To prohibit Federal funding of certain public radio programming, to provide for the transfer of certain public radio funds to reduce the public debt, and for other purposes.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairwoman, we are going to hear some opposition to the intent of this legislation, so let me share some thoughts about it.

Despite so much public support for allowing wild horses to remain wild, despite multiple scientific studies of their management that exposed poor analysis, fiscal waste, and no use of preventative methods, the BLM continues to use helicopters to round up and remove horses from the range and place them in long-term holding facilities. There are about 40,600 horses in these pens currently.

The most recently completed fiscal year holding costs accounted for $37 million out of a total wild horse and burro budget of $64 million. The average lifespan of a wild horse in captivity is about 30 years. Holding and maintaining one wild horse in these long-term facilities costs about $500 a year.

Last year, BLM received a 30 percent increase in their budget. Instead of using that to fix this broken wild horse management problem, they permanently removed another 10,000 wild horses and burros and put them into tax funded long-term holding pens.

BLM's approach has been enormously wasteful and misguided. Instead of capturing wild horses and holding them in pens for life, BLM should have already fully implemented a less costly, preventative, and more humane option, that of controlling herd size through contraception.

According to a study by the U.S. Geological Survey, the BLM could save up to $8 million a year with the implementation of herd reduction through birth control. It plans to use birth control for approximately 1,000 horses this year but will still round up and remove nearly 10,000 others they feel are ``excessive,'' in their words. At the same time, we have private citizens who are willing to use their own money to form public-private partnerships that will preserve these horses in the wild, promote economic activity, and reduce the cost to the Federal Government.

Instead of embracing these opportunities, such as Mrs. Pickens' generous plan, BLM has relied on procedural arguments to block such initiatives and maintain the status quo. That is why this amendment is important.

As we expanded into the West two centuries ago, we found millions of wild horses thriving on the American prairies and high deserts. They became part of our American heritage, helping us reach the West and develop and thrive as a nation. They have been our companions and our inspiration, but we have already destroyed too many of them.

The small herds that still run free symbolize our growth as a great nation. That is why Congress declared them protected in 1971. We said that they are entitled to the greatest protection possible, as they were fast disappearing from the American landscape. But rather than maintaining them in their natural state and allowing them to be free, we captured them, often causing harm and even death, and we contained them in these long-term holding facilities.

We had millions of wild horses at one time, now reduced to only 30,000 still living on the range. We have more in captivity than we have on the range. The fact is, it's time for the Bureau of Land Management to wake up, take this issue seriously, work with all the stakeholders to fix an unsustainable situation.

Mr. Burton's amendment is intended to make this point abundantly clear to the Bureau of Land Management, and that's why we accept this amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I object to the modification.

Madam Chair, in addition to its being a point of order, I think it should be noted that what we are talking about, nature and culture visitation, are huge industries, responsible for more than 3 million jobs.

The Park Service has a backlog in deferred maintenance of at least $6 billion. We can't be cutting construction. In fact, these funds enhance national parks, wildlife refuges, public lands, and create thousands of new jobs.

I would support, though, the motion that this is out of order and trust that it will be ruled as such.

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I withdraw the point of order, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, let me give this body the top 10 reasons to defeat this amendment.

Number one, these are not really taxpayer dollars. The money comes from oil drilling receipts.

Number two, this amendment represents a complete elimination of a bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years.

The third reason is that this amendment will eliminate all the land and water conservation funding, even the few dollars remaining under the continuing resolution for management of these programs.

The fourth reason is that this amendment would force land management agencies to end all the work on congressionally approved projects that are now underway using previous-year appropriations. It will hurt willing seller landowners by preventing agencies from finishing out commitments that are already in place.

The fifth reason is that many landowners, ranging from elderly widowers and family trusts to ranchers and forest owners, have pressing financial needs that now depend on completion of these ongoing land and water conservation projects.

The sixth reason is that by eviscerating the Land and Water Conservation Fund, you are going to cause severe impacts on many others as well, including schoolchildren in the State of Wyoming. The amendment will bring to an immediate halt the negotiated agreement between the State of Wyoming and the National Park Service to transfer $107 million of school trust lands to Grand Teton National Park. Without the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the State can't meet its mandate to sell those lands and generate revenue to support its educational system.

The seventh reason is that the amendment would frustrate land exchanges that are currently in process, many of which have been years in the making and are important for local private economic development and public land management.

The eighth reason, under this amendment, the staff wouldn't be in place to even accept and process donations of important natural historic and other properties from the public.

The ninth reason is that, without staff, right-of-way work to provide or maintain access for key public needs would be rendered impossible. The public would be unable to secure critically needed routes for fuel and wildfire management, watershed management, and access for sportsmen and other recreational use.

The tenth reason is that the amendment would exacerbate an already draconian cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that is already paid for using a very small percentage of oil drilling receipts.

This amendment should be rejected.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I oppose the gentleman's amendment that reduces the Fish and Wildlife Service by $7.5 million. The gentleman says that it is aimed at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, although it doesn't say so. But whether it is or not, it's still a bad idea.

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation raises private funds with minimal Federal seed dollars. It should be

encouraged, not eliminated. Last year, the foundation leveraged $40 million in Federal funds into more than $180 million for on-the-ground conservation projects. That's a leverage ratio of 4\1/2\ times.

The Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be the best financial investment of public dollars to leverage private funds that pay for Federal priorities. In 1984, a quarter century ago, during challenging budget times, as well as we have today, the Foundation was created by a bipartisan group of Members of the House and Senate to leverage taxpayer dollars with private dollars.

This amendment would affect more than 400 conservation projects this year in most U.S. States and territories. These programs are nonregulatory, community driven; they promote working landscapes and foster innovation. In this critical time of constrained budgets, you would think we would want the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation more than ever.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that this continuing resolution eliminates all funding for the very successful, bipartisan- sponsored North American Wetlands Consersation Fund. It cuts $48 million.

My amendment simply adds $50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. The offset is the EPA Diesel Emissions Program which, in fact, has been eliminated in the budget just proposed by the President.

Now, both Houses unanimously reauthorized what's called NAWCA. That's the acronym for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

We authorized it unanimously in 2006. The appropriation authorization for NAWCA was increased to $75 million for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. It's wildly popular with all sportsmen and those who value our wetlands. So I'm surprised that H.R. 1 would eliminate it. This, frankly, shows what a meat axe approach has been taken here today by some in the Republican majority.

The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund conserves our waterfowl, fish and wildlife resources while, at the same time, generating environmental and economic benefits. This is a successful partnership involving Federal, State and local governments and especially nonprofit organizations like Ducks Unlimited.

The current CEO of Ducks Unlimited, Dale Hall, who incidentally was President George Bush's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director, wrote, and I quote, ``If these cuts and actions take place, waterfowl, waterfowl hunters and wetlands conservation would lose in a big way. In short, these actions would adversely affect all of us who care about and have funded wetlands and waterfowl conservation. We should remember, conservation in America pays for itself through the economic return from hunters, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts.''

I could not have said it better than the spokesperson, the CEO of Ducks Unlimited, who served in the Bush administration as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director.

Every Federal dollar provided by NAWCA must be matched by at least $1 from non-Federal sources. Because the program is so effective, NAWCA funds are usually tripled or quadrupled on the local level.

In short, this is both a highly popular and very successful program. Since its inception in 1989, more than 1,600 NAWCA projects have contributed to the conservation of more than 25 million acres of habitat across North America.

The offset we use, the Diesel Emissions grant program, is a good program. But sometimes we have to make hard choices. The President's fiscal year 2012 request also eliminates the Diesel grant program so as to encourage the truck industry to increase its own diesel R&D.

I ask the Members to support this amendment to protect our wetlands and wildlife and support the people who enjoy it.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I greatly thank the Chair of the full committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states, in pertinent part, ``an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional duties beyond what is legislatively authorized.

So I now ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, the scale of this reduction to EPA science shuts down EPA's STAR research grants this year and next, affecting researchers in universities throughout the Nation. The Science to Achieve Results program, whose acronym is STAR, grants money to leverage innovative, cutting-edge research with universities across the Nation.

Now, I don't know about the way they have titled some of these grants, but I suspect that the gentleman doesn't know much more than I do about the specific grant itself, other than the title.

What I do know is that this amendment ends funding for the Children's Health Research Centers, which focus on the study of children's environmental health hazards, including asthma and exposure to chemicals.

It ends funding for research for four EPA air research centers that focus on the health effects of air pollutants on all ages of Americans, especially the most physically vulnerable and those in smog-laden communities.

It ends funding for EPA's groundbreaking computational toxicology research effort, which enables us to screen literally thousands of chemicals at one time. I've seen how this works, and it's extraordinarily productive and cost-efficient. It screens chemicals for environmental health hazards, and it saves millions of dollars in the process. These innovative and cost-saving tools also offer the potential to greatly reduce our dependence on animal testing.

The amendment ends funding for critical research to assess risks of nanotechnology and to develop approaches to ensure the safe development of nano materials.

The amendment also wipes out EPA's STAR academic research fellowships program, affecting 350 current and future fellows and creating real economic hardship in the midst of our depressed economy. Cutting funding for the STAR fellows program eliminates the opportunity to develop the future generation of the best scientific minds to address 21st century environmental problems with new and innovative scientific and technological solutions.

Now, it's not the end of the world, but it will be the end of a program that works very well--a program that recruits, trains, and integrates some of the very best minds in preserving and protecting our environment.

So, for those reasons, I would urge the rejection of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the Pompeo amendment which would basically strip all funding from EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. It's part of an effort to ignore what scientists tell us is the most serious environmental problem of our time--climate change.

Some Republicans have introduced legislation that would repeal a scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health. The underlying bill we're considering says that no stationary source no matter how large should ever have to reduce its carbon pollution. This amendment goes even further. It says that we should not even bother to find out how much pollution is being put into our air. I guess you could call it the ``ignorance is bliss'' amendment.

The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program simply requires the largest sources of carbon pollution--power plants, refineries, and the very largest factories--to tell EPA and the public how much they pollute. If we are ever going to deal responsibly with this pollution, we need to know where it is coming from and have some idea of how much is being emitted.

This amendment is yet one more example of putting profits and pollution ahead of people and public health.

Americans understand that pollution is dangerous to their health. The scientists tell us that. We know it intuitively. It makes us sick. Let's allow EPA to fulfill its legal responsibility to collect this information.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pompeo amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be on the record strongly agreeing with the concept of the gentlewoman's amendment, to add $200 million to State and local grants.

Our congressional districts are on either side of the Potomac River. We can also see the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant from Maryland and Virginia.

Now, we've made strides thanks to Federal funding in cleaning up the Potomac River, which all of us can see, and most of us cross every day; but much work still lies ahead.

This bill's cuts to State and local infrastructure grants will undermine the progress that we have made on this river and will cripple hundreds of State and local government efforts throughout the country.

The Republican bill slashes the clean water and safe drinking water State revolving funds by $2 billion, or 56 percent, reducing the number of wastewater and drinking water projects by about 750 nationwide.

The needs of our Nation's aging water infrastructure exceed $660 billion. This would also be a missed opportunity to add thousands of engineering, construction, and other support service jobs if we cut these programs. Additionally, the bill includes an undesignated $300 million rescission to EPA already that will most likely also impact these revolving funds.

So the gentlewoman's amendment does have great merit. Albeit technically it may be out of order, it should be offered because it addresses a very important problem with this continuing resolution. It should be accepted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

point of order

Mr. Chairman, in light of the last colloquy, I find it necessary to make a few points about this underlying bill.

It contains language that stops EPA from limiting greenhouse gas emissions for the term of the continuing resolution in other words, through the end of fiscal year 2011.

First, let me point out that this issue should not be included in an appropriations bill that has received zero days in the Appropriations Committee for debate. I do understand that the Energy and Commerce authorizers are working this issue through a regular order process, but this is anything but regular order. Not that we would necessarily agree on the language that they are working on. But the reason you don't deal with complicated policy issues in eight lines of bill text is because often the only thing you achieve is unintended bad consequences. In this instance, I believe that is exactly what has happened.

EPA has a new permitting program that is currently in place as of January. It is to be implemented by both the States and EPA. There would be serious implications from this CR language, since new and modified large facilities are now required by law to obtain greenhouse gas permits before construction, but this bill's language would prevent Federal and State permitting authorities to take action to issue the permits. This would subject large facilities to legal challenges from citizens for failing to obtain permits and will lead to construction delays effectively eliminating thousands of American jobs. This is going to be held up in the courts indefinitely because of this language.

We have heard the arguments that these regulations will stop power plants and refineries and other big industry from creating jobs, but EPA's regulations encourage companies to make major new investments and to find cleaner ways to do business. This language is an actual assault on jobs.

The chair of the Republican Energy and Commerce Committee stated last week at a hearing, I bring this up since in the last colloquy the Chinese Government was mentioned, and I quote the Republican Chairman, ``The Chinese Government and other competitors have no intention of burdening and raising the cost of doing business for their manufacturers and energy producers the way EPA plans to do here in America.''

Now, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that we should be taking our cues on public health and environmental policies from China, the People's Republic of China, exposes a majority party that is clearly on the side of industry, but not of their constituents, let alone being on the right side of history.

This language is not about deficit reduction. It is a free pass to allow certain industries to pollute at whatever damage to the public health, they choose. We know that pollution is dangerous to the public health, we know that EPA has a legislative responsibility to limit that pollution, and yet this language would gut EPA's legal responsibility to carry out that legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to Ms. McCollum from Minnesota to explain why the Democrats on the subcommittee are very strongly opposed to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself strongly with the remarks of the gentlelady from Minnesota, and strongly urge rejection of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The NEA has already been cut by $22 million in this continuing resolution. The NEA's contribution to deficit reduction is really infinitesimal, but its elimination would not be. It would be very costly.

Mr. Chairman, the NEA represents less than 1/100th of discretionary spending. The economic dividend this Nation receives from the Endowment for the Arts, however, far exceeds the investment we make.

It seems to me that, when there are too many issues that divide this Nation, and when there remains too much harshness and rancor, the arts have an even more important role to play because they remain a powerful medium through which we can all transcend our common differences, appreciate beauty, and empathize with all of humankind. This is what the arts are all about. This is what the NEA enables all Americans to more greatly appreciate. The NEA budget is small, but it is such an important catalyst in helping to create and sustain the arts.

Last year, actor Jeff Daniels spoke at an Interior Appropriations subcommittee hearing as to how the NEA had supported the revival of a theater in his hometown in Michigan. It was a small grant, but in his case, it restored the theater and its productions so that neighboring owners could then restore their homes and turn them into bed and breakfast places. Restaurants and antique shops saw boosts in their businesses. In fact, the State of Michigan just built an exit ramp off the State highway to serve the increasing numbers of cars that are flocking to his hometown, which otherwise would be a virtual ghost town.

The NEA is a magnet for businesses in every place to which they locate, and it searches out those opportunities. There are 668,000 businesses involved in the creation and distribution of art, and there are millions of jobs. I have two examples in Virginia. Actually, to save time, I'll just give one example:

Signature Theatre in Shirlington, Arlington, Virginia, received NEA grants for its nationally recognized artistic and education programs.

I would suggest that all of our Members go there some time. They will invariably see an extraordinary good performance, one that has generated economic activity throughout that community and one that could not have gotten on its feet without the help of the National Endowment for the Arts.

When you cut that budget, you will see a dramatic adverse impact on the national arts community and on specifically the arts education programs that are developing throughout community centers and in our schools.

We do need to invest in the cultural lives of our citizenry and in our children's future. I can't help but fathom how a Nation as rich and prosperous as ours could not find it in its heart to provide $167 million for the Endowment for the Arts.

The arts and humanities will survive, but they will not be accessible for the large majority of our citizens who couldn't otherwise afford the expensive tickets that too often are charged at those performing arts places where frankly the financially elite are only able to afford to go. What the NEA does is to expand artistic achievement, to give people an opportunity to fully appreciate and for us to appreciate their talent.

Denyce Graves, who grew up in Washington in the Anacostia area, said that The Kennedy Center could have been a world away. She never would have seen it had it not been for a National Endowment for the Arts grant. That enabled her to then pursue a career that ultimately resulted in one of the finest operatic performers in America, in the world.

The chair of the National Endowment for the Arts, Rocco Landesman, a Broadway producer, extraordinarily effective, active leader, he has suggested reform, that we probably have too

many arts venues. Let's consolidate them. Let's make sure that all of them are of the highest quality. It has started a discussion that needs to be done, but what shouldn't be done is to cut the National Endowment for the Arts even further than this continuing resolution does.

I would urge rejection of the amendment, Madam Chair.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, we agree that there is a major problem

with the wild horse and burro policy. It is too expensive and problematic for multiple uses on public lands and conserving western rangelands. I would like to work with Mr. Burton, Mr. Hastings, and Mr. Bishop on this problem. The true problem is the law, not the funding of the law.

In recognition of the problems that Mr. Burton raises, we will accept this amendment, but first I would like to make some important points about the wild horse and burro program.

The wild horse population is not native to North America and can double every 4 years. If horses aren't removed from the range, it can cause degradation and reduced foliage for wildlife and livestock. If this program isn't appropriately funded and horses aren't removed from the range, wild horses will continue to reproduce, over-graze and eventually have a population crash, which means starving horses.

I would also point out that it is already illegal to slaughter wild horses or burros, and the BLM spends no funds on slaughtering wild horses or burros. But I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana pointing out the problem, and I would like to work with him to find a reasonable solution to this that doesn't cost the kind of money that it currently costs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I insist on my point of order.

Madam Chairwoman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment does not merely propose to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill, but also proposes language other than those amounts.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I understand and sympathize with the

amendment that the gentlelady from Wyoming is proposing. We in the West sometimes have a little bit different point of view. Regardless of where the funding comes from, whether it comes from money that comes from oil sales or other things, when you're buying additional land in the States with 64 percent of Federal land currently, that causes some concern to westerners. So I understand why sometimes people from New Jersey and Massachusetts and other places that don't have a lot of public lands sometimes don't understand the same concern that we share out there.

So I sympathize with what the gentlelady is saying in this amendment, but I would point out this started out in 2010. There was $450 million in the Land and Water Conversation Fund appropriated for this year. We have reduced that in this bill to $58 million. It already terminates funding for any new Federal land acquisition projects, an action we had to take in order to meet the subcommittee's allocation halfway through this fiscal year. All that remains is enough funding for managing projects funded in prior years and for emergencies and in-holdings for small acquisitions that make sense and save taxpayers money in the long run. So we've reduced this fund for any new land acquisition.

I can't tell you what's going to happen in the next bill, but this one would allow for those in-holdings to be purchased, those things that are ongoing and currently under negotiation. So I think it's the appropriate thing to do. Terminating these programs will pull the rug out from under private landowners that we've already made commitments to, many of whom have fallen on hard times in this economy, who need to sell their lands and who would want to conserve those lands for the benefit of all Americans.

So as much as I sympathize with what the gentlelady is trying to do, I think reducing all of the funds out of that account would be inappropriate. And I would oppose the amendment and urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the CR, we have already proposed deep cuts with tough choices. In the Interior and Environmental section, we have proposed to cut $4.4 billion and to eliminate 26 different programs.

The STAR program competitively funds research grants and graduate fellowships in numerous environmental science and engineering disciplines.

I would note, as the gentleman from Arizona knows, that this is competitively awarded in that they actually, as I said, compete for these.

The EPA receives approximately 2,000 to 2,500 proposals each year, and it funds about 150 research grants and 125 graduate fellowships.

I'd be a little leery about coming down here and just naming off the title of what a research project is and then saying that it's silly, because I don't know. I don't know exactly what they're trying to do with some of these things. You actually need to dig into it and find out what they're trying to find out with some of these research grants.

A few years ago, some people did this with, I think it was, the National Academy of Sciences research grants. I can remember some of my colleagues brought down amendments to defund this research grant or that research grant. One of them was to defund a research grant on studying brown fat in panda bears.

Of course, we all on the floor went, Wow, that sounds silly. Why are we studying brown fat in panda bears? Can't we actually study brown fat in American bears?

When I called the National Academy of Sciences, what I found is that who supported that research was NASA, because, if you're ever going to do deep space research, you need to know something about brown fat. Guess what animal has more brown fat than any other animal on Earth? Panda bears. That's why they were doing it.

So just to look at the title of a research project is kind of a silly way to propose eliminating it and making fun of the program. Some of them may be silly--I don't know--but I know these are peer-reviewed, that they actually are competitively granted, and that the gentleman from Arizona has always been concerned that we give earmarks that are not competitively granted. Here we have a program that is competitively granted, so that seems, to me, to be the right way to do it.

Like many other EPA programs, the CR reduces the STAR grant funding. We did so by applying a $10 million reduction to fund the grants at $51 million in the CR, which is $8 million below the 2008 level. Therefore, while we understand the intent of the amendment is to eliminate all funding for the STAR grants, there is no longer $61.4 million in the CR to reduce for STAR grants, and other research programs would need to be reduced based on the way the amendment has been drafted.

In addition, I believe we must maintain our scientific competitiveness as we work to bring our fiscal house in order, and zeroing out this program, I don't believe, is in the best interest of our country or that it is the right thing to do.

This is a program that we should--and will--discuss on the record with the EPA during the 2012 budget hearings, and we will either build the case for further reductions or an elimination of the program, or we will have a better understanding of why we should look elsewhere for additional cuts.

Therefore, I recommend my colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment given that it would unintentionally cut the EPA's research by more than that which is in the CR for the STAR grants and given that we will be taking a look at this during our hearings. The gentleman sits on the committee, and will be, obviously, involved as we have the EPA before us for our oversight hearings.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the gentleman from Texas, and we pledge to work with him as the EPA comes before our committee to address this issue, but I must insist on my point of order.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law. This amendment gives affirmative action in effect.

I ask for a ruling by the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I object to the modification of the amendment.

I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.

The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase a rescission to offset an increase in an appropriation. And I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I would be happy to.

I would be happy to.

Section 1746 hits the pause button on the EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions because of what I think are unfounded fears about global climate change.

As the chairman knows, and as the gentleman from Kentucky knows, over the last 2 years, EPA Administrator Jackson has been very busy creating an enormous body of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. These regulations will cost jobs, drive up energy costs, and further imperil the American economy.

EPA's greenhouse gas regulations need to be stopped in their tracks, and that's what section 1746 does. It provides a time-out for the balance of this fiscal year, during which time EPA will be prohibited from acting on them or enforcing them.

Section 1746 is intended to put a halt to the regulations that we feel will harm this economy. It is not intended to affect permitting or other matters unrelated to greenhouse gas emissions such as construction starts or permit approvals.

No. It's not even necessary to be a climate change skeptic to be an EPA greenhouse gas regulations skeptic. These regulations are all economic pain for little, if any, environmental gain.

EPA can only regulate American companies, and we know that China already emits more carbon dioxide than we do. Its rate of emissions growth is many times faster than ours, and the Chinese Government has repeatedly made clear that they will never impose such job-destroying regulatory measures on themselves. Even Administrator Lisa Jackson, as you said, has concluded that unilateral action would have little or negligible impact on further temperatures.

Will the gentleman yield?

When do you expect Congress to act on the Energy Tax Prevention Act?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Yes.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rules states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment gives direction in effect.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The International Forestry Program has already been reduced by 25 percent in this proposal. It's funded at $7.4 million in the CR. In FY10 it was funded at $9 million. The International Program brought in an additional $36 million in funds from State and USAID. The International Program brings in approximately $3 for every dollar invested. This program, regardless of the amount of money spent, is still a lot of money in Idaho, just as it is in Kansas.

But this program is critical to protecting forestry and the forest products industry in the United States. It's the only forestry entity representing the U.S. at trade summits. International Forestry is the only program working directly to counter the flow of illegally harvested forest products abroad. These materials compete with legally and sustainably harvested U.S. forest products.

The U.S. negotiators from the Department of State and the U.S. Trade Representatives rely on the International Program to provide technical input to effectively advocate for the domestic forest products industry. These agencies do not have this expertise.

The International Program also prevents the introduction of invasive and nonnative pests that would cause millions of dollars of damage to U.S. forests and the U.S. economy. The International Program, though funded through funding from USAID, plays a critical role in protecting U.S. security interests in conflict-prone areas. Unrelated, illegal resource extraction many times leads to unrest and corruption abroad.

So I would oppose this amendment, even though I understand that it's easy to go after international programs when we have such problems here. The fact is that they protect industry here in this country, in the U.S. forest products industry in this country, because, as I said, they're the only ones representing the U.S. forest products industry and forestry in general in international trade agreements.

I would oppose this amendment and hope that my colleagues would also.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to correct some of the statements that were just made. In my home State of Wyoming, we have more than 30,000 wild horses. The wild horses have no natural predators. And I have ridden BLM wild horses. My sister adopted two of them. I've ridden them. We've used them on our ranch, and I know whereof I speak.

Wild horses overgrazing our fragile ecosystems in the West on lands that were not conducive to the type of grazing that occurs when a hoofed animal that does not have a split hoof is grazing causes the soil to be tamped down. Horses are a solid-hoofed animal. When they run, they tamp the soil. When we have our sparse rains, it runs off, thereby causing soil erosion and causing difficult grazing situations.

The natural grazers on that land for millennia were split-hoofed animals such as elk and bison, and that is why sheep and cattle are more conducive to protecting the grazing of that sparse fragile resource than a solid-hoofed animal. When you put too many solid-hoofed animals tamping down that fragile grass with a very shallow reservoir of top soil, you cause overgrazing and you are loving horses in a way that causes the fragile grass ecosystem to the Western States to die.

It is this Congress that has caused the problems by saying that we cannot slaughter horses. Yet we're not supposed to keep them in pens. We're supposed to allow them to overgraze the West.

When the gentle people east of the Mississippi will take these excess horses into their backyards, I will support this amendment. Until then, I oppose efforts by those well-meaning people that measure animal unit months by the acre and we measure acres by the animal unit month.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, in December, I voted for that historic agreement between President Obama and Congress to keep American taxes low and to extend unemployment benefits. Now we are here to debate how to pay for that, and I have an idea about how to help pay for that.

My amendment, No. 193, would strike the remaining funding for this 6 months in this year totaling $35 million from the budgets of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM and the Forest Service for the purpose of buying new Federal land. There are many alternatives to buying land with cash that would allow them to continue using Yankee ingenuity, and those include land exchanges.

In my own State, we have over half a million acres that have been designated for disposal by Federal agencies because these lands don't fit into

good land management, yet there are other lands that these same Federal agencies would like to acquire. They can do exchanges. They can do sales of this land that is designated for disposal and purchase other lands that work better for the fragmented land ownership patterns that we sometimes experience in the West. This is a much better alternative to using $35 million to pay cash to buy new land that adds to the management base and responsibility. At the same time, it would free up land that would be disposed of for people to buy and begin to earn a living on.

So this is a way to create jobs, not to burden the Federal Government, and to recognize that good stewardship and good conservation can be practiced by good Federal and private partnerships. Those are the opportunities that are available if we adopt this amendment. It saves the taxpayers money and it helps pay for those people receiving unemployment benefits, and this is a win-win amendment.

It is only a moratorium, and when we begin the next fiscal year, we would have an opportunity, from having reviewed projects between the Natural Resources Committee and the Interior Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and have a better understanding of the ultimate goal of our land acquisitions programs within these Federal agencies.

So, Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank you personally, as well as your colleague from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and also Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of Washington, for your work on this amendment.

The continuing resolution as written would reinstate a 2009 Fish and Wildlife determination that the gray wolf in Montana and Idaho should be removed from the endangered species list. This amendment would replace that 2009 determination with an earlier-approved Fish and Wildlife determination, the one made in 2008, and that expands the scope of delisting of the gray wolf to include the full range of the Northern Rockies wolf.

Mr. Chairman, after gray wolves were introduced in 1995 into Yellowstone National Park in my home State and placed on the endangered species list under section 10(j), which is the nonessential experimental population section of the Endangered Species Act, a list was determined about what it would take to recover the species, when would we consider it recovered, and it was determined by experts at the time that the recovery would be complete if the population of wolves grew to 300 wolves with at least 30 breeding pairs. That was the target, that was the goal, 300 wolves, 30 breeding pairs.

So how many wolves are there today, Mr. Chairman? Here we are, 16 years later. There are more than 1,600 wolves and 113 breeding pairs. By every reasonable definition, the wolf has recovered, and yet these wolves remain on the endangered species list. They remain protected, even as they overwhelm and decimate other wild game herds. For example, in the Grovont, the moose population in terms of young calves has declined 90 percent, 90 percent, and it is due to wolf depredation.

Wolves remain protected in each State because of court determinations, not because of science, and it is now time to be honest about the wolf and its recovery. Its continued inclusion on the endangered species list has everything to do with special interests and emotion and nothing to do with science. Organizations that repeatedly sue the government at taxpayer expense orchestrate these strategies and make people believe that the wolf is not recovered. The simple truth is the wolf is doing very well.

Lest anyone be confused, my amendment will not create an open season on wolves. It will return management of the wolf populations back to the States, and they are the ones who suffer the effects of the wolves. It will allow for appropriate management of wolf herds, wolf herds by any definition, that have fully recovered.

So it is time to be honest. It is time to delist.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to discuss section 1746, which would eliminate EPA funding from going to implementation of the Clean Air Act.

Over the past 40 years, the bipartisan Clean Air Act has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and improved the health of Americans in every State. It protects the air we breathe. It protects our children from developing asthma and our seniors from developing emphysema. According to the American Lung Association, in 2010 alone the Clean Air Act saved over 160,000 lives. Even since 1990, the EPA estimates the Clean Air Act prevented an estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million cases of respiratory illness amongst children, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 200,000 premature deaths.

And yet in the irresponsible Republican spending bill, there's an attempt to eliminate all funding from the implementation of the Clean Air Act. It is clear that the Republican majority is doing all it can to stop EPA from carrying out its mission of protecting public health and protecting our environment.

Many will claim that the EPA is moving at a faster pace than any other administration in history. However, the EPA has proposed fewer Clean Air

Act rules under President Obama over the past 21 months than in the first 2 years of either President Bush or President Clinton. That is why in December of 2010, 280 groups, including the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and others, sent a letter urging the Congress to ``reject any measure that would block or delay the United States Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job to protect all Americans from life-threatening air pollution.''

The irresponsible Republican spending bill is not the place to legislate these types of changes. These policy changes should not be made during this sort of process. The Clean Air Act is promoting innovation and breaking American oil dependence, but Republicans would give big polluters a loophole to roll back our clean energy process and continue our addiction to foreign oil.

The Clean Air Act is good for our economy. Many studies have shown the Clean Air Act's economic benefits to far exceed any costs associated with the law by as much as a 40-to-1 ratio. As President Obama so eloquently spoke of during his State of the Union address, we must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build our global competitors and win the future. Rolling back a law that protects the air our children breathe to allow oil companies--companies that are already reaping record profits--the ability to spew chemicals, smog, soot, and pollution into the air just to please a lobbyist or a Big Oil corporation is irresponsible and extreme.

The Clean Air Act has been on the books for decades, with positive results for our economy, our environment, and our businesses. Rolling back these protections will only hurt our most vulnerable. We simply cannot afford to go backward.

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

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I offer this motion to speak out against the blatant attack on clean water, which is contained in section 1747 of this Republican continuing resolution--a provision that does not save the taxpayer one single dollar.

As we know, the Clean Water Act became law in 1972 with the stated purpose of cleaning up America's waterways and wetlands. Since then, this landmark legislation has served as a framework for protecting our drinking water from deadly toxins and for preserving the ecological integrity of our waterways.

In my home State of New York, from the mighty waters of rivers like the Hudson to the many lakes of the Adirondacks, this legislation has been absolutely critical, where 95 percent of our population relies on public drinking water in some form. Unfortunately, in the last 10 years, millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams have lost Clean Water Act protection.

Healthy streams and wetlands naturally filter and replenish our drinking water supplies. They absorb flood waters and protect coastlines and support local hunting, fishing, boating, and recreation industries. One-third of Americans get their drinking water from the types of streams that are vulnerable to pollution under recent rollbacks; and this bill includes a provision that would ban the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers from working within their legal authority to mitigate that threat.

This is an appropriations bill. According to my colleagues across the aisle, it is a bill with the sole purpose of reducing the deficit--a noble goal. However, the clean water rider in section 1747 of this bill does not save one dime of taxpayer money. It is not about funding. It is about restricting the legal authority of the EPA and the work of the Army Corps of Engineers in an underhanded ``politics as usual'' attack on our drinking water, on our environment, and on the thousands of recreational fishing, hunting and boating jobs that these water resources support.

We may have banned formal earmarks this year, but this rider amounts to a handout to big polluters at the expense of basic public health protections.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, section 1709; however, I want to state for the record I am completely supportive of the program that he spoke of today.

This particular amendment, however, seeks to eliminate funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, a vital public health, environment and infrastructure program that was reauthorized with huge bipartisan support that Representative Calvert referred to, through a bill I authored last year. That is the purpose of my standing, because I was an author of that bill this year.

DERA is a proven program that improves air quality by reducing diesel emissions. It has strong bipartisan support in both the House and Senate and from a diverse coalition of transportation, health, and environmental organizations.

I thank Congressman Moran, and I applaud his leadership efforts to protect and preserve our environment and natural resources. He has been a stalwart advocate in the struggle to reduce harmful emissions from antiquated coal-fired power plants and protect green space and green infrastructure. However, today is a rare moment that he and I do not agree.

DERA is a voluntary national and State-level grant and loan program that reduces the diesel emissions by upgrading and modernizing older diesel engines and equipment. For someone like me and my district, this is important. It's the lives of my constituents. By design, it looks to reduce the emissions from 20 million existing diesel engines in use today by as much as 90 percent.

The $50 million designated for DERA is but half of the authorized level and already a 20 percent cut in the program from last year's funding. Although I would say, for the record, that it has not been terminated, it is merely a recommendation by the President at this time.

Eliminating funding entirely would be a huge mistake and cause substantial detriment to the economic health and environmental interests, particularly of communities that are along port areas.

Since DERA funding began in 2007, more than 3,000 projects nationwide have benefited from this program, creating considerable employment opportunities in the area of manufacturing, installation and servicing of emissions-related technology. The bill I authored this last year, which passed in December, will actually amplify job creation further by expanding the program and increasing the number of eligible beneficiaries.

Additionally, DERA is widely considered one of the most cost- effective Federal programs in the Nation. The EPA has estimated that in California alone the program averages more than $13 in health and economic benefits for every $1 that it receives in funding. Projections estimate that nearly 2,000 lives will be saved by 2017 in direct relation to DERA's impact on air quality.

In my district, the positive benefits of DERA are far reaching, home to the two busiest container ports in the United States, the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. On average, 35,000 trucks commute to and from these ports daily. By the year 2030, this number will be expected to triple. Just imagine for a moment the pollution caused by these vehicles in a single day.

Now, think of those Americans who live along those freight corridors and are exposed to the pollutants on a daily basis. Would you want that for you and your family? In my district, these folks already suffer from asthma and cancer rates far above the national average, and it's documented. Air quality improvements and reductions in emissions are vital to the quality of life and health of these families and countless others throughout the Nation.

I would also like to add that DERA is often mentioned in association with the trucking industry and freight movement. There is another important area where diesel engines are most frequently utilized and where DERA will create a substantial necessary improvement in our public transportation and our school bus system.

These vehicles are vital to the millions of Americans who rely upon them every day to get to work or school. Many of these folks include young children whose lungs and immune systems are still developing and who are especially susceptible to health problems. We owe it to these young people and their families to give the DERA program our full support and see its funding maintained.

DERA has been endorsed by a large coalition of leading environmental health and transportation organizations who also believe in its effectiveness at protecting and creating jobs, promoting healthy economies and healthier citizens. At a time when our future is so heavily dependent upon economic growth, infrastructure investment, and improving the quality of life of average Americans, it seems counterintuitive to cut funding for a program that provides us with so many benefits.

For these reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment, but I seek to work with my colleagues to support other funding to support the program laid out.