Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The conference report before us contains nine separate bills: Defense; Energy and Water; Financial Services; Homeland Security; Interior; Labor-HHS and Education; Legislative Branch; Military Construction and VA; and State and Foreign Operations. It is a bipartisan agreement reached after many hours of deliberation and debate. It reflects the fact that neither party can pass this bill on its own in either the House or the Senate.

The conference report is a remarkable product of the hard work of all members of the Appropriations Committee and, as the chairman mentioned, especially the ranking members and the cardinals, the chairmen of the subcommittees.

I especially want to congratulate the staff. I was a staff person myself, and as the chairman has said, I have never seen people work harder than the staff on the House Appropriations Committee. And I want to commend Bill Inglee and David Pomerantz for their work all during this year, their cooperation, and their leadership of the staff. And we have a great staff. You know, these people have enormous experience, they have great background, and we're proud of all of them.

I also want to congratulate Bill Young, my chairman on the Defense Subcommittee, former chairman of the full committee. We've been good friends, and I want to wish him a happy birthday. It's ironic that here we are on the last day getting this big bill passed on both of our birthdays. So somebody smiled on us. Maybe it was the other body by slowing things down.

We're going to have our ranking members present their statements after the chairmen on the other side.

I want to thank Mr. Rogers again for all of his courtesy and his great work. He had to have the patience of Job in order to get this thing done, but he did it and I commend him.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

I just want to commend him for his patience and his determination, and next year we're going to get all 12 bills to the floor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The Department of Defense appropriations bill is part of this package:

This bill includes the base funding of $518 billion, a reduction of $21 billion below the President's budget request;

The bill also provides $115 billion for overseas contingency operations, $2.8 billion below the budget request;

The bill balances funding essential for U.S. troops and their families with readiness, weapons acquisition, and technology development;

For military personnel and family programs, the bill includes full funding of the military pay accounts, including a 1.6 percent pay raise for our troops. For community support programs, the bill includes $40 million above the request for Impact Aid and $250 million to replace inadequate schools located on DOD bases that are owned and operated by our local educational authorities and by the U.S. Department of Education;

For readiness, the bill includes $163 billion for operations and maintenance. With this account, the bill includes $150 million above the request for ship depot maintenance and $34 million to fully fund the Reserve Officers' Training Corps program;

For procurement and research programs, the bill includes $255 million to prevent the shutdown of the M-1 tank production; $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment; $200 million for Rapid Innovation Funding; $230 million to procure equipment needed to enhance special operations; $130 million above the request for ongoing cooperative missile defense programs with Israel; and $100 million above the request to mature technologies for the next-generation bomber;

For overseas contingencies, the bill includes $115 billion, $2.8 billion below the request and $43 billion below 2011. The decline compared to that of last year reflects the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The bill provides for the withdrawal of U.S. personnel from Iraq by the end of this month; the operation of U.S. forces in Afghanistan; and programs to train and equip Afghan security forces so they are capable of assuming security responsibility.

This bill is essential to maintaining the readiness and capabilities of U.S. forces. It provides for the need of our men and women in uniform and their families. The bill also includes responsible reductions from the budget request, recognizing the fiscal realities that our Nation faces. This is a must-pass bill, which I support.

Again, I commend Chairman Young and the staff of the Defense Subcommittee for their extraordinary work. This is the largest appropriations bill. It is essential to national security.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, the ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Mr. Visclosky.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, Mr. Price.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee, Mr. Serrano.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the State-Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Mrs. Lowey.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, my good friend and a former member of the Appropriations Committee who has worked very strongly with us all year to move these bills forward.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, Mr. Honda.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to commend the gentleman for his work in support of Indian Country, both the Indian Health Service and the BIA. You have been a tireless advocate. Our subcommittee on the Interior has had bipartisan work on this issue, and I commend you for your strong leadership on that important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, the ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, the ranking member of the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the next ranking member on the Democratic side on the House Appropriations Committee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for a colloquy.

I thank the gentlelady from Guam for raising this question.

It is our intent that section 8110 of division A of this bill has the required authorization and should be executed by the Department of Defense as specified in division A of this bill to support civilian infrastructure requirements on Guam.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I urge an ``aye'' vote too.

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

It is the opinion of our side that this is unnecessary, but we've got to move forward and get this bill passed. So I don't object to this particular provision. I hope we can move forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This year natural disasters have had devastating impacts on the lives of many Americans. Today we are considering a bill that provides relief to those severely damaged communities.

In total, the bill provides $8.1 billion in vital funding to rebuild areas affected by numerous horrific disasters in 2011, as well as funding long-term rebuilding needs that date back as far as Hurricane Katrina. Of the $8.1 billion, $6.4 billion is for FEMA.

This funding will meet the Federal commitment to restore impacted areas after hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and severe snowstorms. Almost every State and territory will receive a portion of this funding. With the adoption of this bill, families and businesses will receive the funding they need for vital recovery and rebuilding efforts.

The bill also provides $1.7 billion to repair damage to Corps of Engineers facilities, roughly equal to the need identified by the Corps within Presidentially declared disaster areas.

In nearly every year since 1997, the Congress has recognized the need to provide funding to respond to natural disasters. This bill recognizes that responsibility.

I urge strong support of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, the ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Mr. Visclosky.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I yield to the distinguished chairman to explain this CR.

I withdraw my reservation.

Reserving the right to object, I yield to the chairman to explain the amendment.

I withdraw my reservation and urge a positive vote.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct.

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

The motion instructs conferees to provide the highest level of funding for medical and prosthetic research. This program helps the Department of Veterans Affairs develop cutting-edge treatments for veterans and their families. It is fully integrated throughout the medical community through partnerships with academic affiliates, nonprofits, and commercial entities, as well as other Federal agencies. It is unique because both the clinical care and research occur together.

The Medical and Prosthetic Research Program plays a vital role in advancing the health and care of our Nation's veterans. Some of the areas that the Medical and Prosthetic Research Program focus on include mental health research, prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, and posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. The program has emphasized efforts to improve the understanding and treatment of veterans in need of mental health care.

We hear a lot about the casualties of war and soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in duty. However, over the past few years, the VA has begun to examine the psychological wounds of posttraumatic stress disorder. The motion will provide funding for the VA to care for veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan who may suffer from depression, anxiety, and substance abuse.

Funding for medical and prosthetic research in the House-reported bill was inadequate, and during floor consideration the House majority agreed to increase funding by $22 million. While I was pleased to see this increase, I believe we need to do more.

The Senate-passed bill funds this program at the FY2011 enacted level, which is $51 million higher than the House-passed level. I believe the higher funding levels should be maintained because of the impact this research can have on the everyday life of our Nation's veterans.

This Nation must get its fiscal house in order. However, even in an austere budget, we need to make room to fully fund our priorities. The Medical and Prosthetic Research Program is a high priority.

I'm sure that all of my colleagues would agree we can never repay America's veterans for the sacrifice they have made for our country. As a first installment, we should make a substantial investment in health care research for our veterans, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to instruct.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would ask for a vote on my motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

The appropriations bill we will consider today includes within it three bills: Agriculture; Commerce-Justice-Science; and Transportation- HUD, along with a clean continuing resolution covering the remaining nine bills. The CR prevents a government shutdown. It is a simple date change to December 16. No anomalies are added; everything but the date is carried forward from the last CR.

The agreement provides disaster relief of $2.3 billion, including the full amount needed to address the backlog of eligible disaster repairs for highways, roads, and bridges, and funds to address agricultural disasters.

The conference report also drops controversial riders on Dodd-Frank financial reform, women's health, and climate change.

The minibus restores funding that was cut in the initial House bill to nutrition and food safety programs.

The conference agreement provides $6.6 billion for the Women, Infants, and Children program, WIC, an increase of $570 million over the level in the House-passed bill and $36 million above the Senate level. At this level, WIC can provide for the estimated 700,000 women, children, and infants that would have been turned away under the previous bill. The impact of food prices will still need to be monitored to ensure the program has sufficient funding.

The conference report provides $177 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food assistance to particularly vulnerable low-income elderly, as well as mothers and young children. At this level, the program will avoid dropping the 100,000 applicants, as would have been required in the House bill.

The conference agreement restores funding to FDA, $334 million over the House-passed bill, to allow implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act, and provides $1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, $32 million over the House level, to maintain the current workforce of meat inspectors.

The agreement restores funding for the COPS programs that were zeroed out in the House-reported bill. COPS grants enable State and local law enforcement agencies to hire and retain police officers, provide equipment to tribal law enforcement agencies, and provide training on community-oriented policing.

The agreement restores much-needed funding for science and innovation. The conference agreement provides $7 billion for the National Science Foundation, an increase of $173 million above the FY11 level and the House-reported bill. While we need to be investing much more in basic research at NSF, the additional funding in the conference agreement is an important step in the right direction.

The conference agreement provides $924 million for NOAA's Joint Polar Satellite System. While still below the request, the conference level will go farther than either the House or Senate levels in helping to minimize the anticipated satellite data gaps.

The agreement provides funding for NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, which the House had zeroed out. The new telescope will be 100 times more powerful than the Hubble Space Telescope, allowing us to see images of the first glows after the Big Bang and greatly enhancing our scientific understanding of the universe.

Finally, the minibus restores funding for transportation and housing programs. The minibus includes $12 billion more than the House subcommittee bill for the Federal-aid highway program, consistent with the annual funding levels assumed in the Surface Transportation Extension Act. The bill includes $10.5 billion for transit programs, $2.5 billion more than the earlier bill.

The agreement also includes $1.4 billion for Amtrak capital and operating grants and deletes onerous language from the House subcommittee-passed bill that would have eliminated service on 26 short-distance routes, affecting 15 States and more than 9 million passengers.

The bill includes funding for the TIGER grant program, which will help advance national and regional transportation projects that will benefit both passenger and freight mobility as well as create jobs. This bill will create a lot of jobs.

The conference agreement provides $45 million in funding for housing counseling assistance. This program provides grant funds to local nonprofit agencies for reverse mortgage, rental, home pre-purchase and foreclosure prevention counseling. This program had been eliminated in 2011.

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is funded at $120 million in the conference agreement. Choice is a grant program to revitalize public housing and blighted private housing in mixed-income neighborhoods. This program provides quality low-income housing, while the vast majority of these funds create needed construction jobs. The House subcommittee bill proposed eliminating the program.

The Interagency Council on Homelessness is funded at $3.3 million in the conference agreement. The agency was also eliminated in the House subcommittee bill. The Council enhances the Federal response to homelessness by coordination between agencies, addressing duplicative programs, and identifying best practices.

The conference agreement provides $75 million for the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program, equal to the President's budget request. VASH provides long-term housing to homeless veterans. This is an increase of $25 million over the FY11 level.

I'm not happy with every single element of this, but I haven't seen a bill around here yet that is perfect. I also want to say that we did not get as good a compromise as we hoped on the Legal Services Corporation. I wish we could do more because there certainly is a justice gap in this country.

I want to commend the chairman and his staff, both the majority staff and the minority staff, who I think worked very well together with the other body in reaching resolutions in a very timely way on these three bills. And I want to commend the chairman for bringing six bills to the floor.

Now, I could make the case that we actually did 18 bills because we had 12 bills in the '11 omnibus, H.R. 1, that took us a whole week, if you remember, to go through 12 separate bills. So 12 and 6 is 18. That's a pretty good day for the Appropriations Committee.

I yield to the chairman.

Everybody got a shot.

I want to commend the chairman for his commitment to regular order and openness, and I hope that next year we can really do all 12 bills. If we can get them done this year in December, then we can focus on the 12 bills for next year and hopefully bring them all to the floor so that Members have a chance to vote. It's important, I think. And I think the fact that so many people wanted to offer an amendment indicates that the membership of the House wants to see an open process. And it's certainly important for the minority, too, to have an opportunity to offer amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, Mr. Fattah.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Mr. Olver.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Farr.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine

(Mr. Michaud), whom I've enjoyed working with on these important issues before our committee.

I yield myself as much time as I may use.

I just want to say that I think that this is a bill that we've worked hard on, we've worked with the other body; and I hope that the Members will support this bill. And I want to remind everybody, this has got the CR in it. We've got to keep the government open. It's clean, as clean as any one that I have seen. So I hope that we can pass this bill with a very strong bipartisan vote. I'm urging my colleagues on the Democratic side to support this bill.

I want to, again, congratulate the chairman and all of our staff for the work that they've done on this bill. It's a good bill. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternative. And we need to keep moving on these appropriations bills. I hope we can pass the other nine in December, and we have to do that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct.

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

The motion instructs conferees to provide funds needed for the Federal Highway Administration to eliminate the backlog of repairs to highways, roads and bridges damaged in natural disasters. The motion also instructs the conferees to fund the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) programs.

It is not unusual for Congress to appropriate funds to address the backlog of disaster repairs for highways, bridges and roads. Since 1989, Congress appropriated additional funds to eliminate the emergency relief backlog on 20 separate occasions.

This motion will put nearly 60,000 construction workers to work repairing roads and bridges in 37 States. The Federal Highway Administration needs about $1.76 billion for emergency relief repairs in States that received a Presidential disaster declaration.

I would remind my colleagues that the Budget Control Act reformed the process for determining the total amount available for disaster relief funding. Funding is based on objective criteria. Disasters must be declared, and the total amount cannot exceed the rolling 10-year historical average. If conferees provide the highest level of disaster relief funding within the scope of conference, it will be within that range. The motion instructs conferees to remain consistent with the Budget Control Act. And the act makes clear that if disaster relief funding is within the average, it does not need to be offset.

The motion simply asks the House to honor the agreement on disaster relief reached in the Budget Control Act.

The motion also instructs the conferees to support the highest level of funding for COPS within the scope of conference. The House bill, as reported by the Appropriations Committee back in July, included no funding for the COPS programs. However, the Budget Control Act provides a higher discretionary funding total for FY 2012 than the allocation the committee was working with during the summer. This permits the House to fund some items that were difficult to provide for in July. And the COPS programs should be at the top of the list of things to fix in the CJS bill with a higher allocation.

The House has supported COPS on a bipartisan basis, and it is needed now more than ever. The economic downturn of the last few years is straining the resources of State, local and tribal governments across the country. Public safety agencies have been affected along with nearly everyone else.

According to the COPS office, nearly 12,000 police officers and sheriff's deputies will have been laid off by the end of 2011. Approximately 30,000 law enforcement jobs are unfilled. And an estimated 28,000 officers and deputies faced week-long furloughs in 2010.

We can't fix all the financial pressures facing local law enforcement, but we can do something to help stem the tide. This motion would support the hiring or rehiring of approximately 1,500 police officers in FY 2012.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been a tireless advocate for both the COPS program and our firefighters and for local law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Transportation, HUD Subcommittee, Mr. Olver.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, Mr. Fattah.

I have one additional speaker, and then I will close very briefly.

I have the right to close, I believe.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a very distinguished Member of the Congress and a person whose State has been very hard-hit by disasters, and we're going to do everything we can to work to assist him on this important endeavor.

Yes, I am prepared to close and to yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the chairman for his commitment this year to return to regular order. I wish we could have finished all 12 bills, but we at least got six of them done. I just want to thank him and his staff and the staff of the minority for working together in a collegial way.

I think it's important for the American people to know that the Appropriations Committee here is working together on a bipartisan basis. Now, we may have differences on economic theory and everything else, but we are committed to getting these bills passed and bringing as many as we can to the floor. I hope that, next year, we can start a little earlier and get the budget resolution and move these bills. I would love to see us in the second session of this Congress get all 12 bills to the floor where the Members can offer their amendments. I think that still should be our goal and objective.

Absolutely, we are determined to do that. I'm glad to see that the other body is actually bringing some of these minibuses to the floor and allowing their Members to have a vote. I think we may have inspired them.

I concur with what you've said, and I concur with the direction we're going in. I just hope we can do a little better and finish the job next year. It has been done before. It's not impossible. We also have to think about the impact of these bills on the economy and the country. That's very important as well.

Your point is that that's why it's so important to finish these in 2011, before the end of the calendar year, so we don't have to waste time next year in finishing the job.

Speaking of a clean year, let's try to get rid of as many of those riders as we can, Mr. Chairman. You know it's the right thing to do.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the CR before us runs through November 18. The CR continues funding at last year's level minus 1.053 percent to ensure that spending is limited to $1.043 trillion, the amount agreed to in the Budget Control Act.

Democrats voted ``no'' previously for two reasons: We strongly oppose taking funding from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program. This is a program that has proven to be a success in creating jobs. The Department of Energy estimates the loan guarantees have created or maintained 39,000 jobs in California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Tennessee. The pending applications will help create more jobs. The money received by the companies is paid back to the government with interest. We also strongly oppose the notion that efforts to help Americans rebuild their lives after floods, hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters should be put on hold until Congress can agree on offsetting reductions in spending.

FY12 has begun, so there is no need for FY11 disaster relief funding in the CR. In earlier versions, House Republicans had insisted on offsetting FY11 disaster relief funding. The CR under consideration today no longer cuts funding for ATVM and does not require an offset.

I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I know as well as anyone that Members change their minds. I've heard a lot about that the last couple of days. But here we are debating essentially the same bill that we voted on yesterday. Many Republicans who voted ``no'' last night did so because they believed $1.043 trillion is too much spending. The bill before us tonight spends $1.043 trillion.

I will be the first to say every Member is entitled to change his or her mind; however, I am eager to hear my Republican colleagues who voted ``no'' yesterday answer why it is okay to vote ``yes'' today. And I hope these Members will not hang their hat on the one fig leaf of change in the bill. The bill now includes a rescission of $100 million in emergency funding from section 1705 of the renewables DOE loan program. A rescission of emergency funds does not score as a reduction from the $1.043 trillion.

Democrats voted ``no'' for two reasons: we strongly oppose taking funding from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program. This is a program that has proven to be a success in creating new jobs, and such a success that the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States have both called upon the Congress to not cut out this program because, one, the money is repaid, and it is creating jobs--something the majority has not done in the months that they've been in the majority. This is a jobs program.

We strongly oppose the notion that efforts to help Americans rebuild their lives after floods, hurricanes, wildfires and other natural disasters should be put on hold until Congress can agree on offsetting reductions in spending. We will continue to vote ``no'' because the bill continues to acquire an offset to provide disaster relief funding, and that offset is misguided. Republicans take $1.5 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program at the Department of Energy to pay for $1 billion in disaster relief.

The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program was started in 2008 to reinvigorate American manufacturing. To date, the program has awarded $3.5 billion of credit subsidy to promote energy-efficient advanced vehicles and their component parts. The Department of Energy estimates the loan guarantees have created or maintained 39,000 jobs in California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Tennessee.

Some have suggested that this program has been slow to spend emergency funding provided in the FY 2000 CR. I say the loan process ought to be strenuous. One company originally applied under a different loan program in 2006 and received an ATVM loan in 2010. It required 4 years of due diligence and review to qualify for the loan. Republicans seem to be issuing an ultimatum to all loan programs: expedite the review process or see your funding transferred away. By the way, the company in question, Tesla, employed about 400 employees before receiving the loan. Today, they have 1,400 employees in the field of engineering research and development, design, manufacturing, assembly, maintenance, and service, sales and support.

The ATVM program has an additional 18 loan applications in progress that are projected to create 50,000-60,000 more jobs in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. One pending application would support investments at 11 plants in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The company employs over 56,000 workers, having added nearly 9,000 new workers since 2009. Some of these jobs will be at risk because of this offset.

This is not the time to put American manufacturing jobs at risk.

That is why the National Association of Manufacturers expressed their support for the ATVM program in a letter to the Senate dated September 22, noting, ``The ATVM program is an example of what government/ industry partnerships can accomplish. It has helped create and preserve thousands of auto sector jobs. The NAM believes defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.'' And the Chamber of Commerce agrees with them.

Now, I think it's time for us to stay with our position and vote ``no'' and get a clean CR. That's what I asked the committee to do. We need a clean CR. We don't need this offset.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and former chair.

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, Mr. Fattah of Pennsylvania.

Would the Speaker tell us how much time both sides have.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today was a very dramatic day on the stock market. The Dow Jones dropped 500 points because investors are worried that we're headed into a second recession; and what we get from the majority party is to cut out a program that creates jobs. The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program has already created 39,000 jobs. It's going to create another 39,000 with the $2.5 billion that remains, and the $1.5 billion that we're taking out of there would create another 10,000 jobs. These are jobs. The only way we're going to get unemployment down is to put people back to work.

And here we are again. After savaging all these other programs-- cutting people out of work in the public sector--now we're going to cut out automobile jobs. Let me read to you what the National Association of Manufacturers has to say, which is not an organ of the Democratic Party:

``The NAM is the largest trade association in the United States, representing over 11,000 small, medium and large manufacturers in all 50 States. We are the leading voice for the manufacturing economy, which provides millions of high-wage jobs in the U.S. Two-thirds of our members are small businesses, which serve as the engine for job growth. Our mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers and improve American living standards by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to U.S. economic growth.

``The NAM is writing to express our support for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program--'' this is the program that we're taking $1.5 billion out of ``--authorized under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Bush. The ATVM program is an example of what government/industry partnerships can accomplish. It has helped create and preserve thousands of auto sector jobs and put our Nation on a path towards greater energy security. The NAM believes defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.''

I mean, if you had to go out and find a business group in this country that has more credibility, I don't know what it would be. It's the National Association of Manufacturers.

The Chamber of Commerce, which is also not an organ of the Democratic Party, says: ``As Congress sets spending priorities, the Chamber wishes to highlight a few important facts about the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program.

``First, the program was authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was supported by both Republicans and Democrats as an important step in reducing America's dependence on oil from unstable regimes.

``Second, ATVM loans, which will be repaid with interest, incentivize automakers and suppliers to build more fuel-efficient advanced technology vehicles in the U.S., providing new opportunities for American workers in a sector of the economy that is critical to the Nation's recovery.

``Third, the fact that the Department of Energy has yet to use the funds Congress appropriated for the program is not the fault of industry. Numerous loan applications have been in the queue for years, waiting for the administration to complete its due diligence.''

That line started in the previous administration. So this is a jobs program.

I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, we want to take care of those people who have suffered disasters. We want to take care of them. We will take care of them, but we also want to provide jobs for Americans who are unemployed. If I were in your shoes, I'd support jobs for workers and also take care of those people who are suffering because of a disaster.

Now, these are Republican-leaning organizations. They get it. Just vote ``no,'' and let's get a clean bill and do the right thing for the country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I didn't put out a press release, but I'll tell you one thing. I listen. I listen to the Chamber of Commerce and to the National Association of Manufacturers. I listen.

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Will the gentleman yield?

Isn't it true that these alternative energy programs all create jobs?

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Don't they all create jobs, these alternative energy programs? So instead of just having the automobile program that creates jobs cut by $1.5 billion, now they are taking $100 million out of another program that creates jobs for the American people, so this is a double header.

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

The program was started under the previous administration, the Bush administration. The last day they tried to force it out, to have it approved, and it was turned down by the good staff at the Department of Energy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would just point out that one of the largest investors was Walmart, and Walmart has a long history of supporting Republican candidates. And I will just say, I will just say they invested, I think, $3 or $400 million. So there was a lot of private sector investment here, too.

I appreciate it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished whip of the Democratic Party, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of my goodest, best friends.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the continuing resolution. For the most part, it is a clean CR. It provides funding at $1.043 trillion through November 18. The amount reflects the Budget Control Act cap on FY 2012 appropriations. The CR continues funding as provided in FY 2011 with a 1.503 percent across-the-board cut to come down from approximately 1.059 to 1.043.

The CR adds a handful of anomalies requested by the administration through OMB, including provisions to cut back on overseas contingency operations funds from the level of 2011 down to the level that was passed in the Defense appropriations bill, which is approximately 118; authorize DHS work on national special security events; extend flood insurance; and delay the Postal Service payment obligation. The last provision will allow mail service to continue while Congress pursues legislative reforms.

The matter that concerns me and the Democratic Caucus is the way the majority has provided disaster relief funding. FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is precariously short on money in FY

2011. Americans are trying to rebuild their lives after the devastating effect of floods, wildfires, and hurricanes in a record year of natural disasters, and FEMA is running out of resources to help them.

FEMA has deferred funding for all long-term rebuilding projects to focus on immediate needs. The administration requested a $500 million supplemental appropriation for the remaining days in the fiscal year. They requested 2011 emergency funds. They did not recommend an offset. This has been the practice for supplemental disaster relief.

Since 2002, Congress appropriated $95 billion in supplemental disaster relief. All of it was designated as an emergency, and none of it was offset. Some other emergencies may have been paid for during the Clinton administration; however, during the Bush administration, this was not so for disaster relief. Now, there were other categories of emergency spending and other supplementals that were offset but not disaster relief.

For fiscal years 2002 through 2006, President Bush requested supplemental disaster relief funding eight times. Each of the eight times was designated as an emergency and none were offset. With Republicans in the majority, some of the Bush emergency disaster relief bills, without offsets, were approved by voice vote and some were considered under unanimous consent.

Nonetheless, House Republicans today insist on departing from this practice. They take $1.5 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program at the Department of Energy to pay for $1 billion in disaster relief, disaster and emergency relief. We have discussed compromise with the other side. They have been unwilling to accept our suggestions.

The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program was started in 2008 to reinvigorate American manufacturing. To date, this program has awarded $3.5 billion of credit subsidy to promote energy efficient advanced vehicles and their component parts. The Department of Energy estimates that loan guarantees have created or maintained, in total, 39,000 jobs in California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Tennessee.

Some have suggested that this program has been slow to spend emergency funding provided in the FY 2009 CR. I say the loan review process is and ought to be strenuous. One company, Tesla, originally applied under a different loan program in 2006 and received an ATVM loan in 2010. It required 4 years of due diligence and review to qualify for the loan.

Having read many of the press releases that went out when there was another DOE program that ran into difficulties, I didn't note anybody there saying we shouldn't take time for due diligence. Due diligence is required.

By the way, the company in question, Tesla, employed about 400 workers before receiving the loan. Today, they have 1,400 employees in the fields of engineering research and development, design, manufacturing, assembly, maintenance, service, sales, and support.

The ATVM program has an additional 18 loan applications in progress that are projected to create 50,000 to 60,000 more jobs, in total, in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. One pending application would support investments at 11 plants in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The company employs over 56,000 workers, and they are adding nearly 9,000 new workers since 2009. Some of the jobs will be at risk by using this offset.

This is not the time to put American manufacturing jobs at risk. If you want to make it in America, you can't take away this funding.

If there is one thing we've learned on the economic forefront, it's that we need a growth policy, we don't need a cut policy. Cut and grow just ain't so.

I would point out that we need to get people back to work. And the way you do that is programs like this that are going to hire people instead of fire people. We have been doing a lot of firing, and it hasn't worked. When are we going to wake up? When is the majority party going to realize that we have to do something to create growth and stimulate the economy and put people back to work? The only way we're going to get the deficit down is to bring unemployment down.

This is an employment program. It should be supported. We should defeat the continuing resolution and come up with--either take this out or come up with another offset that doesn't hurt job creation in our country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.

Will the gentleman yield?

Isn't it true that the industrial States are the ones that are getting most of this money because that's where the automobile industry has over the years been located?

Isn't it true we already know this program works, this program received $7.5 billion, and $3.5 billion of it has been obligated and is out there as loans? I think it tripled under the loan guarantee program.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

And so we are seeing that this program actually works. I mean, if there was some question that it was something that hasn't worked, but it is creating jobs and it will create jobs in the future. And there is a whole bunch of people in there making applications from many of these States that you and I just talked about.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking Democratic member of the Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

May I inquire how much time remains?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, my good friend, Mr. Hoyer, from Maryland.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished Democratic leader from California, whose State has suffered a number of major disasters over the years, so she is well versed on this subject, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rear Admiral Michael McMahon, United States Navy, a resident of my home state of Washington, on his upcoming retirement August 11 after 4 years as Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers and 32 years service to his country.

Rear Admiral Michael E. McMahon was commissioned in 1979 from the University of Colorado where he earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering. He has also earned a Master of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1986 from the Naval Postgraduate School and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Mechanical Engineering/Materials Science from the Naval Postgraduate School in 1996.

Rear Admiral McMahon's sea assignments included engineering tours onboard USS Richard S. Edwards (DD 950), USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67), USS Ranger (CV 61), and USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) as Chief Engineer. Rear Admiral McMahon's shore assignments included Ship Design Manager, Future Aircraft Carriers Program (CITNX), Naval Sea Systems Command, PMS-378, and Program Director, Future Aircraft Carrier Program (CVNX), Naval Sea Systems Command, PMS-378. He has served as Engineering and Planning Officer and Business Officer at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and IMF. Rear Admiral McMahon has also served as Executive Secretary to the Naval Research Advisory Committee and Government Advisor to the Defense Science Board. In August 2004, he reported as Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, Newport News, Virginia responsible for the U.S. Navy's Aircraft Carrier and Submarine Ship Construction, refueling and repair programs at Northrop Grumman Newport News. On 3 December 2007, Rear Admiral McMahon assumed command as the fifth Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers.

Rear Admiral McMahon distinguished himself in every aspect of his demanding and complex assignment as the Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers. During his tour he led the effort to begin construction of the Navy's first aircraft carrier design in 40 years, the Gerald R. Ford Class, and achieved the major milestone of laying the keel of the first ship of the class, CVN 78, in 2009. He also oversaw the beginning of advanced construction of the second aircraft carrier in the class, John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), in 2011.

Rear Admiral McMahon provided capable leadership for in-service aircraft carrier programs at PEO Aircraft Carriers. He organized the Naval Sea System Command's support for the time-critical fire restoration of USS George Washington (CVN 73). His leadership was key in driving successful delivery of CVN 73 back to the Fleet to support critical Forward Deployed Naval Forces missions. He also oversaw the successful commissioning and delivery of USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) the last Nimitz class aircraft carrier, which transitioned from delivery to deployment in only 24 months. During his tenure the Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) of USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) was completed under budget and the RCOH of USS Theordore Roosevelt was begun. He also oversaw the last drydocking of the Nation's oldest aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65) and worked to begin the planning for the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier inactivation.

Rear Admiral McMahon's decorations include the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal (three awards), Navy Commendation Medal (two awards), Navy Achievement Medal, Liberation of Kuwait Medals (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia), Southwest Asia Service Medal, Navy Expeditionary Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Navy Unit Commendation, Meritorious Unit Commendation, National Defense Medal, and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.

For his many years of service to our Nation, I join my colleagues in extending our best wishes upon his retirement and wish him ongoing success in all future endeavors.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Section 116 would prohibit the National Park Service from carrying out boat inspection or safety checks on the Yukon River within the Yukon-Charley National Preserve in Alaska. This provision was put in at the request of Mr. Young from Alaska who is upset with the National Park Service law enforcement at the preserve.

Last summer, two park rangers arrested a 70-year-old following an altercation during a boat safety inspection. This case is still before the courts, but it has stirred considerable local anger, especially when it was learned that the rangers had handcuffed but later released another local resident who refused to speak to rangers when approached.

Mr. Young of Alaska is a long-time friend of mine, and I am very hesitant to offer this amendment to strike his provision, but I think he has already won the case. The people there, the two rangers, have been reassigned to another duty, and the Park Service does have jurisdiction. I have discussed this with Chairman Young, and the Park Service always has jurisdiction within the national park.

Now, the gentleman from Alaska suggested that the Coast Guard had jurisdiction or the State had jurisdiction, but we have checked this carefully. The Park Service has jurisdiction within the national preserve to look at safety on the river. I think it is wrong to prohibit a safety inspection for people whose lives are at risk up there.

I have been to Alaska many times. These rivers can be very dangerous, and to make sure that the people who are being conveyed--this is a commercial endeavor--the people who are being moved around in these boats are safe, the people who own the boats are safe, whether it is commercial or not.

So I would like to yield to the ranking member and discuss this amendment and the importance of it.

Reclaiming my time, the thing is this has happened before. I can remember one of our colleagues putting in a provision in one of these bills, I think it was the Merchant Marine and Fisheries bill years ago, about one of the boats that was going up to Alaska to fish in these very dangerous waters. This wasn't in the river; it was in the ocean. And that boat went down, and there were many questions raised about why that Member had prohibited boat and safety inspections of that boat.

Now, I think the gentleman is completely right. This is a bad precedent. The gentleman from Alaska has already won. He has already gotten his view across with the Park Service. They have taken these rangers away. It's time to leave this. We're doing this amendment in the best interests of Mr. Young. And if Mr. Young would like to get up and explain this, I would like to hear his explanation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Again, I plead with my friend from Alaska. You have made your case. You have gotten the relief for your constituents. The rangers have been reassigned. Accept victory and don't give us an amendment that would undermine boat safety inspections. That's what this amendment does.

Let me read this amendment: No other funds made available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to implement or enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on or relating to waters located within Yukon Charlie National Preserve, including waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Pursuant to section 3(h) of public law, or any other authority.

It's within a national park.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Will the gentleman yield?

Again, relating to waters located within Yukon Charlie National Preserve, including waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Will the gentleman yield?

If the Park Service doesn't have jurisdiction, how does the Coast Guard have jurisdiction? That's another Federal agency. The gentleman changed his story and told me it was the State that had authority. I wonder who in the hell has authority.

Will the gentleman yield?

Again, what I worry about here is we're talking about safety. We're talking about inspecting boats that may be unsafe. I think that is an important issue that we should not deal with in an across-the-board way here in this bill.

I think the gentleman from Alaska has made his point. I think he should support our amendment to strike this in order to make sure that the people of Alaska are protected. I know he cares about them.

Will the gentleman yield?

We have people in the law enforcement area who make mistakes, but we don't get rid of law enforcement. We don't say we're no longer going to protect people, the other people. We go through a process to see what that officer did. I think the gentleman gets the gist.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would hope we could clarify this. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I hope that we can, if my amendment doesn't prevail, that we could try to work together to clarify this before conference.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise in support of my amendment. This would strike section 118, which amends administrative appeals procedures for grazing decisions on public lands to require parties to exhaust all administrative appeals before they may file suit in Federal court.

This is a back-door attempt to curtail the use of court injunctions to stop grazing decisions made by the BLM. Without the ability to seek injunctive relief, opponents of a grazing decision are handicapped because irreparable damage to a resource may occur while the administrative appeals process is being exhausted.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, to further discuss this amendment.

Again, I ask for support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am told that the ability to offer a temporary restraining order is very narrowly drafted. So irreparable harm, that wouldn't do it.

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

Section 119 exempts from judicial review any final rule of the Secretary of the Interior that delists wolves in Wyoming or the Western Great Lakes States, provided the Fish and Wildlife Service has entered into an agreement with the State for it to manage the wolves.

The irony here is that the majority does not trust any action of Secretary Salazar except if it involves the delisting of wolves. The rider undercuts the public's right to petition a Federal court to review an agency's decision and blocks the court's ability to carry out its customer authority to review executive branch decisions.

Now, I have been a strong proponent of the re-introduction of the gray wolf into Yellowstone and in other areas. This has been one of the most successful operations in restoring a species that had been nearly wiped out in our country. And today we're seeing all of the benefits of this. So I don't think we should undercut the people's right to go to court if they don't think the agency has done this according to the law. And I have great respect for Secretary Salazar, and I'm sure he would agree with me that there should not be a prohibition on judicial review.

And I'd like to yield to the distinguished ranking member for any comments he would have on this.

Again, I ask for support for my amendment. I think it corrects a flaw in this bill. And believe me, there are a lot of flaws.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I appreciate that very much.

I think the problem is that the State of Wyoming, unlike Idaho and Montana, has not come up with a plan where the State would protect the wolf if it were delisted.

Will the gentleman yield?

As I recall, the fact was that Montana and Idaho had plans that would protect the wolves if they were delisted, and then at some point they would take further action if necessary to protect the wolves if too many of them were killed.

The problem with Wyoming was Wyoming's plan didn't have credibility. Now I understand that it does. But what the judge was saying is that you have to protect the wolf throughout the area, which included Wyoming. That's why they couldn't delist it without dealing with Wyoming, and Wyoming wasn't ready. So, I hope that Wyoming will come up with a credible plan at the State level to keep the wolf going.

I want to say to the chairman, if you would yield, I also tried to reintroduce the wolf in western Washington, but the chairman of the Interior Committee in the other body disagreed with me.

We'd like to have them.

The Olympics too.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Section 120 provides that for 2012 through 2014, the movement of livestock across public land shall not be subject to NEPA review.

Proponents of this provision will argue that moving cattle from one location to another shouldn't require a NEPA review. However, this movement of cattle can be across wide swaths of public lands and take weeks, not just days. The impact on water, plants and other wildlife species, including bighorn sheep, can be significant.

I would like to yield to the ranking member to further discuss this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Section 121 requires the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to keep detailed records and provide quarterly reports on any oil and gas permit or plan that was not approved by the agency. They don't ask for the ones that were approved, just the ones that were not approved.

This is the majority's attempt to try to speed up the approval of oil and gas permits and plans, and I have no objection to that. Here we are 16 months after Deepwater Horizon, and the Congress hasn't enacted a single significant safety reform. Despite the serious safety and environmental shortcomings found as a result of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the majority wants BOEMRE to return to the good old days of lax reviews and quick approval of oil and gas permits and plans.

I think this provision should be stricken.

I yield to the ranking member for his comments on this provision.

Will the gentleman yield?

This year, I'm sure the gentleman has noticed, we've been trying to reestablish regular order--having a subcommittee markup and a full committee markup and amendments on the floor, which is welcomed by our side. So we have to kind of make a decision: Are we going to ask for a vote on every single issue? We never do that. We try to cooperate. This is comity, something that the gentleman from Ohio understands quite well.

So I would just remind him that we're trying to get through these bills, and that's why we try to not ask for a vote on everything. We wanted to save this one for the floor so the American people would hear about what's going on.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to say that the gentleman and I have worked together, and I have great regard for him. I just wanted to mention a couple of facts and that, if we take up time, I'll try to get you extra time.

``To date, 67 new shallow water well permits have been issued since the implementation of new safety and environmental standards on June 8, 2010. Permits have averaged more than six per month over the past 8 months compared to an average of eight permits per month in 2009. Just three of these permits are currently pending, with eight having been returned to the operator for more information.'' Now, the question I have is:

Why don't we ask them to give, when they're doing the report, not just the ones that they've turned down but the ones that they've approved? I mean, wouldn't the gentleman want to have all that information instead of just the negative side of this?

Will the gentleman yield again just briefly?

Now we get to deepwater: Since an applicant first successfully demonstrated containment capabilities in mid-February of this year, BOEMRE has approved 75 permits for 21 unique wells, with 25 permits pending and 22 permits returned to the operator with the request for additional information, particularly information regarding containment.

Now, we want them to do this safely. We don't want to go through what we went through, which was one of the greatest disasters in the history of the country.

I just hope that we can have reports not only about the ones that are turned down. As you say, it may be that the other ones are part of the public record, but I think the report should come back with both of these if it's going to come to the Congress. You know how this place works. Not everybody sees these public

records. If these reports are going to be used by the committee, we ought to have both sides of the equation.

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

Section 124 prohibits expenditures for the Bureau of Land Management to carry out its duties under section 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Secretarial order 3310 states a policy that the Bureau of Land Management should act consistently with section 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction, and identify within that inventory the resource values, including wilderness, of those lands.

Despite what some have claimed, it does not create de facto wilderness. It returns BLM wilderness policy to the way it operated for 27 years before being unilaterally changed by then Interior Secretary Gale Norton in 2003. It directs the BLM to develop recommendations to Congress regarding wilderness land designation, and it directs public involvement in the development of those recommendations.

Section 124 removes the requirement for public involvement and removes the requirement for the BLM to provide recommendations to Congress. Section 124 doesn't prevent Congress from designating wilderness; it just prevents us from being properly informed before we consider these designations.

Secretarial order 3310 is the kind of good government process that encourages public involvement and forward thinking. As a demonstration of that forward thinking, the Secretary reached out to Congress in June asking for Members' input into the wilderness characteristics of land within their districts. I'm not sure what more we can ask for from the BLM and the Secretary but an open public process, as Mr. Moran has stated.

Section 124 seeks to foreclose that process, a process that the majority in the committee report on H.R. 2584 applauded. These wild lands have real benefit--economic, environmental, and aesthetic. It's important that we protect not only public land in its natural state but our ability to make informed decisions about what areas should or should not be designated wilderness. We need the Secretarial order, and we need to be informed.

I yield to the gentleman from California if he would like to make a final comment here.

I yield to the distinguished chairman, who I just heard a few minutes ago praising Secretary Salazar for the way he conducts himself, that he's a good man. And now 3310 is like the Communist Manifesto.

Well, then why don't we trust him?

Well, then why do we have this amendment?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Are you suggesting that this provision says that he shouldn't follow the law?

I yield to the distinguished chairman.

Secretary Norton did it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Let's vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman. We agree with his position on this, and we oppose the amendment as well.

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

A few years ago, the Supreme Court said that the EPA, under the Clean Air Act, had to come up with and look at the consequences of greenhouse gases and to create this registry, which is a scientific document that allows us to know just exactly what the various sources of these greenhouse gases are.

Now we hear a lot about climate change. I just want to point out there is another more immediate problem. The gentleman from Kansas may not be aware of this because it affects our oceans, and Kansas is in the middle of our country. The oceans are now a sink for carbon dioxide. And as we get more and more CO2 in the ocean, it creates acidity, the so-called pH factor, which at normal range is around 8.1, and when it goes down--we have places in Hood Canal, in my home area, that are down at 7.3. At that level of acidity, it starts to take apart coral. It takes apart oyster shells. It takes apart the vital plankton, which are the food for salmon, 60 percent of the food for salmon.

This is an incredibly important situation. So the more we can learn about greenhouse gases and what their effect is not only on our climate, but also on the ocean. We are poisoning the ocean. And again, there is this ``let's not take time to work on this issue because somehow it's going to cut away jobs.''

It may end civilization. Think about that.

Your grandchildren, my grandchildren--your children, maybe. Maybe you're younger. I worry about them. I worry about what's going to happen if we don't deal with this climate change issue. And we should take this seriously. The best scientists in the world say this is something that needs to be dealt with.

So, again, I think this idea of taking out the money for the Greenhouse Gas Registry so that we will have a scientific underpinning to know what these problems are and how much various sources produce is the ``ignorance is bliss'' amendment.

Let's defeat this amendment and let the EPA do its job.

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

I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise to offer an amendment that would strip a dangerous rider from this bill, a rider that would seriously compromise the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. This is a bipartisan amendment, I might add.

I'm offering it with the support of Congressman Thompson and Congressman Fitzpatrick and Congresswoman Hanabusa.

The fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment bill passed by the full committee a few weeks ago contains a direct attack on the ESA. I offered an amendment at that time to strike the provision, but the full committee rejected it.

The provision would block the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing candidate species as either threatened or endangered as well as the designation of the critical habitat necessary for species recovery. These listing activities are preliminary steps that the Fish and Wildlife Service must take in order to begin the recovery process. After those steps are taken, then the hard work begins. Without these important preliminary steps of listing and critical habitat designation, it would be impossible to develop a scientifically valid and legally defensible recovery plan for declining species.

This funding limitation aimed at the heart of the ESA is simply postponing the day of reckoning. It is important to note that the bill does provide funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service to downgrade the protections offered to species under the ESA. After all, the goal of the ESA is to eventually delist recovered species. Delisting is the reward after all the hard work recovering these species. But we can't get to the

point of delisting species without listing them first.

My amendment would remove these restrictions on listing and up- listing and the designation of critical habitat.

Many critics of the ESA argue the law simply does not work. I would argue that the recovery leading to the delisting of the bald eagle and the American alligator under the ESA is a strong success. In the last few months, the gray wolf in the northern Rockies has been delisted in two States and the Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced the intention to delist the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes.

Other animals that are still listed under the ESA but have made tremendous recoveries include the whooping crane, the black footed ferret, and the California condor. In the Pacific Northwest, I'm glad to report that we are seeing signs of healthy recovery for the ESA- listed salmon, although it will be awhile before delisting could occur.

Clearly these examples show us the success of the ESA, a law, by the way, that the American people overwhelmingly support.

As for species listed under the ESA, they still are struggling. It is naive to think that a quick turnaround is easy when it took decades, if not centuries, for a species to decline. Also, it takes more time to recover long-lived species.

Here is a situation that the Fish and Wildlife Service faces in the administration of the ESA.

Currently, there are about 260 species that have been identified as potential candidates for ESA protection. Of that total, there are just under 30 species that are poised for listing in the near future. The spending provisions in this bill would block further activity to protect these declining species. And remember, if you delay listing too long, a species will go extinct, thus making a recovery impossible. And that is why some people call this the ``extinction rider.''

The Endangered Species Act is one of the most effective environmental laws ever written. Recovering species is hard, often long, work; but it is a responsibility that cannot be dismissed like this Interior appropriation bill attempts to do.

I know that many of my colleagues would like to drastically reform the ESA, but it would be a sounder path to do such a reform through the authorization process rather than accomplishing the goal with a few lines in the appropriation bill. And I see that the distinguished chairman of the Natural Resources Committee is here, and he has pledged to get to work on this important endeavor.

In closing, I will point out that this amendment is supported by former directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service who served under Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, the first President Bush, and Bill Clinton. It is also supported by several hook-and-bullet groups including the Izaak Walton League and Trout Unlimited.

I urge support for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Can you start with another bow?