Floor Statements

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I rise today in support of H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. This bill is a much-needed legislative fix that clarifies how pesticide application should be regulated. Congress never intended for pesticide applications that are already regulated under FIFRA to also require permits under the Clean Water Act. Yet because a Federal court did not interpret congressional intent correctly in a 2009 ruling, Congress must act to ensure that farmers, ranchers, forest managers, and other water users, as well as mosquito abatement districts and local governments, won't face unnecessary and duplicative regulations that would make it more difficult to do their jobs.

Everyone here supports protecting our water supplies from polluters acting in violation of our Nation's environmental laws and regulations; but it is also clear that pesticides used around streams to spray for mosquitoes and other pests are already adequately regulated under statute. Adding another layer of regulation by requiring NPDES permits for application of these pesticides doesn't make them safer. It only piles unnecessary paperwork on top of day-to-day operations for small businesses, farmers, and local governments.

My good friend from Oregon mentioned that in Oregon the application is only three pages long. So why should it be a problem? It misses the point. It doesn't matter if it's one page long or 100 pages long. The question is unnecessary dual regulation.

The legislation before us today would clarify Congress' intent that existing FIFRA regulations are adequate for aquatic pesticide use and provide needed certainty for farmers and ranchers who provide our Nation's food supply. I urge our colleagues to support this important legislative fix.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the gentleman that just spoke, the minority whip, a good friend of mine, what we can pass in this House and what our conference will agree to, and that is the $61 million in cuts or $100 million overall that we have already agreed to and already passed. We can pass that in this House.

I have heard that this is no way to run a railroad. My good friend from Virginia said this is no way to run a government. I have heard this is operational outrage. I will tell you the outrage here is that we are having to do this because the former majority, when they had the majority in the House, the majority in the Senate and the White House, failed to pass an appropriation bill. They left the American people in this country with this pile of crap. They should not complain about how we try to clean this up.

Mr. Speaker, by the end of this week, the appropriations subcommittee which I am privileged to chair, the Interior and Environment Subcommittee, will have had 12 budget oversight hearings over the past 3 weeks. That is 12 hearings addressing the fiscal 2012 budget that we will soon be writing.

It is worth noting that we are now 5\1/2\ months into the fiscal year 2011, and we still don't have a budget to fund the

government through the end of the current fiscal year. The CR we are considering today keeps the government operating for another 3 weeks. And you're right: We need to solve this within this next 3 weeks. The problem is you cannot negotiate with a body across the Rotunda that fails to act. We can't be the only ones at the table. We have to have something to negotiate with. We don't have that.

This CR saves taxpayers $6 billion, including $650 million in spending cuts from the Interior Subcommittee accounts that Republicans, Democrats, and the administration agree are reasonable and supportable on a bipartisan basis. The overall savings achieved through this CR, at a rate of $2 billion per week, is the 3-week equivalent to the $100 billion in cuts achieved in the long-term CR passed by House Republicans several weeks ago.

In the Interior budget alone, we have cut $380 million out of earmarks. We have cut the National Park Service Preserve America Program, eliminated it, and other programs, Save America's Treasures in the National Park Service, programs that the administration did not request funding for in their 2012 budget. So these are things that are agreed on by both Republicans and Democrats.

Now that the Senate has voted down two versions of the year-long CR, the Republican version, H.R. 1, that cut spending by $100 billion and the Democratic version that cut substantially less, it is time for both sides to come together on a funding bill for the rest of this year. The truth is that we really need to get the fiscal year 2011 budget written, passed, and signed into law so that we can turn our attention to next year's budget.

In the midst of the back and forth debate on spending, it is important to remember that these funding bills don't write themselves. Our Appropriations Committee staff have been working day and night, 7 days a week, for months now writing one CR after another, even as they prepare for hearings and study budget proposals for next year.

I encourage my colleagues to support this CR to keep the government open while both parties work to identify an acceptable level of spending cuts for the rest of the year. We can and should cut more from the spending budget, and I encourage my colleagues to support this CR.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

On behalf of the majority, I would like to echo the comments of my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Chris Topik came to the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations as a detailee from the Forest Service in the mid-1990s and, since that time, has worked on a nonpartisan basis to address many of the most critical issues facing our land management agencies. Chris is one of the most professional and widely respected individuals on the Appropriations Committee staff. His dry wit and friendly disposition will be greatly missed, and his institutional knowledge of Forest Service issues will be impossible to replace.

Chris, we appreciate your dedication and commitment over your many years of public service and wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 163, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 570, the Dental Emergency Responder Act of 2011, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, if this wasn't such a serious subject that we're discussing here, the Federal budget and how we're going to fund it for the next 2 weeks, it would almost be funny.

Almost every Member of the Democratic Party that has stood up and talked about this CR has said something like this--even the sponsor of this motion said something along these lines: Democrats know we have to reduce spending. Democrats want to reduce spending. Yet the very first time

they have a chance to vote to reduce spending, reductions that the administration agrees with in its 2012 budget and eliminating earmarks, the Democrats vote ``no''? It's strange but true.

In fact, instead of cutting spending, they propose to increase revenue. Or increase taxes.

In this fragile economy with energy prices rising, we should be encouraging more energy and gas development and production in the United States. We need more supply, not less supply. This would reduce the supply.

Oil prices are rising again; and with the wave of unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, there are fears that we could soon see a return to $4 or $5 gas in the United States this summer.

The moratorium put in place following the Deepwater Horizon accident was lifted last fall by the administration; but the administration has issued just one deepwater permit in the gulf, and that was issued just yesterday. The Federal judge called this de facto deepwater drilling moratorium unreasonable, unacceptable, and unjustifiable.

The public will have no patience for more delays, more excuses, and higher taxes if gas prices continue to rise, especially when we have untapped resources here in the United States not being utilized. We need to be encouraging more production in this country, not discouraging production in this country.

Oil and gas from Federal lands, both onshore and offshore, provide an important energy source and domestic jobs and billions of dollars of revenue to the United States. This is a job-killing proposal. This is an issue that needs to be addressed carefully and in great detail. A rush to impose new taxes and fees through a motion to recommit is hasty and unwise. We ought to let the committees of jurisdiction address this issue. I strongly, in the strongest terms, encourage my colleagues to vote against this ill-conceived motion to recommit.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It's important to remember what we're doing here. We're dealing with a CR that funds the government for the last 7 months. This is not a full-year appropriation bill. We're dealing with a much shorter period of time. So the $100 billion that we were asked to reduce in this budget, if you looked at it, by the time this probably gets done, would, in effect, be about $200 billion if it were a full-year appropriations bill. The Appropriations Committee has done its job. It has done what our Conference asked us to do.

We had actually had amendments on the floor that would reduce some accounts to less than what they have in the appropriations process. So I guess they would be paying us, I don't know. But some of the amendments have just gone too far. This one I think goes too far. And as some have said, across-the-board cuts don't give us the opportunity to decide what our priorities are. What we need to do is make sure that we get this amendment defeated, that we get this CR to fund the government for the last 7 months passed, and then get on with doing a budget for 2012, which was not done last year, and pass the appropriations bills so that we can fund the government for the next year at a level that I think many of the

RSC members will be happy with when we get that done.

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

Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the gentleman from Massachusetts just said, while this happened in 1995, it was not the Republican Congress. It was the Clinton administration and a result of the oil leases that were made under the Department of the Interior at the time and the Clinton administration.

If this amendment passed, companies with existing Deepwater Royalty Relief Act leases would be required to renegotiate lease terms with DOI to include price thresholds before getting new leases. Companies with Deepwater Royalty Relief Act leases have been successful multiple times in court challenging Interior's authority to include price thresholds in the lease agreements. DOI has lost at the district court, the appellate court, and the Supreme Court. The Secretary does not have the authority to include price thresholds on these leases.

The problem stems from language included in the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act itself and the regulations promulgated to implement the act that did not address or require Interior to include price thresholds in the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act leases.

In addition, forcing companies to renegotiate the leases would be a violation of contract law and would be challenged in court. This would only cost us millions of dollars more. This would hinder our leasing ability, reducing revenues to the Federal Government, not increasing revenues to the government, as it limits the pool of potential leases.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am tempted to ask the gentleman: What part of the contract that was signed by the Clinton administration don't you understand? But I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I would just remind the gentleman from New Jersey that it was the Clinton administration that let these leases.

I would like to now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Could the Chair inform me as to how much time is remaining on each side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

Mr. Chairman, this is such a bad amendment. It's one of the few amendments I've ever seen that actually leaves me speechless, so I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Is the gentlewoman's time expired?

I would be happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

I would be happy to yield--I think I just have 30 seconds left; is that correct?

I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Let me just conclude by saying I have one county that's 96 percent Federally owned. Ninety-six percent. That means 4 percent of the property is taxable in order to provide the services for all of you that come out and enjoy the beauty in the county.

Do you think PILT payments are appropriate? I think they are and I would hope that we overwhelmingly reject this amendment.

How much?

This is a dang good amendment, and it should pass.

The EPA continually claims that they want certainty, but what they are creating is uncertainty. I can tell you that every rancher and every farmer in Idaho and across this Nation is concerned about what the EPA is trying to do with dust regulations and the impact it is going to have on food production.

Pass this amendment regardless of what they say.

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

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I rise in strong support of this legislation offered by my good friend from Wyoming.

It would be one thing if what the gentleman from Virginia says were the case in reality. It's not the case in reality. I think that's the reason that this law was passed, so that those people, the powerless, less wealthy individuals that the gentleman referred to, would have access to the courts. And the last thing we want to do is deny citizens their right to have a say in how, in this case, our public lands are managed.

But it has become, frankly, a cottage industry: suing the Federal Government, which is suing the people, and then asking the people to pay for your legal fees to do so. The Equal Access to Justice will allow those suing the Federal Government to be reimbursed for their legal costs even if they don't prevail on a majority of the counts. The implication that the gentleman just gave is that you have to win. They can be reimbursed even if they don't prevail on a majority of the counts.

The law has been abused by several interest groups who have turned this into, as I said, a cottage industry and now sue the government on a regular basis. They fund their organization through this and that's a problem. If somehow we could get it back to what the gentleman said it was, that would be one thing. So far we haven't been able to do that. And, in fact, we had language in our last appropriations bill that didn't make it to the floor, along with the other appropriations bill, that would have at least said why don't we find out who's getting this money. If I'm a farmer out there and I get payments under the farm program, every

citizen in this country has the right and ability to look it up and see who's getting those farm payments. You know what, that doesn't happen with who's getting these fees, who's being reimbursed by the Federal Government.

They're supposed to keep track of that, but they don't do that; but, in fact, when we asked the Secretary, does this come out of your budget or does it come out of the justice fund, who pays for this? Nobody really knew.

And if it doesn't come out of their own budget, what's their incentive to do things the right way?

Quite frankly, many of these lawsuits prevent the management of Federal lands for the benefit of the people. For example, holding up important forest-thinning projects and wildfire prevention projects. This, as I said, has become a cottage industry and needs to be reformed. This would prevent these fees from being paid during the term of this CR the next 7 months or however long it takes.

I yield to my friend from Virginia.

That's accurate. But you don't have to prevail in the overall case. You could actually lose the case for what you are trying to do. It is the problem that good intentions have gone awry. And I will tell you that there are groups all across this country who have seen this as a way to fund their organizations, and we need to put a halt to it. Because what we're doing is asking the people of this country to fund people to sue them. I don't know who else does that. But on the other hand, I agree with the gentleman that we want those people that don't have the ability or the resources to have a say in how public lands are managed, to have a say in that. But it has gone awry, and we need to put an end to it, and we need to reform the process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Beginning in 2005, the Shell Oil Company purchased leases in the Beaufort and the Chukchi Seas located within the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf. The company paid over $2.1 billion for these lease rights, a reflection of the potentially vast reserves off of Alaska's coast.

Shell applied for air permits from the EPA for its Beaufort leases in 2006 and for the Chukchi in 2008. The company went through a lengthy and burdensome administrative process. Shell's permits were initially approved, but subsequently overturned by the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board. Last year, the Appropriations Committee addressed the problem by including language in the FY 2010 conference report specifically directing the agency to allocate sufficient funds and personnel to process the OCS permits in a timely manner. This simply did not happen. The company is effectively at square one after spending millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours.

Shell announced just this month that it had cancelled plans for drilling in the Arctic in the 2011 drilling season, which is a very short drilling season. They have spent millions on this and done everything by the book. And the appeals board has decided that because they should have foreseen that the rules were going to change, that they shouldn't have issued these air permits.

I think it's an overreach by the EPA and by the appeals board, and I support this amendment and would encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, we agree that there is a major problem

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairwoman, I insist on my point of order.

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

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand and sympathize with the

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I ask for a ruling by the Chair.

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

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

I continue to reserve my point of order.

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

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

I would be happy to.

I would be happy to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

I thank the gentleman.

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

Yes.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in concurrence with the comments of my ranking member from Virginia. Funding for the Presidio in this CR is $8.2 million below the FY10 enacted level, and $7 million below the fiscal year 2008 level.

When the government closed down the Presidio Army base in 1994, it was transferred to the National Park Service as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. It could have been turned over to the National Park Service and run as a historic park, but that would have cost tens of millions of dollars per year to the taxpayers. Instead, Congress devised a unique management and funding model by creating the Presidio Trust to preserve the Presidio and help it become financially self-sufficient. The trust manages 80 percent of the Presidio lands, including most of the buildings and infrastructure. The Park Service manages the remaining 20 percent, including the coastal areas of the Presidio. The Presidio Trust receives Federal appropriations that are diminishing each year and, as was mentioned, will cease at the end of FY12, when it becomes self-sufficient.

This truly is a model of how we can do these things where they will become self-sufficient and off the roll of the taxpayer. But our part of this is we have to keep our end of the deal. And so through FY12 we need to make sure that we keep our word on what was agreed on in 1996 and let this Presidio Trust take over and become self-sufficient at the end of the next fiscal year.

So I rise in opposition to this amendment and would encourage my colleagues to vote against it.

First, let's discuss the rule because we are here debating the rule.

Mr. Speaker, this is essentially an open rule. Yes, it does have a requirement for preprinting, but any Member can offer any amendment they want as long as they preprint it. Now, I understand my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might not like that. It's kind of foreign to them. For the last 4 years, we've had rules come to the floor that were closed. Members didn't have an opportunity to amend them. In fact, if we were under the previous leadership, what we would have here is a closed rule, an hour's debate on this CR. We would pass it and it would be done. Members wouldn't have an opportunity to influence the legislation before us.

This is part of this majority's promise that we are going to open the process and let the Members of Congress, the elected Representatives of the people, have a say in how we craft this legislation and in how it turns out in the long run. I don't understand, frankly, why Members would oppose the rule. I can understand their opposition to the underlying bill, but to oppose the rule makes no sense whatsoever.

Secondly, I rise in support of the underlying legislation. It is tough. The other side of the aisle continues to say all the right things: We've got to make tough decisions. We've got to enforce tough love. We've got to reduce the deficit. We've got to cut our spending. I hear those words and those phrases by every speaker who has come up. Yet

they oppose every effort to try to reduce the spending of the Federal Government as if it is a drastic reduction in what's going to happen and as if it's going to destroy our economy and destroy the Federal Government. Frankly, none of that is true.

Remember, as the gentleman from Iowa did say, we've got a $1.65 trillion deficit in this budget, $1.65 trillion. That's on top of the $14 trillion we're already in debt.

There is no magic bullet. We know we can't balance this budget simply by reducing non-security, non-defense spending.

Yet as the saying goes: The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. This is that first step.

Yes, we have to get after the entitlement programs if we're going to reduce this deficit. Yes, we have to look at all of our tax structure if we're going to get after this deficit; but we've got to do what the American people instinctively know is the right thing to do, which is to get back to a balanced budget and quit endangering the future of our children and grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 642, to suspend the rules and pass S. 3447 the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 641, to suspend the rules and pass S. 3860, a bill to require reports on the management of Arlington National Cemetery, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3987, the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010. This bill, as was mentioned, is a bipartisan, commonsense approach to protecting our Nation's small businesses from needless, burdensome government regulations. This legislation clarifies the definition of ``creditor'' for the purposes of complying with the Red Flags Rule. Under this law, a creditor would include only those entities that regularly use consumer reports or furnish information to consumer reporting agencies.

Mr. Speaker, our doctors and dentists across the country are not financial institutions, do not present an identity theft risk, and should not be treated as such. Under the old rule, many of these medical and dental offices were considered creditors because they worked with patients to develop payment plans that they could afford. This rule actually discourages efforts to improve access to care for people who can't afford to pay. This goes against all of our efforts to improve our health care system. Congress never meant for small businesses such as doctors, dentists, accountants, and others to be included in this definition.

This legislation is a good compromise in addressing the concerns of impacted businesses and health care providers while still protecting individuals from the risk of identity theft.

I would like to thank my good friends, Congressman Adler and Congressman Broun. I have enjoyed working with you on this legislation. I would like to recognize the work of Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus to craft a balanced bill that addresses everyone's concerns, as well as Senator Begich and Senator Thune for their work on this issue. Finally, I would like to thank the FTC chairman, Chairman Leibowitz, for working with us so diligently on this issue throughout this rather long and arduous process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 30th anniversary of the Assistance League' of Boise, Idaho. This outstanding association is an all volunteer, non-profit organization that puts caring and commitment into action through philanthropic programs in Ada County, Idaho.

Thirty years ago on this day, 73 charter members opened the door to a new philanthropic organization, and over time their membership has grown to over 370. Together they provide a multitude of needed services to the community.

The seven philanthropic programs of Assistance League' of Boise focus on helping school age children in need, children and adults with hearing disabilities, and community education.

The members of Assistance League' of Boise have achieved remarkable results in improving the lives of those in need through their innovative and targeted philanthropic programs.

Congratulations to all the members of this fine and outstanding organization on your 30th anniversary. I thank you, the community thanks you, the children and families you have helped thank you.