sure that it does not move forward with the licensing until advanced, peer-reviewed studies are completed and reviewed. these are needed because the u.s. geological survey announced the discovery of an undiscovered fault line, the shoreline fault which runs within a few yards of diablo canyon. the n.r.c. confirmed that diablo canyon is one of the highest risk -- power plants in the country. we can't say for certain whether an earthquake along the shoreline fault or others nearby would result in a knew leer accident. my amendment only affects the diablo canyon power plant, it won't shut down the power plant or even prevent pg&e from gaining new operating licenses to run diablo canyon in the future. instead, it would simply ensure the n.r.c. gets answers to the

unstudied and unresolved seismic questions before it issues the draft environmental report. my amendment is also consistent with pg&e's own request that the n.r.c. delay the final issuance of the plant's license renewal until seismic research in the area is completed. the n.r.c. made it clear it will review those findings before making a decision on whether to grant renewed operating licensers in plant to operate. moreover, last month, pg&e asked the california public utilities commission to suspend proceedings associated with license renewal until its advanced seismic studies are finish and the findings have been submitted to the n.r.c. unfortunately, however, work on the reliancing effort continues even though the seismic studies have not been completed and won't be for several years and even though the outcome of these studies could very well

affect every operation at the plant. mr. chairman, we need answers about the seismic risks at diablo canyon and what steps are needed to address them and prepare for any disaster and we need them before the reliancing process moves forward. so i urge my colleagues to join me on agreeing to this amendment, the risk that the offshore faults pose to diablo canyon. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: we respect the gentlewoman's effort to protect the interests of her state and district. however, the amendment intervenes in a specific local project by prohibiting funds for a required step in the licensing process. i do not believe this is an appropriate federal role in the process that should be driven by the state and local communities while being

carefully evaluated by the nuclear regulatory commission. i therefore must oppose the amendment and urge other members to oppose it well. and i yield back. i'd be happy to yield to the ranking member. mr. visclosky: i'd reluctantly join him in his opposition. the gentlelady from california attempting to do, i appreciate her endeavors here and certainly commit to working with her to make sure that the nuclear regulatory commission is moving forward in a responsible manner on this license application. i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

mrs. capps: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, eavementeavement the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. -- further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk labeled as flake number 3. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona. page 62 after line 2 insert the following new section. section 609. none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the fossil energy research and development program of the department of energy. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: this amendment would prohibit funds from going to the fossil energy research and development program. the fossil energy research and

development is set to receive half a billion dollars through this appropriation bill. the committee report says that no less than $25 million to continue research in certain areas but we shouldn't have any money going to subsidize big oil. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: it would eliminate funding for the fossil energy research and development program causing hundreds if not thousands of job losses, threatening our nation's ability to compete in the rapidly growing portion of the energy sector. i may also note for the record, mr. chairman, that arizona itself is dependent, i believe, close to 60% of its energy on fossil energy. so fossil energy is part of the nation's equation. we better be careful before we eliminate research and

development, but let me say i appreciate in recognizing the gentleman's passion for cutting spending and spending that is duplicative. but this type of research is important. i'd be happy to yield to the ranking member for any time. mr. visclosky: i join the chairman in his opposition recognizing that 70% of our energy consumption comes from carbon fuels. it's very important for this government and for this nation to learn how to as efficiently and as effectively use them and, again, i think for that reason alone we should oppose the gentleman's amendment. i appreciate the chairman yielding. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. you know, with an energy resources as old as fossil energy, we're talking fossil fuels. we're talking big oil. we hear from the other side, quit subsidizing big oil, and here we are we are going to give them research.

you know, some of the companies who receive grants under this program, i think companies like chevron or others to develop energy in the gulf or wherever else. why in the world are we subsidizing that? we're hearing they have profit ofs of billions and -- profits of billions in the quarter and here we are subsidizing them again to more efficiently use fossil energy? now, fossil energy has been around for a long time. it's not exactly the notion that no research goes into it. it's going to be around for a lot longer still. why in the world is the federal government saying we need to subsidize these companies who are conducting research in use and efficiency in fossil energy? it just -- if we can't cut here, again, where can we cut? if we can't -- if we are going to stand up for big oil when it comes to spending money here,

then where can we cut? i just -- i'm just flabbergasted when i come on the floor and look at what we're funding and subsidizing here. you know i hear the rhetoric of how we need to make sure they're paying taxes and whatever else. i think they should. i think we need to get rid of all these corporate subsidies. why in the world are we spending billions of dollars overall, millions in this case to help these for-profit companies that we blast on one -- you know, in one breath and then subsidize with the next? where does it end, mr. chairman, if we can't cut here, where can we cut? again, this is fossil energy. been around a long time. will be around a long time. we don't need to subsidize it and, remember, every dollar we spend here is a dollar that we have borrowed from people across the country, from taxpayers, from investors, from venture capitalists, from

others who would invest it far more wisely than we would here. the best allocation of capital resources is through the free market, not by government subsidy. we've learned that over time, yet we persist in doing this time after time after time. i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield 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: on this, mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. denham of california.

at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section 6. none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement section 111-b of public law 111-11. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentleman from california, mr. denham, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. denham: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chair, the underlying bill already removes the funding for a program that is failing to show any positive results and has done more harm than good. the san joaquin restoration program continues to push forward on an ill-advised act of wasting water out to the ocean under the guise of saving salmon. what this amendment does is to prohibit the premature reintroduction of an endangered species into a river, a river biologists say is not ready for salmon, a program that is

supposed to occur after the construction of fish screens and the completion of an environmental study, neither of which is complete. all central valley salmon runs are ruggling to regain healthy numbers. this amendment will make sure salmon will not be in other streams and further threaten our endanger current rivers. the burrow of reclamation needs to be -- the bureau of reclamation needs more time to complete the environmental studies and build the infrastructure required by the san joaquin restoration program before they consider the salmon run. even the national marine fisheries services has doubt of the reintroduction condained in their strategy and -- contained in their strategy and says that the san joaquin restoration program will not improve necessary channel improvements for successful reintroduction.

mr. chairman, 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: i rise in opposition to the gentleman from california's amendment. congress ended 18 years of litigation in the central valley of california over water. the agreement was supported by the previous administration and california's then republican governor schwartz nagedl schwarzenegger. it was agreed to by senator feinstein in the. there is a $9 billion request for the san joaquin restoration fund and rescinds the funds for these activities. as we stand on the house floor today, we are undermining this agreement which, if it were to stand, that is the amendment,

will land this case simply back into court. if the court is first to take over river restoration, defiant water users will be at risk of losing over 20 years of water supply certainty provided by the settlement. the amendment i believe is an attempt to end the broadly supported and bipartisan effort to restore the river while also improving water supply management, flood protection and water quality. the amendment is piling on, if you would, given that the vast majority of funding for the settlement has been cut. there is no need to eliminate all funding. just to ensure water attorneys can make a few more boat loads of payments. as i said at the outset, i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. denham: reclaiming my time. mr. chair, it's apparent that the gentleman from indiana just apparently has not seen the

river in my area or simply doesn't understand its flows. but to take an endangered species from northern california, truck it down to the central valley, put it into a river that does not have fish screens, that does not have fish ladders, that does not have the environmental study, just to watch these fish die is not only irresponsible but it's a waste of money. so i would invite the gentleman from indiana to come visit us any time but certainly don't make the mistake of killing an endangered species. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. visclosky: i understand i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. denham: i would urge adoption of the amendment and yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment -- mr. visclosky: mr. chairman. the chair: i'm sorry. mr. visclosky: in closing i would point out that in 2009 congress ratified this settlement to end 18 years of

litigation. i do not think we should adopt the amendment and potentially begin another 18 years of litigation and would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. scalise: mr. chairman, i have eanch amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana, at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, for the corps of engineers civil construction, it is appropriated in the amount otherwise provided for this act expenses is reduced by $1

million. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. i offer this bipartisan amendment with my fellow louisiana colleague, democratic congressman richmond. this is for critical coastal restoration efforts and if you look at what we are trying to address here, not only can we maintain fiscal responsibility, but we need to maintain and restore america's wetlands. and just what is happening to america's wetlands, what are we trying to address? louisiana alone has lost 25 square miles of coastal wetlands every year and i hold up this football to represent that every single hour, mr. chairman, mr.

chairman, the state of louisiana loses an entire football field of land that has eroded away. and what exactly does america's wetland protect that's eroding away? i want to show a chart here of the oil and gas infrastructure, the infrastructure, the pipeline that move america's energy throughout the country. in the gulf coast alone just in louisiana, we produce about 1/3 of america's energy. and we talk all the time about our interest in reducing our country's dependence on foreign oil, and i strongly, strongly support that effort. louisiana is at the forefront of doing that, but that energy that we produce, and we ought to be producing more of it, but the energy we do produce is distributed throughout the entire country through pipelines that are in jeopardy right now

because of that erosion of this coast, this wetland in america. not only is it the oil and gas infrastructure that's at risk, but also seafood production. the gulf coast of louisiana, we produce 1/3 of the country seafood. when you look at the oysters and the crabs and the fish, this great product that we produce off of our coast, but all of that comes from america's wetland. from that wetland that is evaporating, eroding away and we are trying to bring a bipartisan amendment to stop that from happening. and louisiana has put its own skin in the game to the tune of over $1 billion of money that louisiana has put in. but there is a project that was authorized by this congress, because this is a national issue. in fact, congress has recognized this is an issue, that shouldn't just be left up to louisiana, because we're talking about something that protects and serves the entire country.

and that's why in 2007, the l.c.a. project was authorized by congress. and all we're trying to do is keep that project alive, moving $1 million from the expense account into the corps' construction account. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: reluctant opposition. first of all, i commend the gentleman for his add vow cast si for coastal restoration and carrying the ball for coastal ress tore station and his remarkable props. we know what a high priority it is for his district and his state and may i thank him for coming to the floor earlier to make a case for controlling spending, but also doing some things that are very important to his constituents and others affected by the devastating

floods. i want to commend him for his strong add vow cast si. the bill includes more than 15% of the entire investigations account to continue work on coastal restoration through studies, engineering and design on various components of the program. the committee had to make some tough choices in the bill, though. and although the corps of engineers' construction account is increased $86 million above the president's request, let me say above the president's request, it is still a reduction from fiscal year 2011. the corps had numerous projects under construction that were not in included in the president's budget request and not likely to be funded in fiscal year 2012. while construction funding is trending downward, it is prudent to prioritize funding for these ongoing projects so they can be completed and the federal

government can realize some benefits from previous spending, rather than starting new projects, as important as they are. and even given that this project is currently authorized at approaching $2 billion and may continue to grow, it would not be prudent to begin another major new project while we have so many existing commitments. for this reason, i oppose the amendment and sympathesize the gentleman for the purposes which he is here and i yield to the ranking. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the chairman for yielding and i would use the word reluctantly and i understand the need that this gentleman has in his district and appreciate the efforts in this regard, but i do support the chair's policy as far as no new starts, given the fact in the last several years, we terminated hundreds of ongoing projects. this is going to be a

significant cost and until we can have the fortitude with the administration to provide the necessary funds for ongoing projects alone is difficult to begin a new endeavor. the gentleman indicated his efforts to increase the request made by the president. despite his best efforts to add money to the bill, we are now $677 million below what we were spending on water projects in this country in fiscal year 2010. with all reluctance, i'm constrained to join with my chairman in opposition. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: i appreciate the interest by both gentlemen in dealing with the back leadership log that the corps currently has and that's one of the reasons why when i worked closely with my colleague from new orleans, representative rich mopped on this amendment, we made sure not to take away anything from

existing projects. they are not affected by this amendment and the corps' overall budget is not increased by our amendment and we worked very hard to get to that point that we weren't taking away from those other vital projects but pointing out that this is not a louisiana-specific issue, but a national issue. and as we talked about that pipeline, that series of pipelines that goes throughout the entire country to supply the energy needs of our nation and we talk about the seafood production and the things that make our gulf seafood so appetizing to people all around the country and around the world, but i want to go back to this football and talk about the football field of land that erodes every hour, just the last hour we have been sitting here, an entire football field of america's wetlands has eroded away. and we can reverse ta trend without taking away from any other projects and understand

the importance of that. and that's why we work so hard to put the amendment together in a way that we did and i urge adoption from all of my colleagues and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. 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. scalise: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. i believe it's number 81. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

-- designate. the clerk: amendment number 81 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: my amendment eliminates funding to the department of energy's office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. we should be developing the vast quantities of proven energy resources readily available in this country, but instead, the government continues to subsidize green technologies that are not yet ready to be used wide scale. they are neither efficient nor affordable and federal agencies should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. if these technologies were viable, the federal government would not need to give them

handouts. and instead, they would be able to succeed on their own. further, this legislation provides millions of dollars of foreign assistance to countries like china and india to implement renewable energy programs. at a time when our nation is broke, and we are broke, why are we sending taxpayer money to our foreign competition? i urge support of this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i would point out to my colleagues that the amendment, as stated by the gentleman, would eliminate all funding for the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. the bill already includes a reduction of $491 million from the current-year level, which is

a 25% cut. the debate relative to energy policy in this house not necessarily restricted to this amendment, talks about subsidies. but there are two parts to a federal budget. there are spending side issues and revenue and tax-side issues. i would hazard to guess, there isn't an energy source in the united states of america, be it coal, nuclear, gas, solar, wind, does not somehow receive some benefit either by lost revenue or direct spending by the federal government in its endeavors. what we do have to do is necessary research to make sure that we do expand the mix of energy utilization in this country and certainly that is the purpose for the renewable energy program research at the national level. 70% of our energy now generated

through coal or natural gas, this cannot continue. as i have said in earlier debates during the week, my senior senator from indiana, senator lugar, has described our energy problem as a national security issue given petroleum products tend to be bought in the united states of america. without this type of very serious research, we aren't going to solve our national security problem and not going to create job opportunities and economic opportunities. and i would respectfully object and oppose the gentleman's amendment and would be happy to yield to mr. lewis. mr. lewis: i appreciate my colleague yielding and very briefly, while i'm respectful of my colleague's attempt here to do what he can to cut back on spending, this is a very important area of our committee's responsibility, it would totally eliminate funding.

it is a bit too far and i associate myself with the remarks of my colleague and reluctantly oppose the amendment. mr. visclosky: and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i appreciate the gentleman from indiana's comments and i submit that the best way to make sure that we have that national security that my colleague from indiana was talking about is for us to open up our god-given resources for energy this country and we aren't doing that. mr. chairman, we need to start doing everything we can to develop every energy resource that we can. and the best way to determine what energy policy is going to be viable and is best for america is by letting the marketplace work. i believe in the brilliance of the marketplace.

the marketplace unencumbered by taxes, regulation, as well as by the government and free from the government meddling in the marketplace by picking winners and losers is the best way to develop those drastically needed energy resources and i believe in renewable energy, but is it viable economically and is this country going to be viable economically if we continue to spend like we have been spending. many members of congress seem to have the idea that this country is just going to dry up and blow away if the federal government doesn't supply everything to every enat this time -- entities' needs. i hear from colleagues they want to continue this spending and that spending.

in the committees, i serve on three committees and my colleagues on the other side, talk about how we have a tremendous debt that we need to deal with. but it reminds me as i hear them also talking about not cutting programs, reminds me of an old saying back in the founding era when our founding fathers were talking about the discussion in taxes, today's mantra, don't cut the, cut the fellow behind the tree. there is nobody behind the tree. we are in an economic emergency as a nation and congress needs to face the fact. we are headed towards an economic collapse as a nation and we have to stop picking winners and losers and let the marketplace do that and let people vote with their dollars instead of us funding this and not funding that. subsidizing this and not

subsidizing that. . the best way to do these things, is let the marketplace does what it does best and let people vote with their dollars, let people invest in things that make sense and not invest in those that doesn't make sense. we got a lot of -- a lot of renewables such as had corn-based ethanol that doesn't make sense. it doesn't sense economically. it doesn't make sense even from an energy perspective. in fact, i'm a good southern boy. i love my grits and corn bread and it makes no sense burning up my grits and corn bread driving down the road and putting it in the gas tank of my g.m.c. uconn. so we need to let the -- g.m.c. yukon.

so we need to let the marketplace do its they think and reel in the spending that the republicans and democrats alike over the last several decade has been growing the size and scope of the government. so i encourage people to -- my colleagues on both sides to support this amendment. it makes sense economically. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. broun: and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. visclosky: i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. 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. broun: mr. chairman. i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. who seeks recognition?

>> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does -- mr. dicks: i move to strike the last word. i would just point out that there are no amendments left on our side that i know of and i hope that your side can be more expeditious. thank you. important ballgame. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? does the gentleman yield back? mr. dicks: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. it's number 63, as recorded in the congressional record. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 63 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. i will also be expeditious and comply with my friend from washington's request not delay

this. this amendment simply prohibits the department of energy from spending money to implement the vehicles technologies deployment program within the energy efficiency and renewable energies clean seas program. earlier i offered an amendment to cut funding from this program and transfer it into the spending reduction account. as i mentioned before when i presented my previous amendment, it is not appropriate for the federal government to be spending dollars on programs that the private sector should be doing or that local and state government can do. this program, this deployment subprogram, is corporate well fair. i remind my friends, this is corporate welfare. and in fact i've heard over and over from my friends on the sdratic side we need to stop -- democratic side we need to stop doing corporate welfare and i

hope they will support this amendment because that's what this simply is. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: the amendment of the gentleman from georgia would prohibit funds for the vehicle technology activity at the department of energy that works with cities across the country to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. the gentleman should know that the committee closely evaluated the alternative fuel program and slashed it to $202 million below the budget request, leaving only $26 million that we found to be well justified. so we are making some progress. we are making some tough decisions, and even though the gentleman's heart is in the right place, we do need the $26

million to continue the program and thus i oppose the gentleman's amendment albeit reluctantly. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the committee's cutting this program down to the $26 million. but, again, this is corporate welfare. the fortune 100 companies, many that get these funds, we do need to reduce this country's dependence upon foreign oil, but this is not the way to do it. the way to do it is to open up our own exploration resources in america. this is a commonsense amendment to strike out $26.5 million out of funding that we just simply don't have. it's money that we're borrowing from our foreign competitors as well as here in this country.

it's creating more and more debt. so i urge passage of this amendment, 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 georgia. 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. broun: mr. chair. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i request a recorded vote. mr. broun: pre-existing condition -- the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

is the gentleman offering the amendment number 27 as printed in the record? >> yes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. flores of texas. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: mr. chairman, i rise to offer my amendment which would address another restrictive and misguided federal regulation. section 526 of the energy independence and security act prevents federal agencies from entering into a contract for the procurement of an alternative fuel unless its life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or equal to those -- fuels from conventional petroleum resources. my amendment would stop enforcing this ban on federal

agencies funded by the energy and water appropriations bill. the initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle a defense department's plan to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquid jet fuel based on the opinion of environmentalists that they produce more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum. i recently offered my similar amendments to the milcon-v.a., ag appropriations bill and each time those amendments passed by voice vote. my friend, mr. conaway, added language to the bill. but section 526's ban on fuel choice applies to all federal agencies, not just the defense department. that is why i'm offering it again today. federal agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time studying fuel emissions when there is a simple fix, and that's not restricting our fuel choices based on extreme

environmental views, policies and regulations like section 526. with increasing competition from other countries for energy and fuel resources and the continued volatility and instability in the middle east, it is more important than ever for our country to become more energy independent and to further develop and produce our domestic energy resources. placing restrictions on federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable precedent to set in regard to america's energy independence and its energy policy. mr. chairman, section 526 makes our nation more dependent on middle east oil, stopping the impact of section 526 will help us promote american energy, improve the american economy and create american jobs. i urge my colleagues to support passage of this commonsense amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from indiana.

mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate that. section 526 i believe is a commonsense provision that stops federal agencies from wasting taxpayers' dollars on new alternative fuels that are drearier and more polluting than the fuels we use today. the section simply bans agencies from entering into contracts who purchase alternative and unconventional fuels that emit more carbon pollution than conventional fuels on a life cycle basis. i think that is just a rational, commonsense requirement. the effect of this provision that's been in place is a spurred development of advanced biofuels. these fuels are being successfully tested and proven today on u.s. navy planes at supersonic speeds. and i believe it is a testament to american ingenuity. i think the path that the

gentleman wants to pursue is the wrong one and it's unsustainable in the longer term and it will not lead us to energy security and, therefore, i am opposed to his amendment and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. for what purpose does i'm prepared to accept the gentleman from texas' amendment. his amendment strengthens our national security by allowing the federal government to purchase more alternatives to imported petroleum fuels. more than half of the oil in the nation consumed each year is imported, as we know, and today the price of gasoline is hovering around $4 a gallon mark. by declaring some new fuel options to be off-limits, section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 2007 limits our nation's ability to reduce its dependence on oil imports.

his amendment puts all alternatives back on the table, which i think is needed. so the nation can be -- can begin to develop and using fuels that are made with resources from here in the united states. energy self-sufficiency is a national security issue, and this amendment takes us in the right direction. i'm pleased to support the gentleman's amendment, and i yield back or yield -- the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i would just like to know how much time the gentleman from texas has remaining. the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. dicks: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: i want to respond to what my amendment really does. let me read a letter from the department of defense general counsel to senator inhofe from july of 2008. and i quote, it creates

uncertainty about what fuels d.o.d. can procure and will discourage the development of new sources, particularly reliable domestic sources of energy sploys for the armed forces -- supplies for the armed forces, unquote. let me go on. let me give you a practical real-world example of what section 526 does. our closest neighbor with stable energy supplies is canada. and we import 650,000-plus barrels a day of oil that's produced from oil sands in canada. . and that oil gets blended in jet fuels and diesel. section 526 would say that the u.s. military, united states government, more broadly, cannot utilize any of those fuels. there's no technical or commercial way that the military of the united states government can make sure it is not using

any fuel source that came from that crude oil. let me go on and wrap up like this. you are going to hear a lot of remarks from the other side of the aisle regarding the claims about section 526 or about my amendment. my amendment does nothing, nothing to remove the ability of the federal government to use alternative fuel sources. it can use whatever fuel source it wants to. section 526 increases our reliance on foreign oil and hurts our national security and energy security. it prevents the increased use of safe, clean and efficient north american fuel and gas and increases the costs of food and energy and hurts american jobs and the american economy. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: if i could ask the author of the amendment. on the letter, was that a letter from the senator to the department of energy or from the

department of energy to the senator? mr. flores: to the senator. mr. visclosky: i remain opposed to the gentleman's amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 75 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. young of

indiana. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentleman from indiana, mr. young, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. young: i yield myself as much time as i might consume. our nation's unemployment currently sits at 9.2%, a full 1.6% higher than when president obama took office. i'm hearing from my southern indiana constituents and i have heard this for months that the president's way of spending our way to prosperity and uncertainty on future tax rates and interest rates must end. a step in the right direction would be supporting this modest amendment, which my colleague from indiana, mr. burton and i have worked on together. the amendment would restore eligibility criteria for the weatherization assistance program to pre-stimulus levels. by way of background, prior to 2008, the weatherization assistance program enabled

families to reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. since the stimulus bill increased the eligibility threshold, the weatherization fund has exploded and has accumulated an estimated $1.5 billion in unspent funds. the program has been a model of government waste and inefficiency. last year, new jersey's state auditor audited $6 14,000 worth of weatherization funds that were disbursed in his state and found that $33,000 of the $614,000 that were spent actually went to no services at all. so over 5% of the funds are spent in that state were spent on nothing. this sort of waste and inefficiency no doubt is being seen all across the country. we have seen recent audits of weatherization programs in illinois, delaware and texas yield similar results.

personally, i agree with those who say that most americans already have sufficient incentive and means to reduce their bills by weatherizing their own homes and the government lacks sufficient incentives to spend our tax dollars. we should adopt this amendment that would merely limit this program to our neediest citizens . so i would say let's improve our climate for private sector job creation. let's eliminate nonessential spending wherever we can find it. and that's what this amendment does. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. visclosky: gentleman would yield on his time? we accept the amendment. mr. frelinghuysen: we accept the amendment as well. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. 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 louisiana seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 76 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. landry of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. landry: my amendment is simple. it prevents the misuse of recess appointments by allowing the president to make emergency recess appointments if the need arises. current law currently prohibits the salaries of recess

appointees. there was a law passed in 1863 that stayed on the books until 1940 that would prohibit the -- those who receive recess appointments from being paid until 1940 and then some exceptions were made and those exceptions basically took the intent of the law out. and so these exceptions, these loopholes are so broad it makes the prohibition against recess appointments useless and the administration can find a way to make recess appointments and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. these are legal appointments made by the president of the united states. this president, the last president and the president before that, and the president back to george washington. it is the administration's

priority to make these appoint ments and while each of husband collectively disagree with some of the individuals put into particular positions, until we change the law, the house should not pick and choose the staff forever the executive branch any more than they should pick ours. i suggest he work to change the constitution. article 2, section 2, gives the senate say over presidential appointments and gives the president power to make recess appointments. i urge my colleagues to vote no. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. landry: i'm simply doing what many congresses have done prior when they realized this is a problem when presidents and administrations try to bypass the will of the people. i'm using the power of this house, which is the power of the

purse, to make sure when the president makes recess appointments -- this isn't the 1800's any more. if the president needs to make an appointment in an emergency, he certainly has the time and he will be to take that recess appointment and put it before the senate. until that recess appointee is confirmed by the senate, he or she shall not receive any pay. i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i understand i have the right to close. the chair: that's correct. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. landry: i close by saying, my friends across the aisle have spent about closing loopholes. i hope they will join me in protecting the taxpayer in closing the loopholes in the law that currently exists and that is to bring the law back to the intent of it, which is to prohibit recess apoiventyees

from receiving salaries until they are -- appointees from receiving salaries until they are confirmed. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: this is a constitutional issue and we have no business in it and i urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. landry: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleladyp kindly specify the amendment. mrs. blackburn: blackburn 24, the 5%. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mrs. blackburn of tennessee. insert the following, section, each amount made available by this act other than an amendment required to be made available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 5%. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentlelady from tennessee and a member opposed each will be recognized for five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: the energy and water development appropriations bill includes 24.6 billion in funding that is $1 billion below last year's level and $5.9 billion beneath the president's budget request. i applaud our appropriators for the great work they have done in reducing this spending. i'm one of those members of the house that believes that there is still room for improvement because we are in an extraordinary time when it comes to our budget and when it comes to the budget of this nation and

the spending. and this extraordinary time does require some extraordinary measures. and that's why i'm introducing the 5% across-the-board spending reduction amendment. this amendment has the backing of 10 national conservative groups. this amendment would reduce the funding appropriated by this bill by an additional $1.5 billion and take federal spending back to just above the fiscal year 2007 levels. across-the-board spending cuts effectively control the growth and costs of the federal government and give agencies the flexibility to determine which expenses are necessary and which are not. in fact, in my state of tennessee, as i have mentioned many times, as we have debated these across-the-board amendments, and mr. chairman, i know many of my colleagues are probably a little bit tired of hearing these across-the-board spending cuts.

but we bring them forward because the states have used them and they have used them successfully. a governor in my state, made a 9% across-the-board spending reduction to bring that budget back into balance, to put our state on a firm fiscal footing. our states have balanced budget amendments take these actions and they take them carefully, caution usly and with an eye towards restoring fiscal responsibility. it is time to begin to enact these very same measures. removing a nickel from a dollar. this is the way we can help our departments find new efficiencies and to reform wasteful business practices. it would save taxpayers millions of dollars in the process. indeed, if we had been doing this for years, we probably

wouldn't find ourselves in the situation that we are right now. it's a step in the right direction. i encourage the support of my colleagues to the amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in strong opposition to the gentlewoman from tennessee's amendment. i do appreciate the fact that she recognizes that the committee made some tough choices and in fact, our overall bill is close down to the 2006 level. but in some quarters, that doesn't satisfy every member of congress. but i'm respectful of her desire to go further. but cuts of this magnitude quite honestly go far too deep. and the type of things we do in our bill, our responsibility for the reliability of the nuclear

stockpile, that's utmost. our responsibility for cleaning up nuclear waste where, in fact, there are consent decrees where things have to be cleaned up because of things left over from world war ii and research and development, which is important. and water issues. we heard from -- 2.5 hours earlier today, type of things that can happen to our nation when water infrastructure is not kept up and modernized. loss of human life, loss of livelihoods, tens of thousands of jobs. so i'm respectful of the gentlewoman's perspective, but in reality, this would be very damaging to our national security and to things that are important to life and property. and i'm happy to yield to the ranking member, mr. visclosky.

mr. visclosky: i think the gentleman stated the case very well. the expendituring in this legislation on nonproliferation, i think one of the greatest threats our country faces, is the issue of nuclear terrorism. i think we have to be very thoughtful. the chairman has had to make some serious and profound choices. i think he's done an excellent job doing so and we are to stop where we are. i am opposed to the lummis amendment and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i appreciate the comments and i do agree the issues dealt with are important issues. so is the fiscal stability of this nation. that's a very crucial and very important issue that is laid before us. at this time. so is sending a message to our

constituents and to the taxpayers of this nation that yes, indeed, we are going to require the bureaucracy to tighten its belt. one of the questions i'm most often asked by my constituents is, look, in our homes, in our businesses, in our churches, we're all tightening the belt. why is the bureaucracy not tightening its belt? why does washington seem to be recession-proof? they want to see this bureaucracy engaged in this. they want to see the bureaucracy join us in the fight to put this nation on a firm fiscal footing and when it comes to our nation's security, i would just remind my colleagues that on july 6, 2010, admiral mullen made the comment that the greatest threat to our national security is our nation's debt. thank you, mr. chairman. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. all time has expired. the question son the amendment

offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. blackburn: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postponed. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, each amount made available by this act other than an amount required to be made available by the law is hereby reduced by 1%. the chair: pursuant to the rule of the house today, the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: i thank the chairman of the appropriations for the time to speak on this. and to bring this amendment forward. again, this is a cut amendment.

every year, i say, let's look at 1%, 2%, 5%. let's look at where to make these reductions. and i do it because i know that we all realize and probably many of us in this chamber agree with the sentiment that ronald reagan regularly expressed, and that is that the closest thing to immortal life on earth is a federal government program. and we're reminded of that fact today as we are here today debating this funding bill. this amendment calls for a clean, 1% across-the-board reduction in each account of this act. one penny on the dollar. we are doing this, yes, for today. yes, to send a message to constituents that we are working to reduce this spending, yes to send a message to those that are watching the growing debt in this country, yes, a message that we are getting the fiscal house in order, but we are also doing it

for our children and our grandchildren. to make certain that they have an america that is strong that is safe, that has its fiscal house in order. we are in a time where every child that is born in this nation is now seeing $46,000 worth of debt heaped on their heads. federal debt. that is theirs. it is so important that we make this cut. it's an extra $306 million that would come out of this budget and as i said in my previous remarks, the appropriationors have worked hard. they have worked diligently to make certain that they were reducing and coming in below last year's level and they're to be commended for that. but these are extraordinary times and it requires that we put the focus on going a step further, that we engage those that are running the

bureaucracies and we have them go save a penny out of a dollar and that they do it for future generations. thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. who rises in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment. first of all, i want to thank the gentlewoman from tennessee, again, for her steadfastness in trying to reduce spending. our committee had the lowest -- our spending level went back to 2006, and one of the benefits of serving on the committee, one of the reasons i traditionally oppose across-the-board cuts, 1%, 5%, 3% is when you serve on the committee and you've already made substantial reductions, you do it in a careful and thoughtful manner. when you're dealing with issues that relate to the nuclear stockpile, the reliability of that stockpile, the responsibility for taking care of nuclear waste and meeting

consent decreases and court orders -- decrees and court orders, and dealing with lives and property and issues that relate to flooding and things that affect lives and property, literally, billions of dollars of commerce that we heard about earlier this afternoon from those who represent missouri and the mississippi. really, the bedrock of i think 44% of our nation's economy. making these types of cuts, while it may feel good, without having the benefit of what we have the benefit of, which is debate and input from some of the nation's greatest experts, as well as, obviously, people from the administration, there's no way that i would support this reduction. i'd be pleased to yield to the ranking mr. visclosky. mr. visclosky: i think you stated the case well and i want to join you in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. i appreciate you yielding.

mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. mrs. blackburn: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentlelady has two minutes remaining. mrs. blackburn: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia. >> i thank the gentlelady and i thank you for bringing this amendment. there are members across this body who had the opportunity to scour the legislation, i'm on the committee, and to improve on the legislation, that's exactly what she's doing here by offering additional cuts. mr. graves: mr. speaker, mr. chairman, i want to bring up the fact that in the house, over the last five appropriations bills, there have been 250 amendments offered. only 11 cutting amendments have been passed and eight of these were by voice vote. here on the floor of the house, and i guess i'm speaking to my colleagues in the republican party, we are not cutting any more than what comes out of the committee. so far out of these five appropriations bills, there's

been $691 billion spent and yet we've only cut $304 million in addition to that. so mr. speaker, mr. chairman, as i think about where we are, i brought the analogy and trying to put this in context of where we are as a nation, that's two cents, just two pennies, out of a gallon of gas , just two pennies. mr. chairman, i'll leave you that. my two cents' worth on this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcclintock: i rise in sort of this amendment. it's the last opportunity we have to rein in spending that's bankrupting our country in this bill. interest, all the talk of billions of dollars of subsidies we continue to dole out to dubious enterprises, all unfulfilled promises of energy

independence. you would think after 30 years, those promises are starting to ring hollow. after 30 years promises, we're more dependent on foreign energy than when we began and even deeper in debt. i also want to draw to the attention of the house the motion relating to the strategic petroleum reserve that reserve is drawn down either for maintenance or market manipulation, the oil must be -- the proceeds from the oil must go back into the strategic petroleum reserve that guarantees it's maintained at a constant state of readiness to provide for our national security. whenever a dollar comes out of that reserve, a dollar has to be put into it. until this bill. there's half a billion dollars going out of the strategic petroleum reserve, not to replenish the reserve but fund additional spending in this budget. that's a scandal. it's time we put a stop to it. the chair: the gentlelady from

tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i would remind my colleagues, all the issues we address are important issues, but as admiral mullen has said, the greatest threat to our national security is our growing national debt. we're calling for another $306 million to be reduced from this bill. 10 conservative groups support this. let's tighten our belts, let's engage the bureaucracy, let's put our country back on the path to fiscal health. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. blackburn: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postpone. the gentleman from maryland. >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 53. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 53

printed in the congressional record, the gentleman from maryland, mr. harris. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. harris: this follows up on an amendment adopted by the committee by a voice vote just two days ago. this amendment, the second part of the amendment i offered on monday this week that amendment reduced fund by $6 million from eere and that would be enough to cut the funding that this amendment limits that would reduce funding for the international programs of eere. it was an amendment endorsed by citizens against government waste. the international programs are a subset of the eere budget and do not have their own line item in an appropriations bill so because of that, this limitation amendment would be required to properly implement the spend regular ducks amendment again passed by the committee on monday this amendment clearly states that no funds may be spenten the

international program activities at the office of energy efficiency and renewable nrnl with the exception of those authorized in section 917 of the energy independence and security act of 2007 system of this -- we remove $6 million in funding on monday, there were $8 million recommended by the committee, therefore leaving $2 million in the program. the united states government has $1.5 trillion in debt. borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar. now is not the time to take our hard-earned, hard-borrowed dollars an spend them overseas. this program literally, i'll read the programs funded under the international program, assist manufacturing facilities in china and india to assist their energy use. we should be keeping that money to help our factory, not our international competitors. improving energy efficiency in the china sector. we should be improving our energy efficiency, not the chinese building sector.

working with kazakhstan to work on industrial efficiency. we should be using it to promote our trill efficiency not the kazakhstan government. it heps build windmills in mexico. mr. chairman, we don't have the money to build windmills here, we have to borrow the noun do that we shouldn't be borrowing money to build windmills in mexico this implements the spend regular ducks offered on monday and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from m.d. reserves his time. who rises in opposition? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the amendment eliminates international cooperative programs that focus on developing innovative energy technologiesful i appreciate and share the gentleman's concerns about activities that simply fund energy projects like installing windmills in other nations are not an appropriate use of taxpayers' dollars. there's nothing in this program

that funds windmills, with all due respect. this is especially true when we must rein in spending and eliminate waste all around. but this is a good example of when a scalpel is needed to save the worthwhile programs, instead of a plaunt instrument that eliminates the entire program they have gentleman is correct that this program includes several activities, small activities that the united states should not bankroll, however. however, many of the large activities within this program not only engender good will within countries like china, india, and brazil and kazakhstan, which has been a tremendous ally in the war on terror, but they also increase economic opportunities abroad. the energy sectors in china and india are increasing in leaps an bounds, in just the last 10 year, china's energy consumption has more than doubled. china, india and other neighs represent an enormous economic

opportunity for whoever will develop and supply energy technologies used in these rapidly growing countries. cooperative programs eliminated by this amendment help u.s. industry and researchers gain access to these booming markets. may i repeat that. gain access to booming markets. these programs don't cost much but they leverage. let me say it, leverage much more in international contacts and economic opportunities. for this reason and many others, i oppose the legislation -- the amendment and yield to the ranking member. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman and join him in his opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i think the chairman stated the proposition very well. i would point out that the program's technical assistance activities really do help prime markets for clean technologies in major emerging economies to support and encourage u.s. exports so again, i'm opposed to the amendment and appreciate the gentleman yielding.

mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. harris: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. . mr. harris: let me read from the web site, because we were saying thises are developing countries. china is not a developing country, mr. chairman. this is what it says, u.s. department of energy announced $1 million to train energy assessors who will assist manufacturers in china and india to reduce energy use. mr. chairman, those aren't my words but the words of the department that is asking for funding for us to borrow money from china so we can go to china to quote, reduce their energy use. it goes on to say, the eere engages in policy efforts to improve energy efficiency in the chinese building sector.

these aren't my words, mr. chairman but the words of the d.o.e. who wants us to borrow money from china to spend money in china to improve energy efficiency in the chinese building sector. further on, it says, eere is providing training on safe energy now and industrial efficiency. i would offer if we want to do foreign aid, that we do it in the department of state budget. with regards to these cooperative programs, they aren't zeroed out. the chairman should know these programs are partially funned through the department of state and we don't affect the department of state budget in this appropriation. we do say it has egregiously spent taxpayer dollars and wasting taxpayer dollars and with regards to wind powers and windmills, i don't know what

they are building in mexico but let me read from their web site. they are involved in several projects under way, including wind energy in mexico. mr. chairman, unless there is something else besides windmills that uses wind energy, the department says that they are involved in projects involving windmills in mexico. this country can't afford to make chinese factories energy efficient and to build windmills in mexico when we are borrowing 40 cents outs of every dollar, 40 cents out of every dollar. mr. chairman, i urge adoption of this amendment, and i yield back. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from maryland. mr. graves: i ask for a rodded

vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland will be postponed. the gentleman from ohio. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: is the gentleman from ohio the designee of the the gentleman from new jersey for purposes of offering an amendment? >> no. i'm here for purposes of a colloquy and he will yield to me, mr. chairman. >> need to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey moves to strike the last word. mr. frelinghuysen: and i yield. >> i rise for the purpose of asking the gentleman from new jersey, the subcommittee chairman to engage on a col "on fuel cell technology and the need to maintain sufficient funding levels on this critical asset. i want to commend you on the fine bill. this bill, which i know was full of difficult choices and

competing priorities comes in more than 16% less than the administration's request marking a clear commitment to fiscal discipline. within the fossil energy research and development account, the committee has appropriated $25 million for the research, development and development of solid oxide fuel cells. is that correct? mr. frelinghuysen: as the committee states in the report accompanying h.r. 2354, we believe solid oxide fuel cell systems has the potential to increase the efficiency of clean coal power generation systems to create new opportunities for the efficient use of natural gas and to contribute significantly to the development of alternative fuel vehicles. >> i appreciate the gentleman's kind words about the innovative technology. the proper funding, solid oxide fuel cell systems is a step

towards the all of the aabove technology. it will increase energy capacity, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and encourage the use of domestic hydrocarbons including coal, oil and natural gas and shale gas located within my home state of ohio. the department of energy solid state energy alliance is a model example that creates jobs, promotes private investment and enhances our national security. it is my understanding that preserving the current funding levels is paramount in protecting over 700 private sector jobs. ensuring timely commercialization of this technology will provide the basis for broader domestic economic growth and paving the way for creating thousands more high tech, high skilled american

manufacturing jobs. does the chairman agree with this understanding? i yield to the gentleman from fluge. mr. frelinghuysen: i want to assure the the gentleman from ohio my agreement with economic, environmental and energy security benefits of this technology and i will work to maintain this already reduced funding level as the energy and water development appropriations bill moves forward. mr. renacci: i will work to ensure that this funding level is 50% less and is not needlessly reduced further for the coming fiscal year. i thank the gentleman from new jersey and ranking member from indiana and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from missouri. >> i have an amendment number 21 at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21,

printed in the congressional record offered by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. lutelute the devastation combined with the ongoing economic crisis in our waterways infrastructure means we must be focused and responsible. my amendment would prohibit funding for the missouri river authorized, known as mr. apps. this earmark study comes on the heels of a comprehensive 17-year study completed in 2004 that shows the current authorized purposes are important and should be maintained. the river communities, few issues are as important as flood control. people in these communities rely

on the river for livelihoods and will do so today, tomorrow and long after the floodwaters have receded. we need to focus on human life and maintaining the safety and soundness of our levees. missouri river moves good to market and an important tool in domestic and i am trade. the national cargo association, american waterways operators among others support this amendment. it puts in jeopardy the lower missouri and mississippi rivers which could result in devastating consequences in navigation and transportation. and every product that depends on the missouri and mississippi rivers to get to market. the current authorized uses of the missouri river provide necessary resources and translate to continued economic stability for many americans living throughout the missouri

and lower mip basins. we want to maintain jobs. this congress is on the brink of passing three major trade agreements and the ability of our waterways to transport goods, goods purchased and grown by americans is as important as it has ever been. this study is wasteful. and we have already spent 17 years and $35 million on hundreds of public meetings and expensive litigation. i offered identical language and that amendment passed by 245 to 176. i appreciate my colleagues who offered their support and hope to have their support again. while there is no funding in the underlying bill, an amendment was adopted to allow the corps to receive nonfederal funds to complete ongoing federal studies. the need for my amendment is as urgent as ever.

with that, i would like to yield one minute to the lady from missouri. mrs. hartzler: i rise in support of amendment number 21 sponsored by my friend and colleague from missouri. this amendment is an amendment to save tax dollars and ensure that the missouri river focuses on protecting human life and property. it ensures that taxpayer dollars won't be wasted on a second study. a 17-year, $35 million study was completed in 2004 to look at the purposes of this river. we don't need a second study and don't need to scaunder the taxpayers' money. think about how much money was proposed for this study, $25 million. that's a lot of money. and commonsense person from missouri, i have to ask how does government spend that much money on a study? a half a million dollars is a lot of money, how about a

million or two. think what they can do with $1 or $2 million. they want $25 million to study the river that's already been studied. now is the time for common sense and fiscal sanity and stop spending money on things we don't have and don't need. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from missouri. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. akin: we are already in a crisis now. huge debates about how are we going to control federal spending and here we find this proposal to drop another $25 million to do a study we have already done before. first of all we can save a lot of money on this and. why is it someone would make the proposal after we have done -- a

study that is supposed to work for 17 years and do it all over again? they didn't like the results of the first study? what did it prioritize. it prioritized protecting human lives. that is not bad and that is in the context of flood control. but it also talked about their livelihoods, not just their lives but livelihoods. and that is the transportation part and that should be what the missouri river is about and of course the water supply and the safety. now the proposal is is make the priorities into something else. missouri river is a great resource and need to use it that way and prioritize our people, their prosperity. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. >> i yield back. the chair: who seeks time in opposition of the amendment? seeing no one, the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from missouri. lutelute i have -- mr. lucas: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: at the end of the bill insert the following, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to conduct a study pursuant to section 5018 a-1. the chair: the gentleman from missouri will control five minutes and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. >> the midwestern united states has been pummeled by severe weather and destroyed land, home and lives particularly along the missouri and mississippi rivers.

they have endured what is beginning to be referred to as the worst flooding in history. million millions have gone to recovery programs while maintenance of our infrastruck which are -- infrastructure has been enectgld -- neglected. buzz of this this year's snowfall and melting snowfall and runoff has created dangerous situations. mr. luetkemeyer: this funding dwarfs the insufficient $6.1 million that was requested for an entire operations and maintenance fund that supports the area covering the entire region from sioux city to the mouth of the river in st. louis. it's preposterous to think that

these resources are worth more than human lives. this program is only one of the many missouri ecosystem recovery programs funded by the american taxpayers and mrerp is one of no fewer than 70 environmental and ecological studies focused on the missouri river. the people who have to foot the bill for these studies and projects, many of which take yearses to complete and are inconclusive, are those at risk of losing their farms, their businesses, their homes and even their lives today. i do not take for granted the importance of river ecosystems, i grew up near the missouri river, as did many of the people i represent in congress. but we value the welfare of -- but our priorities are backwards. my amendment is supported by the coalition to protect the

missouri river and the missouri farm bureau proposes a prohibition of funding for the program. this will in no way jeopardize the corps' ability to meet requirements under the endangered species act. it will eliminate one of the ecosystem studies along the river that have become little more than a tool to return the river to its most natural state with little regard for navigation, trade, power production, or those who depend on the river and adjacent lands for their livelihood. it is environmentally driven rather than being focused on the needs of those along the river in our wonderful communities. we've seen this snainyow -- scenario play out on an a country-wide basis with sometimes questionable environmental results. the funding for mre -- should

the funding for this program go forward, we must stop and think about what we're doing. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to support our nation's river communities and with that, i yield one minute to the gentlelady from missouri. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mrs. hartzler: this amendment is about priority. what is important, or better yet who is important. i would contend that people are important. people along the missouri river, people who are seeing their homes flooded and their livelihoods the stroyed due to flooding. crops, businesses, and homes are under water as levies have been breeched in parts of missouri. now is the time to refocus our attention on what matters as we manage the missouri river. we need to protect people and

property. the president's 2012 budget, as representative luetkemeyer said, requested $72 million to recover the river for two birds and one fish but only tchrs 6.1 million for operations and maintenance on the levees from sioux city to st. louis. that's an example of wrong priorities. this ensures that the corps of engineers continues to focus on people and keep flood control an navigation as the focus. it's time to get our priorities back and save taxpayer dollars while we're doing it is a good combination. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. does anyone seek time in opposition? the gentleman from indiana. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i do rise in

opposition to this amendment. the 2007 act that was passed with such bipartisan support it overcame a presidential veto authorized the corps to undertake the missouri river ecosystem plan and develop the missouri river implementation committee to consult on the study. this provided a venue for collaboration between the 70-member stake holder group of tribes, states, affected groups and federal agencies to develop a shared vision and comprehensive plan for the restoration of the missouri river ecosystem. by prohibiting the corps from expending any fiscal year 2012 funding on the study, this amendment will result in a ski scheduled delay of the study, potentially additional startup expenses and scheduled impacts and potential erosion of trust in the delicate partnership in

this basin. there also could be legal implications associated with the national environmental policy act if funding was prohibited for this study in the longer term. a one-year prohibition would not allow work described above to be done and could push the entire schedule of the report out. i also do believe that it places the army corps in jeopardy of not being in compliance with the act, which could also adversely affect their operation of the dams and water ways. in the long-term, the study represents the required programmatic nepa coverage for the missouri river fish and wildlife recovery project and 13 federal agencies. eight states and 15 tribes have formally agreed to cooperate with the agency under the act. the fact that this was authorized in 2007 in an overwhelming fashion, that you have had this collaboration and there are risks involved in adopting the gentleman's

amendment, i would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: how much time do i have left? the chair: 30 seconds. mr. luetkemeyer: very quickly, i think the gentleman said this will affect the corps' operations, it will not. this is a study. it does nothing more than how things should be done after the study is over with and in missouri, our experience with these kind of studies is such that we always come out on the short end. we have farmers and businesses and communities along the river right now who have been dramatically impacted by previous studies which have predict -- protected fish and boards over the citizens, communities and businesses. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i suggest the gentleman talk to the authorizing committees. we have a law in place since

2007. perhaps he might want it a i mended through the authorization process. at this to point in time, i think it is unwise policy to slow the study down and would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. all time having expired, the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from texas. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 70 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: pursuant to the rule of today, the gentleman will control five minutes an a member opposed will control five minutes. mr. burgess: earlier this week,

233 members of our house voted to repeal the light bulb ban, this comes as a result of the 2007 energy legislation that included a provision that regulates what type of light bulb the american people may buy and may use in their homes. the federal government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of light bulb to use at home. it is our right to choose. clearly a majority of this body, 233 members, agree with the american people. stay out of the decision making and give the choice back to the consumer. consumers want the 100-watt light bulb, some consumers need the 100-watt light bulb. after our debate on the floor earlier this week, i got this message from a constituent named dave. dave wrote, quote, i need my 100-watt light bull to be do the type of work i do, very detailed work. i need to see my work with a

100-watt light bulb or sometimes a 00-watt light bulb. i cannot do my work with less wattage because it causes me to strain my eyes, which causes headache and then i'm untable work. l.e.d.'s do not suffice, neons don't work nor any other type of new tech bulbs that are so-called energy savers. i don't want to have to purchase lights with mercury in them. nobody should have the right to dictate what type of lights we choose to buy and use in our homes. i cannot read the very fine, small print of some of the product labels using those light bulbs. stop that ban on light bulbs that serve us well with proper light for working on very detailed projects and reading product labels with very small print. end of the quote from dave. dave should have the right to choose what type of light bulb he uses at home.

i work in a federal building, i understand the federal government gets to tell me what type of like under which i must work in that federal building. but when i go home at night to read my "denton record chronicle," i should be able to choose what type of light i use for this illumination. in 2010 the last major fwmplet e. facty that manufactured incandescent light bulbs closed its doors and as a direct result, 200 people lost their jobs this wasn't the only plant to close as a result thoof 2007 legislation. these policies kill jobs. it's the clearest example of how real consequences affect real people with this reckless legislation. these jobs are being sent overseas. yen electric said that the new lights cost about 50% more to make in the u.s. than in china. the overregulating government policies have to stop. it would not only be better for the environment and our pocketbooks but bring those

jobs back to america. my amendment at the desk would give dave his choice of light and would allow other -- every other american to choose, yes, choose, what type of light bulb they want to use in the comfort of their own home. i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i support the gentleman's amendment. i yield back. mr. burgess: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does anyone seek opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: we had this debate earlier this week on the house floor. the performance standards were established in an act in 2007. it's the law of the land. at the time, it enjoyed strong bipartisan support with 95 house republicans voting for final passage and the bill being signed into law by

president george bush. as far as i'm aware, the issues that inspired this standard have not changed and have gotten worse. families continue to struggle to meet rising energy bills and there are real savings to be had by moving to more efficient illumination. it is estimated that efficient lighting will save the average american family around $100 every year. further, while claiming that the incandescent bulb is dead makes for a good sound bite, it doesn't reflect reality. as a result of the 2007 law, manufacturers are -- already making a variety of new energy saving bulbs for homes including more efficient incandescent bulbs. these bulbs look and turn on like those we have used for decades but are 28% to 33% more efficient. what we're talking about is a standard. not the testify in addition of a discrete bulbs.

this progress has been made because of the standard and goals set in that bill. i do not think it is time to turn the clock back. i do think we ought to enjoy these energy savings and i'm opposed to the gentleman's amendment and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: the fact is, the united states congress, the federal government, should not pick winners and losers. there is new technology. it didn't happen as fast as the proponents of the legislation articulated in december of 2007 and the technology that was promised for five years later, which is now, in fact, has been slow to develop but it will develop. and then let them meet in the marketplace. let the consumer decide. let the consumer pick the winners and losers in this argument, not the united states congress, not the federal government. we have no business restricting the sale of the 100-watt light bulb. we have no business restricting what light people should use in their homes. this is one time we should back off and let the american people

make the choices that are right for them. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would say, we are talking about a standard adopted under law in 2007. we ought to try to achieve that standard to save energy in this country. i remain opposed to the gentleman's amendment and would ask my colleagues to vote no and i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the chair: the amendment is adopted. mr. burgess: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: is the gentleman requesting a recorded vote? mr. burgess: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. the gentleman from minnesota. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 80 offered by mr. cravack of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota and a gentleman opposed will each control five minutes. craffcraff there was testimony before the house subcommittee that the administration is preparing to prepare a draft administration to expand the scope. in the hearing, assist ant secretary alluded to using trust fund monies for port security among other things. while i fully support funding port security, i oppose the efforts to divert harbor trust fund monies until the federal government demonstrates it has used these trust funds for their intended purpose and that is

dredging. the tax is assessed to maritime shippers that use america's ports. by law, it is to be dedicated to the corps efforts and make sure the channels are dredged to their authorized depths and widths. our nation's maritime infrastructure has largely fallen into disrepair. one-third of our nation's navigation channels are at authorized departments and widths. waterways have been closed to commercial navigation due to dredging. eight out of 10 of our nation's hashors are not dredged. this has a direct impact on american job creation and

prosperity. when american ships have to light load, american productivity is lost. for example, for each inch silted in, the fleet collectively per voyage leaves 8,000 tons on the docks of duluth and that produces 6,000 cars. i don't have to tell the ranking member what this means. light loading causes increased transportation costs and decreases our american competitiveness. every billion dollars translates to 15,000 american jobs. given the economic straits we are in, it is imperative we don't hold back american business with increased transportation costs. we must, mr. chairman, ensure the monies intended for dredging are not for other programs. this will expand the scope of

the projects eligible to receive harbor trust fund monies. they maintain channels they and our nation depend on. we ensure that trust fund monies be spent and ensuring american competitiveness and proliferation of american jobs. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time in opposition. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to accept it and i know you have included the fact that you wouldn't have to tell the ranking the important purpose of your amendment. i share those same sentiments. we don't want to degrade the purposes of the harbor maintenance fund. too many priorities are out there. we don't need to expand them.

i'm pleased to lend my support and if you would be so willing -- mr. visclosky: i associate myself with your support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. craffcraff i yield back. the chair: the question is on the -- question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from california. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher. insert the following new section, section 609, of the funds made available by this act for carrying out section 1703,

the amount of funds made available by the secretary to carry out projects described in subsection b-5 shall not exceed the amount of funds made available by the secretary to carry out projects described in subsection b-4 that use cool ants different from the commercial technologies that are in service at the time the guarantee is issued. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order. the chair: to the orderu the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: my amendment would require that the amount provided for in title 17 of the energy and water development appropriations bill for loan guarantees for advanced nuclear energy facilities be equal or exceed that for loan guarantees

targeted for carbon capture and sequestration projects. my amendment would specify that we cannot use more funds in this act for loan guarantees for carbon capture and sequestration projects than we -- than we make available for projects using nuclear technologies such as small modular gas-cooled reactors. the purpose is simple. these new technologies hold significant promise of meeting our ever increasing energy needs with safe, clean, reliable, cost effective, proliferation resistant non-carbon producing, american-built nuclear reactors. as a member of the science committee, i have along with my colleagues have studied this

technology over the past seven years and let me note the bureaucracy has studied this technology to death. well, the time has come that that study be left behind. it's time for the study to be over and it's time for us to act. there are commercial companies out there right now trying to bring these technologies to market, and this amendment will help make this a reality. i would like to also note that the g.a.o. and the committee have stated that there is a lack of transparency in this loan guarantee program. we cannot expect to perform proper oversight without knowing how and where these funds are being used and it's critical that we become more specific in stating how we intevend the funds to be used -- intend the tunds to be used. it would be important to require the administration to report back to congress with a full

explanation of how these funds are being used. thus, i ask for support of this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman from new jersey insist on his point of order? mr. frelinghuysen: yes, i do. i reserve my point of order. the chair: the chair -- anyone else wish to be -- the gentleman reserves his point of order. who seeks time in opposition? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but may i say, i have always found him to be very thoughtful and krt and i know he is extremely knowledgeable about this and committed to the whole issue of taking a look at this types of loan guarantees. when we put together our bill, we had several guide ins principles and chief among them was to get the federal government out of the private sector's way. the loan guarantee program is at the heart of that debate and our

bill ramps down this temporary program while helping funding of new technologies so the private sector can take them over. your amendment appears to dictate which technology should receive funding through this program and which should not. mr. chairman, responsible private sector entities have sunken hundreds of millions of dollars into their politics and this amendment would potentially cut off those applicants despite their investments and good faith efforts. and the amendment would determine which technologies win and which would lose. i don't think in our committee or in this congress we should be determining the winners or losers but let the market decide. i would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i do insist on my point of order. mr. rohrabacher: would the gentleman yield. the chair: would the gentleman

kindly state his point of order. mr. frelinghuysen: i make a point of order against the amendment because it changes existing law and constitutes authorization on an appropriation bill. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law and 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 gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: i believe it is congress' job to make decisions. we are the ones who should designate where money is going. i'm a senior member of the science and technology committee. we have studied this issue directly and this is my recommendation. and i think this is what we are supposed to do here, rather than having money saying we can spend all we want on sequestration and

accepting that alternative, that we must -- can designate what we think is the best use and most efficient use of the taxpayer money. that sounds within the rules to me. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of whether certain type of cool ant is used on a project. the amendment therefore constitutes a violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. mr. rohrabacher: i have another amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher of california, page 62, after line 2, insert the following, section 609, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to carry out projects described in section 1703 b-5 of the energy policy act of 2005. 42 united states code 16513 b-5.

the chair: the gentleman from california will control five minutes and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in support of my amendment which would require that none of the funds provided for in title 17 of the energy and water development appropriations bill be used for the purposes of providing loan guarantees for, quote, carbon capture and sequestration projects. if you think that carbon capture and sequestration is an important goal, and i'm sure there are some people who believe it is, let me just note that i do not believe that. and i think having heard the debates that have been going on about this particular issue over the years, that there are a large number of my colleagues who do not believe that as well. if you do not believe in carbon sequestration and capture as an

important goal, then i would suggest that the best equation, if you really believe we must sequester carbon and that that's an important goal, then let me suggest this and this is what my amendment is all about, it's better to leave the oil and coal in the ground if that's what you really want to do is capture this carbon and sequester the carbon and capture it. by promoting -- and i would suggest the best way to do that is promoting a new nuclear technologies, such as the new inherently safe, small, modular nuclear reactors, especially those that do not use water as a cool ant. we can provide all -- we can provide all the clean, safe electricity that we need.

and i would hope that any funds and that the secretary might have in terms of his opinion determine to use in carbon capture and sequestration, instead that the secretary will use that limited amount of money that he has available to him on a positive program that will permit us an alternative to oil and gas. i personally, however, do not believe that oil and gas necessarily and the capture of carbon sequestration is an important goal. but if you do, you should be supporting, instead of basically using that as an expensive tool that will hurt the economy, we should be using the funds that are available instead to promote this positive alternative of nuclear energy, especially the high temperature gas-cooled reactor and i reserve my time. .

the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks time in opposition? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i still think that this amendment, as the previous one, is an issue that we are determining winners and losers and my belief is that the market should decide and let me say the committee is strongly supportive of the whole issue in development of small modular nuclear reactors and it's amazing how much interest there is out there. there's some incredible ingenuity going into it. we do have support for nuclear loan guarantees. i think $11 billion in unused funds and $6 billion for fossil

fuels, and we have money available for the development of these types of technologies, which i think hopefully you'll find to be reassuring but the reasons i said earlier without repeating myself again, i oppose your amendment at this time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. frelinghuysen:ry e-- i reserve my time. mr. rohrabacher: how much time do i have left? the chair: two and a half minutes. the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: we should be taking responsibility when we see something as important to the american people as the issue of energy and how we are going to, especially clean energy, of how we're going to make sure that's supplied to the people of the united states, using, specifically designating, that these funds won't be used for sequestration and carbon capture. that seems to me that that's what we should do. we should determine whether or

not we believe this is an appropriate use of government funds. i suggest it is not. especially when we have alternatives available to us like these new technologies in the nuclear field that can give us what we need in terms of not producing carbon and not -- and making sure that you don't need sequestration then. if you have those alternatives, we shouldn't be spending the money on this other approach, on the carbon sequestration, capture and sequestration approach. that makes sense to me. we need, as members of congress to set these type of parameters on the spending of our limited dollars in a way that will have the most positive impact. and capturing the -- the carbon capture and sequestration concept is not the best way to spend our money when we have these other alternatives.

i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. rohrabacher: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. mr. rohrabacher: i have an amendment at the deffing. the chair: clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher of california, not less than $6 million of the funds made available in this act for carrying out the act of 2009 shall be available for carrying out projects described in subsection be-4 of such section that use coolants

different from those commercial tech knolls in service at the time the guarantee is issued. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california -- mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order. a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. a member opposed will be recognized for five mins. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in support of my amendment which would support advanced nuclear reactors, particularly those that do not use light water coolant, which is technology that's been used for decades and seems to be what certain members of the business world are trying to foist off on the american people. no, it's time to upgrade to update, and innovate. since i understand that a point of order has been raised against this amendment, i intend to withdraw it but before i do so, i would like to make some remarks as to why it is important for these new

reactors to come forward. as i stated earlier, these new technologies such as the high temperature gas-cooled reactors hold significant promise of meeting our ever-increasing energy needs with safe, clean, reliable, cost-effective, noncarbon producing, proliferation resistant, american-built nuclear power plants. a numb of our commercial companies out there right now are ready to bring forth this cutting edge nuclear technology and put it on the market and create new high tech private sector jobs for the american people. their success should be our goal. there is some mention of these technologies in the committee report. i'm very grateful for that. but i would like to draw attention to why these are so vitally important for our country.

first of all, the small modular nuclear reactors, especially those that do not rely on decades-old light water coolant systems, exemplify the next wave of nuclear power and we should pursue it far more aggressively than we are today. specifically, we should be more aggressively pursuing the next generation nuclear plant and make the best use of the technologies that have been developed which include inherently safe reactors that don't require extraneous engineered safety devices to protect the public. we have a new level of safety that is almost unimaginable in these new reactors. high fuel -- we should understand that we need the high-fuel burnup rates that will greatly reduce the proliferation concerns. so we have reactors now that will be available that will not

leave the residue and the leftover material that can be turned into nuclear weapons. we also have reactors that are modular, scaleable, and can be delivered under -- delivered on the back of a truck. this would make them far more economical, far more feasible for various communities through the the world. we can manufacture these somewhere in america and transport them around the country or around the planet. the department of energy should encourage and partner with industry to build working reactor prototypes using these technologies to provide the data required for commercial licensing. the nuclear regulatory commission should encourage applications from private companiers in purpose of building working, commercial reactors, incorporating these new tech knolls. the n.r.c. should also consider these applications immediately upon receiving them and

expedite the processing. ideally, the n.r.c. should be able to complete the process in two years of receipt of initial application that should be more than a goal. that should be a commitment. i hope i've made it clear how vital these technologies are to our energy future. we are either going to lead the world in the nuclear arena, or we are going to be left behind as a country. i understand that there's a technical problem with this amendment. and i therefore would like to make sure that my colleagues understand the significance of this new technology that i also understand that i have -- i withdraw my amendment. the chair: the gentleman asks consent to withdraw his amendment. seeing none, the amendment is withdrawn.

the gentlelady from florida. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. adams of florida. page 62, after line 2, insert the following, section 609, none of the funds made available by this act may p used by the department of energy for maintaining, developing, or creating any website which disseminates information regarding energy efficiency and educational programs on energy efficiency specifically to children under 18 years of age, including the current website operated by the office of energy efficiency and rethuble energy titled kids saving energy and the current website operated by the energy information administration titled "energy kids." the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentlelady from florida, mrs.

adams, and a member opposed to the amendment, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from florida. mrs. adams: i rise in support of my amendment which would eliminate wasteful spending at the department of energy. why did the foolish gardener plnt a light bulb? he wanted to grow a power plant. how did benjamin franklin feel when he discovered electricity? he was shocked. what's shocking about this is how our hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being used. while some may find the jokes humorous, there are those who don't believe it's funny. there's nothing funny about wasteful spending and this is wasteful funding for these jokes. these riddles, along with numerous others just like it are displayed in the u.s. administration's energy kids website as seen here. the web page also has sudoku and cross wod puzzle about greenhouse gases and coal power and theen these riddles and games are being paid for by you

the taxpayer at a time when our cupry is facing enormous debt. in november, thme people sent a resounding message to congress calling on them to stop wasteful spending and prioritize federal dollars toward jobs creation. with our nation facing a $14.3 trillion debt,s the kind of wasteful spending we must stop. rather than using taxpayer dollars to reduce energy prices for all americans, the department of energy has instead decided to spen your hard-earned taxpayer dollars toward creating and maintaining this website. the website is not the only website of its kind. there are orrs just like it. the office of energy and efficiency and renewable energy maintains a kids saving energy website. this website has videos with tinkerbell telling children how to use energy-saving light bulbs and quizzes asking children how many kilowatt hours an average u.s. home uses

each month. while i have no problem with tinkerbell, i'm a huge supporter of disney, i do have a problem with wasteful government spending and that's where the problem lies. in this tight economy, congress must prioritize funding and these websites are a blatant misuse of taxpayer money. i recently asked secretary chu the department of energy spent to maintain and operate these website but the secretary refused to proside the amount. in today's economy, congress and the department of energy should be squarely focused on reducing our national deficit, encouraging job creation in the private sector and making energy more affordable for american families. my amendment would ensure that no federal funds in the underlying legislation may be used to maintain, develop, or create these and other similar websites and i would encourage you to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. who who -- the chair: who seeks time in opposition? mr. visclosky: i rise in

opposition. there's a webpage that's been described by the proponent of the amendment at the energy information agency. over the past 12 months, the website has had over 26 million have itors. have iting 254 million pages of information. it is not an underutilized site. and the fact is, young people access the kids page more than any other one on this website. have iting 16 million pages. energy kids gets nearly 10 times as many hits, you would, as the adult version. the gentle the gentlelady talks about puzzles and other approaches as far as education, i think education, not being an educator myself, ought to be age appropriate.

i would also point out that there has not been significant changes as far as the update for this site, trying to hold down the cost, and to the extent that work has taken place, 10,000 has been spent in -- $10,000 has been spent in fiscal year 2011. not necessarily in the coming year. there is no anticipated incremental cost for the energykids website in the fiscal year 2012 president's budget. but the reason i really rise in opposition is not necessarily the details but the idea that we should not look for ways to educate young people in this country. we are having a tax on science, we're having a tax on scientific knowledge, we're having a tax on education. what is wrong at this late date with educating young people and having the federal government reach out and provide information on conserving

energy, using it wisely, recycling so that we can reduce our dependency on energy? we have programs and have had them for years on drugs, maybe for those under 18 we shouldn't have any federal expenditures to educate young people about drugs because, well, we got to save money. we're at a spot, we just can't spend any more federal money on education. well, we have an obesity problem in this country. youth obesity is at a crisis level. but maybe what we should do is say, you know, if you're under 18 we don't want to spend any money educating you because we can talk to you when you're 19. we have a problem as far as people not getting enough exercise, too many people use elevators, they park their car close to the door. so maybe we shouldn't spend any

federal resources educating young people about, you know you should walk once in a while, you shouldn't not sit on that couch all day, you shouldn't watch that tv all day. so let's stop educating, let's stop using any federal money, because we've got a debt crisis here. and i acknowledge that. but let's just stop educating young people. let's just stop and we'll wait until they're all 18 and they have diabetes 2 and then we'll stop because they have a drug problem, maybe we can convince them to get off of drugs when they're 18. maybe we'll convince them they ought to get on a tread mill when they're 18. in this case when are we going to start? as a parent myself and not an educator, my sense is that damage is done for young people, that's why we have a program by the time they start school. children have that impression, they gain that knowledge, they have values that are transferred to them by their parents. and i certainly think there's an

absolute role by the federal government to help young people know what are the values and what are things to do that will improve our society for them and their generation. i'm strongly opposed to this amendment and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. mrs. adams: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that, i too want to encourage our young people to get outside and exercise. instead of staying on their computers and playing games through this website. we need to look at the funding that's being spent and while you quoted numbers, the secretary couldn't give me any numbers in committee and we have asked for those numbers and he has still yet to provide them. so again i would recommend and ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from indiana has the right to close. he has 30 seconds remaining.

and the gentlelady has a minute and a half remaining. mrs. adams: i would ask that my colleagues support this amendment and i'll yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would simply close, the gentlewoman talked about getting people away from their computers and i would agree we need a balance in life. that's why we should educate people, children, that there is a value of sitting in front that have computer, in gaining knowledge through that computer, using it for your homework, but then getting out and exercising. making sure they know they shouldn't do drugs, makinging sure that they should eat -- making sure that they should eat appropriately and not being a terribly compliant person as far as technology, i understand you can take a walk and still access that site. so why don't we do both? i would ask the gentlewoman to consider withdrawing her amendment but would state my opposition to it. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. adams: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida will be postponed. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield to the gentleman from washington. mr. wu. mr. wu: thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i'd like to engage in a colloquy with chairman frelinghuysen. throughout this debate on the energy and water appropriations bill we have discussed the importance of research and development of new energy technologies. however, i would like to highlight the importance of demonstration projects that are carried out within the department of energy's building technologies program. the department of energy spends

millions of dollars each year on research and development for new technologies. however that r&d often reaches a point known as the valley of death. the valley of death is where promising new technologies fade into obscurity because they can't attract the capital investments to move from concept to commercialization. in essence on one side of the valley of death is research and development, good ideas. on the other side is the actual deployment and commercialization . a demonstration project takes the research and development just a little bit further, bridges this divide so that private entities will be interested in deployment, private entities will be interested in commercialization. this good use of federally funded demonstration projects is critical to reducing the risk to

private sector investors and allows technologies to cross the valley of death and establish commercial viability for investors and indeed attract their interest. i strongly believe that in the course of our discussion about funding for the coming fiscal year it is important to highlight the importance of buildings and technology programs demonstration projects. i very much appreciate our previous discussions i have shared with the chairman and ranking -- ranking member and i would be happy to yield to him for his insight into this matter. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman from oregon for yielding. i agree with the gentleman about the importance of projects that develop new, extraordinary, beneficial technologies that would never be developed without federal investment. it is critical that we maintain a national investment in activities at the department of energy that protect our country's security and competitiveness.

the buildings technology program at the department of energy has played a significant role in developing technologies that are too risky for the private sector to invest in alone. and that will substantially reduce energy costs for american homes and businesses. the government's role in energy should not extend to commercializing new technologies , it's the role of the private sector to deploy them. however, without many of the projects that develop these new technologies it would be too risky for private companies to invest. i wanted to thank the gentleman for his commitment, his deep commitment to advancing american technology and innovation. i look forward to continuing to work with him on this important issue and i yield back unless the gentleman has anything further to say. mr. wu: i'd like to speak -- mr. frelinghuysen: i'd be happy to yield to you. mr. wu: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chairman and the ranking member for their engagement in this issue and i look forward to working with them. the chairman knows that fully

40% of total energy use in america is in buildings and fully 70% of electricity use is in buildings so when we make buildings more efficient this is indeed the low hanging fruit toward future energy efficiency and in fact the ability to bring new innovative american-made technologies to market is key to rejuvenating our economy, successful projects in the building technology program will result in the manufacture and sale of new products here in the united states and result in rejuvenating our economy and building good american jobs here. i thank you, mr. chairman, i thank the ranking member and i yield back to the chairman. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move that 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 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2354 and has come to no resolution thereon. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it shall adjourn to meet at 11:00 -- 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. ellison of minnesota for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to have a discussion, an important discussion that we should focus on i believe here in the house, in the senate and in the white house. that is a discussion focusing on jobs.

we need to get america back to work. we have been focusing now on this side of the aisle in our committee work day after day after day to present proposals, we move them, we've adopted them here in the house that focus on policies that are going to promote the private enterprise, the private sector, that are going to promote the development of an environment where people will take the risk and become job creators and put people back to work. i talk often in my office, back in the district, as i go out to town hall meetings and have conversations with people as i go down the streets to our local supermarket and to our local stores, you know, i focus on four areas. thank we need to adopt legislation here in washington, d.c., or repeal legislation in washington, d.c. that will create an environment where jobs will be created for

generations to come. the first and probably the most appropriate and important focus that we should be spending time on today is the question of getting our fiscal house in order. you know, we've had a lot of debate over the last few months, weeks about this debt ceiling that's coming to roost and the vote that we're going to have to take here in the house i would imagine and one of the reasons why that is so critical, why that issue is so critical to us at this point in time is we need to demonstrate to the world that america is going to get its fiscal house in order once and for all so that our markets recognize that we are serious about this issue, that we recognize that $14 trillion of national debt is just not sustainable. and that it really will destroy america as we know it. and more importantly what it will do when we send the message if we can adopt a policy here out of washington, d.c., that

deals with the debt ceiling, fundamentally deals with the underlying debt, it will send a message that the american market is something that you can invest in again around the world, that foreign investors, domestic investors will have the confidence and the certainty that america is a place to invest your dollars, your foreign currency to create the new environment, the new marketplaces, the new facilities, the new manufacturers, the new industrial base to put people back to work again. i am extremely confident that we here in the house of representatives, in particular on our side of the aisle, can come to a reasonable solution to this debt ceiling issue and do it in such a way that it takes care of the debt ceiling crisis and also takes care of the underlying debt crisis that put us into this situation and will continue to put us in this situation unless we get serious

and deal with it now. this is the time, this is the moment. that will send the indication to the world that america is strong and we can invest here and put people back to work. the second thing i tell people as i go around and talk to them in my district and talk to people on the street and see them as we go down the road and say, what we need to do in washington, d.c. is to set the agenda out of the house that will create the environment that regulations out of washington, d.c. are cut, are repealed, are streamlined so the bureaucratic red tape our job creators, that the private sector in america faces day in and day out, as a private business owner myself before i came to this chamber, starting and opening four businesses, i can tell you, as i went through employeing people and taking responsibility and taking the risk of putting my capital on the line, putting my family on the line for all the time and

resources that we committed into it, the bureaucracy that i dealt with in creating those businesses and putting those people back to work was mind-boggling. and i talked to business owners across all of america. and people that want to go out and start their own businesses. what they tell me is, you know, all i want to do is manufacture my widget. all i want to do is go out and provide the service i enjoy doing, that i have made my career or my passion in life. yet what i find myself doing when i go down this path is complying with paperwork, complying with regulations, spending hours upon hours, not innovating, not creating new technology, not figuring out a better way to deliver services at a better price and in a better fashion or creating a new widget or creating a new product in a more efficient manner, i spent hours filling

out paperwork coming out of washington, d.c. and my state capital. i will tell you that resonates with me. that's why we need a policy here in washington, d.c. that calls upon every regulatory body in washington to look at the impacts of their regulation from an economic point of view, how it's going to impact that creation that, that innovation of the private sector, in a negative way. and balance that in relationship to what the goal of the regulation is and sometimes those goals are very good. a lot of our environmental laws are reasonable and regulations are reasonable. but they take a balanced approach to accomplishing what we all want. clean air, clean water, you know, a clean environment to pass on to our kids and the next generation. at the same time, we can't do it without recognizing that if we kill the american way of life, there'll be no america for our children to enjoy. we have to have a common sense,

balanced, reasonable approach to this government and this regulatory expansion that's coming out of washington that needs to be crippled and needs to be cut and needs to be repealed. so i have focused a lot of my effort and a lot of my colleagues have spent a lot of time talking about and implementing legislation that will cut the agency's ability to promulgate those regulations that will destroy america unless they're reined in. we need to focus on that second point. the third point, i talked to so many folks about our tax code until i'm blue in the face. as a member of the ways and means committee, i can tell you that going through the 70,000 pages plus of the tax coat and tax regulations is mind numbing. and the problem is, is we're forcing all of americans to rye trie to comply with that code. we have talked about, since we took the majority, since i came here in november, as an elected

new member of congress, i have spent a tremendous amount of time trying to advocate for comprehensive tack reform that will streamline the code, make it much more competitive, bring down the corporate rates and individual rates to a a point, there were a past few entities that had to be taken care of, so we are competitive on the world stage in dealing with our tax code. i'm glad to see the president the other day was talking about, in the debt ceiling debate, how he was targeting some loopholes and exemptions, and you know, the corporate jets. we're here on the republican side stand, we left our families, we left our businesses, because we want to protect corporate jets. come on, that's not being honest with the american people. we have been talking about comprehensive tax reform from day one. we're ready to go. i'm glad the president has now conceded that that's where we have to go and that's part of the debt ceiling conversation

and it needs to be. the bottom line is as we make the tax code more competitive, we streamline it so honest, hardworking americans can comply with it, and we revamp the code, reform the code in such a way that it's a competitive tax code that doesn't excessively burden those in the private sector and those, all taxpayers across america with that tax burden that's going to kill america if we don't get this spending under control upon which those revenues from the tax code go to take care of. the fourth point that i stress to people as i go around and talk to them is that we need a domestic orient tated energy policy that -- orr yen tated energy policy that taps into our energy in such a way that it's comprehensive. it's an all-of-the-above approach. what i mean by that, when i was mayor of the city of corning and we would have people coming in and talking to us about

siting a new facility or new manufacturing base or new operation, there was always the part of the conversation that we got to with, why should i invest in the city of corning and the state of new york? what are your tax rates? what's the tax burden i'm looking at? what are the insurance costs that i'm going to have to pick up by coming to the state of new york, the city of corning? and the other issue that was repeatedly discussed in the top three was, what are your utility costs? what is the cost of me, to me, for producing this new product, or this new technology, going to run me? and that's where, if we have a comprehensive nrnl policy focused on domestic supplies of energy, not only will we be taking care of a national security issue, with having thee the supplies of energy being produced from domestic sources of things such as natural gas from the marleau se ulous shale or utica shale in

my party of -- part of the state or shale formations across america but we have oil supplies that have been identified and available to us if we just unleash those resources we have to say, we go after these resources in a clean, responsible manner, environmentally safe and everybody i talk to supports that on our side of the aisle. no one here is going to destroy the environment for the sake of getting energy out of the ground, for the sake of hurting our children or grarne. that's not what we stand for. but we stand for focusing on those energy supplies that are here and promote those energy supplies so that we have a source of energy that's dependable, that will provide us with long-term, low-cost sources of energy supplies to our manufacturing and industrial bases and reignite america again so we become a power house in the area of employment. and put our people back to work.

so those are four key principles that we bring to the table and one additional piece that i'd like to talk about tonight that is ripe and ready for us to take is the expansion of opportunities of our exports. we have three free trade agreements that are ready to go. we have south korea, we have colombia, we have panama, they have been negotiated, there's been a long history, many years of going back and forth with these countries and asking these countries to engage in honest negotiations that deal with all the issues that you deal with when you enter into a free trade agreement and both parties, we as the united states of america, the governments of south korea, colombia, and panama have come to the table in good faith and we have finally gotten to the point where we are ready to move on these agreements. all the issues have been negotiated. all the issues of the free trade agreement have been taken

care of. i know there's an issue in washington, d.c. that we're still dealing with when it comes to trade adjustment assistance but fundamentally the free trade agreements have been negotiated and worked out with these countries and we're ready to go. we're waiting on the white house to send them up here. we're waiting on the president who said in his state of the union message -- who set in his state of the union message a goal of doubling our exports, a great goal, i applaud the goal. but in order to double our exports out of america, we've got to create an environment in which the private sector flourishes such as those -- and focus on the four points i just talked about but we also have to expand the markets upon which those new products an our existing products can be sold to so we can increase and meet that export goal. that's why i supported the free trade agreements when i came to congress and as i went out on the campaign trail. and we have three great agreements that are ready to

move, be moved and ready to be voted on and i think have strong support on both sides of the aisle. and these, under the president's own numbers, under the president's own numbers, these three agreements are looking to create at least 250,000 jobs. this is -- his administration, the agencies urn his control are projecting that these will provide opportunities for at least 250,000 new jobs. to me, this is a no-brainer. we shouldn't be haggling back and forth and trying to figure out why -- what's holding these agreements up ready for a vote. these countries have negotiated with us in good faith. we've had those hard negotiations, and now we're ready to go. and the president even mentioned the other day on tv, when i was watching some news reports that he wants to move forward on these agreements yet he hasn't sent them up to the

congress as he's required to do by our laws in order to get them implemented. so i think it's troublesome. when you hear the president talk about setting a goal of increasing exports by 50%, say he -- and say to the public that he is committed to these free trade agreements and that congress, all congress has to do is pass them but yet when you look at the details, all he has to do is send it up to congress and we'll take care of it. but he hasn't taken the step necessary to do that. and that is the -- that is solely under his control to do. so i call upon the president, send these free trade agreements up, we're ready to go, we have support. let's open up the south korean markets. let's open up the colombia market. let's open up the panama markets. let's get our people in america the benefits of these new export opportunities that each of those countries represent. i come from a part -- a part of

the state of new york where we have a lot of wine -- grape growers, wine producers, apple growers, and i'll tell you, in the agricultural area, this is going to be a -- great asset. in particular, these markets will represent new sources of opportunity to farmers who have been plowing and working this land for yen rations. and yet we here in washington, d.c., just cannot figure out how to get this done because the president won't send it up for us to get the process taken care of. i call upon the president to move on these free trade agreements as soon as possible. he's indicated to the american public his support for them. he indicates that he's ready to pass and sign them. i'll just tell you, i'm here to call him out on it, and say, we need to do it. let's do it. one other thing i wanted to talk about tonight is kind of my concerns and the whole issue

of this debt ceiling debate and where we're going with it. i'll tell you, i'm greatly concerned about the political rhetoric that we in the house seem to be committed to. i see us in washington, d.c. going down a path when we're talking about situation we're going to hold back social security checks, we're going to hold back payments funding our troops, and i just don't see how that's productive. what we have is a debt problem. we have clearly articulated a plan on this side of the aisle. we have come up with budgets that we passed out of this house. we have put down on paper proposals of where cuts could be made. we went through the whole process of h.r.-1 back and forth for seven days with open debate on the floor of the house in front of the american people. identifying areas that could be cut and could be streamlined. and we laid out our plan.

it's in black and white. yet today, i still don't know where the president of the united states is. i hear a lot of news reports about some type of position that the president has taken on $4 trillion and it's supposedly at $3 trillion worth of cuts and $1 trillion worth of tax increases. i've never seen that. i've heard discussions that have been -- that have cited sources in the white house or sources off the hill that show the package having $3 trillion of tax increases with only $1 trillion worth of cuts. i don't know if that's the case. because i don't know what the president is really standing for because i've never seen it in black and white but what i would ask is that the president put it on a piece of paper because if he's asking me as a member of congress to support debt ceiling relief in exchange for $3 trillion worth of new taxes, i'm not going to do that because that taxes everybody in america, every man and woman

and business in america, violates a campaign pledge made by the president on his campaign where he would not raise taxes on the middle class. i want to see what he's proposing and i am greatly concerned that we're also at the point where we need to have this conversation in front of the american people, we need to have the american people weigh in on what the detailed proposal is. we've been very transparent, we've been very open, we here in the house and especially on the house -- this side of the aisle, the house republicans have put the budget out, have gone through h.r. 1, have put documents out that have been scored by the c.b.o. and -- as to what impact they'll have financially. but we haven't seen anything from the president. and the american people deserve the opportunity to know where the president is at in these discussions. what we cannot do, we cannot get

to the 11th hour and say, here it is, america, take it or leave it. that's just not right. that's just not responsible governing. what we need to do is have a thoughtful, honest debate back and forth with our positions. mr. president, you said the other day that you're ready -- don't call my bluff, i'm going to go to the american people. i tell you, go to the american people. i want to go to the american people. i came to congress to have this discussion in the open, in front of the world. because it's time. we need to. and until we see a plan we can't have that honest debate that our forefathers, our founding fathers and so many have sacrificed to give us. the transparency of democracy, the transparency of -- to come to this chamber that is filled with so much history and have the debate, go to the senate floor and go into the american

public, go into the living rooms of the american public and say, this is what we're talking about, this is what we're fighting about. now, i'm ready to have that debate, i'm ready to have that conversation and i know at the end of the day where i will come out. i will stand for a product that gets this nation taken care of for generations because its fiscal house is once and for all taken care of and if that means we have to compromise, we'll compromise. but let's have it, we can only compromise upon which we know. that is why it is so important that the president come forth in written fashion with his proposal. and we're -- we sent a letter to the white house today where many of my colleagues in the freshmen class, upon which i am a proud member of, calling upon him to do that. and hopefully he will do that. my intent is to go down there physically next week with hopefully numerous other members of the freshmen class and stand

in front of the white house and say, hey, we're new members of congress, we're here to have the conversation, we're ready to act. give us what you stand for, give us what you put in black and white, let's debate. we're ready to go. so the bottom line is that as we go down this path through this debt ceiling crisis and we do have two crises, we have the debt ceiling crisis, you know, that everyone knows about, august 2. but we have the underlying debt crisis that causes us to be in this debt ceiling problem that we know -- now phase -- face. and we have to take care of both. because make no mistake about it, if we just do a simple raise the debt ceiling or something gimmicky that gets us through that august 2 or whatever the final date shall be and we do it in such a way that there's no meat on the bone, there is no substance to the proposal, make mo mistake about it, the world markets are -- no mistake about it, the world markets are going

to look right through that and say, you guys are not serious about this $14 trillion worth of debt, you guys in america are not serious about getting $1.6 trillion of annual budget deficits under control and, you know what? we have an obligation now to advise all of those members of the world who are going to invest in america that this is not that triple-a rating that we've all enjoyed since 1917, i believe. and america will be downgraded on its debt, regardless if we default or not because we have not taken the moment, we have not seized the moment to be honest with the american people and with the world and say we're going to get it taken care of. and that's where i'm at. i'm ready to get it taken care of. that's what i came to washington, d.c., to do. that's what i know many of my colleague, fellow colleagues in the freshmen class came to washington, d.c., to do. we don't care about re-election, we don't care about politics. we're talking about the substance that will make sure that america's here for generations to come.

and, you know, a few of my other colleagues had intended to join us this evening but i know we have a tradition here in the house that i'm becoming aware of with the baseball game that's going on between the democrats and the republicans and, you know, i think they attend to that and that's a great tradition and i applaud my colleagues for taking that time to continue on that tradition. you know, it's -- i know i got another member potentially coming down here, just been given word, but i don't stand on these issues alone. i don't stand with these comments in a vacuum. i don't stand here today as one man in the 435 members of congress who believe in what i'm

articulating. there is an army of people in washington who are standing with me and with whom i am standing who believe the same way. that it is time to get our fiscal house in order, it is time to advance an agenda out of washington, d.c., that once and for all shows a firm commitment to the private sector and reins in government so that government does not kill the private sector and the dreams of all the americans that are yet to come. so i am looking forward to continuing this debate and moving forward on the issues that we have talked about. and as we deal with these issues i do -- am mindful of this situation that we face on a day to day basis of the politics of

washington, d.c. but yet i'll tell you, even though i'm aware of those politics, the issues that we are talking about today, the issues that we're facing transcend politics. i was pleased today, i was able to get an amendment offered on the floor and some of the debates on our appropriations process, i reached across the aisle to a colleague of mine from buffalo from the other side and we legislated. we adopted policy, we adopted an amendment to that appropriation bill that i think is going to be good for america. and it showed, i think, in that instance to me and i hope to many others that we can work together, that we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to tackle the issues that are facing america such as that which we took care of today between mr. higgins and myself. and that philosophy is alive and well. i know the press likes to, you know, gin up headlines based on

the partisan debate that we often have here in the chamber and they try to paint us all as we're in one camp on the republican side and they're in the other camp on the democratic side. and i can tell you, living it day to day, that truly is not the case. there are many good people on both sides of the aisle that are more than willing to sit down and talk to each other and try to work out these issues but a lot of times that rhetoric, those headlines causes us to act in ways that are extremely divisive and kill that bipartisan effort and support that we should be nurturing and promoting and that's where, you know, today i was pleased to see the results of that effort on our behalf and on mr. higgins' behalf to pass that legislation today. so i'm going to continue along those avenues, i'm going to call out and hold people accountable for their position, there's

nothing wrong with that. there's nothing wrong with having a good old-fashioned honest debate and passionately disagreeing with people with different philosophies so long as you do it in an honest and respectful manner. you know, i worked day to day, whenever i get into a disagreement with some of my colleagues and also members from the other side of the aisle and i always start with the premise, ok, where are you coming from? why do you believe you are right? and i try to look at it truly from the eyes of the people that have the contrary opinion. and many times that has opened up my eyes and allowed me to learn from that exchange and strengthen my position, maybe cause my position to bend a little bit or, as i learn and grow, to maybe change those positions. but i can tell you that we should always start by having that conversation. but i have seen where a lot of times people don't want to do

that. they don't want to really take the effort or make the effort or take the time to really try to look at it through the eyes of the other person, to understand where they're coming from and what their philosophy really is all about. and i think if we at least do that, if we at least promise to each other that we're willing to do that, this chamber would work tremendously much better, if i would, much better as a body as a whole. and my colleagues in the senate would also be working in a much better fashion and as we work with the white house and with the president of the united states we could also develop that type of relationship. so i encourage all my colleagues and all my friends to continue with that effort, as i pledge here today to do. and as we go forward i guess i will keep that in heart and i will continue to do my part in that effort and as i started

this conversation tonight, ladies and gentlemen of america and to mr. speaker, this is about jobs. this is about adopting a philosophy, a new culture in america that recognizes that the private sector is that engine that's going to be the spark of this economic recovery and we need to focus on that and we need to expand our on opportunities that are right before us -- on our opportunities that are right before us with these free trade agreements. and i would ask all my colleagues to always focus on getting americans back to work because if we do that we will have a recovery, we will address much of this budget deficit problem and because the increased revenue that will come from that expansion of getting people back to work and get that economy going and we will have a much better world upon which to legislate going forward. mr. speaker, with that i would like to yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from new york have a motion? mr. reed: yes, mr. speaker, i rise with a motion to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is agreed to. accord