[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 27 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1244-H1249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 92 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1.

                              {time}  1510


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1) making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, with Mrs. 
Capito (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 336 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), 
had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 359, line 
22.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the chair or ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations may offer certain 
amendments en bloc, to be considered under the terms of that order.

[[Page H1245]]

          Amendment No. 414 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by division B of 
     this Act may be used for the National Bio and Agro-Defense 
     Facility in Manhattan, Kansas.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It would simply stipulate that 
none of the funds available in this act may be used to further the 
construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in 
Manhattan, Kansas, commonly referred to as NBAF.
  NBAF, in my view, is a government boondoggle that anyone concerned 
about fiscally responsible behavior should want to be stopped. Anyone 
who is concerned about fiscally responsible behavior should be 
supporting my amendment.
  Here are the facts:
  NBAF was originally estimated to cost $451 million. Current estimates 
are that the cost will be in excess of $915 million.
  The Department of Homeland Security has consistently stated that the 
sale of Plum Island in my district would cover the cost of NBAF. This 
is not even remotely accurate. Any reasonable estimate of the cost of 
Plum Island will be no better than $80 million.
  Why should the American taxpayer invest $1 billion in this project 
with hardly any offset for a project that is essentially redundant?
  Now my friends from Kansas--and I certainly understand their 
interest--have criticized this amendment as constituting parochial 
politics. And I would say, with respect to my friends, that I don't see 
anything parochial about trying to shield the American taxpayer from an 
investment of $1 billion in a facility that we do not need.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I would urge 
my colleagues who are concerned about spending--and every one of us in 
this Chamber is concerned about spending--here's an opportunity to cut 
spending that we simply do not need.
  Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman form 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I commend the gentleman 
from New York for raising this issue, and I thank him for the time.
  As he knows, I've had a longstanding concern about the decision to 
relocate the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility to the mainland 
without a comprehensive and validated strategy to prevent the release 
of harmful pathogens into the community.
  When I was chairman of the subcommittee overseeing appropriations for 
the Department of Homeland Security, I championed a requirement that 
prohibited the use of funds in fiscal 2010 for NBAF construction until 
a site-specific risk assessment was completed and the results were 
validated by the National Academy of Sciences. This work was completed 
last November and the results were somewhat disconcerting with respect 
to the possible release of foot and mouth disease.
  Now the Department of Homeland Security believes that this risk is 
exaggerated and does not take into account planned mitigation 
strategies. So I appreciate the language in the continuing resolution 
that requires a revised risk assessment once the facility is 50 percent 
designed and that this assessment be again reviewed by the National 
Academy of Sciences. This is good oversight, but this must be done 
before DHS can responsibly provide construction funding for NBAF.
  I would prefer to condition funds on completion of this additional 
oversight; however, I also recognize that there are no funds in the 
underlying CR for NBAF in fiscal 2011, making such a conditioning of 
funds unnecessary. Therefore, I have no objection to my friend from New 
York's approach.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chairman, there is broad consensus that 
construction and eventual operation of this facility is crucial to our 
national security. This language that we have included in the CR will 
help ensure that we get this project done while existing firm oversight 
and risk costs are being considered.
  We have included rigorous oversight language in the CR requiring the 
Science and Technology to revise its risk analysis once it has 
completed 50 percent of the design planning of the facility, at which 
time it will have fully incorporated the Department's planned biosafety 
security measures. The CR also provides for the National Academy of 
Sciences to review the revised analysis.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. 
Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In 2009, after an exhaustive 3-year review, the Department of 
Homeland Security chose Manhattan, Kansas, as the site for the new 
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility.
  NBAF will be a cutting-edge research facility, and it will accelerate 
our Nation's ability to protect ourselves, our food supply, and our 
economy from biological threats. It will become the world's premiere 
animal health research facility and further solidify our Nation's place 
as the international leader in animal health research.
  NBAF has the support of both the Bush and Obama administrations. In 
fact, this week, President Obama included $150 million in his budget to 
begin its construction. This inclusion shows a commitment from the 
President and Secretary Napolitano to see that this cutting-edge 
facility moves forward as planned so we can safely conduct critical 
research to develop vaccines and countermeasures in order to protect 
the public and our livestock from the threats of devastating disease.
  Simply put, this debate should be about our national security, not 
parochial politics. In this age of uncertainty and global threats, 
conducting vital research to protect our Nation could not be more 
crucial, and the truth of the matter is we are dangerously 
underprotected from the threat of a biological attack against our 
people and food. In fact, the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention 
of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism recently 
issued a report card that gave the Federal Government a failing grade 
for efforts to prevent a biological attack.
  We need to protect our food and our families from danger. We need to 
stay on the cutting edge of this research field. Our security is at 
risk, and delaying this project further because the gentleman from New 
York would prefer to preserve a stunningly outdated lab that just 
happens to be in his district is not an option. We need to move forward 
and we need NBAF.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this destructive amendment.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Yoder).
  Mr. YODER. I rise today in strong opposition to the Bishop amendment.
  Madam Chair, reports indicate that the most imminent, critical threat 
to our Nation's homeland security is a biological attack that could 
result in a serious food crisis brought on by disease spread by 
terrorists hoping to infect cattle and other livestock in the 
agriculture production in this country. Simply put, the results could 
be devastating.
  The National Bio and Agro Defense facility, a safe, secure 
agricultural and bio-containment lab, is the proper facility to 
research and protect American agriculture from the threats that exist, 
both foreign and abroad, from agriculture bioterrorism.
  I ask my colleagues today to join me in an effort to oppose the 
Bishop amendment, which would turn back the clock in our efforts to 
combat biological terrorism and which would save

[[Page H1246]]

the country no money in the name of stopping this very worthy project.
  The facts on NBAF are clear.
  The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission's report, The Clock Is 
Ticking, indicates that the most imminent threat to our Nation's 
homeland security is a biological attack.
  The same Commission gives our Nation a failing grade in our ability 
to recognize, respond to and recover from a biological attack.
  Current and previous Administrations have affirmed these threats and 
the need to prepare and respond.
  Currently, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center is where much of the 
Biosafety Level-3 Agricultural research is performed. However, this 
facility was built in the 1950s, is nearing the end of its lifecycle, 
and does not contain the necessary biosafety level facilities to meet 
the NBAF research requirements.
  A rigorous, three-year site selection process for the NBAF was 
conducted by civil servants and independent experts in the Departments 
of Homeland Security and Agriculture.
  Nearly 30 potential locations were reviewed all around the country, 
including Plum Island. After thorough risk, environmental, and security 
assessments were completed, Manhattan, Kansas was unanimously selected 
as the best place on the merits to carry out the NBAF's essential 
research mission.
  NBAF in Manhattan, Kansas will be a state-of-the-art biocontainment 
facility for the study of foreign animal, emerging and zoonotic 
(transmitted from animals to humans) diseases that threaten the U.S. 
animal agriculture and public health.
  The selection process was affirmed by the DHS Inspector General, was 
conducted in accordance with Federal regulations and was fair.
  The funding for the NBAF was included in the budget and was not an 
earmark. The funding will be matched by more than $150 million from the 
State of Kansas and will also be offset by the sale of the antiquated 
Plum Island facility. The State of Kansas has already spent $18 million 
to prepare for the NBAF site.
  It is crucial that we do not turn this discussion on the spending 
reductions our government must take into a debate between states. 
Funding of NBAF is not a local issue, it is a national issue rooted in 
our national security.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, let me just say again that there is broad 
consensus that the construction and eventual operation of this facility 
are crucial to our national security.
  This amendment reflects a well-crafted, stringent oversight 
requirement that was developed on a bipartisan basis with the ranking 
member of this subcommittee, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 519 Offered by Mr. Campbell

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this Act (other 
     than an amount required to be made available by a provision 
     of law) for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security 
     is hereby reduced by 3.5 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairwoman, Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton have said 
that our debt is a national security issue. Indeed, it is. They are 
correct. When you look at our debt, it is a function of multiple 
deficits. The largest spending item we have in the Federal Government 
are the entitlements, but number two is defense.
  We cannot reduce our deficit substantially and deal with our debt 
problem without reducing the costs of our number one and number two 
expenses. This amendment deals with number two, which are the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. In the 
bill before us, those Departments have a roughly 1 percent increase in 
spending. We are trying to reduce the deficit here, and we have 
increased Defense and Homeland Security.
  What this amendment would do is turn that 1 percent increase into a 
roughly 2\1/2\ percent decrease in spending. Now, it is across the 
board, although it does not affect overseas contingency operations. The 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be unaffected. However, the 
opposition will come up in a moment and decry how this is somehow going 
to devastate the country and make us unable to defend ourselves. I 
submit that that is not the case, and let me give you a few reasons.
  First of all, this funding is 98 percent of last year's funding. Any 
organization, including the Departments of Defense and Homeland 
Security, ought to be able to complete their missions and serve their 
constituencies for 98 percent of last year's costs.
  Second, there are 755,000 civilian employees in the Department of 
Defense. That is one civilian employee for every two uniformed 
personnel. Do we really need that many civilian employees in the 
Department of Defense?
  Third, there are many weapons systems funded in the Defense 
Department which the Defense Department does not want. They are there 
because of influential Members of Congress who have put them in. 
Defense has always been the most earmarked section of the entire 
budget.
  Fourth, there are many items in Defense that are unrelated to 
defense. Spenders in this House have figured out that if they put in 
unrelated spending--environmental spending, medical research, other 
things in the Department of Defense--it will be shielded from being 
reduced. That should not be the case.
  Fifth, since 2006, defense spending has increased by 32 percent, in a 
period of almost no inflation, while the war in Iraq was winding down.
  We must learn how to defend this country for less, and we can do 
that. There are plenty of things we can do. We need to defend our 
country against vulnerabilities; but our debt, which is now 47 percent 
held by foreigners--and that percentage is increasing--is a greater 
threat to the security of this country than any aircraft carrier. It is 
a greater threat than any military force out there. We have to deal 
with that, but we can't deal with this debt unless we include the large 
spending in the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security and defend 
this country for less.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. The CR that we are debating here, and have been for the 
last couple of days, strikes the right balance between sustaining 
programs that are crucial to our Nation's security and keeping our 
discretionary spending in check.
  This CR doesn't make a choice between fiscal discipline and security. 
It supports both, and it does so in a responsible manner. In fact, the 
CR significantly reduces the funding available to the Department of 
Homeland Security by more than $1 billion, and it fully pays for FEMA's 
$1.6 billion disaster relief shortfall.
  Madam Chair, this CR attempts to carefully cut the fat out of the 
Department of Homeland Security and does so in a way that does not harm 
vital security operations. The gentleman's amendment cuts everything 
across the Department, and that is both unnecessary and potentially 
harmful, especially at a time of heightened threats and terrorist 
activity.
  At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  The Department of Defense was not spared from cuts. The bill already 
slashes $15 billion from the President's request for FY11. This 
amendment would take it down another $18 billion, or $33 billion in 
total. I am concerned that the levels of cuts proposed by the gentleman 
from California go too far and will adversely affect many defense 
readiness programs. Just as I have said about cuts in other areas, this 
is not time to take a hatchet to these programs.

[[Page H1247]]

  The amendment would cause DOD to terminate contracts, which will, in 
turn, force companies to lay off employees. Defense spending cannot, of 
course, be justified simply by jobs; but at the same time, the prospect 
of adding to our unemployment just as we are emerging from the 
recession should be a consideration.
  In total, the Office of Secretary of Defense has identified 124 major 
acquisition programs that would be significantly disrupted by 
approaching the FY10 funding levels. Dropping funding by an additional 
$18 billion to reach the 3.5 percent reduction would seriously disrupt 
the readiness and safety of our forces.
  This is a very bad amendment; and on a bipartisan basis, we should 
defeat it.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I join with the ranking member in opposing this amendment. The 
current allocation for defense is already $14.8 billion below the 
fiscal year 2011 request, an almost 3 percent reduction; and of course 
our committee wants to help to address the Federal deficit, too, as do 
other committees. Further, arbitrary reductions, especially of this 
magnitude of over $23.5 billion, will basically bring the Department of 
Defense to a grinding halt, perhaps one beyond what is reasonable.
  Specifically, the amendment would require reducing and canceling 
training for returning troops; canceling Navy training exercises; 
reducing Air Force flight training; delaying or canceling the 
maintenance of aircraft, ships or vehicles; delaying important safety 
and quality-of-life repairs to facilities and military barracks.
  At a time of war, we should be showing support for our troops and not 
undercutting them, even though for good reasons, in order to lower the 
Federal deficit by making reductions of this amount.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of 
the subcommittee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which 
reduces funding for the Department of Homeland Security by 3\1/2\ 
percent. Under the CR, funding for Homeland Security is already 3 
percent below the 2010 enacted level.

                              {time}  1530

  The $1.56 billion in supplemental disaster needs funded in this bill 
already cuts deep into Homeland Security programs. An additional 3.5 
percent reduction would dangerously weaken our security. If this 
reduction were adopted, critical programs such as border security, 
disaster relief, immigration enforcement, and transportation security 
would no longer be shielded from ill-advised cuts.
  The Department would be required to lay off critical staff we have 
hired over the past 2 years, including Border Patrol agents, CBP 
officers at the ports of entry, ICE investigators along the southwest 
border, and the Secret Service agents that respond to heightened 
threats against the President.
  This reduction would mean the Department would need to abandon 
critical technology procurements that would better protect our aviation 
and transit system against possible attacks.
  In short, Madam Chair, this amendment is ill advised in the extreme. 
I urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Alabama has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  First I would like to commend Chairman Rogers and his staff, because 
I am sure they have tried to do as much as they thought they possibly 
could in what would get through the Senate.
  But I rise at this time to especially commend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) for making what I consider to be a very 
courageous amendment. He knows that this amendment is probably not 
going to get many votes, but I will tell you, this amendment makes a 
very important point and sends a very powerful message, and that is 
that nothing should be left off the table. There should be no sacred 
cows.
  As he has pointed out, as the gentleman from California has pointed 
out, the Pentagon actually receives an increase under this bill. But we 
can no longer afford to have higher military spending than all the 
other nations of the world combined.
  We are facing an astounding $1.6 trillion deficit, a $14 trillion 
debt, and there is no way we can come even anywhere close to doing what 
we should do if we leave any departments or agencies off or make them 
not look for savings.
  The President's commission on the debt said that very thing. They 
said that the Pentagon was going to have to look for savings. And as 
far as Homeland Security, The Wall Street Journal had an editorial that 
they noticed that we were voting for almost anything and everything if 
it had the word ``security'' attached, and they said from now on we 
should give four times the weight and twice the scrutiny to anything 
that had the word ``security'' in it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, let me just reiterate again that the 
gentleman's proposed cuts just go too far. They would undoubtedly cut 
and harm border security, transportation security, maritime security, 
cargo security, cybersecurity, immigration enforcement, and disaster 
preparedness. The list of crucial programs that would be adversely 
impacted by this across-the-board amendment goes on and on.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 246 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for beach replenishment projects by the Army Corps of 
     Engineers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, my amendment would prevent 
funding of the U.S. Army Corps' beach replenishment program and 
projects. Authorized at $91 million for 2011, up almost a billion 
dollars over the next decade, the Army Corps plans to replenish sand at 
certain beaches to slow the course of erosion.
  First and foremost, this is not a proper constitutional function for 
the Federal Government. Each beach community, along with their local 
government, should decide how they will best approach erosion. As the 
primary beneficiaries, they can best decide their needs and financial 
priorities.
  The top-down system currently employed comes from a flawed mindset, a 
mindset that we must address if we hope to escape our spending crisis, 
a mindset that the Federal Government does everything for everybody. 
This is simply Federal spending that we cannot afford and Federal 
control that we don't need.

[[Page H1248]]

  I ask that my colleagues support my amendment to defund this now and 
work with me to strip this and other similar projects from future 
budgets as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mack). The gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concern over 
responsible spending and the need to address the Nation's deficit 
problem. That's why our continuing resolution before us reduces 
spending by historic proportions.
  Where I differ from my colleague is whether there is a Federal 
interest in beach replenishment projects. Beach replenishment projects 
aren't just about dumping sand on shores so people can have fun. These 
projects provide States with protection from coastal storms for 
individuals and businesses, and these projects must meet the same 
standards of economic justification and cost benefit ratios as other 
levee projects and navigation projects.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), former chairman of the committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As much as I admire and respect the introducer of this amendment, I 
really have to oppose this amendment.
  The beaches are an important and a valued asset to the United States 
of America. Economically, they are a huge economic factor. For 
protection of properties on land, it is a huge protection device, 
beaches against the hurricane, the storm surge.
  You might get the idea that I represent a district that has a lot of 
beaches, and I would tell you that this is extremely important to our 
economy. When the BP oil spill was flowing through the Gulf of Mexico, 
we worried every day whether that was going to come to our beaches.
  In my part of the State it did not, thank God. But we were concerned 
what that might do to destroy a major part of our economy.
  Mr. Frelinghuysen makes a strong argument, and I thank him for 
letting me support him in his opposition.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield 1 minute to the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I understand there is a school of thought that we should just let 
nature take its way. But on the west coast of Washington State, we have 
from time to time had to come out and put in replenishment projects to 
save cities and save housing. We have done this with the Corps of 
Engineers very effectively using the best science.
  In Mississippi, they have a big Army Corps center where they study 
how to do these things. And, it does cost a little bit of money, but we 
are saving assets, and billions and billions of dollars.
  I just think that this is a very unfortunate amendment, and we 
should, in a bipartisan basis, defeat it and let the Corps do what it 
has to do to save cities and coastal areas across America.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a fellow member of the committee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to say to my friend from Athens, Georgia, where you do not 
have beaches, you know that the local share, once the Corps of 
Engineers does a cost-benefit analysis, which it always does, there is 
a requirement the State and the local government kick in. The State 
gives a pretty good amount of money. But the reason why they may be 
more motivated from a economic basis is they directly benefit from the 
economic impact.
  I do agree with you the Federal Government should not be worried 
about the economic impact, but where the Federal Government is most 
concerned is in flood control. As you and I know, the more sand you 
have in between you and the high tide when the hurricane comes, the 
more protected you are going to be.
  And as long as we have FEMA that writes checks after disasters and a 
National Flood Insurance Program, there is a good reason that the 
Federal Government is involved with beach renourishment.

                              {time}  1540

  It has nothing to do with recreation, really less to do with 
economics, but a heck of a lot to do with flood protection. And that is 
why the Federal Government is involved in it. So to my friend from 
Athens, you are welcome to come down to Tybee Island anytime you want 
to despite this irresponsible amendment of yours. But I am going to 
oppose it, and welcome you to come. Bring your own suntan oil.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire about time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield the remaining minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. Beach replenishment is an economic engine for shore towns 
and for the tourism industry. It ultimately creates jobs. And also it's 
based on an Army Corps cost-benefit analysis that says for every dollar 
we spend on beach replenishment we save $2 or $3, depending on the 
cost-benefit analysis, that doesn't have to get paid by the Federal 
Government during a hurricane or northeaster or other disaster.
  So beach replenishment actually saves the Federal Government money. 
It has to, otherwise the projects are not authorized by the Army Corps 
of Engineers. In addition to that, there is no way that local 
municipalities would be able to afford to do this. Many of them are 
very small; they have a few thousand people. I use my own State of New 
Jersey as an example. So you would be cutting off any kind of beach 
replenishment, any kind of protection in the event of a storm. And 
ultimately having to pay out those dollars in FEMA down the road makes 
no sense.
  This is actually something that will cost the Federal Government 
money over the long run, and it is very ill-advised for that reason 
alone.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I love beaches at Tybee Island, 
and my friend from Florida's beaches, as well as my friend from 
Washington's beaches, as well as my friend from Oregon's beaches. In 
these hard economic times, I think it's just absolutely incredible that 
we are spending this kind of money, almost a billion dollars over the 
next 10 years, just for beach replenishment.
  I yield 1 minute to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this underappreciated subject. He is raising an issue 
that I think is sensitive and frankly deserves far more consideration 
than it has been given by Congress.
  There is great debate, frankly, about the science of artificial beach 
construction. Part of the concern about the cycle of the Federal 
Government routinely bailing people out is, in fact some locational 
decisions in the first place. The cost allocation can be quite 
variable. There have been real questions about some of the projects 
that have been dictated. In fact, in one instance actually a Corps of 
Engineers item on artificial beach replacement embedded in a 
reauthorization was one of the biggest public works projects over the 
course of 50 years, and really didn't get appropriate scrutiny.
  Now, whether you think extreme weather events are part of climate 
change caused by humans or whether it's part of a natural cycle of 
weather, the gentleman is spotlighting a very significant long-term 
area of Federal responsibility.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. And if we're not careful, the taxpayer could be on 
the hook for a great deal more money. There are some cases that the 
beaches in question aren't even available to the public. And the 
concern about some of the artificial beach construction techniques, of 
fortification and putting additional sand, actually deflects the 
problems further up along the coast. This can create more problems in 
other places and make them more severe.
  So I appreciate the gentleman putting the spotlight on this question. 
I think it is important that every Member of Congress look at the 
history of

[[Page H1249]]

these projects, the long-term obligations, and look for ways that we 
might be able to do this in a way that's more fiscally responsible and 
environmentally sensitive. And I thank him for the time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for weighing in on this. 
Certainly the science is questionable, as a lot of science is 
questionable on the policy that we generate; but it's also fiscally 
irresponsible I think to spend this kind of money. And so I hope that 
my colleagues will support this commonsense, fiscally responsible 
amendment and vote for my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 263 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay any dues to the United Nations.

                     EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

   Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from 
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

       558. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Sodium and Potassium salts of N-alkyl 
     (C8-C18)-beta-iminodipropionic acid; Exemption from the 
     Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0098; FRL-8861-9] 
     received January 31, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); 
     to the Committee on Agriculture.
       559. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerances for 
     Emergency Exemptions [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0982; FRL-8859-6] 
     received January 31, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); 
     to the Committee on Agriculture.
       560. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- n-Octyl alcohol and n-Decyl alcohol; 
     Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-
     2010-0181; FRL-8860-7] received January 31, 2011, pursuant to 
     5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
       561. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- (S,S)-Ethylenediamine Disuccinic Acid 
     Trisodium Salt; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance 
     [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0733; FRL-8860-6] received January 31, 2011, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Agriculture.
       562. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Cyprodinil; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-
     HQ-OPP-2010-0385; FRL-8860-3] received January 31, 2011, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Agriculture.
       563. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Isobutane; Exemption from the 
     Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0676; FRL-8860-4] 
     received January 31, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); 
     to the Committee on Agriculture.
       564. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Bispyribac-sodium; Pesticide 
     Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0796; FRL-8860-2] received 
     January 31, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Agriculture.
       565. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for 
     Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
     transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Revocation of 
     Requirements for Full-Size Baby Cribs and Non-Full-Size Baby 
     Cribs received January 28, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       566. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Additional Air Quality Designations 
     for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air 
     Quality Standards, 110(k)(6) Correction and Technical 
     Correction Related to Prior Designation, and Decisions 
     Related to the 1997 Air Quality Designations and 
     Classifications for the Annual Fine Particles National 
     Ambient Air Quality Standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562; EPA-HQ-
     OAR-2010-0163; FRL-9261-3] (RIN: 2060-AQ30) received January 
     31, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce.
       567. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Determination Of Attainment for PM10; 
     Columbia Falls and Libby Nonattainment Areas, Montana [EPA-
     R08-OAR-2010-0749; FRL-9260-6] received January 31, 2011, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.
       568. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Approval and Disapproval and 
     Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; 
     Revision to Definitions; Construction Permit Program; 
     Regulation 3 [EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1027; FRL-9251-1] received 
     February 4, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       569. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air 
     Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; 2002 Base Year 
     Emissions Inventory, Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 
     Contingency Measures, Reasonably Available Control Measures, 
     and Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Pennsylvania 
     Portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 1997 8-
     Hour Moderate Ozone Nonattainment Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2010-
     0552; FRL-9262-7] received February 4, 2011, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       570. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of 
     Implementation Plans; Alaska: Prevention of Significant 
     Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority and 
     Tailoring Rule Revision [EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0921; FRL-9257-1] 
     received February 4, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       571. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Florida: Final Authorization of State 
     Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions [EPA-R04-RCRA-
     2010-0810; FRL-9262-2] received February 4, 2011, pursuant to 
     5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
       572. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- North Carolina: Final Authorization of 
     State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions [EPA-R04-
     RCRA-2009-0962; FRL-9261-9] received February 4, 2011, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.

                          ____________________