mr. barton: rereclaim my time. i yield a minute to the -- to my good friend from florida to speak on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> everybody here supports -- mr. diaz-balart: everybody here supports protecting the environment. every american supports protecting the environment. but we also support protecting the jobs of the people who live in that environment and some of us don't support arbitrary decisions that are going to lose thousands of jobs, that are going to close plants. again, while there is a consensus in this body to protect the environment, there does not seem to be, mr. chairman, a con ken us is on protecting the job the american people who are desperate for jobs and without this amendment we're going to lose more jobs. let's have some common sense. let's protect the environment and protect american jobs. i yield back. mr. barton: i yield to the gentleman. mr. carter: having raised four children, i'm offended at being accused of wanting to harm children. that's not the purp

mr. barton and mr. carter for co-sponsoring and introducing amendment 466 in their commitment to block funding for new e.p.a. greenhouse gas mandates. this amendment will eliminate funding for the e.p.a. to be used to implement, administer, or enforce any statutory or regulatory requirement pertaining to the emissions of greenhouse gases from stationary sources. this amendment will put an end to a backdoor attempt made by the e.p.a. to regulate greenhouse gases to go around congress and circumvent the will of the people. americans have rejected this policy. and despite being rejected by congress, the administration has ignored the will of the people, the law, and to further some political agenda. it's absolutely necessary that congress take immediate action to ensure that the e.p.a. does not continue to destroy industry across the board in our country. we're in the midst of a massive economic downturn and the last thing we need to do is shoot ourselves in the foot with unnecessary, expensive new regulat

mr. barton: i rise in strong opposition to my good friend mr. heller's amendment. u.s. taxpayers and ratepayers have spent billions of dollars on this project. it is my assumption and opinion the obama administration has acted without authority to close it down. they certainly acted outside the confines of nuclear waste act of 1982. i support the opposition of my good friend from new jersey and would urge a strong no vote on this amendment and i thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. i yield back. mr. frelinghuysen: to recognize mr. hastings for 45 minutes. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i understand why my good friend from nevada is offering this. he's representing what he thinks is right for his constituents and i commend him for that. but the fact of the matter this is the law of the country. this is the repository, period. yet the department of energy, in my view, has been operating outside the law the last year. ratepayers al

mr. barton:. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barton: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: i rise in support of the yordan amendment. i've been in the congress 26 years, i'm supportive of what chairman rogers and all the appropriators have done. i think it's an interesting point to have the ranking minority member yielding to the chairman of the committee but that is congress at its finest. but i would point out that our budget deficit this year is $1.6 trillion. i d

mr. barton: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in opposition to the holt amendment. in kind of listening to the banter that we've been hearing back and forth, you'd think we were trying to eliminate the consumer financial protection bureau. mr. neugebauer: but in fact what we're trying to do is limit it. one of the things, if you look at the history of this entity, is that it's the typical answer in washington, when we have other regulates that are aren't doing their job, the solution always is, let's throw more regulation, more regulators and more money at the problem. and so what did we do with this new bureau? well, we said, guess what? we're going to throw $700 million at this new agency. we're going to take $500 million out of the fed and we're going to give the ability to come and ask for another $200 million. now, what's going on right now is that we don't even have a director at the consumer financial protection bureau yet they're standing up a new organization and so basically what we have from this administration is another czar. i don't know how many czars

mr. barton for a minute. >> we have a high-tech problem getting the button on over here.t just went off again. welcome, harmful commissioners and chairman of the fcc. you are all great individuals, you are all very bright. i disagree with the majority of you and your net neutrality regulation you have put in place. but i'm impressed by your intellect. mr. chairman, i'll put my statement into the record, but suffice it to say that i do not see how this commission with the intelligence that they have could have adopted the rule that they did on a 3-2 partisan vote, knowing that there is probably going to be -- knowing that there has been a change in the congress and that every candidate ran on the net neutrality principle that they tried to establish was defeated, and knowing that the majority of this committee and the majority of the congress on both sides of the aisle oppose the rule that they now have put into place. we have two hearings going on simultaneously, so mr. of deny and others will be up and down and back. i hope to come back in time the question the commissio

wrote a piece for the u.k. a fantasy party jared barton has hit out of the british justice system saying join us on his extradition legalize kidnap. what mr science cries does illustrates the fundamental problems with the european restaurant which i've been talking about now and it was introduced in two thousand and four he's an australian citizen and i want to actually go to sweden but this affects every british citizen and anyone who's a guest in our country and what it does it removes the fundamental rights of the english courts to protect its own citizens and guests in our country because they are not simply not allowed to look at the primer for a sheer brilliance in a cold case like this and take it into account it's what the lawyers call today to what justice and i would now so i've been saying now for some time to vision which is now called judicial surrender has been reduced to a bureaucratic formality and now i'm saying that it's actually nothing better than legalized kidnapping well i'm just i'm going on that's been going on for a month from i haven't figured out what the charges are you an interest if i can say about what's goi