65, line 5. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. johnson of texas, 65, line 5 and insert in fellowship after development. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: i reserve a point of order. the chair: point of order is reserved. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> i would like to strike the last word and speak on this amendment. the chair: the the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes. . . ms. johnson: after resevere and development in the science and

technology account. e.p.a. awards e.p.a. awards the fellowship and does not authorize a new activity. i realize that my republican colleagues will surely not agree to this amendment but they have to agree that science is the underpinning of great and good environmental policy. as the scientific arm of e.p.a., the office of ere-- of research and development supports world class research and development activities to protect human health and the environment. supporting the next generation of scientists and engineers through fellowship is just one way the government supports the kind of critically important research that private research and academia cannot and will not do. with no real justification or detail, the committee's report language for this bill

specifies that funds are not provided for fellowship programs, a $17 million loss for this deal. lab equipment cannot operate itself. they cannot publish important papers or make ground breaking discoveries, which creates jobs. that requires people. and e.p.a. has a history of forcing some of the top young research that have applied their talent across the industry. for instance, since 1985, e.p.a. has awarded 1,500 star fellowships. turning our backs on the next generation of academic researchers, government scientists and science educators and environmental engineers all be ensured we are doomed to make bad, uninformed environmental decisions for the future. i realize the gentleman's point of order, i do not agree with

but i'm sure he will be upheld by the parliamentarian. so i simply would ask that if we could work together to try to preserve some of this talent we have already put in place and some of the equipment that's already in place to continue ground breaking research that is going to be one of the few ways we're going to develop good, sound jobs for the future. i thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> while i appreciate the what the gentlelady is trying to do and agree with what she's trying to do, i must insist on my point of order against the amendment because it provides for an appropriation on an unauthorized program and violates clause 2 of rule 21. mr. simpson: clause of rule 21 states in pertinent part, an appropriation may not be in order for an amendment not previously authorized by law. the amendment froze the

appropriate funds for an earmark that is not authorized. the amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21 and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentlewoman from texas. ms. johnson: i accept that point of order but i would like to appeal to the chairman of this committee to work with us and see if we can preserve some of the investments we've already made and some of the talents that are in place. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the amendment expands the eligible uses of appropriations and pending paragraph to include fellowships. as such it proposes to appropriate for that purpose. the proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of persuasion on the question whether it is supported by the authorization in law. having reviewed the amendment and entertained argument on the point of order, the chair is unable to conclude the item of appropriation in question is

authorized in law. the chair therefore is constrained to sustain the point of order under clause 2a of rule 21. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i seek to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. as somebody who has spent many, many years working with people in my community and around the country on promotion of communities, i am frankly mystified to see included in this bill an end to the program that provides technical assistance and guidance to communities looking for ways to increase economic development, plan for economic growth and make their communities safer,

healthier and more economically secure. it is mystifying. the e.p.a. office of sustainable communities was established to provide a resource for communities who need technical assistance to plan for economic growth, deal with development, account for a changing population and the demographics, to expand their economic development options and make communities more attract toiv business and local citizens. mr. chairman, there are hundreds of examples from across the country about the work that the office of sustainable communities has accomplished. some of the most important projects were situations where the office of smart vote has helped in brownfield redevelopment. these are complicated problems for local communities where they help turn unusable, polluted land into land that's ready for development. this helps create housing an business opportunities and

provides cities with important foundations for planning future growth. this is precisely the sort of thing that we should be doing to help communities leverage resources and prepare for the future. in iowa city, iowa, the office of smart growth recently received a grant -- approved a grant to renew their downtown river front area after the 2008 flood devastated that community. with the help of e.p.a., they created a plan with input and support from local elected officials, business leaders, local residents, it's helped generate, regenerate, the downtown business area while preserving geen space and recreational areas for families moving into the newly redeveloped residential buildings. closer to my side of the continent, just picking at random, communities of drakes and victor in idaho received a smart growth implementation assistance grant to help

analyze the barriers and opportunities of infill development in support of downtown revitally effort. this helped small communities take advantage of public-private partnerships and redevelopment opportunities that helped revitalize these small rural towns. hundreds of other communities across the country have are received similar assistance under the smart growth program but these cooperative efforts would come to an end under this house legislation. the services offered by e.p.a.'s sustainable communities office are in high demand. they've been able to assist only 9% of the communities that are interested due to existing budget constraints. in addition to their technical assistance work, the office of sustainable communities is engaged in a partnership that we all should be supporting and encouraging between h.u.d., the department of transportation, and e.p.a. the partnership for sustainable communities enables these three

departments to work together to ensure that federal funds work in conjunction with each other, break down the silos that frustrate us all to ensure that the federal funds are spent as efficiently as possible and eliminate duplicative processes. despite the obvious connections between housing, transportation, and land use, we all know and have been frustrated that in the past, the three agencies have not always worked well together as we would like. bucek retears donovan, our former colleague lahood, administrator jackson and the agency have spent these last two years cutting down the red tape and the coordination to meet multiple economic environmental and community objectives while also cutting red tape and working to partner better with local communities. the e.p.a.'s office of sustainable communities helps fill a critical need by providing assistance and

support to local communities. i find it ridiculous that at a time when this type of help is needed more than ever, when there isnaryry a member of congress who hasn't been frustrated by about the lack of coordination and implementation, that the house is now considering ending critical support to communities looking for ways to jump start their own economic recovery, improve the quality of life for their communities, by making the federal government a better partner. this is something that there should be no geographic, regional, partisan or ideological divide. this is an outstanding program. it deserves to be supported. and i hope as this bill works its way through the process we find a way to retain this valuable service. thank you and i yield pack. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yield back his time. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from hawaii rise? the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker. beside me is a picture of the cuyahoga river in 1952. the river is on fire. the reason for the fire is that the river was heavily contaminated with flammable industrial waste. this water was dangerous to drink, needless to say, and to swim in. fish and wildlife could not survive here. ms. hirono: flooding in this river would have spread pollution to the shore and neighborhoods. in short, this was dainls for the thovelt people and the communities that depended on this river. it was incidents like these that helped raise public awareness of the dangers of

water pollution. ultimately, that awareness became government action, including the creation of the environmental protection agency, e.p.a., in 1970 and passage of the clean water act in 1972. the e.p.a.'s purpose is simple, to protect human health and the environment. it does this by ensuring minimum standards for water quality nationwide while acting as a referee between the states. despite this important mission, this bill slashes the e.p.a.'s budget by 18% from current levels. of course i rise to speak against this underlying bill. it also includes a number of riders that will prevent the e.p.a. from carrying out duties it is already legally required to perform. i don't know why the majority is so keen on undermining the vital mission of the e.p.a. i hear them talk a lot about the cost of certain e.p.a. regulations but what about the

cost of getting rid of these regulations? one serious cost that would go up is the cost of public health. the impact of polluting our air and water isn't a speculative matter. we know it will make people and communities sick. more mercury in the air with we -- we breathe means more deaths and debilitating illnesses. more water pollution means families and communities will be subjected to a variety of health risks. in short, more pollution means rapidly escalating health care costs. another cost is the cost to our environment. our rivers, coastlines and wetlands are the places we take our children to experience the wonders of our country. this is where their interest in the natural sciences and the outdoors are kindled. pluletted waters and coastlines means less wildlife, poorer fishing and a lot less beauty in this world.

we have to remember that we are merely stewards of our natural resources and the cost of polluting those resources isn't only borne now, it'll be borne by future generations. finally, the e.p.a. helps ensure a fair playing field for businesses. this helps keep their long-term kansases manageable. it's a simple fact that a few dollars in prevention is far, far cheaper than expensive cleanup costs later for those that -- later. for those that disagree or question that i encourage you to contact b.p. oil that company will and should be paying for their damage for years to come. those are the costs the e.p.a. helps mitt gate. that's why we need the e.p.a. we need a referee that is empowered to make sure that everyone plays by the rules and protects our natural resources. if we pass this bill, we are essentially rejecting the referee from the game for

calling misconduct on certain players and this will only encourage more misbehavior in the future. take a look at this picture. is that what we want? this bill is so flawed there is little hope for it. i hope that my colleagues will reevaluate their approach in this legislation, pull it from the floor and go back to the drawing board. i yield the remainer of my time. the chair: the squom from hawaii yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman the virgin islands rise. mrs. christensen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. chairman. while we should be here by passion a clean debt ceiling and creating jobs, but in this time of high deficit and fragile economy, when it's critical that our limited spending priorities be focus on programs that can achieve results and encourage the creation of jobs and economic growth, the majority has

instead bringing an unprecedented attempt to gut pollution controls and public health protections in order to bigger profits to big oil and other special interest polluters. by attaching more than three dozen policy riders to h.r. 2584, the house g.o.p. is attempting to use a spending bill to make back door changes to -- of 40 years of important federal laws. h.r. 2584 makes drastic spending cuts to the environmental protection agency , as you just heard, and the department of interior and has an assault on america's air, water, land, wildlife and public health and severely undermines the environmental integrity of the clean air act and the clean water act. in doing so, this legislation cripples the budget of key federal agencies charged with protecting american citizens and natural resources. the bill is layden

contradictions and regressive reforms. it slashes funding to the environmental protection agency by $1.8 billion, yet restores $55 million in oil and gas subsidies. it dramatically cuts the fish and wildlife fund by 30%, zeros out funding to list new endangered species. it reduces the national oceanic and atmospheric administration budget by 18% lower than the president's 2012 budget, and wholly eliminates funding for noaa's climate service. it cuts land and water conservation fund by 80%, a program that has been critical to my district, the u.s. sirgsirg and everyone's district. -- u.s. virgin islands and everyone's district. it has the funding to the lowest levels in its history and it cuts $9.7 million from the national endowment of the humanities, threatening support for teachers, college communities, libraries and archives for important historic

documents and many others as well as preservation projects that enhances local communities. one that is near and dear to my community, the national heritage area program. i recently introduced a bill to create a national heritage area on the island of st. croix which we have been looking forward to, not only to preserve and protect some of our local historic treasures but as a badly needed economic tool that would create jobs. national heritage areas are some of the most effective public-private partnerships for resource, conservation and heritage tourism supported by the federal government. national heritage areas have matched every dollar of federal support with $5.50 with every other funding. i'm appalled this bill puts so much energy into tearing down america's foundational and environmental protections

especially as the representative of the highest greenhouse gas emission per square mile in the country. instead of focusing on the bigger crisis of the deficit crisis, this flies on the part of environmental protection issues. it does not put the american people first. it further endangers them by allowing for more dangerous air pollution, it does not clean up urban and other critical waterways. it threatens the clean water that millions of our constituents depend on. it shuts the door on endangered species and it ties the hands of our federal agencies. as leaders we should not advance a budget that eliminates critical protections that our constituents so desperately need. we should not turn a blind eye to corporate polluters while holding the future jen trations -- future generations hostage. andle well-being of the poor and middle class americans and

the economic security of our country hostage. it's absolutely necessary to lift this debt ceiling. so mr. chairman and my colleagues, i urge my colleagues to vote against the fiscal year 2012 interior appropriations and any anti-public health and anti-american amendments that may be offered. i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from the virgin islands yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. johnson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this bill which guts long-standing environmental policy. unfortunately this is not the only thing that's wrong with america today. once again, speaker boehner and

the g.o.p. are putting the needs of the few right-wing members of congress ahead of ordinary, hardworking, everyday americans, many of whom lit up the phone lines yesterday in record numbers to express their disgust with republican intransigents that's holding our nation and international markets hostage. not only did they call in record numbers, but 50 to 60 people came to my district office yesterday to show their support for a balanced approach to solving this debt ceiling issue. i also received a petition with over 1,500 names bigging that we protect social security, but still against the urgent pleas of international financial

institutions, wall street executives, millions of americans who can ill-afford any reduction in their ability to borrow or an increase in interest rates for car, home or student loans, republicans continue to show contempt for the american people by saying no to increasing the debt ceiling. do you realize how many of us have adjustable rate mortgages on our primary residence? can you imagine what will happen if this nation defaults on its obligations to pay its debt? and as a result interest rates go up? that means your adjustable rate

mortgage, my adjustable rate mortgage rate goes up. could i stand to pay $1,000 extra or $2,000 extra per month on my mortgage because interest rates went up because we didn't do what we should had done here which is to increase the debt ceiling, something we've done 21 times, i believe, over the last several -- in excess -- we did it 18 times with ronald reagan as president. we can't afford not to deal with this debt ceiling issue. mr. chairman, the "washington post" reports that house republicans watched a movie together about bank robbers to motivate members of their caucus to stand firm in their solidarity against raising the debt ceiling. what kind of example does this set for the american people?

what would they say if they knew there was a concerted effort by republicans not only to prevent an increase in the debt ceiling but to impede economic progress, cause the loss of 700,000 jobs with the passage of cut, cap and kill? what about our veterans, our students? what about our credit rating in this country? well, mr. chairman, just like bank robbers, it appears that republicans seek to threaten society as a whole leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. republicans have now taken hostage of the u.s. economy, threatening the livelihood and well-being of americans, young and old, rich and poor. they could see the hands of the clock ticking.

precious seconds, minutes and hours wasted. speaker boehner and his cohorts say no to the president's request for reasonable compromise. no to the desperate pleas of businesses begging for a sense of certainty about the debt ceiling and no to the american people who have shouted at the top of their lungs for shared sacrifice in these budget negotiations. well, mr. speaker, if republicans are looking for some additional inspiration in the debt ceiling negotiations, i'd recommend that they watch "saving private ryan." it's about a man who makes the ultimate sacrifice to save the lives of his fellow americans. he was not a survival of the fittest-type guy. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: and with that, mr. speaker --

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this country is in the middle of a great crisis. entirely an artificial crisis created by an attempt by one political party to blackmail the entire country into adopting its program of destroying medicare and social security and food stamps and unemployment and all the things that many of our people depend on. why do i say it's an artificial crisis? because the debt ceiling increase is something we normally do. seven times during president bush's administration. some people think to raise the debt ceiling is to say we are going to borrow and spend more. no, we're not. you raise the debt ceiling in

order to pay for bills you already incurred because of decisions made two and three years ago, mostly during the bush administration. not raising the debt ceiling is going into a restaurant, having an expensive meal and getting the bill and say, i have too much money on my credit card, i don't think i'll pay the bill. if that's the case, you shouldn't have got the meal. you shouldn't have cut those taxes 10 years ago and gotten into those wars seven and eight years ago and made the other decisions that piled up the deficit. if you want to have a debate, which we should, on how to change our policies in the future, that's for the budget debate. we are going to pass a budget at some point. we ought to debate tax levels, expenditure levels. but instead, what are they doing? they're saying, that's a nice economy you got there. pity if something happens to it. we are going to destroy it by not raising the debt ceiling

and causing -- and causing a collapse in credit so that everybody's interest rates go up and people have to pay $1,000 more a month on their mortgage or whatever. because this will ripple right throughout our economy. it will be a real crisis for our economy and it will cost the economy probably $1 trillion in extra deficit spending over the next 10 years just in higher interest costs. but if we don't do exactly what they want to destroy medicare and social security and the other things they niefer liked in the first -- they never liked in the first place, they'll wreck the economy in order not to pay the bills that they incurred. then, we hear that we have a deficit crisis. that after all, the country's broke. the country's broke. we got to cut the budget. even the president said the country's broke. we have to cut the budget. wrong. the country is not broke. it's just that we are not taxing the millionaires and billionaires and the big

corporations the way we used to. in 1950, the corporations paid 6% of the entire economy of the g.d.p. in corporate taxes. today it's under 1%. 20 years ago, 20% -- i'm sorry -- 30% of all income taxes came from corporations. today it's under 6%. that's why the middle class feels overtaxed because they are, because we don't tax the millionaires and billionaires the way we used to. we don't tax the corporations the way we used to. the big multinationals, i'm talking about, not the small ones. instead, we shift the tax burden to the middle class and we don't get enough tax revenue. the fact of the matter is if you look at the budget of 2001 and if you look at the budget of 2011, in 2001 the budget was $258 billion in surplus. it was the last clinton budget. how has it changed? how has it changed? why is this budget $1.2 trillion in deficit? now it's a quarter trillion in

balance. what's changed? well, adjusted for inflation and population growth, nondefense discretionary spending, everything they want to cut now hasn't changed at all. $369 billion then. $369 billion now. what's changed? well, defense spending and homeland security spending has gone up 74% because of two wars and a lot of bloat. 74% increase in defense spending. mandatory programs, that is to say, medicare, social security, veterans. up 32%. most -- and that's not only those, it's also unemployment insurance. mostly because we're in a recession and you have to pay more -- not more -- you have to pay more unemployment insurance, food stamps and so forth. total revenue is down 24%. from a bigger country, we're getting 24% less revenue today. why?

because in 2001, the tax collected 20% of g.d.p. and today it's 14.5% of g.d.p. what should we be doing? first of all, raise the debt ceiling to recognize the debt already incurred and do it cleanly. so as not to throw the economy into a tailspin. then we should debate all these issues in the budget, raise taxes on the millionaire the billionaires, the corporations, cut defense and not try to tamper with people's social security and medicare and the things they depend on. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the clerk will raze. the clerk: page 65, line 7, environmental programs and management, $2,498,433,000 to remain available until september 30, 2013. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. fleming of louisiana, page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $48,206,000. page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $48,206,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fleming: a little over a year ago, the g.a.o. reported alarming findings at the e.p.a. -- in the energy star program, a program designed to save consumers money on their energy bills. i have concerns that they're leveraging hard-earned tax dollars and the trust of the american people for a program that lacks oversight. it could still be subject to fraud and abuse and would be better administered by the private sector. here's a report here in my hand. march, 2010, the report

indicates that the g.a.o. released a report documenting that the program was mainly a self-certification program without much oversight or accountability. in fact, according to the report, g.a.o. reported -- created several fictitious companies without any relevant products on the market that easily became energy star manufacturing partners. this new status granted these groups unlimited access to energy star logos and promotional resources and g.a.o. was also able to obtain certification for 15 bogus products, including a gas-powered alarm clock and a room cleaner which is incredulously a feather duster taped to a space heater. prior to approving these items, e.p.a. failed to review any additional materials including websites and self-incriminating pictures. my amendment will simply reduce the environmental programs and

management account within e.p.a. by $48,206,000 with the intent of removing the e.p.a.'s portion of funding for the energy star program. the savings from my amendment would be added to the spend regular ducks account. -- spending reduction account. the energy star program enables companies and manufacturers to voluntarily label qualifying e.p.a. household prompts such as refrigerator, air conditioners, light bulbs, etc. it also grants energy efficient labeling for home improvements an businesses. energy star labeling encourages consumers to purchase such products and make improvements to be more energy efficient, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money on energy bills. all very good value-oriented values and concepts. it is my belief we should not be paying anything for the energy star program.

it would be better served as a private entity, saving the taxpayer millions of dollars each year. there are several good examples of well-respected, well-run, independent private sector initiatives, including the leadership in energy and environmental design, a green building certification system, consumers union, an expert, independent, nonprofit organization which publishes the widely acclaimed "consumer reports" and underwriters laboratories, u.l., a global independent safety sight that offers expertise in five areas, including product safety and environment. these are just a few examples of nongovernment, nontaxpayer funded entities that understand that if you don't do a good job, they will lose credibility. not as much as can be said for the energy star program. americans rely heavily on this program and look to purchase household products with the energy star label. companies use thee

e.p.a.-approved logo to market products. the federal government and several states offer tax credits to those who purchase energy star products and federal agencies require to use certain energy starling approved projects. the energy star program continues to receive millions of dollars including approximately $300 million through the american recovery and investment act, the stimulus bill, and tchrs 48 million in the under-- and $48 million in the underlying legislation. it's time for the federal government to allow the private sector to take over and stop funding programs riddled with loopholes that investigators need to point out before the e.p.a. institutes systematic changes. in summary, mr. chairman, we could well afford to save $48 million and we have plenty of good models where private entities have been doing a much better job for a much longer time. so i ask others to support this amendment. s that good, not only energy

savings, but money saving idea and let's turn it over to private sector. they do a much better job. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, this amendment would eliminate the energy star program. even though a great many american consumers rely on it to choose appliances that meet federal energy efficiency standards. such as window, refrigerators, dish washers, clothes washers. the program has improved since an inspector genre port highlighted flaws with the program. in response to the i.g.'s report, energy star move aid way from allowing manufacturers to self-certify that they comply with efficiency standards and now they require third-party certifiers.

i'm sure there's room left for further improvement in the program, as the gentleman from louisiana has stated, many, many consumers have come to rely on this program in their everyday purchases. they would be stunned to think that this program is now being targeted. americans with the help of energy star save nearly $18 billion on their utility bills last year alone and enough energy to avoid greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 33 million cars. isn't that a good thing? this is a voluntary program that works. we've heard so much railing coming particularly from the other side about e.p.a.'s regulations and now the majority wants to attack a

voluntary, pro-consumer program. the underlying bill already contains a very substantial cut to the energy star program, notwithstanding the fact that it has saved hundreds of million, if not billions -- hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars and allowed consumers to be much better informed as to what their appliances may cost them in terms of energy requirements. but the energy star program has been funded in this bill at the 2008 level. four years ago. since then the population has expanded, the number of appliances and things that -- particularly computers -- that use a great deal of electricity has expanded, almost geometrically. people's bills are going up. they want to know what are the

most energy efficient products? so they rely upon the energy star program. again, a voluntary program. one that has been improved since the i.g. report. they had third party certification now as to what they are saying so that we should have some confidence now in what the -- in the energy star imprimatur, if you will, on appliances. this doesn't seem that this is the kind of thing that we should be cutting. s that pro-consumer, voluntary effort that works. so i strongly oppose this amendment. i'd be happy to yield. mr. nadler: i don't disagree with the -- mr. fleming: i don't disadepee with the gentleman's comments. my point is this could be better done in the private sector a fee paid directly to

whatever private eptity out there that would be nonprofit for this. why should the taxpayers have to subsidize it? that's the issue here. mr. moran: i would say to the gentleman, reclaiming my time, we have things like the better business bureau, which frankly, don't have that kind of certification, which almost anybody can get designations, sometimes it's helpful, other times it's less so. i think the american consumer wants some level of credibility in the organization that is certifying that an appliance is energy efficient, that the energy star designation means something. and if this was self-policing, done completely in the private sector, you wouldn't have had an inspector genre port. you wouldn't have had this corrective mechanism that says, you've got to fix this.

you can't rely on self-certification which is what you have under the private sector. they said, you've got to have a third party certification. wouldn't have had that. mr. fleming: there are plenty of private sector oversight organizations. u.l., no appliance is -- ever goes to market now without a u.l. stamp. again that's done through a private entity. so again, it's a great program. don't get me wrong. i just don't see where taxpayers should be funding that. the chair: the gentleman from virginia's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to talk to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate the gentleman's desire to reduce spending. however i must oppose this amendment. as the minority pointed out, to meet the 2012 302-b allocation,

we cut the energy star program by $27.5 million. funding for the energy star program down to $38.2 million, below the 2006 level. mr. calvert: and we believe that significant cuts took place in this program, as they should have been taken, and with that, we reluctantly oppose the amendment and would ask for a no vote on the amendment. i'd be happy to yield. mr. dicks: we agree with the gentleman's position on this and oppose the amendment as well. the chair: does the gentleman from california yield back? mr. calvert: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 39. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. chairman. let me say thank you to the committee chairman for running a great piece of legislation. i think this bill will go a long way toward creating a pro-growth economy. we've done a great deal of work to reduce spending on this bill and i stand here this afternoon hoping to help out even just a little bit more. the amendment i offer, i offered during h.r. 1, it passed, it passed with votes from both sides of the aisle. the senate failed to act on it, so i'm here again to offer this amendment one more time and i hope it will pass again with bipartisan support and we will once again move toward a smaller, more humble federal government that does only those things it's intended to do the amendment i offer today seeks

to reduce by $6.2 million the amount of money available for the e.p.a.'s greenhouse gas registry program. if i had my druthers, i'd probably prefer to see the program go away but i offer a more modest amendment today. this reduces spending for program back to the levels from 2009. this is very consistent with the legislation that we're acting on, the bigger bill, which takes us back to 2009. this is a program that currently stands without this amendment 95% higher than the funding for the greenhouse gas registry. in 2009, i think we can all agree, we weren't spending too little money in 2009 regulating greenhouse gases in america. we know that the e.p.a. says that this registry is just about data collection, we just would like a little more information but those of us in kansas trying to operate businesses and make a go of it know that there's an agenda far beyond that. this is an agenda that is job killing. this is an agenda that will

destroy jobs not only in kansas but will drive up the cost of energy for everyone american. so i urge my colleagues today to support this amendment. if we simply restore funding back to the 2009 level we will roll back -- i hope again with bipartisan support -- it will create jobs and keep e.p.a. doing what they ought to be doing. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kansas yields back his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from virginia. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. moran: i do rise in opposition to this amendment because it attempts to strip half of the remaining funding for e.p.a.'s greenhouse gas registry program. this amendment is part of an effort to ignore what the scientists tell us is the most serious environmental problem of our time, climate change.

republicans have already passed a bill to repeal a scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to home health. the underlying bill we're considering says that no stationary source no matter how large or how leather to human health should ever have to reduce its carbon pollution. but this amendment goes even further. it says that we should not even bother how much pollution is being put into the air. i guess you could call it the ignorance is bliss amendment. what we should be doing is the opposite of what the gentleman is trying to do. the bill already makes a 30% cut to the registry program in order to cripple the efforts of e.p.a. with regard to greenhouse gases. the greenhouse gas reporting program simply requires the --

no. i'll make all of my points and then you can more efficiently address them if we have time. the greenhouse gas reporting program simply requires the largest sources of carbon pollution, power plants, refineries and the very largest factories to tell e.p.a. and the public how much they pollute. if we're ever going to deal responsibly with this pollution , it's costing us billions in health care and shortening thousands of lives, we need to know where it is coming from and have some idea of how much is being emitted. this amendment is yet one more example of putting -- the profits of industry and particularly those industries who pollute the air and eventually clog the water, who

poison much of our environment, to put their profits ahead of the public interest and the public's health. we all know that pollution is dangerous to our health. the scientists tell us that. certainly the reputable scientists. let's allow e.p.a. to fulfill its core responsibility which is to collect this information and inform the public. i know our friends on the other side hate regulations because they believe that the environmental protection agency doesn't understand the impact of those regulations on businesses and on the economy and on jobs and so on. e.p.a.'s job is to protect the public health, and in doing so and encouraging cleaner sources of energy we will not only protect the public's health but we will grow this economy, grow

is in a more competitive and healthy way and -- in a far more sustainable manner. i oppose this amendment vigorously, and at this point i would yield some time to the gentleman who offered the amendment. mr. pompeo: thank you. i'll be very brief. i certainly care deeply about clean air. so do all the businesses in kansas. so do agriculture. we know how to do it and we're doing it. you said this was the ignorance is bliss amendment. i'd prefer to call it jobs are a good thing amendment. and when things get mischaracterized -- i'm not suggesting we abolish this. there is still $6.2 million available for the greenhouse gas registry. many on your side voted for it before when i offered it before. i thank you for yielding the time. mr. moran: i was happy to yield. i'll reclaiming my time. it just seems to me that more

information, accurate information should not be a threat. isn't it appropriate to let the public know -- in fact, to let lawmakers know who might need to respond how lethal is the pollution, how substantial is the pollution, what's the composition of the pollution coming from the very largest polluters? what are we doing to our people? what are we doing to our environment? what are the sources of the billions of dollars that we're spending in health care, twice as much as any country spends on a per capita basis? all we're trying to do here is to have a registry, information that ought not be threatening. this amendment should be defeated. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by -- for what purpose does the gentleman

from washington rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: a few years ago the supreme court said that e.p.a., under the clean air act, had to come up with and look at the consequences of greenhouse gases. and to create this registry which is a scientific document that allows us to know just exactly what the various sources of these greenhouse gases are. now we hear a lot about climate change. i just want to point out there is another more immediate problem. the gentleman from kansas may not be aware of this because it affects our oceans. kansas is in the middle of our country. the oceans are now a sink for carbon dioxide. as we get more and more co-2 in

the ocean it creates acidity, the so-called p.h. factor, which at normal range is at 8.1 and when it goes down -- we have places in hood canal in my area that's down to 7.3. at that level it starts to take apart coral. it starts to take apart oyster shells. and it starts to take away the food for salmon. this is a very important condition, so the more we can learn about our greenhouse gases and what their effect is not only on our climate but also on the ocean and we are poisoning the ocean. again, there's this not let's take time to work on this issue because somehow it's going to cut away jobs. it may end civilization.

think about that. your grandchildren, my grandchildren, your children, maybe you're younger, i worry about them. i worry about what's going to happen if we don't deal with this climate change issue, and we should take this seriously. the best scientists in the world say this is something that needs to be dealt with. so, again, i think this idea of taking out the money for the greenhouse gas registry so that we'll have a scientific underpinning to know whether -- what these problems are and how much various sources produce is just -- is the ignorance is bliss amendment. let's defeat this amendment and let the e.p.a. do their job. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back his time. the question's on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. pompeo: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 66, line 1, office of inspector general, $41,099,000 to remain available until september 30, 2013. building of office -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. richardson of california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. richardson: thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to speak on the richardson amendment. this amendment adds an additional $5 million to the diesel emissions reduction act, also known as vera grants, by cutting $10 million from the

e.p.a. buildings and facilities account. the richardson amendment is about creating jobs, saving lives and improving our nation's air quality. mr. chairman, in the last congress i introduced legislation that extended deara for five years. the deara legislation received large bipartisan support and was later signed into law by president obama. when you consider dera, it is supported by a coalition of 500 leading transportation, environmental and health organizations. i represent a region that's home to the largest port complex in the nation and consists of some of the busiest freeways and railways in our country. however, the area also suffers from poor air quality which has led to much higher rates of asthma and cancer than any other area in the nation. dera improves our air quality by reducing the co-2 emissions by up to 35,600 tons per year.

it has been estimated that nearly 2,000 lives will be saved over the next five years through dera and its increased in support on our air quality. unfortunately, the bill before us today reduces the funding for dera grants by $19.9 million which is well below the fiscal year 2011 level. the e.p.a. estimates that dera program averages more than $13 in health and economic benefits for every $1 we authorize in funding. the e.p.a. also estimates that dera saves more than 3.2 million gallons of fuel annually which means that truckers and other diesel operators will spend $8 million less on fuel. mr. speaker, that's less dependency on foreign oil. in these tight economic times, it makes sense that we invest in programs that work and are cost-effective. the c.b.o. score on the richardson amendment shows it will decrease the budget authority by $5 million without

creating any new budget outlays. simply put, the richardson amendment saves money. since dera funding began in 2007, more than 3,000 projects nationwide have benefited from this program. in fact, there have been nine projects in the los angeles county area where i reside alone. mr. chairman, dera projects have created jobs and improved air quality in my district and across the country. it saves lives and creates jobs which is certainly what we need and should be talking about more in these dark hours. i urge my colleagues to support the richardson amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california may not reserve the balance of her time. does the gentlewoman yield back? ms. richardson: yes. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to rise in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i can't support the offset. the dera program, as the gentleman is aware of, was set to be -- it was not in the administration's mark. mr. calvert: and this underlying bill, we provide for $10 million for the dera program. as she well knows, throughout the country this is a way to remove old diesel engines that pollute and this is something that actually works. this is not a program, it's not a study, it's not some academic exercise. it's actually something that cleans up the air, it's something that i'm very much supportive of. right now e.p.a.'s buildings and facilities accounts are cut by nearly a third. we have cut back these accounts substantially, and so we just can't support the offset. ms. richardson: will the gentleman yield? mr. calvert: i'd be happy to yield. ms. richardson: i thank the gentleman from california for which we both serve, and it's

my understanding that the funds would be taken from -- do with what we're taking is outlaid as required. so i don't believe this would be a hurt to that account. mr. calvert: reclaiming my time. the program has already taken a substantial hit. a $20 million hit, as a matter of fact. almost every other program in our bill has taken substantial hits. we're serious about reducing spending. if we -- if we had the additional money i'm sure the chairman would have added more money in the dera account in the first place if we had the extra money to do so because i think there is -- it's an extremely successful program. something i certainly support. i understand the gentlelady's conviction but we don't have the money to take care of this offset so i have to oppose the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. calvert: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from

virginia rise in mr. moran: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: i agree with the distinguished member from california. i know my colleague, she's more than a colleague a good friend, is very passionate about this program. it has a sweet acronym, deara. but as i said during h.r. 1 debate, the diesel emissions program is a good program. that's not the issue. right now, with regard to this amendment, the issue is whether or not we should be raiding other e.p.a. accounts to give this diesel program even more funding than it actually has already gotten in this bill. chairman simpson funded the diesel program at $30 million even though president obama requested nothing for it. this amendment would add a mere $5 million but it would take

$10 million from e.p.a.'s buildings to pay for it. maybe politically attractive to take from a building's account until you know what it funds. the following facilities would have to give up funding to add this $5 million to the diesel program. the ann arbor, michigan, national vehicle and fuel emissions lab. the andrew bradenback environmental research cent for the cincinnati, ohio, the region 9 office in san francisco, the research triangle park main laraer to in -- laboratory in north carolina. in that regard, the project needs to be funded so we can save future lease costs that would be in jeopardy if we take this money away from the research triangle park lab. thenary gans et research lab would be cut.

the air and radiation lab in montgomery, alabama. all of these facilities have requests in this fiscal year 2012 budget for needed facilities improvements. to cut those in order to increase a program that was already plused up $30 million above the request doesn't seem to me to be the right thing to do. in addition, we have an amendment filed from another member and i see her here, so i suspect it's going to come up right now to take away the $30 million that's already in the bill. i would hope my good friend would stick around to strike the last word and address this amendment that would zero out the diesel program. i don't want to zero it out but neither do i want to zero out money for six important e.p.a. facilities. so i hope the supporters of the diesel program will stick around, will defend it, against its elimination, which is an

amendment that's coming up very soon. but right now, it seems to me that the wisest thing to do is to try to protect the $30 million that's already in the program which is $30 million more than the president requested. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady 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. ms. richardson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by -- offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule

18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. the first amendment by mr. dicks of washington, the second amendment by mr. dicks of washington, the amendments en bloc by mr. latourette of ohio, amendment number 39 by mr. pompeo of kansas, and amendment number 23 by ms. richardson of california. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic votes in this series after the first 15-minute vote. s that 15-minute vote. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: first amendment, offered by mr. dicks of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 174, the nays are 237, and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 174, the nays are 250 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 220 the nays are 206, and the amendment is passed. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 39 printed in the congressional record, offered by the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 39, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered and members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.].

the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23, printed in the congressional record offered by ms. richardson of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. and this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 193 and the nays are 2 2 and the amendment is not adopted. the nays are 232 and the amendment is not adopted.

the chair: the house will come to order. members, please take your conversations from the floor. the house will come to order.

the clerk will read. the clerk: page 66, line 11, hazardous substance superfund $1 ,295,000. 1050 $69,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. if members will please take their conversations from the floor. the clerk may continue. $$18,2774,000. $2 billion 393,000.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee rise? blunblun i have an amendment at the desk -- mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment at the desk. quharmente will the members please take their conversations from the floor. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $30 million. insert reduced by $30 million. after the dollar amount insert increased by $30 million. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. first, i would like to begin by commending our appropriations committee for the extraordinary

job that they have done to claw back this money and reduce spending below the levels that we have had last year or the levels in the c.r. they have indeed done an exemplary job but i think during these extraordinary and unprecedented times, we have to do more and this diesel emission reduction program is one of those areas of funding that we can look at and say, indeed this is duplicative and because of that, we can eliminate the $30 million and move that fubbed funding into the spending reduction account. the grant program administered by e.p.a. that seeks to reduce diesel emissions by providing funds for technologies to retrofit existing vehicles and

infrastructure not subject to updated diesel air standards. now now this is something that at one point in time, yes, it was important, and had a tremendous impact on some of our communities. and they have done grants all across this country. now, i want to point out that president obama's fiscal year 2012 budget recommends completely eliminating funding for the grant. there is a reason that it has done that. one of the reasons that it -- that they have done that is because since 2007, new diesel engines have to comply with a much higher emissions standard. therefore, it is decreasing the need for retrofits.

there's also other funding available for such retrofits through the department of transportation. congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program. they have about $45 million for diesel retro fits annually and through the e.p.a.'s supplemental environmental project enforcement, where there's $7.1 million for that. there are other programs with similar grants. the e.p.a.'s smart growth program. the e.p.a.'s performance partnership grant. the clean fuels formula grant. indeed, the administration has not increased federal funding for this program above the $60 million level in place since the fiscal year 2009 when it received an additional $300 million in the stimulus act. this is a program that we can

say indeed has been a helpful program but it is duplicative. it has outlived its usefulness because there are emissions standards on diesel vehicles that have been in place since 2007, there is less need for these grants. indeed, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as we were debating the c.r., had recommended that we move -- that we use this program that -- an offset with this program and eliminate the funding for this program. mr. moran had offered at that point in time that we do that and one of the reason he is gave was because the president had eliminated it in order to encourage the truck industry to increase its own diesel r&d. i agree with that. this is a program that we would save $30 million.

i know that it is duplicative. we need to save every penny we can possibly save of the taxpayers' money. this is a step that we should take. i appreciate the support of the amendment and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. richardson: i rise in opposition and move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. richardson: i rise in strong opposition to the amendment before us today. if you look at the history of the dera program, it's one of the rare programs in this house that's enjoyed bipartisan support from day one. when you consider the inception of the program and the continued amendments that have been passed on this floor, it's garnered support. let's talk about why. there's evidence to show that for every $1 of investment that's made into this

particular program, $13 is received back. $13 in economic benefits, in terms of jobs and in terms of health savings. why? dera is the diesel emission program. i would say is there anyone here who honestly believes the american public who is driving on the highways every single day and sees the spewing of smog and soot coming out of trucks thinks that we no longer need this program? there are thousands and thousands of trucks on our highways. if this program weren't needed i would suggest then why are we receiving thousands and thousands of applications every single day? when the trucks have been replaced and we have reduced the emissions, then there will be the time to re-evaluate this program. but that time is not now. we are finally making progress and let's talk about the benefits of the diesel emission program. yes, it helps us reduce the old

trucks on the highways. but what does it also do? by having diesel emission, it allows us to also save in terms of fuel being used. we all know our dependency currently on foreign oil. so when we consider the ability to be able to reduce the amount of oil that we have to purchase, that individuals are purchasing, that truckers are purchasing, it reduces that cost of our dependence on oil. it reduces the cost of what the end users receive when they're getting the various products. let's talk about safety. when we look at the old trucks, if we can incentivize truckers to be able to upgrade their equipment, which would incrude filters, protection with diesel emissions, oftentimes there's other benefits that they're gaining with those vehicles, so we're also saving lives. i would say any suggestion to this amendment is shortsighted and ill-advised. this is a good working program and the maker of the amendment agrees to that.

it garners bipartisan support. i would suggest that to -- suggest to you, mr. chairman, and strongly urge that my colleagues would join us in opposition to this amendment. let's keep this program that is working in this country and let's address the desperate diesel emissions impacting asthma and many health issues in our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. moran: i rise to oppose the gentlelady's amendment. i think it's instructive to point out, i offered an amendment to strike funding for this program during h.r. 1 back in february. so that we could add funds to the north american wetlands conservation program. new my colleague from tennessee -- now my colleague from

tennessee, let me check the record here, voted no, so i'm a little confused that now, a few months later, five months later, she has changed her mind. it seems to me my amendment from february would have been preferable to the members who have anglers and hunters in their district, which i suspect the gentlelady from tennessee does. they rely upon healthy wetlands, which have been very much endangered by what was an elimination of the north american wetlands conservation in this bill. this amendment simply throws away the needed funding and i know the chairman of the subcommittee understands how needed that funding is. so it does seem to me that our amendment to restore money for wetlands made more sense. now in the meantime, not only

did i lose that vote, the -- mrs. blackburn was on the winning side, not to eliminate that money, largely because of the compelling argument that was made by ms. richardson at the time. in the meantime, she has continued to lobby for this program, i found some of her arguments convincing. so we're not trying to take the money out that the chairman added. we can understand why it was added to the bill. so we would agree with the chairman, let's leave it in the bill even though it had been zeroed out by the president. so i think ms. richardson not only won that vote back in february, kind of an embarrassing total, actually she won it overwhelmingly, but i think she should win this vote as well. the money should be kept in the program, $30 million does seem

to be doing some good things and so i would oppose the gentlelady's amendment to eliminate the program and not even use the $30 million for any other constructive purpose. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: when i first looked at the president's proposal to eliminate funding for the diesel elimination reductions grant, i knew there was a gimmick we'd have to back phil. this was something i discussed with the e.p.a. director. the diesel emissions reduction program is a proven program with no unqualifiable health benefits. it allows money to retrofit diesel engines to reduce pollution. this grant provides $13 of benefit for $1 federal dollar.

it reduced black carbon emissions by 90%. when i asked the administrator why she would propose to eliminate funding for a program with proven technology that works in order to fund new, nice to have, voluntary initiatives that we have no idea what they do, she responded that it was a tough budget choice. they was wrong choice. i think the committee supports this program, has in the past, as i said, it's a proven program that has proven results and that's why we backfilled the request even though the president didn't request any funding for this to put $30 million in it is $20 million below what was funded at the current level, so it did have a reduction just like every other program, but we did keep it alive at $30 million. i yield to the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we're all for clean air, clean water and a clean environment. i think during these times we

have to look at how we're going to spend that money. mr. moran is right, i did vote against his amendment because the money was going to wetlands and not into a spending reduction account. this is a program that is duplicative. there are other programs on the books, as we look at how to remove these redundancies and the duplications that are in the budget, this is an area where we can do it. we all want to make certain that we have -- we clean up the diesel emissions but i would remind you all, since 2008, there have been a total of 500 grants that the e.p.a. has given through this program. a total of 500. and we have four other programs that do this same work. this is an area where we can go and achieve a savings, it is

$30 million, but these are the types of steps in the right direction that mr. chairman, we have to be willing to take if we're going to get the federal spending under control. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. simpson: i thank the gentlelady and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on 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: recorded vote, please. the chair: the gentlelady requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the gentlewoman's amendment will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk -- the chair: the clerk rill report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. richardson of california, page 68, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert increased

by $5 million. page 76, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $5 million. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. richardson: thank you for allowing me to speak on richardson amendment number . this amendment would direct $5 million for clean air grants which were cut by nearly 15% in the current legislation. air pollution is a national problem. according to the e.p.a., approximately 127 million people live in counties that exceed at least one of the health-based national ambient air quality standards in 2008. new health-based standards for ozones will likely increase this number. mr. chairman, i represent a region that's home to the largest port complex in the nation and consistents of and consists of some of the busiest freeways in the country. however, it suffers poor air

quality which led to higher rates of asthma than the national average. exposure to dirty air causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year and causes problems such as the aggravation of cardiovascular diseases, difficulty breathing, increased suspeptability to respiratory infections, adverse effects on learns, memory, i.q., an behavior, as well as cancer. improvements in air quality, lead to greater productivity, fewer sick days and less money spent on health care to address air-related problems. state and local air pollution control agencies have the primary responsibility to implement the nation's clean air programs required by the clean air act. however, due to this current recession, state and local governments are increasingly strapped for resources and are finding it ever more difficult to carry the federal government's share of funding this responsibility. because of the continuing

adverse impacts of this recession on state and localities, air agencies will continue to make more painful decisions such as reducing or cutting air programs that protect our public health. so in other words, we took 10 steps forward and now we're taking 20 back. mr. chairman, i have seen firsthand that clean air grants are effective. when you consider in an area of mine that's home to 16.8 million people and it's one of the smoggiest areas in the nation, the south coast air quality management district is one of the air pollution control agencies for orange county and los angeles urban areas, riverside and san bernardino counties as well. clean air agencies also assist companies in being able to help them to comply with clean air act regulations. this assistance has allowed many businesses to expand and to create jobs. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support clean air,

support public health and support american jobs. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, a good friend of mine from virginia once said that he would hear this on the floor and i guess this is probably the first time that he's going to hear it. mr. simpson: that is the gentleman makes a good point. but given the allocation that we have and the low funding level, frankly we just don't have the money to do what she's requesting. her offset is to take money out of the capital improvements and -- capitol ma improvements and maintenance program -- maintenance and improvements program, that's a program that's already been cut by $94 million in this bill. we've had to make tough decisions and while we haven't eliminated funding for this, obviously, we don't have that kind of money to put back into it and every program is going to have to -- is going to have to suffer some cuts.

i don't think we should be taking money out of the capitol improvements and maintenance program or allocation that's already been cut by nearly $100 million, so i would oppose the gentlelady's amendment and hope my colleagues would oppose it also. 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 ayes have it. mr. simpson: recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman. i didn't think i'd be down here this evening debating the interior appropriations bill.

in part because for the numbers of hours that we've spent in this chamber on this bill when we actually should be facing the nation's debt ceiling, giving the president a clean debt ceiling and moving forward with rebuilding our economy and creating jobs, instead we're debating yet another flawed bill. it's the biggest assault on clean air, clean water and the endangered species, public land that we've seen in our nation's history. the bill's unpress denltsed funding cuts and polluter riders do benefit rich and often reckless mining and oil companies will cripple the e.p.a.'s employees, health professionals, scientists, all of their ability to do their jobs, protecting our nation and its public health. rather than celebrating the advancements of that we've made over the last 40 years in air and water quality, instead these republican riders to ruin are driving us back to the 1960's, a time when rachel carson wrote "silent spring" to awaken the american public to the manmade

impacts on the environmental -- man-made impacts on the environment. i want to take a moment to discuss a couple of them. there are so many that it's a tough challenge, these republican riders to ruin. the bill would prohibit funding to the endangered species act listings. hundreds of animals have been protected under the endangered species act. the bill would elimb the protection of the repopulation app -- eliminate the protection and repopulation of the bald eagle in our nation. we're about ready to decimate the very act that protects our nation's similarble, the bald eagle -- symbol, the bald eagle. among other things the bill also strikes out at ending regulations to expand the storm water discharge program under the clean water act. the program preeventualities harmful pollutants from being washed or dumps into our water systems and as our cities and urbanized areas grow, storm water runoff can become a threat if we're not able to better manage the discharged water and

possible impact of toxins and pollutants. and here we are, something i can hardly believe, i recall taking my son to the grand canyon and camping along the side of the south rim many years ago. and what are we going to do now? we can pitch our tents next to the uranium mines at the grand canyon? this is insane. for the five million visitors a year who visit the grand canyon, we're going to jeopardize the water quality of our nation's most important rivers, i can't imagine families visiting the grand canyon, i can't imagine future generations pitching their tent next to the grand canyon, next to a uranium mine because of this senseless legislation. it almost makes you breathless to wonder why it is that we've decided that the federal government doesn't have a role anymore in protecting our water and our land and our air and our air quality. the majority's pushing a bill on the floor that blocks the clean air act regulation of fine particles and soot and delays

the e.p.a. from eliminating toxic mercury pollution from power plants. i mean, why don't we just break up our thermometers and dump them in the water? i'm not sure who these riders are meant to help but i know they don't help children and communities in my district and across the country who are vulnerable to air pollution. 30% of childhood asthma is due to environmental exposures, costing the nation $2 billion per year. these riders add to the arsenal, they just add to the arsenal. low income and minority children experiencing more doctor visits and hospitalization due to asthma than the general population and three times the rate of white americans. this is a really sad day, but it's most especially sad because we should be doing the nation's business. today we watched the stock market plummet because of the uncertainty that we've created in this body because of the republican majority. and so i know that we have to do this horrible interior e.p.a. appropriations bill, but what we

need to do is fix this nation's economy, get people back to work, building our roads and our bridges and our infrastructure, protecting our national parks and instead we're engaged in the sillyness of trying to play dice and chicken with the american economy. it's a really sad day for the american public, just a really sad day and with that i yield. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. the majority has been saying how concerns they are about future generations, that we shouldn't be overburdening them with our debt. i wholeheartedly agree. mrs. davis: that's why, mr. speaker, i'm disappointed that instead of addressing the urgent debt crisis we are on the floor debating a bill that will gut

pollution controls and public health protections in order to boost profits, the profits of america's biggest polluters, the last people who probably need a hand right now. this bill does a number of things, mr. speaker. it blocks even modest pollution control standards that could mitigate climate change. the bill also erases 40 years of federal laws that protect clean air, water, lands and wildlife and it cripples the budgets of the federal agencies we've charged with protecting our constituents. as a mother and grandmother i'm appalled that this bill signals a willingness to leave our families a more unhealthy environment than we have today. isn't the idea always to leave things better than we found them? but instead of protecting our citizens and shorelines, this bill exempts oil companies from

complying with clean air act for offshore drilling. instead of protecting our drinking water and waterways it cuts nearly $1 billion in funding for the clean water state revolving funds and will if enacted compromise the ability to address urban stormwater runoff, one of san diego's greatest environmental threats. and instead of supporting a cleaner, more efficient auto industry it blocks an improved fuel efficiency standard, jeopardizing a process projected to create up to 700,000 new green jobs. to cut fuel costs and save 2.4 million barrels of oil every day by 2030. it's alarming, it's alarming, mr. speaker, that my colleagues who speak so passionately about giving the next generations a clean financial slate would so

carelessly leave them a dirty planet. i suspect that the grandchildren of some oil company executives can't always jet off to pristine resorts but quite frankly that's not the situation for most of my constituents. the grandchildren of 85% of americans just told "the washington post"/abc news poll that they are, quote, just getting by or falling behind and they'll be stuck paying high gas prices and worrying about their jobs and worrying about their health. we should be leaving our children and our grandchildren a chance, a chance at the american dream of middle class pro-prosperity and the legacy -- of middle class prosperity and the legacy of environmental stewardship, not one of reckless disregard. i strongly urge my colleagues to

join me in opposing this bill and getting back to bridging the divide so our constituents, that debt divide, so our constituents can focus on their own jobs rather than being concerned about whether we're doing ours. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, in some respects i feel like i'm in the twilight zone. can anyone explain to me why when we are 144 hours from crossing the brink from going over the ledge to have this country come to a screeching halt financially, tell me why we are debating the appropriations bills for the department of interior.

why aren't we dealing with what the american people want us to be dealing with right now and that is the debt limit? raising the ceiling on the debt limit. ms. speier: but, no, we're going to spend hundreds of hours here over the next couple of days talking about the interior appropriations bill. let me tell you what i'm hearing from my constituents and maybe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle aren't getting phone calls from their constituents, but i am and i'll tell you what i'm hearing. one woman wrote me and said, my mom is 79 years old, worked all her life in a factory and retired. her pension was handed to her on her very last day of work, $25,000. the plant closed, moved the work to mexico and her husband died eight years later. that $25,000 didn't last long. now her only source of income is social security.

she lives in a senior retirement center that she loves. last thursday she and my aunt, who is 83 and also widowed, called me to pick them up and take them to the bank. they were going to withdraw from their savings money to pay their rent as they, along with all of the other seniors they live with in that retirement center, are convinced they will not get their social security checks come august 1. my mom has a doctor's appointment on august 5 and she wonders if the doctor will continue to see her if the government doesn't pay for medicare. i care deeply about them. i know for a fact that my mom is losing sleep over this. last week i thought she was foolish. this week i'm beginning to think that i'm the fool. how do you look your mom and your aunt in the eye and say with great certainty that the u.s. government will send them their social security? that was just one letter i received and i've gotten lots of

phone cause. a 52-year-old woman -- calls. a 52-year-old woman who is a court reporter pays $13,000 into the social security system last year and she's calling me saying, what are you all doing? interest rates on my mortgage is going to go up, interest rates on my credit card are going to go up, why aren't you fixing this problem? no, we're standing here talking about the a interior appropriations budget -- talking about the interior appropriations budget. a 68-year-old woman previously suffered a stroke, has had seizures and relies on medicare to treat her arthritis. her husband, a cab driver, will turn 70 in december. at which point he will go on social security and hopefully go from working five to six hours a day to maybe four hours. if he loses his social security he will probably have to work longer hours again. they're all anguished. they all want us to do our jobs. they want us to lift this debt

ceiling, protect social security and medicare and fix oured a fought to that we have here -- our attitude that we have here that somehow it's ok to just stall. it's ok to just try and make points, make political points while they're all wringing their hands, while they're taking money out of their savings accounts because they can't pay their rent if they don't get their social security checks come august 1. for my colleagues who haven't heard from their constituents, i want my constituents to call this number, call your member of congress and tell them what we should be doing. should we de -- should we be debating the interior appropriations bill, or should we be fixing the debt limit, a debt limit that every economist

of every political stripe said you have to lift it. president ronald reagan said it has to be lifted. why should congress always take us to the brink before they act? it's time for us to be responsible. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair would remind all members that they are to address the chair, not the television audience. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: i want to thank my colleague from california for reminding all of us that there are consequences of what we do here. this current manufactured holy -- this current manufactured, wholly manufactured debt crisis had people nervous. the women ms. speier talked about, concerned and nervous about their social security checks, whether they'll be able to get their medical care, and today's "wall street journal,"

the first four or five items on what's news, various businesses around the world in finance -- and financial institutions being prepared for the first time ever in america's history that our debt may not be worth a hoot. may be worthless. that we're going to default. this is a totally manufactured, unnecessary crisis. we didn't have to be here. i want us all to step back a little ways, step back to december, 2010, when we had another manufactured crisis. it came time to fund the federal government and to deal with some issues having to do with unemployment and the republicans in the senate held us hostage and demanded that we extend the high-end bush tax cuts which created a $700 billion deficit.

we went ahead and did that. and rolled the issue forward three months so that in february, we would have yet another crisis. the funding or shutdown of the federal government. yet again, another opportunity for our republican colleagues to create a crisis so that they could use it to force onto the american public their policies which became very evident what they wanted to do. they wanted to reconfigure the entire american scene. they wanted to roll back social security. they wanted to end medicare for all americans who are not yet 55 years of age. they wanted to end the programs to support higher education, to reduce research, to reduce funding for food safety

programs. they use these manufactured crises, the shutdown of government, yet here we are again with the debt limit. first discussed back in may. and then, because of the treasury department's ability to continue paying bills, we are now up against the final deadline of august 2. yet again, a totally manufactured, unnecessary crisis. previously, ronald reagan said, don't do this. do not put the good faith and credit of the american government on the line. he told the republicans, his republicans, back in the 1980's, honor the debt. this is not about new spending. this is about spending going back a century. this is about the american bills that were paid or not paid years ago and that's our debt today. we don't need to do this. there are options.

we're putting forth, as we did earlier, a clean debt limit increase. get us past this. we're also looking at the opportunity for the president to invoke the 14th amendment, the fourth clause of the 14th amendment that says america will honor its debts. i believe he has the power, issuing an executive order to the treasury department, pay our debts. this is something that's fundamental for americans. and we must do it. put aside this manufactured crisis. it's not -- didn't need to be real. but it's become all too real in these last few days as our republicans -- republican colleagues are unable to get their act together. even to put forth a proposal that would eviscerate necessary programs. can't even do that. the president has called for a balanced approach, one of

taxes, raising the taxes that should have been raised back in december and eliminate some $700 billion of this problem. but let's do it now. let's go after the oil companies that are receiving our tax money at the very same time over the last decade they have created a -- nearly $1 trillion of profit. they don't need our tax money. the poor in america, the senior citizens in america, they need our help. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garamendi: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: i agree with the two previous speakers, my colleagues from california. here we are dealing with a flawed bill that would deny our stewardship of our environment, all while we're faced with an economic consequence, with a default that stares us in the face. for the past 200 days, the republican leadership of this

body has set aside america's priority of job creation in order to talk about the debt and to talk about the deficit. my concern is that as we face that looming threat of default, my republican colleagues aren't doing much but talk. after 200 days with no jobs agenda, after 200 days of voting to destroy millions of jobs, after 200 days of saying those hardest hit by the recession should bear the burden of unbalanced cuts, after 00 days of rhetoric and walking away, my republicans colleagues have forced this congress and the american people to wait yet more hours to see and vote on their plan. as we all know, last night, the congressional budget office pointed out that some of the cuts in the speaker's plan weren't real. meanwhile, the tea party base said that cut, cap, an balance is the only plan they will support. we consider that plan -- considered a that plan last week and it has failed in the senate. it's a plan that bruce bartlett a reagan advisor and bush treasury official said was,

quote, mind-boggling in its insanity. others call it the most ideological extreme to come before congress in decades. governing -- governing is not always easy. there are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. our advantage lies in the fact that however vocal, extremists are a minority a faction. i have traveled my district extensively in recent weeks. i have held town halls and meetings with local businesses and here's what i heard. we have a spending problem in washington. we have a revenue problem in washington, but most importantly, more than anything else, we have a jobs problem in america. so what are we going to do about it? well my constituents had an easy answer there too. first, cut what doesn't create jobs and stability for the middle class. that includes wasteful government spending, it also includes tax breaks for corporate jet owners, millionaires and billionaires and a system of kickbacks to the big oil companies that even their c.e.o.'s say they don't need. sec, save whatever actually works.

that means investment in education, so middle class kids have a chance to get good jobs when they finish school. that means boosting innovation to get american industry booming again and it means infrastructure so we can drive to work on safe roads and bridges and build them with american materials and workers. finally, my constituents have told me that whatever talking heads on tv say, they know fair when they see it. regardless of partisan divides. we have an aging population. nobody disputes that. but the majority has introduced plan after plan after plan that would cut social security and end medicare. in order to protect corporate tax breaks and long standing kickbacks for special interests put us in a position where ideas are replaced and government by ideology. we have been asked in recent weeks to manipulate the united states constitution in order to enshrine this ideology. where i'm from, we believe that the only ideology that belongs in the united states

constitution is that of democracy. in our democracy, if you want your ideas to become law, you don't rewrite our history or change our foundational documents. you come down to this floor, you tell your colleagues and constituent what is you think and you let us debate it, amend it, and vote on it, right here in front of the cameras and in front -- in front of the people we're sworn to serve. that's not what's happening today. after 200 days of talking about little else, my republican colleagues have forced this body and the american people to wait yet hours to see their top secret default plan. exactly which principled stand was important enough for the republican house leadership to walk away from negotiations for the fifth time? more importantly, the clock is ticking and we need to get back to work and the american people are getting sick and tired of the games. we know that their call to end medicare and social security plans would protect 2% of our population at the expense of the rest of us, the 9 % of us.

i'm sure that takes a lot of vote wrangling, but we've had a year to get this done. no matter how much congress cuts their classroom budget, even our elementary schoolchildren know that a due date is a due date. democrats support a balanced, bipartisan solution to reduce our deficit to key ate jobs, to grow our economy and expand the middle class. my republican colleagues say they share those same goals. i invite my colleagues to come down here and share their plan. america is waiting and deserves better. we need to solve this default crisis that's staring us in the eyes. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. bishop of new york, page 68, lines 11 and 12, after each

dollar amount insert increased by $1,411,000,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: my amendment would reduce the state resolving fund to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2010. all of us recognize the gravity of the financial situation facing this nation today and we are struggling to emerge from the worst economic recession since the great depression. clearly with the national unemployment rate hovering around 9% and unemployment rates in the construction sector at over 20%, we are far from completing our work. christine todd whitman, the republican e.p.a. administrator under george w. bush estimated that the needs of our nation's aging water infrastructure topped $6 0 billion.

yet within the f.y. 2012 promings bill, the majority cuts the clean water state resolve involving fund, a primary source of federal investment in the nation's wastewater infrastructure by $1.4 billion compared to f.y. 2010. coupled with the severe cuts under s.r.s. and h.r. 1, the attacks clean water in the clean water cooperative federalism act passed earlier this month, the republican majority has made it clear that they place no priority, none, on preserving clean water or creating jobs. in terms of job losses, the cuts in the f.y. 2012 interior appropriations bill, when compared to 2010 funding levels, would eliminate over 39,000 direct construction jobs throughout the country and countless additional jobs in the industries and small businesses that support the wastewater construction industry at a time when many small businesses and construction sector are struggling to recover. furthermore, this cut

undermines long-standing federal efforts to address the nation's aging infrastructure system. mr. chairman, addressing the nation's debt and deficit should abchutely be a priority. however, we should focus our efforts on finding a balanced approach that focuses on job creation rather than slashing budgets that are proven job creators. we hear repeatedly from our republican colleagues we should not tax job creators. i agree. huffer in my district and districts across the nation, the environment is the job creator. the economy of my district depends on clean water, clean air and safe, swimmable beaches. the cuts in this bill place all of these in jeopardy. the republican priorities in this bill prevail we could put an effective tax rate of zero on small businesses in my district and it wouldn't help because they would have no income and no income means no jobs. the extension of the bush tax cuts give the average millionaire a $139,000 tax break in 2011, a tax breck of $

2,700 per week or $380 per day. i'm talking about only tax breaks for millionaires, not for the middle class and only for millionaires using not the $250,000 but the million. if our republican colleagues were to set aside ideology and agree to eliminate tax breaks for just those millionaires we could reestablish our commitment to clean water and economic development within 12 days. 12 days. the bush tax cuts give millionaires across the nation such a deal that we could completely shore up the $1.4 billion deficit in the clean water s.r.f. and begin to address the needs outlined by administrator whitman in less than two weeks. even if congress gave the bill gates' of this world -- the bill gates of this world the tax breaks, we could put tens of thousands of men and women back to work, protect clean water and protect the economys that depend on -- economies that depend on clean water.

finally the republican majority has included in this bill several special interest policy earmarks to pull back on e.p.a.'s compliance and enforcement capabilities, making it far more difficult for the agency to identify and pursue serious violations, impact the public health and the environment in -- impact -- impacting public health and the environment in communities across the nation. this stands in stark contrast to the e.p.a.'s efforts and suggests that a weakened compliance and enforcement presence is somehow better for our nation. i strongly disagree with that suggestion. combined, the lackluster funding for the s.r.f. and the earmarks and it's quite clear that republicans have abandoned the decades' long national bipartisan commitment to creating jobs, protecting public health and preserving the ability of local communities to grow their economies through clean water projects. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. mr. bishop: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i insist on my point of order. the amendment proposes a net increase if budget authority in the bill. the amendment is not in order under section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5 112th congress which state, i shall -- it shatshal not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority, pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill and is in violation of such section. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? >> mr. chairman, may i be heard? the chair: the gentleman from new york. >> i fully expected that my friend from idaho would insist on his point of order. i fully expect the chair to sustain the point of order. mr. bishop: but let's be clear. the underlying bill violates house rules. there are 39 -- at least by my

count -- special interest policy riders in the underlying bill. every one of which is protected by a rule that waives all point of orders, each of these policy riders are? violation of clause 2-b of rule 21, we all know that. i understand that the point of order will be sustained but i do wish we would adhere to what we were promised. we were promised an open, transparent house in which regular order would prevail and which the house would work its will. this rule does not allow that to take place. i will accept the ruling of the chair. the chair: the gentleman from idaho makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york violates section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. section 3-j-3 establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. as persuasively asserted by the gentleman from idaho, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority of the bill, therefore a point of order is sustained, the

amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lankford of oklahoma. page 71, line 15 and 17, strike not less than 30% and insert 30% or less. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, sir. the environmental protection agency currently administers clean water to state revolving funds and the drinking water state revolve funds to provide low interest financing through the states. these low interest loans are a way for states and communities to be able to use their own discretion in making the much-needed improvements to their water supplies and infrastructure. this program was a grant program years ago but was transitioned into a loan program to save money some 25 years ago. when the american recovery and reinvestment act passed in 2009 an increase in funding for these

accounts was coupled with a provision in those two funds requiring no less than 30% of the financial funds be issued to be used for principle forgiveness with a type of grant program to them. this principal forgiveness changes the low interest loan program to a direct funding program, it's a hybrid between a loan program now and a grant program. since the stimulus expired in funding for these provisions returned to normal level, unfortunately the principal for giveness provision has remained. this bill rolls back prestimulus funding levels but it doesn't roll back the stimulus -- prestimulus federal strings. so my amendment removes the federal mandate of principal forgiveness and gives the state discretion on the amount they would like to offer. they will be able to provide principal forgiveness of up to 30%. communities rely on these funds to ensure their infrastructure security and safe drinking water. by supporting my amendment, you could leverage your state and community as i cross all -- all across our nation to get the

much-needed infrastructure assistance. it is a very bipartisan focus on this. this is one of the priorities from the president in his budget proposal that he requested the same thing and it also for conservatives and others gives back the states the rights to be able to make those decisions. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve his time. mr. lankford: the gentleman yields back then. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. what the amendment does is creates a 0% language that he is we've had in the past and make -- that -- 30% language that we've had in the past as a floor and makes it a floor. it provides grants to states that capitalize their programs. these programs offer low interest loans to communities for projects included in the state's intended use plan. these low interest loans are usually below market rates and are used to finance water and

wastewater infrastructure projects. many small and disadvantaged communities with low income-based can hardly afford to apply for these loans even with the low interest loans. therefore this provision in the base text which we have had for a few years would offer zero interest loans, loans that forgive a portion of the principal or grants to these disadvantaged communities, that would otherwise be unable to afford a standard s.r.f. loan. the provisions provide some relief to small communities across the nation that are tirelessly working to provide clean and safe drinking water to their residents and bring construction jobs to their communities, all at the same time as they balance their books. and given the huge infrastructure needs facing this nation and the crumbling water and water -- wastewater infrastructure, we should be providing more of this assistance, not less. so while i appreciate the colleague's amendment and share his interest in preserving the viability of the s.r.f., i do not support this amendment and i would aurnl no vote. i would just say -- and i would urge a no vote. i would just say, we've talked about this in the subcommittee for a number of years.

we have the state revolving loan funds, we put the money out there and there are a lot of communities that can't even afford the loans. so it doesn't help them rebuild their water systems or the state or the wastewater treatment facilities. with the standards that we have with arsenic and other things, i have a lot of small communities in idaho that it doesn't help them that they have a state revolving loan fund because they can't afford it. so what this does is help them through that to meet some of the clean water standards that they have to meet and as i said, what we've carried in the bill before says a minimum of 30% or a floor of 30% of those funds have to be used for those types of things and what the gentleman's amendment would do would make that a ceiling so you can only use 30% of that. i would oppose the amendment and hope my colleagues would also. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lankford: may i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 72, line 21, administrative provisions, environmental protection agency, the administrator may award cooperative agreements to federally recognized indian tribes. the administrater is authorized to collect pesticide registration service fees. the administrater is authorized to transfer up to $250 million of funds appropriated for the great lakes initiatives. from unobligated balances funded through the state and tribal assistance grants and hazardous substance superfund accounts, $140 million are permanently rescinded. the requirements of section 513 of the federal water pollution

control act shall apply to the construction of treatment works. the requirements of section 1450-e is the safe drinking water act shall apply to any construction project as authorized by section 1452 of that act. title 3, related agencies, department of agriculture. forest service, forest and range land research, $277,282,000. state and private forestry, $208,608,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment would reduce the state and private forestry funding by a modest 10% and

transfer more than $20 million to the spending reduction account. the state and private forestry funding sets aside money for international forestry,, urban and community forestry and supports more than 500 million acres of nonfederal forested lands. we are more than $14.3 trillion in debt and we need to be cutting areas of our budget wherever possible. it is more than reasonable to request a reduction in this program. because the federal government has no business giving out a handout to private forestry land owners in the first place. this funding will be better managed by states and local levels of government. we're broke, mr. speaker. as a nation. and we need to be doing what businesses do when they get overextended. they lower their borrowing level, they try to find out ways to pay off their debt and they

start cutting the expenses and this is a mere 10% cut. so i urge my colleagues to think about our massive debt and i urge them to consider sending part of this program back to the state and local governments. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: mr. chairman, i simply -- simply rise to ask if we could see the amendment. it's pretty difficult to address it until we actually see the amendment. the chair: the amendment is number 18 in the congressional record. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. this amendment would take $21 million from the forest services, state and private program and put it in the spending reduction account. while it's easy to stand here and say it just reduces it by 10%, who can't stand a 10% reduction, i'd like to note that state and private forestry program has already had a significant cut in this budget. $133 million below the f.y. 2011 and despite its name it is critical to managing the national forest system. the accounts are kept in tact -- the accounts we kept in tact are extremely important. for example, cooperative fire protection in rural areas, this helps rural communities fight wildfires. with such a large percentage of public land and such a small tax base, many rural communities are hard-pressed to pay for suppression for a large wildfire that start on public lands. cooperative forest help. in other words, the prevention and treatment of insects and disease. improving forest health helps prevent catastrophic wildfires. in the south i know you're

family with the southern pine beetle. this program has helped contain the spread of southern pine beetle. i wish the same were true in the western united states where 20 million acres are dead due to the beetle. i understand the gentleman is standing on principle. so am i. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. for five minutes. mr. moran: i simply rise to associate myself with the very thoughtful, insightful comments of the chairman of the appropriations committee from idaho. we agree the amendment should be defeated. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 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.