disagree with is we can't ignore the rest of the world. we have historically been the leader in this world, at least since world war i and world war ii, and we certainly are still today. and when you have a situation where an ally of iran, who's on the verge, we believe, of getting nuclear weapons, who is the chief sponsor of terrorism around the world, and we saw on september 11 what that terrorism can mean right here on our own shores, that we cannot ignore that overseas. it doesn't mean that we necessarily or that we even should put troops on the ground in some of these places, like libya, like syria, no, i don't think we should put troops on the ground, but it doesn't mean that we can essentially wash our hands of it and not exercise leadership. that's what's lacking right now. we've turned it over to the u.n. the u.n. allows russia and china to veto any action at

all, and that has tied the hands of the united states. and over the long term, that will mean great harm to this country unless we do something about it. and what many of us are arguing is let's do something about it now. we probably should have done it a long time ago, but we're way beyond time for action. host: again, steve chabot is the chair of the foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle east and southeast asia. thanks four being here this morning. we're going to take to you today's session of the house of representatives. they're just gaveling into session. there is a vote on spending bill, on energy. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] for giving us another day. the power is now in your presence and acknowledge our dependence on you. we ask your blessing upon the men and women of this the people's house, keep them aware of your presence as they face the tasks of this day, that no

burden be too heavy, no duty too difficult and no work too worrisome. help them and indeed help us to do your will and to walk in your way. which all are glad to be alive, eager to work andkñ?ñ? ready to serve you, our great nation, and all our fellow brothers and sisters. may all that is done this day announces to the house his approval thereof. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. mr. courtney: i pledge

allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker: does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker: without objection. >> mr. speaker, over the last district work period my league, paul tonko, and i had a forum to bring better testing, treatment for those associated with lyme and tic-borne illnesses. i heard from hundreds of constituents who were suffering from lyme.

the lead and organized this conference. christina and holly. speaker, experts on the scope gdjfú5wj

mr. welch: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: thank you. mr. speaker, the other day i received a letter from a constituent, lanea. she is concerned about the doubling of stafford student loan interest rates scheduled for july 1. this is very personal for her. she used the stafford loan to get a good education and start a career as a nurse. she's now contributing member of the community. she's also the granddaughter of former u.s. vermont representative and senator bob stafford for whom the stafford student loan program is named. here's what she had to say about her grandfather. i know my grandfather's intention for these loans wasls8 i understand that times are tough and people are looking everywhere but this is just not right. my grandfather was known as a gentle giant, but if he were alive today i think he would oppose this with force. mr. speaker, bob stafford knew that higher education was the clearest path to the middle class in this country and he was a good republican.

we should not let the interest rates double. there's no justification to having these interest rates go from 3.4% to 6.8%. we have 30 days. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. was to provide markets and excluded from the market label of the usda. for instance, bamboo plywood is already eligible as used as a green material for hard wood flooring. it modifies to clarify that

forest products should be included in the biobased markets program if they meet the minimum requirements. the forest products fairness act of 2012 will enable them to have stronger expanded product markets and new economic opportunities so the industry can better compete in the products as part of the bio prefer program will promote healthy, well-managed forest and those that rely on these industries to survive and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in 29 days the interest rate for the stafford student loan program is going mr. courtney: this will add middle class students all across america.

yesterday, the christian science monitor reported that speaker boehner called this a phony issue and a distraction from the real issues. there's nothing phony of adding thousands of dollarsofj there's nothing phony about the federal reserve board report that came out yesterday that showed that student loan increased by $30 billion in the first quarter surpassing considered as read -- surpassing credit card debt. 40 days for the next five months, it's time for us to get to work in this chamber and fix problems like the stafford student loan interest rate. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to present a one-minute speech to the house and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. members, recent memorial weekend and now the ever

escalating high unemployment be returning home to no jobs. mr. denham: for the last year i worked on the veterans skills to jobs act, something when i left the active duty military i realized that it would take me several years to get the credentialing on the civilian side that i already had on the military side. sophisticated trained work force in the military. as they return home, we need to make sure that not only do they have jobs but they have high-paying skilled jobs. department of defense before they get discharged we give them the opportunity to get jobs. the senate introduced a companion bill and now today the president has declared his 1 i rsi9txóbmy]jí?j÷n4e>+, z 53rrzáe&2ui7d'

our brave men and women have sacrificed so much, deserve jobs when they get home. high-paying jobs that will allow them to get back into our society. thank you very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pallone: to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. americans are growing more and more cynical of politicks and politicses with good reason. citizens united opened the floodgates to unrestricted special interest campaign spending in elections and we need to put an end to secret i advocate the disclose act. it would shine the light on within 24 hours of making a campaign expenditure or transferring funds that are $10,000 or more for other

groups for campaign-related activities. mr. speaker, when i'm on the trail and i talk to my constituents, everyone is outraged by the millions and possibly billions of dollars that are going to be spent on the presidential, congressional, senate campaigns. it makes sense to have some transparency. we should pass the disclose act so at least those who make these contributions have to say who they are. it's only fair. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. black: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. black:2#x 02ñá& of the most outspoken opponents of obamacare, i hope in the upcoming weeks that the supreme court strikes down this 4bu)wzd the reality that this law is

horrible policy. it will either defund or repeal obamacare since being elected to congress. yesterday in the house ways and means markup, we successfully repeal the obamacare tax hikes. one, the medical tax device and number two, the medicine cabinet tax. it is clear that the house must continue to fight against @(cf!eo we need to have willing partners in the senate and the white house. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore:xññ?ñ?ñ what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, today i rise to celebrate the life of a friend and someone who changed the lives of victims throughout the nation. suzanne appeared in my court years ago as one of the first

prosecutor-based victim she went on to start the texas crime victims clearing-house, the first of its kind anywhere anywhere in the united states. in recognition for her incredible work, she was tapped as the crime victims education officer, influencing the state organizations and her leadership on the board of the national organization of victim assistance. suzanne's-[ñ?ñ? accomplishments far reaching, touching lives in texas and throughout our nation. our crime victim wrote, suzanne feels everyone is important and needed in the fight to improve the assistance for crime victims. i have never heard her say it's not my job. in fact, she has never been shy about poking her nose into things and offering assistance. her enthusiasm and dedication is boundless.

because of suzanne mcdaniel and her life. i yield back the balance of my time.

appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. 1 of rule 21, points of order are reserved. . mr. frelinghuysen: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and clue extraneous material on the further consideration of h.r. 5325, and that i may include tab by lar material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 66

and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5325. will the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, kindly take the care. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5325 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose on thursday, may 31, 2012, all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair may accord priority in recognition to a member offering an amendment who has caused it to be printed in the designated place in the across-the-board. -- congressional record. those amendments will be considered as read. the clerk will read. the clerk: be it enacted that the following sums are appropriated for fiscal year 2013, namely, title 1, core of engineers, civil department of the navy, core corps of engineers safely, appropriation will be authorized functions for pertaining to river and hashor for storm damage, reduction, and related efforts. investigations, $102 million. construction, $1,477,284,000. 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. scalise much louisiana. page 3, line 18, after the dollar amount insert increase by $10 million. page 28, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment. what we are doing is we are transferring $10 million from the department of energy salaries and expenses account over the corps of engineers construction account. the reason this is critical is because it allows us to move forward on infrastructure improvements, including in louisiana something that we have been trying to do to restore our coast and get moving on the louisiana coastal area which is one of many projects in the corps' ghauth are backlogged and not funded, yet are critical for improving infrastructure for creating jobs, for doing things to protect our wetlands. in louisiana i bring this

football because we lose one football field of land every hour along the gulf coast of louisiana due to coastal erosion. we have a plan that we put forth, our governor, bobby jindal, and his team have a solid plan in place that they would move forward on. what we are trying to do, this is an authorized program, we are just trying to make sure that this program can move forward like so many others across the country that would improve our water ways a, that strengthen our coastlines, yet we have salaries being funded for projects now and looking department of energy we actually cut back on a lot of the work that they do at the department of energy, rightfully so. eliminating programs that are unnecessary and yet their salaries still continue to go up. so they are doing -- we ask people to do more with less. in this case they are doing less with more. and so we are moving money out of a salaries account for people doing less work and moving it into actually doing coastal projects, actually doing work that improves our coast and

strengthens the areas that protect the vital infrastructure for the oil and gas industry, that feeds this nation's energy needs, and the seafood that this nation's great tastes for great things like shrimp and oysters and crabs. so with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman cannot reserve. mr. scalise: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, this is a bipartisan amendment, i want to thank the gentleman from louisiana for helping us with this, mr. richmond from new orleans. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana may yield but not blocks of time. mr. scalise: thank you. the chair: does the gentleman yield? mr. scalise: yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. richmond: i thank you to my colleague from louisiana. we have a great honor and awesome responsibility of representing the coast of louisiana. mr. chairman, the coast of louisiana -- since 1950 had sent to the american treasury almost

$150 billion, and up until 2006, we didn't receive any revenues back from the federal government for drilling on our out outer continental shelf. what we do today is ask for the ability to help ourselves, protect our citizens, and make this country safer. at the end of the day i'd like to remind the chair that our state has over 40% of the nation's wetland losses, but we have 80% of wetland loss but only 40% of the nation's wetlands. but if you look at what we give back to this country, i think that you will see that a $10 million investment would be a very good investment into our country, into our state. if you look at the cost benefit analysis. our wetlands produce a third of the nation's seafood supply and much of our domestic energy. our coast is the home to the country's largest port system. these ports move the

overwhelming majority of our imports and exports in this country. it's not just about the oil and gas production, it's not just about louisiana's importance in terms of our energy production for this country, but it also makes the residents of louisiana safer. those coastal --that coastal land and those barrier islands produce the first defense to hurricanes. we all saw during hurricane katrina the devastation that could be caused. so we are just asking this body to approve this amendment which will help plafment, protect our citizens, protect america's energy production, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield the balance of the time back to the gentleman from louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. scalise: thank you again, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague from louisiana for his comments and i just urge all of our colleagues to vote for this amendment so that we can actually use money to do real projects instead of to fund the bureaucracy of washington, and especially when

we are actually reducing the workload that they had to do, shift that money over to an area where we can actually increase jobs, protect our nation, protect our energy and infrastructure that benefits the entire country. and with that i urge passage of this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. fraps the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i must rise in opposition to the amendment. i do appreciate -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. i do appreciate the passion of both these gentlemen for coastal restoration. i know it's a high priority for his district and his state and of course the focus is louisiana and they have tuffered greatly. the bill before -- suffered greatly. the bill before us includes $10 million to continue studies, engineering, and design work on various components of their program in louisiana. that is more than 9% of the entire investigation's account

dedicated to continuing work on coastal restoration in louisiana. the committee has had to make some tough choices in this bill, though. while overall funding for the corps of engineers has increased slightly above the president's request, unfortunately it is reduced by 4% from fiscal year 2012. the construction account specifically is also slightly above the president's budget request but that it's still a reduction of almost 13% from fiscal year 2012. the corps has numerous projects already under construction that were not included in the president's budget. so are likely to be funded in fiscal year 2013. while construction funding is trending downward, i believe it is most prudent to prioritize funding for ongoing projects so they can be completed. actually completed and the federal government can realize the public safety, economic, and other benefits from previous

spending rather than starting new projects. and given this particular project as currently authorized approaches $2 billion and likely will continue to grow in cost, it would not be prudent to begin another major new project while we have so many existing commitments. for these reasons i must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no on it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. does the gentleman yield? mr. frelinghuysen: yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana -- >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate the recognition and rise to first of all express to my colleague and friend from louisiana -- mr. visclosky: my appreciation for his argument today and particularly the football analogy that he used. i say that as a notre dame

graduate and i would congratulate him on his victory the last time our two teams played on the field. having said that however, both he an i on the democratic side, i join the chairman in reluctant opposition to the amendment. the chairman has opted for a policy of no new starts. a policy that i strongly support and have opted for during these times of budgetary constraints. would point outhat while there is only $10 million in the amendment before the house today , the fact is this project will cost several billion dollars by the time we are done and starting it now is a cause that we cannot afford to adequately fund because we do not have the resources in the bill. over the last several years we have in fact, terminated hundreds of ongoing projects that are to our great dismay and

weakening of our infrastructure and the could economy of this country. but until we as an institution, the congress have the fortitude to adequately fund our infrastructure in these types of very necessary investment,ings that not the argument before us, i cannot support adding to the inventory of projects that we must start but cannot. the allocation for the bill were different, i might be able to support the gentleman's amendment. but again as it now stands we are short cashed. the fact is the amount in the bill today and the chairman and i and every member of the subcommittee fought to add $81 million to the president's request, we are $641 million today in this bill below what we were spending as a nation on these projects two years ago.

we don't have the money, unfortunately, to fund the gentleman's amendment and therefore again express my sincere appreciation for what he wants to do but my reluctant opposition to his amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered from the -- by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. scalise: i ask for a record vote. the chair: friction, further proceedings on the amendment offered -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. holt of new jersey, page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $2 million. page 7, line 4, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $2 million. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: thank you, mr. chairman. today the 2012 atlantic hurricane season officially begins. and so i come to the floor to speak for increased resources to prevent flood damage as they have devastated our communities in new jersey and around the eastern united states.

in h.r. 5325, chairman frelinghuysen and the committee have provided for the u.s. corps of engineers $1.5 billion for planning, training, and other measures to ensure the readiness of the corps to respond to floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. and i thank the chairman and the committee for that work. . this is a couple million below for flood preparation in 2012. my amendment would provide an additional two million so the corps can continue life-saving flood preparation work. although this won't close the funding gap, my amendment would address pro actively the variety of problems that can result from severe weather events and flooding. last august and september, many central new jersey residents

experienced flood damage due to hurricane irene and tropical storm lee. evacuations and property damage can be a heavy burden for many constituents. in recent years, there have been deaths in new jersey, from such flooding. i was traveling through my district during and after last year's hurricane, and saw firsthand flooding damage. in delaware and elsewhere. when hurricane irene hit new jersey last year, it cast more than 10,000 people from their homes and left more than 100,000 utility customers without power. 11 inland rivers and tributaries crested, some at record levels. the best time to address flooding is before the severe weather occurs. unfortunately it seems that it will become only more common as the earth's temperatures continues to rise.

there are a number of critical infrastructure and public works projects throughout central new jersey that the corps is aware of, that the corps is planning to deal with. and they must continue in order to prepare for these severe weather events. again, i appreciate the foresight and wisdom of chairman frelinghuysen. this amendment would provide additional funds and incentives to the corps of -- to continue with these important projects. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back. the chair: theentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i understand that the chairman, my colleague, is trying to show support for the army corps of engineers construction project. he's been a longtime advocate for projects in his district and i commend him for that and i agree with him. there have been numerous flood control needs. for instance, across the entire country, including our home state of new jersey. experience has shown us that it's cheaper to try to prevent flood damages than trying to recover from them. although i believe my underlying bill we put today, mr. visclosky and i, struck all priorities in the bill, including national security and energy innovation. i do not have any objection to his amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. >> mr. chairman, move to strike the last word and would support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the corps' investment in 2010 alone protected infrastructure in this country and prevented over $28 billion worth of damages. mr. visclosky: the amendment is a modest one and it's spread

across all accounts for a .14% increase. as the chairman noted, he worked very vigorously to increase the amounts in this account over the president's request by $6 million, but we remained $217 million below last year's level. so, again, would join the chair in supporting the amendment and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk designated king 315. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $1 million. page 5, line 1, after the dollar amount insert increased

by $571,571,424. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i offer this amendment, which what it does is it strikes $1 million out of the fish and wildlife account and it inserts $571,429 into the missouri river maintenance account. and so it is a net savings of $428,571, which would go to deficit reduction, but my purpose is not to focus on the deficit reduction component of this, mr. chairman. my purpose is to make the statement that we have watched in that missouri river system that has six dams upstream and the longest channel in the united states going downstream, and we suffered a flood last summer, the 2011 flood of epic

proportions. the system had been designed and completed in 1968 based upon the largest runoff ever which was 1881. it's 2011, now the corps of engineers declares that last year's flood was a 500-year event. usgs says it's between a 70 and 5,000-year event. they refuse to manage the river and the fashion that protects us from serious downstream flooding. so instead of creating -- creating happen at that time for fish and wildlife, which is the piping plumber, now we have hundreds of miles of camel habitat, sand and dead trees from the flooding. i have a bill that needs to

move through this congress. it directs the corps of engineers to protect us from serious downstream flooding and consider fish and wildlife in the interest upstream. this redirect some of those funds to that to send a message to the corps of engineers to take a little bit out of their fish and wildlife account which is around $70 million and put a little bit into their maintenance account which is around $7 million and start to adjust this proportion, but it is a token vote, mr. chairman, because there's much more that needs to be done. we need to be able to discharge $120,000 cubic feet per second and maintain that within the channel. if we can do that then the fisheries upstream will have minimal impact when the corps is directed to adjust the levels to protect us from serious downstream flooding. that is the argument. i urge adoption of this amendment. the message that would be sent, and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa yields back his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, let me commend the gentleman from iowa for his strong advocacy and passion for

his district and his state and his constituent is i. -- constituency. first and foremost, we know there are significant water needs across our country and we are doing the best in our bill to address them responsibly. the clarification i'd like to make is that the amendment simply adjusts overall account numbers. it does not direct funding to any specific project. i would advise respectfully the gentleman and any of our other colleagues offering similar amendments and we understand people do and it's because they have a passion. under the earmark ban, the final bill will not have funding toward specific projects in an amount above the president's budget request. instead of listing specific projects, our bill includes additional funding for categories of ongoing projects, primarily navigation and flood control.

it will be made by the administration following the enactment of our bill. with that clarification in mind, i am pleased osupport the gentleman's amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, while i regret that we just received a copy of the gentleman's amendment while he was speaking, i have no objection to it and would yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. king: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. mr. chairman, i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed.

the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: i would not offer the second amendment. the chair: who seeks recognition? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 4, line 5, mississippi river and tributaries. $224 million. operation and maintenance, $2,507,409,000. regulatory reform, $190 million to remain available until september 30, 2014. formerly utilized sites, remedial action program, $104 million. flood control and coastal emergencies, $27 million. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the

gentleman from missouri rise? mr. cleaver: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: page 7, line 4, insert reduced by $3 million. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. mr. cleaver: i rise to offer an amendment to bolster the army corps of engineer's ability to fight floods and to quickly begin repair efforts as the floodwaters recede. last year, my constituents as well as thousands of others living along the missouri river experienced a flood of historic proportions and catastrophic damages. levees were over tops or breached, fields were damages and hundreds of farmers, homeowners and businesses had to evacuate. over 400,000 acres of farmland were flooded along the river, including approximately 207,000 in missouri.

total repair costs from the flood are estimated to reach $2 billion. the flood control and coastal emergency account provides funding to assist in immediate flood-fighting efforts and the repairs. historically, congress has provided limited funding annually for this account, mainly relying on supplemental appropriations as emergencies arise. funding for this account the last two years has been lower than the five-year average appropriation of $55 million. as was the cast last year, after an emergency, the corps must wait on supplemental appropriations from congress or they must transfer funds from existing appropriations for temporary emergency efforts. the corps did this internal transfer last year during and after the 2011 flood. however, it takes time to transfer those funds, and temporarily deprives other worthy projects of funding. this is especially burdensome

given the corps' long construction backlog of over $62 billion worth of projects. this amendment is a straight transfer of funds to increase funding for the corps' flood control and coastal emergency account and in turn reduce funding for the corps' expense account. this transfer would increase the funding to equal the amount of that in the senate appropriations committee. and that which they have allowed, bringing total funding for that account to $30 million for fiscal year 2013. mr. chairman, ensuring adequate and annual funding for emergencies will better prepare the corps to respond and save time and effort in trying to reroute funds, and we all know that emergencies will continue to occur as our climate changes and development -- developing countries are still moving into flood-prone areas. it's incumbent upon us to help the people with the most resources necessary.

and so on behalf of the families living along the missouri river who are in desperate need of help from this body, i ask for your support by adopting this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. cleaver: yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment. let me assure the gentleman that we are very sympathetic to his concern for fixing the infrastructure which was damaged in last year's flood event. in fact, we provided $1.7 billion to the corps of engineers for that exact purpose. the issue the gentleman raises, however, is something all members need to be aware of. based on the definitions of last year's amendment to the budget control act, disaster funds may only be used in locations declared as major

disasters under the stafford act. for some agencies, like fema, that may make sense, but for the corps of engineers, there are times when that definition is too restricted. we all need to be aware of the potential consequences of forcing regular appropriations to the account for these disaster-related damages that happen to be in the wrong location, according to the budget control act. that notwithstanding the gentleman's amendment would try to address some of these needs, and i'm pleased to support his amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana seek recognition. mr. visclosky: i move to strike the last word and enjoy the comments of the gentleman and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. . thone. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the clerk will read. the clerk: page 6, line 20, expenses, $177,500,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. page 7, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $5,325,000. page 7, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by, $1,50,000. page is 13, line 16, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $45,000. page 16, line 20, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $1,710,000. page 31, line 23 --

mr. broun: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. >> reserve a point of order. the chair: is there objection? >> i object to suspending of the reading. the chair: objection has been heard. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 31, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $12 million. page 47, line 22, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $2,269,510. page 48, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $882,450. page 48, line 14, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $350,310. page 48, line 20, insert reduced by $320,370. page 49, line 14, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $$42,750. page 49, line 17, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $7,500. page 60, line 17, after the

dollar amount insert reduced by $3,810,840. page 61, line 20, after the dollar amount insert reduced $1,200. page 52, line 6, after the dollar amount, reduced by $30,000. page 66 line 24, after the dollar amount insert increased by $27,036, 730. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves a point of order. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would reduce the administrative and salaries and expenses accounts in the underlying bill by just 3%. the amendment that i offered to the commerce, justice, and science appropriations bills just a few weeks ago. my message today is the same as it was then. we are in a fiscal emergency. and it is imperative that we

work to get spending under control here in washington, d.c. over the last two years the house has voted to reduce our own administrative accounts. our members' representational aallow ans -- allow ans by -- allowances by over 10%. this has resulted in pay freezes and pay cuts for a number of our own staff members. yet during the same period of time many agencies have seen reductions which are much lower than those we have taken here in the house. amazingly some of these agencies

funded under this bill have seen large increases in their administrative accounts. for example, under this bill the appalachian regional commission would receive a 9% increase in its administrative account over the f.y. 2011-2013 period. likewise, the salaries and expenses account for the defense nuclear facility safety board would see a 21% increase. if you think those increases are big, think again. this legislation would provide the department of energy's departmental administration account with a 64% increase over two years. mr. chairman, i'm not arguing the merits of any of these agencies. but during this fiscal crisis, just 3% could yield significant savings. nearly $30 million in the case of agencies funded under this bill. it's time to tighten our belts. i urge support of our amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the amendment but certainly understand it and

share the passion of the gentleman for reducing federal spending. and our bill does plenty of that as we went through the process, we did exactly that. this amendment would cut administrative expenses across the entire bill. over many months and public hearings, our committee in a bipartisan way has already considered each administrative account separately and have made specific cuts while maintaining oversight to prevent wasteful spending. we have done our job. the gentleman's amendment cuts all administrative accounts indiscriminately without regard to where funds are needed and where cuts are possible. we understand where he's going, but the committee has done its work and therefore i must strongly oppose his amendment. i yield back. i continue to reserve my point of order, though. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. reserves his point of order. the gentleman from indiana.

mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, morph to express my strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. some would suggest outrage. i would simply say opposition. the fact is across -- across-the-board cuts on administrative accounts, we have had problems with the administration in terms of the department of energy. it's a profound mistake. what i want to emphasize at this point to all our colleagues in the house are -- is members of this subcommittee and the full appropriations committee which approved this bill, the people of this committee approved this bill, has made valued judgments account by account. the fact is for renewable energy we will have amendments on this issue. there is a $428,345,000 reduction in this bill.

in science there is $7,203,000 reduction. for environmental cleanup for defense sites, for example, there is an $88,872,000 cut. these were all discreate de -- discreet decisions made and valued judgments. i would emphasize to my colleagues there are significant cuts and savings in this bill and strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: the amendment poses -- i move to strike the last word. mr. chairman, the amendmt proposes to amend portions of

the bill not yet read. the amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2-f of rule 21 because the amendment proposes to increase a level of new budget authority. mr. chairman, i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? to be considered en bloc pursuant to section 3-j-1 of house resolution 5 an amendment must propose only to transfer appropriations from an object or objects in the bill to a spending reduction account. because the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia proposes to increase he the spending reduction account by more than the amount transferred out of the other accounts, it may not avail itself of section 3-j-1 of house resolution 5 to address the spending reduction account. the amendment is not in order. the clerk will read.

the clerk: page 7, line 18, office of the assistant secretary of the army, for civil works, $5 million to remain veilable until september 30, 2014. administrative provision, the revolving fund, shall be available during the current year for purchase of passenger motor vehicles. general provision, corps of engineers, civil, section 101, none of the funds shall be available through a reprogramming of funds that creates or negotiates a new program. section 102, none of the funds may be used to award any contract that commits fraud -- commits funds beyond the amount appropriated for that program. section 103, none of the funds may be used to award any continuing contract that commits additional funding for the inland water trust fund. section 104, within 120 days of the chief engineer's report, the secretary shall submit the report to the appropriate committees of the congress.

section 105, the secretary is authorized to implement measures recommended to prevent aquatic species from disbursing into the great lakes. section 106. the secretary of the army may transfer up to $4,300,000 to mitigate for fishery blog. section 107, none of the funds shall be available for the chicago district of the corps of engineers to fund any travel outside the district's area of operation. section 108, funds provided to the locks and dams not more than 50% may be available for obligation until the corps completes a review of the project. section 109, amounts made available by this act for investigation, construction, and operation and maintenance accounts of the corps may not be used under the heading additional funding for ongoing work until the report required is submitted. section 110, none of the funds

may be used by the corps of engineers -- the chair: the clerk will fund. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to strike the last word because i have an amendment -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman, and ask it be considered as read. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the clerk: age 12, beginning on line 16, strike section 110. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: as the clerk read, this would strike section 110 of this bill. this is a legislative rider that is bad policy and does not belong in an appropriations bill. this rider, 110, permanently blocks the army corps of engineers from fixing existing policies that are confusing and inconsistent and not working.

it makes great harm to fresh sources of drinking water and threatens flood freengs outdoor recreation. specifically because section 110 prohibits the army corps from clarifying the limits of federal and state authority under the clean water act. mr. chairman, two supreme court cases over the last decade addressed the scope of the federal government's authority under the clean water act. the court's rulings did not require less regulation and protections but urged the congress and the executive branch to provide a found rational and consistency to clarify the limits of federal authority. the corps and the e.p.a. have now issued draft guidance clarifying federal authority that adheres to the court's rulings. congress by contrast has not. with this rider congress is about to make matters much

worse. worse because blocking completion of the guidance and any subsequent regulations, which the bill's rider would do, would be bad for the public's health, bad for businesses, and bad for farmers. it's especially bad for 117 million americans whose drinking water comes from headwaters and nonperennial streams. shouldn't we be concerned about what toxic material is dumped into these streams? it's bad for american businesses who need certainty. without updated guidances -- guidance, business also often not know when they need a permit in order to develop land. this uncertainty can subject them to civil and criminal liability and certainly will cost them extra money. it's bad for farmers because this rider eliminates the agricultural explosion for prior converted cropland that was added to the waters of the united states rule at the farm he's request.

section 110 invalidates all rules issued after the rule dated november 13, 1986. but not until 1993 did the corps and e.p.a. define the waters of the u.s. to exclude prior converted cropland. claims that federal guidance and regulations are unnecessary because of state clean water programs are wrong as well. 33 states joined a brief in the most recent of the supreme court cases urging the court to uphold federal protections for wetlands adjacent to non 1/2 gibble streams. states noted that federal state guards were critical because water flows between states because maintaining a federal pollution control creates parity between states, and because states have come to rely on federal protections and would face serious administrative and financial burdens if they were solely responsible for these requirements. finally, even though the rider may block the guidance

clarifying federal and state authority, it does not make the clean water act requirements for a permit go away. states are still required to implement and enforce the law and dischargers must obey it. likewise parties may still file lawsuits. the real consequence of this rider will be to frustrate the federal government's efforts to explain where state or federal authority in the clean water act ceases to exist. if this rider prevails, more lawsuits will ensue. . i urge my colleagues to vote to strike the rider to bring clarity to a confusing issue. thank you, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. mr. moran: i do not reserve. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: one minute. mr. moran: let me say, mr. chairman, this has been an issue that has gone back and forth. and i understand that the gentleman from montana would

like to strike it, but the fact is that all of the groups involved that -- have finally come together and realized that they need clarity on a very difficult issue. there are times when water goes underground during the summer and the surface dries up but that water is still present and much of that water is intrastate. you need federal control and one of the things that i think the gentleman may not be aware of, if this rider is passed in this bill, it would eliminate the agriculture exclusion for prior converted cropland. now, that may have some issues but the fact is this rider invalidates all rules that were

issued after november. it defines the water to be cropland. a lot of communities will be upset if this goes through. and the fact that 33 states have joined asking the federal government to do exactly what the e.p.a. and the federal corps of engineers is doing meaning we are going to cause major problems if this rider is passed in this bill. and with that i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rehberg: the federal government wants to control your water in rural properties like montana. the life of montana farmers is hard. up before the sun rises and working all day just to make ends meet. between the cycle of planning, plowing and harvesting, there are tractors to fix, products to bring to market.

the last thing a montana farmer needs is another regulation to work through, another paperwork to fill out. they understand from personal experience that farming is a full-time job and you can't do it right if you only do it part of the time. so the framers of the constitution set up a representative government that lets farmers elect men and women to fight on their behalf so they can go about their business. the house of representatives was meant to be the closest to the people. it's not just our privilege to stand up for our constitution. it's our constitutional duty. the constitution delegates legislative power to the congress, but lately president obama and in too many cases he has tried to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers. congress managed to prevent the disastrous cap and trade energy tax from becoming law, so president obama expanded the definition of a harmful pollutant in the clean air act to include carbon dioxide, the stuff that we exhale.

congress blocked the massive legislative land grants like the northern rockies ecosystem protection act, so the obama administration craft secret plans to designate 15 million acres as national monuments using the antiquities act. the antiquities act, by the way, was passed to protect archaeological sites and now the obama administration is looking to expand its reach over the objections of both the congress and the supreme court to control water. all water. everywhere. you know, if there's one resource that's more important to dry land farmers than time it's water. in arid states like montana where we have plent he have land, there's lights -- plenty of land, there's lots of light. now some folks in the federal government want to get involved. it's been a long fight. let me show you how we got there. back in 2001 and 2003 the supreme court limited the authority of the federal government to regulate water.

unelected bureaucrats were trying to control all water, including melted snow, mud puddles and prairie potholes and irrigation ditches. but the supreme court said, no, this makes sense. there is a role for the federal government. we want clean water, and a safe environment, but living in montana means you live off the land. it means you grew up knowing how to take care of your environment. montanans were the first conservationists. but the role of government is not unlimited. we don't need the federal government thinking for us and we don't need the federal government to tell us how to take care of our irrigation ditches. the clean water act gives the federal government authority to regulate navigatable waters of the united states. president obama and his allies in congress are trying to eliminate the requirement that waterways be navigatable. simply eliminating that word gives the federal government nearly unlimited power. fortunately those legislative efforts have failed. so in december, 2010, the corps of engineers crafted a plan to

identify water subject to jurisdiction under the clean water act. the goal is to significantly expand federal jurisdiction over water. the obama administration and those allies are trying to solve a problem that does not exist. fortunately, the constitution provides a check to the obama administration's power grab. montana farmers have a safety net. the house of representatives. it's our job to fight this battle so that they don't have to. it's our job to act as a check and balance to overreaching executive actions. that's what this language does. it simply prevents the president from carrying out his plans. it ensures when a farmer wakes up before the sun rises they don't have to worry about onerous federal regulation. they can just go to work on their farm. that's what the founding fathers would have wanted and that's why i hope you'll join me in opposing this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman rise? >> rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. dingell: i want to begin by expressing great respect and affection for my friend from montana who has just spoken. it was a fine speech, but it has nothing to do with the interest before us. what the committee in this legislation has done has been to simply assure that the corps of engineers may not put forth guidelines clarifying the law as it was enuciated by the supreme court in the case that we are discussing in connection with the clean water act. it does something more. it fixes it so that farmers

will lose certain protections which have been put in for the benefits by the law. and you're going to find, as my friend from maryland has so wisely observed, that you are being to hurt a bunch of american farming public by denying them a protection which has been given them. citizens under the language of the committee bill will have no way of knowing what the law is or how it is interpreted by the committee. it is not an issue before us today. whether you agree with the clean water act. the question is simply is, is the corps of engineers going to be able to tell people what the law is and how it is to be interpreted by the corps and how citizens will then have to behave?

under the law, the amendment simply says the corps may inform people of what the law as set forth in the supreme court's rulings mean. i think that is something which is important in terms of seeing to it that people may go forward with planning, with economic development and everything of that sort. it is not wise to deny citizens this kind of information. it is extremely unwise to deny business the opportunity to know what it is they must do to comply with the law as enuciated by the supreme court. the amendment makes great sense. the bill as written simply refights an issue that is not before this body at this time. i hate to see the kind of confusion that is being

inflicted upon this body by a simple misunderstanding of what the law is, what the bill does and what the amendment does. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. if you want clarity, if you want people to know how to comply with the law as set forth by the supreme court, adopt the amendment. if you want confusion and if you want misfortune to be visited on farmers and the public and confusion to afflict economic development and business, then support the bill as it is and oppose the amendment. there is a tremendous lack of wisdom here in this fight. let us understand the issue that plagues us, and that is

simply whether or not the corps of engineers is going to be able to tell people what the law is. it is not the change in the law. the amendment accepts the fact that the supreme court has made a decision. i happen to strongly disagree with that decision by the supreme court, and unfortunately i am going to have to wait to some future time to come down and attack what is clear misbehavior by the supreme court because i was on the floor and had a colloquy with the management of the legislation at the time the bill was passed, and the supreme court has clearly disregarded and ignored the legislative history. and the clear language of the bill, that issue is not before us today. what is before us today is simply is the corps of

engineers and the u.s. government going to be able to tell the people what the law is as set forth by the supreme court. to say anything else about this legislation is either to be misled or to mislead. and i will beg my colleagues to vote in favor of the intelligent approach of seeing to it that we are going to allow people to know what the law is. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dingell: and allow the supreme court -- the corps of engineers to set out what the law is for the benefit of business, industry and people. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong opposition to this amendment. my friends on the other side of the aisle are absolutely right that currently there is an assault going on by the clean water act. it's not by us. it's rather by this administration. we are not trying to roll back the clean water act but try to

work as it was written. this administration's currently trying to circumvent congressional intent and expand the scope of the law beyond its drafted words. this guidance would substantially change the agency's policy on waters subject to the jurisdiction under the clean water act, undermine the regulatory communities' rights and obligations under the clean water act and erode the federal-state partnership that has long existed between states and federal government in implementing the clean water act. by developing this guidance, the agencies have ignored calls from state agencies and environmental groups, among others, to proceed through the normal rulemaking procedures and have consulted with the states, which are supposed to be the agencies partnering and implementing the clean water act. the agencies cannot circumvent the administrator procedures through this guidance or change the scope of the act or the statutes implementing regulations. if the administration and the

members of the other side of the aisle seek statutory changes in the clean water act, then a proposal must be submitted here in congress for legislative action and we should have healthy debate. until that time we must stop this current process and also i'd like to add the gentleman earlier comments, i think the clean water act, the intent of the clean water act was passed -- passed constitutional muster because of the word navigatable with interstate commerce clause and this guidance was put out essentially circumvents the word navigatable so you have to raise the constitutionality of this type of amendment. so i urge strong opposition to this amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back his time. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland rise? ms. edwards: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. edwards: i rise in support

of my colleague mr. moran's amendment to strike this rider in the fiscal year 2013 energy and water development appropriations act. for 40 years the clean water act has helped remove pollution from our drinking water and protect our precious natural resources. the act regulates the discharge of pollution as a navigable waters, but put simply it makes sure that the glass and water you get from the tap or the fish you catch in any river isn't contaminated. some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle forget before the clean water act was passed rivers caught on fire, oils spilled in inland waters and that was rampant and few communities had modern wastewater treatment facilities. this ill-conceived rider would have a severe impact on my home state of maryland. the e.p.a. estimates 55% of the streams in maryland either do not flow year-round or first order ed headwater streams. these are waters most vulnerable

to pollution or destruction if the army and the e.p.a. -- army corps and e.p.a. are not able to adopt policies to restore long-standing protections for these waters. without these protections, sewage and industrial waste discharges, oil spills, and completely filling in streams for development may not be subject to federal law. even when streams provide drinking water as they do in the fourth congressional district of maryland. e.p.a. says that 3,990,016 people in maryland receive some of their drinking water in areas containing these smaller streams n montgomery county alone, 1,846,500 residents are at risk of having their drinking water polluted. they use surface water provided by public drinking water systems that rely on smaller streams that are at risk of losing clean water protection. also, many waters in maryland from small streams to the chesapeake bay are interstate waters. without strong federal

safeguards for waters of the united states, those states that want to or able to take state level steps to protect waters will be unsuccessful. even with the clean water act, the potomac river, i live on the banks, is listed as the most endangered river by the group, american rivers, as part of their 2012 america's most endangered rivers. the river receives its award because it is polluted by agricultural runoff, swuewadge runoff from wet roadway, and enough farms pharmaceuticals that male fish have been caught with female characteristics. the an costa river -- anacostia river has also sewage. but the cleanup is taking place due in no small part because of the clean water act. these rivers are affected by runoff from streets and parking

structures. i want to pause here for a minute because all of us here in this capitol receive our water, our tap water and our drinking water, from those waters that i'm talking about in the anacostia and potomac, keep that in mind, members of congress, when you are drinking a glass of water. it's one of the many reasons i favor public transportation, and bike riding. our air and water are protected when we make smart transportation decisions and i have to say in this congress we haven't made a single smart transportation and jobs decision in this congress since the republicans took over. but it's why i support a bipartisan and senate passed m.a.p. 21 and hope conferees agree to a report that reflects the priorities in that bill because that's about protecting our drinking water. so let's be clear about what's at stake. the clean water act protects almost 60% of u.s. streams and that's why 33 states joined a brief in the most recent supreme court case on the issue, urging the court to uphold federal

protections for wetlands adjacent to nonnavigable tributaries. these states noted that federal safeguards were critical because water flows between states because maintaining a federal floor of pollution control creates parity among states and because states have come to rely on federal protection and would face significant administrative and financial burdens if they were solely responsible for these retirements. now the success of the clean water act is being threatened by a dirty water rider attached to the fiscal 2013 energy and water appropriations bill. i hope you'll join with me and millions of people across the country to stand up for clean water, for safe drinking water, the health of fishermen and fish and wildlife. future generations will not remember the industries we have made slightly wealthier by rolling back this bipartisan bill, but they will know, our future generation also know that we a the reason their drinking

water is making them sing. i urge my colleagues to vote for the moran-dingell amendment and strike this dangerous and reckless rider. with that i yield. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri rise? mrs. emerson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. emerson: i have to rise in strong opposition to my friend's amendment. today the e.p.a. and the corps of engineers are writing guidance in order to dramatically expand the reach of the clean water act and the federal water pollution control act. the e.p.a. and corps' understanding of waters of the united states would grow to encompass in my rural district and a lot all over this contry, dry ditches, cull vurts, and who knows, swimming pools, and snow as well. this guidance is called identification of water protected by the clean water

act, and it's clear that the draft guidance which has already been published says it is not a rule and it is not binding. but let me tell you what's happened in my congressional district. number one, this guidance has actually cause -- is actually causing already the corps of engineers to find a couple of people in my congressional district who supposedly has a -- they have dry dishes on their property, personal property, and about -- there are about 10 different streams removed from the mississippi river, perhaps, and only when it rains does it stay wet for a day. and these people are being told that they are going to have to pay hefty fines unless they stop the development of this particular area on their land. this is absolutely the craziest thing i ever heard, you-all. nobody is talking about impacting your clean water.

this is out in the country. this is in rural areas. this is where there hasn't been a stream running in 100 years. and that would be called a navigable water is beyond me. the language included in the underlying bill is simply going to stop the corps along with the e.p.a. from expanding their regulatory reach. in southern missouri the definition of waterways would, as i said, it's going to be drastically expanded to include culverts and dry ditches. the rain falling on our field. god knows there's going to be a mud puddle there and it's suddenly going to become a navigable water because you might be able to put somebody with an inner tube in there and

the puddle on the yard to be able to swim until it dries up. come on, let's use sound science. let's use some common sense. let's follow proper rule making because the last thing we need to do is continue to increase the powers of the federal government. and this amendment under consideration, and i love my colleagues who are offering it, but it would further empower the regulatory agencies and it would endanger more than anything else our private property rights. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support private property rights and join me in demanding transparency and accountability of our regulatory agencies. i urge my colleagues to vote no to defeat this amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the question is on the amendment offered -- the gentleman from washington. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. appreciate the recognition. mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of mr. moran's amendment and would point out that i think the gentleman from michigan in his earlier remarks hit the nail on the head. this is an issue of clarity versus confusion.

and the fact is we have become the congress of confusion. we are charged with running a nation with 300 million people with domestic and international responsibilities. we have now confused the fishing community of the united states more than 17 times, sometimes at a two-week interval as to what the reimbursements were going to be under the medicare program. we have people who have suffered loss of life, significant property damage, and dislocation through floods in our nation. we are unable as an institution to resolve our differences on flood insurance and have continued it, if i am correct, at least 11 times. the fact is we have a infrastructure as far as our highways and bridges that are crumbling. we have now eight or nine times continued that because we cannot make a decision and we continue to confuse the states,

contractors, and our communities as to what the policy of the united states government is going to be. and depending on what year you died, the last four years, including 2012, this nation has had three different estate tax laws and the current one expires at the end of this year leading to confusion in the hiring of numerous accountants, insurance agents, and attorneys, all of whom i love. why confuse this nation more by not adopting the clarity of the moran amendment? there is no question that the two supreme court decisions have significantly confused this issue and created uncertainty as to the scope of the clean water act. during multiple hearings before the committee on transportation and infrastructure, witness after witness spoke of how these cases have blurred the lines on what the waters subject to federal protection are.

the reason it's short is because neither case could the majority of the supreme court justices agree on what was the appropriate test for determining the scope of federal protections based on their reading of the term navigable. no majority of the court could agree what navigable means. in fact n. one of the cases the level of confusion on the -- in fact, in one of the cases, the level of confusion on the court is reflected. there are five separate opinions filed in the case with no opinion having more than four supporters on the supreme court of the united states. the resulting confusion in interpreting the clean water act is apparent to both regulated community and regulators. the fact is the industry has asked for clarification of this confusion through agency rule making. the gentlewoman mentioned we need a rule in this. we do need a clarified rule. however, this legislative rider that is in the bill proposes the

status quo of confusion and that that is egg acceptable. -- that that is acceptable. it will only result in increase implementation cost to the federal government, to the states, to the regulated community. it will increase delays and implementation of important public works project, protracted litigation on the disparate of this language. we need to adopt mr. moran's amendment. to ensure that we have clarity. we should be taking actions to address the legitimate concerns that have been expressed. but the fact is that this is an issue that congress and the administration needs to address in the authorizing process to clarify it. this is not an issue. there should be continued

inperpetuity through the appropriations process and therefore again i strongly support the gentleman's amendment. would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: i rise in support of the amendment and urge my colleagues to support a clarification of the clean water -- mr. fitzpatrick: administrators from the e.p.a. from william riley to russell train have all expressed support for protecting our streams, rivers, wetlands, lakes, and other waters of the united states from pollution and from destruction. the rider in this bill will in my view perpetuate the current confusing and cumbersome bureaucratic situation. i would suggest it's time to take a step forward not backward and i urge my colleagues to oppose the rider and support the amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the amendment and ask for --

strike the required number of words. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i received a letter from the american fisheries society, the american fly-fishing trade association, the american sport fishing association, backcountry hunters and anglers, i think these are very important groups. as a westerner i pay attention to these people. . conservation organizations representing millions of hunters, anglers nationwide, we ask you to oppose any legislation that would block the administration's very deliberate and vital actions to clarify and restore long standing clean water act protection for streams and wetlands across the country.

we reaffirm our support for clean water act guidance currently being reviewed and finalized in an interagency process coordinated by the office of management and budget. sportsmen rely on clean water to ensure the opportunity to enjoy hunting, anglinging and other outdoor-based recreation and business in the great outdoors. when wetlands are drained and filled and polluted, sportsmen are the first ones to be directly impacted. consequently, hunters, boaters and anglingers have consistently advocated for conserving our nation's waters. since 2001, the u.s. supreme court decision in 2001 and 2006, along with the 2003, 2008 agency guidance that is inconsistent with these decisions and the related science have complied to erode

long standing clean water act safeguards for headwater streams and critical wettelands. headwater and intermittently flowing streams comprise 59% of all streams in the continental united states and are particularly vulnerable under the decisions on the -- under the guidance. i would also point out that using data from the wildlife service, it is estimated that angling generates $125 billion in annual economic activity and supports more than one million jobs. using similar information, it is estimated that hunters contribute $25 billion to the economy which supports 600,000 jobs. data from the national marine manufacturers association indicates that recreational boating contributes over $41 billion and 337,000 jobs to the

u.s. economy. the fish and wildlife service reports duck hunting alone generates $2.3 billion for the economy and every year and supports 27,000 private sector jobs. in order to effectively safeguard key components of our economy, the sports and traditions that millions of americans enjoy and the health and integrity of some of our most important fish and wildlife we sources, it is essential to act now to restore lost clean water act protection, consistent with existing law and protection. the army corps of engineers and environmental protection agency purports new guidance yesterday for determining clean water act jurisdiction. the draft guidance is science-based and clorle respects the supreme court's decision. over the -- and clearly respects the supreme court's decision. the agency conducted an almost

unprecedented guidance. nearly 200 people commented and e.p.a. reported that the clear majority of those comments support the proposed guidance. during this process, more than 25000ing,ageling and conservation groups from -- 250 anglinging, and conservation groups -- the guidance must be finalized in the first step of reaffirming long standing clean water protection for many wetlands and streams. the guidance importantly maintains exemptions for normal agriculture activity. at the same time it would provide clarity and consistency that is badly needed by landowners, developers, conservation and state and federal agencies alike. we urge you to support and not

oppose this important first step, so that's why we must today enact the moran amendment that takes out the language added -- unfortunately added in full committee on this subject. it is the right thing to do. it's the right thing to do from and environmental perspective and for a hunter, outdoor perspective, it's necessary to protect our future. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i thank the chairman for his recognition. i don't have letter read. i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman's letter be included in the record because i am not sure i heard all of it. mr. dicks: i'd be delighted to share with my friend from idaho, the distinguished chairman of the interior subcommittee, a copy of this letter. mr. simpson: i appreciate it. mr. dicks: and all of the signatures. mr. simpson: the only argument that's being made here that makes any sense is we got to bring clarity to this issue.

we got to bring clarity to the confusion of this issue. well, i will tell you that a hanging is clarity, but it's not necessarily the right option. and that's essentially what we're doing here. we're giving control of all of these waters that have traditionally been under control of the states to the federal government. now, i will tell you we will have an opportunity to debate the same issue again on the interior bill dealing with the e.p.a. this deals with the army corps of engineers. but the fact is that is you don't need this to clarify this. the policies proposed by the army corps of engineers. you can clarify it by legislatively defining what navigatable means. if the supreme court has a problem trying to decide what navigatable means, then let's address that so they know what we intend by that. the argument is made repeatedly by some of those that have opposed -- that have supported this amendment whether you're from virginia or maryland, and i will tell you, if you want in virginia or maryland or

washington or michigan, the army corps of engineers and the e.p.a. to control every drop of water that falls on your state, i'll help you do it. let's write legislation to do it so you guys can have the clarity of the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers. but in western states, we actually protect those waters by state law, and what you're trying to do is exempt state law or override state law and have the federal government take over control of these and that's just flat wrong. and if you don't think virginia protects its head waters enough, then put a bill in to allow the e.p.a. and the army corps to control every drop of water that falls on the state of virginia. you don't need this to bring clarity to this, and the states are doing a good job that do state regulation of headwaters. >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. simpson: sure. >> i will ask the gentleman

what do we do with waters that are interstate that comprise most of the waters? mr. moran: they flow down. mr. simpson: let me answer that question for you. mr. moran: please. mr. simpson: the waters that the states are not regulating and they will eventually flow into navigatable waters and the only way to control the pollution in those navigatable waters, the state is going to ultimately start controlling those headwaters if they're not doing those jobs. you seem to think that states have no ability to control the state waters that are under state control. they do have the ability to control those state waters. and they do a good job of it in most states. i'm not sure about virginia. i don't follow virginia. mr. moran: i'd suggest to the gentleman that they use the definition to enforce the quality of water coming from other states. that's the problem. mr. simpson: the point is they become navigatable waters at some point.

if they are controlled by the states, eventually the state is going to have to say, you know what, we got to get control of this. otherwise we're going to have problems downstream. more mother but how do they control -- mr. moran: but how do they control? mr. simpson: you think the only way to address this problem is to have a federal bureaucracy. you know what, we can bring clarity to all of our problems by just eliminating the states. why have states? why not have everything under federal control? that makes sense because everything goes from state to state eventually. makes no sense to me. this does not bring clarity to the situation, and it does not help in the regulation of our clean water act. this does not make the waters of the united states cleaner. all it does is give more authority to the army corps of engineers and the e.p.a. if you want to bring clarity, then bring a bill down here to define what navigatable means, and you can do that. as i said, a hanging is clarity. not necessarily the best outcome. i'd yield back the balance of

my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. anyone seek recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yoist have it. -- the ayes have it. mr. moran: mr. chairman. i ask for a recorded vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by -- >> i didn't hear the chairman correctly. if the ayes have it, i withdraw that request. the chair: the gentleman from montana has requested a vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed.

the clerk will read. the clerk: page 12, line 15, section 111. as of the date of enactment of this act, the secretary shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm at a water resources development project if the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law for possessing the firearm. title 2, department of the interior. central utah project. central utah project completion account, $19,700,000 for fiscal year 2013, the commission may use an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for at minute straightive expenses. bureau of reclamation. appropriations shall be expended to execute authorized functions of the bureau of reclamation. water and related resources. $833,635,000. central valley project restoration fund, $39,883,000. california bay delta restoration, $36 million. policy and administration to remain available until september 30, 2014, $56 million. administrative provision,

appropriations for the bureau of reclamation shall be available for purchase of five passenger motor vehicles for replacement only. general provisions, department of the interior, section 201, none of the funds shall be available through a reprogramming of funds that creates or initiates a new program, project or activity. section 202, none of the funds may be used to determine the final point of discharge for the inseptemberor dream for the st. louis unit -- inceptor dream for the st. louis unit of any effect of the drainage waters. title 3, department of energy, energy programs. $1,450,960,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, i have

an amendment at the desk, sir. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. kaptur of ohio. after the dollar amount increase by $10 million. page 28, line 16 -- ms. kaptur: i ask that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise today to offer an amendment that takes another step toward restoring energy independence for america and new jobs for americans. my amendment shifts an additional $10 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy development from departmental administrative accounts. my goal is to better support a diversified energy portfolio and restore continental energy security. american security and competitiveness hinge on affordable energy for our

businesses and families and our energy future depends upon innovation. fossil fuels continue to provide the bulk of our energy needs and those accounts are left intact in this bill. but we all should know that a diversified energy portfolio protects america from the instability of a single source of energy dependence. our future security depends on diversified energy, research and development that provides significant return on investment, both financially and in technological advancement in the jobs that go with it. we must ensure that american innovators are on a level playing field with competitors across the globe, including china and even russia and other nations looking for a competitive edge. for years the united states has been the global leader in these technologies, but we now are losing edge. investment in energy efficiency

and renewable energy technologies are absolutely essential in securing america's future. now, i understand the difficulty in drafting this bill, given the 302-b allocation and the cuts for energy and water that the subcommittee endured and i appreciate chairman frelinghuysen and ranking member visclosky's dedication to making difficult choices in a tight budget climate. . critical energy research accounts have been drastically reduced to $1.38 billion that actually exacted a $428 million cut below this fiscal year of 2012. compared to last year, for example, solar energy was cut nearly in half to $155 million and wind energy, the fastest energy sector growing globally, was cut by 1/4 to $70 million for r&d. other programs like geothermal,

water power, and building energy technologies received similar large cuts. last year this body came together in a bipartisan fashion to support a modest increase in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies and faced with further cuts this year, i ask my colleagues to reaffirm that commitment to a diversified energy policy and lead our country and indeed the world toward a new energy age. this amendment increases funds for the renewable portion of our energy portfolio while maintaining the proposed increases for fossil fuel development and from a budgetary and accounting standpoint, my amendment actually decreases outlays for fiscal year 2013. let me add this $10 million transfer we are proposing represents less than 1/20th of the $230 million administrative budget of the department of

energy. this is a prudent adjustment to our energy policy strategy. it is forward-looking, it makes sense from a budgetary standpoint, and i urge my colleagues' support. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back -- miss capture: the gentlewoman may not reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman may not reserve. ms. kaptur: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. i appreciate my colleague's passion for solar energy. she's been a tireless supporter of american innovation in this energy technological area, and i also have the pleasure of serving with her on the defense appropriations committee and she's been an innovator and promoter of responsible energy policy with the department of defense as well. but within tight budgets we need to focus funding on our highest

priorities, which is what we have done in our energy and water bill. to make room for our national security and infrastructure responsibility, our bill cuts energy efficiency by $428 million and reprioritizes funds within the program to support american manufacturing and address rising gas prices. the focus is on jobs, the economy, american manufacturing. our bill also preserves $155 million for solar energy research that continues to advance american manufacturing and helps our companies compete globally. while i support activities that help american manufacturers compete, we cannot afford to add unnecessary funds to solar energy by cutting other important priorities. indeed, the amendment would cut departmental administration, a

cut we all know that simply cannot be sustained in the final appropriation without jeopardizing the department of energy's ability to run and oversee their operations. they have enough management problems now. reducing that amount would make it difficult for them to run and oversee the problems that they really need to oversee. this amendment uses money we simply do not have. it has perhaps the effects of crippling management by the department. we need to live within our means. and i regretfully oppose the gentlewoman's amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. miss visclosky: i rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment. there is $10 million contained in her amendment. that is a significant sum of money. when compared, however, to current-year level spending for the renewable accounts of $1,825

,000, and as the chairman rightfully pointed out a reduction of $428 million from that account, the gentlewoman's amendment is as much a statement of congress as it is a monetary initiative. that is we need to make an investment in our energy future as well as our economic future. renewable energy must be a part of that future, and the vast majority of industries in our country throughout our history have received substantial support from the government to become established and to be part of this great nation. this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from ohio takes a very small but very positive step towards making that investment, and i do urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment. i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from ohio. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from ohio will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hultgren of illinois, page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $30 million. page 26, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $15 million. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would transfer $15 million from the energy efficiency and renewable energy research program to the office

of science. it would also reduce the eere account by an additional $15 million which could be put towards deficit reduction. the obama administration has consistently prioritized industrial policy under the guise of applied science at the cost of reduced support for our nation's critical, basic science research and our national labs. eere's advance manufacturing office is $35 million above current fiscal year 2012 levels. eere's water technologies program is $25 million above the president's budget request. eere's vehicle technology program is $42 million above what was just last year. eere's solar technology program receives $155 million despite billions of dollars of recent loan guarantees to solar companies and several high profile industry failures. this amendment would remove $15 million from eere account which

is spent on subsidizing solar power and wind energy and move it back to the office of science where it would report language -- i would hope that language would be reported that could specifically target it for the physics program which is critical to our long-term economic success and scientific leadership. at this time i'd like to yield to my colleague from south dakota, representative kristi noem. the chair: the gentlewoman from south dakota is recognized. mrs. noem: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank the gentleman from illinois for yielding to me and i appreciate working with him on this important amendment. this amendment would increase the funding of the office of science by $15 million while cutting an additional $15 million from the underlying bill.

the field of high energy physical six becoming increasingly competitive. without critical deep underground research space, we will continue to put our historic leadership in this area at risk. while continuing to spend -- send our best and our brightest overseas to conduct their research. but we can compete. just this week in my state of south dakota the stanford underground research facility dedicated the davis campus, $4,850 feet underground. later this year this campus is scheduled to hold a dark matter research detector that after only four days of operation stands to add more to our knowledge than all previous dark matter research experiments. we are not talking about subsidies and giveways for ideas that are years or decades down the road. this is cutting-edge science that's within our grasp. we need to make tough choices in our current budget situation. but we also need to recognize the roll the us -- role the u.s. research plays in our ability to compete and innovate. i urge my colleagues to support the ability to lead the world in underground science in a fiscally responsible way. i urge support of this amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, morph to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman from illinois still has the time. the gentleman yields back from illinois? mr. hultgren: just briefly, mr. chairman. i do urge adoption of this amendment. it does make sense. it's a commitment to basic scientific research and fiscal accountability. i urge support of this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise very reluctantly to oppose the amendment. i do recognize the passion of the members of congress from illinois and south dakota who have spoken and they say repeatedly spoken and advocated to me over the last couple months on behalf of the high energy physics program and national laboratories in their congressional district. in fact, all relevant national laboratories that play a critical role in maintaining our nation's scientific leadership and competitiveness. i recognize their advocacy.

i appreciate it and certainly will be working with them to do whatever we can to be of assistance. we tried our very best in our bill to help those and all the department's remarkable national laboratories but our constraints do not afford us the lucks riff bringing more money to the stable in many cases. and many labs wanted money and these are remarkable labs and they are deserving as well. we did what we could for high energy physics by shifting $60 million into project engineering and design for the long baseline experiment. this allows the department to move quickly in choosing a path forward for the program. we also ensure that the home state mine, which is a remarkable mine and remarkable structure, and a national asset, has sufficient minimal funding to operate while that will path forward is yet to be determined. if more funding were available,

we certainly would have brought more resources to bear. unfortunately the amendment finds resources by cutting a program and we have discussed this earlier, that's already been reduced by $428 million. that's a 24% reduction from fiscal year 2012. and a 40% reduction below 2010. i recognize, the committee recognizes the importance of these programs and i promise we'll work with our colleagues as we move forward in the appropriations process to be supportive and helpful, but i must reluctantly oppose the amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, would also rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. as a resident of the neighboring state realize all the great scientific research that is done in the state of illinois alone and some our wonderful federal

facilities there is no question that we need to invest in the science account. the fact it is in this bill, and again we had a very difficult allocation, science is cut by $72,203,000. unfortunately i do think the gentleman's amendment is counterproductive in that he because of the budget rules needs a $30 million cut from renewable research to gain a $15 million add for scientific research. given the constraints we face, i think that's a bad bargain and we ought to leave the $30 million right where it is and have that aptly applied. with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: we ask for a record vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois mlb postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman specify as to which of the amendments? mr. mcclintock: i believe it's amendment number six. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment saves nearly $1.5 billion by ending the failed energy efficiency and renewable energy program. if we are serious about an all of the above energy polcy, we have got to stop using -- policy, we have got to stop

using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers based on political connections. instead we need to require every energy company to compete on its own merit as decided by the customers it attracts by offering better products at lower cost. for too long we have suffered from the conceit that politicians could make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors could make with their own money. it's this conceit that's produced the continuing spectacle of collapsing energy scandals epitomized by the solyndra fee aso. at least it was fund interested a loan program which the public has a chance to get some of its money back when these dubious schemes go bankrupt. this program is direct spending that funds commercialization projects for ideological pleasing technologies and the politically favored firms that make them, money the taxpayers have no chance of recovering after it's spent. . this amendment and the two i

will offer soon protect taxpayers from being forced into being venture capitalists by incompetent politicians, it gets government out of the energy business and requires all energy companies and all energy technologies to compete equally and on their own merits. most of the money in this program goes to wind, solar and car research and development subsidies. we're told that's necessary to nurture these new and promising technologies. well, these technologies are not new and they are not promising. photovoltaic cells, for example, were invented by french physicist in 1839. and in more than 170 years of technological research and innovation and billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies we have not yet invented a more expensive way to produce electricity. so we hide its true costs to consumers through subsidies taken from their taxes.

nor is there any earthly reason why taxpayers should be forced to serve as the research and development department for general motors or for any other company and technology. we're told that, well, someday, someday this research might pay us back many times over. we've been told that for 40 years. now, i hope someday that these empty promises will be redeemed but that's still not a reason for taxpayers to foot the bill. it's a reason for the actual research and development to be paid for by the companies that will profit from this long-promised break through and if they're not willing to finance it with their own money, we have no business forcing our constituents to finance it with theirs. all we've accomplished with these programs is to take dollars that would have naturally flowed into the most effective and promising technologies and divert them instead to those that are politically favored. this misallocation of resources not only destroys jobs and productive ventures, it ends up

minimizing our energy potential instead of maximizing it and destroying our wealth instead of creating it. madam chairman, voters that trusted republicans with the house majority with the very specific mandate to stop wasting money. moreover the house is where spending bills must originate. the government doesn't spend a dollar unless the house says that it will spend a dollar. a day doesn't go by that we don't hear an intitlement of solid rand yet here we have the republican -- and yet here we have the republican appropriations bill that continues to shovel billions of dollars on the very same folly that produced solyndra. politicians love to appear at ribbon cuttings and issue self- glattory press releases at government-supported alternative energy businesses, but they fall strangely silent when asked to actually account for the billions of our dollars they've wasted. that day of reckons has arrived.

these policies are impoverishing our country. our taxpayers are exhausted, our treasury is empty, it is time, it is past time that this house majority proved worthy of the trust the american people gave it more than a year and a half ago. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: madam speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to oppose this amendment which would eliminate the office of energy, efficiency and renewable energy at the department of energy. this year the committee continued fulfilling its responsibility to reduce government spending by eliminating effective and wasteful programs. our bill cuts eere by $428 million. that's a 24% cut below fiscal year 2012, nearly 40% below 2010 and well below the 2000 level.

our bill slashes programs to -- that are ineffective and cuts activities that properly intervene in private markets. the committee will continue its work to reduce spending and keep the government out of private enterprise where private enterprise can make those substantial investments themselves. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recommendation and also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. it would simply state that my objection is based on national security concerns. the fact is, as a senior senator from indiana, senator lucre, has characterized our energy crisis for years and i absolutely awith him. the fact is the importation of petroleum products in our -- and our use of carbon because of where we buy them has created a significant national security

issue for the united states of america. one of the accounts in the renewable accounts that will be eliminated under the gentleman's amendment is vehicle technology. there is no question american citizens are suffering today because of high gas prices. i myself, and i only speak for myself, can't do anything about that particular price at the pump today. but if through the vehicle technology program and the wise investment of the federal taxpayer dollars we can get every american another mile per gallon, we have removed some of their economic discomfort and burden, we have also helped to begin to ensure our national security by reducing our dependency on foreign oil. therefore i do strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tonko of new york. page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $180,440,000. page 30, line 5 after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $180,440,000. the chair: the gentleman from new york voiced for five minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, madam chair. first i want to thank my colleagues, representative bishop, representative hirono and representative welch, for offering this amendment with me. the amendment is simple and

straightforward. it increases funding for two important state energy efficiency programs in the energy efficiency and renewable energy accounts at the department of energy. the amendment would increase spending for the weatherization assistance program. weatherization is the largest residential efficientsy -- efficiency program in our nation. weatherization reduces energy costs for low income families and the elderly and the disabled. it creates jobs, invests in local businesses and advances technology. state-of-the-art technology. weatherizing homes under this program saves $437 in annual utility bills for the average homeowner. these energy savings insulate families from rising energy costs by permanently lowering household energy demand for both heating and cooling. our amendment also restores funding to the state energy program for s.e.p. s.e.p. is the only cost-shared program administered by the united states department of energy that provides resources directly to the states, to

support their efforts in energy efficiency. this includes 56 state and territory energy offices. and according to a study by the oak ridge national laboratory, for every $1 in federal s.e.p. funds, we have $1.03 million source b.t.u.'s along with the cost savings of $7.22 and a leveraging of $10.71 on that same very $1. madam chair, these programs traditionally have received strong bipartisan support, saving money by saving energy is good, good for everyone. the bill's deep cut in weatherization programs from recent years' allocations is so-called justified in the report by the claim that there are large amounts of unspent funds from previous appropriations. including those from the american recovery and reinvestment act, aara. well, the majority of these funds have in fact been

allocated. and i understand they will be completely spent by april 1 of next year. the beginning of the weatherization program year for states. so that means there will be little to nothing available by the time that f.y. 2013 funds get to the states. the aara money and the money from fiscal year 2011 has been obligated in contracts to subgrantees. in addition to the cuts in weatherization of this bill, the other source of federal funds for this program, 10% of liheap funds, is also redecembered due to the redirections in funding for that program. we're going in the wrong direction. if someone can make the case that we have fully exploited all of our opportunities in weatherization or can demonstrate that we have done all that we can to make citizens' homes and businesses energy efficient, then winding down the program would perhaps be reasonable. but we are a long way from

achieving that goal. energy we do not have to use is in fact the cheapest energy available to us. we need to be doing much more in efficiency, not less efficiency should be our fuel of choice. this bill skewed to reinforce our existing energy use patterns. it continues outside -- outsized investments in the established energy industries that have received generous federal support for nearly a century while renewable energy technologies are shortchanged. we should be lending federal assistance where it is most needed, to individual citizens and to developing industries that are struggling to bring new energy technologies lower such as wind and geothermal. the petroleum industry has the means to support its own research. madam chair, we are likely to be reliant on fossil fuels for quite some time. and we should use these fuels wisely. and to all of the above -- and all-of-the-above strategy must include energy efficiency and we should support states' efforts to encourage the adoption of new energy technologies and

increased energy efficiency. let's continue our history of bipartisan support for programs that save money, create jobs and improve our energy security. weatherization and s.e.p. are such programs worthy of our support. i urge adoption of this amendment and with that, madam chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nnl rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. his amendment would put at risk our nuclear security activities, the things we're doing to modernize our nuclear stockpile, the type of investments we're making there, that help protect our country. and we would be adding money to programs that quite honestly don't need the money and he referenced some of those programs. the weatherization program has hundreds of millions of dollars in unspent money.

some of it's been obligated, some of it has not been obligated. but sitting in that program and in the state programs he referred to is a lot of federal money from the stimulus and other prior appropriations that remains to be unspent. so it's not a question of not having enough money. they just haven't spent it down. our bill provides enough funding, new funding, that when combined with the unspent funds, our bill will fully fund each state at the fiscal year 2010 level. that's enough money for the states. more funding is unnecessary. this amendment has unnecessary funding, adds unnecessary funding and it cuts our security, our national security, things we need to do for our nuclear stockpile, and i strongly oppose it 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 new york rise? >> madam speaker, i ask to

strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam speaker. i rise to support the tonko-bishop-hirono-welch amendment and i commend my good friend and fellow new yorker on his steadfast commitment and long standing leadership on this issue. the increased weatherization funding provided in this amendment brings the weatherization assistance program funding close to its prerecovery act levels which help states retrofit close to 100,000 homes a year. mr. bishop: in addition, nearly 92% of the recovery act funds appropriated to the weatherization program have been spent. meaning that the recommended funding level in this bill will result in a majority of states receiving reduced federal funding for weatherization. arguments to the contrary with respect to available funds are simply not accurate. new york has spent the entirety of its recovery act funds on time and underbudget. weatherizing nearly 70,000 units, 20% over its initial goal. ing on long island, the

community development corporation of long island weatherized 3,000 units thanks to the recovery act and has continued to spend down the regularly appropriated funds received to retrofit qualified homes. weatherization assistance continues to be a successful program and we must build on its success. even after the recovery act and regular appropriation, the c.d.c. of long island has a wait list of 8,000 qualified homes that could be retrofitted for energy efficiency. demand is there and this is just long island. adequately funding the weatherization assistance program to meet this demand will have several positive effects on communities and the economy. it will reduce energy costs for homeowners, which is absolutely critical as these cost st continue to climb -- costs continue to climb. perhaps most important it will put local contractors back to work retrofitting homes to be more energy efficient. this means job creation in local communities. most recognized, that this is a time when washington must

balance spending reduction with wise investment. if we all agree that this congress must do more to foster an environment of job creation, i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. hirono: i rise to support this amendment. this amendment would increase the funding for the state energy program and the weatherization assistance program. the bill before us slices the state energy program in half from $50 million to $25 million. i'm not sure what the justification for this is. this program is effective and we should continue to support it. in fact, each dollar invested through the state energy program translates into $7.23 of savings

on energy costs. it also helps to leverage state and local funds for bigger impacts. hawaii has utilized this funding for a variety of beneficial activities. it has expanded clean vehicle's infrastructure, morgue energy efficient buildings, and other purposes. this amendment also invests in the weatherization assistance program. this program helps the elderly, disabled, and low-income families benefit from energy efficiency upgrades. most folks think of helping weatherize homes against cold weather and certainly that's one of the key benefits on this program. in hawaii which has the highest energy costs in the country, we

also use this program. we help our families weatherize by installing money saving things like energy efficient water heaters or insulating existing water heaters. since 2009, at least 800 homes in hawaii have been able to improve energy efficiency through this program. a modest beginning, but more, of course, needs to be done. this has helped to create jobs and give families a benefit of crines -- increased energy efficiency. i recognize the hard decisions that are made in this bill, but these programs that we just talked about may seem small but represent big savings for families all across our country. and in fact it will save our country money over the long term. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the remainder of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from new york. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be

postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. chaffetz of utah, page 20, line 15, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $74 million. page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $74 million. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes. mr. chaffetz: thank you, madam chair. i have a simple amendment that takes a line item within the energy efficiency and renewable energy program back to the fiscal year 2011 level. i think that's probably a pretty reasonable approach to it. it's not too long ago. if left to my own device it would probably zero out. if you look within energy efficiency and renewable energy and look back down and look at advanced manufacturing, which is the line item i'm talking about, what this amendment suggests is we would reduce spending on this -- what is proposed by $74 million, taking it back to

fiscal year 2011 level, which would be $76 million. now, that was not just some random number. there was real justification for this and i hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will find this reasonable. i'm going back and looking at the committee report for energy and water appropriations and there are three things that i want to highlight within the committee report. i want to read from that. first of all, first of all i want to highlight, for example, the advanced manufacturing program within energy efficiency and renewable energy currently funds more than 40 centers in a have a right of sizes, ages, and effectiveness levels, only a portion of which are mentioned in the budget request. these centers vary on how well they support the program's new manufacturing mission. now, i don't think it's appropriate to literally double, double from 2011 levels the spending that we are going to have on these programs when we can't basically answer the questions about the

effectiveness levels. in fact, i would go further into the committee's report where it says, quote, addressing this problem requires a higher degree of transparency, evaluation, and prioritization to ensure that only high effective centers closely aligned to program missions are funded. i would agree with that. and until we can as a body answer that question, it's hardly a time to double the funding for this particular program. the report further goes and says, the department is correct corrected to submit to the committee no later than february 10, 2013, a comprehensive list of all centers funded, including the date of establishment, funding level in fiscal year 2013, told at funding received

to date, and expectation of termination date. those are all reasonable things to look at in making this determination, but until we can answer that question, i don't think it's appropriate to double the spending. the third point i'd like to make from the committee report on this particular line item, it says, quote, the committee is concerned that historically technology innovations developed through the eere, research and development programs, hope to lead to manufacturing of new or cheaper products are received. so at the conclusion of the committee is that the money we spend ultimately lead to development of products overseas? maybe it's not time to double the spending there. so this amendment, madam chair, simply reduces the spending on this back to 2011 levels. it's a reasonable thing. we can live within that. again if it was up to me i would zero it out. i'm trying to be reasonable here. let's save the $76 million. answer these questions. re-evaluate the program. that's why i urge the adoption of this amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentleman from utah's

amendment. our bill worked hard to cut federal spending. we are on his side. we want to reduce spending. our committee has gone through the budgets of the department of energy, we have taken a look at it, we have prioritized. we have already said in other debates on other amendments we have cut this eere, energy efishency, renewable energy, $428 million. that's a 40% below fiscal year 2011 level. with the remaining funds we prioritized to invest in our nation's most pressing needs. one of which is doing more research to help american manufacturers compete and survive. let me restate, we do not increase this account. we prioritize to address our nation's most pressing needs. in this case, the challenge is

to keep our american manufacturers competitive and to keep jobs here. our bill does that. therefore i must oppose the gentleman's amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized foifer five minutes. mr. visclosky: i would join the chair in opposition to the amendment. i would point out one of the fallacies of his argument that he used on the floor is the language of the committee's report. that is our very serious concern that in the past we have applied moneys to research that has essentially been siphoned off overseas. in general debate, in my opening remarks, yesterday on this floor, i commended the members of the subcommittee and particularly chairman frelinghuysen for making sure we don't do that in this bill this

year. and that there is throughout this bill and that report language directed to the department of energy to be focused on using this money wisely so that we maintain and begin to grow our industrial base and our manufacturing base and to keep these jobs here. this would be a mistake and i'm opposed to the gentleman's amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. chaffetz: i ask for a record vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. hahn of california. page 20, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $50 million.

page 22, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $100 million. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. hahn: thank you, madam chair. i think it's time that we begin to allow americans to ease off their dependence of oil. and give them a real alternative . every day we see the damage done by our depedence on oil. we see high gas prices threatening our economic recovery. and burdening families already struggling to make ends meet. we see higher respiratory disease rates and any number of distant regimes holding our foreign policy hostage, weakening our ability to stand by our principles and our friends. i think it's time for us to throw out these burdens and step into the future, not double down on the dependencies of the past. and yet somehow this bill

allocates almost five times more funding to deepening and extending our relationship with fossil energy than it does on advancing energy efficiency and clean renewable energy technology. one of the most promising and necessary things we can do is to give americans an alternative to oil, is to speed our transition to electric vehicles. passenger cars alone use more than 40% of the oil consumed in this country, and by 2020 the national resources defense council estimates americans will spend $260 billion a year on gas. to speak of what we stand to gain from helping americans switch to electric vehicles. the technology is here. and all we need to do is implement it. my amendment would help us begin to make the kind of investments on the scale of the opportunity before us requires, giving $50

million to the department of energy's energy efficient and renewable energy section. i drive an electric vehicle back in los angeles and i haven't been to gas station since last september. unfortunately i don't get to drive as far as i want to because we haven't yet built the electric vehicle charging infrastructure that would help electric vehicle owners continue to drive as far as they want. the range anxiety of not being able to find a charging station when the battery goes low means that many drivers don't drive as far as they can and many prospective electric vehicle owners are scared off. that's why we need to get serious about addressing the barriers to the adoptions of electric vehicles. later this year, nissan will be making the leaf, their electric vehicle, right here in america in tennessee. and just last month the department of energy announced

they were offering $5 million to spur electric vehicle adoption, seeking proposals that address barriers to the adoption of these vehicles and drive market development and transformation to make alternative fuel vehicles and fueling infrastructure widely available. we need to be bolder. we ought to have 100 times that much here, but i know my friends on the other side are a little timid about electric vehicles, so i'm only proposing 10 times as much. i've even reduced the budgetary authority of this bill by 50 million because i know how much my republican friends like to cut spending. with the right investments and electric vehicle infrastructure, we can clean our skies, free our foreign polcy, strengthen our hand with regimes like iran, and put money at the pump back into the pockets of american consumers. madam chair, i hope my colleagues on the other side

will meet me halfway on this. meet americans halfway. i hope you'll support this amendment. this is about jobs in america. this is about giving our american consumers an alternative to their sole dependence on oil. thank you very much. i yield back my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the amendment. the amendment will reduce fossil fuel energy by $50 million. let's start by noting that fossil fuels produce most of our nation's energy. nearly 70% of electricity and nearly all of our transportation fuels. . but i do appreciate the gentlewoman's passion for electric vehicles. in fact, our bill already funds research in that area and above the fiscal year 2012 level, as part of our focus on programs that address future gas prices. therefore i do oppose her

amendment. i understand her views and her passion but i strongly oppose it and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: chairwoman rice, in reluck -- chairwoman, i rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment for reasons i mentioned earlier in the debate. when the gentleman from illinois had an amendment to cut eere, the renewable cuts -- counts to add $15 million to science, in this case again i don't think it is wise for us to make a choice of cutting fossil energy research by $100 million, to increase the energy efficiency account by 1/2 that amount, $50 million. the fact is i understand that some people have a significant concern about the use of fossil fuels. i certainly do myself. but the fact remains that 83% of all energy consumption in the

united states today is generated by fossil fuel and we need to apply ourselves to the wise and efficient use of that fuel as well. so, again, would reluctantly be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agread to. -- agreed to. >> i'd like to ask for recorded vote, please. the chair: 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 gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. would the gentleman please specify which amendment he's referring to? mr. broun: say that again, madam chairman. the chair: could you specify which of your amendments -- mr. broun: it's an amendment that -- it's 119.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. pages 20, line 15. after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $335 million. page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount incertificate, increase by $335 million -- insert, increase by $335 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. my amendment would reduce funding for the energy efficiency and renewable energy account by $355 million with the intention of removing all funding for vehicle technologies. this reduction would be transferred to the spending reduction account. i'm 100% supportive of the automobile industry producing more fuel efficient automobiles if they choose to do so. however, there is simply no good reason that the federal government should be subsidizing billion-dollar companies at a time when our nation is broke. over the past few years we've seen the automobile industry

receive an unprecedented amount of government assistance. we've seen an industry bailout. the market distorting cash for clunkers and many more subsidies all done with little regard for taxpayer money. it's time we begin to reverse this disturbing trend and let the automobile industry succeed or fail on its own merits. i urge support of my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, briefly i rise to oppose the amendment. i share my colleague's concerns that we should not be funding activities at the private sector -- that the private sector should do ons i own, that's why our bill cuts 24% out of this account. only preserving appropriate federal activities that are too risky for the private sector to take on alone. but the amendment goes too far, undercuts our ability to address

gas prices and therefore i must oppose it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana -- mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. have already remarked earlier in the day relative to my support for vehicle technology and am opposed to the gentleman's amendment and would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment 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. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 21, line 6, electricity delivery and energy supplyability.

mr. frelinghuysen: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the chair will consider the motionle. we're consulting on the schedule. if you'd hold for just a minute, please. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair. i would withdraw the motion if that's appropriate. the chair: the gentlelady's motion is withdrawn. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. an amendment by mr. scalise of louisiana. an amendment by mr. king of iowa. an amendment by mr. moran of virginia. an amendment by mr. hultgren of

illinois. an amendment by mr. chaffetz of utah. amendment number 6 by mr. mcclintock -- mcjeremy lin -- mcclintock of california. an amendment by mr. tonko of new york. an amendment by ms. hahn of california. the clerk will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first series of votes. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. the chair: the recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the

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

.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 216, the nays are 177. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment behaved the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 203, the nays are 185 the amendment is agreed to -- 185. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 152. the nays are 237. the amendment is not agreed to. question is on amendment offered by mr. hultgren, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. hultgren of illinois. the chair: those in support of a request for a recorded vote shall rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 130. the nays are 256. the amendment is not agreed to. the the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 140. the nays are 245. he amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas and nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 113. the nays are 275. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. kaptur 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 arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 183, the nays are 200. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 148, the nays are 236. the amendment is not agreed to.

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 13, the nays are 245, the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move that

the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chairman. the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5325 and has come to no resolution thereon.

the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. clyburn of north carolina for today, ms. mccollum of minnesota for today, mr. schilling of illinois for today and mr. young of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yealeding to me. mr. speaker, on monday the house is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet

at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business today. i expect the majority of these bills to come from the natural resources committee and i want to thank chairman doc hastings and his staff for their tireless work in assisting members on both side of the aisle with their bill to responsibly remove federal red tape that stands in the way of local economic development. members are also advised that the house will resume consideration of h.r. 5325, the energy and water development appropriations act on tuesday, our first day back next week. those wishing to offer

amendments to the bill should be prepared to do so as soon as they return to washington. the house may also consider two additional appropriations bills next week. h.r. 5855, the department of homeland security appropriations act, sponsored by representative robert aderholt, and h.r. 5882, the legislative branch appropriations act sponsored by representative andrew crenshaw. chairman al rogers and the entire appropriations committee on both sides of the aisle should be congratulated for helping to restore the open process of allocating and prioritizing the nation's spending. finally, mr. speaker, the house will consider h.r. 436, the protect medical innovation act, a very important bill for jobs and innovation in the medical device industry and that representative erik paulsen has sponsored.

the paulsen bill will be combined with h.r. 5842, the restoring access to medication act sponsored by representative lynn jenkins, and h.r. 1004, the medical f.s.a. improvement act sponsored by representative charles boustany. and with that i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information, and i want to make a comment that the gentleman correctly congratulated the appropriations leadership on his side of the aisle, but i also want to observe on our side of the aisle, there has been cooperation and there has not been an effort to either delay or disassemble. that's how this should work. it has not always worked that way. i am pleased it is working. i think that is best for our institution. i think it's best for the country. so i'm pleased at that as well.

i tell my friend, and he knows this, according to the schedule, the house is scheduled to be in session a total of 28 days until the august break and 41 days from now until november. in addition of those days available, of the 41, 10 are 6:30 days in which we come for an abbreviated evening session which takes half an hour to an hour to conclude afternoon debate on suspension bills. i express that concern, mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, the gallery is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. mr. hoyer: with the limited time we have available, mr. leader, i am very concerned, as

the gentleman knows of the extraordinarily large number of very big fiscal questions that will be coming to roost at the end of this year. my view is that we need to address those. hopefully we need to address them in a bipartisan way because if we do not address them, we will put the economy at continuing risk. the bush tax cuts, as you know, expire as of the 30th of december, 31st of december. the payroll tax cut expires the 31st of december. the sustainable growth rate which we affectionately refer to as the doc fix, the alternative minimum tax, the debt limit, all come to bear at the end of the year. in addition to that, the sequester, which i think all of us believe is not the appropriate way to go, but is

the way we set up to force us to take action on a comprehensive big, bold, balanced plan. unfortunately, the supercommittee was not able to reach agreement on that. i want to say to my friend, the majority leader, i would hope that you would be urging all of us -- i will join with you in that effort urging all of us to be ready to make some tough decisions, but decisions which need to be made in order to stabilize our economy and stabilize the fiscal posture of the united states. i am hopeful that we can reach a credible, sustainable fiscal path for our country. the only way we are going to do that is if we work together in a bipartisan fashion. the gentleman and i were very successful in working on the export-import bank legislation in a bipartisan fashion in which we got over 300 votes on

the floor of the house floor. the gentleman was unable to make the signing but it was signed this week. i think a very positive step forward. i appreciated the gentleman's work on that piece of legislation, but i would like to urge the gentleman because of the extraordinarily short number of days that we have left to meet to focus on what i think some people call it a fiscal train wreck, some people call it a fiscal perfect storm, some people call it a fiscal cliff, whatever it is is will have a great impact, not only on the confidence that we can work and to make effective plans for meeting that challenge but also for getting our country on a fiscally sustainable path. i don't know if the gentleman has any comments on that but

i'd be glad to yield to him. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and agree with him that all of us should be very focused on the month ahead as we approach the day which this country will by operation of law experience the largest tax increase in its history, that the sequester will be imposed, that we perhaps will face another debt ceiling vote as well as many items that the gentleman mentioned. i think all of us understand the gravity of those issues. i think, mr. speaker, we've also seen in operation around here, together with the white house, the difficulties that the two sides have had in coming together on two very important issues that run throughout all of the matters that the gentleman mentioned and those two issues are health care and taxes. and as the gentleman knows, we have put forward a solution to

the health care entitlement issue which is the disproportionate cause of the unfunded liabilities of the federal budget and the gentleman and the president and his party have rejected our solution that has been validated by the congressional budget office as an actual fix to the deficit. but to date we've not seen any kind of proposal with the gentleman, his party, or the president coming to the table saying, this is how we could fix it. all we're hearing, mr. speaker, is we need to raise taxes and we need to raise taxes on people who have been successful. and the gentleman knows that those are the two issues, the taxes and the health care fix, that we've just had real difficulty in trying to come together. and so what i would say to the gentleman, we remain ready to work with him and his colleagues on the other side of the aisle to try and produce

results to the american people so we can reinject some certainty back in the minds of the american people that the economy is going to get better. and, again, we tried to focus on issues having to do with combrothe in the private sector -- growth in the private sector. how do we speak to that small business man or woman who's having difficulty now assessing what his or her taxes are going to be? how do we speak to that working mother there when she questions whether her health care will still be available given the up certainty around the obamacare -- given the uncertainty around the obamacare bill? these are things we have been trying to work together. the gulf is so wide and fill -- and philosophically dealing with health care. we share the concern about what lies ahead. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i was not trying to make

political points or rhetoric in raising the issues i did. i frankly think that this doesn't get us very far, i suggest to the majority leader, and we need to get someplace. america expects us to get someplace. many of you have indicated that revenues need to be on the table. the gentleman knows that every bipartisan commission that's dealt with this says revenues need to be on the table. they say entitlements need to be on the table. neither are easy to deal with, but they must be dealt with if we are going to be responsible stewards of this nation's finances and this nation's future. and political rhetoric's not going to get us there. frankly points we all want to help small business. we believe we've helped small business very substantially and very frankly you get into the analysis, small businesses did very well during the clinton administration under policies that were in place at that point in time.

but that aside, we need to deal with this, and i think a number of members on your side have indicated that they understand that everything needs to be on the table. and that is what i think as well. i think both sides have things they don't want to deal with but americans expect us to deal with tough things and make tough decisions on behalf of them and behalf of their children, behalf of their families which leads me on small business and economic growth the highway bill. we continue to be very concerned, mr. majority leader, that we have not reached agreement on the highway bill. the senate was able to reach an overwhelmingly bipartisan agreement on the highway bill, which is a jobs bill. i was disappointed. i hope the gentleman was disappointed that the jobs numbers that came out today,

82,000 in the private sector, lost 13,000 in the public sector, net 69,000 jobs, that does not get us to where we want to be after losing millions and millions of jobs in the previous administration and losing a substantial number of jobs in this administration before over the last 26 months we've grown four million jobs, but the hole was very deep and we're not out of it. if you don't have a job you know we're not out of it, but i would hope that we could at least, certainly our side believing, that the highway bill is a jobs bill. ray lahood, as i pointed out in the past, your former leader in your party, chairman of a subcommittee in the appropriations committee says that it's a jobs bill, but unfortunately concludes that unfortunately that bill is not passing he believes for largely

political reasons. i hope that's not the case. do you have any idea of how -- of what kind of progress we're making on the highway bill so that that bill can come to the floor before the june 30 expiration of the highway bill? authorization. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman, as he knows the house has passed its bill, the senate has passed its. conference has been appointed, and obviously we're very mindful of the expiration of the current authorizing language at law and we are prepared to make sure there is no stoppage of transportation programming and funding all the way desiring a much longer term solution to the problem. i think the problem remains, as the gentleman knows, just not enough money to address all the things that the country is

experiencing in terms of the needs for roads and infrastructure repair as well as the need for expansion. as the gentleman knows, we all are mindful of the limited resources that are available to address these needs and just trying to prioritize, and i'm hopeful that the conference committee can come to a solution prior to the expiration of the authorizing language in place right now, but, again, very mindful we don't want to allow for any shutdown of any program at the end of this month. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman and i appreciate his observation. clearly we don't want to have the authority for the highway bill to expire without action, but i will reiterate my offer to my friend, the majority leader, and say given the bipartisan, the overwhelming bipartisan support of the bill

that was -- came from the other party that if we brought that bill to the floor, i will tell the gentleman that i think we will have the overwhelming, perhaps unanimous support which would be 190 votes on our side of the aisle for that bill because we believe it is a jobs bill. we believe it will grow the economy. it will put people back to work, and it will give confidence to the american people, as we did with the export-import bank, in my view, give confidence to the american people that we can come together and move forward through reaching agreement. obviously the senate was able to do that, and they did it overwhelmingly with over half of the republican conference -- caucus voting for it. in the senate and 3/4 of the senate voting for it. i would say to my friend, i think that would be a real shot in the arm for the economy, and i agree with the gentleman.

certainty is important. confidence building is important, and if we did that, in my view, and if you could bring half of your caucus to that vote, we would pass that bill overwhelmingly and i think it would be a very positive step for the economy, very positive step for the confidence of the american people and our economy and put people back to work. i don't know whether the gentleman wants to comment on that further, but if he does i'll yield him. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd say to the gentleman i have no further comment. mr. hoyer: lastly, if i might, the student loan interest rate, as you know, will go up at the end of the this month from 3.4% to 6.8%. . that would add additional cost to nearly a million students, some $1,000 additional cost to most students. at a time where we want to make

higher education so necessary for success in our country available to as many team people as we possibly can so we can be competitive worldwide. and from our perspective further a make it in america agenda. growing our economy and getting jobs for our people. i know that there was opposition to that reduction when it was originally on the floor in 2007. and i know there was some opposition to it earlier this year, but i also know that i think both you and the speaker have indicated now that they support that. we passed legislation on this floor which brought that down. and there's obviously very substantial disagreement and controversy with reference to the funding source given the preventive health fund used to fund the student aid. can the gentleman tell me

whether or not he believes there is a possibility for us to reach agreement on how to do this? i know the speaker said this was a, quote, phony fight. but it is a real fight and it will have real consequence it is we don't resolve our differences. can the gentleman comment on what he believes to be the possibility of reaching agreement with the senate on the student loan bill? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker. i would say to the gentleman that the speaker and i together with the republican leader whip in the senate have sent a letter to the president. perhaps the gentleman has seen it, suggesting a way forward on the issue of student loans so that there will not be an expiration of the subsidy provided to students. we suggested two options to allow for a continuation of a lower rate for students to be

paid for by provisions which the president has suggested that he would agree to. the two options are to limit the length of in-school interest subsidy, and the other is to revise the medicare provider tax threshold and to phase it down so that we can actually achieve savings so that we can allow for the continuation of the subsidized rates for students who are struggling under tuition bills. these are two options that we suggest. they are bipartisan in nature. there shouldn't be any reason why we couldn't get this done prior to the expiration of the current law. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. just for his information i would be a very strong opponent of your first option which continues to want to reduce the take-home pay of federal employees. federal employees under the plans that you have passed

through this house will have already been asked to pay $105 billion in reduction in pay and benefits, $105 billion over 10 years. $10 billion per year. your suggestion that our employees have pay reduced, effectively net take-home pay reduced. in addition, the additional proposal in your reconciliation bill which would add another $78 billion to that. $183 billion in total, or $18.3 billion per year reduction in pay and benefits for federal employees. the gentleman in his state has a lot of those federal employees. they happen to be civilian employees. i know the gentleman supported the pay raise for the military personnel, which i supported as well. the gentleman's aware that largely through my tenure in the congress we have treated our

civilian employees and our military employees with parity. i would hope that the gentleman would not think that continuing to go to the federal employee as we go to no other employees -- the gentleman is not interested in asking anybody else to participate more in paying for this in terms of revenues, but your side has been continuing to propose reducing the pay and benefits of the federal employees. my view is, and i have said this publicly, that if we can reach a big bold balance deal, it's balanced, but just going to one pocket, one group of people, who , studies show, depending upon what level you are working at, many are not paid comparable to their private sector. some others are. it's not a fair, balanced way to

proceed. i would hope that that option would be not on the table. i know the administration put it on the table for a larger deal, but i'm going to urge that not be an option. i know that i talked to some of your side from your state who believe that's not an option that ought to be pursued. as a matter of fact wanted to vote against the milcon bill yesterday because of a provision dealing with further reducing the pay of federal employees, the net take-home pay of federal employees. i would hope that would not be an option. i would hope we could in fact reach an option so we could contain the cost of college for young people because that's not only good for them, it's good for the competitive statute of the united states of america. with respect to the reconciliation bill that you mentioned and the -- you

mentioned the fact that you were dealing with the deficit, in fact as the gentleman knows, in terms of your health care provisions, they do not within the next 20 years get the federal budget to balance in the ryan budget, so that although you are dealing with that in some respects, it goes to balance, and therefore does not, in my opinion, give the confidence and certainty that the american economy needs and that the american citizens need. i want to ask the gentleman lastly if he expects all 12 appropriation bills -- i know we are going to do the energy and water, we have already done two of our bills, whether or not he expects all 12 appropriation bills to be on the floor, considered, and completed prior to the august break? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. if i could, mr. speaker, point the gentleman's attention back to the student loan issue. i specifically did not offer up

the option of the federal employee pay for because i do know that we have a difference on that. so the gentleman went and explained the differences, we understand that. that's why we are trying to avoid differences and come together where we can agree, which is why i discussed the two other provisions which are bipartisan in nature and the president said he supports which could in a responsible fashion allow us to continue the lower rate. mr. hoyer: i don't want to interrupt other than to clarify. as i understand the two options, one was the option of making additional -- in the letter i read, maybe i'm incorrect -- you can correct me. i yield back. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, there are two options. one was the federal employee pay for in and of itself would take care of -- the reduction in the size of the federal government would have taken care of the pay-for if you will for the

student loan issue. the other option was composed of two different provisions. both of which are bipartisan in nature, the president says he supports. one of those is to limit the length of in-school interest subsidies. the other was to revise the medicaid provider tax threshold. it was those two components that comprise option two. that is my point. so there is -- mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his clarification. mr. cantor: to the point -- i'm not quite sure about the note he made about our budget not balancing within the budget window, and i would say to the gentleman, we understand that, but it is a plan that we could adopt that would provide a blueprint for getting us back on track as far as managing down the debt and deficit. and my point originally was, mr. speaker, there's been no such plan, there's been no such proffer from the president or the gentleman's side of the aisle. so in order for us to move

forward, we need participation from both sides. we can't just have one side providing a solution without the ability to get that solution put into place because the gentleman's party is in control in the other body and the white house. so how do we go about trying to find commonality if there is no proper solution? that was my point, mr. speaker. there has been no solution. balanced or not, provided by the other side. i would say lastly to the gentleman inquiry about the appropriations process, we certainly maintain the position we would like to see all of our bills brought to the floor, through regular order, consistent with the speaker's policy of an open debate that we have seen thus far in the appropriations bills. we had a successful completion yesterday and we are continuing in the energy and water appropriations measure today.

and as we come back next week. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i want to say to the gentleman i would disagree that there's no plan. mr. van hollen, the ranking member of the budget committee, did in fact have a plan. presented that plan. and was voted on on this floor of the house. it did not prevail, by that is a plan which frankly was a more balanced plan from our perspective, obviously the house did not agree with that, balanced plan that in fact would have reached balance, in fact, more quickly, i believe than the ryan plan. so we do have a plan. we presented that plan. we offered it on the house floor. i voted for that plan. the overwhelming majority of party on this side of the aisle voted for that plan. so there is plan. i think the gentleman's not correct in saying we haven't offered a plan. we have. the plan has not passed. the gentleman is absolutely

correct on that. senate and house have not agreed on a plan. i'm not sure they are going to be able to agree on a plan. i think that's unfortunate, but perhaps we can agree on the appropriation bills. we are hopeful that the appropriation bills will be agreed upon consistent with the agreement that we felt we had at the funding levels of $1.047 trillion for discretionary spending. the bills that have been offered are closer to that number than i think we will find as later bills come. we don't know that, but that's speculation, the senate has agreed that we ought to mark up that figure, but we haven't marked up to that figure in the appropriation bill. but if we do -- if we complete the appropriation bills, as the gentleman says he wants to do, i think would be good to do. it's the gentleman's perspective and we'll mark to 1.027 and

1.028. that's a substantial difference, the senate, republicans and democrats, have agreed to mark to the higher number. can the gentleman comment on whether or not at the end of the day we'll be able to get agreement on what the agreement we thought we had in the budget control act? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i just say to the gentleman, i have discussed this before in the colloquy, and i would suggest turning attention to the senate that hasn't even begun considering appropriations bills to even -- to suggest that we would come to an agreement with the senate. i think the senate's got to really start to do its work as far as the appropriations process is concerned. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i don't have any rebuttal to that. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the

gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12:00 noon on tuesday next for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so granted. >> mr. speaker, i rise to honor the life of a true public servant from the great state of kansas. kansas state representative bob bethel, represented the 113th district in the statehouse and hailed from aldin, can a. not

too from far from the farm i grew up. he served in the statehouse for 14 years and was a staunch advocate for education, health, and long-term care. his distinguished career included a school priss principal, and director of college admissions. he was a private business owner operating long-term health care facilities. mr. yoder: i was saddened to learn of the tragic car accident he suffered while driving home from the kansas legislature recently on sunday, may 20. i served with bob for eight years in the kansas house and i always remembered him as a kind and caring man. who never took himself too seriously, always wearing his trademark mickey mouse ties. a true public servant, bob, we are going to miss you. mr. speaker, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the

gentleman from texas, mr. fwomeert, is recognized for 60 -- mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. always an honor to speak here on the house floor and there's been a lot of interesting attention that's been given to an issue of whether or not the obama administration supports israel, doesn't support israel, is more supportive of its enemies, and apparently, according to an article in "the weekly standard" this week, may 30, 2012, by daniel halper, i'm quoting from the article here. it says, quote, obama stressed he probably knows about judaism

more than any other president because he read about it, unquote. haaretz reports. quote, he wondered how come no one asks speaker of the house, john boehner, or senator minority leader, mitch mcconnell, about their support to israel. the article also says, simile, he, the president, said to the group, i am not going to tell you again how i even feel about israel, but why are we still talking about it? he then suggested that he should not be questioned about his commitment to the jewish state because, quote, all his friends in chicago were jewish. i think there's a lot to be learned when we read people's comments or learn of people's comments that were not scripted, that were said just

off the top of the head. nobody put it in the teleprompter. it's not somebody else's words. it's words directly from the individual in question, and so i got to say, you know, the president says all his friends in chicago were jewish. i learned a lot from that. i didn't know that jeremiah wright was jewish. i mean, i don't -- i meet people all the time. it never crosses my mind, you know, what descent is this person, so it's fascinating to me that apparently jeremiah wright was jewish. tony resco, got them a sweetheart deal of some kind, that real estate deal, even though he's gone to prison, i didn't know tony resco was

jewish. and bill aires, hopefully trying to kill people back in the 1970's, man that gave the -- barack obama his first fundraiser at his home, i didn't know what lineage bill aires, but according to the president's comments, all his friends in chicago were jewish. apparently bill aires must have been jewish as well. so it's interesting to find out about people's friends and who they are and what their background really is. my background, having been a one-time early on a prosecutor, i've been a judge, i've been a chief justice, it helps me, some of us a little slower to work through and plot through material methodically, it meps me -- it helps me to make a

chart. and i know having collected the notes of jury -- jurors, a murder case that was 10 weeks long, the longest when i was a judge, but it was all interesting to read notes that jurors had left. and so often they would take evidence and they would make notes of evidence and try to decide what category that evidence fit into. did it support what the prosecution was saying since they had the burden of proof, or did it support defense contention or an affirmative defense, that kind of thing? and so i found this week, since i read that article about the president's defenseness, and it -- defensiveness, and it would be interesting to take to try

to decide, since the president says he's not even going to comment how he feels about israel any more, i think it would be helpful to go through and look at the evidence and decide whether it supports the notion that the president is very pro-israel or that he's not. when the president said that he wondered why no one asked speaker of the house of representatives john boehner about his support for israel, well, i know that speaker boehner and i have had some rather profound disagreements and that i'm sure will continue, but when it came to the issue of israel, i can't -- i couldn't come up with anything that indicated any lack of complete support for the nation of israel.

in fact, i've been pushing for two years -- well, two years ago i started pushing to get prime minister netanyahu invited to address a joint session of congress here in this very hall. i know when i approached speaker pelosi about it she had -- this was june of 2010 and she thought it was a nice idea but just wasn't going to be time to get that done before the end of the year. we had so much on our plate, and i think we did have a lot of courthouses we hadn't named yet, so we got those done. and then when republicans took the majority in 2011, i redid a letter, got lots of republicans to sign on, and as the speaker asked prime minister netanyahu to come address the house here

and as best i understand it got the majority leader down the hall, harry reid, to go in on it so it would be a joint session. so, you know, all the evidence indicates complete support by speaker boehner for israel. really haven't been able to find anything to the contrary. but, again, since the president says he's not going to comment any more about how he feels about israel, i thought it would be good, and it sure helps me to go through and just chart out evidence and which way -- which notion it supports. so i went through and we took points from stories, whether it's on television, on the news media, on the internet that

appeared to have good basis for being factual and just decide to chart out, is this evidence president obama is for or against israel, and does he love israel or does he love israel not? and so we know that back in 2011, most of us heard the comments, apparently they didn't know the microphone was live when prime minister netanyahu came up and the comments by president sarkozy of france when he made a comment, something about what a problem netanyahu was and president obama made comments to the effect that, oh, yeah. i have to deal with him every day. it was clearly belittling of prime minister netanyahu, and i know people that heard the comment thought, oh, if you're prime minister netanyahu, that's got to hurt to hear a

guy you may talk to quite a bit agreeing with another leader that netanyahu is just a real pain to deal with. so it really doesn't show a love for israel, really. that was more of loves israel not. and then the comments in 2011 when prime minister netanyahu last year was on his way, coming to the united states. he was going to speak to an aipac convention here, and it seemed to be really short notice. the president consulted with people that he trusted. the president of the islamic society of north america. of course, they are a named co-conspirator in the holy land

foundation, islamic society of north america, he's president of that organization, and we heard on the news that he had been consulted and in fact, the president of this co-conspirator supporting terrorism, was even invited to the intersanctum of the state department to hear this speech that he, according to sources, helped give advice to president obama on, and so during his comments, president obama says that israel should return to its 1967 borders and people that are familiar with israel and know the history of that area, including going back to 1,000 or so b.c., when king david was the ruler in that land, 1,500, 1,600 years before a man named mohamed came to earth, but anyway, he's

suggesting that israel, in those comments, return to these borders which military people indicate make israel indefensible. that's why they were so subject to attack in 1967. so that really was not a comment suggestive of a love for israel. that's really more of a loves israel not. an then the obama administration -- and then the obama administration, they have wholly failed to condemn any of the palestinian's building of any settlement. here the palestinians keep building and building in areas that are not authorized, that are illegal settlements being built and we hear not one single word from the obama administration about the

illegal settlements being constructed by palestinians and that also included his criticism of israeli housing plans for east jerusalem and so that's really a loves israel not on that one as well. you got the obama administration's decision to eradicate missile defense programs that would have helped israel. there are articles of information about that. obviously since it didn't help israel to have eradicated missile defense programs that would have helped israel despite some that would, that actually is an act that indicates loves israel not. now, i think it was a wonderful thing that prime minister netanyahu in 2010 was invited to the white house. that was a great thing. very good of the president to

invite him but all of the reference to that visit seemed to make very clear that when the president intentionally snubbed the prime minister who had traveled all this way to meet with the president and he was left waiting for an hour or so while the president went off to his family, they knew that prime minister netanyahu was coming and he came by invitation and yet the president created an intentional snub, unless his staff, of course, is so incompetent they didn't let him know that the leader of our dear ally, israel, was waiting in the white house to visit, but anyway, he went and dined with his family. and also it was considered by most to know about international relations to be quite a snub that allow the president's been pictured with all kinds of folks in the

middle east that we'd just assume israel would be -- that would just assume israel would be eliminated from the map, to have a picture with him which is a norm is really an indication of loves israel not. now secretary of state, hillary clinton, announced that the obama administration planned to send $147 million to the west bank and to the hamas-run gaza strip. well, congress had made very clear, since we have the purse strings under the constitution, that that money -- there should not be money being sent to any organization that is supportive of terrorism. . hamas is a named organization that supports terrorism. and yet this administration has decided to send a group who has made very clear they want to see

israel eliminated, wiped off the map, sending them $147 million is not really evidence of a love for israel. you also have president obama stating that all his friends in chicago were jewish and that he was sometimes accused of being a jewish puppet. well, for those people who accused the president, according to the president only, of being a jewish puppet and that all his friends in chicago were jewish, well, that is some indication of a love for the jewish nation of israel. the pred's -- the president's administration, though, earlier this year, leaked to "the washington post" of the time window in which israel would take out iran's nuclear program. well, any ally is supposed to

know that if you go leaking information, putting it out there in public, the damages and effort of your close ally to defend itself, that's not a good thing. it's not a sign of love and affection for an ally when you leak information that would prevent or harm the efforts of that ally in defending itself. so that's just -- that was not a good indication of a love for israel. more of a love israel not. and then also the obama administration had a leak to the media that israel was going to use the azerbaijan airspace to take out iran's nuclear program. well, if that's the kind of thing you do for friends,

america's not going to have a lot of friends for very long because our friends will know, wow, israel is said to be one of america's closest allies, and yet they are leaking information about private deals that their so-called allies make to try to defend themselves, that surely would fall into the category of love israel not. and then also you have the immense pressure that was place bide this administration on israel not to defend itself without the united states' permission. does a friend really do that? i thought we believed in the sovereignty of our friends, our nation friends, so they could make their own decisions about self-defense. i thought that's the case.

and yet we keep hearing reports, reading reports about pressure by this administration on israel not to take action to defend itself. so that's really in that category as well, loves israel, not. and also the obama administration has never rejected or condemned the racist, hateful teachings about jewish people going on in the palestinian schools in the middle east and some muslim schools here in the united states. no condemnation or rejection at all could be found anywhere. and yet anyone that cares to see the kind of hateful, biased, nasty things that are being said about jewish and israeli people

just need -- let our office know there are people in israel, there are websites that can provide that information, they have copies of textbooks. there are commercials that are run. there are great events in palestinian areas, in fact, that are even named -- the events named for palestinian terrorists. islamic jihadists that blew themselves up and killed a lot of israelis. and yet we have no condemnation from this administration of any of that type activity. israel, of course, is repeatedly warned by this administration to be nicer to the palestinians and we can't find any evidence that this administration has ever warned the palestinians, quit

inciting hatred in your children for jewish or israeli people. the list goes on, helping us assess the evidence of whether president obama is for or really against israel since his comment this week, he's not going to tell us any more how he feels about israel, we'll just look at the evidence. continue, we remember not long after president obama went -- came into office he traveled to turkey, to iraq, saudi arabia, egypt, apologized to them on behalf of the united states. somebody uses really good word choices, the beautiful group of wording about the united states being divisive and dismissive. really nice words, and what many

dubbed as the apology tour, that really was not a strong sign of love and affection for israel. and then we have the fact that this president, although he went on an apol guy tour all around our -- an apology tour all around our so-called policy tour, he never went to israel. you can't blame him. maybe he would be concerned that prime minister netanyahu would leave him sitting around dwilling his thumbs while netanyahu went to have dinner with his family. i met with prime minister netanyahu, i'm not anybody, and yet he took time and was very punctual in his meeting. i really don't think the president should have to worry that prime minister netanyahu might try to snub him the same

way. i think he would find -- i think president obama would find prime minister netanyahu to be very congenial as he normally is, although again we go back to the president's comments when he didn't know the mike was opened, indicateling he -- indicating he didn't have a lot of love for having to deal with prime minister netanyahu every day. as for now until we actually have a visit from president obama to israel, it really has to go into the loves israel not cat gorry -- category. then we have the obama administration's support for the muslim brotherhood's rise to power in egypt. this administration was encouraging mubarak to step down, get out of the way. and actually made quite interesting quotes about the radical islamist protesters in egypt, with you they supported the muslim brotherhood's rights to power in egypt.

and have reached out in numerous ways to the muslim brotherhood thinking that this may really be a good thing indicating a great thing for the middle east. well, it may be a good thing for the muslim brotherhood, but we have the documentation, the quotes are easily accessible, about what the muslim brotherhood truly stands for, and they want to see israel gone. some would say it's a good thing when any administration reaches out to a people, but if that people, if the leaders of a group are demanding that a dear, close friendly ally be wiped off of the map and have to live under a cal fate -- caliphate not to judaism but -- which the

president says he knows more than any other president, apparently, but live under a caliphate which of course ahmadinejad believes the 12th imam will be coming back. that really wasn't showing a lot of love for israel. of course israel expressed a great deal of concern. they had concerns about what was going on in equipped. mubarak was a problematic man, problematic leader. but at least he was trying to keep up the agreement, the treaty with israel. he at least made some pretense that he was trying to protect the egyptian-israeli border. now we have muslim brotherwood who have no such intention and

it didn't take an intelligence department to advise this administration of that. it certainly should have been clear, yet in 2011 president obama was calling the radical islamist protesters in egypt, quote, an inspiration to people around the world, and he stated, he supported a new regime in egypt. well, you had radical islamics, muslim brotherhood, and as we see in these elections as they go forward, the muslim brotherhood is taking charge and they have no interest in agreeing to the treaties that have long since been made with israel. and although they have come back and said, well, we might put it up to a vote, well, the same

people that are voting the muslim brotherhood into power because they know the muslim brotherhood wants to see israel gone, obviously not be supporting a treaty. so those kind of comments that put israel at such, treatment risk -- extreme risk on the border cannot be deemed to be indication of a loves israel of, it's more of a loves israel not. then we have the fact that the syrian leader, assad, has been ruthless in killing and abusing his people and has not been helpful to israel to the extent egyptian leader mubarak was, this administration, the obama administration, has failed to support the syrian rebels the way it did the egyptian rebels. that's really been interesting. to see how that developed. like, for example, in libya,

gosh, the president said he didn't need support from congress because there were people like nato and the muslim brotherhood, there were folks that wanted us to help get rid of gaddafi. gaddafi was sure no angel and he certainly had blood on his hands , but gaddafi was not a threat to israel. and this administration militarily, militarily supported the people who are a threat to israel. unapologetically. now, there were some games, some wordsmanship games, word smithing went on by this administration saying, this is really a nato action. guess who makes up 60% or more

of the nato military? guess who gives more to nato than anybody else? it's the united states. so it was a little bit of sleight of hand to say, libya really is more of a nato action, it's not really us. it's very clear this administration has not demanded the ouofer of a leader with blood on his hands who continues to abuse and kill syrians who want some freedoms t this administration hasn't supported those rebels the way they did in libya and the way the administration called for mubarak to be gone, forcefully. so that's also a loves israel not. and then you got a note that the obama administration support for giving israel's enemy money and

weapons has been at the same time israel has been given assistance. that's not showing a lot of love for israel. but the obama administration has supported providing israel financial aid that they can use to buy u.s. weapons for israel's defense. now there's a good one to show some love for israel. . so this administration has shown some love for israel by pushing to provide them with financial aid to buy u.s. weapons for their own defense, but unfortunately that comes at the same time the administration keeps supporting israel's enemies, giving them money, pushing to give them money and weapons at the same time israel is getting that same assistance. and then one other thing that i think is worthy of note. i believe it was two years ago, may, two years ago, i believe,

the obama administration voted with israel's enemies to require israel to disclose any and all nuclear capabilities or weapons. israel is a tiny country in the middle of a number of countries and hostile people that want to see israel gone. and nobody has made that more clear than ahmadinejad. and it was certainly worthy of note that it was right after this administration parted from decades of tradition of support pour israel and their very ten uous situation there in the middle east and sided with all

of israel's enemies and vote to require them to disclose all they really had that could protect them, and it brought to nd that story from the old testament about king hezz i coulda. -- hezacia. and those of us who believe what's printed there believe that god sent the prophet to confront the king and basically said, what have you done with these people from babylon, these leaders from babylon and basically this is texas paraphrase, was basically saying king hezekiah, oh, i showed them all our treasure, and i showed them all the defenses we have in the armory. and in essence hezekiah was

told by isaiah, you fool, because you have done this, you're going to lose your country and he did. actually he begged the lord let it not be on his watch and it ends up being under his son's. that's another story. point here that came to mind, though, is we are demanding israel do what hezekiah similarly did which made their country vulnerable and caused them to lose their country. and we voted with israel's enemies to demand that. congress would have never voted a majority to do such a thing. but this obama administration did. it's a dangerous time in the world, and it's time for

america not to be stupid. some have referred to israel as being the free world's miner's canary. as people know in the old days before sensitive electronic equipment, canaries were taken in mines so that if noctous poisonous gas were there, the canaries would die first. the miners knew they had to get out or they would be dead. our assistance to israel as a democracy in the middle of a hostile world, hostile area with people who want to see our type of freedom and liberty gone whose very definition of the word freedom means freedom

to worship under a joint caliphate under shahrya law, but israel's definition of freedom is like ours. we should be supporting israel. we should not be supporting israel's enemies, and so those who have studied the history, you know that when a nation's enemies see that nation's strongest ally pulling away from them, that's when their enemies move against them. so was it any surprise that after the obama administration voted with israel's enemies to make israel more vulnerable that all of a sudden here came a flotilla to challenge the lawful blockade of the gaza

strip that israel had to ensure or at least try to ensure their own protection? and of course that was a disastrous and embarrassing time for israel but i can't help but believe it goes back to this administration telling israel's enemies, we're standing with you and not with israel. yes, this administration has gone back and issued statements to the contrary, but when you look at the evidence, look at the unguarded evidence. look at the leaks. look at the support for whom. it still keeps coming back that even though this president says, i'm not going to answer any more questions about whether or not i support israel, the evidence is clear, and i hope in the ensuing months between now and the next

inauguration that this administration will go out of its way to assure israel's enemies that despite the overwhelming evidence that israel is not loved by this administration from past actions and comments that it will take actions between now, if for no other reason to try to help this administration win some votes that it's been losing. i don't really care what the reason is. i care about supporting our allies, supporting those who stand for liberty, who will allow freedom of worship by muslims, freedom of worship by christians, freedom of worship by other groups in israel that

jews and christians are not afforded in other countries that this administration keeps sucking up to. so the evidence seems pretty clear. it keeps coming back despite some minor indications to the contrary that this administration loves israel not. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, is recognized for 60 minutes -- up to -- as the designee of the minority leader. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. and i assure you i will not use the 60 minutes but there is an

issue i want to spend a few minutes discussing today because it is extremely time sensitive. as the chart next to me indicates, we are today on june 1, 29 days away from the increase in interest rates for the subsidized stafford student loan program a program which provides middle class college students loans at a rate of 3.4% and july 1 by law that number will double to 6.8% unless congress acts. the situation right now is the result of a measure that was passed in 2007, the college class reduction act, which at that time, the statute under the stafford program, required a 6.8% interest rate. and i was part of a group that passed the college class reduction act that cut that rate down to 3.4%. for an average student using the stafford student loan program, which carries a loan up to $23,000 a year for a student, that cut in interest

rate saves the average student who uses this program about $5,000 to $10,000 in added interest costs. obviously a huge number for young people in this country who are struggling to try and deal with the cost of higher education. now, again, it was a five-year bill. had a sunset date of july 1. not uncommon in terms of the way legislation is designed in washington, but in january, president obama standing at that podium right behind me reminded the congress during his state of the union address that this doubling of rates was again few months away and up to this point we still have not dealt with this issue. and for young people who are trying to budget in terms of the upcoming school year, young seniors who got their acceptance letters to go to college, the failure of this congress to address this issue and get it done is frankly just completely unacceptable, and the schedule that we have been following in this house -- for example, this week we only had one full session day at a time

when so many issues like this is piling up and crying out for action is really just unacceptable. the good news is that there has been some movement. since the president made his call in january, i introduced legislation to lock in the lower rate the following day. we have 152 co-sponsors to lock in the lower rate at 3.4%. about three weeks ago, the republican majority did move a bill forward. it was paid for i think completely inappropriately by dipping into a fund to pay for preventive health care. nornede, it took money out of a -- in other words, it took money out of a program to help prevent illnesses in this country. again, many uninsured individuals need that to get those tests done to avoid higher health costs. yesterday, there was a-- additional movement where republican leadership in the house and senate acknowledged that's not going to work in terms of the way to pay for it

and two additional ideas have been put forward on the table to offset the cost from cutting that rate from 6.8% to 3.4%. next week the senate is back and that really is the chamber where we may see some movement forward in terms of this issue. but i think it's important to note, this is only a one-year fix that is being proposed right now and for families dealing with the cost of college, saying that we are going to only provide relief for one year, for interest rates, is not a good enough answer. and we know that because the federal reserve, which tracks the amount of consumer debt that families are accumulating in this country, just yesterday reminded us that student loan debt now exceeds all other forms of consumer debt. it exceeds credit card debt. it exceeds car debt. and this is a trajectory which is just going up and up and up. and adding to that debt level by allowing interest rates to be at a ridiculous level in the

economy that we are in right now, you can get a 30-year fixed rate for a house at 3%, 4%. in connecticut that's being offered. 10-year treasury notes are being sold at record lows. yesterday it was reported 1.45% yield rate the treasury was selling 10-year notes. to have 6.8% with this picture in our economy here today is just unacceptable. and the impact it's interesting in terms of the higher education system is tragic for our country. in the 1980's we were number one in the world in terms of graduating people with either two-year or four-year degrees. today we are 12th. i mean, think about that. the united states of america now is 12th in terms of graduating people with two-year and four-year degrees and cost is the biggest driving factor that is preventing people from that is preventing people from going to college and getting