mr. latham, in a colloquy. as the gentleman knows, i believe the implementation of the next generation of air traffic control is a very necessary and critical step in bringing our aviation system into the 21st century. the nation's aviation transportation network is currently based on an outdated, outmoded decades old land-based radar system. our yell phones have better capability than our air traffic control system. the next generation of air traffic control reflects an approach to move forward while making our aviation system much safer, much more efficient, and much more cost-effective by moving it to a satellite-based system that will benefit all americans. once fully implemented, the next generation system will reduce flight delays, saving americans billions of dollars in lost productivity, aircraft will be able to operate more efficiently, resulting in less fuel consumption. congestion in some of our nation's busiest airports will be significantly reduced, freeing up much needed airspace to accommodate gr

mr. latham: thank you. mr. dicks: i now now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, the former chairman and now the ranking member of the financial services subcommittee, mr. serrano. the chair: the gentleman yields to the gentleman from new york, three minutes. seeing no objection. mr. serrano: the continuing resolution that we're voting on today is irresponsible and extreme. we all recognize that we should take reasonable steps to address our deficit. however, what we're voting on today makes cuts that will harm our students, our public safety, our health and our environment. when i served as chair of the financial services subcommittee, i worked hard to make sure that we protected the consumer, the investor and the taxpayer. the agencies funded by this subcommittee ensure that americans can have confidence in the products that they use and the security of their investment. the c.r. that we are considering today, with its cuts to the i.r.s. and the securities exchange commission, fail to provide s

mr. latham: it prohibits the e.p.a. from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. however, reports that this provision will also block e.p.a. from setting standards for the 2012 renewable fuel standard are totally unfounded and the energy and commerce committee confirms this, everyone else, the gentleman i know used to be a member of that committee. i think it's really important to clarify that the rider in the c.r. is narrowly focused on e.p.a.'s new stationary source permitting authority and does not affect e.p.a.'s renewable fuels program. under the 2007 energy independence and security act, which was referred to, congress expressly stated that renewable fuels standard does not, and i say not, constitute regulation of greenhouse gases under the clean air act. the fundamental purpose of the renewable fuel standard is to ensure our nation's energy security and to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil while providing a valuable incentive for the production of agriculture. as an iowan, i understand the vast importance of agriculture to our economy by creat

mr. latham. mr. latham: i thank the gentleman have much for yielding. and i understand the gentleman from oklahoma represents oil and the reason he's doing this, but current government regulations restrict the ethanol blend by 10% per volume and ethanol producers hit the 10% cap in producing more ethanol can currently be used under the restrictions that are in place. and i have to correct the gentleman when he said e.p.a. mandates this. it's congress, us that mandates the 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. and it's essential with that mandate from congress, this is not e.p.a., that we increase e-10 to e-15 to ten our investment in renewable fuel for the economy. raising the limit will accelerate the use of renewable fuels made in the u.s. we're not importing this oil, mr. chairman. we're lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil and encouraging continued investment in research in advanced biofuels like celulosic ethanol as well. raising the limit will grow our economy here in the u.s., create about 136,000 jobs in the united states.

mr. latham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. latham: i thank the gentleman from georgia for the time. mr. speaker, what a difference a new congress makes. we have seen in the last four years, on the appropriations committee, a lack of any kind of transparent, open process. this last year on the other side of the aisle when they were in control they didn't even pass a budget, a blueprint for spending. and that's why this year, mr. speaker, we have a $1.65 trillion deficit. one year, $1.65 trillion. we can't continue. the president's budget that he brought up which is not just dead on arrival it's debt on arrival, what this says is that we are going to double the privately held national debt another $7 trillion. this is not fiscal restraint. this is not sanity. i have four grandchildren. and the reason i'm here is to make sure that they have a future. we cannot continue this outrageous spending that's going on in washington. when you look at this bill that we are talking about on the floor, $100 billion off the president's proposal

mr. latham: i thank the chairman. this amendment clearly limits consumer choice. it's just another attack on our nation's progress to try and achieve energy security, the technology he's trying to prohibit basically would allow individuals to have a choice as to whether -- what percentage blend they'd want, whether e-10, e-30, e-15, e-85, whatever suits their best needs or their affordability and their performance and gas mileage. . it would make us dependent long-term on foreign oil because you are going to limit the choices that are there and without the blender pumps that he wants to prohibit, most americans are left with just one option and that's the e-10. if we continue to limit the amount of ethanol we can use -- you can be be holden to foreign sources of energy and importing more oil. i urge my colleagues to vote against this. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: this is not a choice at all and have to end it and has been a boondoggle and let's vote for this amendment. i yield back

mr. latham from iowa. mr. latham: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate very much what's going on and the reduction of spending. i'm just very concerned that this is not really a thoughtful way of doing it, that if we're after waste, fraud, and abuse in our budget thinks going to cripple us farce finding out where those places are. it will continue to fund items, lines in the budget that have waste, fraud, and abuse and will not eliminate those. also when you look at just the transportation portion, i think the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. olver brugget the point up too, but this would stop air crask -- air traffic control for a period of weeks and i don't think many of us here would like to see our airports closed down for several weeks because we don't have air traffic control. that's exactly what would happen. so i appreciate, thank you very much to the gentleman for yielding. mr. dicks: i yield to the gentlelady from missouri the chairman of the financial services appropriations subcommit

mr. latham: the amendment is not in order under section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5, 112th congress which states, it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered enlock with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: any other members wish to be heard on the point of order? if not, the chair will rule. the gentleman from iowa makes a point of order the amendment offered from the gentleman from new york violates section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. section 3-j-3 establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. the chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate of the chair on the committee on the budget the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore,