Hudson River Valley Special Resource Study Act

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. CHAFFETZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Act establishes and authorizes funding for two programs, one of which has been a total creature of appropriations earmarks.

There are two simple and compelling arguments for why I am opposed to this legislation: first, it spends too much money that our government just doesn't have, and it singles out two of the more than one dozen NOAA education programs for special treatment when the entire effort is subject to a top-to-bottom review.

The Capps substitute amendment provides authorized spending levels that provide a 10 percent increase each year for 5 years. The Federal Government and American taxpayers simply cannot afford to increase spending by 10 percent year after year. What American gets a 10 percent pay raise every year? What small business is guaranteed 10 percent more in sales or 10 percent growth? None. And this government program should not be promised such lavish increases.

Now, we are told that they have compromised on these spending levels, that the new amounts are lower than in the bill that was first introduced last year. And it can be acknowledged that they have floated this bloated spending balloon a little lower, but it is still sailing high up in the clouds of out-of-control spending. It needs to come all the way down out of the sky and face the harsh realities of the ground down here. Our Nation is running record Federal budget deficits and the national debt is at historic levels, some $12-plus trillion.

We are paying over $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. We need to put a stop to bills like this that just make the problem worse.

It is especially troubling that the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee didn't allow the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington, to offer an amendment that would have frozen spending at the amount being spent this year. Apparently, giving a government program the same amount next year as they got this year is a concept the Democrats believe is so radical and dangerous that they don't even want Members of the House to vote on it, which isn't surprising these days. And this despite what the President has said, that he wants a spending freeze.

Now, it's not just Republicans that are objecting to these high levels of spending on these two programs. In President Obama's own budget proposal that he sent up to Congress in February, he proposed giving zero funding to one of these two programs included in this bill and giving less than half as much to the other one. President Obama has proven time and time again he doesn't have a problem with massive spending increases; and, yet, even he believes Congress is spending too much on these programs.

The second fundamental objection that I expressed with this bill is it is trying to write into law special funding and treatment for just two out of many of NOAA's education programs, when the entire effort is subject to top-to-bottom review.

NOAA itself is looking into how to best conduct its education program. The agency contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to review and critique NOAA's entire education effort. That study was just completed 2 weeks ago after more than 2 years of work. Just 2 weeks ago, this report came out. The American taxpayer spent over $1 million producing this report, and despite this nearly 200-page document just being delivered into our hands, this House is apparently ready to ignore the work and recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences by moving this bill and voting on it today.

If Congress is going to ignore the National Academy of Sciences report and was going to tell NOAA which education programs it was going to pick and choose to authorize, we could have saved the National Academy a lot of time, and we could have saved the taxpayers over $1 million.

This bill needs to be sent back to the drawing board so that spending levels can be cut back and so the National Academy of Sciences report can be taken into consideration. Until the changes are made, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and the substitute amendment.

I would also like to note, Madam Speaker, that to suggest that the administration fully supports this bill, I think, is a mischaracterization of the facts. In fact, testimony was given that ``we also note that NOAA supports education and outreach programs in the Office of Education and throughout NOAA's line offices. The authorization levels of H.R. 3644 could divert funding from these other programs.'' That should be noted as Members consider this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman from California 2 additional minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am a freshman here. I didn't create this mess, but I am here to help clean it up. And to suggest this is the direction we should go, I thought the campaign they said was about change. I thought we were going to try to raise the bar in this institution, but evidently not.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I guess that's the fundamental challenge. I don't want to live in his world. And I don't want the people of the United States to have to live in his world. That's the fundamental difference in the approach that's dealing with this health care bill. We have an opportunity in this country to do the right thing. I think the more the people of the United States of America have gotten to know this health care bill, the less they like it. The more sunshine that's shown on this, the less they like it. Only in the United States of America can you spend a trillion dollars and it's not going to add to the deficit when we're already $12 trillion into debt. This bill that we're considering here today will add to that debt. Even the President didn't even ask money for this program.

We can't even take care of our seniors in this country or our veterans. We have a Veterans Administration, and I have soldiers in the State of Utah that are trying get care and services, yet we got a notice recently from the Veterans Administration saying, Don't even bother applying because we have such a backlog of people. The American people understand this. They understand how deep our deficit and our debt is. They understand how irresponsible the health care bill is and what a detriment it's going to be to this Nation and this country. And I would challenge Members to try to articulate what this bill is even going to do. There's some 158 programs, and administrations, and departments, and boards. Somebody stand up and try to articulate what's going to happen--not what it's going to do, but how is it going to work? Because I don't think there's anybody in this body that can actually answer, How is it going to work?

Now going back specifically to this bill that we're considering here today. Again, I want to reiterate the point, Madam Speaker, that we spent a million dollars coming up with a study from the National Academy of Sciences and just totally ignored it. Two hundred pages, 2 years of work, and yet because we've got to fill some time here so we can get to health care--they don't even want Members to go home for the weekend--we're going to throw up this bill prematurely. Why are we ignoring this report?

I want to highlight a couple of things that are said in here. This is from that National Academy of Sciences report recommendation 1:2: ``In order to adequately address the mismatch between its available resources and its ambitious education agenda, NOAA should better align and deploy its resources. This may require the termination of certain activities and programs that, based on appropriate evaluation, do not directly and effectively contribute to its education and stewardship goals.

``NOAA's role in education is shaped by the distributed nature of its education efforts across five line offices and the Office of Education. Because of their diverse missions, the line offices . . . and the Office of Education can act independently and sometimes even in competition with each other.''

Further, ``The differences in management structures, missions, and education mandates are obstacles to creating a cohesive and coordinated education portfolio.''

At a time when we are paying over $600 million a day just in interest, we have a debt that exceeds $12 trillion, close to a $1 trillion new health care proposal that's moving forward, some how, some way, the Democrats want to offer a bill that gives an automatic increase year after year. Ten percent. Just keep adding 10 percent to it over the next 5 years. I think that is fundamentally wrong.

Now the ranking member of Natural Resources, Doc Hastings, offered an amendment that said, Let's just keep the funding level flat. That is a simple, reasonable proposal. But somehow the Rules Committee couldn't find it in their heart to allow Members to vote on it.

Please, don't come here and lecture to somebody and say, Oh, we're about openness and transparency. We're about change in America. I don't buy it. You're not living up to it. You have the opportunity to do the right thing--and you consistently don't. You consistently offend the American people and offend me. I'm a freshman here. I didn't create this mess. I don't want to hear about how the Republicans messed up, because you know what? They had the House and the Senate and the Presidency and they did blow it. I'll be the first one to stand here and point criticism to them. But if we're going to rise to the level that this body demands, then we need to raise the bar and start acting like adults. Vote on what we're supposed to vote for. Be open and transparent. Allow a rule that will come to this floor and make America proud. Let people without the disguise and the nuances. That is within your power, and yet it's not being done. And it's not being done consistently. There are a lot of people here that are fed up with it. I'm one of them. It's disgusting what you're doing. It is disgusting. And I think you know it.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I'll reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers, but I will continue to reserve the balance of my time, unless you're prepared to close.

Sunday, Bloody Sunday. Can't wait.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time as we have no further requests for time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do think we should go back and review history. The reality of this bill is the fact that it spends nearly $1 trillion, and the reason you can try to say that it's deficit-neutral or reduces the deficit is because it raises taxes. Only in America do you try to get away with saying, Hey, we're going to spend nearly $1 trillion, and by the way, it's not going to hurt the deficit. And let's also go back and review history and understand that during that time you like to tout when President Clinton was in office, the reality is that the debt continued to increase. There was a reduction in the annual deficit, and a Republican Congress was in charge. It is the Congress of the United States of America that originates spending. So let's also make sure that we're fair on that point as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there are several concerns with this. In fact, in the bill there are several good programs and things of quality that I would applaud, but there are some basic fundamental flaws that put me in a position, and others in a position, where we are unable to support this amendment and the overall bill.

First of all, it addresses simply two programs within a list of 16 that are found within NOAA's education programs and supporting offices. Further, you see, and actually Jared Polis, a colleague of ours, had a Dear Colleague letter talking about Environmental Protection Agency educational programs. I don't think it has been addressed how cohesive or incohesive it might be between the overlap and what might be happening or not happening. I don't think that has been properly ferreted out.

Now through some foresight in previous Congresses here, the National Academy of Sciences was tasked with a 2-year study to go out and look at what is going on over at NOAA and what their recommendations are. We have spent, as American taxpayers, over a million dollars to get this report, and yet it seems to be totally ignored. Why does this Congress continue to spend money on worthless reports if the Members are going to simply ignore them and say, Oh, well, these are my two pet projects; and, by the way, let's go ahead and give them 10 percent increases year after year after year?

Is there no recognition that this country is over $12 trillion in debt?

We are paying over $600 million a day in interest on the debt, and yet we continue to fund these programs at record

levels, and giving them amazingly high increases without recognition of the fact that this body has got to make difficult decisions.

We can't be all things to all people. We are going to have to make some difficult decisions in this body. And to what is this body actually going to say ``no''? Where do we actually turn around and say, No. You know what; we are this far in debt and, I'm sorry, we just can't increase the funding for another educational program?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

America gets it, what is happening with this health care bill. America gets it. They understand. The Peoria-based Caterpillar just announcing that in the first year alone they believe their costs will increase $100 million in their first year. I would like to read a quote from Caterpillar, Mr. Gregory Folley, the vice president and chief human resources officer at Caterpillar. Quote, ``We can ill afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors. We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns that we have raised throughout the year.''

Wasn't it the President of the United States that traveled to Peoria to go visit Caterpillar to tout all these great programs he was going to do? And yet Caterpillar, one of our most important manufacturers in this country, is saying they alone will have $100 million in additional costs to their company. I fear for the small businessman and the small businesswoman, while it is touted on the other side, we're going to put root beer in every drinking fountain and it's just going to be glorious, and somehow this $900-plus billion isn't going to add to the deficit. Come on. Come on. Who believes that?

This government can't get anything right when it comes to cost. That is why we are $12 trillion in debt. That is why we are paying over $660 million a day just in interest. At some point we have to become responsible. We can no longer take money out of the American people's pockets only to redistribute it to where the Congress thinks it should go. That is wrong. It is wrong. It is not the proper role of government to mandate this.

These solutions to health care will best come at the States. They will not come from this body, they will not come from Washington, D.C. And we have to have across this country for people to let their Members of Congress know they are not going to stand up for it anymore. Caterpillar is standing up and saying $100 million. Who do you think that is going to affect? It is going to affect the rank and file, the members there in Illinois who may not have a job anymore.

The number one thing we can do to actually help people with their health care is get this economy, get jobs going again, because I guarantee if you have a job, you have much more of a propensity to be able to go out and get the health care that you want and you deserve.

Yet today we are looking at a bill and the other side is saying, we need to spend money on this education program and we're going to increase its spending, its costs, 10 percent year after year after year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, one of the things we are going to have to be careful with this health care debate is trading votes for jobs. Let's keep an eye on Mr. Gordon, where it was reported that he was promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote. Maybe we ought to pay attention to Mr. Tanner, who it was reported that he wants an appointment as U.S. Ambassador to NATO in exchange for his vote.

I hope we pay very close attention to these types of backroom deals that unfortunately might be happening in this very body.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake to the Amendment in the Nature of a

Substitute Offered by Mrs. Capps

I have nothing to say.

I think it's important that we pay attention to those types of things. This is no doubt an emotional, deep debate.

As I said, it's something that we should be aware of. It's something that we should pay attention to. I think that's fair. We'll pay attention to it.

I appreciate your comments and the direction that you're going. You've had a great and distinguished career. We applaud you for that. I appreciate your service in this Congress, the work that we've done together. But I think it's fair that we pay attention to what might or might not be happening.

I have no reason to doubt your word.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its current form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has to get control of spending. We're $12 trillion in debt. We're spending more than $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. At some point, some way, we're going to have to curb spending in this body. This bill authorizes a 10 percent increase every year for the 5 years covered in this bill. This is just too much. This motion to recommit does three very simple things.

First, it freezes funding in the bill to fiscal year 2010 appropriated amounts for the next 5 years--a very reasonable approach. This means that what these programs are getting this year is what they will get next year. No 10 percent increases. Just flat funding. In fact, I would remind this body that it was President Obama that asked for a spending freeze. I concur with the President on this issue in this matter. This Federal Government has to learn to live within its means.

Second, this motion to recommit would prohibit any entity from receiving a grant under this bill if it is currently suing the Federal Government. This bill allows both nonprofit and for-profit organizations to qualify for grants. The amendment simply disqualifies any of those that have a lawsuit against NOAA. Groups can't expect the American taxpayer to allow them to accept free money with one hand while taking the government to court on the other hand. The grant program in this bill shouldn't be allowed to become an avenue for subsidizing or enabling lawsuits that tie up the courts and waste the taxpayers' money.

Third, it expands the list of areas for which environmental literacy grants may be given. This legislation authorizes two educational programs aimed at teaching young people about the coastal and marine environment, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute adds language that will include lessons about jobs that are created by using the natural resources and the benefits of our coastal economies. However, the legislation does not include one more issue that affects some areas of our coastal environment--natural seepage.

In many areas of our Nation's coastline, natural seeps of oil and natural gas occur. This is common in the Gulf of Mexico, but probably nowhere more prevalent than in the areas off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. The educational programs authorized in this legislation are perfect vehicles to teach our young people about these naturally-occurring petroleum seeps--that they do exist, and they can have an effect on our beaches and our coastal air quality. The program proposed here will offer an opportunity to educate our communities and children about the cause of these seeps and the ability of resources and energy development to lessen the volume and impact of these natural seeps into our environment.

Again, this motion to recommit simply will freeze funding at the current year appropriated levels; block groups that have a lawsuit against NOAA from receiving grant money; and expand the range of grants to include the impacts of oil seeps on our beaches and marine environment. I would urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1192, I call up the bill (H.R. 3644) to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish education and watershed programs which advance environmental literacy, including preparedness and adaptability for the likely impacts of climate change in coastal watershed regions, as amended, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members that may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3644.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my legislation, H.R. 3644, which I introduced on September 24, 2009.

Madam Speaker, in California, we are often inundated with reports of the impacts of climate change, overfishing, wildfires and droughts. Such reports may frighten or dampen a child's innate curiosity and wonder of the natural environment. Fortunately, we have found that connecting children to their environment through hands-on experiences offers an effective way to overcome these challenges.

Over the past 7 years, two NOAA education programs, the Bay-Watershed Education and Training regional program, or as it's known, B-WET, and the Environmental Literacy Grants, or ELG, programs, have been critical tools in advancing a nationwide strategy of experiential education in building ocean, atmospheric and environmental awareness in the United States.

In my district, the MERITO program, which has been funded through the California B-WET program for the past 4 years, has allowed hundreds of children to enjoy the benefits of hands-on, bilingual ocean conservation experiences with trained scientists and professionals in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.

Many of these children have taken their first trips to the beach under this MERITO program, even though they may live only a few miles away. According to the testimonials of their parents and their teachers, it has given many of them a new awareness of their local environment and their community and opened the world of new opportunities that they now know they can pursue.

Madam Speaker, my bill, H.R. 3644, seeks to formally authorize these two innovative and important NOAA education programs that were established through the annual appropriations process so we can ensure that they are here for our children now and in the future. It also ensures that certain standards and criteria for positive implementation are met by the agency when they spend these funds. To me, this represents a responsible oversight effort on the part of our committee to exercise our proper duties.

Madam Speaker, these programs have been well received by the ocean and environmental literacy communities, and in fact, since the ELG program was initiated in 2005, the demand for ELG grants has been 10 times greater than the available funding.

Each program has gathered significant momentum and prominence since the Congress passed the America COMPETES Act in 2007, which elevated and enhanced NOAA's educational mission. A recent report released by the National Academy of Sciences also commends both programs for their positive contributions to increase student interest in science and to improve awareness of the ocean and coastal environment.

H.R. 3644 is fully supported by the administration. The legislation is also strongly supported by the Campaign for Environmental Literacy. This is a coalition of nearly 60 national, regional and local private and non-profit organizations; and they represent science, education, conservation, outdoor recreation and zoological parks, including the National Wildlife Federation, American Fisheries Society, the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, to name just a few.

At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which reflects a bipartisan compromise to address the concerns raised by my colleague and my friend, Congressman Cassidy of Louisiana, during the markup of this bill by the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Speaker, in closing, the B-WET and ELG programs are both effective, wildly popular, and in great demand by educators around the country. These programs represent two critical investments in our efforts to connect children to their natural world and, hopefully as a result, inspire their interest in the sciences and in ensuring the future of their coastal communities. We should recognize their importance today by passing this legislation and codify them as formal programs within NOAA.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

At this point I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I'd like now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Madam Speaker, could I again inquire of the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on this topic, I want to spend a couple of minutes responding to some claims from the other side. First with respect to the authorization levels, Congress is already investing in both of these programs under discussion today through the appropriations process. The authorized funding levels contained in my bipartisan compromise amendment were based upon existing appropriations and allow for the continuation and measured growth of both programs, which are in high demand by educators nationwide. They were negotiated with my colleague Mr. Cassidy, and I do appreciate his efforts.

My bill would authorize the programs that Congress is already spending money on and makes sure that certain standards and criteria for implementation are met by the agency when they do spend these funds. To me, this represents a responsible effort on the part of our committee and our Congress to exercise our oversight function.

Second, with respect to the argument that we should not consider this legislation because we need time to study the recommendations from the NAS evaluation of NOAA's education program, it is true that the National Academy of Science report on NOAA's education program was released last week. Nothing in the report, however, was specifically critical of either the B-WET or ELG programs. And because of this, this report should have no bearing on my legislation to codify both programs.

Indeed, the NAS' National Research Council panel found that over the relatively short lives of both programs, they have made positive contributions to fulfill NOAA's educational mission and that they reflect well the agency's diverse capabilities in science, resource stewardship, and education.

In short, these are both very good programs with broad support from more than 60 science education, outdoor recreation, and conservation organizations. By authorizing them, we ensure money already being spent is spent well and responsibly. I urge all Members to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment in the nature of a substitute reflects changes to the bill, as ordered reported by the Committee on Natural Resources, that, as I mentioned, were negotiated between myself and Congressman Cassidy of Louisiana. I wish to thank Mr. Cassidy and his staff for their cooperation and thoughtful suggestions to improve this bill, and I think that the final bipartisan compromise does just that.

In particular, the amendment makes several changes to reflect the significant economic importance of coastal areas and resources to the overall economy of the United States.

As a Representative of a coastal district, I could not agree more that the economic health and viability of our coastal communities is intrinsically connected to the health of the natural resources of the watersheds in which we live. You cannot have one without the other. In addition, my amendment will authorize a gradual increase in authorized appropriations for fiscal years 2011 through 2015. This modest annual increase of 10 percent will allow for the responsible expansion of both programs to incorporate new regions that are not currently served, particularly by the regional B-WET programs.

I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana for his leadership on this front. Both of our districts enjoy the benefits of the regional B-WET programs, and we would like to see those benefits extended to other watersheds around the country where, I can assure you, there is an overwhelming demand. Mr. Speaker, the changes reflected in this amendment serve to strengthen the overall purposes of this bill. I would like once more to thank Congressman Cassidy and his staff for their work on these revisions, and I do encourage support of my colleague's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who is the pioneer in the area of coastal education.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Madam Speaker, as I close my discussion of this amendment, let me remark that over the past 7 years these two programs, the environmental and coastal programs have cumulatively introduced millions of students to unique hands-on learning experiences. The National Academy of Sciences report that was requested by NOAA, not by Congress, reaffirms that each program has increased student interest in science, increased teacher capabilities to instruct science, and increased awareness and appreciation of the environment.

So I urge Members to support the amendment and the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for offering his amendment to ensure that funds appropriated to support the implementation of the B- WET and the ELG programs are not earmarked. One of the primary purposes of this legislation is to finally codify these programs as permanent educational programs within NOAA's larger educational initiative so that they can be incorporated into NOAA's base budget. In addition, this legislation will establish the purposes and policies of both programs, which should improve the ability of Congress to conduct its oversight to ensure that they remain effective and accountable.

As it now stands, funds appropriated for these programs are not earmarked to benefit any one institution, but rather funds are distributed through regional programs or NOAA's education office through merit-based competitive processes. While this amendment will prohibit the earmarking of funds appropriated to implement both programs, it should have little direct effect on how B-WET or ELG grants are awarded in the future because, as the history of the programs demonstrates, funds have always been awarded competitively.

Consequently, we can accept this amendment even though it is unnecessary, and thank the gentleman from Arizona for his interest in maintaining merit-based and competitive grant making for both programs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, could I inquire what time there is remaining on this side?

At this point I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee, the chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Gordon.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, may I go back to the underlying legislation, which is H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal, and Watershed Educational Act. This is an educational program for children. They are not qualified to do natural resource surveys or to assess the impacts of oil seep. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, does not have jurisdiction over air quality and the mitigation of impacts. That would fall under jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The proposal to level fund the program was rejected in the Natural Resources Committee and by the Rules Committee. The modest increases in this bill were negotiated with my colleague, Mr. Cassidy, in the Natural Resources Committee, in a very bipartisan discussion with negotiations that we made between the two sides, and I urge Members to oppose this motion and support the underlying bill.

I remind my colleagues that these programs have a track record of being grant-making programs under NOAA for several years, and in all the places where they are currently being enacted, they are very popular. At a time when our public schools are being inundated with funding decreases and cuts and at a time when we're so concerned about the availability of our young people to learn the basics in science and math, this is a hands-on experience that they can have. It is an educational program that helps them appreciate their environment and take good care of it. We have 10 more applicants for every grant that's been available. So we made this modest agreement in a bipartisan way to increase over time by a very small amount the amount of money that can be available under this program through NOAA. I would hope that we would all get back to the basics of the legislation, oppose the motion to recommit, and support this underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to echo some of the comments that have already been made here. There seems to be no recognition at all that we have a $12 trillion debt. We are paying $600 million a day to service the debt that we have, and yet we are going to be adding, this bill authorizes $23.9 million just in FY 2011. That is more than the President has recommended for all of the education programs at NOAA. He has recommended that we zero some out, but we have doubled down and said let's increase, by a factor of 100 percent, everything we are doing over there in terms of education.

The gentleman from Utah pointed out that we commission these reports, and then they come back to us and we simply don't follow their recommendations. It has been pointed out that they weren't criticizing the programs that we are actually plussing up funding for; but mark my words, when the President's recommendations come to Congress to zero out some of these programs, we will ignore them and say we can't zero out those programs just because a report says they are not working.

I remember one that we dealt with a while ago. I think it was the DARE program. We commissioned a report, and it came back and said this program is not working at all. It is not delivering the benefits that you say should be delivered. What did we do? I think we doubled funding for it that year instead of saying, all right, recognizing maybe we are not spending money wisely, let's not spend it. Let's pay down the deficit a little or pay down the debt. Let's not increase the deficit. And yet we get these reports, we throw them on a shelf, and we never see them again. That is not the proper oversight we should be doing.

Congress, as we have been going through this earmark debate, we hear Congress say that we are jealously guarding our congressional prerogative. We have the power of the purse; we have the power to earmark. We do have the power of the purse. We have the power to appropriate; and what bothers me more than anything is we spend so much time on the 1 percent we earmark and ignore the other 99 percent that is spent by the Federal agencies. Instead of offering true oversight, and when we get reports saying programs don't work, then following those reports and say, We are not going to fund these programs any more, instead, we plus up year after year after year until our deficits are exploding and our debt is exploding. We cannot continue to do this. We cannot continue to go on this path.

I will be offering an amendment in a couple of minutes that will simply say that none of the programs that are authorized in this bill should be earmarked. That is a start, because often we will establish these competitive grant programs and, within a couple of years, they are all filled up with congressional earmarks and no one can even compete. I assume that amendment will be adopted. That is a good first start.

Still, we have to look at the overall impact of what we are doing here. We are spending $23.9 million, and the total over 10 years is $150 billion or so that we are authorizing in new spending, every dime of which we spend we are borrowing. We have a deficit of over a trillion dollars. We have deficits as far as the eye can see. We are scheduled to triple the debt just in a few years, and yet we are authorizing new programs, more spending, to add to this deficit that we already have. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to do this.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chair. I just have to say something about the discussion that just went on. I guess only in this body can it be said that we are going to spend nearly a trillion dollars and pay down the deficit somehow, or pay down the debt over 10 years. When the CBO was figuring the savings or costs of this document, the health care bill, they have to assume what Congress says it will do, Congress will actually do. In this bill I think we are saying that we are going to be cutting $500 billion out of Medicare. Now, who among us really believes that will happen? I can tell you nobody out there does. Nobody really believes that will happen. It wouldn't happen if we managed the bill on our side and said we were going to do it or on the other side of the aisle. But CBO has to score it as if we are going to follow through on our promises.

That is the problem you get into in believing some kind of CBO score that says we are going to pay down the debt over 10 years by spending a trillion dollars more. Now, you can say we are going to increase taxes, but you don't really want to say that. But there is a lot of that in here as well. So I would just encourage anybody who is watching this debate to actually look at the argument here. It is being said that we are going to pay down the debt by nearly a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, or over a trillion dollars, by spending another trillion dollars. That may make sense to us here, but it shouldn't make sense to anybody else.

On the substance of this amendment, this amendment should be noncontroversial. This similar amendment has been adopted on a bipartisan basis on other programs that we have authorized. This bill before us, H.R. 3644, is to establish education and watershed programs that advance environmental literacy. This bill creates a competitive grant program titled the National Environmental Literacy Grant Program. This amendment would simply ensure that the new grant program is not earmarked by Members of Congress in the future.

Unfortunately, we talk a lot about getting control over earmarks. There are proposals before the Congress this year, gratefully, on the Republican side to have an overall moratorium, and on the Democratic side to at least restrict earmarks somewhat. I hope we follow through on these. But it is good to adopt these kind of amendments to these kind of bills to ensure that grant programs that are established, if we are going to fund them, they should go for their intended purpose.

The problem is too often in the past when grant programs like this have been established, then they are simply earmarked by Members of Congress, and those hoping to apply for those grants in the future simply have no money in the account to draw on.

Let me give a couple examples. FEMA's National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program is a competitive grant program that was designed to, quote, ``save lives and reduce property damage by providing funds for hazard mitigation planning, acquisition, and relocation of structures out of the floodplain.'' The fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security appropriations bill appropriated $100 million for the program. Almost $25 million of that was earmarked for projects in Members' districts. That meant that only three-quarters of the money was available. Believe me, go a couple years in the future and all of that money will likely be gone because Members of Congress have earmarked it.

In some cases, these projects are earmarked when the applicant has applied for the grant and didn't get it. The grant wasn't deemed worthy, and so the Member of Congress steps in and simply earmarks it. There may have been a good reason why it wasn't deemed worthy.

But the thing is if we are going to establish these programs as competitive grant programs, then we better either trust the agencies that they are going to do it right or we provide the proper oversight to ensure that they do, instead of running a parallel track program where we Members of Congress say, they don't do it right over there in the agency so we're going to do that ourselves. That is not proper oversight. That is just handing out Federal largesse. And we shouldn't be doing that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Can I inquire as to the time remaining?

I thank the Chair, and I thank the gentlelady for agreeing to support the amendment. It is important that we ensure if we are going to establish these programs--I don't think we ought to establish them, frankly. I think we are overspent, we are overtaxed. We shouldn't put this additional burden. But if we are going to do it, certainly we ought to ensure that it goes to its intended purpose. That is what this amendment is for. I thank all for supporting the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to express also my deep appreciation and gratitude to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Nick Rahall, for working with me to move this important piece of legislation. I also would like to thank Chairman Grijalva and the staff of the Natural Resources Committee for all the support and guidance throughout this process.

I would like to mention that there are no restrictions in the context of this legislation for any of the things that were just mentioned. None whatsoever. In fact, all of those kinds of activities will be enhanced and encouraged and be much more easy to achieve

and more beneficial to the communities.

H.R. 4003 would authorize the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of the Hudson River Valley to evaluate the area's national significance and determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the area as a unit of the National Park System, a unit of the National Park System, not a national park.

This legislation is cosponsored by each of the Members whose district is within the proposed study area. And that in and of itself of course is very interesting. They have garnered strong support locally. Twenty- four local organizations have already endorsed the bill, and I expect to see that there will be more in the coming weeks and months.

The Hudson River Valley is one of the most significant river corridors in our country. The historical, natural, cultural, commercial, scenic, and recreational resources spread throughout the region, and in the way they do so they are absolutely unparalleled. The Hudson River Valley's landscapes are known around the world. In fact, the beauty of these great landscapes inspired the first and one of America's great artistic movements, the Hudson River school of art. Painters such as Thomas Cole and Frederic Church immortalized the region's scenery for generations to come. These works and others inspired the American preservationist movement and the movement to establish in our country national parks.

Today the region is home to a rich and sensitive ecosystem that also affords ample recreational opportunities, including hiking, canoeing, and other activities. One of the most recent additions is the Walkway Over the Hudson. Initially a rail bridge that was considered a marvel of the Industrial Revolution, it was abandoned in the 1970s following a fire on one of the trains that went across that bridge at that time. It recently was restored and reopened, however, over the course of this past October, and it is now the longest and highest pedestrian overpass in the United States. It is a remarkable bridge, where people get enormous amounts of joy walking across it, over a mile across it, and give them an opportunity to get a sense of the Hudson River Valley looking north and south as they walk across this marvelous now Walkway Over the Hudson.

From a historical perspective, the Hudson River Valley has played a central role in our Nation's narrative and our Nation's development. In 1609, of course, Henry Hudson first sailed up the river that now bears his name. And we just recently celebrated the 400th anniversary of that very important trip. During the American Revolution, the region bore witness to events that determined the course of that Revolutionary War and the establishment of the freedom and independence of our Nation.

In the 19th century, the Hudson River Valley helped foster the American Industrial Revolution and became one of the commercial corridors of our country. In 1807, Robert Fulton piloted the first successful steamboat voyage up the river. Later in the century, the Hudson and its estuary, the Mohawk River, connected the Nation's greatest port, New York City, with the entire western section of the United States through the Erie Canal network and the central Great Lakes. In the last century, the region was home to Franklin Delano Roosevelt at Hyde Park. Later, the region gave birth to the modern environmental and labor movements.

Preserving and promoting the Hudson River Valley's resources has been a top priority for me dating back to my time in the New York State Assembly. While in the State legislature, I authorized legislation to lead to the creation of the Hudson River Valley Greenway, creating a process for voluntary regional cooperation among 264 communities within 13 counties that border the Hudson River on both sides, east and west. When I came to the Congress, I authorized legislation that led to the designation of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, which provides technical assistance to local communities or local managers to assist them in managing natural and historic sites of national importance up and down the Hudson River. These designations have provided tremendous benefits to the Hudson Valley region, but it is clear that more can be done to protect, preserve, and promote the area's unique resources and its dramatic contribution to the historic development of the United States.

I believe an enhanced National Park Service presence is warranted completely and would have a tremendously positive impact on our local economy while at the same time preserving and protecting the region's resources. The authorization of this special resource study will begin that process.

Just to be clear, no one believes the Hudson River Valley should be turned into a Yellowstone-type park. That would make no sense for the region. In fact, I firmly believe that any eventual park unit designation should and will protect private property rights and that local governments should retain local control of land-use decisions involving all of the property up and down the Hudson River that is not Federal property. There are civil existing park units, such as the Mississippi River and recreation area, a little bit we have heard about just recently, which fit these criteria and could be models for our region.

I believe the study should examine these models and the positive impact they have had on their local economies.

Passage of this bill and the subsequent study would position the Hudson River Valley to gain the full attention of the National Park Service for all of the significant and substantial historic contributions this region has made to the development, establishment, and the continuation of the United States, as well as for the area's pristine natural beauty.

For all of these reasons and more, we are offering this Hudson River Valley Special Resource Study Act, and we have gained enormous support from everyone who has heard about it internally here within the Government of the United States, but even more importantly, widespread endorsements of this up and down the Hudson River Valley, north and south and east and west.

And so I offer this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, once again, we have a bill which has a wonderful name with a wonderful purpose; but it appears that we are forgetting the fact that we're broke. As I understand this bill, this will be a 10 percent increase per year for 5 years for this education program.

I don't know any school district in my district that is going to be able to increase their funding by 10 percent per year for the next 5 years. My State of California, we are broke. I don't know where we're going to get funding. At some point in time, the American people are going to ask us, do you ever connect your responsibilities with fiscal responsibility? And because this is a good idea that we want people to be educated on environmental matters, particularly dealing with the ocean, with the coastline and with watershed, do we just throw out the idea, throw off the table the idea that maybe we ought to be fiscally responsible, or do we ignore it? Similarly, we are probably going to deal with a bill this weekend that throws out the idea that we need to do something to fix some of the problems in our health care system, but apparently we just say, forget the costs.

We also appear to be saying, forget the rules. And we are also apparently saying with respect to that, forget the Constitution. Oh, by the way, the bill that I understand we are going to be presented with later this weekend is entitled this: An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time home buyers credit in the case of Members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.

Now, that doesn't sound like the health care bill, does it? And there is a reason for it. Once again, we have forgotten about transparency and, I would say, responsibility, because the Constitution of the United States says that all revenue-raising measures must start with the House of Representatives.

Now, why would the Founding Fathers say that? It is because they realized the tremendous power of reaching into the pocket of an individual citizen

and taking their money by way of taxes for, presumably, good programs. But because that power is so immense, the Founding Fathers believed that that power should reside initially in the House of Representatives because we are to be more responsive to our constituency, by way of going before them once every 2 years for election or reelection, as opposed to the Senate, which only does one-third of their membership and Members have 6 years before they have to go back to their constituency.

So what does that have to do with the bill that I just mentioned? Well, there was this bill dealing with the first-time homebuyers credit, in the case of the Armed Forces, that started in the Ways and Means Committee, passed out of the House, went over to the Senate. And what they did was they took the title of the bill, and--at least I can find nothing left of the bill that came from here over there--they gutted the bill and replaced it with this 2,000-plus-page health care bill.

Technically, they are complying with the Constitution, but they are violating the spirit of the Constitution, which said that revenue- raising bills--and this is a super-revenue-raising bill--should start here.

Now, to compound that, we used to talk about something in the criminal law called compounding a felony. I will call it compounding a political felony. We now are told that that bill that didn't originate in the House as the constitutional Founders thought it should will now come to the House. But we won't really vote on it. We will vote on some other animal called a rule and thereby deem it to be passed.

So think what we are doing to the spirit of the Constitution. We are not starting this humongous bill in the House of Representatives. We have allowed it to be captured in a shell bill that went over to the Senate, and then, the additional indignity to our constituents is they will not have the opportunity for those of us duly elected to vote on the precise question that the Senate voted on.

Now, I heard a lot of talk about transparency. I heard a lot of talk about regaining the trust of the American people and regaining the confidence of the American people in their institutions, a lot of talk about us reestablishing the confidence of the American people in their institutions of government.

I would have to ask, if you were to make this a question for a fifth grade government class or a fifth grade U.S. history class as to whether or not that is the way in which you restore the confidence of the American people in their institutions of government. I suspect I know what the answer would be.

But of course we are not fifth graders. We are presumably adults around here. We have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. And while we might technically get around that requirement by following the letter of the Constitution, wouldn't it be better if we followed the spirit of the Constitution?

And so once again, Madam Speaker, we are presented in this case with a bill that sounds very good for a worthy cause but gives no consideration whatsoever to the ultimate cost to the American taxpayer because, in many cases, they are 2,000 and 3,000 miles away; they are not here. So out of sight, out of mind.

Oh, yes. And let's forget August. It didn't exist. And the people who were here have been described by some on this floor as un-American and not representative of the American people. I would suggest they are representative of the American people, and I would say that we, at some point in time, have to get away from our business as usual and get back to the people's business.

This would be a good place to start. I hope we will have a strong finish on that this weekend when we come to our senses and recognize that the bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, otherwise known as the takeover of medical care in this country, that we should come to our senses and say enough is enough.