Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, so many of our brand-new colleagues seem to have run on the thesis that government can't be the solution to any of your problems, rather that ``it'' is the problem, that it can't be counted upon to help people, that it can't even be counted upon to invest in America's long-term interests. It seems as though, now that they've been elected, they're doing everything they can to prove themselves to be right.

This is no way to run a government. A 2-week CR?

Now, we don't have any great problem with the components of this CR except for the fact that it's 2 weeks.

It should be a 7-month CR. In fact, we should really tackle the appropriations bills themselves. But if it's a 7-month CR, it shouldn't be a dump truck of legislation that includes in it virtually every controversial issue that this Congress has dealt with over the last 20, 30 years.

My good friend from Kentucky, the chairman of the committee, will recall that quaint phrase that we would deploy in committee, that this amendment is not in order because it constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill. Well, we legislated everything. This bill has more poison pills in it than Rasputin's medicine cabinet. Everything is thrown in here, and it was thrown in in the middle of the night. You know, bills that we had considered carefully in committee that had come to the floor, that they were debated carefully and then resolved, and yet sometimes in a 10-minute debate those bills were dispensed with. That's not the way an appropriations bill should be brought to the floor. It ought to be a clean, continuing resolution if we're going to do a CR.

The fact is we know we can do this. We can get a good appropriation bill. We can make surgical cuts and we can agree on those surgical cuts. But let's not try to put together a dump truck that includes in it every possible controversial issue that we know we can't resolve. That's not in the long-term best interest of the American people, and, in fact, it ought to be an embarrassment to our appropriations process.

So I would hope that we would vote against this continuing resolution simply because it's only a 2-week CR. We can do better.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act. This is the sixth time I have introduced legislation that would grant federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia: the Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, the Monacan, and the Nansemond.

Similar measures passed the House and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee during the 110th and 111th Sessions of Congress. Unfortunately, both measures were ultimately defeated when the objections of a few Senators were not overridden.

The impasse in Congress and the demeaning and dysfunctional acknowledgement process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs only compound the grave injustices this legislation seeks to redress. It also compels me to continue this cause and reintroduce this legislation today. The injustices extend back in time for hundreds of years, back to the establishment of the first permanent English settlement in America at Jamestown. For the Members of these tribes are the descendents of the great Powhatan Confederacy who greeted the English and provided food and assistance that ensured the settlers' early survival.

Four years ago, America celebrated the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown. But it was not a celebration for Native American descendents of Pocahontas, for they have yet to be recognized by our federal government. Unlike most Native American tribes that were officially recognized when they signed peace treaties with the federal government, Virginia's six Native American tribes made their peace with the Kings of England. Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between these tribes and King Charles II. This treaty has been recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia every year for the past 334 years when the Governor accepts tribute from the tribes in a ceremony now celebrated at the Commonwealth Capitol. I had the honor of attending the one of what I understand is the longest celebrated treaty recognition ceremony in the United States.

The forefathers of the tribal leaders who gather on Thanksgiving in Richmond were the first to welcome the English, and during the first few years of settlement, ensured their survival. Had the tribes not assisted those early settlers, they would not have survived. Time has not been kind to the tribes, however. As was the case for most Native American tribes, as the settlement prospered and grew, the tribes suffered. Those who resisted quickly became subdued, were pushed off their historic lands, and, up through much of the 20th Century, were denied full rights as U.S. citizens. Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia tribes survived, preserving their heritage and their identity. Their story of survival spans four centuries of racial hostility and coercive state and state-sanctioned actions.

The Virginia tribes' history, however, diverges from that of most Native Americans in two unique ways. The first explains why the Virginia tribes were never recognized by the federal government; the second explains why congressional action is needed today. First, by the time the federal government was established in 1789, the Virginia tribes were in no position to seek recognition. They had already lost control of their land, withdrawn into isolated communities and stripped of most of their rights. Lacking even the rights granted by the English Kings, and our own Bill of Rights, federal recognition was nowhere within their reach.

The second unique circumstance for the Virginia tribes is what they experienced at the hands of the Commonwealth government during the first half of the 20th Century. It has been called ``paper genocide.'' At a time when the federal government granted Native Americans the right to vote, Virginia's elected officials adopted racially hostile laws targeted at those classes of people who did not fit into the dominant white society, and with fanatical efficiency, altered and destroyed the records of Virginia's Native Americans. Virginia's political elite sought to expunge the records of anyone other than themselves who could hold the claim that they were the descendent of Pocahontas. Pocahontas' marriage to John Rolfe created an uncomfortable circumstance for John Rolfe's descendents who populated Virginia's aristocratic elite and who maintained that all non-whites were part of ``the inferior Negroid race.''

With great hypocrisy, Virginia's ruling elite pushed policies that culminated with the enactment of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act directed Commonwealth officials, and zealots like Walter Plecker, to destroy Commonwealth and local courthouse records and reclassify in Orwellian fashion all non-whites as ``colored.'' It targeted Native Americans with a vengeance, denying Native Americans in Virginia their identity.

To call oneself a ``Native American'' in Virginia was to risk a jail sentence of up to one year. In defiance of the law, members of Virginia's tribes traveled out of state to obtain marriage licenses or to serve their country in wartime. The law remained in effect until it was struck down in federal court in 1967. In that intervening period between 1924 and 1967, Commonwealth officials waged a war to destroy all public and many private records that affirmed the existence of Native Americans in Virginia. Historians have affirmed that no other state compares to Virginia's efforts to eradicate its citizens' Indian identity.

All of Virginia's state-recognized tribes have filed petitions with the Bureau of Acknowledgment seeking federal recognition. But it is a very heavy burden the Virginia tribes will have to overcome, and one fraught with complications that officials from the bureau have acknowledged may never be resolved in their lifetime. The acknowledgment process is already expensive, subject to unreasonable delays, and lacking in dignity. Virginia's paper genocide only further complicates these tribes' quest for federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating state and official documents and aggravating the injustice already visited upon them.

It was not until 1997, when Governor George Allen signed legislation directing Commonwealth agencies to correct their records, that the tribes were given the opportunity to correct official Commonwealth documents that had deliberately been altered to list them as ``colored.'' The law allows living members of the tribes to correct their records, but the law cannot correct the damage done to past generations or to recover documents that were purposely destroyed during the ``Plecker Era.''

In 1999, the Virginia General Assembly adopted a resolution calling upon Congress to enact legislation recognizing the Virginia tribes. I am pleased to have honored that request, and beginning in 2000 and in subsequent sessions, Virginia's Senators and I have introduced legislation to recognize the Virginia tribes.

There is no doubt that the Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Monacan, the Nansemond, the Rappahannock and the Upper Mattaponi tribes exist. These tribes have existed on a continuous basis since before the first European settlers stepped foot in America. They are here with us today. But the federal government continues to act as if they do not.

I know there is resistance in Congress to grant any Native American tribe federal recognition. And I can appreciate how the issue of gambling and its economic and moral dimensions has influenced many Members' perspectives on tribal recognition issues. The six Virginia tribes are not seeking federal legislation so that they can build casinos. Under this legislation they cannot engage in gaming. The bill prohibits gambling on their lands. They find gambling offensive to their moral beliefs. They are seeking federal recognition because it is an urgent matter of justice and because elder members of their tribes, who were denied a public education and the economic opportunities available to most Americans, are suffering and should be entitled to the federal health and housing assistance available to federally recognized tribes.

To underscore this point, the legislation includes language that would prevent the tribes from engaging in gaming on their federal land even if everyone else in Virginia were allowed to engage in Class III casino-type gaming.

In the name of decency, fairness and humanity, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and bring closure to centuries of injustice Virginia's Native American tribes have experienced.

Madam Chairwoman, the CR, I believe, is irresponsible, but this amendment would commit this country to an economic death spiral. It may sound like heresy, but the reality is you can't run the strongest government and the strongest economy in the world on less than 15 percent of GDP.

Look back to the Clinton years when we were at 20 percent. We had the strongest economy ever. People at the top tax rates brought home more after-tax income than any time in American history. We created 23 million more jobs and we had a surplus. And that surplus is what we should be aiming for.

Not only do we need to cut spending, sure, but we also need to raise revenue. We need to come to a balance. This is an imbalanced amendment. It is an irresponsible one, and our country and our people deserve better.

I thank the gentlelady.

This is the 21st century. We have to live with our neighbors. If the United Nations didn't exist, we would have to create it. The fact is that even the Government Accountability Office estimates that a U.N. peacekeeping force is

eight times less expensive than funding a military force. We're going to have to move to more smart power in the 21st century. We can't do it all alone, whether it be establishing democracy, securing peace or promoting human rights.

We can't keep putting our own troops at risk, trying to put out the flames that erupt all over the world. The U.N. does that. They don't do it perfectly, but they are largely an international reflection of our American values.

We've got to find a way to secure peace in the world. And ever since Woodrow Wilson came up with the League of Nations, the United Nations continues to evolve, continues to reflect our values and promote our most fundamental foreign policy. This is not the time to be pulling the rug out from under such an important ally.

The U.N. represents every nation in the world. We don't agree with all of them, but we have more influence in the United Nations than does any other nation in the world.

This amendment is not in our national interest. It should be strongly rejected.

I would ask my friend from Georgia: What's the alternative? Should we have gone into Rwanda? The U.N. was an abysmal failure, but where was the United States? And if we didn't have the United Nations, the United States would be asked to carry that themselves. We can't be the world's policeman.

Mr. Chairman, well, we voted to subsidize the cotton industry, NASCAR, agribusiness. You name it, we vote to subsidize it. But now we have an opportunity to correct the most egregious abuse of the Federal taxpayer. $53 billion of oil that belongs to all American taxpayers is basically being given away. It's their oil. It's being drilled offshore. We own it, but we're not charging royalties to the largest American corporations, and that's the real rub of it.

These are the most profitable corporations in America. BP is the biggest beneficiary. Exxon, Shell, Conoco, you name it. Chevron. They're all at the trough. Exxon, for example, last year $383 billion in revenue, and yet we're

told they didn't pay any American corporate taxes. They paid it to other countries, but not to the United States.

You know, at a time when we cut $1 billion out of Head Start and then we're going to give $53 billion to the wealthiest corporations of America, take American taxpayer-owned oil? This is insane.

Now, it may have made some sense when oil was at $20 a barrel, But when oil is over $80 a barrel and the American consumer is having to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas, is this really the time that we should be giving away $53 billion in oil? No.

Let's stop this egregious abuse. We say we're in favor of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse? This is the worst abuse. Let's stop it. Support the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would stop a very careful planning process that determines what routes off-road vehicles can use through our national forests. Now over the past few decades, we know that the availability and capability of off-road vehicles has increased tremendously. That means more Americans are enjoying access to, and recreational opportunities in, their national forests, but the resulting proliferation of random routes results in severe impacts, particularly on the quality of our water supply and the physical safety of national forest visitors.

The national forests are spectacular lands. There are 193 million national forest acres all over this Nation. Oftentimes, we take them for granted and fail to realize that the national forests are the headwaters for much of our Nation's surface waters. The clean, pure water produced on a national forest is a national treasure and the economic resource that supports industry and agriculture nationwide. In fact, half of the American West gets their drinking water from national forests, while in many rural communities, it is 100 percent.

The proliferation, though, of random trails created by off road vehicles, increases erosion and pollution into water sources with no possibility for mitigation by culverts or other measures that would be available to land managers on designated routes.

This amendment is poorly considered. The amendment would stop a reasonable, locally oriented planning process that has been going on for 6 years to allow recreational access to our forests, but to do so in a way that also protects the sustainable production of water, timber, wildlife, and other natural resources.

The Forest Service has been called upon to designate which motorized routes are appropriate in the eyes of inclusive groups of local community leaders, with particular consideration to visitor safety and the ability of the Forest Service to comply with its other mandates. It is practically impossible to maintain trail conditions without designated routes or to avoid accidents to hikers, damaged equipment, or even visitors getting lost in the back country.

Route designation enables land managers to guide motorized users away from sensitive wildlife habitats at appropriate times of the year, helping to maintain quality herds.

In summary, the planning process that this amendment would repeal is local, driven by longstanding productive partnerships among local, State, and federal agencies; Indian tribes; and a diverse array of commercial and noncommercial interests. Halting this planning process would squander those investments and rebuke the sincere commitment it reflects on the part of so many citizens to protect their public lands. All who love and use our national forests should oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time remains?

I would yield those 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, this is a message amendment. We love our colleagues who represent the Western States, but many of them, particularly on the other side, don't seem to show much love for the Federal Government they represent. The payment in lieu of taxes program was created to compensate counties for lost taxes, since Federal lands don't pay taxes. That's fair. Western States with lots of Federal lands get most of the payments. That's fair.

But while the counties don't get any taxes from Federal lands, they don't have to provide services on those lands either. In fact the opposite occurs. The national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests and BLM lands and the staffs of all these provide very valuable services and substantial revenue and jobs to the western counties, and the public lands provide ecosystems that are worth billions.

Without clean water and open space, imagine. You wouldn't have the communities, the agriculture, that we seem to take for granted. In fact, the States get fully half the mineral receipts that come from the coal, oil and gas that is owned by the Federal taxpayer. The gentlelady makes a very important point that is worthy of consideration.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment stops the Interior Department from protecting nearby streams and rivers from the toxic disposal of coal mine waste. So let me give you the top seven reasons why this amendment should be defeated.

One, it will allow for the continued destruction of America's forests and native vegetation contrary to the statutory requirement to protect that vegetation.

Two, it will interfere with the new requirement for the Clean Water Act and Surface Mining Act, preventing the updating of regulations based upon the best science available.

Three, it will perpetuate the uncertainties that citizens and industry and State regulators are currently experiencing under outdated regulations.

Four, it will continue to allow the worst of the coal mine operators to destroy and pollute America's streams and, by doing so, gain a competitive advantage over the responsible operators.

Five, it will deny the State regulatory officials the ability to issue permits that would withstand legal challenge.

Six, it will prevent the gathering of information needed to predict adverse impacts to land and water resources.

And seven, it will prevent the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process which provides valuable information to enable an informed decision to be made as to the best alternatives to protect society and the environment while helping to meet America's energy needs.

So that's why I would oppose the Johnson amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) who worked in the Interior Department on this very issue and is quite expert on it.

I very much appreciate the insight from the gentleman from California.

At this point, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to Mr. Yarmuth of Kentucky.

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

Mr. Chairman, 6 weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency, six States, including Mr. Goodlatte's own State of Virginia and the District of Columbia, ended years of stalling and released detailed plans to reduce Chesapeake Bay pollution to meet minimal water quality standards over the next 15 years. Meeting those science-based and legally required goals is going to require a significant and sometimes costly effort from all the citizens, towns, cities and States that are part of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

This year's Chesapeake Bay Foundation State of the Bay Report suggests that recent pollution-cutting measures are in fact beginning to show results.

We've seen increased crab and oyster populations and an increase in underwater grasses. The bay is coming back to life. The agreed-upon, negotiated, detailed, multistate plans have the potential to finally restore the Chesapeake Bay if everyone does his part.

The amendment, though, would block any Federal agency's ability to work with the States in meeting pollution reduction targets for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. If we don't meet this obligation, the farmers, municipalities, and businesses in all the States will be economically harmed.

If this amendment were to pass, it would not relieve the farms, businesses, and municipalities from their requirements in the court ordered settlement, but it would turn the pollution limits into an unfunded mandate since it would also block any Federal agency from providing technical and Federal assistance to bring farms, businesses, and municipalities into compliance with pollution reduction goals.

Clearly, this amendment is designed to and will unravel the current effort to finally put a limit on nutrient and sediment pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. Agriculture accounts for 42 percent of today's nitrogen, 46 percent of today's phosphorus, and 72 percent of the sediment entering the Chesapeake Bay.

This amendment would break up the existing Federal, State, local, and private partnership by prohibiting any Federal financial assistance to farmers, municipalities, and businesses that are working to improve the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would set aside the tremendous progress this Congress has made in restoring the bay.

The pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is also a jobs killer for the citizens in its watershed. If this amendment passes, it will ultimately result in a loss of thousands of fishing, crabbing and tourism jobs.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to retreat on our commitment to restore this great estuary nor to kill the thousands of jobs that their survival depends upon. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

This is very important. We talked to the general counsel at the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Goodlatte is wrong on this.

He says--his amendment says none of the funds may be intended to fund EPA. But his amendment actually doesn't mention EPA. It says no Federal funds period. That means that the farmers, the agribusiness throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, would lose about $100 million in conservation efforts if this amendment were to be approved.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that miles of the Chesapeake Bay have died, largely because of the fertilizer that washes into the bay. The vegetation at the bottom feeds on that nitrogen, and it grows like it's on steroids. When it decomposes, it sucks up all the oxygen in the water, and as a result, nothing can live in large areas of the Chesapeake Bay--no crabs, no oysters, no fish.

Nothing. It's dead, even the plant life can't survive when the oxygen has been so depleted in the process of decomposition.

This amendment needs to be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlelady. I won't take but 30 seconds. Just to mention the fact, I've been around long enough to recall when money was requested for the Vice President's mansion when Dick Cheney was living

there. That money was provided. This side didn't object when money was put into the White House when George Bush was the resident. This is kind of mean-spirited games. It's really beneath us. Let's not do this kind of stuff.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand--I use that analogy because we're talking about Florida--hoping that a growing problem somehow will miraculously go away.

Back in 2009, a consent decree was reached in Federal court between EPA and numerous Florida environmental groups to set numeric limits for nutrients in the State's lakes, rivers, and streams. Such numeric standards are the only way to make progress correcting ecological problems. The need for the standards contained in this consent decree was demonstrated repeatedly by Florida's Department of Environmental Protection. They pointed out that 1,000 miles of the State's rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of Florida's lakes, and 900 square miles of its estuaries were contaminated by nutrient pollution from sewage discharges and fertilizer or manure runoff.

But this amendment would block these standards from being used. I fail to understand how the supporters of this amendment think that it's okay for folks to dump manure, fertilizer,

and sewage into lakes and rivers without regard to the health of these waters or to the health of the people who depend upon these waters.

This water quality rule was published last November, but the regulations don't go into effect until March of next year. The major activity by EPA that this amendment would prevent is an education effort to help the communities, businesses, and the public meet these new standards.

The amendment also would block EPA from improving the regulations to meet the legitimate concerns of the public. That's what EPA is trying to do, reach out, get their ideas. There's a good question as to how much longer tourists will keep flocking to Florida if its lakes, streams, and rivers are in a death spiral, flushed with the water quality of cesspools.

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

May I inquire how much time we have left?

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield the remaining 3 minutes to the very distinguished lady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is the second of three amendments designed to kill regulation of mountaintop mining. The amendment would prevent EPA from working with other Federal agencies and mining companies to ensure that mountaintop mining is carried out in a manner that protects public health, the environment, and the economy using the best available science.

Mountaintop surface mining removes entire mountaintops to access the coal underneath but then deposits toxic mining waste in nearby streams. Practices not carried out carefully and responsibly can be devastating to the environment and to local economies.

There's been longtime uncertainty regarding what laws applied, uncertainty about which Federal agencies to work with, and uncertainty about potential liability. This uncertainty was eliminated when Interior, EPA, and the Corps of Engineers agreed to work with mining companies and implement a common procedure for reviewing permits. And it was with the goal of--and I quote--to strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and to lay out common procedures on mountaintop mining.

This memorandum of understanding brought clarity for all the parties--States, mining companies, environmentalists, and Federal agencies--so that mining could move forward. But what we have here is an effort at good government punished by legislators with an ax to grind. Agencies are punished for not working together. Then when they do, we punish them for working together.

Permit reviews will just take longer and the process will be more confusing to companies because this amendment won't change the law. This amendment could extend the mining company's permit process for years and cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in delays. That's why this amendment should be defeated.

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

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Well, the point is we have three agencies responsible for this permitting function. They weren't necessarily working together. Now, they're working together. We have a memorandum of understanding. They know that their goal is to strengthen the Appalachian regional economy, and to work with all the parties to bring them together. That's what memorandum of understanding says.

This amendment eliminates all the progress that has been achieved. They were attempting to promote good government and a good relationship with the mining companies. It's not going to happen. If this amendment goes through, this amendment kills that memorandum of understanding. The law remains, but they can't cooperate now if this amendment was to pass.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, these programs put together by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are designed to replenish diminishing fish stocks. They assign shares to individuals, cooperatives, other fishing communities, because what we have seen that has resulted in depleted fish stocks and overfishing is a race to fish where the concern is that the stock is being depleted. And so they run out to get what's left.

NOAA is trying to intervene and equitably divide up what's left, what we scientifically understand is left, and try to cooperate.

Now, I can understand there are many fishing communities that don't want NOAA's intervention. But NOAA has been successful in ensuring sustainable fisheries and preventing overfishing and creating more stable and lucrative fishing jobs in communities from Alaska to Florida. And they bring a lot of economic and biological benefits. They eliminate what many think are dangerous races to fish, or what are called ``derby'' conditions, and they improve safety for fishermen.

NOAA seems to know what they're doing. Where they've done it, it's been successful. I think we should look to the experts and understand that we've got to have greater sustainability of our fishing stock.

How much time do I have at this point, Mr. Chairman?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Well, Mr. Chairman, I can understand where my very good friends are coming from. They represent a lot of professional and very responsible fishermen. And I know they know what they're talking about. On the other hand, NOAA does, too.

And NOAA has been successful. They have been successful from Alaska to Florida in allocating assigned limits to various fishing entities that were at serious risk of losing their fishing stock.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, the point is, NOAA's objective is to sustain the fish supply so that these fishermen will continue to have jobs--not just now but in the future and for their children and grandchildren. That's NOAA's objective. That's why I think we should reject the amendment.

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

We all agree that we all need to be financially responsible with regard to the Federal budget, but this continuing resolution already substantially reduces funds for every single agency of the government. A freeze in civilian pay for Federal employees is already in effect for 2 years. It prevents cost of living and locality pay increases for the entire Federal workforce, including civilian employees of the Defense Department, although uniformed employees can get raises. If you're a political appointee you can get an increase but not if you're a civil service employee.

Mr. Chairman, a little over a majority of the Federal workforce is eligible for retirement over the next 5 years. We are going to make their lives far more difficult with the restraints on program funding we're putting in this bill, and then we're going to say they're not going to be able to get compensated when we tell them they have to do more with less funding for their agencies? We are going to lose our best and brightest people in the government, and as a result, the American people are going to lose the quality of service they've come to trust and expect.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

With 30 seconds remaining, I think I should let the gentleman from California conclude his remarks.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, we are the world's superpower, and much of the responsibility for maintaining the status of being that superpower falls on the shoulders of our Federal civil service.

Already, they get about a third less than what they would be getting in the private sector for the same responsibilities. We desperately need the best and the brightest, from all over this country, to serve the American people. If we punish them by limiting their salaries, by making them scapegoats, we are doing a disservice to the American people. Let's not do this. Defeat the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to a very thoughtful and informed expert on this issue, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia's amendment tries to prohibit EPA from carrying out section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. It's one more effort to deregulate all aspects of mountaintop mining. Section 404(c) authorizes EPA under especially serious circumstances to pull back permits for dredging and filling with toxic material if they would have a substantially adverse effect upon the quality of water, wildlife, and fishery areas. EPA has only used this 404(c) authority 13 times in the 39 years of the Clean Water Act.

But this amendment and its backers don't want EPA using that authority to prevent the coal industry from polluting the contiguous waters to their mountaintop mining. We know that mountaintop surface mining removes entire mountaintops so that they can get to the coal underneath, but then in the process invariably deposits toxic mining waste in the nearby streams. And then that gets into the public's water supply. It costs substantial sums of money to subsequently clean it, and toxically polluted can be not only devastating to the environment, but devastating to local economies.

Only in the most egregious instances has EPA used this authority. They should have the right to pull permits when companies carelessly and seriously harm the environment. That's EPA's responsibility. It's understandable that mining companies don't want any restriction on their mining, but it's not excusable for this Congress to prevent the EPA from carrying out its lawful responsibilities and not to heed the long-term health impacts on the American people and of the quality of the water in these regions. So I urge

the defeat of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the body knows where we stand, on the side of responsible environmental preservation and clean water for our children to drink.

At this point, in deference to the chairman of the full committee, I yield what time remains to the gentleman from Kentucky, because I see him standing, and I suspect he wants to be heard on this.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would stop EPA from identifying coal ash as hazardous waste and, therefore, prevent any regulation of that waste. The fact is that coal ash contains dangerous contaminants, such as mercury, cadmium, and arsenic, and we know those can be dangerous to public health. Without further guidance by EPA, this ash will continue to be stored onsite at many large power plants, where it leaches into the groundwater and into nearby streams. EPA has found a number of communities across the country where coal ash has contaminated drinking water sources poisoning people and wildlife.

Through its public rulemaking process, it's been developing a rule. In fact, it has received more than 450,000 public comments. It's had Web-based seminars. It's done everything to get opinion on both sides of this issue. It's currently conducting risk and economic analyses of the options available.

Suspending work on a final regulation isn't going to satisfy anybody. But it will ensure that you're going to continue to have the coal ash at risk of contaminating drinking water, you are going to create uncertainty for power companies that burn coal, and you are going to eliminate potential markets for coal ash reuse. Potential users are not going to buy it if they think some day it might cause liability. The final EPA rule would eliminate that uncertainty, allow for coal ash to be properly stored and used, and eliminate the risk for health and the environment. That's why the amendment should be defeated.

At this point, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. Presidents of both parties have used this act to increase protection to lands and waters that are already U.S. Government controlled. The act has no impact on private lands. It's a law that was passed by a Republican-led Congress and signed by a Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt.

Since then, 15 U.S. Presidents have declared 131 national monuments under the act--eight Republican Presidents, seven Democratic Presidents.

It must be remembered that the lands withdrawn are Federal lands owned by all Americans--not just the residents of certain States or localities in which they happen to be located. The Nation, not just a single State, has a vital interest in the future of these lands and their unique qualities.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time I have remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remaining 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Mr. Chairman, the Noem amendment would prevent the EPA from updating air pollution standards for dangerous soot pollution. The Clean Air Act requires that EPA revise the limits on this type of harmful pollution when new science tells us it's necessary to protect human health. EPA hasn't changed this standard since 1987. The amendment would tell EPA though--it would require EPA--to ignore the science. If new science has emerged in the last 24 years that shows that soot pollution is more dangerous than we knew 24 years ago, EPA would have to ignore any new scientific findings.

This amendment applies to one dangerous pollutant, coarse materials. They're so small that they get past the respiratory system's natural defenses and they lodge in our lungs. Scientific studies have linked these particles to a variety of serious health problems, including increased respiratory symptoms in children and premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

Why is the majority party so afraid of science? I don't know as much about particulate matter as the scientists at EPA, but I don't really think you do either. It seems to me we ought to defer to the scientists and respect the public's health.

EPA is charged with protecting the public health. They're doing a pretty good job and we ought to let them do it.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. Chairman, equal access to our Nation's courts for all Americans is a hallmark of our democracy and our system of justice. Providing attorneys' fees to successful plaintiffs, which is what the Equal Access to Justice Act does, ensures that the government is held accountable when it overreaches its power. These fees are only available when a party prevails on the merits of a lawsuit and only then after careful consideration by the presiding judge as to how deserving each plaintiff is.

Attorneys' fees are available to individual citizens, local communities, small business, tribal entities, nonprofits, all regardless of where they stand on any particular issue. Providing attorneys' fees ensures that powerless, less wealthy individuals who wouldn't otherwise have a voice as a result of their not being wealthy or representing a corporate interest can nevertheless be heard by our government, by our court system; otherwise, they wouldn't have the means.

We already suffer under a system where too often big money, as was discussed in the last amendment, crowds average people out of our political system, squeezing them out of this political process here on Capitol Hill. Now you want a system where big money squeezes average people out of the courthouse as well, out of our justice system?

Awarding attorneys' fees makes it possible for environmental groups-- I acknowledge that--to bring court actions to protect our environment. I happen to think that's a good thing, but it also allows small business owners, farmers, ranchers, timber workers to ensure that their rights are protected as well when they believe that the Federal Government is in the wrong. It works both ways.

This Republican zeal to target every program that protects natural resources is just difficult to comprehend. You're proposing an amendment that would slam the courthouse doors closed for any average citizen plaintiff, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

Instead of finding practical solutions that protect the environment and create jobs, this amendment would do nothing more than financially punish citizens who want and need, and deserve to have their voices heard.

That's why this amendment should be defeated.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my very good friend from Idaho.

Is it not the case that you only get fees on that part of the suit that you brought where you actually win? That you do have to prevail in order to get something in order to get reimbursed. And it's only on where you prevail that you get any fee reimbursement.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

This amendment would attempt to put to an end a rule that, first of all, would increase revenues in the industry sectors that design, manufacture and install pollution control equipment by as much as $2.2 billion and increase employment in the cement industry by as much as 1,300 jobs. So, in effect, the amendment could be considered a job-killer amendment.

But what it does is to prohibit EPA from implementing, administering or enforcing final rules to control air toxins from the Portland cement industry.

The standards for Portland cement kilns have already been promulgated. The amendment would not relieve the industry of the obligation to meet these standards. Even though the agency would be precluded from spending funds to enforce the standards, citizens or States could bring enforcement actions against these sources of pollution that didn't comply with the standards.

This amendment would also prevent EPA from providing technical assistance to such sources of pollution to assist them in understanding and complying with the rule or to the States to assist the States in enforcing the rule.

The compliance date is 2013, so the regulated industry sources are now in the process of evaluating control equipment needs and preparing to order large amounts of equipment in order to be in compliance. Lack of EPA assistance and oversight at this critical time may ultimately result in a number of facilities not being prepared to comply on the compliance date. This in turn could result in numerous enforcement actions and citizen lawsuits, all of which would ultimately result in significant costs that would have to be borne by the States and regulated sources which this amendment would make avoidable.

These funding limitations to stop EPA rules really have unintended consequences. They don't stop the legal requirements to regulate polluters. They really do, though, contribute to the pockets of lawyers that would litigate these issues out in the courtrooms.

It seems to me that we should defeat what is really an unnecessarily costly amendment and an ill-advised and ill-timed one. So I would urge defeat of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment stops funding for--and I will quote--the Environmental Appeals Board to consider review, reject, remand, or otherwise invalidate any permit issued for Outer Continental Shelf sources located offshore of the States along the Arctic coast.

Now, the gentleman has shared with us a specific situation, but his amendment goes considerably beyond that. The appeals board is the final decisionmaker on administrative appeals under all major environmental statutes that the Environmental Protection Agency administers. It's an impartial body, independent of all agency components outside the immediate office of the administrator. To support this amendment is to take away people's right to petition their government. This is an impartial board that looks out for the regular citizen. In fact, they just took great care and ruled on the side of Alaskans and courageously ruled against EPA's issuance of a permit to Shell Oil.

I thought the gentleman and his side of the aisle would take sincere joy in any decision ruling against EPA. But that's not the case, apparently. I guess EPA is okay as long as it doesn't use any Federal funds and rules exactly the way that you want them to. And, in fact, EPA did rule the way that the gentleman wants, it's just that we have an appeals board. That appeals board is there for good reason, has been for some time.

I don't have to tell the gentleman, but I think the other Members of this body should know that the Environmental Appeals Board found that EPA's analysis of the effect on Alaskan Native communities of nitrogen dioxide emissions from the drilling ships was too limited, ordered the agency to redo the work. It doesn't mean that they can't drill. The analysis is incomplete. We should let that legal process work and stop interfering in long-standing regulatory and administrative processes. The amendment will be seen as an assault on the environment and an affront to the Alaskans who engaged in this case.

I'm disappointed that the gentleman's position would appear to favor Big Oil over the small Alaskan villages that are being protected in this reconsideration. It doesn't mean that there won't be drilling; it simply means that the analysis to enable that drilling needs to be full and complete.

I urge defeat of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would underscore some points previously made.

Number one, we are not taking a position on the merits of this case. It may very well be, I would not be surprised, in fact, personally, that ultimately the drilling off the Arctic coast would be approved. But this is like taking a case to the district court. The district court agrees with you, and then the plaintiff appeals, goes to the appeals court. The appeals court disagrees or says that there needs to be more information. That's exactly what this appeals board did. Now, presumably, that information is being gathered. It will be presented. And when it is, I don't know why the appeals board would not agree with the EPA decision.

The problem with this amendment is we're setting a precedent to say, if we don't like the appeals board, we like the district court decision, which is in this case EPA's decision, then we accept EPA's decision, ignore that appeals process. That's what we're opposed to. It seems to me we ought not be legislating that kind of judicial decision that affects many people's lives and incomes, clearly, and the environment without a full hearing.

What's going to happen if this legislation were passed is that the decisionmaking process that allows this drilling will be suspect and a permit will not be able to be fully issued without reservation. So for that reason, I would suggest that the right thing to do is to defeat this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this entire bill, this CR, is replete with amendment after amendment targeting the public's health and the environment. This is one of the worst, at least in its intent. As a practical matter, it's not clear why this amendment is being offered, really, as it appears to duplicate section 1746 of the underlying bill. But both section 1746 and this amendment are truly radical attempts to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job of protecting the health and welfare of every American.

This particular amendment would bar EPA from addressing carbon pollution, period--pollution which seriously endangers public health and the environment. It not only guts the Clean Air Act, but it also imposes a job-destroying construction ban in many States. According to the National Academy of Sciences and the premier scientific organizations of all the world major economies, man-made carbon pollution is changing the climate and is endangering the public's health and the environment.

The American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and thousands of doctors, nurses, and other public health professionals support EPA's action on this public health threat; but this amendment bars EPA from acting, from carrying out its legal responsibility. Under the Clean Air Act, companies building large new facilities like power plants and refineries need to make sure that they have taken reasonable steps to reduce their carbon pollution because it's easier to control pollution from the beginning, the point where a facility is being built, rather than waiting and trying to retrofit it after it has been constructed.

All EPA is asking is that these large new facilities be energy efficient. They can meet the standard if they simply meet energy efficiency standards. The Poe amendment, though, would prevent EPA from implementing this commonsense requirement to protect the public health from the largest and most dangerous sources of carbon pollution.

EPA has also indicated it plans to set minimum Federal standards for the two largest sources of carbon pollution, which are power plants and oil refineries. This amendment would prevent EPA from even proposing these standards. Those standards are really a limitation on what they could and I think should be doing in terms of regulating pollution throughout the country. But they're going to stick to the two largest sources.

Ironically, given all of the rhetoric we've heard about environmental regulations hurting the economy, this Poe amendment is a job-destroyer. Under the Clean Air Act, a company wanting to build or expand a power plant or other facility has to get a permit for that facility's carbon pollution before beginning construction. The Poe amendment does nothing to change that. What it does do is take away EPA's authority to issue those permits. So that basically amounts to a construction ban.

This is more than a paperwork problem. In essence the Poe amendment will impose that de facto construction ban on jobs in all or parts of at least 13 States. And without the needed permits, construction cannot proceed. So a vote for the Poe amendment would be a vote not only against the Clean Air Act, it is a vote for a de facto construction ban. Thousands of jobs lost in States across this country. That's why we very strongly oppose the Poe amendment. We do support EPA's authority to cut carbon pollution and allow the construction of energy- efficient power plants, refineries and other facilities to proceed as planned.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time on each side?

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington, Mr. Jay Inslee, one of the House's premier experts on the issue of air pollution.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are actually a couple of points that I would share with the gentleman who had been the ranking member and who is now the senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The committee could pass legislation if they chose. I don't think this is the correct vehicle, a continuing resolution on funding activities, to be making law with regard to the Clean Air Act.

Secondly, as Mr. Inslee informs me, the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court said if you can show that there is an adverse health effect, then EPA is required by law to address that. That's what EPA is trying to do. That's what this amendment would prevent EPA from doing.

Now, it is not theory. Climate change is fact. It is real. Future generations will look back upon this generation and will wonder, how could our parents and grandparents have been so unmindful of the health effects that our families are experiencing.

That is certainly fair. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, there is an ongoing discussion as to theory and fact. We are convinced that the facts are there. They are science-driven facts. In fact, the melting of the polar ice cap has had a direct effect upon the concentration of moisture in the atmosphere, which is then causing the volatility: the extreme nature of the snowstorms, the flooding, even the droughts that we have been experiencing. There is no question but that in the last decade we have had the warmest years on record.

These are facts, but this is not the vehicle in which they should be debated and at 1 a.m. in the morning. I just simply would urge that we defeat this amendment. It is the wrong amendment and the wrong vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Rev. Bill Shuler, who delivered this morning's invocation. He is the senior pastor of Capital Life Church in Arlington, Virginia.

He and his family moved to the Washington metropolitan area on September 1, 2001, just days before 9/11. And in response to the tragic events of 9/11, Rev. Shuler launched a prayer center near the Capitol out of which formed the Capital Life Church. He is the seventh generation in an unbroken line of ministers in the Shuler family. I think it might be interesting for the Members to know that Rev. Shuler has preached in 30 nations of the world. He served for 8 years as a university chaplain and a dean of spiritual affairs at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Dr. Billy Graham recently expressed his appreciation for the ``godly heritage that continues through the Shuler family.'' In fact, Dr. Graham's biographer said that Rev. Shuler's father, evangelist Jack Shuler, was ``at least as popular as Billy Graham'' during the 1940s and 1950s. And, in fact, Rev. Shuler's grandfather, Robert Shuler, was the first of the great radio preachers. He was called Fighting Bob Shuler. He pastored the famous Trinity Methodist Church in the heart of Los Angeles, California.

He is joined today by a number of congregants as well as his three lovely daughters and beautiful wife.

We thank Rev. Shuler for gracing this House with our invocation today.

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, I move to strike the last word.

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 move to strike the last word.

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.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman. This amendment would entirely eliminate funding for a successful, proven program. The National Capital Arts grant program was established in 1986 to fill a substantial funding gap affecting the major private arts groups in the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital. It now funds 23 such groups. In every other major city in the United States, major private arts groups receive Federal funds from their State arts councils, which frequently have such a major institution's funding category.

That's not particularly important, but those who are involved in arts organizations understand that that's the money they depend upon. In D.C., they don't have that money to depend upon. No similar flow of government funds from any level is available to major arts groups in Washington, D.C.

The 23 groups that receive this money employ thousands of people. Outreach efforts to schoolchildren is one of the principal things that is funded through this National Capital Arts grant program. If we didn't have this, those outreach programs would be virtually eliminated. They constitute almost all of the arts outreach and arts educational programs that are available to children in the D.C. schools and schools in the suburbs. It's a program that has widespread popular support. It is not a lot of money for each organization, but it's essential money to enable them to continue functioning.

The fact that we are talking about such a small amount of money in the context of such an enormous deficit, it really seems wrong that children in our Nation's Capital would be denied outreach from these arts institutions that are proximate to where they live but wholly inaccessible without this program. So I would urge that we have a heart, particularly for the children in the schools in Washington, D.C. Reject this amendment and leave this very small amount of money in this interior appropriations bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment that would eliminate funding for the Presidio Trust.

The Presidio was in continuous use as a military post from 1776 until 1994. An Army installation, the post was closed in 1994 as part of the BRAC process and transferred to the National Park Service. In 1996, Congress established the Presidio Trust to govern this unique national park site and to ensure its preservation by making it financially self- sustaining. And that's exactly what has happened.

Over the past 12 years, appropriations as a percentage of the overall trust budget have been reduced from over 95 percent Federal funding in fiscal year 1998 to less than 20 percent in fiscal year 2010. The current ratio of private investment in the Presidio to Federal appropriations is already greater than 4:1. Appropriations, though, are authorized through fiscal year 2012. That was the deal. After 2012, the trust itself, by itself, alone, is responsible for long-term operations and maintenance of the Presidio.

Since it took over management of the Presidio in 1998, the trust has rehabilitated and leased 97 percent of the Presidio's housing units and rehabilitated 75 percent of the Presidio's 433 very historic buildings. I've been there. I've seen it. It's phenomenal what the trust has accomplished.

Eliminating funds just 1 year short of its goal violates the spirit of the 1996 law, and it undermines the trust's ability to achieve self- sufficiency. This would result in higher future obligations, as the Federal Government might have to assume full responsibility to maintain the historic properties.

It also sends a terrible signal to communities across the country that may also have innovative solutions in partnering with the Federal Government. They are time-controlled; in other words, it's not forever. But they say for a certain period of time, if you'll partner with us, we'll take this responsibility off your hands.

The $23 million appropriated for the trust in fiscal year 2010 has created 860 jobs. Federal appropriations in this current fiscal year will help expedite rehabilitation of historic buildings and take advantage of favorable construction costs that exist today.

At a recent oversight hearing, the members of our Appropriations subcommittee received assurances that the trust will accomplish its financial stewardship and public use goals. That was the deal. They said, We'll meet our part of the deal, assuming that the Federal Government will meet its obligation.

As one of the Nation's oldest and most important military posts, the trust has had some unique extraordinary challenges since the Defense Department closed out its installation, but the trust is well on its way toward meeting its legislative objectives. It should not be undermined by this amendment.

This has worked well. It's an example for the rest of the country. Let it serve as an example. One more year to go, and then it will be off our books. The trust will take over responsibility, and we will point out that this is the way to do it, in partnership, where we will not be perpetually responsible but, in fact, the private sector will come in, let the market work and have a national gem, really, a national asset for everyone to visit and appreciate and learn from.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time and strongly urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Appropriations Committee for 17 years. Eleven of them were under Republican control, eight under a Republican President. And I'm proud of the investments that we've made in this country during those 17 years. We were stronger, more secure, a more productive economy as a result of those investments.

We've improved the lives of Americans. We've cleaned up our water. We've invested in transportation, our national defense, our education system. That's why we have the strongest economy and why, in fact, we continue to be the very best place on the planet to live, to work, and to provide a better future for our children.

What we are doing in this continuing resolution is targeting those programs that are called ``domestic discretionary.'' They represent about 4\1/2\ percent of the entire budget, and they have stayed pretty well even. During the Reagan administration, during the Clinton administration, during the Bush administration, which was when we had the lowest job growth ever, they were at about 7\1/2\ percent.

The fact is we are not going to balance our budget by targeting that small amount of the budget. The reality is that, when President Reagan left office, tax receipts were about 18.2 percent. They went up a bit during the Clinton administration when we had the greatest expansion ever and when, in fact, people at the highest rate of income tax pocketed more money after taxes than at any time in American history. Right now, they are at 14.9 percent of GDP.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the problem is not one of not investing enough in our country, but one of the revenue being brought in and its being grossly inadequate. In a historical context, we can prove that to be the case. When revenue goes down that low, our economy shrinks; and it becomes a self-defeating cycle.

Now, in the Interior and the Environment appropriations bill, some of the things we do is take out the program that uses offshore oil revenues for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which protects our Nation's precious lands. We are going to dramatically cut construction and maintenance at our national parks, refuges and forests. We are going to take the money away from the Governors and mayors throughout the country for the plumbing that goes underneath our land, what's called the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund. That's money they desperately need to ensure the public's health. We take it for granted. We won't take it for granted anymore if we stop those grants.

This bill will not create a single new job. In fact, we estimate it will cut about 800,000 jobs, both public and private. That's not worthy of this Congress on either side of the aisle to be cutting jobs. What we need to be doing is investing in jobs, investing in education, and making sure that children who have been born in particularly difficult social and economic conditions have access to Head Start.

Don't cut $1 billion out of Head Start. Don't cut kindergarten through 12 education, which is the seed corn of our future. Those aren't investments. Those are arbitrary cuts. That's not what we have been about, and that's not how we enable this country to be as strong and as great as it is.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when we do our budget analysis that it be done with a scalpel, like a surgeon would approach it, not with a meat ax. We should respect all of the good work that the appropriations committees have done over the years in making this a better country as a result.

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

I rise in opposition to this amendment, in support of what the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee has said as well as Chairman Young both of whom have substantial years of experience behind them.

Now, what Mr. Frank has suggested has merit, but to support this amendment is a non sequitur to that argument. As for the gentleman from Arizona, at least he is consistent. As for the gentleman offering the amendment, well, let me try to explain why it is counterproductive. It defines the phrase ``penny wise and pound foolish.''

In fact, where we have made our greatest strides within the defense budget is in small business innovation. There are half a dozen very large defense contractors. They serve our country well. They take good ideas, they hire people, they develop them, they achieve major procurement contracts with the Defense Department. But, for the most part, they don't come up with the innovations. It's the small businesses throughout the country, that more often than not, come up with those innovations.

For example, the predator drone that has been the most successful weapon in Afghanistan was an earmark for small businesses with an innovative idea. An idea, incidentally, that was initially opposed by the Defense Dept. Much of our IED success in saving lives has come from small businesses.

Much of the simulation training that we provide our troops so they don't have to put their lives at risk, but rather can achieve the kind of training that gives them the skill set to represent us with such courage and effectiveness on the battlefield, that comes from small business innovation.

And what we are trying to do now is to put a relatively small sum of money together so that thousands of small businesses throughout the country can compete for those small grants.

Now, the fact is, as much as I respect the defense contractors, it is not necessarily in their interests to innovate, to come up with cost- cutting efficiencies, because it means that you have to reduce personnel and contract costs. Oftentimes, it exposes the fact that we're paying more than we need to for innovative approaches to securing our country. It is the small businesses of this country that really provide the ability for us to find the highest level of efficiency and effectiveness within our Defense Department.

For half a billion dollars, we will find more ways to save thousands of lives and we know we will save tens of billions of dollars in the long run. That's what this program is all about. It's a departure from the way we have done things. It's all about saving money, not relying upon Big Business or Big Government, but letting small businesses flourish who otherwise couldn't get the capital, wouldn't have the investors, couldn't pull the personnel together and pay them long enough to be able to adequately develop the potential of a great idea.

So this small pool of innovative research money will fund great ideas, ideas that make our troops safer, that enable us to let our dollars go further, and in fact enable our Nation to be far more secure. This is just the kind of program we ought to be funding more of in the Defense Department. That's why I would strongly urge defeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I can understand why our colleagues from Illinois have offered this amendment. Assertions recently surfaced about the inability of the Osprey to operate in hot conditions, high altitudes or from U.S. Navy ships. But the fact is that these charges have been disproven repeatedly in daily operations. The fact is that the Osprey provides unparalleled flexibility for Marines and Air Force Special Forces in combat operations.

We have had 14 fully successful deployments to date. No aircraft in the U.S. inventory has been subjected to as extensive a series of live- fire testing as the V-22. It is the most survivable rotorcraft ever built for the Marine Corps and Air Force. When the enemy has been able to hit the V-22, the aircraft has absorbed the damage and returned to base without injuries to passengers or crew on every single occasion.

Many of the initial readiness challenges stem from deploying the aircraft into combat before a supply chain and depot maintenance infrastructure was adequately in place. The reason it cost more was that the Special Forces felt they needed to bring it into combat operation immediately because it was such a successful rotorcraft. They needed it for the safety and effectiveness of our troops.

The fact is that major studies from both government and industry have shown that the V-22 is more operationally effective and cost efficient than any helicopter alternative. It requires fewer aircraft, fewer personnel and support than conventional rotorcraft. That results in a reduced footprint and, what we all need to be concerned about, particularly in this context, a lower total life-cycle costs.

For that reason, I think that we ought to reject this amendment and enable the Defense Department to choose its own priorities for cost cutting, and certainly Secretary Gates is in the process of doing that.

I yield back.

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

Mr. Chairman, similar to the Small Business Innovation Research, this is actually one of the very most important things we can be doing within the defense budget, not just for national security, but equally for our national economy.

This is the line item that funded the Internet. The whole concept of the Internet came from DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is funded in this category of the defense budget RDT&E, Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation. Imagine what the Internet has meant to the American economy, let alone the world. Look what just happened in Egypt, ultimately because of the Internet.

The GPS system that we have in our vehicles, we take it for granted now. Where did it come from? The RDT&E account in the Defense Department. This is what we want to cut out? We can't afford to.

The unmanned aerial vehicles, the drones, the most effective warfighting weapon we have right now, a weapon that doesn't put our soldiers' lives at risk but is maximally effective at targeting the enemy, RDT&E. Defense research.

Precision targeting was a result of research innovation within this account. That is what gives us our cutting edge. That is why we have the most effective defense capability in the world. But it is also one of the reasons

why we have the strongest economy in the world. There is no other area of research that means as much to this economy, and, frankly, it means a great deal to the entire world's economy.

The National Institutes of Health, we do wonderful research there, but, notwithstanding the lives we save, the spinoff to the private sector is not as extensive as the spinoff from the research we do within the Defense Department.

I guess it is a good thing we get these amendments because it gives us an opportunity to explain to the American people, particularly the taxpayer, what they are getting for their money, where these ideas come from. Many of them come from the Defense Department, and it is because of the investment we have made in research, development, testing, and evaluation.

So I obviously would urge rejection of this amendment.

I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I can understand that there are a lot of jobs at stake, there's politics, there's regional economies, and so on, to be considered in this issue. I don't particularly have a dog in the hunt, but I'd like to share with you why I disagree with the amendment, why I think it's in the national interest to have an alternative engine.

The experience that we had in the 1980s with the F-16 engine, it seems to me, should inform this debate. We had a sole source contract, basically; with the same manufacturer to build a single engine for the F-16. It was way over budget and outside of--any reasonable production schedule. Production was substantially delayed. And we had little leverage until we brought in an alternative contractor. We brought in competition. All of a sudden we got right on schedule and on budget.

I think this situation is analogous. We're talking about a $100 billion contract for the principal jet fighter we're going to have for the next generation. And we have one engine manufacturer that we're going to be reliant upon. It's also going to be one of our most substantial exports to other militaries around the world. It's going to be a very substantial source of jobs and revenue, and in fact, I have to say, military dominance.

What we are talking about is having competition to ensure that we get the best bang for the buck for the taxpayers. In fact, the Government Accountability Office has estimated, over the long run, we will save money through this competition. That's why the majorities of the Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Committee have decided, after a great deal of deliberation, that we need competition in this program.

If it were not such a major program, if it were not so expensive--a $100 billion sole-source contract--maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but it was basically the consensus of the authorizing and appropriations committees that we should look to two manufacturers to compete against each other and to give the American taxpayer the greatest bang for the buck in producing the most effective and most efficient jet fighter in the world.

I think we all agree that we believe in the principle of competition. When you have monopoly control--invariably, you slack off a little bit. It's okay to bump your numbers up a little bit, perhaps. But when you have to compete with somebody else, you're always looking at the bottom line, always wanting a higher quality, a less expensive product. That's what this debate is all about. It's about a basic fundamental principle of the American economy--competition. For that reason, I would oppose the amendment.

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

Offered By: Mr. Moran

Amendment No. 337: Page 276, beginning on line 12, strike

section 1747.

Offered By: Mr. Moran

Amendment No. 338: Page 265, line 21, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Page 274, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

Page 274, line 25, after the second dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, both sides of the aisle agree that the top three priorities for this Congress are jobs, jobs, jobs. But when you look at what the new majority wants to do with the Federal budget, you really have to wonder, are they serious?

Now in the private sector, we've actually seen job growth for the last 12 months, 36,000 more jobs last month. But we've lost hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. And what should be of most concern to all Americans is that since 2008, more than 200,000 public sector jobs in the education arena--primarily teachers--have been lost; and at that very same time, student enrollment has gone up by 750,000 students. So you lose 200,000 educators while student enrollment goes up 750,000? That's our seed corn for our future. And what's going to happen with this new budget that we will be debating next week is that it is going to be far worse than anything we could have imagined, and that will hurt the future of this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I am on the floor today to introduce a resolution acknowledging the 100th year anniversary of the passage of the Weeks Act. This little-known act marks a significant conservation achievement in the annuls of this nation's conservation movement. John W. Weeks, a Republican Congressman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was relentless in his efforts to pass this legislation, which authorized the federal purchase of cutover and denuded forestlands in the headwaters of navigable streams for the purpose of conserving the flow of streams and rivers and to restore lands for future timber production. It took close to two years of fierce battle with his colleagues before he succeeded as the Weeks Act cleared Congress on March 1, 1911.

Few of my colleagues may be aware, but at the turn of the 19th century, vast amounts of private forested land in the eastern United States had been ravaged by clear cut logging. In the absence of trees, vast areas of the East were prone to flooding and soil erosion, as well as destructive forest fires. No longer productive, these lands were often abandoned and came into state and local ownership for nonpayment of taxes. To bring these lands back from the ecological brink, Rep. John Weeks introduced legislation directing the federal government to offer states and localities the opportunity to relieve themselves of these nonproductive lands and at federal expense restore them to their former condition.

Today 26 eastern states are home to 52 National Forests encompassing almost 25 million acres. These forests provide significant economic benefits. Not only are the forests recreational sanctuaries, they are also a major contributor in keeping America's drinking water clean. Many eastern municipal water supplies depend on National Forest watersheds and currently $450 billion in food and fiber, manufactured goods, and tourism depends on clean water and healthy watersheds. In addition, the timber supply managed by the Forest Service provides a significant monetary benefit. The timber resource was almost nonexistent when the federal government purchased the land, but today these lands host an estimated 42 billion cubic feet of growing stock and about 210 billion board feet of saw timber.

With this resolution we recognize and commemorate the vision of John W. Weeks and his contribution to the conservation movement. Both Republicans and Democrats recognized the importance of federal government in conserving the forests and the water supply for long-term environmental goals. Today I encourage both Congress and the Forest Service to begin a centennial celebration commemorating this major bipartisan accomplishment. Our 52 National Forests in 26 eastern states would not exist today were it not for passage of the Weeks Act of 1911.

I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.