[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2464-2472]
[From the U.S. 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}  0004


                     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 Mr. 
Gingrey of Georgia (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, 
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 11 printed in the 
Congressional Record, offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence), had been postponed, and the bill had been read through page 
359, line 22.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment may 
be offered except those specified in the previous order which is at the 
desk.


            Amendment No. 533 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. 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 this Act may 
     be used by the Environmental Appeals Board to consider, 
     review, reject, remand, or otherwise invalidate any permit 
     issued for Outer Continental Shelf sources located offshore 
     of the States along the Arctic Coast under section 328(a) of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7627(a)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, we must explore for and develop 
the Arctic resources in an environmentally safe and sustainable manner, 
and we must allow that exploration work to proceed without bureaucratic 
impediments. This amendment accomplishes both.
  This amendment would limit funds in the bill from being used by the 
Environmental Appeals Board, EAB, to invalidate any permit issued by 
the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, for activities on the Arctic 
Outer Continental Shelf, OCS.
  The EAB is an extension of the EPA that hears administrative appeals 
pertaining to permit decisions and civil penalty decisions of the 
agency. Very frankly, EAB is populated by environmental appeals judges 
who are lawyers associated with EPA or the Justice Department. This 
amendment does not circumvent the EPA's authority. Instead, it 
continues to give permitting decisions to the professionals in the 
regional office.
  What this amendment will do is remove the ability for lawyers to 
overrule EPA permit writers. Over $4 billion has been invested in 
trying to drill exploratory wells, and to date not a single well has 
been drilled because of one EPA air permit.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say, this is an example of how an aid agency is 
trying to issue the permits correctly, but they have a board that can 
listen to someone who objects to it that rules against them. And we 
have, in fact, had a little over 680 leases in the Arctic Ocean, oil 
that we need being held up by bureaucrats. We will do this safely. The 
air will be clean. They're 80 miles from any human, other than those 
who work on these ships. And if you believe it's right to buy this oil 
from overseas, shame on you.
  Again, we are spending close to $40 billion this year or more buying 
foreign oil; 72 percent of our oil is coming from overseas. The right 
thing to do is allow us to take and explore and find out if that oil is 
there; and if it is, to develop it.
  Remember, we're not the only ones in the Arctic anymore. Iceland, 
Greenland, China, Russia are all drilling. We're the only ones not 
involved; yet we have the best equipment, the best environmental 
wreckers in the Arctic. We have the proper equipment to do it safely. 
It's being held up by bureaucrats who don't want to issue the permits. 
EPA has said it's all right, but the review board says, no, it's not, 
within the agency itself. All it says, if they have the permit issued, 
then it should go forth, and let's get on to serving this country as we 
should for the benefit of this Nation, for the benefit of those so we 
don't have to go to war over in the Middle East over oil. So if you 
don't like what's going on over there, let's support this amendment. I 
believe it's the correct thing.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment stops funding 
for--and I will quote--the Environmental Appeals Board to consider 
review, reject, remand, or otherwise invalidate any permit issued for 
Outer Continental Shelf sources located offshore of the States along 
the Arctic coast.

                              {time}  0010

  Now, the gentleman has shared with us a specific situation, but his 
amendment goes considerably beyond that. The appeals board is the final 
decisionmaker on administrative appeals under all major environmental 
statutes that the Environmental Protection Agency administers. It's an 
impartial body, independent of all agency components outside the 
immediate office of the administrator. To support this amendment is to 
take away people's right to petition their government. This is an 
impartial board that looks out for the regular citizen. In fact, they 
just took great care and ruled on the side of Alaskans and courageously 
ruled against EPA's issuance of a permit to Shell Oil.
  I thought the gentleman and his side of the aisle would take sincere 
joy in any decision ruling against EPA. But that's not the case, 
apparently. I guess EPA is okay as long as it doesn't use any Federal 
funds and rules exactly the way that you want them to. And, in fact, 
EPA did rule the way that the gentleman wants, it's just that we have 
an appeals board. That appeals board is there for good reason, has been 
for some time.
  I don't have to tell the gentleman, but I think the other Members of 
this body should know that the Environmental Appeals Board found that 
EPA's analysis of the effect on Alaskan Native communities of nitrogen 
dioxide emissions from the drilling ships was too limited, ordered the 
agency to redo the work. It doesn't mean that they can't drill. The 
analysis is incomplete. We should let that legal process work and stop 
interfering in long-standing regulatory and administrative processes. 
The amendment will be seen as an assault on the environment and an 
affront to the Alaskans who engaged in this case.
  I'm disappointed that the gentleman's position would appear to favor

[[Page 2465]]

Big Oil over the small Alaskan villages that are being protected in 
this reconsideration. It doesn't mean that there won't be drilling; it 
simply means that the analysis to enable that drilling needs to be full 
and complete.
  I urge defeat of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest one thing. The 
native communities in Alaska support this. They support drilling. I've 
had them in my office. And to say that, I represent that State, not 
Alexandria, Virginia. And they've come to me and said we need it.
  I yield to the gentleman from Idaho, the chairman of the 
appropriations committee, Mr. Simpson.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Beginning in 2005, the Shell Oil Company purchased 
leases in the Beaufort and the Chukchi Seas located within the Arctic 
Outer Continental Shelf. The company paid over $2.1 billion for these 
lease rights, a reflection of the potentially vast reserves off of 
Alaska's coast.
  Shell applied for air permits from the EPA for its Beaufort leases in 
2006 and for the Chukchi in 2008. The company went through a lengthy 
and burdensome administrative process. Shell's permits were initially 
approved, but subsequently overturned by the EPA's Environmental 
Appeals Board. Last year, the Appropriations Committee addressed the 
problem by including language in the FY 2010 conference report 
specifically directing the agency to allocate sufficient funds and 
personnel to process the OCS permits in a timely manner. This simply 
did not happen. The company is effectively at square one after spending 
millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours.
  Shell announced just this month that it had cancelled plans for 
drilling in the Arctic in the 2011 drilling season, which is a very 
short drilling season. They have spent millions on this and done 
everything by the book. And the appeals board has decided that because 
they should have foreseen that the rules were going to change, that 
they shouldn't have issued these air permits.
  I think it's an overreach by the EPA and by the appeals board, and I 
support this amendment and would encourage my colleagues to vote for 
it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would underscore some points previously 
made.
  Number one, we are not taking a position on the merits of this case. 
It may very well be, I would not be surprised, in fact, personally, 
that ultimately the drilling off the Arctic coast would be approved. 
But this is like taking a case to the district court. The district 
court agrees with you, and then the plaintiff appeals, goes to the 
appeals court. The appeals court disagrees or says that there needs to 
be more information. That's exactly what this appeals board did. Now, 
presumably, that information is being gathered. It will be presented. 
And when it is, I don't know why the appeals board would not agree with 
the EPA decision.
  The problem with this amendment is we're setting a precedent to say, 
if we don't like the appeals board, we like the district court 
decision, which is in this case EPA's decision, then we accept EPA's 
decision, ignore that appeals process. That's what we're opposed to. It 
seems to me we ought not be legislating that kind of judicial decision 
that affects many people's lives and incomes, clearly, and the 
environment without a full hearing.
  What's going to happen if this legislation were passed is that the 
decisionmaking process that allows this drilling will be suspect and a 
permit will not be able to be fully issued without reservation. So for 
that reason, I would suggest that the right thing to do is to defeat 
this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. 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 Alaska will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 524 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise as designee of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I am pleased to offer the 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 in this Act may 
     be used to make an application under section 501 of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1861) for an order requiring the production of library 
     circulation records, library patron lists, book sales 
     records, or book customer lists.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I now yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Paul, myself and Mr. Jones. The amendment would prohibit 
the use of any funds made available in this act to make an application 
for what's commonly known as a section 215 order requiring the 
production of library circulation records, library patron lists, book 
sale records or book customer lists. The amendment is very narrowly 
drawn to protect the privacy of all Americans from unwarranted 
governmental investigation in an area directly related to their beliefs 
and private thoughts.
  What we read, where we read, what we listen to, our interests, the 
type of information we seek, our private tastes in art and music all 
tell a great deal about us. The right to be free from the prying eyes 
of government in these areas is absolutely necessary to protect our 
rights of free speech, religious liberty, liberty of conscience, 
freedom of association and political freedom. This amendment will not 
prevent the government from obtaining this type of information provided 
it obtains the constitutionally required warrant. What it will stop is 
the use of 215 orders which are issued by the secret Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court under standards so loose it is almost 
impossible for the government to get turned down, instead of the normal 
warrant. In fact, the secret court has become a virtual rubber stamp 
for the government.
  The amendment also will not stop the use of section 215 orders in 
other investigations such as surveillance of computer communications, 
even if conducted in libraries. Section 215 authorizes the government 
to obtain ``any tangible thing'' so long as the government provides a 
``statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to 
believe that the tangible things are relevant to a foreign intelligence 
or an international terrorism or espionage investigation.''

                              {time}  0020

  This would include business records, library records, tax records, 
educational records, or medical records. Before the enactment of 
section 215, only specific types of records were subject to the orders 
issued by the secret court, and the government had to show ``specific 
and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom 
the record pertains is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign 
power.'' In other words, specific reason to believe that the person you 
were talking about is either a foreign agent or a terrorist.
  This dragnet approach of section 215, which does not need those 
specific facts, allows the government to review personal records even 
if there is no reason to believe that the individual involved has 
anything to do with terrorism. This poses a threat to individual rights 
in the most sensitive area of our lives with little restraint on the 
Congress.
  While Congress has decided to extend the life of section 215 that 
does all these things for the next few months, during which I hope we 
can take a closer look at it and, if not reform it, then

[[Page 2466]]

do away with it, I think it entirely inappropriate for us to provide 
some reasonable protection for these very limited and sensitive areas 
and in effect cutting out library records from the section 215 
extension that we just voted.
  Do not believe the scare tactics that this amendment might impede 
investigations and might make us vulnerable to terrorism. The 
government has many tools with which to investigate terrorism and other 
types of wrongdoing. In fact, section 215 is rarely used. Search 
warrants and other investigative tools would still be available to the 
government. But in any event, most of section 215 is unaffected by this 
amendment and will continue. This amendment pertains only to library 
records.
  When we last considered this amendment a number of years ago, it 
passed this House overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. Today, 
Representative Conyers and I offer it with two Republican colleagues, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Jones). I urge my colleagues to support this amendment 
dealing only with the library records aspect of section 215.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. As the gentleman from New York knows, Congress is 
considering temporary extension of the same Patriot Act authorities 
that are targeted in this amendment.
  The reauthorization process, not in this CR, is the proper venue to 
consider any changes to existing intelligence-gathering laws. 
Applications for FISA orders seeking library circulation records and 
book sales records may only be approved by the Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, the Deputy Bureau of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, or the Executive Assistant Director for National 
Security. This authority cannot be further delegated.
  There is absolutely no evidence that this authority has been abused 
or misused to unlawfully acquire library or business records.
  This prohibition could create a safe haven for terrorists to utilize 
America's libraries and bookstores to conduct research or communicate 
with each other. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. I will yield the 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank the gentleman from New York, and I thank the 
chairman of the subcommittee.
  As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce and Justice, I 
rise in support of this amendment. I think that the prohibition is an 
appropriate one. It's a specific carve-out for library records related 
to American citizens.
  These records still would be available under a warrant properly 
petitioned for and received through the secret court that handles these 
matters. But this would take away this administrative procedure which 
has been rarely used. And I agree with the gentleman from Virginia, 
there's no reason to believe that it would be abused in any way.
  The real point here is that we as Americans find that our right to 
privacy, and particularly as relates to the library and our reading 
habits--that we do not have a circumstance that we have a fishing 
expedition by law enforcement.
  So I support the prohibition amendment. And it did pass before by 
bipartisan vote; it's offered on a bipartisan basis, and I hope that 
the House favorably considers it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, this bipartisan amendment places a 
reasonable limit on the Government's ability to spy on American 
citizens using Patriot Act powers, by narrowly targeting the Patriot 
Act provision which allows the Government to seize library or bookstore 
records to determine what Americans are reading and thinking. 
Protection against this type of intrusion into our thoughts and minds 
is at the heart of our most fundamental freedoms and what it means to 
be an American. For these reasons, I vote in favor of the Nadler/
Conyers amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. 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. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. 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 New York 
will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 424 Offered by Mr. Fortenberry

  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. 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 new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide any of the following types of assistance 
     to Chad: international military education and training 
     (IMET), foreign military financing (FMF), provision of excess 
     defense articles, foreign military forces capacity assistance 
     (section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2006), and direct commercial sales of military 
     equipment.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, in 2008, this body passed the Child 
Soldiers Prevention Act. It was part of the William Wilberforce Human 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The bill declared that the United 
States would not provide military assistance to countries found guilty 
of child conscription.
  With broad bipartisan support, we declared that this is an affront to 
human dignity and an affront to civilization itself. We made it known 
that all children, no matter where they are, should be on playgrounds 
and not battlegrounds.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for us to envision that a child 
would be put in military fatigues, a gun in their hand, and then forced 
to fight. But it does happen, and it does happen in the world today.
  The government of Chad, to which we provide military assistance, was 
found guilty of using child soldiers in the 2010 State Department 
Trafficking-in-Persons Report. As the law we passed provided, Chad was 
granted a national security interest waiver in the hopes that Chad 
would take serious and aggressive strides toward ending this serious 
human rights violation and be a valuable military partner with the 
United States. But we have to ask, where is the progress?
  With the withdrawal of the U.N. mission in Chad at the end of last 
year, children as young as 13 years old are now being preyed upon as 
child soldiers. In this past week, the United Nations and a respected 
international human rights organization both issued reports warning of 
Chad's continued flouting of our law. The Washington Post, along with 
other international media outlets, has given attention to this issue as 
well in recent days.
  Mr. Chairman, to use child soldiers is wrong. This is why we passed 
the law in the first place. Yes, we want a good military relationship 
with Chad. Chad is a valuable military partner. But to strengthen that 
partnership, the horrific abuse of children must end.
  So I offer this amendment as a challenge to our Government. We are 
operating inconsistently. We passed a law saying one thing, but we 
continue military assistance with no apparent attentiveness to stopping 
the pernicious use of child soldiers.
  Mr. Chairman, several years ago I was in the country of Liberia. I 
had the

[[Page 2467]]

opportunity to visit the interior part of that country as well. Liberia 
had gone through a devastating civil war, and this particular area we 
were in had been caught in a very bad crossfire between rebel groups, 
and I was invited to visit a missionary school there run by a British 
Catholic priest.
  As we entered the compound, the beautiful children came out and sang 
us a song and greeted us. And this priest told us that during the worst 
part of the war, he himself had been abducted, his children had been 
left unattended, and many had died of starvation. He showed me the mass 
grave.

                              {time}  0030

  But he also asked me to spend a few more minutes with him. We went to 
a classroom and he discretely pulled two young boys out of that 
classroom. He told me they had been child soldiers. One had been shot 
in the hip. The other had had his father killed while he was standing 
next to him. Both of the boys were withdrawn. They wouldn't look me in 
the eye. Clearly they were deeply wounded. But this priest wanted to 
thank me and to thank the American people for providing a little bit of 
assistance to him to help integrate these children back to some degree 
of normalcy.
  So which way are we going to have it? We need to be consistent. On 
one side of the hallway we have a very good program to help heal those 
who have been victimized by child soldiers, but on the other side we 
are aiding a government that is not stopping this pernicious practice.
  William Wilberforce, the British statesman and unyielding 
abolitionist, for whom our antihuman trafficking law is named, said 
this: ``You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say 
again that you did not know.''
  Mr. Chairman, we must make it clear to the government of Chad that we 
now know, and we cannot look the other way.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to 
commend the gentleman for his outstanding work on this important issue. 
We want the gentleman to know that we are prepared on our side to 
accept his amendment.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I appreciate that. Thank you for the kind words.
  Mr. CARTER. If the gentleman will yield, we also will accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  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. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources 
     and Services Administration, Health Resources and Services'', 
     by reducing the amount made available for ``Department of 
     Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, Disease Control, Research, and Training'', by 
     reducing the amount made available for ``Department of Health 
     and Human Services, National Institutes of Health'', and by 
     increasing the amount made available for ``Department of 
     Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services 
     Administration, Health Resources and Services'', by 
     $14,000,000, by $14,000,000, by an additional $14,000,000, 
     and by $42,000,000, respectively.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the full year continuing appropriations act 
which would help people living with HIV/AIDS who cannot afford their 
treatment by reallocating additional funding to our Nation's AIDS Drug 
Assistance Program.
  It is unconscionable that, in 2011, we often have the resources to 
save lives but wait until a crisis before taking action. Just this 
month, thousands of Floridians living with HIV/AIDS were on the verge 
of losing access to their life-saving drugs as Florida's ADAP ran out 
of money.
  Current funding levels for ADAP are unsustainable.
  Due to state budget cuts and an increase in the number of individuals 
who rely on ADAP for HIV/AIDS-related drugs and services, 10 states, 
including Florida, have had to create ADAP waiting lists and cut 
services.
  As of February 3, my home state of Florida has accounted for over 
half of the 6,001 individuals on ADAP waiting lists nationwide (3,085 
individuals). In fact, Florida has the third-highest HIV/AIDS 
population in the country and the highest rate of new infections.
  Ensuring access to treatment remains key to combating HIV/AIDS. 
Antiretroviral drugs can increase the life expectancy of a person 
living with HIV/AIDS by at least 24 years.
  When incorporated into comprehensive strategies, antiretroviral drugs 
can also help reduce the spread of HIV by up to 92 percent.
  Currently, the lifetime cost of living with HIV/AIDS is $618,900. If 
we do not take action now, the future costs of HIV/AIDS will amount to 
$12.1 billion per year, with drugs making up 70 percent of the cost. We 
cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this crisis; the costs are simply 
too high.
  My amendment reallocates $14 million from each of the Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2011 administrative budgets of the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 
and National Institutes of Health (NIH) in order to provide $42 million 
to ADAP.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, if enacted, my 
amendment would save $1 million in new FY 2011 expenditures. 
Furthermore, it would have no net budget authority effect for FY 2011.
  Mr. Chairman, we can and must do better. I urge my colleagues to 
support increased funding for our nation's ADAP by voting in favor of 
my amendment.
  By reallocating desperately-needed funds to ADAP, we are helping 
states like Florida ensure that low-income individuals living with HIV/
AIDS have access to the medications and services they need to stay 
alive while stemming the tide of new infections and saving our nation 
money in the long-term.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
distinguished colleague and very good friend and colleague from Florida 
(Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of Amendment 23 offered by Mr. Hastings, my 
good friend from Florida, which would help people living with HIV/AIDS 
afford treatment through the vital AIDS Drug Assistance Program. This 
program, known as ADAP, provides HIV-related prescription drugs to low-
income people with HIV/AIDS who have limited or no prescription drug 
coverage.
  This essential national program is undeniably in the midst of a 
devastating funding crisis. The combination of an economic recession, 
State budget cuts, and increased testing and diagnosis of HIV have 
created the perfect storm against ADAP's fiscal situation--more 
patients are requiring ADAP treatment as the program has been emptied 
out. This has resulted in drastic cuts in services provided and 
thousands in 10 different States have ended up on waiting lists to 
receive these necessary lifesaving drugs.
  In my own State of Florida, with the largest of all such waiting 
lists, 3,276 individuals languish without access to affordable 
lifesaving treatment. Our State has lowered financial eligibility down 
to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level, while at the same time 
reducing the formulary for the patients who still qualify.
  This is an enormous problem for a State with the third highest HIV/
AIDS population and the highest rate of new infections in the country. 
You may be shocked to know that the new infection rate in south Florida 
is higher than in Africa. We cannot let this happen in our own backyard 
to our neighbors and our constituents.
  Though our administration has demonstrated that funding ADAP is a 
priority, we just keep hitting the wall. Current funding levels for 
this program

[[Page 2468]]

are unsustainable and we must do more to help. This amendment would 
help give the ADAP program a much-needed boost and help thousands of 
patients access the treatment they so desperately need.
  In this budgetary climate, we must make smart and sensible decisions. 
Where we can afford to make an administrative haircut, if the tradeoff 
is saving lives, it is our moral imperative to do so. By reallocating 
these greatly needed funds to save ADAP, we ensure that people living 
with HIV/AIDS in our communities can access the treatment they need to 
stay alive while we stem the tide of new infections and save our Nation 
money in the long term.
  I strongly urge you to support the efforts of this responsible and 
compassionate amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I understand what Mr. Hastings is doing 
here and I, too, support the work of the AIDS Drug Assistance Program 
and what it does across the country, assuring that more than 500,000 
Americans that cannot otherwise afford it receive the drugs that they 
need for the HIV virus. This is one of the critical services that is 
offered to many who cannot afford it. It helps to improve their health 
and to maintain the public's health in general.
  Just last year, the Department of Health and Human Services had to 
reallocate $25 million to help States that had a lengthy waiting list, 
people hanging in limbo without access to the medication that we know 
will help them. And in these difficult economic times, more and more 
people find themselves also unable to afford treatment. More than 700 
Americans were put on that waiting list in 1 month in 2010.
  Improving access to care is a priority for me and my colleagues, but 
this amendment is one that attempts to correct a piece of legislation 
that is not fixable. We simply cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.
  This amendment will pull important resources from two accounts that 
the Republicans have already decimated that are critical to the public 
health of our country: the CDC, Centers for Disease Control, and the 
National Institutes of Health. I therefore encourage my colleague from 
Florida to work with me to defeat this reckless continuing resolution 
rather than amend a bill that is beyond repair.
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. We have no objection to this amendment and are prepared 
to accept the amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 483 Offered by Mr. Fortenberry

  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. 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 this Act may 
     be used for or in sterilization campaigns.

  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, recently a woman came to my children's 
school to talk about the healing power of forgiveness. She was a 
survivor of the 1994 Rwandan genocide when nearly 1 million people were 
mercilessly hunted, hacked and killed.
  Now let's fast forward to the year 2007. In an ironic twist, Rwanda's 
President Kagame expressed his interest in reducing the number of 
births of children in that country by 50 percent. In recent weeks, 
confusing reports have surfaced as to whether the Rwandan Government 
had launched a campaign setting a target for hundreds of thousands of 
male sterilizations. While the reports which implied possible 
complicity of U.S.-funded organizations were subsequently dismissed, 
the concerns they raised are very real. Let's note China's one-child 
policy, or Fujimori's Peru.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States should be a champion for human 
dignity, and yet, sadly, we have our own sorted past with sterilization 
campaigns. In 1924, the State of Virginia passed what was called the 
Racial Integrity Act, which remained intact well into my own lifetime, 
until it was overturned by the Supreme Court.

                              {time}  0040

  I think the title ``The Racial Integrity Act'' speaks for itself; 
legislation so outrageous that then-Governor Warner, now Senator 
Warner, issued a statement of apology in 2002 saying, ``We must 
remember the Commonwealth's past mistakes in order to prevent them from 
recurring.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is a proscriptive amendment, which I believe is 
consistent with current law, that seeks to prevent human rights abuse, 
that just says, No, we will not return to this shameful past, nor will 
we impose it on other people in other places with America's tax 
dollars.
  This amendment, I believe, is a reasonable application and extension 
of the current law. It is important because sterilization campaigns 
involving a subtle element of real or perceived moral suasion directed 
at vulnerable individuals can easily blur the distinction between what 
is voluntary and involuntary. The question here is whether to take 
hard-earned taxpayer dollars and apply them in these campaigns--
aggressive outreach efforts--to sterilize persons.
  Mr. Chairman, while I recognize that this amendment has been ruled 
out of order, I do believe it is a reasonable application and extension 
of current law. However, I will accept the judgment of the Chair and 
withdraw this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


             Amendment No. 466 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. 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. __. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     implement, administer, or enforce any statutory or regulatory 
     requirement pertaining to emissions of carbon dioxide, 
     methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, 
     hydrofluorocarbons, or perfluorocarbons from stationary 
     sources that is issued or becomes applicable or effective 
     after January 1, 2011.
       (b) In this section, the term ``stationary source'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 111(a)(3) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(3)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) and a Member opposed each will control 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  I'd like to thank my fellow Texans, Mr. Barton and Mr. Carter, for 
cosponsoring and introducing amendment No. 466 in their commitment to 
block funding for new EPA greenhouse gas mandates.
  This amendment will eliminate funding for the EPA to be used to 
implement, administer, or enforce any statutory or regulatory 
requirement pertaining to the emissions of greenhouse

[[Page 2469]]

gases from stationary sources. This amendment will put an end to any 
backdoor attempt made by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases to go 
around Congress and circumvent the will of the people. Americans have 
rejected this policy. Despite being rejected by Congress, the 
administration has ignored the will of the people and the law to 
further some political agenda.
  It's absolutely necessary that Congress take immediate action to 
ensure that the EPA does not continue to destroy industry across the 
board in our country. We're in the midst of a massive economic 
downturn, and the last thing we need to do is to shoot ourselves in the 
foot with unnecessary, expensive new regulations that are on business 
and industry, not to mention Americans will be left holding the bag.
  Past attempts to regulate greenhouse gases would cost American 
taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal 
income taxes up about 15 percent, or cost each American household an 
extra $1,700.
  This amendment, section 1746 of the CR, says that none of the funds 
made available to the EPA are to be used to enforce or promulgate any 
regulation relating to State implementation plans or permits. Further, 
amendment No. 466 takes the CR a step further, prohibiting the EPA from 
enforcing national regulation of greenhouse gases similar to the cap-
and-trade regulation.
  This amendment basically prohibits the EPA from overregulating not 
only the State of Texas but the rest of the States regarding greenhouse 
gases. Probably no Member of Congress represents more refineries than I 
do in southeast Texas; and the regulatory process, the overregulation 
of the EPA coming in and trying to now regulate the State of Texas 
regarding greenhouse gases is a detriment to the industry. The State of 
Texas regulates greenhouse gases. The State of Texas regulates the 
industry. It has done a good job. This is overreaching on the part of 
the EPA. And it's time for the EPA not to put industry out of business 
and put the refinery industry out of business.
  This amendment will rein them in and prohibit them from implementing 
the so-called cap-and-trade philosophy on States such as Texas and 
other States.

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 4, 2011]

                         The EPA's War on Texas

       The Environmental Protection Agency's carbon regulation 
     putsch continues, but apparently abusing the clean-air laws 
     of the 1970s to achieve goals Congress rejected isn't enough. 
     Late last week, the EPA made an unprecedented move to punish 
     Texas for being the one state with the temerity to challenge 
     its methods.
       To wit, the EPA violated every tenet of administrative 
     procedure to strip Texas of its authority to issue the air 
     permits that are necessary for large power and industrial 
     projects. This is the first time in the history of the Clean 
     Air Act that the EPA has abrogated state control, and the 
     decision will create gale-force headwinds for growth in a 
     state that is the U.S. energy capital. Anyone who claims that 
     carbon regulation is no big deal and that the EPA is merely 
     following the law will need to defend this takeover.
       Since December 2009, the EPA has issued four major 
     greenhouse gas rule-makings, and 13 states have tried to 
     resist the rush. The Clean Air Act stipulates that pollution 
     control is ``the primary responsibility of states and local 
     government,'' and while the national office sets overall 
     priorities, states have considerable leeway in their 
     ``implementation plans.'' When EPA's instructions change, 
     states typically have three years to revise these plans 
     before sending them to Washington for approval.
       This summer, the 13 states requested the full three years 
     for the costly and time-consuming revision process, until the 
     EPA threatened economic retaliation with a de facto 
     construction moratorium. If these states didn't immediately 
     submit new implementation plans to specification, the agency 
     warned, starting in 2011 projects ``will be unable to receive 
     a federally approved permit authorizing construction or 
     modification.'' All states but Texas stood down, even as 
     Texas continued to file lawsuits challenging the carbon power 
     grab.
       Two weeks ago, EPA air regulation chief Gina McCarthy sent 
     the Texas environmental department a letter asserting that 
     the agency had ``no choice'' but to seize control of 
     permitting. She noted ``statements in the media'' by Texas 
     officials and their ``legal challenges to EPA's greenhouse 
     gas rules,'' but she cited no legal basis.
       And no wonder. The best the EPA could offer up as a legal 
     excuse for voiding Texas's permitting authority last Thursday 
     was that EPA had erred in originally approving the state's 
     implementation plan--in 1992, or three Presidents ago.
       The error that escaped EPA's notice for 18 years was that 
     the Texas plan did not address ``all pollutants newly subject 
     to regulation . . . among them GHGs [greenhouse gases].'' In 
     other words, back then Texas hadn't complied with regulations 
     that didn't exist and wouldn't be promulgated for another 18 
     years.
       The takeover was sufficiently egregious that the D.C. 
     circuit court of appeals issued an emergency stay on Thursday 
     suspending the rules pending judicial review. One particular 
     item in need of legal scrutiny is that the permitting 
     takeover is an ``interim final rule'' that is not open to the 
     normal--and Clean Air Act-mandated--process of public notice 
     and comment. So much for transparency in government.
       The EPA claims its takeover is a matter of great urgency, 
     but Texas is being pre-emptively punished for not obeying 
     rules that don't exist today because the EPA hasn't finalized 
     them. ``Now, at this early stage, there's no specifics to 
     tell you about the rules in terms of what we're announcing 
     today, other than they will be done and we'll move--take 
     steps moving forward in 2011,'' Mrs. McCarthy told reporters 
     on a conference call last week about the agency's 
     ``performance standards'' for oil refineries, power plants, 
     cement manufacturers and other such CO2-heavy 
     facilities.
       ``It's way too early in the game right now to be talking 
     about what we think the standards are going to look like,'' 
     she added helpfully. ``Today's announcement is just the fact 
     we're going to move to those standards.''
       This and other permitting uncertainties have brought major 
     projects in the U.S. to a standstill. The Texas takeover in 
     particular is pure political revenge and an effort to 
     intimidate other states from joining the Texan lawsuits. The 
     reason states are supposed to run the clean-air process is 
     that local regulators have the staff, capacity and expertise 
     that Washington lacks. When the carbon rules eventually are 
     issued, that means the takeover will extend the current 
     moratorium even longer in Texas.
       The EPA concedes that some 167 current projects will be 
     affected, and many more in the future. Our guess is that all 
     of them will be delayed for years and many will simply die. 
     This is precisely the goal of a politically driven 
     bureaucracy that wants to impose by illegal diktat the 
     anticarbon, anti-fossil fuel agenda that the Obama 
     Administration has been unable to pass by democratic consent.

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, this entire bill, this CR, is replete with amendment 
after amendment targeting the public's health and the environment. This 
is one of the worst, at least in its intent. As a practical matter, 
it's not clear why this amendment is being offered, really, as it 
appears to duplicate section 1746 of the underlying bill. But both 
section 1746 and this amendment are truly radical attempts to stop the 
Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job of protecting the 
health and welfare of every American.
  This particular amendment would bar EPA from addressing carbon 
pollution, period--pollution which seriously endangers public health 
and the environment. It not only guts the Clean Air Act, but it also 
imposes a job-destroying construction ban in many States. According to 
the National Academy of Sciences and the premier scientific 
organizations of all the world major economies, man-made carbon 
pollution is changing the climate and is endangering the public's 
health and the environment.
  The American Lung Association, the American Public Health 
Association, and thousands of doctors, nurses, and other public health 
professionals support EPA's action on this public health threat; but 
this amendment bars EPA from acting, from carrying out its legal 
responsibility. Under the Clean Air Act, companies building large new 
facilities like power plants and refineries need to make sure that they 
have taken reasonable steps to reduce their carbon pollution because 
it's easier to control pollution from the beginning, the point where a 
facility is being built, rather than waiting and trying to retrofit it 
after it has been constructed.
  All EPA is asking is that these large new facilities be energy 
efficient. They

[[Page 2470]]

can meet the standard if they simply meet energy efficiency standards. 
The Poe amendment, though, would prevent EPA from implementing this 
commonsense requirement to protect the public health from the largest 
and most dangerous sources of carbon pollution.
  EPA has also indicated it plans to set minimum Federal standards for 
the two largest sources of carbon pollution, which are power plants and 
oil refineries. This amendment would prevent EPA from even proposing 
these standards. Those standards are really a limitation on what they 
could and I think should be doing in terms of regulating pollution 
throughout the country. But they're going to stick to the two largest 
sources.
  Ironically, given all of the rhetoric we've heard about environmental 
regulations hurting the economy, this Poe amendment is a job-destroyer. 
Under the Clean Air Act, a company wanting to build or expand a power 
plant or other facility has to get a permit for that facility's carbon 
pollution before beginning construction. The Poe amendment does nothing 
to change that. What it does do is take away EPA's authority to issue 
those permits. So that basically amounts to a construction ban.

                              {time}  0050

  This is more than a paperwork problem. In essence the Poe amendment 
will impose that de facto construction ban on jobs in all or parts of 
at least 13 States. And without the needed permits, construction cannot 
proceed. So a vote for the Poe amendment would be a vote not only 
against the Clean Air Act, it is a vote for a de facto construction 
ban. Thousands of jobs lost in States across this country. That's why 
we very strongly oppose the Poe amendment. We do support EPA's 
authority to cut carbon pollution and allow the construction of energy-
efficient power plants, refineries and other facilities to proceed as 
planned.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Contrary to what the gentleman says, in the State 
of Texas, the power plants, the refineries are already being regulated. 
They're being regulated by the State of Texas. And unless this 
amendment passes, the refineries, those that I represent probably more 
than any person in the United States--this new added burden by the EPA 
coming in will make those at the refineries lose their jobs. The 
administration has already done a good job of trying to close down the 
oil industry in the Gulf of Mexico by not lifting the permitting 
process. Now the administration with this requirement, contrary to the 
law of Congress, since Congress has not passed a cap-and-trade 
philosophy, will put those refineries and workers at harm, and they 
will lose their jobs because of the new EPA regulatory process that is 
not necessary.
  With that, I yield as much time as he wishes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of this amendment. I disagree with my friend across 
the aisle. I don't believe this amendment will be a job killer. I 
believe it will be a job protector. But more so, it's a faith protector 
in the opportunity to have a job.
  When we were debating in Congress this very issue of cap and trade, 
back home where I live and all across the State of Texas and in other 
parts of the country where I was privileged to travel, people were 
asking, Please, are they really going to impose this crazy legislation 
upon us at the cost of our jobs and jack up the cost of our energy?
  A lot of small businesses said, I don't know what to do, because this 
thing is looming out there. If it becomes law, I have the feeling it's 
going to put me out of business because I'm not going to be able to 
afford the disastrous cost it's going to take to keep me in operation. 
These are just small business owners.
  Meanwhile, those in the refining and power industries looked at this 
thing and said, Good Lord, what is this going to do to us? How many 
people are we going to be able to keep on? And who are we going to have 
to lay off so we can meet these onerous requirements?
  And the people of the United States and this Congress basically said 
no to the President and no to the Democratic majority of the last few 
years. So the result was a sigh of relief, not only in my hometown but 
in hometowns across America; a sigh of relief, because they looked at 
this thing and said, This doesn't make sense. They're trying to 
regulate the air we breathe. It just shocks people as to what it might 
do to their cost.
  Now I just came tonight to ask one question, a very simple question, 
the question everybody in my district has been asking me. What is it 
about the word no that these folks don't understand? Because they have 
been told no, and I think it should remain no.
  We should support this amendment.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time on 
each side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 6 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington, Mr. Jay Inslee, one of the 
House's premier experts on the issue of air pollution.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, anyone who has ever seen a child gasping for 
breath due to a persistent asthma problem, which are most of us in 
America, should be adamantly opposed to this amendment, because it 
would strip the legal right and obligation of Uncle Sam to protect our 
children's right to breathe.
  Now I just heard something incredible from one of my Republican 
colleagues. They said they were astounded at the precept that Uncle Sam 
has that responsibility. Well, you know we've had that responsibility 
for 40 years. Under the guidance of the idea of Teddy Roosevelt and 
Republican Richard Nixon, we adopted the Clean Air Act 40 years ago, 
through a bipartisan effort. And that Clean Air Act has prevented 18 
million cases of respiratory problems in our kids, 840,000 severe 
asthma hospitalizations and 200,000 deaths.
  And as a result of that success, do you know what the Republican 
Party wants to do tonight? They want to effectively repeal the Clean 
Air Act when it comes to these gases. And these are not benign gases. 
Carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur 
hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons. They want to hide and say we're not 
repealing the Clean Air Act, we're just making it illegal to enforce 
it. It won't do to say we're going to make it illegal for the FBI to 
arrest terrorists.
  Look, Americans are opposed to repealing the Clean Air Act, and they 
are opposed to the Republicans making it impossible for the EPA to do 
their job, by a 2-to-1 margin, and they're opposed to it for several 
reasons.
  Number one, Republicans and Democrats both believe we have a legal 
obligation to protect our kids from asthma. It's that simple. And 
Republicans and Democrats share one common precept. We both like to 
breathe. And that breathing is now in question for our kids. It's 
incredible to me to think the Republicans are going to leave our kids 
breathless on occasion. That is breathless in itself.
  Number two, this really is an attack on science, because the science 
is very clear on this. You quote from all the scientific research. Dr. 
Jacobson--and this I just want to quote--showed by cause and effect 
that carbon dioxide emitted regionally around the globe increases 
ozone, particle and carcinogen air pollution health problems in the 
United States. The science shows this is a problem. And we ought to 
embrace science as Republicans and Democrats instead of listening to 
the polluting industries, which want to give license to put untold, 
indefinite, infinite amounts of these carcinogens into our atmosphere. 
That is just plumb wrong.
  The third reason Americans know this Republican effort to gut the 
Clean Air Act is wrong. They are not attempting to revise a rule or 
modify a rule, or come to us with some commonsense effort to make it 
work. They are

[[Page 2471]]

eliminating the ability of the Federal Government to protect the air we 
breathe in total--a one hundred percent elimination of the ability of 
EPA legally to follow this rule.
  The Supreme Court ruled last year that this is a legal obligation. 
Some of my Republican colleagues said, yeah, that was only a 5-4 
decision, so I guess we can ignore it. Well, that 5-4 decision seemed 
to have been good enough in Bush v. Gore for them. It ought to be good 
enough to follow the law of the land, which is to enforce this clean 
air law for the benefit of our children.
  The fourth reason Americans are opposed to this Republican effort to 
stop EPA from doing its job. Americans know today we are in a race for 
job creation, and that race is with China.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MORAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. INSLEE. The fact of the matter is Americans know we are in a race 
today for job creation, and that is a race with China to find out who 
is going to sell the products and who is going to have the jobs in 
electric cars, in solar panels, in wind turbines, in efficiency, in 
electric charging stations, in new efficiencies to make our homes and 
businesses run more efficiently. And tonight the Chinese are laughing 
at us, that the Republicans would come here and take the pedal off the 
metal, which is the EPA, to try to drive investment to these new clean 
energy sources.
  These are the jobs of the future. If we're going to have these jobs 
of the future, we have to start moving off of this pollution and stop 
accepting this pollution. We have to get in this global game. And if we 
get in this global game, we're going to win. The reason we're going to 
win is we're the country that went to the Moon, and we are the country 
with the innovative talent and the creative spirit and the business 
people that can grow these nonpolluting industries. But not if the 
Republicans get their way and just let pollution continue.
  Let's reject this flawed attempt to gut the Clean Air Act.

                              {time}  0100

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton), who knows as much about the Clean Air Act as 
anybody.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. So much to say, so little time.
  Mr. Chairman, first, let me point out that CO2, the 
greenhouse gas that is most under discussion, is not a pollutant under 
the classical definition of the Clean Air Act. I am creating 
CO2 as I speak. The gentleman from Washington, who was just 
speaking, as he spoke, was creating CO2. If you have a 
carbonated beverage, the reason it bubbles and it is called 
``carbonated'' is because of CO2. Greenhouse gases are 
necessary to human life. They're what keep the planet warm. They're 
what trap heat so we have an atmosphere that we can exist in.
  There is not a definition of a health exposure to CO2. The 
theory that CO2 is harmful is based on a theory that the 
amount of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, in the upper 
atmosphere, as it increases, so many parts per billion somehow affect 
the ability of the Earth to accumulate or dispense heat. It is a 
theory. There is nobody in this country or anywhere in the world who 
has been harmed because of manmade CO2. You cannot point to 
cases of CO2 poisoning.
  So, when my friends who oppose this amendment talk about carbon 
pollution, they're using a definition that is very loose and very 
nebulous.
  The second point is that there is no question that the Clean Air Act, 
as passed and as amended in 1990, did not include CO2 as a 
criterion pollutant. Because of a case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, the 
Supreme Court ruled--and my friend from Washington was correct--5-4 
that the EPA could make a decision to regulate CO2. Could--
not should, not must--but could.
  The Bush administration began a process to analyze that decision. The 
Obama administration came in, and within the first 90 days, issued an 
endangerment finding, not based on independent analysis, but based more 
on press releases as far as I can say. They said, yes, by golly, that 
CO2 was a pollutant and that, yes, they could regulate it. 
They have since been trying to shoehorn CO2 regulation into 
the tenets of the original Clean Air Act.
  The amendment before us this evening that Mr. Poe, Mr. Carter, and I 
have promulgated simply says: Let's take a timeout on CO2 
regulation for the next 7 months. Let's actually define what the 
greenhouse gases are that we want to look at, and let's restrict the 
analysis to stationary sources on the regulations that are implemented 
after January 2011.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. There is no question that if you regulate 
CO2 under the Clean Air Act you are going to destroy 
millions of jobs, which will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, 
without any real economic analysis to show that it is a harm.
  So I support the Poe-Carter-Barton amendment, and I hope that the 
whole House will.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, there are actually a couple of points that I 
would share with the gentleman who had been the ranking member and who 
is now the senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  The committee could pass legislation if they chose. I don't think 
this is the correct vehicle, a continuing resolution on funding 
activities, to be making law with regard to the Clean Air Act.
  Secondly, as Mr. Inslee informs me, the 5-4 decision of the Supreme 
Court said if you can show that there is an adverse health effect, then 
EPA is required by law to address that. That's what EPA is trying to 
do. That's what this amendment would prevent EPA from doing.
  Now, it is not theory. Climate change is fact. It is real. Future 
generations will look back upon this generation and will wonder, how 
could our parents and grandparents have been so unmindful of the health 
effects that our families are experiencing.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend 
for 30 seconds the remaining time on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORAN. That is certainly fair. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an ongoing discussion as to theory and fact. 
We are convinced that the facts are there. They are science-driven 
facts. In fact, the melting of the polar ice cap has had a direct 
effect upon the concentration of moisture in the atmosphere, which is 
then causing the volatility: the extreme nature of the snowstorms, the 
flooding, even the droughts that we have been experiencing. There is no 
question but that in the last decade we have had the warmest years on 
record.
  These are facts, but this is not the vehicle in which they should be 
debated and at 1 a.m. in the morning. I just simply would urge that we 
defeat this amendment. It is the wrong amendment and the wrong vehicle.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  The gentleman from Texas has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. POE of Texas. It is my understanding that the committee is going 
to move a standalone bill in the next few months on the very issue of 
CO2.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It prohibits the EPA 
from overreaching and from expanding its authority that Congress, in my 
opinion, has not given it to do. CO2. We all breathe 
CO2. Climate changes, but there is no evidence at all that 
it is manmade CO2 that causes the climate to change. The 
climate has been changing, well, for thousands and thousands of years.
  I urge my fellow Members of this House to support this amendment to

[[Page 2472]]

rein in the oppressiveness of the EPA. States like Texas already 
regulate the air through their State regulatory processes, so I ask 
that all Members support amendment No. 466.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
introduced by Congressman Ted Poe. This amendment would prevent the 
Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing common-sense protections 
against carbon dioxide pollution and other greenhouse gases from big 
polluters.
  The underlying legislation, H.R. 1, is replete with provisions like 
this. Instead of eliminating tax breaks for the oil and gas industries 
and choosing to adhere to the scientific evidence that carbon pollution 
is changing the climate and endangering our health and the environment, 
the Republican majority's continuing resolution slashes EPA's funding 
by almost a third and prohibits EPA from enforcing existing greenhouse 
gas monitoring and reporting requirements. The bill attacks the Clean 
Air Act directly so that EPA will be prevented from protecting public 
health and fighting climate change.
  The Clean Air Act has a proven 40-year track record of cutting 
dangerous pollution to protect human health in a cost-effective manner 
that spurs innovation. According to EPA, the Clean Air Act prevented an 
estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million cases of respiratory 
illness among children, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000 
cases of heart disease, and 200,000 premature deaths.
  The Clean Air Act continues to reduce air pollution and improve the 
health of children, seniors, and adults: the Clean Air Act has 
decreased lead emissions from cars by 95 percent, decreasing by 86 
percent the number of children whose development is affected by lead 
exposure; by requiring all new diesel engines to be more than 90 
percent cleaner, EPA will prevent more than 21,000 premature deaths and 
$160 billion in health costs every year by 2030; by phasing out the 
most dangerous ozone-depleting chemicals, EPA will cut the American 
incidences of non-melanoma skin cancer by 295 million by 2075; by 
launching the acid rain program, EPA has dramatically reduced soot and 
smog by levels that will reduce premature deaths by between 20,000 and 
50,000 per year in 2010.
  Since its enactment in 1970, the health benefits of the Clean Air Act 
have far outweighed industry's compliance costs, reducing toxic and 
health-threatening air pollutants by 60 percent while at the same time 
the economy grew by over 200 percent.
  Now this legislation attempts to gut the Clean Air Act's pollution 
standards and repeal EPA's authority to limit health-threatening 
pollution in order to protect the profits of the big polluters.
  It also prevents EPA from continuing to improve our health by 
updating its pollution standards and improving safeguards for public 
health. In addition, it repeals important Clean Air Act safeguards that 
are needed to create American clean energy jobs, reduce energy costs, 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and increase our economic 
competitiveness.
  It's time for us to stand up for clean air and the health of the 
American people rather than work for the polluters who want to 
interfere with EPA's efforts to reduce life-threatening pollution and 
turn back the clock on air quality.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and oppose the 
continuing resolution.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POE of Texas. 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 Texas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________