american political process. the chair: the time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i would urge the body to support the amendment. i would disagree with my friend. sham groups are quite often formed that labor unions are underneath but that's another debate for another day. let's keep outside money out of the procurement process. with that i yield back and urge the adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> i appreciate the recognition. i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment and join with my colleague from california and new jersey in their opposition. mr. visclosky: the amendment isn't a legislative attempt to legislate a draft executive order which would provide for increased disorder of the political contributions of government contractors, especially contributions given third party entities. the argument is made that companies should not disclose more information because people in power would misuse that information to retaliate against them. using that logic, all campaign disclosures are bad. government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their packs and those who contribute them. by extension we ought to take that law and ensure that the voters of this country are protected so that they also know

what those corporations are doing with their money as far as involvement in the electoral process. the provisions as drafted i think are very good. the information is required to be provided and the executive order that the amendment would circumvent enhances the quality of information that people and citizens ought to have before they go to the polls. disclosure is good and for that reason i ridse again in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment and would 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 oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> i would ask for a recorded vote on that. the chair: 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 gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. eshoo of california. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to enter into a contract with a corporation where other business -- or to other business entity that does not disclose its political expenditures. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. chairman.

i rise for the fourth time this year to call for transparency in our political system. i maintained the view shared by the overwhelming majority of the american people that transparency in the years of our -- use of our tax dollars is absolutely critical. there are thousands of companies who do business with the federal government, receiving billions of public dollars for their services and their products. our constituents deserve to know whether they spend any of these dollars to influence our elections. and my amendment will accomplish this and i once again urge my colleagues to support it. now, some say, as we just heard a few moments ago, that this disclosure requirement will politicize the pro curement process -- procurement process. it's difficult to maintain that view with a straight face. as i've said before, when a business contract with the federal government and spends money in elections, the process is already politicized.

even in the citizens united decision legalizing corporate expenditures eight out of nine justices specifically endorsed prompt disclosure of expenditures. just as anthony kennedy wrote, disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. this is not an onerous burden. as justice bran dies famously said, quote, sight in is the best disinfectant. i want to share an example from my home state of california that illustrates the importance of disclosure. last year in 2010 proposition 23 was on the balanced a. it was an effort to -- balance ad. it was an effort to kill the state's tough new global warming rules. the airways were flooded with ads but because california requires disclosure voters were

informed. the oil companies financing the ads had to stand by them each and every time the ad aired, stating that they had paid for them. so voters were informed, they made up their minds, prop 23 lost by 23% in november because voters knew who had paid for the ads and what and whom were behind them. it wasn't just someone skipping through a field. it was going to have an affect on them. it was disclosure. as he has a half dozen times this yeerks my colleague, tom cole, has offered an amendment to prevent the very disclosure i'm asking us to endorse. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it, presenting transparency puts us all on the wrong side of history every time. republicans supported disclosure

before they were against it. and the record is very clear on that. so i urge those from both the other side of the aisle and my colleagues on this side, i don't believe this is a partisan issue. i believe that disclosure is good for america, it's good for our system, it is not burdensome, it is not anticonstitutional and it's simple. the voters should know, taxpayers should know, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation under the appropriations bill, therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. rule states an amendment to a general appropriation bill should not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment requires a new

determination. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair will rule. for the reasons stated by the chair on february 17, june 2 and july 7, 2011, the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained, the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i have an amendment at the chair. the chair: will the gentleman designate which amendment? >> yes, the gosar-altmire-gibbs amendment. 66. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 66 printed in the congressional

record offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of our amendment that would defund a regulation. a regulation that has the force of law across the united states, that is in my view unconstitutional and simply wrong. currently as a result of law passed in the 111th congress, a person licensed by a state to car ray personal side arm for personal defense can carry that weapon in a national park or refuge. prior to 2009 our own federal government trampled the second amendment and prohibited citizens from protecting themselves in some of the most dangerous remote lands we have. the ability to carry a firearm in case of emergency is imperative. later we learned that when congress changed the law, the bill language omitted the army corps of engineers, creating confusion and uncertainty. the corps further manages over

11.7 million acres including 400 lakes and river projects, 90,000 campsites and 4,000 miles of trail. soon after the law's passage, the army corps proudly declared that it would continue to demand self-defense on its land. there's a bill pending that seeks a long-term fix. but this amendment is a short-term fix. it defunds a federal regulation by which the army corps of engineers enforces, creates and authorizes its ban on self-defense firearms. this bipartisan amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill will clarify this confusing policy. we are simply asking that the secretary of the army not use any fiscal year 2012 funding to enforce a regulation that prohibits firearm possession that complies with state law on corps project and lands. the amendment would not, however, allow firearms in federal facilities such as army corps headquarters, corps research facilities or lock and dam buildings. this is a commonsense amendment that upholds our constitution and gives people who use our

public lands the right to defends themselves if needed. i yield back the balance of my time -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i would take a different tact on the issue of common sense and security. i would like to talk about the security of our nation and about our economic infrastructure and about these corps regions. i understand that the gentleman's amendment is to prohibit the corps from preventing individuals from having handguns on projects administered by the corps. i understand it's aimed at those who obviously support the second amendment, i do myself. the fact is i believe the gentleman's amendment is injurious to our national security. i do not think it is a good idea to allow individuals to walk

around with guns over dams and water treatment plants that are administered by the army corps of engineers. now, i assume there are some individuals amongst my colleagues who disagree with me. however, this amendment also prevents the corps from implementing or enforcing rules on explosives and fireworks and other weapons. i don't believe there are other members in this body who believe that the corps should not be able to stringently enforce rules on explosives at dams and water projects and treatment facilities that they have jurisdiction over. further, what if there's danger of fire on the corps land? unless there is some other law that supersedes the regulations that your amendment is aimed at, the corps employees would not be able to prevent people from launching fire, with, despite dangers of wildfires --

fireworks, despite the dangers with wildfires. i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would hope he would consider withdrawing his overly broad and misguided amendments and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i would like to yield mr. gibbs a minute and a half of time. mr. gibbs: thank you. mr. chairman, i rise in support of the gosar-gibbs-ult mire amendment to prohibit funding the secretary of army to enforce a regulation that prohibits firearm possession in compliance with state law on corps projects and lands. earlier this year i and representative altmire from pennsylvania with co-sponsor -- with representative gosar from arizona introduced h.r. 1865, a stand-alone bill that would prohibit the secretary of the army from enforcing any regulation that keeps an individual from possessing firearms on army corps of engineer water resource development projects. gun owners need to be able to exercise their second amendment

rights when they are legally camping, hunting and fishing on army corps property. last congress this house passed national parks lang twhadge became law to allow for guns on national parks land and the army corps of engineers immediately issued the following release. public law 111-026 -- 24 does not apply to corps projects or facilities. the passage of this new law does not affect the application of title 36 regulations. this policy preempts state regulatory framework from transporting and carrying firearms, thus invalidating concealed weapon permits and other state laws that allow law-abiding citizens to transprlt and carry firearms. this amendment is a bipartisan effort that would put a temporary fix to the end -- to end the patchwork of regulations that govern different lands managed by different federal agencies. i urge all members to support the gosar-gibbs-altmire amendment and i yield back. mr. gosar: i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i'd be happy to yield a minute. if i can ask the chair how much time i have remaining. the chair: you have three minutes remaining. mr. visclosky: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. altmire: i right in support of the gosar-gibbs amendment to protect our nation's sportsmen. the army corps of engineers are not allowed to carry firearms for self-defense on their campsites and thousands of miles of trails were law enforcement is scattered. our amendment will simplify regulations for law-abiding citizens by defunding a federal regulation that bans firearms for self-defense on army corps lands.

this will not change rules against bringing firearms into federal buildings, such as army corps headquarters or locks and dams. it guarantees that sportsmen are able to defend them self while they legally hunt and fish on property that the army corps owns and operates. to secret this problem in the long term, mr. gibbs and i have also introduced the recreational land self-defense act, but this amendment is a necessary first step and is supported by the national rifle association and gun owners of america. i urge my colleagues to vote yes, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. the second amendment is a key component of national security and in that aspect it allows citizens to carry. this is about possession of firearms only. it does not apply to explosives in or around structures.

i'd finish up by saying i wish everybody would support this amendment and look forward to its passage. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i'd reiterate my strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. we are talking about allowing people with weapons in areas where we have dams and water treatment plants and the army corps of engineers ought to be able to exercise control over those for the protection of those major economic infrastructures. i would respectfully disagree with the gentleman that he would also reduce their ability as far as regulation of people with explosives and i think that, again, is very detrimental relative to our national security. for these reasons again, i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. -- the gentleman from arizona yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from arizona. as many as are in favor will signify by saying 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 tennessee rise? mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section. for department of energy, energy programs, energy efficiency and renewable energy, for the solar energy program as authorized by section 602-b, 604-e, 605-d, 606-d, and 607-i-5 of the energy and security act of 2007, there is hereby appropriated in the amount otherwise provided by this act for department of energy,

energy programs, fossil energy research is hereby reduced by $32 million. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. for the record, there is a new version of had a amendment that is at the end of the bill insert the following -- atuned to the action we are encouraged to get this straight. for the department of energy, energy programs, energy efficiency and renewable energy for the solar energy program as authorized by section 602-b, can we have maybe one brought down there and maybe we can get -- so there's not a tebling nickal error? the chair: the gentleman will suspend. mr. cohen: thank you.

the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. tend of the bill before the short title, insert the following -- section. for department of energy, energy programs, energy efficiency and renewable energy, for the solar energy program as authorized by section 602-b, 604-e, 605-d, 606-d, and 607-i-5, there is hereby appropriated in the amount otherwise provided by this act for department of energy, energy programs, fossil energy research and development is hereby reduced by $16 million and $32 million respectively. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from tennessee, mr.

cohen, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. our nation is at an energy crossroads. either we can further increase our addiction to fossil fuels and use advanced technologies to suck out every last drop of oil, coal and natural gas that exists underneath the earth's surface no matter what the economic or environmental cost or we can decide to break our addiction to fossil fuels by investing in clean, renewable energy resources that have the capacity to power our nation forever. the majority's decision to cut funding for renewable energy programs and increase spending on fossil fuels makes it clear that they haven't quite gotten off their addiction to dirty energy. but this amendment offers some opportunity to do so. their decision is shortsided, will endanger american prosperity and threaten our economic viability. to help rectify this situation, this amendment's aurd to cut $32 million from the fossil

fuel energy and research and development account and give my friends on the other side an opportunity to let the sunshine in and join with god's wonderful source of energy. my amendment has a net impact of zero on the budget authority and does not increase 2012 outlays. despite the overwhelming evidence that the u.s. needs to invest more in solar and spend less on fossil fuels, the majority has decided to reduce funding for solar research and development by 37%. this severe cut is unacceptable, and especially egregious since the majority has allocated an additional $32 million to the fossil fuels account, a 7% increase. this amendment that i've offered seeks to create some pair tee back to its 2011 level and increasing the solar account by 10%. solar is the future and fossil fuels aren't. if the majority wants to fulfill their commitment to increase jobs and increase american energy security, then they need to start seriously

investing in solar. recent studies have demonstrated that investments in solar can create three times as many jobs as fossil fuels. if the government decided to invest $1 million in solar development, that investment would create at least 17 jobs. but that same $1 million in fossil fuels would create but five jobs. and jobs is what the american public is interested in. the seven jobs created would be the high-paying jobs in the manufacturing and construction sector, the jobs that were once the backbone of our industry giving the middle class an opportunity to have jobs and participate in the american economy. i'd witnessed the power of solar in my own community, create jobs, spur economic development, transform the lives of everyday americans. as a result of previous federal solar investments, solar -- sharp solar, which is located in my district, is a burgeoning solar industry and operates a manufacturing industry. addition investments in solar energy will create thousands of

new jobs in my district and millions of new jobs across the country, including some in new jersey. it's far better long-term investment. fossil fuel proponents may not publicly admit it but renewable energy will power the future. so establishing dominance in the sector is critical to our national energy security and economic security. supplies of fossil fuels are diminishing rapidly and their nonrenewable makes them a long-term problem. recognizing the critical role renewable energy technologies like solar will have, nations across the world are making massive investments in clean technology so they can establish themselves as leaders and exporters of the future's energy. i recently visited germany and solar is everywhere. the germans are investing and supplying many of their buildings with solar and they are a leader, just as china is, but america is being left behind. as demonstrated by this appropriations bill, we are not competing in the emerging

global marketplace. unless the majority decides to change course and support the efforts that we made here to make unprecedented investments in renewables, the united states will transition from importing oil to the -- in the middle east to importing clean renewables in china. my amendment alone will not determine the course of america's energy future because we need to be investing billions in solar energy to keep up with the chinese, the germans and other countries. but this zero cost amendment will create jobs and push america a little further down the road to a clean energy economy. the amendment offers a clear signal to the american people and the world the united states is serious about ending its addiction of fossil fuels and becoming a world leader in reunusual energy sector. we shouldn't just orbit around the sun. we should harness its energy and use it to supply energy for this planet. the sun is an anchor. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: his amendment would increase funding for the oofs of energy efficiency and renewable energy solar energy program at the expense of fossil energy research. solar energy research to $97 million below fiscal year 2011 because especially within today's budgetary constraints we cannot afford to spend taxpayers' dollars on activities like demonstrations of proven technologies that should be funded by the private sector. but our bill preserves funding for the cutting edge research that will advance american industry and help us lead globally. by the numbers i can support -- can't support an amendment that adds funding back into this program. fossil energy generates 70% of our nation's electricity, and may i add, generates, i believe, close to 55% of your state's energy. and will continue to advise the

lion's -- to provide the lion's share well into the 21st century. fossil energy research program receives $477 million in our bill for research that's let us squeeze more energy out of our domestic fossil energy resources. this research aims to increase the efficiency of our fossil energy plants across the nation. if we were to increase the efficiency of our fossil energy plants by just 1%, we'd increase the output of our power plants by 12 times the total output of solar power in the united states. that's without using one pound or one leert of extra fuel from the -- liter of extra fuel from the ground. i appreciate the gentleman's desire to move towards solar technologies. coming from a state that is the leader in that regard. and that's why we've included $166 million in our bill for that purpose.

the energy efficiency and renewable account has nearly $9 billion in unspent stimulus money. we heard that before in earlier debates. and the importance of using fossil energy is too great so i can't support cutting into further fossil energy and development. therefore, i oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee has yielded back. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back as well. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. cohen: i'd ask for a roll call vote. the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i wish to address an amendment at the chair. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. beend of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section. none the funds made available under this act may be expended to administer or enforce the requirements of subchapter 4 of title 31 -- title 40, united states code, commonly referred to the davis-bacon act with respect to a contract that exceeds $20 million. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 2354 that seeks to define title 40 u.s. code section 31. up to $20 million instead of the current $2,000 threshold.

right now we're in serious and prolonged economic recession. the construction industry has been hit the hardest throughout the united states. my amendment defunds the davis-bacon act up to a certain amount in order to allow small businesses and small contractors the ability to compete on the smaller government contracts. this amendment will assist the small businesses that do not have the resources to compete for the larger contracts that compel compliance with all the requirements of davis-bacon. that is why this amendment defunds contract applications for smaller contracts under the $20 million threshold. but the larger projects are still subject to the davis-bacon act. this is a temporary measure for the duration of the fiscal year in direct response to the recession. now on average research establishes that federal public projects that are forced to operate under this law spend 22% more than projects not bound by this law. by eliminating the onerous cost for small projects, there will

actually be more work, up to 22% more work for the same dollar. and the same -- and the smaller contractor will be able to compete for jobs that otherwise are out of their reach. yet this agreement preserves the application for the act for the larger projects so that those big projects across the u.s. where larger contracts get those contracts, these companies can be more readily comply with the provisions of the act and have deeper pockets to handle the administrative and other requirements mandated by the act. we also know that one study concluded davis-bacon act. we also know that the government accountability office states that this act is extremely difficult to administer and the g.a.o. has advocated for its repeal as far back as 1979. in a certain degree, this amendment seeks to reduce that waste, but the most important aspect of this amendment is encouraging small business participation in these government building contracts.

i have stated before that we as members of congress, we are stewards of the public treasury. we have an obligation to spend taxpayer money wisely. the dilemma does not earn money, the government does not generate wealth. we have an obligation to spend this money wisely and we have an obligation to help the businesses of the country and those that build our infrastructure need our help. this amendment addresses that need. the heritage foundation suggests that for every $1 billion the federal construction spending supports, 14,000 workers. then the savings from the suspension of the davis-bacon law for one year would support 163,000 new construction jobs. my amendment addresses this very issue and seeks to boost employment and work for small businesses and small contractors who can compete for smaller government contracts temporarily if the davis-bacon requirements are defunded for one year. i ask that you support this amendment, support small businesses, more efficient

spending, more taxpayer money, spreading our limited resources and keeping more american construction workers in a job, a livelihood and a mission to rebuild this america together. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: appreciate that very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, davis-bacon is a pretty simple concept and it is a very fair one. what it does is to protect the government and the taxpayers as well as the workers in carrying out the policy of paying a decent wage on government contracts. davis-bacon act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. the fact is that opponents claim davis-bacon requires union wage

jobs. however, more than 75% of davis-bacon wage determinations are not based solely on union wages. the quality of the work on energy and water projects, for example, is crucial to the communities depending upon them and we do need individuals who are trained, who are more efficient and who are going to do the job right the first time. one of the things that tends not to be noted when we have a discussion and debate about davis-bacon is the money it saves to the taxpayers that are hidden costs by those who do not use union labor and do not pay union scale wages. by including fringe benefits in wage calculations the davis-bacon act delivers health care and pensions for workers on federal projects, ensuring that they aren't part of the many

uninsured americans who rely on medicaid and cost the american taxpayers. the department of labor survey methods also incorporate hourly investments in training and apprenticeship were appropriate to ensure the skill productive future work force. i would also point out that in the past the house has taken two votes on this issue. the first vote taken included a limitation on davis-bacon and was considered in h.r. 1 and it failed by a vote of 189-233. the second vote was a limitation taken during consideration of the f.a.a. bill and it failed 183-238. but most importantly and the gentleman indicated that he is spurned onto action here because of the -- spurred onto action here because of the recession is

because of the money involved relative to those who work in the united states of america. since 1977 we have fortunately had great growth in this general economy. but i would point out to all of the members that according to the department of labor in 1977 the real hourly wage that a human being in the united states of america earned for one hour's worth of labor was $19.57. in 2010 the department of labor reports that a human being in the united states of america for their human labor for one hour now earns $19.04. people today for an hour's worth of work make less than they did in 1977, despite the growth of

our economy. the last thing we need to do here today is to put more downward pressure on the ability of an american citizen to work at a good paying job that can give them a decent living and i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to support the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, the recommendation i brought to my full committee prohibt -- the chair: does the gentleman strike the last word? mr. frelinghuysen: i'd be happy to strike the last word. the recommendation i brought to the full committee prohibited davis-bacon provisions on any sort of construction, roads, bridges, dams, buildings, because the taxpayer as a result pay more. unfortunately this provision was

stricken impacting right to work states and quite honestly shortchanging them. you do the math. there have been plenty of studies, davis-bacon provisions inflate costs for construction projects, as much in some cases as 22%. these added expenses come at a time when we're really close to being proke as a nation -- broke as a nation. how many more jobs, union or nonunion jobs, could we provide to put america back to work by supporting this amendment? plenty more and thus i'm pleased to support the amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i understand i have the right to close as a member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona -- mr. visclosky: i did not yield back. the chair: i'm sorry, the gentleman reserves. mr. visclosky: i do not yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, a national unemployment rate of 9.3%, this is a jobs amendment. davis-bacon does not protect the federal government nor the taxpayer. it only increases the cost to the taxpayer and the federal government by 22%. there are no studies that show that there are any difference in outcomes. has a contractor -- contractors are held to the same standards. this is a temporary measure -- -- measure meant to help our business contractors and it's an investment of our vital infrastructure projects and i urge my companions on the other side of the aisle to join in this and look at this fairly and increase the access to this funding, properly, fairly, to make sure we get more people to work and get this vital infrastructure back and get america back to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i appreciate the recognition. i would close by indicating that there has been discussion about the burden that this act imposes

upon small businesses and i would again wish to contradict that. i also believe that the administrative requirements are critical to prevent fraud against government agencies. first to comply with the i.r.s. and overtime regulations all law-abiding contractors must obtain records on hours worked, wages and benefits. second, electronic transmission has streamlined reporting. third, the integrity of the whole program relies on this reporting to avoid kickbacks, misclassification of workers and cheating under the davis-bacon act. it is important to remember that federal overtime law, including the fair labor standards act, requires that all employers, not just those that comply with davis-bacon, to keep records. i would ask that my colleagues oppose the gentleman's amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman. i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas, page 62, after line 2, insert the following new section, section 609, none of the funds made available by this act for department of energy, energy programs, science, may be used in contravention of the department of energy

organization act, 42 u.s.c. 7101. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentlewoman from texas, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. jackson scrax jackson thank you, mr. chairman. i want -- ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for the courtesies extended to me. my amendment will protect funds provided for science under title 3 of the department of energy's energy program. this amendment addresses the need to increase programs that educate minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, known as stem, as well as the need to train teachers and scientists in advanced scientific and technical practices. let me first of all say i consider this a jobs bill. i'm excited when we talk about jobs here on the floor of the house. and recognize that america has changed. as a former member of the committee on science, space and technology and a member of the aviation subcommittee -- space

subcommittee, dealing with nasa's commitment and mission in human exploration, i believe that america's future is not only today but in front of her and focused on science and technology. the importance of developing a highly skilled technical work force is crucial. over the last 50 years there have been major changes in the united states in terms of both the economy and the population. let me be very clear. i am a member of the manufacturing caucus and i believe we should restore manufacturing in this country. we are so well placed to be multitasked. boosting our manufacturing and then as well moving forward to processing, analyzing and analyzing information. in this information-driven economy it is important that we recognize that our valuable assets are human resources. therefore in order to compete successfully in the global economy, the u.s. needs to -- citizens who are literal in -- literate in terms of science and

mathematics and a work force that is well educated and well trained. i believe my amendment focuses on that very program and focus. by investing in the scientific advancement of our work force and our youth, we are investing in our future, we're investing in job creation, we're investing in greater job opportunities for americans. it is important to note that under this legislation work force development for teachers and science has taken a hit. but i believe what we should do is make sure that we emphasize that those resources be kept in and at some point add to those resources and the reason i'd say that is work force development programs for teachers and scientists provided funding to graduate fellowship programs that helped train the nation's top scientists is a crucial, crucial effort. the united states faces a critical shortage of highly qualified mathematics and science teachers. we will need an additional $283 -- 283,000 teachers in secondary schools by 2015 to meet the needs of our nation's students.

this teacher shortage is particularly pronounced in low-income districts. in order to move forward, let us protect the scientific aspects of the work of this government. according to the national center for education statistics, about 40% of fourth graders and 20% of eighth graders cannot perform basic mathematical computation. i have long recognized the need to improve the participation performance of america's students in science, technology and math. i worked to make sure that private funding was given to an inner city school district to establish a program without comparison in its excellence focusing on science, technology, engineering, and math. >> would the gentlelady yield? ms. jackson lee: i'm happy to yield. mr. frelinghuysen: we appreciate your advocacy in this regard.

mr. jackson -- ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much and as i conclude with that generous offer, let me say that 2.25% of american college graduates had degrees in science and engineering, compared to 25% in china. we have had programs that have been very effective, such as the harmony science academy in houston that devotes an impressive amount of time and resources to educate the city's minority youth in math and science and even doing research in cancer. i want to thank dr. flowers who has implemented a program for stem technology in houston. and also the first african-american female to go in space, and also mcnair, an

astronaut who lost his life in service to the country from ben franklin to nasa to silicon valley the success and competitiveness of america has always depended on the knowledge and skills in the stem fields this amendment will help us focus on expanding that for all of americans. i thank the gentleman for his generosity and yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question son the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hastings of washington. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the

funds made available in this act may be used to implement or enforce the recommendations or guidance proposed by the army corps of engineers in the final draft as mcneary shoreline energy plan, washington. the chair: pursuant to thed orer of the house today, the gentleman from washington and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, for years the wall wall district corps of the -- the walla walla district corps of the corps of engineers has managed the district. five years ago, they sought to update their shoreline management plan which had last been revised in the 1980's. the existing management plan includes a permit program for private property owners that seek to build or use docks along the river shoreline. the 1906 -- the 2006 revision

was so controversial that the corps was forced to back -- was forced back to the drawing board. it proposed a variety of restrictive measures, including a moratorium on the building of docks by private property owners along the shoreline and required existing dock owners to tear out their docks at great personal expense in order to keep their permits. the corps got an earful at a public hearing on the proposal and this year came back with a similarly controversial proposal which included new questionable mandates from the marine fishery service, including specific requirements for the length, width, and trands parentcy of the docks, all of which it claims would save salmon. with all the existing local docks as is, salmon runs are at

record levels along the river. they acknowledge that the snufle salmon average 20 million to 30 million. docks aren't killing salmon. regrettably, the corps did little to justify their plan at another recent public meeting which over 200 people attended to voice their opposition this amendment will ensure that the army corps will not charge ahead with a shoreline management plan until it answers questions about the questionable mandates and addresses concerns raised by a substantial number of citizens. without this amendment, the corps' shoreline plan would be implemented and force questionable levels on -- rules on residents. i'm not saying the corps shouldn't be allowed to implement a revised shoreline plan, but it should not do so based on shaky science and without ensuring the public's concerns are adequately addressed.

>> mr. chairman, would you yield? mr. hastings: i yield. >> we support this issue, we are aware of the issue and support it. mr. hastings: i appreciate the gentleman's concurrence. if that's the same on both sides, i'll yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek recognition? the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: thank you. mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk please. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

ms. kaptur of ohio. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, the amount otherwise provided by this act are revised by reducing the amount made available for department of energy, energy programs, departmental administration and by increasing the amount made available for department of energy, energy programs, energy efficiency, and renewable energy except for program direction by $10 million. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentlewoman from ohio and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: yes, mr. chairman, i offer this amendment to help promote a dynamic energy market in america through continued development of our budding solar industry. my amendment, conservatively, would cut, actually transfer, $10 million from administrative costs within the department of energy and shift those to solar energy research and development

within the energy efficiency and renewable energy account. certainly i understand the difficulty in drafting in bill, given the large allocation cuts for the energy and water subcommittee and i appreciate the chairman's work and the ranking member's work in helping america meet the energy and water challenges of our nation, which are huge. yet this bill cuts research in solar energy by more than 1/3 from last year and over 60% from the president's request providing $166 million, $97 million below fiscal year 2011 and $291 million below the request. the $10 million transfer i propose from administration to implementation represents less than 5% of the funds in the administrative budget of the department of energy and i want to make deleer this amendment does not target other programs that are critical to our

nation's energy needs. rather than cut fossil fuels and nuclear power, this amendment asks the department of energy to tighten its administrative belt a little bit more to prioritize the agency's core mission, the promotion of a viable energy future for america and to do it in a sector that's growing jobs in our country despite what we face in terms of international global competition. while this amendment proposes a modest 5% cut from the department's administrative accounts, these dollars will go far in supporting additional energy options for american consumers and companies. solar energy production has nearly tripled in the last five years nand 2006, we generated 508,000 gheag watt hours. today we pro-- mega watt hours. today we produce more than that. while the u.s. economy is

anticipated i to increase sgroibs 2% over the next year, in the solar industry, that number is 27%, according to cornell university. as costs go down and production capacity grose, solar energy becomes a viable alternative to imported energy sources. this is what our country needs right now a vibrant energy market that encourages economic growth here at home. some would argue with numbers like these, solar energy doesn't need anything, any additional funding, but i disagree. it is precisely because of our investment in this fledgling, cutting edge industry that is high tech that such successes are possible. we cannot allow america to be complacent. right now we are in competition to be the energy leader of the future in this sector. for years, we were the lead for the developing new technology but we've been falling behind. guess who has been right at our heels the whole time? china. china knows that our technology

will power the future and they are setting themselves up to be the new global leaders in solar. i can verify that. as we sat back and patted ourselves here trying to exponentially increase their funding for solar and other clean energy technology. in addition, they are providing 15-year tax holidays for firms that locate production there. as we develop this very, very fledgling industry here, they are more than willing to outsource it there. we must redouble our efforts, continue our investment in research and bring this market to scale in america. right now, we are powering homes and some bases with solar, we should be powering neighborhoods and entire communities. that's what it means to have the real, thriving, new emergency market -- new energy market that americans are demanding and the jobs that go with them. this will create increased efficiency in the department of energy and promote industry and energy independence. ski my colleagues to think about it and help me by

supporting this amendment which merely takes less than 5% of the administrative budget of the department of energy, $10 million, we're not talking about billion here's, and shifts it to the solar energy accounts. i reclaim my remaining time and ask my colleagues to please join me in supporting the kaptur amendment for solar. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back? ms. kaptur: can i retain my time? the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: the gentlewoman's amendment would reduce funding in the departmental accounts because of quite a few amendments we've already passed on the floor, your reduction wouldn't be a 5% reduction, it probably would be a 0% reduction. i know generally there's not a lot of sympathy for

administrative responsibilities in the department of energy, but this would leave secretary steve chu with not perhaps enough people in his operation to oversee a lot of issue he is has before him, including solar nrnl, and may i say for the record, solar nrnl account in the department of energy budget is $166 million. it's less than perhaps what you should be but if you take it from the department administrative account, we will have, i think, cause for more, perhaps managerial problems to deal with. i -- we also, may i say, have in the energy and efficiency and renewable program, as i mentioned on a number of occasions, $9 billion of unspent stimulus funds, so there's plenty of money in here, and i don't think that the department salaries and wages ought to suffer and be reduced at a time when they

need the additional leadership over there. so i somewhat reluctantly oppose your amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: may i inquire as to my remaining time. the chair: 30 seconds. ms. kaptur: i thank the chairman. i want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee very much, p mr. frelinghuysen and the ranking member, mr. visclosky, i'm asking for a vote on thement a but i'm hoping as this moves toward the senate and final consideration that some of those who happened to get to the microphone earlier, we might find a way to move dollars around to support an industry that truly is a cutting edge industry for our country, deserves the kind of support this congress should give to new technology to try to create good jobs in this country and help us wean ourselves off our key strategic vulnerability, imported energy. i yield back my time and urge my colleagues to support the

kaptur amendment on solar. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentlelady from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. kaptur: mr. chairman. mr. chairman. the chair: yes. ms. kaptur: thank you. on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from ohio will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hastings of washington. page 62, after line 2, insert the following, section 609, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of energy to move the office of environmental management under the authority of the undersecretary for nuclear security of the department of energy.

the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentleman from washington, and a member owes poe -- opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. mr. chairman, last friday the department of energy made a surprise announcement that not only was the assistant secretary for environmental management or e.m. leaving but that they were restructuring the entire $6 billion program under the undersecretary for nuclear security. who also serves as a head of nnsa. the e.m. is responsible for cleaning up the nuclear waste created during our nation's defense program that helped end world war ii and the cold war. the federal government has assigned legal -- has signed legal agreements with the states to clean up this waste. major restructuring was simply declared with d.o.e. with zero contemplation with congress, the states, the communities or the

stakeholders. i haven't been given sufficient answer to the simple question, how does e.m. benefit from this change? we have no idea how this decision was reached or why restructuring was considered. given that -- what little has been made public, i believe that there is some real risk, including pot teppings for cleanup to become less of a -- potential -- including the potential for cleanup to become less of a priority on nuclear security. in the late 1980's d.o.e. moved the cleanup program out of the weapons program in order to provide more definition, transparency and to focus on cleanup. now d.o.e. wants to put them back together and i ask again, what is the benefit to e.m.? in d.o.e.'s own words from this past friday, and i quote, mr. chairman, the office of environmental management has made unparalleled progress in cleaning up our nation's cold war nuclear legacies at sitings across the country, end quote.

yet out of nowhere they decide to throw the program into a state of flux. without sufficient answers, i can't stand idly by while the department makes the seemingly snap decision that will impact something as important and as complex as nuclear waste cleanup. so my amendment would prohibit the use of funds to move the office of environmental management under the undersecretary of nuclear security and with that, mr. chairman, i'd be happy to yield to the chairman. mr. frelinghuysen: we'd be happy to support your amendment and we reserve judgment as to what secretary chu's plans are. but we agree with you, he needs to come to the appropriations committee and explain fully how he's going to get -- how have a better program for environmental matters. it's too important to the nation, not only your state but other cleanup operations and sites around the nation. thank you for yielding. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for his -- i thank the gentleman for his support and

i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would make the point that this past friday the department of energy said that the office of environmental management has made unparalleled progress in cleaning up our nation's cold war nuclear legacy at sites across the country. and then they announce restructuring. this subcommittee held a hearing on the issue of cleanup in april of 2006, we find ourselves here in 2011 still talking about it, let alone the cost. i appreciate the gentleman's concern. my point would be i have some am bive lens as i mentioned to -- ambivalence as i mentioned to the gentleman earlier simply because i had a conversation with the secretary rel relative to the change -- relative to the change. my observation to the secretary is, i appreciate he knows he has a problem. i also appreciate he has done something about the problem. but i certainly appreciate the attentiveness of the gentleman,

your involvement and your good work on this and certainly do not object to that what you're trying to accomplish here because i do think the stronger the message, the more diligent the department will be on this matter. and i thank the gentleman for raising the issue. mr. hastings: thank you. reclaiming my time, mr. chairman, i'll simply say, this may be a good idea but for goodness sakes, what is the benefit to a program, a $6 billion program, that only six days ago was announced that they are moving to another -- under another structure? there may be a good reason, but tell us what that reason is. so this amendment hopefully will elicit that answer and we can move forward and with that support on both sides, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the

gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk -- desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. engel of new york. before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of energy or any other federal agency to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet or for any agency's fleet inventory except in accordance with presidential memorandum federal fleet performance dated may 24, 2011. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentleman from new york and a member opposed each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you very much, mr. chairman. on may 24 president obama issued a memorandum on federal fleet performance which requires all new light duty vehicles in the federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles such as hybrid,

electric, natural gas or biofuel by december 31, 2015. my amendment echoes the presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds in the energy and water appropriations bill from being used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles except in accord with the president's memorandum. i've introduced similar amendments to the department of defense, homeland security and the agriculture appropriations bills. all three were accepted by the majority and passed by voice vote. our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600 billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing costs but america doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of oil for transportation fuel. alternative technologies exist today that had when implemented broadly will allow any alternative fuel to be used in america's automotive fleet. the federal government operates the largest fleet of light duty vehicles in america. according to g.s.a. there are over 660,000 vehicles in the

federal fleet with just over 15,000 being used by the department of energy. by supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in our federal fleet we will encourage development of domestic energy resources including biomass, natural gas, coal, agricultural waste, hydrogen and renewable electricity. expanding the role of these energy sources play in our transportation economy will help break the leverage over americans held by foreign government-controlled oil companies and will increase our nation's domestic security and protect consumers from price spikes and shortages in the world's oil markets. so i ask that you support my amendment but i just want to say very briefly on a similar note, i've worked with my colleagues, john shimkus, roscoe bartlett and steve israel, to introduce the bipartisan open fuel standard act which is h.r. 1687. our bill would require 50% of all new automobiles in 2014, 80%

in 2016 and 95% in 2017 to be warranted to operate on nonpetroleum fuels in addition to or instead of petroleum-based fuels. compliance possibilities include the full array of existing technologies including flex fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric drive and fuel cell and a catch-all for new technologies. so i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and when we -- i certainly will. mr. frelinghuysen: we're prepared to accept your amendment and commend you for it. mr. engel: i thank the gentleman and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition?

mr. hastings: mr. chairman, for the last time i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hastings of washington. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available to the corps of engineers by this act may be used for the removal or associated mitigation of federal energy regulatory commission projects numbered 2342. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentleman from washington and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. mr. chairman, in these tight budget times, it's more important than ever that the federal government focus its funding on the most essential and core functions. the federal government however should not subsidize private companies' business decisions, particularly when that business decision involves tearing out a 14 megawatt hydropower dam that has served two rural counties in my district.

a privately owned dam located in my district was constructed in 1913 on the white salmon river which is a tributary of the columbia river. since 1947 the dam has been owned and operated by pacific corps and has held a license with the federal energy regulatory commission. over the past 20 years rather than agree to a rigorous and costly measure associated with a ferc relicensing program, pacific corps omented to you is render its license, to operate the dam, and now rabbits -- wants to remove that dam at its own cost. this amendment will ensure that no federal tax dollars will be used by the corps of engineers to remove or mitigate for the removal of the dam. recently pacific corps representatives communicated to my office that they acknowledged that pacificorps themselves and

not the corps is responsible for all impacts that removing this dam might cause to the federal -- or the colombia -- columbia river navigational channel. my amendment ensures that the federal taxpayers do not get left holding the bag for a private company's actions that could cost this private company by their own admission up to $32 million. having said, that do i want to say this, mr. chairman. while i give as it its approval to a dam being removed in the northwest, it's a private decision by a private company, i want to reiterate my opposition to any attempt to remove any of the federal dams along the columbia or snake river. this is a private company making their decision and they should pay for it and that's what this amendment attempts to address. i will yield to the distinguished chairman. mr. frelinghuysen: pleased to support your amendment. mr. hastings: good. i thank the gentleman very much and with that concurrence on the other side, i will yield back my time and urge adoption of the

amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 21. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. capps of california, page 62, after line 2, insert the following. section 609, none of the funds made -- none of the funds provided in this act may be expended by the nuclear regulatory commission for the purpose of the license renewal process for the diablo county nuclear power plant, until peer

review seismic studies are completed and lessons are learned from the earthquake and tsunami from the fukushima plant in japan are taken into account. mr. frelinghuysen: point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: pursuant to the rule of the house of today, the gentlelady from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. my amendment would ensure the nuclear reag regulatory commission does not move forward with the process for the diablo county nuclear power plant until seismic studies are finished and reviewed. i've asked for a short pause until a myriad of seismic questions are answered.

further studies are needed to demonstrate if the plant's design and operation can withstand and earthquake and other potential threats including a previously undetected fault line, the shoreline fault, which runs within a few yards of the plant. even pg&e, the plant's operator, acceded to these th request. it will delay the license renewal until the findings are reviewed. pg&e asked the california public utilities commission to suspend proceedings associated with license renewable for diablo canyon until the studies are submitted. pg&e and the n.r.c. are only talking about delaying the final decision. the licensing process is still

going forward, despite the fact that the decisions to be made about the licensing of the plant would be affected by what the seismic studies tell us. the cart is clearly being put before the horse here my constituents deserve answers to questions about the ability of the plant to withstand an earthquake and nuclear accident at the same time and how long the plant could be self-sustaining in the event of such taj. it is particular lippert innocent given that in march, the n.i.c. confirmed that diablo canyon is one of two plants in the highest risk seismic air dwhreefs country i am, to put it lightly, concerned that they have not take then seismic risks seriously enough. it has failed to support the recommendations from a 2008 commission report delineating that more information is needed to determine the true seismic risk at diablo canyon. just yesterday, an n.r.c. task force review of the japanese

reactor meltdown determined our reactors are not sufficiently prepared to respond to catastrophic events or even simple power out ams like the one that triggered the fukushima meltdown. the n.r.c. should move to adopt the recommendations of this report as well as the full complement of lessons to be learned from this dast -- disaster and should do it before moving forward to give the license to pg&tombings operate diablo canyon far into the future. there's no hurry to reliance diablo canyon. the current operating licenses run to 2024 and 2025. surely that's more than enough time to adequately investigate seismic concerns in a thoughtful and transparent manner. to be clear, i'm not calling for diablo canyon to be shut down or to be denied operating licenses. what i'm doing is asking that the reliancing process be

paused briefly until comprehensive, independentage cease of the seismic issues are -- independent annals sis of the seismic issues are completed. deaub low canyon provides affordable electricity and many jobs in my district but this is an issue about safety and we all agree that safety must be everyone's number one concern here. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would ensure that this is the case. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. frelinghuysen: i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and violates clause 2 of rule 21, the rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriations bill should not be in order if changing existing law imposes additional

duties. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does anyone else wish to speak on the point of order? the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the nuclear regulatory commission, the amendment therefore constitutes legislation and violate -- in violation of clause 2 of rule 21, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk, labeled as number two. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona, page 62, after line 2, insert the fol logue new section. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that the read be

dispensed with. the chair: is there objection? pursuant to thed orer of the house today, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will each control five minutes and the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i know a lot of people offer amendments, i'll try to move quickly here. this would prohibit funds from going to the advanced research projects agency energy. or arpa-e. there's arpa defense, there's arpa other stuff, ast arpa-e. we're trying to prevent funding from going to arpa-e or energy. they're set to receive about $100 million under this appropriations bill. the most compelling argument given to defund arpa-e is found on its own website, which states it was created to focus on out of the box industry that

private industry will not support due to high risk. it's this out of the box thinking that's got us into this deficit we're running, about $1.6 trillion. we are broke. we are borrowing 41 cents on every dollar we spend. but still we find within our budget reason to spend $100 million to fund energy research in private companies that venture capital and others won't fund because it's too risky. we're not talking about products for defense, for which there's no commercial application. we're talking about private sector research that could reap a windfall for some private company and has in a number of other areas. but yet we believe that it's prudent to borrow because we're borrowing everything here, borrow money from the taxpayer to pick and choose favored companies to receive this research money. it's not right. we ought to defund it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. free i think hughesen: i rise to oppose the amendment. my colleague's amendment would eliminate funding -- the clerk: the gentleman is recognized for five -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i appreciate my colleague's amendment and perhaps some of his other amendments because they try to reduce spending. our bill reduces spending for energy and water development to near the 2006 level. $100 billion below fiscal year 2011 and a full $5.9 billion below the request. i share many of my colleague's concerns about this program. the committee has taken a close look at it. right now, arpa-e must not intervene where private capital markets are already acting and must not be done, i oppose the gentleman's amendment and yield back.

i'd be happy to yield to the ranking member. mr. visclosky texas i appreciate the gentleman yielding, i join him in my opposition. we had a vote adding to this program, but as i mentioned several times, while i have a great trepidation about people at the department of energy talking to each other, and the department not having the same vigor, if you would, that they have for arpa-e, instilling that in other research centers. it does appear that this is a successful program in its infancy and we certainly ought to make sure that it has a chance to show that it can be successful over limited number of years. they are talking about three. my emphasis with them is to distill that same effort across the department of energy. so i would join my chairman in opposing the gentleman's

amendment. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in -- i'm happy to yield. mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to this amendment too. it would provide $180 million to arpa-e, and we have to take into account the amendment just passed and $450 million below the president's budget request. arpa-e is a promising new program that can drive iven novation to support our scientific competitiveness. as i stated previously, arpa-e has shown potential as a new organizational model. i'm disappointed that the focus at its creation has been absent. arpa-e is modeled on darpa. darpa has been one of the great

leaders in innovation in the national security area. i'm sorry to say it, but i think we have to defeat the flake amendment. i yield back. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. mr. flake: i'm just happy that this amendment doesn't rise to the level of being the most ridiculous amendment the gentleman from washington has ever seen. they usually do. but i would say again, we're not talking about things in national security or in defense, for which there is no commercial application, for which companies invest in this kind of research would not reap a windfall, the reason for which, the profit motive of in-- profit motive incentivizes companies to invest in these. why does goth have to be the investor of last resort in what is supposed to be transformational research that

the industry cannot support due to high risk. if it's that risky, we shouldn't be taking it. if venture capital won't do it, we shouldn't be doing it either work money we're borrowing from venture capitalists and others who have a better idea than we do, when we go out and support ethanol, corn ethanol for 30 years, for crying out loud or some of these other things and we keep doing it say, it's going to come around one of these days, and this is a promising new area of research, come on. we're $14 trillion in debt. negotiations going on right now over at the white house or somewhere else trying to figure a way to raise the debt ceiling to spend more. isn't it time we review programs like this, where we're trying to replace what is not happening in the private sector or trying to outguess the private sector and i'll tell you, if we can't cut here, i don't know where we're going to cut, i really don't. the gentleman made the point

that we are down to 2006 levels, great. we ought to go further than that. i mean, 2006, we act as if that was a great depression year, "grapes of wrath," music playing or something, it wasn't exactly that. we see ramping up year after year after year, some of these programs, we're spending more than we ever have. i urge adoption of the amendment and queeled back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition?

mrs. capps: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. capps of california, page 52 after line 2 insert the following new section, section 609, none of the funds provided in this act may be expended by the nuclear regulatory commission to issue a draft supplemental environmental statement for diablo canyon nuclear power plant, units one and two. the chair: pursuant to the order of -- order of the house of the day, the gentlewoman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. it is my hope we can agree to this amendment. it would bar the n.r.c. from issuing a draft supplemental impact statement for the license renewable for the diablo cuenty -- canyon nuclear