[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H817-H853]
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 consideration of the bill, H.R. 1.

                              {time}  1414


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1) making appropriations for the Department of Defense and other 
departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, with Mr. Lucas in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.

[[Page H818]]

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The continuing resolution on the floor today represents the largest 
reduction in non-security discretionary spending in the history of the 
Nation. It funds the Federal Government for the remainder of the 2011 
fiscal year, but, most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it answers taxpayers' 
callings to right our Nation's fiscal ship, making specific, 
substantive and comprehensive spending reductions, cutting more than 
$100 billion, compared with the President's fiscal 2011 budget request.
  This CR reverses a trend of out-of-control Democrat spending over the 
last 2 years that has increased overall discretionary funding, 
including stimulus, by 84 percent in 2 years. Never before has Congress 
undertaken a task of this magnitude, but never before have we been 
faced with a deficit crisis of this scale. The government is borrowing 
over 40 cents of every dollar that it spends.
  Our constituents sent us a clear, decisive message in the last 
election. They want government to spend less, stop undue interference 
in American lives and businesses, and take action to create jobs and 
get our economy moving again. Through the Republican Pledge to America, 
we made the commitment to do just that, and today we offer the first 
step in fulfilling these promises by presenting a spending package to 
the American people that makes deep but manageable cuts in nearly every 
area of the government.
  This bill is about shared commitments and shared sacrifice. Make no 
mistake: These cuts will not be easy, and they will affect every 
congressional district. But they are necessary and long overdue. 
Although we recognize that every dollar we cut has a constituency of 
support, an association, an industry, individual citizens who will 
disagree with our decision, these cuts are the necessary difficult work 
by our subcommittees to make the smartest and fairest reductions 
possible.
  No stones were left unturned, no programs were held sacred. The 
Appropriations Committee went line by line to craft a responsible, 
judicious CR, one that will allow our economy to thrive, our businesses 
to create jobs and our national security to be strengthened. Our 
subcommittees scoured the budget for wasteful activities and cleaned 
out excessive and unnecessary spending, while prioritizing the most 
essential and effective programs, including $460 million for 
accelerating the process through which veterans resolve their health 
care claims and an additional $13 million for increased oversight of 
the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP.
  The CR includes absolutely no earmark funding and eliminates all 
previous earmark funding from fiscal year 2010, saving taxpayers 
approximately $8.5 billion. Furthermore, it includes a provision to 
eliminate any unobligated stimulus funding approved in the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, another $5 billion of taxpayer dollars 
saved.
  As we help put our Nation's budget back into balance, we are finding 
real savings that are justifiable to the American people and that will 
stop the dangerous spiral of unsustainable and irresponsible deficits.
  In addition, this CR is only the first of many appropriations bills 
this year that will significantly trim Federal spending. It is hard-
and-fast proof that we are serious about returning our Nation to a 
sustainable financial and fiscal path.

                              {time}  1420

  However, so that we can continue the important work of reducing 
spending in our regular budgetary work for this year, the House, 
Senate, and White House must come together to complete this process 
before March 4, when our current funding measure expires. It is 
critically important that the House move this CR to avoid a government 
shutdown and get these spending cuts passed by the House, over to the 
Senate, and let them act their will to avoid a shutdown, and then get 
the bill to the President. The American people expect no less.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that a debt crisis is looming. There is no 
denying that we need a comprehensive plan to reduce the debt over the 
long term. What the majority offers instead in this bill is a one-
dimensional focus on the smallest segment of spending in the Federal 
budget. We believe that at this time we should be putting everything on 
the table: discretionary spending, entitlements, and taxes. Without a 
more comprehensive approach to this debt crisis, we cannot effectively 
change the trajectory and begin to bring our public debt downward. 
Without a more comprehensive budgetary approach, what we would be 
offering to the American people would be what Alan Simpson has called 
``a sparrow's belch in the midst of a typhoon.''
  As we address the debt crisis, it is fundamental that we should first 
do no harm to the fragile economic recovery. Here I am just echoing 
what many others have said. As the bipartisan Fiscal Commission put it, 
``In order to avoid shocking the fragile economy, the Commission 
recommends waiting until 2012 to begin enacting programmatic spending 
cuts, and waiting until fiscal year 2013 before making large nominal 
cuts.''
  Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in his testimony last week to the House 
Budget Committee said, ``To the extent you can change programs that 
will have long-term effects on spending and revenues, that will be a 
more effective and credible program than one that focuses only on the 
current fiscal year. The right way to do this doesn't put too much 
pressure on the ongoing recovery.''
  As the Democratic leader just said, there is a recent analysis done 
by the Economic Policy Institute that says a full $100 billion cut to 
discretionary spending would likely result in job losses on the order 
of 994,000, using OMB's GDP projections and CBO projections based on 
current law, and assuming a fiscal multiplier of 1.5 percent.
  So this is a very serious matter. We Democrats support dealing with 
waste, fraud, and abuse. We want to see a program. I personally support 
President Obama's 5-year freeze on domestic spending, with puts and 
takes, because it doesn't cut as much in the first year. This is all 
about timing. And I recognize that my colleagues over on this side of 
the aisle believe and think that what they're doing is going to have a 
positive economic effect and that this will somehow create economic 
activity and lower the deficit, lower unemployment. I hope and pray 
they're right, because if what I think and most economists--reputable 
economists--think is true, this will have a negative effect and hurt 
the economy and hurt the people that are out there who are unemployed.
  So I think we need to think about this very, very carefully. And cuts 
of this magnitude, as the chairman said, have never been done before. 
We are in uncharted waters. We all recognize that we have to have a 
plan for the deficit. But the plan has to include entitlements, has to 
include taxes. Discretionary spending is one-third of the budget. You 
could cut and cut and cut, and you're still not going to solve the 
problem.
  So, hopefully, we can do what we did in the 1980s with Tip O'Neill 
and Bob Dole, and that is have a bipartisan approach, like they're 
doing in the Senate today, where Democrats and Republicans get together 
and work on all of these issues and come up with a credible plan. That 
is the way to do this.
  And I see my good friend, Mr. Young from Florida. I just want to say 
that I have enjoyed working with him for over 30 years, and I strongly 
support the defense part of this bill. The defense part of this bill 
has been worked out on a bipartisan basis by the Defense Subcommittee. 
It does make reductions in spending but it does it in a very careful 
and professional way. And I want to commend the gentleman from Florida 
for his leadership over the years on national security issues.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
chairman of the Republican Conference in the House, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to have jobs today, if we want to protect 
our children from bankruptcy tomorrow,

[[Page H819]]

we've got to quit spending money we don't have. There is a debt crisis 
in America, and it is spending driven, being led by the President and 
other friends from the other side of the aisle. It is a true crisis. 
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has 
said the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt. 
One of these reputable economists that the previous gentleman spoke 
about, Robert Samuelson, has said this spending could trigger an 
economic and political death spiral. Democrat Erskine Bowles, who 
headed up the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission, said the 
``debt is like a cancer. It's truly going to destroy the country from 
within.'' And what do we have, Mr. Chairman? We have the President 
presenting a new budget that will again double the national debt in 5 
years, triple it in 10, add $13 trillion worth of red ink to the 
Nation's debt. This is after expanding garden-variety government 84 
percent in 2 years, non-defense discretionary. Mr. Chairman, you can't 
spend money you don't have. Massive debts lead to massive tax 
increases. Massive tax increases lead to no jobs.
  The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has said one of the best ways 
that we can improve jobs today is to put our Nation on a sustainable 
fiscal course. And I heard the gentleman say that entitlement spending 
should be on the table. Clearly, the President hasn't gotten the 
message. It's not what we saw in his budget. We haven't seen it in any 
other Democrat budget. So it would be wonderful if we saw it. But we 
don't see it.
  I talk to business people in my own district, Mr. Chairman, like 
Diane Ford of Kaufman, Texas, a small business lady. When she stares in 
the face of this debt and she sees the tax increase, she writes, 
``Congressman, I couldn't hire any more employees. I couldn't expand my 
business. I would definitely have to close up shop. As a small business 
owner, I'm afraid of my future.'' Small business people all around the 
Nation know that massive debt leads to massive tax increases. It leads 
to no jobs. If we want to create jobs, we have to take care of this 
debt.
  And think about future generations, Mr. Chairman. I heard from one of 
my other constituents who said, ``I've never felt so embarrassed and 
ashamed about anything I've done in my life as I do about leaving this 
mess in the laps of Tyler and Caitlin, my precious grandkids.'' He's 
talking about the national debt.
  To protect future generations, to create jobs today, we've got to 
quit spending money we don't have. And I want to congratulate the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his excellent work in 
turning the corner.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the Interior and 
Environment Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Appropriations Committee 
for 17 years. Eleven of them were under Republican control, eight under 
a Republican President. And I'm proud of the investments that we've 
made in this country during those 17 years. We were stronger, more 
secure, a more productive economy as a result of those investments.

                              {time}  1430

  We've improved the lives of Americans. We've cleaned up our water. 
We've invested in transportation, our national defense, our education 
system. That's why we have the strongest economy and why, in fact, we 
continue to be the very best place on the planet to live, to work, and 
to provide a better future for our children.
  What we are doing in this continuing resolution is targeting those 
programs that are called ``domestic discretionary.'' They represent 
about 4\1/2\ percent of the entire budget, and they have stayed pretty 
well even. During the Reagan administration, during the Clinton 
administration, during the Bush administration, which was when we had 
the lowest job growth ever, they were at about 7\1/2\ percent.
  The fact is we are not going to balance our budget by targeting that 
small amount of the budget. The reality is that, when President Reagan 
left office, tax receipts were about 18.2 percent. They went up a bit 
during the Clinton administration when we had the greatest expansion 
ever and when, in fact, people at the highest rate of income tax 
pocketed more money after taxes than at any time in American history. 
Right now, they are at 14.9 percent of GDP.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the problem is not one of not 
investing enough in our country, but one of the revenue being brought 
in and its being grossly inadequate. In a historical context, we can 
prove that to be the case. When revenue goes down that low, our economy 
shrinks; and it becomes a self-defeating cycle.
  Now, in the Interior and the Environment appropriations bill, some of 
the things we do is take out the program that uses offshore oil 
revenues for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which protects our 
Nation's precious lands. We are going to dramatically cut construction 
and maintenance at our national parks, refuges and forests. We are 
going to take the money away from the Governors and mayors throughout 
the country for the plumbing that goes underneath our land, what's 
called the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund. That's 
money they desperately need to ensure the public's health. We take it 
for granted. We won't take it for granted anymore if we stop those 
grants.
  This bill will not create a single new job. In fact, we estimate it 
will cut about 800,000 jobs, both public and private. That's not worthy 
of this Congress on either side of the aisle to be cutting jobs. What 
we need to be doing is investing in jobs, investing in education, and 
making sure that children who have been born in particularly difficult 
social and economic conditions have access to Head Start.
  Don't cut $1 billion out of Head Start. Don't cut kindergarten 
through 12 education, which is the seed corn of our future. Those 
aren't investments. Those are arbitrary cuts. That's not what we have 
been about, and that's not how we enable this country to be as strong 
and as great as it is.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when we do our budget analysis 
that it be done with a scalpel, like a surgeon would approach it, not 
with a meat ax. We should respect all of the good work that the 
appropriations committees have done over the years in making this a 
better country as a result.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
immediate past chairman of the committee, the now chairman emeritus of 
the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate my colleague, the 
chairman, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues say they are shocked at the 
spending reductions we have proposed here. No one should be surprised. 
For the past several years, Congress and the administration have been 
spending like there is no tomorrow.
  Since FY '08, we have increased non-security discretionary spending 
by almost 25 percent. In some areas, it has jumped by nearly a third in 
2 years. Those were historic spending increases, and they don't even 
include the $800 billion that was in the massive failed stimulus 
package. That was such a huge amount of money that some agencies still 
have not been able to spend it 2 years later.
  Well, my colleagues, tomorrow is here. The bill is coming due; and if 
we do not find a way to stop spending, we are headed towards fiscal 
disaster.
  This absolutely should surprise no one. Republicans on the 
Appropriations Committee have been warning for 2 years that we cannot 
continue spending this way. We tried to stop it, to at least slow it 
down; but for the past 2 years we have not even been able to get an 
amendment to change the direction of our spendthrift ways.
  So now we are faced with record deficits. The President's budget 
predicts an all-time high of $1.65 trillion in red ink next year. We 
have been warned that the Federal debt limit of $14 trillion must be 
increased. Within a decade, our Federal debt could equal more than 70 
percent of our GDP.
  Without question, this kind of spending is going to run our Federal 
budget off a cliff, and it will do more harm to our economy than we've 
seen from the current terrible recession. At least a third of our 
national debt is owned by foreign nations and investors. What will they 
do if we cannot begin to pay it down?

[[Page H820]]

  Last year, we paid nearly $415 billion in interest on our national 
debt. That is more than we spent on any discretionary government 
program other than defense. That is hundreds of billions of dollars not 
being spent to create jobs, not being spent to fix our roads, not being 
spent to secure our Nation; and it will continue to grow at an ever 
faster rate as long as we keep running up these huge deficits.
  The American people told us last November that it is time to stop. 
They were alarmed enough to raise questions all over the country. They, 
indeed, at the polls indicated that we needed to find a new direction. 
They want fiscal sanity. They want us to stop spending now before it is 
too late. The spending reductions in this package are extremely 
painful. The cuts will affect programs supported by every Member of 
this House. When Americans begin to understand what is being reduced, 
we will all be receiving calls from people who are asking us to change 
our minds.
  We must resist these calls for more spending. We cannot become 
Europe, where citizens believe that government can do everything. We 
cannot let the United States become another Greece or another Ireland 
or another Portugal--faced with fiscal collapse.
  We have to make the decision now. These cuts will seem harsh, but we 
cannot avoid them. We cannot settle for half measures in the hopes that 
in 5 or 10 years we will stop adding to this terrible Federal debt. 
This is just the down payment. We need to begin entitlement reform to 
really solve our fiscal problems, but we must start now and we must 
start here.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who is the new ranking member 
on the Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee and who 
was the former chairman and ranking member on Agriculture.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to this continuing resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans want us to work together to address their top 
priority--creating jobs, fostering economic recovery. Unfortunately, 
the majority's priorities are deeply out of touch with those of the 
country.
  Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit. We believe, as 
taxpayers do, that we should start by ending tax subsidies and special 
interest waste. We should be slashing oil companies' subsidies first. 
We must make programs accountable and end the ones that do not work. We 
can no longer afford to continue the tax breaks for the top 2 percent 
of the country. Republicans are in a reckless rush to slash without 
regard to the impact on our economy, on the businesses which create 
jobs or on middle class or working families who are being responsible, 
doing the best for their families and educating for the future.

                              {time}  1440

  They are hitting ordinary, hardworking families with children, our 
young people trying to get an education, and the elderly. That is their 
starting point.
  Under their budget every student in America receiving a Pell Grant, 
close to 9 million people, will see their aid slashed by almost $850 a 
year; 1.3 million students will lose their supplemental education 
opportunity grants and, thus, the ability to pay for college. Their 
plan cuts more than 200,000 kids out of Head Start, kids who will 
forever lose the opportunity for an early childhood education. They cut 
aid to school districts and special education. They will cut 55,000 
Head Start teachers and close down 16,000 Head Start classrooms.
  As with education, so too with jobs. In the midst of a recession and 
a tough labor market, training and employment services, proven-to-work 
programs are cut now by $5 billion. That means 8.4 million job seekers, 
flesh and blood human beings, could lose access to this aid completely.
  In these tough economic times, it's our low-income seniors who are 
the most vulnerable. This budget eliminates at least 10 million new 
meals delivered to the homebound elderly, cuts fuel assistance for them 
as well. It will force seniors to either go hungry or move into nursing 
homes and others to have to choose whether to eat or to stay warm.
  The challenge is not whether we address the deficit and spending or 
not. The question is where do we start to cut. Do we start with 
slashing ineffective programs and special interest waste, like $40 
billion in oil company subsidies? Or do we start cutting those that 
help the middle class, our businesses, and working families with 
children, and seniors?
  Our job is to get this budget back to common sense, to create jobs, 
to get this economy running again for the people of this Nation. This 
continuing resolution offered by the Republicans will do neither.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the 
Labor-HHS Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Montana 
(Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
  Members of this body, I have an obligation as chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education to tell you the simple truth. We're bleeding cash, piling up 
liabilities, and trying to postpone the day of reckoning; and as a 
result, America is in a financial free-fall.
  In 4 quick years, Congress made what was a spending problem into a 
spending crisis. We on this side of the aisle wanted to create jobs; 
you wasted time on a health care reform bill that did not reform health 
care. While we wanted to build an economy, you wasted time building 
government. Unfortunately, many in Washington, D.C., especially on 
Capitol Hill, are in denial.
  My colleagues, it's time to stop pretending that the well of wealth 
in this country is bottomless. We must address spending now, or it will 
be worse next year.
  Two years ago, the Congress passed a stimulus bill totaling nearly $1 
trillion. Unfortunately, now we know it did not stimulate. And we know 
a lot of money went for programs, not necessarily bad programs, but 
programs that couldn't stimulate the economy. But the biggest travesty 
of Washington's stimulus spending spree is not that it was a waste of 
money; it's that the money has been stolen in plain sight from our 
children and grandchildren. That is what taxation without 
representation looks like in the 21st century, and it means our 
Nation's fiscal mess is not just a math problem. It's a moral problem, 
and we owe it to our children to have much better leadership.
  That's why I stand before you with a savings of $23 billion in the 
three Departments I have responsibility for. No program is immune from 
waste. So there are no more sacred cows. No law, regulation, or program 
is perfect or timeless. If something is not working, we will fix it or 
eliminate it. In my subcommittee, we want to help people, to help train 
people, to help educate people; but we've learned repeatedly that 
simply throwing more and more money at well-intentioned programs does 
not necessarily work.
  Those who want to spend money have the burden of proof; and with the 
debt crisis we face, that burden is a heavy one. Those seeking funding 
have to prove that the programs are working. Show us the results. Show 
us that the benefits outweigh the costs. Show us that government can do 
a better job with this money than the private sector.
  This continuing resolution is a change in direction, away from 
looking to bigger government solutions to empowering individuals and 
small businesses to create jobs and grow this economy. Anyone who 
relies on Federal funding has a patriotic duty to look for ways to get 
by on less for the sake of our country's future today and tomorrow.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished former chairman and 
now ranking member of the THUD Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, this continuing resolution clearly endangers the 
fragile recovery of America's economy. While I have the greatest 
respect for Chairman Latham, he has been saddled with an irrational 
task of cutting $15.5 billion, a 23 percent cut, from the 
``Transportation and Housing'' title of the resolution. I cannot fathom 
how the new majority, which proclaims to be all about

[[Page H821]]

jobs, could as their first piece of business impose deep cuts upon the 
very programs that have the greatest potential for creating jobs and 
that provide the necessary foundation for a strong economic recovery.
  Specifically, the continuing resolution cuts funding for the 
Community Development Block Grants program by more than 60 percent to 
by far the lowest level since the program was created in 1975 under a 
Republican President, President Gerald Ford. As a result, over 1,200 
cities and towns across all 50 States will be forced to shelve local 
economic development projects in every one of our districts, and the 
associated 45,000 jobs will be lost.
  In addition, the bill proposes to cut over $7 billion in 
transportation and infrastructure investments. This includes reductions 
that force Amtrak to lay off roughly 1,500 employees and will halt work 
on 76 TIGER grants already announced in 40 States and cancel the 
associated 25,000 construction jobs.
  Finally, as we consider the ongoing housing needs of our most 
vulnerable citizens, this bill reduces by $760 million, a 75 percent 
cut, programs serving elderly and disabled persons, handcuffing our 
ability to keep up with the support required to meet the needs of our 
expanding and aging senior population.
  In addition, the $75 million cut to our Veterans Affairs Supportive 
Housing, VASH, program is frankly appalling. Just last week, HUD 
released a report indicating that more than 76,000 veterans are 
homeless on any given night and that vets are 50 percent more likely to 
be homeless. Yet the majority's bill turns its back on our homeless 
vets, leaving them literally out in the cold.
  Mr. Chairman, while I'm glad this bill does not meet the Republican 
majority's pledge to cut $100 billion in non-security spending, it will 
still have a dramatic negative impact on American families, while 
making no more than a ripple in the ocean of additional national debt 
caused by the massive tax cuts adopted during the Bush administration, 
at the very time that America has engaged in two trillion-dollar wars 
in the Islamic world.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
chairman of the Transportation and HUD Subcommittee on Appropriations, 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just maybe respond a little bit to what the 
gentleman from Massachusetts just said. The fact of the matter is there 
will not be a veteran, a homeless vet, that will not get a voucher. The 
fact of the matter is there are 30,000 vouchers available today. Only 
19,000 of those have been used. There are 11,000 vouchers waiting; and 
the problem basically is with the Department, with HUD and VA, as far 
as trying to write the rules to actually get these people the vouchers 
they need.
  So any kind of characterization that we're putting vets out in the 
cold is absolutely untrue. You have your opinion, but the facts speak 
for themselves.

                              {time}  1450

  Now also we are not reducing any such section 8 vouchers. They will 
remain. No one is going to be put out anywhere. We maintain those 
programs for those folks, and to characterize it in any way differently 
simply is not factual.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would say to the gentleman, here is the problem: There are, I 
think, about 29,000 of these vouchers out there now. And you are 
correct; some of them haven't been able to find a place to live yet. 
Secretary Shinseki, who I talked to personally about this, and 
Secretary Donovan have said there are 60,000 of these veterans who need 
this voucher. So there are 30,000 more that we need to do. I was 
shocked when I saw on the list of terminations that your side decided 
to terminate this program. I hoped you would reconsider that.
  Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. There are 11,000 vouchers sitting there unused today. 
There are 19,000 that have been issued. The gentleman knows that we are 
not cutting those. There are 11,000 still available under this bill. 
And we are going to review this as we go through for the next fiscal 
year, 2012.
  Mr. DICKS. That is what I was going to ask the gentleman. I would 
like to work with him on this. So if that's the gentleman's intent, 
then we will work together and try to get the job done.
  Mr. LATHAM. I appreciate that. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano), the former chairman and now the ranking member of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. The continuing resolution that we are voting on today is 
irresponsible and extreme. We all recognize that we should take 
reasonable steps to address our deficit. However, what we are voting on 
today makes cuts that will harm our students, our public safety, our 
health, and our environment.
  When I served as chair of the Financial Services Subcommittee, I 
worked hard to make sure that we protected the consumer, the investor, 
and the taxpayer. The agencies funded by this subcommittee ensure that 
Americans can have confidence in the products that they use and the 
security of their investments. The CR that we are considering today, 
with its cuts to the IRS and the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
fails to provide sufficient resources to meet these challenges.
  IRS funding will be cut by $600 million, and this will have an 
immediate impact on taxpayer services as we approach the busy tax 
season. The IRS will be forced to cut as many as 4,100 employees, 
mainly enforcement agents, and this will harm the ability of the IRS to 
find tax cheaters. It is important to remember that if we reduce the 
government's ability to collect taxes, this will actually increase our 
deficit, since enforcement resources have a $7-to-$1 return on 
investment.
  The Securities and Exchange Commission will see a $41 million 
reduction from last year, which will prevent it from hiring the staff 
it needs to carry out the critical new Dodd-Frank financial oversight 
functions that it has been given. This will mean that hedge funds, 
credit rating agencies, and broker-dealers will continue to operate 
without regulation, adding to an increased risk of another fiscal 
meltdown.
  As chair of this subcommittee, I also worked hard to make sure that 
capital and other assistance went to small businesses and low-income 
communities. A key part of this was making sure that the Community 
Development Financial Institutions Fund had the resources it needed to 
support financial institutions making investments in disadvantaged 
communities. Under the continuing resolution which we are voting on 
today, the CDFI Fund will get slashed from $246 million last year to 
just $50 million this year. This will mean that more than 19,000 jobs 
will non-materialize, more than 14,000 affordable housing units will 
not be built, and more than 3,100 small businesses will not be 
assisted.
  I am particularly distressed that the majority party decided to 
meddle once again in the District of Columbia's local affairs. We 
should all be able to agree that D.C. should be left alone to decide 
how to spend its own locally derived funds. One local program that the 
majority has decided to ban is the syringe exchange program. The 
science on this is clear: Giving addicts clean needles does nothing to 
drive up drug use, but it does do wonders to prevent the spread of HIV/
AIDS. Even if you do not believe the science, you should not meddle in 
the District of Columbia.
  Another impact of the funding resolution we are voting on today will 
be a weakening of the equitable and efficient administration of justice 
in the Federal courts. The $476 million cut to the Judiciary will force 
the federal courts to lay off more than 2,400 support staff and stop 
payments to the attorneys who represent indigent criminal defendants.
  There are numerous other cuts across the range of Agencies that are 
included in the Financial Service and General Government section--some 
that would severely impact jobs and others that would negatively affect 
our election practices. For example, the General Services 
Administration (GSA) Federal Building Fund will see a cut of $1.7 
billion from FY2010, which will result in the elimination of nearly 
16,000 private sector construction jobs

[[Page H822]]

and as many as 40,000 janitorial and maintenance jobs. The Election 
Assistance Commission will see a huge budget drop from $93 million last 
year to $10 million this year, effectively ending its work to help 
states improve their election practices and equipment.
  So let me conclude by saying that the deficit cutting approach that 
we are voting on today will not only result in significant harm to 
America's consumers, investors, taxpayers, workers, businesses in 
disadvantaged communities, and the security of our elections, but it 
will also impact education, housing, transportation, health, the 
environment and all facets of our economic recovery. I would urge my 
colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Alderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, as many have said here today, our government has a 
spending problem, and the American people are demanding that we find a 
solution. This CR that is before the House today is a step towards 
finding a solution to that problem.
  The homeland security title of this CR strikes the right balance 
between funding priority programs that are essential to our Nation's 
security and at the same time keeping our discretionary spending in 
check. This CR provides a total of $41.5 billion in discretionary 
funding for the Department of Homeland Security. This funding level is 
$1 billion, or 2.4 percent, below FY 2010 and $2.1 billion, or 4.8 
percent, below the President's FY 2011 request.
  In contrast to previous annual spending bills, this CR provides 
funding for the annual costs of disasters from within the existing 
budget. So rather than relying upon emergency supplementals, the CR 
responsibly addresses the $1.6 billion shortfall in disaster relief 
costs that the President has failed to address in the 2011 budget 
request. Supporting the cost of security demands truth-in-budgeting, 
and we are delivering where the President and OMB have failed.
  Having said that, the Department of Homeland Security is not immune 
from fiscal discipline. Underperforming programs have been 
significantly cut in this CR that we are debating today. Let me add, by 
implementing these cuts, we are not choosing between homeland security 
and fiscal responsibility. Both are serious national security issues, 
and they must be dealt with immediately. And through a series of tough 
choices, this CR achieves both. That is precisely why this CR includes 
sufficient funding to sustain critical operations in the front-line 
agencies such as the CBP, Coast Guard, ICE, the TSA, and the 
Department's Intelligence Office.
  Mr. Chair, homeland security is far too important to be subject to 
budget gimmicks and inadequate justifications. The homeland security 
title of this CR responsibly funds programs vital to our Nation's 
security, and it will help them get back on track from our Federal 
budget perspective.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price), who has been the chairman and now the ranking member of 
the Homeland Security Subcommittee.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, if there ever were a case of 
overheated campaign rhetoric overtaking responsible governing, then we 
are seeing that case here today.
  Far from continuing to fund the government through to the end of the 
fiscal year, this measure would dramatically slash the investments in 
our economic recovery and undermine our national security in the 
process. I don't know why we even call it a continuing resolution--I 
guess to avoid a markup in the Appropriations Committee. But it's a 
brand new appropriations bill, and a very destructive one at that. It's 
a job-killer of all kinds of jobs but most especially of national 
security jobs.
  Let's talk about firefighters. We rely on our firefighters as our 
preeminent first responders. They arrive at the scene of all types of 
emergencies--attempted bombings, security incidents, medical, fire 
emergencies, all kinds of emergencies. But this bill eliminates the 
SAFER firefighter staffing program, guaranteeing that thousands of 
firefighters will lose their jobs this year, according to the Fire 
Chiefs Association. SAFER has enabled our local communities to avoid 
firefighter layoffs in tough economic times, to keep their fire 
departments at full strength. This Republican continuing resolution 
would just simply remove this protection.

                              {time}  1500

  Let's talk about law enforcement, funded in the Commerce-Justice 
appropriations bill. We rely on our local police officers, not only as 
first responders, but also as first detectors of homegrown terrorist 
activity. Yet this bill eliminates the Community Policing grant 
program, the COPS program, guaranteeing that local governments which 
are already laying off workers will have to fire between 1,300 and 
3,000 police officers.
  Now, these job losses could be prevented if we were attempting to 
govern seriously instead of appeasing the Republican tea party base. 
The best cure for our budget deficit is a recovered economy, not a bill 
that slashes and burns government services that are critical to our 
economic competitiveness and to our public safety.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this CR. Instead of a continuing 
resolution, we might say that CR in this case stands for ``Continuing 
the Recession,'' because that's really what this bill would achieve.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger), the chairman of the State, Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Ms. GRANGER. For too long we have seen unsustainable increases in 
spending. This bill before us today puts an end to that practice by 
making unprecedented cuts to the Federal budget. As chair of the State, 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I know the difficult tradeoffs that 
have to be made to achieve these levels of cuts, but we cannot continue 
to ignore our skyrocketing deficits and our debt.
  In the bill before us, we are taking our pledge to cut spending 
seriously. Since fiscal year 2008, the State, Foreign Operations budget 
has had dramatic increases. This bill begins to rein in the growth of 
many programs.
  The State, Foreign Operations title of the bill before us is $44.9 
billion. This represents a 21 percent reduction from the President's 
fiscal year 2011 request, an 8 percent reduction from the fiscal year 
2010 enacted level, and an 18 percent reduction from the fiscal year 
2010 level with supplemental appropriations.
  Let me be clear. While these are dramatic cuts, I support the goals 
and objectives of using civilian power to achieve our national security 
goals.
  To achieve the level of savings included for the remainder of FY11, 
reductions were made in areas that, while difficult, preserve important 
efforts and priorities. For example, the bill before us supports top 
national security priorities, maintains momentum in Iraq, Afghanistan 
and Pakistan, and fully funds the U.S.-Israel memorandum of 
understanding at $3 billion. It continues the fight against illegal 
drug trafficking in Mexico, Central America and Colombia.
  In order to do all of these things in this bill, new activities are 
paused, many programs are scaled back, and large administrative 
commitments like climate change are shelved. While these choices were 
difficult, they must be made in order to preserve our national security 
priorities.
  There is a need for continued oversight in our foreign aid, and for 
that reason, I've included language which provides additional oversight 
for countries like Afghanistan and Lebanon.
  I would like to thank Ranking Member Lowey for her dedication to the 
subcommittee as chair for the last 4 years, and I look forward to 
continuing to work together. We both agree that Members on both sides 
of the aisle deserve to be heard on the important foreign policy 
matters that come before our subcommittee.
  I hope this bill will move forward quickly to ensure important 
government operations are continued in a manner that is fiscally 
responsible and meets our foreign policy challenges around the world.
  The CHAIR. The Chair would note that the gentleman from Kentucky has 
9 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Washington has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, 
the

[[Page H823]]

former chair of the State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee, now the 
ranking member, my good friend, Nita Lowey.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman, our distinguished chair. It's been 
a pleasure working with you. And I just want to say to the current 
chair of our committee, we've always worked in a bipartisan way, and 
that's why I reluctantly rise in opposition to the State and Foreign 
Operations budget in the CR. But I look forward to continuing to work 
together.
  These are irresponsible cuts. These cuts would threaten global 
security and stability. Despite broad agreement that a three-legged 
stool of defense, diplomacy, and development is vital to our national 
security, this bill dramatically weakens diplomacy and development.
  On a positive note, I'm pleased with the inclusion of $3 billion 
pursuant to the MOU between the United States and Israel and continued 
commitments to Egypt and Jordan.
  However, especially given the ongoing development in Egypt, through 
the region, and around the world, the drastic cuts in democratic 
governance, alternate development options, international financial 
institutions, conflict mitigation, reconciliation, disaster assistance, 
and global health, would significantly impede our ability to achieve 
our security objectives.
  I'm really disappointed with the Republican leadership's partisan 
approach because, as I mentioned, during my 4 years as chair of the 
subcommittee, I worked closely with my ranking member, and we did not 
include divisive social issues in our bills. Yet this CR would 
reinstate the global gag rule and prohibit funds for the United Nations 
Population Fund, denying millions of women family planning and basic 
health services.
  Finally, while all these measures are brought to the floor under the 
guise of fiscal responsibility, in my judgment, they endanger our long-
term economic security and fail to create jobs. So I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence), former chairman of the Republican Conference in 
the House.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I want to thank the distinguished chairman for yielding 
time and for his leadership on this and so many issues.
  After years of runaway Federal spending by both political parties, 
last year House Republicans took the pledge. We said to the American 
people, give us another chance to lead this Congress, and the first 
thing we'll do is we'll reduce domestic spending to pre-bail out, pre-
stimulus levels, saving the American people at least $100 billion. And 
today, simply put, this new majority will keep our word with the 
American people. And in Washington, D.C., that's saying a lot.
  Now we'll consider H.R. 1, which will save at least $100 billion in 
this fiscal year. It is, in fact, the single largest rescission package 
in the history of this Congress. With a $14 trillion national debt and 
a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, cutting $100 billion will not solve 
our fiscal crisis, but it's a good start, and it's a promise kept. And 
here in Washington, D.C., that's really saying something.
  Now, to save our Nation from an avalanche of debt facing future 
generations, we must just do a couple of basic things. First, we've got 
to stop what we've been doing, piling a mountain range of debt on our 
children and grandchildren. We've got to turn around and we've got to 
begin to head in the other direction. We have to face our present 
fiscal crisis squarely and with courage. And today, this new Republican 
majority will do just that. We'll begin the process of turning our ship 
of state back toward that horizon of fiscal responsibility and fiscal 
solvency and sustainability for generations to come.
  I urge my colleagues in both political parties, join us in this 
important first step. Join us in this important promise kept. Work with 
us, and we will work with you to put our Nation on a pathway toward 
fiscal solvency and, ultimately, lay a foundation for real economic 
growth for generations to come.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Democratic Whip, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been a longtime member 
of the Appropriations Committee and a very good friend.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would say to the previous speaker, my friend Mr. Pence, we did 
that. In 1993 we looked the fiscal posture of our country in the eye. 
We had sustained $1.4 trillion of deficit spending under Mr. Reagan and 
$1.1 trillion of deficit spending under Mr. Bush, and we put 
legislation on this floor and said we need to meet our fiscal 
responsibilities. Not a single member, unfortunately, of the Republican 
Party voted for that legislation. But over the next 8 years, we had a 
net surplus in this country; the only time in the lifetime of anybody 
in this body that that has happened. We did it working together.
  Unfortunately, the last administration ran up $3.8 trillion of 
deficit, and we inherited an economy that was in substantial free fall. 
The President said that; Mr. Bernanke said that; Mr. Paulson said that. 
And so we adopted legislation that tried to stabilize that economy, and 
the good news is that we have. We haven't gotten to where we want to 
be. We want to create more jobs. As the President says, we want to 
invest in growing our economy and bringing jobs back.
  There will be some very tough decisions we will have to make moving 
forward; and, frankly, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
knows and as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee knows, 
you will not get there focused simply on 14 percent of the budget. It 
will not happen, my friends.
  You might want to delude yourself or delude our constituents and say 
that you can simply cut all 14 percent of non-defense discretionary 
spending, and you will still have an operating deficit this year if we 
cut out every nickel of discretionary spending.
  That discretionary spending of course educates our children. It 
promotes our health. It promotes our commerce. It promotes building the 
economy. That's what this issue is about.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. So I rise to say to all of us, all 435 of us, it will take 
courage, cooperation, and common sense to address the deficit situation 
that confronts us.
  And it is a crisis. It must be met. We do not have an alternative. 
Because if we do not address it--all of you have heard about my three 
children, my three grandchildren, and my one great granddaughter. All 
of them will hold me and all of you responsible for the legacy of 
fiscal irresponsibility which we will leave them.
  We now have bipartisan responsibility. You are in charge of this 
House; the Democrats are in charge of the Senate, and we have a 
President who is a Democrat. It is a perfect opportunity for us all to 
take responsibility and, yes, part of the blame, because the decisions 
we will have to make will be tough; they will be agonizing, and they 
will be wrenching. And people will say, We're not sure you should have 
done it.
  If we do it together, we can do it. And we owe it to our country, our 
fellow citizens, and our children to do so.
  Cutting spending is part of the solution to our deficit. But we also 
have to cut wisely, making the distinction between spending we can do 
without, and investments that are vital to our future growth.
  But Republicans have brought to the floor a spending bill full of 
cuts that are short-sighted and indiscriminate. They endanger the 
investments we need to grow our economy and create jobs--to out-build, 
out-innovate, and out-educate our competitors. When we talk about 
cutting those investments, we are talking about cutting tomorrow's 
jobs.
  I wish that my Republican colleagues would listen to the business 
leaders who understand the importance of thoughtful investment.
  Listen to Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Richard 
Trumka of the AFL-CIO, who don't agree on very much: ``Whether it is 
building roads, bridges, high-speed broadband, energy systems and 
schools, these projects not only create jobs . . . they are an 
investment in building the modern infrastructure our country needs to 
compete.''
  But the Republican spending bill would cancel 76 transportation 
projects in 40 States, and leave us with roads, bridges, and an air 
traffic control system stuck in the last century.

[[Page H824]]

  Listen to Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce.com: ``The number 1 thing 
the government needs to do is increase research funding.''
  But the Republican spending bill would cut support for 20,000 
researchers at the National Science Foundation, cut $1.4 billion of 
energy research, and cut $2.5 billion of medical research.
  Listen to Bill Gates: ``If we don't start innovating in education to 
make it better and more accessible . . . our competitiveness will fall 
behind that of other countries.''
  But the Republican spending bill would kick 200,000 children out of 
Head Start and make it harder for Americans to afford college.
  By all means, let's take real action on the deficit--but not in a way 
that sacrifices America's competitive edge.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to a new Member of 
Congress, a freshman and a new member of the Appropriations Committee, 
the gentleman from a wonderful place in Arkansas called Rogers, 
Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chair, I am glad the gentleman a few minutes ago from 
Virginia talked about the mayors of America and the county judges of 
America, because just a few weeks ago I was one of those mayors.
  Twelve years ago, when I sought that office, I inherited a city that 
was in terrible deficit spending, that had unreasonable government 
intrusion into the private sector, that was affecting the economic 
well-being of that city.
  I am pleased to say that, because we took the position of putting our 
fiscal house in order and because we changed the way government 
approaches its involvement in the private sector and because we limited 
the dependency of our city on the Federal Government that we created a 
city of excellence, that we significantly enhanced the quality of life. 
We did $1 billion worth of investment; we created thousands of jobs, 
and Rogers, Arkansas, is the example the American people are looking 
for today.
  I realize that these are difficult times. They are times that are 
going to require great courage, a sense of duty, and shared sacrifice 
in order to put America on the right path. I believe in this America, 
and that's the way forward.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 1\1/3\ minutes to my good friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has now become 
the ranking member on Agriculture.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I thank my ranking chair, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  I rise with serious concerns. I am the ranking member of the 
Agricultural Appropriations Committee. I come from the State that is 
the leading ag State in the Nation, California, and agriculture is the 
number one economy in California. We're a State that is really 
diversified, and we do it without subsidies and we do it by 
partnerships.
  The partnership is essentially a public-private partnership, and 
there is a major role to be able to make the private sector successful 
with that partnership.
  We all care about feeding people, all people, whether they are rich 
or poor. One thing they all have in common is that they want that food 
to be safe. They want the drink to be safe. They want the drugs that 
they buy in the stores to be safe. And the problem with this CR, which 
is very interestingly talked about on their side in the generic of the 
necessity of cutting the deficit, which we all agree on. But to take a 
meat axe approach to the USDA and the FDA cuts the safety net for food 
and drugs.
  For example, the Food and Safety Inspection Service would have to cut 
down on their inspectors who have to be in every one of the 6,300 
slaughter and processing facilities. If they are not there, there is no 
work. We would have to close these facilities for months at a time; 
therefore, putting a lot of people out of work, less jobs, and 
certainly no food safety.
  It goes on and on and on. We need to argue these details, not just 
the generics.


               Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

  FSIS is responsible for the safety of domestic and imported meat and 
poultry. It inspects nearly 6,300 slaughter and processing facilities. 
Its inspectors are required to be present continuously during the 
operation of slaughter plants and to inspect every meat and poultry 
processing plant in the U.S. every day. All imported meat and poultry 
must also be inspected by FSIS. The Republican proposal would hold 
funding for FSIS to the 2008 level. The administration estimates that 
this would require a furlough of all FSIS employees, including all 
inspectors, for 30-47 working days (which amounts to 20-30 percent of 
the working days left in the fiscal year assuming enactment on March 
4th.) Without inspectors available, meat and poultry plants would be 
legally required to stop operating. The administration estimates the 
economic loss from stopping plant operations at $11 billion. It also 
expects that consumer prices for meat and poultry would rise with the 
curtailed supply. That's a lot of jobs and food--not only up 
unemployment but also drive--up prices.


                   Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

  FDA is responsible for the safety of food, drugs, medical devices, 
human blood products, vaccines, cosmetics, and many other products. 
Consumers spend about 20 cents of every dollar on products regulated by 
FDA. The Republican proposal would fund FDA at about 10 percent below 
the 2010 level. Coming this late in the fiscal year, much deeper cuts 
would be necessary to end fiscal year 2011 at the level appropriated in 
the Republican bill. The administration has estimated that under the 
Republican proposal there would be 2,000 fewer FDA inspections of firms 
that manufacture food and medical products; 10,000 fewer FDA import 
inspections to verify that imported foods and medical products meet 
safety standards; and analysis of 6,000 fewer food and medical product 
samples to identify safety problems. In addition, this level will 
likely lead to furloughs and/or  * * *
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for all the work that he has done 
in helping to put this continuing resolution together.
  This is a giant step forward in stopping the culture of spending that 
has gone on here in this town for a long time and begins a culture of 
savings.
  In the subcommittee which I have been asked to chair, the Legislative 
Branch only deals with maybe one-half of 1 percent of all the money 
that we're talking about, but we didn't think that we ought to be 
immune to all the pain that goes on as well. In fact, I think, when 
times are tough, leaders ought to lead. And so we can help save 
taxpayers dollars by spending less money on ourselves, and that's what 
we do in this bill.
  We cut the accounts of the leadership offices. We cut the accounts of 
all the Members' offices. We cut the accounts of the committee staff 
and their offices. In fact, the Appropriations Committee, which Mr. 
Rogers chairs, will reduce their spending by 9 percent. So certainly 
Congress is taking the budget axe to its own spending and leading by 
example, and I think that's important.
  So as we move forward, Mr. Chairman, I think that we can do a whole 
lot more with a whole lot less around this place. We want to lead by 
example. That's what we're trying to do, and I think we are taking a 
giant step forward.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop). He has become the new ranking member on Military 
Construction and VA.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  While the Military Construction/VA portion of this bill is not cut as 
much as some other parts of the continuing resolution, the cumulative 
effect of this CR is really to hurt our veterans. The bill provides 
$74.2 billion, which is $2.4 billion below the FY 2010; $1.8 billion 
below the President's request.
  Mr. Chairman, it's time to end the theatrics and get to work. This 
continuing resolution continues the heated rhetoric. If this bill is 
signed into law, it will hurt our economic recovery, which in turn will 
affect our veterans. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more 
than 15 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are unemployed, 
far higher than the national jobless rate. If we follow through with 
some of these disastrous cuts, we'll see that rate go higher as the 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down and our troops come home 
seeking employment.
  For example, as the gentleman from North Carolina pointed out, we're 
cutting aid that local governments use to

[[Page H825]]

hire police officers. Many of our local police officers are veterans 
and they are hired with the community oriented policing grants. This 
will be eliminated. If we cut money for firefighters, this cut will 
have the same effect as cutting money from the cops. Our veterans will 
have nowhere to go to continue to serve their communities.
  We can do better than this bill. We must be serious because we have 
serious issues. Veterans have paid the price for the freedoms we enjoy 
in this country, but freedom is not free. It has been paid for with the 
lives and the limbs of countless men and women who have served this 
country in uniform. We owe them better than this.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, a brand new Member of this body, Mr. Duffy.
  (Mr. DUFFY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUFFY. I thank the chairman for yielding time to me to address 
the issue today with regard to unspent, unobligated stimulus money.
  Two years ago, this Congress voted to spend nearly a trillion dollars 
of stimulus money. They said that we could borrow and spend our way to 
prosperity. Well, 2 years later we are well aware that borrowing and 
spending doesn't lead to economic prosperity, growth and sustainable 
jobs. We know it comes from the private sector--people who invest in 
their businesses and ideas. And from there, they expand and grow. 
That's how we create jobs in this great country.
  Now we are stuck with a $14 trillion debt. This year, we're going to 
borrow $1.5 trillion. More borrowing, more spending, is going to lead 
to job-crushing taxes and passing this debt on to our next generation. 
It's unacceptable.
  I am encouraged that we are working on sending all unobligated 
stimulus money back to the Fed so we can pay down our debt.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the new ranking member of the 
Commerce-Science-Justice Subcommittee.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman and I thank him for his 
extraordinary leadership on this critical matter.
  The Economic Policy Institute says that the GOP plan will cost our 
country 800,000 jobs. The parts of the CR that relate to Commerce, 
Justice and Science relate to essentially four areas.
  International trade assistance exports. The President has a major 
initiative to create American jobs through exporting. They want to cut 
it by $93 million.
  They want to cut $1.3 billion out of law enforcement. So if you need 
a cop and you call 911, there may or may not be one available because 
if it's one of the 1,300 that will be cut under this bill, they'll be 
gone.
  In legal services, some 80,000 cases reduced--for seniors who will be 
fighting mortgage foreclosure that would be fraudulent in their case, 
or domestic abuse violence in their homes, through cuts to legal 
services.
  And a $150 million cut for the National Science Foundation.
  Now my colleagues have a tough job. They're in the majority. They've 
got to make rational decisions. Let me just say this. If spending was 
bad, we would eliminate all spending. Some spending is necessary. We 
should be cutting waste. We should not be cutting law enforcement and 
legal assistance and scientific analysis, and we shouldn't be cutting 
export opportunities for American workers. And we shouldn't be risking 
800,000 jobs in our country; not today, not on any day.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Washington has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the 
Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, some suggested some time ago that we have to wait until 
2012 or 2013 to make these decisions. We need to make these tough 
decisions now, to cut spending and to create a climate where the 
private sector can go hire workers.
  The Energy and Water Development section of this bill totals $29.9 
billion, an 11 percent reduction from fiscal year 2010. That's a tough 
decision. This level more truly represents what should be the top 
priorities of the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, 
the Bureau of Reclamation, and the other accounts funded under our 
subcommittee's purview.
  Far from the ``meat axe'' approach that some have suggested we're 
taking in H.R. 1, our product is one of careful, thoughtful, line-by-
line analysis. We have looked at which programs are must-haves, which 
have significant unobligated balances, and which are redundant. Above 
all, we've ensured that the core national security mandate of the 
Department is adequately funded. Frankly, other countries' nuclear 
stockpile programs aren't taking a time-out while we wrestle with our 
budget challenges. The stewardship of the nuclear stockpile is the 
foremost responsibility of the Department of Energy. In fact, weapons 
activities and naval reactors receive the only increases in our bill.
  We do, however, make major reductions in the Department of Energy; 
major cuts. We eliminate all earmarks. That's close to $500 million, 
just in the Department of Energy. And we cut out programs like 
weatherization, with billions and billions of unspent stimulus money. 
In fact, the Department of Energy received close to $39 billion in 
stimulus money.
  Finally, we've cut back on programs like biological and environmental 
research that are not core to the Department's historical 
responsibilities and focus. We do all of this so the Department of 
Energy can focus on what we need to do--to support the private sector 
in developing the next round of energy-related intellectual property 
and the jobs associated with it.
  We need to do it. I support the CR. I think we ought to move on with 
it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the life-saving 
work done by Title X family planning providers across the nation.
  In 2009, five million men and women received important preventive 
services from family planning providers, including 2.3 million breast 
exams, 2.2 million tests for cervical cancer, and nearly 1 million HIV 
tests. The proposed cuts in H.R. 1 would eviscerate these services, 
reducing family planning and cancer prevention services. Cuts to family 
planning would have devastating consequences to families nationwide.
  Why is the Republican leadership attacking proven health care 
services, instead of working with us to create jobs? This legislation 
does not move our country forward.
  By attacking family planning and pursuing an extreme social agenda, 
Republicans are dividing our country and distracting from the very real 
economic problems facing our nation.
  While these cuts to family planning were proposed under the auspices 
of being ``fiscally responsible'', that is far from the truth.
  For every dollar invested in Title X family planning services, 
taxpayers save just under $4. By preventing cancer, identifying cancer 
in early stages, and preventing HIV/AIDS, Title X providers are saving 
money, as well as lives. Cutting family planning is not fiscally 
responsible, and will not reduce the bottom line.
  Moreover, this cut has nothing to do with ending funding for 
abortions, despite claims to the contrary. Title X family planning 
funds simply do not fund abortions. If we want to reduce the number of 
abortions in this country, the methodology is clear--empower women to 
prevent unintended pregnancies through education and access to 
contraception. And, that is precisely what family planning funding 
does.
  Nationwide, this cut will impact family planning services for 5 
million women and men. In my home state of New York, cuts to Planned 
Parenthood would impact 209,410 patients. Just last year, Planned 
Parenthood provided 70,490 screenings for cervical cancer in New York, 
detecting 7,931 abnormal results requiring medical action. Another 
67,957 women received breast exams. 138,501 tests for Chlamydia helped 
to avert the leading cause of preventable infertility in America today. 
New Yorkers stand to lose valuable health services.
  These statistics represent real women, with real needs. Can we turn 
our back on them? No, we cannot.
  We need to work together to invest in the services that will help our 
country to be successful. We must focus on building our economy, rather 
than eliminating health care services.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, Americans' top priority is creating jobs. But 
six weeks into the 112th Congress, the Republican leadership has yet to 
bring a single, solitary jobs bill to the floor.
  Once again, we are here today to exercise one of our primary 
constitutional responsibilities as members of Congress--to pass 
appropriations legislation to fund the many basic

[[Page H826]]

and essential programs the federal governments, on which millions of 
Americans rely. Today is an incredible opportunity, for Republicans and 
Democrats to work together--to bridge the gap between parties and 
talking points--and pass a bill that meets our shared goals of creating 
jobs, building our infrastructure, and strengthening our economy.
  Sadly, the Republican leaders have brought to the floor a continuing 
resolution that jeopardizes American jobs and our economic future by 
rolling back investments that will help our private sector grow and put 
people back to work. It thoughtlessly makes extreme cuts to appease an 
extreme wing of their party, at the expense of the American people.


                               Education

  Mr. Chair, building an excellent public education system that 
provides each and every child the opportunity to succeed is the single 
greatest investment we can make to secure our nation's future--an 
investment that I have devoted much of my life to support and achieve. 
From Preschool to K-12 to Higher Education, Republican cuts would 
undermine our global economic standing by denying opportunity to 
students, who depend on the government for their education.
  As President Obama said in his state of the union address, it's not 
just about ``how we cut'' but ``what we cut.'' Education is an 
investment in our future, and we can't sacrifice our future. But 
Republicans--through this CR--seem willing to sacrifice our future to 
meet their arbitrary campaign pledge.
  They want to drastically reduce quality preschool for poor children 
with a $1 billion cut in Head Start, which has shown positive results. 
For K-12 students, Republicans are proposing to dismantle a wide range 
of essential school supports--literacy programs; teacher improvements; 
math and science partnerships; arts in education; parent education; 
counseling; and graduation promotion.
  Their proposal would also slash special education services and 
college preparation. And many more students would be blocked from going 
to college if the Republicans had their way--with about half a billion 
dollars less for Pell grants for disadvantaged youth.
  Education is how America can reclaim our edge in job creation, in 
business leadership, in providing a livable wage, and in economic 
innovation. Destroying this promise by attempting to balance the budget 
on the backs of poor children and youth is both unwise and unjust.
  By cutting to the heart of the learning needs of America's children 
and youth through these extraordinary and nonsensical measures, 
Republican lawmakers clearly don't understand the meaning of investing 
in our future.


                              Environment

  This CR arbitrarily kills jobs, hurts the public health and is a slap 
in the face of environmental protection. The CR will set our country 
back decades by curtailing scientific research, simply because 
Republican's don't like what the science says. It puts our children's 
health at risk by handcuffing the EPA to police polluters and simply 
keeps us addicted to foreign oil and discourages clean energy 
innovations. This is sound bite politics at its worst, the American 
public needs real solutions and thoughtful policy.
  The CR prohibits any funding from being used to carry out the EPA's 
power plant pollution safeguard rules. These rules are tailored to only 
the biggest polluting power plants, ensuring average Americans and 
small business aren't affected by any regulations.
  The Clean Air Act guards the most vulnerable Americans--those with 
asthma and other lung disease, children, older adults, and people with 
heart disease and diabetes--from the dangers of airborne pollutants, 
including the threats from growing carbon dioxide pollution. Each year 
the Act prevents tens of thousands of adverse health effects, including 
asthma attacks, heart attacks and even premature death. This year 
alone, the Clean Air Act will save more than 160,000 lives, according 
to preliminary estimates by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Yet Republicans plan to starve this life-saving agency of its funding 
based on purely ideological reasons.


                              Immigration

  The CR would cut all funding for immigrant integration. Republicans 
claim that they support legal immigration and want to reward immigrants 
who waited in line and did things the right way. But then they go and 
cut funding to critical programs that help those legal immigrants 
become proud American citizens and better integrated into our 
communities. If Republicans really want to support legal immigrants, 
they wouldn't cut important programs that emphasize the value of 
learning English, learning American history and civics, and becoming 
U.S. citizens. Regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, these 
are commonsense programs that we can all support.
  It would also cut overseas refugee assistance and admissions and 
domestic refugee assistance funding. These cuts would severely diminish 
our country's ability to help refugees across the globe. The victims 
would be some of the world's most vulnerable people: refugees fleeing 
religious persecution from Iran, political persecution from Burma, etc. 
We are the global leader in refugee resettlement. This is a proud 
American legacy and it makes us a shining beacon for the world. 
Haphazard cuts like this endanger refugees, but also America.
  If Republicans truly claim to be committed to deficit reduction, then 
why as they cut millions from beneficial programs like head start and 
LIHEAP, do they continue to increase defense spending? Until 
Republicans get serious about controlling defense spending--the largest 
part of the discretionary budget--they will never achieve their goals 
of reducing our deficit.


                              Local/US 36

  Mr. Chair, at the state and local level, my home state of Colorado is 
getting slapped in the face by this CR.
  A year ago, US 36--the highway that connects Boulder to Denver--was 
awarded a $10 Million TIGER/TIFIA Challenge Grant through the recovery 
Act--to expand one of the most used and heavily congested highways in 
the state, creating jobs and fostering economic development. The $10 
million federal investment helps leverage the additional funds in the 
area, creating $276 million in employment income and 7,200 jobs. The 
project impacts 191,000 corridor employees--10% of the state's 
employment.
  To date, only $900k has been obligated, and because the Republican CR 
rescinds all `unobligated' ARRA funding across the board without 
thought to details or individual projects--the many state, regional, 
and local transportation groups that have invested in the project will 
never see the remaining $9.1 million they were promised.
  For the businesses and residents in my district--this is a slap in 
the face.
  Colorado's US 36 Corridor project won the TIGER Award because it was 
one of the most innovative projects in the country. Mr. Chair, Rome 
wasn't built in a day and we can all agree that we should not be 
punishing innovation.
  Mr. Chair, the President's budget release yesterday is an excellent 
example of cutting back in nearly every aspect of the federal 
government, while investing in the future. We must tighten our belts 
and make hard choices and tough changes. But we cannot do so at the 
expense of growth and innovation.
  With cuts like these, Republican leadership has made it very clear 
that they're not interested in helping families to get ahead in this 
economy. Instead, they're holding our economic recovery and global 
competitiveness hostage in an attempt to meet an arbitrary spending 
goal, to appease the fringe of their party--the same people who 
advocate for cutting the Department of Education and privatizing social 
security.
  The Republican's continuing resolution before us today is sound bite 
politics at its worst. The American Public need and deserve real 
solutions and thoughtful policy. We can and must do better. I encourage 
my colleagues to oppose the rule for this CR as well as the underlying 
CR to prevent the irresponsible impact of this Republican spending 
bill.
  Mr. Conyers, the Majority introduced H.R. 1, the ``Full Year 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011,'' which will make immediate and 
drastic cuts to the federal budget.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  February 15, 2011 on Page H826, the following appeared: Mr. 
Chair, the Majority introduced H.R. 1,
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. Conyers, the 
Majority introduced H.R. 1,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  These mindless proposed cuts will hurt jobs, undermine public safety 
and law enforcement, and restrict fundamental civil liberties.
  Below is an itemization of some of the funding decreases to areas of 
the federal budget that are within the Judiciary Committee's purview--
the dollar references being the amounts less than the Administration's 
requested 2011 budget.

                         Department of Justice


              Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)

     Funding Decrease: $600 Million/Complete Elimination of Hiring 
       Program

  COPS has funded the hiring of more than 122,000 state and local 
police officers and sheriff's deputies in communities across America. 
The Republican funding cut means that 3,000 fewer officers will be 
hired or rehired to be on the streets of our neighborhoods.


                                  FBI

     Funding Decrease: $74 Million

  The Republican funding cut will delay construction of badly needed 
training facilities at the FBI Academy in Quantico. This will impact 
the FBI's effort to update and strengthen training for agents and 
intelligence analysts to maintain the fight against terrorism, sexual 
exploitation of children, drugs and other major threats to the U.S. 
from foreign and domestic sources.


 Violence Against Women Act, Victims of Crime Act, and Family Violence 
                   Prevention and Services Act (VAWA)

     Funding Decrease: $26.5 Million

  VAWA programs support victims of domestic and sexual violence. It 
also has saved $14.8 billion in its first 6 years. If the Republican 
funding cut tracks FY 2008 levels, VAWA

[[Page H827]]

programs would lose an estimated $170 million. Any cuts to these 
critical programs would undermine law enforcement and victim protection 
services.


                        General Legal Activities

     Funding Decrease: $111.3 Million

  DOD's principal divisions, including the Civil Rights Division, the 
Antitrust Division, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and 
Civil Division are funded under the category of general legal 
activities.
  The Civil Rights Division, which was chronically underfunded by the 
Bush Administration, will have to play a critical role with respect to 
how states and localities redraw their district lines following the 
decennial Census. As required under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 
the Department of Justice will have to ``pre-clear'' all voting 
changes. The Civil Rights Division is expecting more than 800 
submissions this year and next.
  The Republican budget cut will generally undermine the ability of 
these divisions to protect the civil rights and interests of all 
Americans.


      Various State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs

     Funding Decrease: $525 Million

  These reductions eliminate or essentially gut proven crime prevention 
and crime reduction programs that localities have used to keep crime 
rates down. The inevitable result of these cuts will be increased crime 
and victimizations, more unemployment and more resulting expenditures 
than these cuts save in federal, state and local law enforcement 
activities, imprisonments and other costs.


                   National Drug Intelligence Center

     Funding Decrease: $10.6 Million

  The Center plays a major role in the fight against international and 
national illegal drug proliferation. The Republican funding cut will 
force the Center to furlough valuable employees, which will harm the 
Center's ability to fight the war on illegal drugs.


         Office of Justice Programs, Juvenile Justice Programs

     Funding Decrease: $191,095,000

  The JJP strengthens community safety and reduces victimization by 
setting standards and performance measures for the nation's juvenile 
justice systems, supporting delinquency prevention and early 
intervention, and contributing to the prevention and reduction of youth 
crime and violence.
  The inevitable result of the proposed Republican cut to BP funding 
will be increased crime and victimization; greater substance abuse; 
exacerbated mental health conditions; increased unemployment and 
incarceration; and a net increase in long-term costs to federal, state, 
and local governments.


                Law Enforcement Wireless Communications

     Funding Decrease: $71.6 Million

  This program provides critical support to law enforcement officers 
and agents in major metropolitan areas across the Nation in responding 
to terrorist attacks or other catastrophic incidents. The Republican 
funding cut will reduce by more than half the money used by the program 
to eliminate interoperability issues with wireless communications, 
thereby jeopardizing officer and public safety and the safety of 
millions of Americans.


                      U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)

     Funding Decrease: $9.7 Million

  The USMS is responsible for protecting judges which is critically 
important in light of recent threats to federal judges. The USMS also 
secures courthouse detention facilities that hold defendants accused of 
drug, gun and immigration crimes. The Republican funding cut will delay 
and possibly eliminate over $100 million in needed upgrades in security 
and construction of courthouse detention areas and facilities, the 
impact of which will be most acutely felt on the Southwest Border.

                           Federal Judiciary


                Salaries and Expenses; Defender Services

     Funding Decrease: $613 Million

  The Republican cut will force the federal courts to lay off more than 
2,400 support staff and to stop payments to attorneys who represent 
indigent criminal defendants, which may raise constitutional concerns 
about the availability of adequate criminal defense services. These 
cuts undermine public safety and the effective administration of 
justice at a time when criminal caseloads and the workloads of 
probation and pretrial services offices have reached an all-time high.

     Department of Homeland Security (DHS) anD Department of State

  H.R. 1 makes huge cuts in funding to DHS. Around $160 million are cut 
from accounts that are used to protect our Nation's borders and to 
facilitate legitimate trade and travel that are vital to our country 
and its recovering economy.


     DHS: Customs and Border Protection--Border Security Fencing, 
                     Infrastructure, and Technology

     Funding Decrease: $124.2 Million

  The $124.2 million cut from Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, 
and Technology will jeopardize the Administration's plan to increase 
the use of technologies that have proven effective at securing our 
border. Such technologies include mobile surveillance units, thermal 
imaging devices, mobile radios, and the like. Tens of millions of 
dollars of cuts to Customs and Facilities Management will inhibit our 
ability to build needed Border Patrol stations and forward operating 
bases, and to modernize our severely outdated land ports of entry.


 DHS: Office of Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

     Funding Decrease: Complete de-funding

  H.R. 1 eliminates all funding for the Office of Citizenship within 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. De-funding the Office and 
the President's Integration Initiative means that no grants will be 
available for programs that fund state agencies and non-governmental 
organizations to help prepare lawful permanent residents to apply for 
and obtain citizenship. This will increase the burden on cash-strapped 
state and local governments and decrease the provision of civics-based 
English language classes that help aspiring citizens integrate into 
their communities. The President's budget request in Fiscal Year 2011 
was only $18 million. This small investment has a big payoff: it 
assists immigrants to become proud, new American citizens who have 
studied English and the fundamentals of our government and who 
understand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The 
President's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2012 increases this 
investment to $20 million. The President is heading in the right 
direction of working to integrate immigrants into our country. The 
Republican CR takes us in the wrong directly entirely.


         Department of State: Migration and Refugee Assistance

     Funding Decrease: $582 Million

  H.R. 1 cuts one-third of the funds for the State Department's 
Migration and Refugee Assistance program, which is used to protect 
refugees overseas and to admit refugees to the United States. This 
irresponsible and severe cut may seriously jeopardize our ability to 
protect the world's most vulnerable people-people fleeing persecution 
and torture. The cut will diminish our ability to support the critical 
work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and 
the International Committee of the Red Cross, who provide on-the-ground 
protection to refugees fleeing persecution. A cut like this could 
increase the risk of sexual violence for refugee women in camps. This 
cut also may jeopardize our ability to meet the President's goal of 
resettling 80,000 refugees in the U.S. this fiscal year. We are the 
global leader in refugee resettlement. This is a proud American legacy 
and it makes us a shining beacon for the world. Haphazard cuts like 
this endanger refugees, but also America.

                      Other Agencies and Programs


                    Legal Services Corporation (LSC)

     Funding Decrease: $85 Million

  LSC provides grants to support access to justice to our fellow 
Americans in need. The Republican cut would reduce LSC's funding by 
nearly 20%, which will result in a layoff of at least 370 staff 
attorneys in local programs, closure of many rural offices, and less 
civil access to justice for 161,000 Americans who will go without the 
services of an attorney. This includes women seeking safety for 
themselves and their children from domestic violence, veterans 
returning to civilian life without a job, and senior citizens trying to 
save their homes from foreclosure.


         Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS)

     Funding Decrease: $1.7 Million

  ACUS is a recently established independent agency designed to save 
millions in taxpayer dollars by recommending ways to improve and 
streamline the regulatory and rulemaking process. Even though 
Republicans claim they support the same goals, the Republican funding 
cut will gut ACUS. It will cut ACUS's funding by 53%, which will result 
in freezing all research grants and causing staff cuts and furloughs.


                  United States Patent Office (USPTO)

     Funding Decrease: $400 Million

  The USPTO examines and approves applications for patents on claimed 
inventions and administers the registration of trademarks. It also aids 
in the protection of American intellectual property internationally. 
The USPTO is fully funded by user fees paid by customers.

  The Republican funding plan limits USPTO to 2010 user fee projected 
levels, which will deprive the overburdened patent office of 
approximately $200 million it collects in fees, and

[[Page H828]]

an additional $200 million from a fee surcharge and supplemental amount 
in the 2011 budget.
  This will exacerbate the over 700,000 application backlog the USPTO 
currently faces, prevent needed upgrades in technology to insure 
quality patents, and freeze hiring of additional examiners. Many of the 
improvements recently initiated to increase efficiency and decrease 
backlog will have to be abandoned. Of the 700,000 patents pending, many 
are in the health related field or involve technological advancement.
  The proposed cut will stymie private sector patent reliant 
industries, undercut job growth and creation and further delay the 
development of potentially life-saving pharmaceuticals, as well as 
other technological improvements.


              Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

     Funding Decrease: $1.6 Million

  Established on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, the purpose 
of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is to establish a 
watchdog group within the Executive Office of the President to help 
maintain an appropriate balance between national security and civil 
liberties.


                      Periodic Census and Programs

     Funding Decrease: $72.9 Million

  The Census Bureau is in the process of completing the decennial 
census as required by the Constitution. The results of the census will 
be used to enforce the requirements of the Voting Rights Act and the 
constitutional doctrine of ``one person, one vote.'' Curtailing the 
work of the Census at this moment would be injurious to the protection 
of the right to vote.


     Election Assistance Commission and Federal Election Commission

     Funding Decrease: $6 Million

  These commissions safeguard the election process, promote 
transparency, fight corruption, and protect our citizen's right to 
vote. The Republican budget cut undermines this critical process and 
fundamental right.


                        Family Planning Title X

     Funding Decrease: $317 Million

  Title X is the nation's cornerstone family-planning program for low-
income women. Currently, this program receives $317 million. H.R. 1 
would eliminate all funding for this essential program.

                         Restrictive Provisions


                    Reinstatement of Global Gag Rule

  H.R. 1 would reinstate the global gag rule that bars USAID funds from 
overseas health centers unless they agreed not to use their own, non-
U.S. funds for abortion services. President Obama repealed this harmful 
Bush-era policy during his first week in office, after eight years 
during which thousands of women and families in need of public-health 
services were turned away from underfunded clinics.
  H.R. 1 also contains various restrictive riders, including:
  1. a restriction on court review of regulations intended to protect 
endangered grey wolves
  2. a restriction on the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to 
regulate greenhouse gases and clean water
  3. a restriction that forbids the transfer of Guantanamo Bay 
detainees to the United States for prosecution
  This substantial list gives an idea of the broad-ranging adverse 
impact that these Republican cuts would impose on job growth, public 
health and safety, and basic American values that we should all hold 
dear. I hope that we can take a more sensible approach to the budget 
than the draconian and ill-conceived cuts contained in H.R. 1.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those received for 
printing in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
purpose dated at least 1 day before the day of consideration of the 
amendment (but no later than February 15, 2011) and pro forma 
amendments for the purpose of debate.
  Each amendment so received may be offered only by the Member who 
submitted it for printing or a designee and shall be considered as read 
if printed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                 H.R. 1

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Division A--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2011
Division B--Full-Year Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011
Division C--Stimulus Rescissions
Division D--Miscellaneous Provisions.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Except as expressly provided otherwise, any reference to 
     ``this Act'' contained in division A of this Act shall be 
     treated as referring only to the provisions of that division.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Rogers deserves an awful 
lot of credit for having been able to put together this H.R. 1, that 
saves $100 billion over what many expected we would spend this year. 
The largest part of this bill is the defense part. The defense part of 
this bill is not a CR. It is not a continuing resolution. It is an 
actual, honest-to-God appropriations bill, one that under the 
leadership of Chairman Dicks during last year we put together; the 
subcommittee worked hard, many hearings, a really good bill. We worked 
with our Senate counterparts and we had agreement on this bill.

                              {time}  1530

  We had agreement on this bill from the Defense Department, and we 
were just really disappointed that here we are 5 months into the fiscal 
year and we are just now getting this bill to the floor. It is no fault 
of Chairman Dicks. He worked hard, and I know the pressures that he 
tried to apply and that I tried to apply to get permission to put this 
bill on the floor. But, anyway, here it is and we have it today.
  It is a good defense bill. It is $516 billion. It is a lot of money; 
but our warfighters, they need training, they need salaries, they need 
pay, they need medical care, they need weapons, they need equipment, 
they need technology; and this bill, for the most part, provides that.
  The $516 billion is $14.8 billion less than was requested for this 
fiscal year. That $14.8 billion didn't come about easily. We saved that 
by going line by line the best that we could in the time that we had to 
find program changes, to find budget changes, to find slush funds that 
we didn't think were necessary, and a lot of other ways that we saved 
the $14.8 billion. But we have a good bill here, and I am hopeful that 
the House will support this today.
  One thing that is different from the bill that we thought we were 
going to have on the floor is 1,200 earmarks aren't there any more. We 
took out the earmarks, nearly $3 billion worth of earmarks.
  So we have a very clean Defense bill here for you today. I know that 
there are many who would like to have more, and there are more things 
we could do. We could reach out into the future, but the world we live 
in today shows a growing deficit, and it is important that we are 
willing to contribute to solving it. It is crucial to the future of 
this Nation that we solve this deficit problem, because if we don't, I 
hate to think what might happen to our economy, what might happen to 
our currency, what might happen to our standing in the economy of the 
world.
  I would ask the Members, if this bill came on the floor during Jack 
Murtha's chairmanship, we would have probably passed this bill in about 
10 minutes. That is the way that he did business when he was in the 
majority. We didn't quite do that. We have an open rule. We have an 
open rule here that anybody can offer an amendment that is germane to 
the bill. If it makes it better, fine, we will agree to it. If it 
doesn't make it better, we will not agree to it. We understand that 
there are some that will be subject to a point of order, and we will 
raise those points of order, but we will allow the Member that offers 
the amendment to discuss it before we raise the point of order as a 
courtesy to them.
  Anyway, again, I want to congratulate Mr. Dicks for the work that he 
did during the time that he was chairman. As he said in the general 
debate, he and I have worked together for over 30 years on the national 
security and intelligence affairs of our Nation. He is very honorable, 
a very hardworking individual, very much determined to do a good job 
for our Nation; and he shares the same feeling that I have here that 
while we may have to make reductions and have to come up with savings, 
we will not approve anything that has an adverse effect on the 
warfighter. We

[[Page H829]]

will not do anything that has an adverse effect on the readiness of our 
national security effort.
  It is a commitment that I made many years ago and that Mr. Dicks made 
many years ago. When we made these cuts we did not affect the 
warfighter. We didn't cut his pay. One of the largest portions of our 
Defense bill is military personnel, the cost of salaries. We did not 
cut that. We didn't get into that at all.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

        The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2011, for military functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active 
     duty, (except members of reserve components provided for 
     elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of the 
     Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant 
     to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $41,042,653,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active 
     duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), 
     midshipmen, and aviation cadets; for members of the Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant to 
     section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 
     note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement 
     Fund, $25,912,449,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on 
     active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for 
     elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of 
     Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to 
     the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $13,210,161,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on 
     active duty (except members of reserve components provided 
     for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of 
     the Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $27,105,755,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 
     of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $4,333,165,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy 
     Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $1,940,191,000.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine 
     Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $612,191,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 
     of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $1,650,797,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 
     12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States 
     Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of 
     title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $7,511,296,000.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air 
     National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 
     of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, 
     or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 
     or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $3,060,098,000.

                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; 
     and not to exceed $12,478,000 can be used for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be 
     made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $33,306,117,000.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, 
     as authorized by law; and not to exceed $14,804,000 can be 
     used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be 
     expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the 
     Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of 
     necessity for confidential military purposes, 
     $37,809,239,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized 
     by law, $5,539,740,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by 
     law; and not to exceed $7,699,000 can be used for emergencies 
     and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may 
     be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $36,062,989,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the 
     Department of Defense (other than the military departments), 
     as authorized by law, $30,210,810,000:  Provided, That not 
     more than $50,000,000 may be used for the Combatant Commander 
     Initiative Fund authorized under section 166a of title 10, 
     United States Code:  Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $36,000,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary 
     expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the 
     Secretary of Defense, and payments may be made on his 
     certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes:  
     Provided further, That of the funds provided under this 
     heading, not less than $31,659,000 shall be made available 
     for the Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative 
     Agreement Program, of which not less than $3,600,000 shall be 
     available for centers defined in 10 U.S.C. 2411(1)(D):  
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be used to plan or 
     implement the consolidation of a budget or

[[Page H830]]

     appropriations liaison office of the Office of the Secretary 
     of Defense, the office of the Secretary of a military 
     department, or the service headquarters of one of the Armed 
     Forces into a legislative affairs or legislative liaison 
     office:  Provided further, That $8,251,000, to remain 
     available until expended, is available only for expenses 
     relating to certain classified activities, and may be 
     transferred as necessary by the Secretary of Defense to 
     operation and maintenance appropriations or research, 
     development, test and evaluation appropriations, to be merged 
     with and to be available for the same time period as the 
     appropriations to which transferred:  Provided further, That 
     any ceiling on the investment item unit cost of items that 
     may be purchased with operation and maintenance funds shall 
     not apply to the funds described in the preceding proviso:  
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.


                 Amendment No. 370 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 9, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $18,750,000)''.
       Page 359, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $18,750,000)''.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman. I just want to say a few words about 
the process here.
  It is refreshing to so many of us to come to the House with an open 
rule. There are some Members who have been part of this body for 4 
years now and have not been allowed the opportunity to offer one 
amendment on the floor because of the absence of open rules. So we are 
going to have a number of amendments offered here, and this is just a 
great process.
  I also want to commend the Appropriations Committee for the hard work 
that it took to get the level of savings that we are in the legislation 
and what a positive step, as was mentioned, it was to cut out the 
earmarks. There are no earmarks in this bill. That is a wonderful 
thing. We can actually talk more about the substance and less about 
just pet projects on the side.
  This amendment would reduce by $18.57 million the operations and 
maintenance defense-wide account. It would send the money to the 
spending reduction account. We are often told that when we offer 
amendments like this on the floor, it is not going to save any money. 
This one does. The money that is saved here will go to the spending 
reduction account.
  Last August, Secretary Gates ordered a review of all outside boards 
and commissions that provide advice and studies to the Defense 
Department with an eye toward eliminating unnecessary entities and 
cutting funding for the studies that they produce by 25 percent.
  According to CRS, the Department of Defense funds 65 boards and 
commissions at a cost of about $75 million. This amendment would 
achieve the approximate savings that Secretary Gates sought for FY 2011 
that would equal $18.75 million. That is 25 percent of the $75 million 
over time. I certainly don't have any problems with the various panels 
from which the Defense Department seeks counsel, but I am sure there is 
some waste there. That is why Secretary Gates has targeted a 25 percent 
reduction.
  I realize the amount of savings in this amendment is relatively small 
compared to the overall defense budget, but I think the point has to be 
made here that the defense budget is not sacrosanct. We can't say if it 
is defense, it is all good; that there is no waste here, we can't cut 
any. So it is important to look for ways we can actually save.
  In fiscal year 2010, more than $1 trillion was spent on discretionary 
spending. The Department of Defense received more than $508 billion of 
that. Certainly in a Federal agency that requires the largest budget, 
this is the Federal agency that has the largest budget, there is going 
to be some waste and inefficiencies.

                              {time}  1540

  This is a great place to start. This is a proposal that came from the 
Defense Secretary himself, one that wasn't included in the underlying 
bill, and one that will be addressed in the FY 2012 budget, according 
the documents released yesterday. In fact, according to the Defense 
Department, it intends to achieve a savings of more than a billion 
dollars in FY 2012 simply by eliminating internally produced reports 
and reducing funding for the types of studies that I'm talking about 
here.
  I applaud the Department's willingness to talk about cuts in its own 
budget. I urge my colleagues to adopt the same willingness here. If the 
Defense Department is willing to find savings, we ought to be able to 
do that here as well. We need to reduce this account which funds boards 
and commissions and the studies they produce by $18.75 million.
  Again, passing this amendment will reduce funding that will not 
impact the warfighter. It won't impact the war in Afghanistan or the 
war still going on in Iraq. This would simply signal that this body is 
willing to cut where we can cut without affecting the necessary 
protections that we have in the Department of Defense.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mainly, what I'm opposed to is the fact we're 
not sure what boards or commissions this amendment would deal with. I 
think it's probably a good idea, but I think the subcommittee will 
really like to have an opportunity to investigate whether or not a 
board is necessary or is doing some positive function for the 
Department of Defense. We'd like to have time to look into that.
  We agree with the gentleman that we should find all the savings, all 
the waste we can, and we did. We reduced the request for this year by 
the $14.8 billion. I think we did a pretty good job.
  On the gentleman's comment about the process, I had the privilege of 
serving as chairman of this Appropriations Committee for 6 years. I 
never brought an appropriations bill to the floor under a closed rule. 
It was 6 years that any germane amendment could be offered.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. I, first of all, want to thank the gentleman for his very 
kind comments earlier.
  This amendment cuts $18.75 million from operations and maintenance 
Defense-wide to reduce boards and commissions. Well, I think things 
like the Defense Science Board are very important. We have a number of 
commissions that are looking into acquisition reform that are trying to 
help us save money, help us get our acquisition straightened out.
  So I agree with the gentleman. I think we should strongly oppose this 
amendment, and I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Like I 
said, the subcommittee would really like an opportunity to really 
review this to make sure that we don't make a mistake and cut something 
that is important.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LEE. I rise today in support of the bipartisan Flake amendment, 
No. 370, to cut $18.75 million from the Defense-wide operations and 
maintenance budget at the Pentagon.
  In my opinion, any discussion about getting our fiscal house in order 
must begin with a real discussion about reducing the bloated size of 
the Pentagon budget and ending the war in Afghanistan. And if we are 
really serious about reducing the deficit, we should be cutting Defense 
to the 2008 levels rather than cutting domestic discretionary spending 
to 2008 levels.
  We're talking about a $750 billion budget. But the Republican 
continuing resolution fails to cut the Pentagon budget, and it really 
increases it by more than $8 billion this year. This will put families 
and teachers and cops and children out on the street. These cuts will 
not come close to ending the deficit, will only hurt our economy, won't 
create any jobs, and given the fact that our economy is on the verge of 
recovery, we should be doing everything in our power to create jobs. A

[[Page H831]]

nearly $700 million cut to food for women, infants, and children during 
the height of a recession is really heartless and cold. This cut will 
not balance the budget and it will certainly not magically reduce the 
number of hungry children and families across the country.
  Republicans want to cut billions of dollars in education programs 
that impact students at every level, from preschool to graduate school, 
starting with $1.1 billion in terms of a cut for Head Start. That's 
going to hurt millions of needy preschoolers. Gutting the Federal 
Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants by $757 million will really 
end the dreams of needy college students to be first in their families 
to earn a college or university degree. Republicans are willing to risk 
the futures of millions of needy students.
  Republican cuts to cost-effective and critical programs like 
Community Health Centers are a prime example of what is really wrong 
with this one-sided approach to the budget. Smart investments in 
improving access to primary care and preventive health services, 
especially through low-cost programs like the Community Health Centers, 
are the most effective way to reduce the long-term costs of health care 
in our country and to reduce the deficit. Republican attempts to cut 
support for maternal and child health, $50 million; family planning, 
$317 million; State funds for Health Access Grants, $75 million, 
worsens the health of children and families, increases the rates of 
chronic diseases, and does nothing to reduce the deficit.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, we see these budgets 
come to us each and every day, and we know the impact of what these 
cuts will do to the majority of Americans who are just struggling to 
survive through this downturn. We're in the middle of a housing crisis, 
and we are struggling to correct this. We're seeing unprecedented 
demand for housing assistance and a near standstill in private 
construction of affordable housing. Republicans somehow believe that 
this would be a good time to make massive cuts to rental assistance 
that keeps countless families from suffering homelessness. They want to 
dramatically cut Community Development Funds and the Public Housing 
Capital Fund, which invests Federal dollars in creating desperately 
needed new affordable housing.
  Worse, these cuts will do nothing to create jobs or jump-start the 
economy. They are the wrong prescription for what ails our country, and 
we need to go back to the drawing board. The Flake amendment will cut 
over $18 million from Defense, which is an excellent beginning, but 
only a beginning.
  So, in closing, let me just remind our friends on the other side of 
the aisle that budgets really are moral documents. They reflect our 
values and who we are as Americans. Proposing these deep and painful 
cuts reflects an unfortunate reality that we are putting bombs and 
missiles and wasteful Pentagon spending first rather than creating jobs 
for people who deserve to live the American Dream.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just say it was asked which boards and commissions are there 
which this would cut. There are some 65 boards and commissions. Some 
are blue ribbon panels. The biggest three are the Defense Policy Board, 
the Defense Science Board, and the Defense Business Board.
  But let me say, again, what this amendment does is simply moves 
forward what the Secretary of Defense has already identified as savings 
that he would like to achieve. He has said that they want to cut 25 
percent of the budget for these boards and commissions.
  The Secretary put this report out in August of last year, so it seems 
that he intended this for the FY 2011 cycle. That's what we're in right 
now. We're simply doing what, in my view, the Secretary of Defense has 
asked us to do or what he is going to carry through.
  If we can't do this on Defense or on other wasteful spending, where 
can we do it? This is a great place to start. We should get this done 
now because it's going to be tackled later on. Why not get a head start 
and do it in the FY 2011 budget. If we're trying to realize the savings 
that we're trying to realize, let's take these boards and commissions 
that the Secretary of Defense has already said we should cut by 25 
percent and give them what he asked for.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. POMPEO. Reclaiming my time, it is the case that Mr. Flake's 
amendment addresses a very important issue, and that's duplicative 
processes and duplicative agencies. As a former soldier, there is 
nothing I care more about than making sure we take care of our airmen, 
our sailors, our marines. I think it is a great place to start to make 
sure we do just that by eliminating this from the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HONDA. I rise in support of this amendment. I am opposed to this 
continuing resolution and to the Republicans' ``no jobs'' agenda.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people want a recovery that supports jobs. 
Republicans have controlled the House for 41 days and have brought up 
zero bills to create jobs. These mindless cuts mean 1 million job cuts: 
no jobs for nurses, no jobs for teachers, no jobs for police, no jobs 
for firefighters, no jobs for manufacturing, and no jobs for small 
businesses.
  Even worse than what the Republicans are doing to American workers is 
what they are doing to America's children. This bill will cut funding 
for education programs by over $10 billion, or 16 percent, which is the 
largest education cut in history.
  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, State grants 
will be slashed by $557 million, shifting to States and local districts 
the costs of educating 324,000 students with disabilities, therefore 
increasing local tax burdens and killing over 7,000 education jobs.
  Pell Grants. Pell Grants will be cut by $5.6 billion, making it more 
difficult for low- and middle-income families to pay for college. These 
cuts would eliminate or reduce aid for almost 1.5 million students.
  Head Start. Head Start would be cut by over $1 billion, leading to 
the elimination of enrollment slots for 127,000 poor children and the 
potential loss of over 14,000 jobs.
  No one who votes for this bill could ever have the audacity to say 
they care about our children.
  Republicans are wearing their hearts on their sleeves a day after 
Valentine's Day, but they don't care about children. They don't care 
about working middle class families, and they don't care to follow the 
rules of the road. Instead, Republicans want to make you pay. They want 
to make you pay for Big Oil's $1 billion subsidies, make you pay for 
higher drug prices, make you pay taxes to start your small business, 
make you pay for CEO salaries, and make you and your children go it 
alone.
  So, Mr. Chairman, in closing, I oppose this bill. Republicans want 
you to keep paying for their war and tax cuts for the ultra-rich while 
they cut jobs, services, and schools. This is not fiscal discipline. 
This is fiscal insanity.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I rise in support of the amendment that Mr. Flake has 
proposed, and I rise in strong opposition to the underlying CR.
  Mr. Chairman, the consequence of this whole discussion about dealing 
with the deficit and the budget reduction that is being recommended by 
the Republicans is going to be jobs. If you look at what is being 
proposed, the other side has had nearly 2 months but has brought zero 
bills that create jobs. These cuts amount to 1 million jobs that will 
be lost.
  There will be no jobs for nurses. $51 million will be cut from the 
National Park Service; that is a loss of jobs. $256

[[Page H832]]

million will be cut from State and Federal law enforcement; that is the 
local police that will be cut. $889 million will be cut from renewable 
energy programs; those are jobs creating solar panels and outfitting 
and retrofitting homes so they will be energy-efficient. $1 billion 
will be cut from the National Institutes of Health, which will be a 
loss of jobs in research and in providing direct public health care to 
the American citizens. $1.3 billion will be cut from community health 
centers; that means no jobs and increased costs in the emergency rooms, 
where people with very acute illnesses will be--people who will not be 
able to find health care because they will have nowhere else to go. 
There will be cuts in rural development--a loss of jobs. There will be 
a $1.6 billion cut for the Environmental Protection Agency--a loss of 
jobs. There will be a $96 million cut for substance abuse and mental 
health services--a loss of jobs.
  One of the realities is that we must invest. It has been said over 
and over again that the point of dealing with this deficit that we have 
in this country has to be a pragmatic, measured process. It has taken 
us 10 years to get into the hole that we are in, and we need to plan to 
get out of that with the same amount of time, if not more.
  We also need to talk about revenue generation. We are not going to 
cut our way out of this deficit, and you are certainly not going to cut 
your way out of this deficit when you are only concentrating on 14 or 
15 percent of the Federal budget, which is why I support this amendment 
as it is an attempt to deal with defense.
  We must create revenues. We must quit giving huge subsidies to Big 
Oil and Big Gas. We must ask mining companies, for once, to begin to 
pay royalties on the extractions provided them by the public lands. We 
must close the corporate loopholes that exist that created the 
financial collapse of housing in this country, and we must ask Wall 
Street to pay its fair share through a transaction fee, which will 
generate billions and billions of dollars for the taxpayers of this 
country.
  In order to deal with this deficit, there must be a corresponding 
generation of revenue so we can continue to invest in the things that 
are important to the American people: their families, their lives, 
their education, their health care, their futures. That is an 
investment, and with additional revenue we will be able to begin to cut 
the deficit.
  The continuing resolution is not an effort to deal with the deficit. 
It is a calculation to deal with programs and projects that have helped 
the middle class succeed, poor people survive, the disabled endure. 
They are programs and projects that have made this country stronger 
with their support for education and health care.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the continuing 
resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FUDGE. I rise to support Mr. Flake's amendment because saving $18 
million from defense is a great start; but I do, indeed, oppose the 
underlying Republican continuing resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, this resolution threatens jobs, American innovation, 
and jeopardizes investments that will rebuild America.
  As a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I 
believe that innovation will lead our Nation and our economy forward. 
We all know that basic research and technology development create jobs 
and will help America to win the future. The Republicans have this 
thing backwards. They have proposed cutting $2.5 billion to fund the 
National Institutes of Health. This $2.5 billion to NIH funding will be 
devastating to the biomedical industry that serves as the backbone of 
Cleveland and so many other communities across the country.
  The innovative ways that scientists are pursuing solutions to human 
suffering with neuroimaging, genomics, and the development of novel 
treatments that arise from basic findings will improve life for all of 
us. Innovation will cut down on the costs of these illnesses, lost 
productivity in the workplace, and it will create important avenues for 
new investigations that will create new jobs, new ventures, and new 
industries.
  We must continue to make investments in America. Our future is in 
innovation and technology development, and these cuts are not something 
we can afford. The loss of funding also means the loss of jobs.
  Where are the jobs?
  According to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Economic Policy 
Institute, the Republican CR will cost more than 800,000 private and 
public jobs. Republicans have controlled the House for 41 days, nearly 
2 months, and have brought up zero bills to create jobs. Republicans 
want to cut Social Security and Medicare. When Republicans say they're 
cutting costs, they mean cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid 
until they don't exist.
  The American people want leadership that will create jobs and jump-
start our Nation's economy. This careless resolution cuts jobs and 
damages the economy.
  Again, I do support the amendment by Mr. Flake, but the Republican CR 
is bad for the American economy, and it is bad for Americans. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Republican CR and help put Americans back to 
work.

                              {time}  1600

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I too rise in support of Mr. Flake's amendment. I see it 
as a small beginning, a very small beginning, to cutting wasteful 
Pentagon spending. But Mr. Chair, this entire continuing resolution is 
bad for the economy and bad for this country. It's all a part of the 
Republican no jobs for America agenda.
  The majority has no interest in doing anything whatsoever to help the 
9 percent of Americans who are out of work. They've controlled the 
House for just about 6 weeks, and they've not brought up a single bill 
that would create a single job. They've brought up a bill that would 
continue to shred our civil liberties. They've brought up a bill that 
will infuse our campaigns with even more corrupting special interest 
money. They've brought up a bill that would take away guaranteed 
affordable health care. But nothing to address persistent joblessness. 
Nothing at all to fix the devastating recession that they caused in the 
first place.
  Their mindless cuts don't do anything to strengthen America. They're 
not cutting spending; they're cutting jobs. Their agenda means cutting 
jobs for nurses, cutting jobs for teachers, police officers, small 
businesses, the very people who form the backbone of the middle class 
of the United States of America. The Speaker of the House himself said 
this morning that if some jobs are lost as a result of their cuts, ``so 
be it.'' He might as well have added, ``Let them eat cake.''
  The best way to reduce the deficit is to put Americans back to work, 
Mr. Chairman, but the Republicans' no-jobs plan is all about cutting 
the very spending that sustains middle class families. When they say 
they want to cut costs, what they really mean is they want to cut 
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid right out of existence, and on 
top of cutting their hard-earned benefits, the Republicans want to make 
the middle class pay--pay for Big Oil's big subsidies, pay for higher 
drug prices, pay for astronomical CEO salaries, for higher taxes to 
start a small business.
  The chairman of the House Budget Committee said yesterday, and I 
quote him, ``What we're doing here is we're having a great debate in 
Congress about how much spending we should cut. I mean, how cool is 
that?'' Well, I'd like to tell him it's not cool at all, Mr. Chairman, 
not when you're asking struggling families to shoulder the sacrifice. 
Giving a sweetheart deal to corporate special interests and asking the 
middle class to pay for it--not cool at all.
  The Republicans' continuing resolution and no-jobs agenda--bad for 
America, totally uncool.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentlewoman from 
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Flake 
amendment, and I strongly oppose the underlying Republican no-jobs 
continuing resolution.

[[Page H833]]

  If people out there have the gnawing feel that the rich are getting 
richer and the poor are getting poorer, and they're stuck in the middle 
and stuck getting the bill, the fact of the matter is they're right. 
This bill is just another example of the Republicans' true agenda, 
which is helping out big business and the rich while sticking it to the 
middle class and those who aspire to it.
  The cuts that they're proposing would actually cause a devastating 
wave of unemployment at the State and local level, particularly in the 
public sector. The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that passage 
would cost us nearly 1 million jobs. Who are we talking about? You 
know, it's cool these days to go after public sector workers, but what 
we're talking about are the teachers--I was one once a long time ago--
the teachers who teach our children and grandchildren, the very police 
who keep our streets safe and put their lives on the line, and the 
firefighters who answer our 9/11 emergency call. We're talking about 
workers who are the backbone of our communities.
  Over the last 2 years, the Democratic Congress and President Obama 
were successfully able to stave off a second Great Depression, but 
we're still in the early stages of recovery, unemployment is still too 
high at 9 percent, and American families are still suffering. The 
proposed cuts would cost us 1 million more jobs, be devastating to our 
recovery, and hurt Americans trying to take care of their families and 
make ends meet.
  Let's just take a look at some of the things they want to cut. How 
about the National Institutes of Health would be cut $1.6 billion? This 
is funding that goes to vital medical research, including cures and 
improved treatments for devastating diseases. High speed rail 
development, which would provide desperately needed jobs, but beyond 
that, reinvigorate a keystone of the American infrastructure, it faces 
$2.5 billion in cuts.
  In addition to the important jobs program, what really hurts is 
Republicans want to put assistance to poor families on the cutting 
board. They want to cut $1 billion for community health centers, the 
only access to health care for many poor families. And how about $747 
million for the Women, Infants and Children, the WIC program? That's 
food assistance for low-income pregnant women and their children. The 
300,000 beneficiaries in my State of Illinois receive a grand average 
benefit of $44.62 a month. That's it, per person, per month, and that 
minimal subsidy would be cut.
  House Republicans' proposals to slash Federal spending programs are 
irresponsible and indiscriminate, eliminating programs that create jobs 
and cutting assistance for low-income and middle class families. There 
is another way to deal with the deficit and to balance our budget.
  We need to enact a Democratic initiative to make it in America. We 
should be making things here. We should revive our manufacturing sector 
rather than providing tax breaks that encourage companies to go 
offshore.
  I offered a plan last year as part of President Obama's 18-member 
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to make 
investments that get us out of the economic doldrums, boost job 
creation, and reduce the deficit--and not on the backs of low-income 
and middle-income Americans.
  We can do it. We need to stop the Republican efforts and protect job-
creating programs that benefit the middle class and the safety net 
programs that help the most vulnerable in our society because that's 
who we are as Americans.
  The Republicans refuse to make the investments necessary to get 
people back to work because they refuse to give up tax cuts for 
millionaires and billionaires. Their policies are a prescription for 
disaster, one that puts families, communities, and our Nation at risk.
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FILNER. I'm a little disappointed in the amendment by my friend 
from Arizona. This is our biggest deficit hawk in the House. He wants 
to cut $18 million from the Defense budget. Did I get that number 
right, Mr. Flake, $18 million? I mean, we've got a $612 billion Defense 
budget. What are you, .000001 percent of the budget? Not good for a 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
  I would say let's really get at this. Man, you want to cut the 
budget? Republican President and Republican Congress funded a whole two 
wars off the budget. We're talking about trillions of dollars added to 
our deficit. You don't go after those, Mr. Flake. We need you to go 
after those. We will gladly support you. Eighteen million out of a $612 
billion budget? I'll vote for the amendment, and you know, whenever I 
vote for one, you win.
  But let's go after some real stuff in that Pentagon budget, and let's 
not go after jobs as this underlying bill does. Come on. You know, you 
talked about jobs the whole campaign. I haven't seen a pro-job bill yet 
from the Republicans in this Congress, and yet this bill, H.R. 1, cuts 
millions of jobs.

                              {time}  1610

  I am on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Flake. I 
don't know if you know about it, but the cuts to the clean water 
moneys--


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Members are advised to address their comments to 
the Chair, and not to other Members in the second person.
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chair, did you know that the bill cuts millions of 
jobs from our economy, the cuts to the Clean Water Act, the cuts to the 
High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program, and other infrastructure 
cuts? In my State of California, we are losing, just on this bill, 
almost 50,000 jobs; the total jobs around the country, almost 300,000. 
Come on. This is not a way to both cut the deficit and keep our economy 
going.
  I happen to represent a border district. I represent the whole 
Mexican border with California. Madam Chair, I'm sure Mr. Flake knows 
very well the border in Arizona, and he knows that in this bill, the 
GSA construction and acquisition funding line has been eliminated--
eliminated--$894 million worth.
  I don't know about in the State that Mr. Flake represents, but I'll 
tell you, in California, you are eliminating the several-hundred-
million-dollar modernization of two of the biggest border crossings in 
our country and the biggest one in the world.
  In my district, 300,000 people cross the border every day legally--
legally--and they're crossing mainly for jobs and for shopping. We all 
know we need to make that far more efficient, that crossing, so people 
can spend money in our country and create jobs. You have eliminated the 
whole modernization moneys out of this budget, and I'm sure it affects 
Arizona.
  The Otay Mesa crossing where we have all the commercial crossings in 
California, gone. The biggest border crossing in the world in San 
Ysidro, gone. Another big one in my district, Calexico, California, 
gone.
  We are leaving billions of dollars on the table, Madam Chair, for 
jobs in our economy. If we don't have efficient border crossings, we 
don't have trade. We don't have shopping. We don't have the crossings 
that are legal that we all want to encourage. These modernization 
programs went directly at that, not only in California but in Texas, in 
New Mexico, and I'm sure in Arizona. And yet all those jobs that are 
created by more efficient crossings are now thrown away.
  So the gentleman from Arizona who wants to give up efficient border 
crossings in his State, you might tell him, Madam Chairman, I don't 
think that's a good way to run for the Senate. Taking $18 million out 
of a defense budget of $612 billion is pretty miserly stuff. It's not 
even a good symbol for a guy running for Senate in the United States.
  We should really go after what the Republicans said they are going 
after. Let's end the war in Afghanistan, save trillions of dollars off 
the deficit. But more importantly, the cuts that we have seen in 
infrastructure in this country, the cuts we have seen in GSA are 
costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs. This is a job 
buster. It should be defeated.
  I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to strike the last word.

[[Page H834]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, while I support the Flake amendment, I oppose 
the underlying continuing resolution.
  The Republicans are here today offering another piece of their ``no 
jobs'' agenda, and they are in disarray and are hastily pushing an 
irresponsible and dangerous spending bill that threatens jobs, 
undercuts American innovation, and jeopardizes investments in 
rebuilding America.
  Creating jobs, protecting the middle class, and reducing the deficit 
are, indeed, my top priorities. We should be working together to 
accomplish these very valid goals. However, Republicans have controlled 
this House for 41 days, nearly 2 months, and brought up zero bills to 
create jobs. The mindless cuts that are on this floor today mean 1 
million jobs cut, 1 million jobs cut from our economy--no jobs for 
nurses, no jobs for teachers, no jobs for police, no jobs for 
firefighters, no jobs for manufacturing, no jobs for small businesses.
  You cut the deficit by putting America back to work, not by cutting 
Social Security. Republicans aim to cut Social Security and Medicare. 
When Republicans say they are cutting costs, they mean cutting Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid until they don't exist. Ask my seniors 
in the 21st Congressional District of New York, and they'll tell you to 
leave alone the Social Security system that has served them well.
  Republicans want to make you pay, make you pay for Big Oil's billion-
dollar subsidies, make you pay for higher drug prices, make you pay 
taxes to start a small business, make you pay for CEO salaries, let 
Main Street take a hit while Wall Street gets a bonus. The American 
people want Republican leaders to look out for constituents first, not 
their corporate friends. This careless resolution cuts jobs and damages 
our economy.
  Just 6 weeks after taking charge of the House, Republicans are not 
just ignoring jobs; they are cutting them, and they admit it. This 
morning, our Speaker, Speaker Boehner, had a response to our concern 
that this bill destroys--destroys--American jobs. And he said, ``So be 
it.'' Well, I guess that he meant, so be it if there are 1,300 fewer 
cops on the beat, because this bill terminates the COPS hiring program. 
So be it if there are 2,400 fewer firefighters on the job protecting 
their communities, because this bill eliminates funding for SAFER 
grants. So be it if there are 20,000 fewer researchers at the National 
Science Foundation. So be it if there are 25,000 lost construction jobs 
and 76 construction projects are canceled in 40 States. So be it if 
there are 200,000 children kicked out of Head Start programs, and so be 
it if thousands of teachers will lose their jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, ``so be it'' isn't a good enough answer for the 
hardworking middle class of our country.
  I agree with the President that we must out-innovate, out-educate, 
and out-build the rest of the world. We will continue to measure every 
effort by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and 
reduces the deficit.
  I have submitted eight amendments to this irresponsible Republican 
spending bill to protect and grow jobs, out-innovate other countries in 
clean energy, protect our seniors, and ensure quality education for our 
children.
  I support efforts to balance the budget. However, I will not support 
a spending bill that threatens our economic recovery, that cuts 1 
million jobs just after we have created 1.2 million private sector jobs 
since last March, and is achieved on the backs of senior citizens, 
children, and the working middle class.
  Republicans have gone too far, sacrificing Americans' health, safety, 
and future in order to protect their special interests while offering 
no real plan to create jobs.

  Madam Chair, the American people are united, and they are saying one 
thing: Show us the jobs.
  I urge defeat of this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Flake 
amendment and also to the underlying bill, and I join Leader Pelosi and 
my colleagues on this side of the aisle in calling this an 
irresponsible spending bill that threatens job and economic growth, 
hampers our global competitiveness, and harms the people who are 
hurting the most: the working families, the middle class, and the poor.
  This CR targets vulnerable Americans because it would cut funding for 
the things they most desperately need, like food stamps, Head Start, 
and funding to heat their homes, all to keep a reckless tea party-
driven campaign spending cuts goal. And at the end of the day, these 
kinds of hurtful cuts will never get us a balanced budget, and they 
certainly will not secure the kind of future we want for our children 
and grandchildren.
  As one of the five representatives of the people of the U.S. offshore 
territories as well as the ranking member of the subcommittee that has 
jurisdiction over the territories, I am particularly troubled by the 
painful cuts this CR will make to the important programs that the 
people of the territories rely on.
  The bill slashes 8.33 percent from the general technical assistance 
account of the Office of Insular Affairs. Madam Chair, the technical 
assistance program provides support not otherwise available to the 
insular areas to fight such things as the deteriorating fiscal 
conditions which are facing all of the islands and our ability to 
maintain the momentum that has been made in making and sustaining 
systemic changes.

                              {time}  1620

  These funds also support student training programs for high school 
and college students, as well as training for insular professionals in 
financial management, accounting and auditing, as well as other 
programs.
  The program also provides funds to assist the islands in maintaining 
accreditation for our colleges and universities. What is critical about 
this meager program, which has not seen an increase in its budget in 
more than a decade, is that it is funding that the territories could 
not get anywhere else in the Federal Government. Sparing this very 
small but essential program from the majority's indiscriminate, meat 
cleaver approach to budgeting would do infinitely more good than any 
harm it might cause to the budget. After all, the small amount of money 
we're talking about here does not move the meter one blip.
  Madam Chair, the people of the territories recognize that the Federal 
budget cannot sustain the path that it's on, and that reductions in 
spending must be made. But we have done our part and will continue to 
do our part to reduce Federal spending.
  As you look at the budget for the territories, it has not increased 
in several years, and it has been cut for a number of those years. But 
the cuts we're talking about in the CR do not only affect the 
territories. In addition to cutting jobs, there are also disastrous 
cuts that the Republicans are proposing to health-related programs that 
are critical to millions of Americans and are integral to all of our 
efforts to achieve health equity and to eliminate health disparities. 
These health disparities, which we know leave millions of people of 
color, rural Americans, and low-income Americans in poorer health, 
without reliable access to adequate health care, and at greater risk 
for premature death from preventive causes, also cost the Nation a 
great deal from an economic point of view. In fact, we know that 
between 2003 and 2006, the combined direct and indirect cost of health 
disparities and the subsequent premature deaths that often result, the 
cost was $1.24 trillion.
  Rather than base budget cuts on measures that will save human lives 
in addition to precious Federal resources, the Republicans are instead 
proposing cuts that will achieve the exact opposite. We all know from 
their efforts to repeal the landmark health care reform law, a law that 
has already begun to expand access to affordable high quality health 
care to more than 30 million Americans who were in the ranks of the 
uninsured, the Republicans either do not care about the importance of 
ensuring that every American and their families have health

[[Page H835]]

care coverage, or they do not understand the value of such coverage in 
promoting health, wellness, and thus improving life opportunities, or 
maybe it's both.
  And now, we also know that they don't care about or understand the 
benefits and the needs for the programs and efforts that will 
significantly improve the health and wellness of some of our Nation's 
most vulnerable residents by reducing the very health disparities that 
cost this Nation so much in human lives and in money. In fact, they 
want to cut more than $1 billion from the Nation's community health 
centers, the very centers that provide medical homes to millions of 
hardworking Americans whose health care needs would be poorly addressed 
without them, and to cut $210 million from maternal and child health 
block grant programs, more than $300 million from family planning, and 
$758 million from the WIC program, all of which would have a 
detrimental impact on the health and wellness of women and children and 
young families across this country.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this budget CR which does nothing to 
improve the economy and hurts vulnerable Americans.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Yesterday, as we know, was Valentine's Day, but the 
majority here in Washington is showing no love for the families 
throughout the district that I represent and all across the rest of 
this country.
  The new majority said they would cut wasteful spending. But instead 
they're slashing jobs for police officers, jobs for firefighters, jobs 
for teachers, and many other jobs, all across the country.
  They told us they would work to eliminate needless layers of 
bureaucracy, but instead they're cutting heating assistance for the 
elderly, food aid for young mothers and infants, and college aid for 
15,000 students in the district that I represent and hundreds of 
thousands of other students all across the country.
  They said they would focus on the economy, but instead, they're 
eliminating energy research and development that we need to create 
green jobs and compete with other countries around the world. They're 
sending the workers home on 76 high-speed rail projects underway in 40 
states, all very necessary. This hurts real people. It does nothing to 
address our long-term deficit, and middle class families are the ones 
who pay the price. The American people don't want more hidden cuts and 
budgets tricks. We need a plan. We need a solid, secure positive plan.
  The national debt we hold today was not created over the last 2 
years, as some people are saying. The fiscal crisis we are facing today 
was inherited from the Bush administration. Under the previous 
administration, annual budget surpluses were turned into annual 
deficits. It was Vice President Dick Cheney who said deficits don't 
matter. Clearly, that's a lesson the new majority has learned well 
because while they do cut spending with this CR, this bill will 
undoubtedly worsen our budget deficit. Why? Because it will kill 
hundreds of thousands of jobs. That means more people unemployed.
  The people didn't send us here to tend to the needs of Wall Street 
and oil company CEOs. So why does the majority stand against the plan 
to end special tax earmarks that would actually cut the deficit?
  We could be discussing how to end government redtape. For instance, 
in 5 years we could save many billions of dollars by allowing Medicare 
to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for seniors. But instead, 
the majority here wants to cut the administrative budget for Social 
Security. This plan hurts New Yorkers and others all across the 
country. And it hurts the district that I represent. Fifteen thousand 
college students in places like Ithaca and New Paltz will get hurt with 
the maximum Pell Grant falling by $800 as the cost of college continues 
to go up for students all across America.
  And 123,000 low-income pregnant women and new moms in New York will 
get less assistance with the pre- and postnatal nutrition they need. 
That will happen to thousands and thousands of others all across the 
country.
  Nearly 2 million New Yorkers who apply for LIHEAP this year will find 
it harder to heat their homes next year, as will so many thousands of 
others across the country.
  Job training programs like Job Corps in Sullivan County, which will 
help high school dropouts get the training they need to get good jobs, 
will get cut out too.
  Like a blindfolded child at a pinata party, this continuing 
resolution takes a bat to all the wrong things at exactly the wrong 
time. I would urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Stand up for the American people. Stand up for a real plan to reduce 
the deficit, and fight to save the jobs this country needs so 
desperately.
  Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I 
rise in support of the Flake amendment and know that we, at this point 
in time, the American public has asked us to tighten our belt. We have 
to do so. And I believe we have to talk and look at every single 
department, including the Department of Defense. This specific 
amendments deals with a very small amount in the Department of Defense, 
one that Secretary Gates has already outlined and determined that they 
do not need. This will not jeopardize those that are in harm's way. 
This will not jeopardize military preparedness. This is yet one small 
step.
  We have, I think, over 400 amendments today, and I'm delighted that 
those on the other side of the aisle are in support of the Flake 
amendment, and so we certainly look for its passage.
  This right now, what we're talking about in terms of reining in 
spending, is absolutely what the American people demand. Yes, we've had 
spending on both sides of the aisle. Washington has a spending problem. 
We need to cut back on spending. We're spending $1.48 trillion in 
deficit spending, and I think the President's budget actually brings it 
up to $1.6 trillion. That's over $3 million a minute in deficit 
spending.

                              {time}  1630

  I come from the private sector. I run a small business. I understand 
what is going on in the private sector, and I can tell you that out-of-
control spending in Washington does not send the right signal and in 
fact does hurt jobs.
  We have to get our fiscal house in order. This is what this is going 
to attempt to do, and we certainly know that out-of-control spending 
has not been the answer. I urge my colleagues to support the Flake 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I rise to address what I consider very 
serious problems with this continuing resolution and this defense 
budget and the lack of attention to jobs.
  I am going to talk about something that's quite unpopular. We all 
know that we have 9 percent unemployment in this country, which is 
significant. We all know that communities all over America are 
suffering, not simply rural communities, not simply suburban areas, not 
simply inner cities. But people are hurting, having lost their jobs, 
all over America.
  In some communities, it's not 9 percent, it's not 10 percent, it's 
not even 15 or 20 percent. We have communities in America where there 
is 30 and 40 percent unemployment.
  There are those who would like to say, well, that's in those urban 
areas. No, it is not simply in urban areas. We have poor rural 
communities that have Representatives who come here every day talking 
about they are representing them, when in fact they never speak to the 
needs of those communities. They don't talk about the lack of health 
care that people have had to endure for so many years, the inability 
for people in these rural communities to access clinics. Some of us are 
fighting for all people, not only the cities and the towns, but these 
rural areas that are being hurt so badly.

[[Page H836]]

  Now, it is not popular to even use the word ``poor.'' As a matter of 
fact, you hear over and over again about concerns for the middle class. 
Of course, we are all concerned for the middle class. But who 
represents the poor people in America these days? There are some of us 
who do, and proudly so, and we are referred to as ``big spenders.'' Tax 
and spend, they say. And they don't talk about the poverty in their own 
community.
  But let me just tell you, with this continuing resolution the CDBG, 
Community Development Block Grant, money is going to hurt all of these 
communities across America. Many of these Representatives who support 
cutting CDBG from $4.45 billion down to $1.5 billion are going to hurt 
their cities. Their mayors are absolutely going nuts about what is 
happening with the cutting of CDBG, the last block grant funding that 
they can depend on to assist with economic development that helps to 
create jobs in America.
  You hear a lot about that we care about jobs. Well, we know what 
people care about jobs based on where they place their priorities. My 
friends are cutting in areas where we could be creating jobs and have 
demonstrated that they have zero bills to create jobs. The mindless 
cuts that they are proposing means 1 million job cuts: no jobs for 
nurses, teachers, police, firefighters, manufacturing, small 
businesses.
  We need to put America back to work, and we can do this if we are 
sensible, if we are targeting the cuts in areas that can take it.
  Why are we spending the amount that we are spending on the military 
budget and defense budget when we have those who are telling us--for 
example, Secretary Gates announced his intention to terminate the 
expeditionary fighting vehicle program and the surface launch medium-
range air-to-air missile system. Why are we trying to disregard what we 
have been told by the very people who understand this defense budget 
better than anybody else?
  No, we want to continue to fund a budget that doesn't need any 
funding, not talking about how we reduce and eliminate the funding for 
Afghanistan and bring our soldiers home and put that money into our own 
domestic needs. We are talking about somehow cutting in ways that they 
would have people believe that they are helping them when in fact they 
are hurting them.
  This continuing resolution does nothing for strengthening the 
economy. It does nothing for creating jobs. It does nothing for support 
of those cities who are fighting desperately to hold on to 
opportunities for people who have nowhere else to turn. Not only do we 
have the cuts in areas that would create jobs, but also many of these 
areas are faced with foreclosures.
  Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment because 
it doesn't do anything to create jobs. Of course, I shouldn't be 
surprised. Over the last 6 weeks since the Republicans took over 
control of the House, they haven't created a single job. In fact, they 
haven't even put a single jobs bill on the House floor.
  With this mindless job-killing Republican spending bill, they are 
hurting the American people. This bill senselessly cuts over 1 million 
jobs at a time when we need them most, at a time when we can least 
afford it. This is nothing more than a Republican pink slip for 
America.
  This bill doesn't get our broken American economy back on track. 
Instead, Republicans are hitting American workers where it hurts. These 
merciless Republican cuts mean, if you work in manufacturing, no jobs; 
if you are a cop, no jobs; if you are a nurse, no jobs; if you are a 
teacher, no jobs; if you are a firefighter, no jobs; if you are a 
construction worker, no jobs.
  Republicans aren't just ignoring jobs. They are slashing them. And 
that means pink slips for Americans across the country and across 
almost every industry. If we aren't helping real Americans, where is 
this money going? Right into the pockets of big defense contractors.
  While Americans across the country are finding themselves out of work 
due to mindless Republican spending cuts, the military industrial 
complex will actually be making more money.
  While they slash jobs and safety net programs, Republicans are 
actually increasing funding to the Department of Defense by $10 
billion. This spending is excessive and way out of proportion with the 
needs of the American people.
  Even Defense Secretary Gates has found $100 billion in cuts and 
savings to the Department of Defense while still keeping America safe. 
That's the entire cost of the job-killing cuts Republicans are asking 
for here today.
  Instead of expanding our economy and growing the middle class, 
Republicans want to make you, the American people, pay. They want to 
make you pay to line the pockets of defense contractors, make you pay 
for Big Oil's billion-dollar subsidies, make you pay for higher drug 
prices, make you pay taxes to start a small business, make you pay for 
CEO salaries, make you take a hit while Wall Street gets a bonus. We 
need to look out for constituents first, not corporate friends.
  And this bill isn't even about reducing deficits, because we all know 
that the best way to reduce the deficit is to put Americans to work, 
not carelessly gut government programs. Instead, we need to rebuild 
America and focus on winning the future.
  Today's bill is a choice between cutting the deficit or putting 
Americans back to work, and I am voting for jobs. We need to invest in 
our Nation so that we can out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the 
rest of the world. I want to see the words ``Made in America'' again.
  The American people voted for jobs, and all they are getting with 
this gutting and slashing funding proposal are pink slips. This is a 
heartless and careless plan that cuts real American jobs and hurts real 
American families.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, the amendment before us is a start. 
Eighteen million dollars out of $720 billion is a start. You might take 
it one step forward and let's end the war in Afghanistan where we're 
spending $120 billion and another $30 billion or so in Iraq. Now we've 
got some real money to talk about.
  Because this is a start, I find that it's an unworthy start, and, 
therefore, I oppose the amendment. However, the real issue before 
America is not how we can slash and burn in foolish ways that actually 
lose tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, indeed a million jobs in 
the next 7 months, which is the proposal before us with this continuing 
resolution that the Republican Caucus has put on the floor. It seems to 
me that if we wanted to create jobs, we certainly wouldn't, as a first 
step, lose a million jobs in virtually every sector of the economy:
  Teachers that are providing services for the early childhood 
education programs, Head Start, they'll lose their jobs.
  Firefighters; 2,400 or more of them will lose their job across the 
Nation. The COPS program, which has provided jobs for police in our 
cities, they'll lose their jobs, some 1,300. They just had men and 
women from my own district come in and say, Why would they want to do 
that? Why would they want to take cops off the street? I told them, I 
don't know. I don't understand.
  I don't understand this CR. It is the most foolish, nonsensical 
slash-and-burn I have ever seen. I was in the Department of the 
Interior in the mid nineties when we actually reduced in a thoughtful 
way over a 4-year period of time the number of employees by some 
12,000--from 90,000 down to the 70,000 range. We did it. And we 
continued to do the services. But you don't slash and burn. You don't 
just in a wholesale manner carry out a political promise of $100 
billion and foist it upon the American public in this way where we lose 
a million jobs, where we lose critical services.
  California has been in a water war for generations. We rely upon the 
Bureau of Reclamation. We rely upon recycling. We rely upon these 
programs. And yet you slash those, and those are real jobs and real 
programs to deal with the water problems in the West. Why would you do 
that? What's the

[[Page H837]]

point of that? Why would you go into programs where we need to educate?
  My daughter is a second grade teacher. She now has 32 kids in her 
elementary program; an almost impossible situation. And your cuts that 
you're proposing will make that situation worse. She cried out to me 
this week, Why are they doing that, Dad? I said, for some political 
promise made in a campaign without any thinking about the impact that 
it has on real human beings, real students, who are trying to get an 
education.
  My final point is this. There are five things that lead to true 
economic growth. The best education system in the world, and so this CR 
cuts education. The best research in the world, and so this CR cuts 
research programs in science, in energy, in health care. The best 
infrastructure, and this CR cuts infrastructure expenditures. 
Manufacturing matters; we have to make it in America. You cut out those 
programs that assist manufacturing. And, finally, we know that we have 
to have an energy policy and you destroy the beginnings of a green 
energy, self-sustaining energy program in this Nation.
  Why would you do so many foolish things? I don't get it. Perhaps it's 
because your real agenda is the no-jobs agenda.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  Madam Chair, we've had promise after promise after promise after 
promise that the Republicans were going to pay attention to what the 
people wanted. And what the people want is jobs, jobs, jobs.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, Madam Chair. I want to point 
out that these Republican cuts that have been proposed are draconian, 
they are extremist, they are bad for America. They are bad for our 
economic recovery. Everybody knows that we just came out of the worst 
recession since the Great Depression. We call it the Great Recession. 
We're just coming out of it, even though most Americans don't feel it 
yet. Certainly those folk up on Wall Street who got the bailouts, they 
feel the recovery, and they are back to the huge bonuses and salaries. 
They are looking at this Republican Congress to release them from all 
of the regulatory measures that the Democrats put in place over the 
last 2 years so that they can continue to party. And while they party, 
their friends here in Congress on the Republican side of the aisle are 
busy trying to balance the budget on the backs of working men and women 
in this country. That's what the CR proposal is all about.
  It came out on Friday at 8 p.m.; they issued their plan, and here we 
are on Tuesday arguing the merits--or demerits, actually--of this plan 
that is nothing other than a plan that undermines America's future. 
This plan is going to cause severe job cuts which will hurt our 
economic recovery.
  It is ironic that as reported in the Wall Street Journal, a new Wall 
Street Journal survey of economists shows that they expect the economy 
to expand at the fastest pace since 2003--a recovery that would be 
certainly jeopardized, snuffed out, by this GOP plan. This is going to 
cut at least 300,000 private sector jobs, according to an analysis by 
staff at the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. These cuts, 
by the way, these 300,000 cuts are less than half of the total 
infrastructure cuts in the bill. These Republican cuts in investments 
in roads, bridges, transit and rail include a cut of $1.4 billion in 
clean water State revolving loan fund moneys, which is $23 million for 
Georgia; and include a cut of $6.3 billion in high-speed intercity rail 
funding. That's going to cause people to not be able to go out and work 
to make that investment in America's future a reality.

                              {time}  1650

  A $75 million cut in the TIGER II Program, those are transit 
projects, is what will happen in Georgia, just in the State of Georgia. 
So we are talking about massive job losses, 300,000 just with 
transportation and infrastructure projects, Madam Chairman. The 
consequence of that extends into our future. It is actually strangling 
the future of millions of Americans, both working and poor people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chairman, I won't take anywhere near that time, 
just simply to get back to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona, Mr. Flake, which is the matter before us right now, and to say 
that I support this amendment, Madam Chairman.
  The gentleman has very properly, I think, brought up something that 
the Secretary of Defense has said is one of the areas in which the 
defense budget can be reduced and we can save money. The greatest 
threat to the national security of this country today is our debt. The 
Secretary of Defense has said that. He has said certainly it is a 
national security threat, as has the Secretary of State. So we need to 
get this debt down, we need to get this deficit down, we need to do it 
in every single area of the budget.
  I think the gentleman from Arizona's amendment is very proper and a 
very appropriate one, and I support it.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Chairman, I rise to, first of all, support the 
Flake amendment but also to oppose the underlying bill and the drastic 
cuts that will devastate the most vulnerable citizens in our Nation.
  Just to highlight some of these cuts, the bill will cut $25 million 
from the Ryan White HIV-AIDS Program and the Aides Drug Assistance 
Program, ADAP. Now, ADAP is a program of last resort for the poorest 
Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. Currently there 
is a waiting list of over 6,000 people in 10 States to receive benefits 
from this program.
  And $850 million in reductions to the CDC, an organization whose 
first task is to defend us against disease and infection, $850 million. 
That is smart. Let's just cut and make America more vulnerable.
  The bill cuts $1.6 billion in funding for NIH, so I guess we won't 
need any research since we are going to let the diseases run rampant in 
America.
  It goes so far as to say in the District of Columbia, we are even 
going to tell you how to spend your very last dollar.
  But it gets better. Community Health Centers, Community Health 
Centers, where the most vulnerable are treated for their health, $1.3 
billion in cuts. Community Health Centers will lose the capacity to 
serve 11 million patients over the next year, and well over 3.3 million 
current patients will lose their care within the next few months.

  The bill cuts $5 billion from the Pell Grants. I did hear that there 
were a lot of new millionaires elected to the Congress of the United 
States, so I imagine they can pay for their children's education. But 
maybe we should think about people that don't have the median income of 
Members of Congress, people who don't make $175,000 a year, which puts 
all of us in the top 1 percent of wage earners.
  What about the most humble and the poorest and those who wish to 
aspire one day to lead this great Nation of ours? Shouldn't they be 
given an opportunity? Not under this program. Let's cut the program, 
the basic program that allows young men and women to seek a college 
education, the Pell Grant. Let's eliminate billions of dollars from 
there also.
  But wait, $25 billion to the Federal TRIO Program. That is for the 
first generation. That is the first kid in a family where nobody has 
gone to college. Let's cut from that program too.
  The program cuts $25 million from GEAR UP. And, wait, $1 billion from 
Head Start?
  I am just going to end with this. I want the public to understand 
this. We get great health care here, excellent health care. It is not 
free, but we get great health care. About $400, that is what they 
deduct from my check. My wife gets good health care, my daughter gets 
good health care, and so do every one of you get good health care. 
Shame on anybody that would adopt this kind of budget, knowing very 
well

[[Page H838]]

the kind of great health care that we get. Cut your health care first 
before you cut the health care of the most poorest, the most vulnerable 
in this Nation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Flake's 
amendment to cut wasteful defense spending. Unfortunately, the 
underlying bill is just another part of the Republican no jobs agenda. 
Since the Republican caucus has taken over the majority, they haven't 
put one jobs bill on. I mean, they haven't done a poor job--they 
haven't done anything. It is as if they are not in favor of Americans 
having jobs. We know they are, but they haven't demonstrated it in 
anything they have done, which is the important thing.
  Instead, as part of the Republican no jobs agenda, they bring up a 
bill to cut 1 million jobs, cut 1 million jobs from the American middle 
class. These cuts are Republican answers for the job crisis that they 
created. Cutting 1 million jobs. If you are a nurse, no jobs. If you 
are a teacher, no jobs. If you are a firefighter or police officer, no 
jobs. If your jobs are from American manufacturing, no jobs. And if you 
are a small business person, who is going to have any money to even go 
into your store? No jobs for them either. The list goes on and on.
  If you want to know how we cut the deficit, it is by putting America 
to work, not by cutting Social Security. Make no mistake: When the 
Republicans say they are cutting costs, they are cutting Social 
Security, they are cutting Medicare, they are cutting Medicaid, until 
they cease to exist. Republicans want working Americans to shoulder the 
whole burden, the burden of a taxpayer-funded spending spree for the 
rich while protecting millionaires and billionaires who refuse to pay 
their fair share.

  The Republican answer to the crisis they created is, you pay, 
American people. They must make you pay for Big Oil's billion dollar 
subsidies. They want to make you pay for higher drug prices. They want 
to make you pay for taxes to start a small business. They want to make 
you pay for CEO bonuses. They want Main Street to take the hit while 
Wall Street gets a bonus.
  While Democrats work to create jobs, reduce the deficit, and rebuild 
America, Republican Speaker John Boehner said, so be it if we lose 
hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  Is that what the American people said they wanted in November? The 
American people want Republican leaders to look out for constituents 
first, not corporate friends. And now the American people are saying, 
show us the jobs.
  We have been seeing a no jobs agenda, a jobless agenda. Forty days in 
the majority, and nothing to create jobs. No jobs for the American 
people. Madam Chairman, we need to make this change.
  Will the Republican caucus even today, Madam Chairman, say you know 
what, we are not going to cut 1 million people, 1 million public 
employees out of work. We are going to actually do something to create 
jobs? It appears not, Madam Chairman.
  What we need to do is withdraw some of these massive oil subsidies. 
What we need to do is save some money by not rewarding the wealthiest 
among us and industries who have not been responsible corporate 
citizens and actually use it to put Americans back to work so that they 
can pay some taxes and actually reduce this deficit.
  Make no mistake about it, Madam Chairman, we are concerned about the 
deficit: $200 billion of it goes to interest on the debt. That money 
could be going to programs that help people, to help children, to help 
seniors, that can make and strengthen and improve our infrastructure 
and our country. But instead it goes to this massive debt, built up by 
Republicans with their massive tax cuts to the rich, two wars and a big 
pharma giveaway. They created the problem. Now when we try to solve it, 
they want to put us back in the hole.

                              {time}  1700

  So, Madam Chair, I want to say that if this country--our country--has 
a deficit to fix, let's fix it by a bold, creative, courageous vision 
of America where we create infrastructure, we create work, we create 
jobs, rather than just cutting back the social safety net and taking 
away what little people have. We need to stop the Republican no-jobs 
agenda.
  I yield back.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, sometimes this is a complex 
debate when we hear words like ``CR'' to a lot of our voters and others 
who are paying attention to the work that they have sent us here to do. 
And a lot of times they try to ensure that we use vernacular that, what 
does it mean? We're in the budget year of 2012 or budget year 2011 or 
we're doing a CR. I think the plain and simple of it is we're trying to 
ensure that what you are getting now if you're on a job, if you're a 
police officer, that we don't turn the lights out on you. And my 
concern is to let you know that we have been steadily improving. The 
private sector has been creating jobs under the Democratic policies 
under President Obama's guidance and, frankly, under this new budget 
that we'll debate--that is not what we're debating today--that speaks 
about competitiveness and speaks about infrastructure rebuild, putting 
Americans to work.
  So my gripe with the CR that my friends on the other side of the 
aisle have now put forward is that they originally came up with a $60- 
to $74 billion--maybe a thoughtful analysis of what we could cut. 
Remember, this is in the middle of you working and all of a sudden 
somebody comes and gives you a pink slip. But rather than stick with 
what might have been a thoughtful analysis--and, again, I had not 
studied it; it had not been introduced--all of a sudden they go by the 
``We have to be dominated by voices of which force us, without thought, 
to now make it a hundred billion dollars.''
  I'm as angry about the deficit and want a strong budget, which we're 
not doing right now, and want to work with my good ranking member, 
chairman of the Defense Subcommittee in the last Congress, Mr. Dicks, 
on a thoughtful passage going forward, but I want to make sure we stay 
on a pathway of creating jobs.
  There is something to cutting spending. You have my commitment. We 
came out with a compromise 2 months ago, in December. Some of us 
agreed; some of us did not. But there were sizable tax cuts. I voted 
for tax cuts before. But let me tell you why what we're doing today is 
enormously dangerous: 1,330 cops will be off the street; 2,400 fewer 
firefighters will be off the street; we will take teachers out of 
classrooms and lose 25,000 new construction jobs.
  There is a provision in the CR that wants to rescind stimulus 
dollars--sounds like a bad thing--but those dollars are in the pipeline 
for construction projects where men and women of America are working 
and feeding their families. Does that make sense, dollars that they pay 
taxes back to this country?
  I don't understand a plan that takes from the working man and woman 
in this country. I don't understand a plan, for example, that takes 
$2.5 billion away from high-speed rail, which all over America there 
has been a sense of inspiration about moving us to more efficient 
transportation. But the number of jobs to be created cannot be counted. 
That's an investment in this country. Or do you want to undermine the 
air traffic control system and begin to trouble America's airways? I 
sit on the Homeland Security Committee, chair the Transportation 
Security Committee. I am very hesitant to make a willy-nilly cut to the 
FAA.
  And so what disturbs me is: Why could we jump or why did we jump or 
how do we jump in 48 hours from $60 million to $74 million of which 
they said they were cutting? This is a continuing resolution, which 
means it allows the government, in essence, to keep going on what we 
are ongoing with. It means people are out there working, doing the 
bidding of the American people. And, before you know it, because there 
were complaints and people talking about what they campaigned on, and 
all of a sudden it's a $100 billion cut with no thought.

[[Page H839]]

  Now, I respect people being elected by their constituents, but it is 
interesting when you read polling numbers from individuals who happen 
to come from that background of the tea party that want to cut 
everything, and you ask them about something in their jurisdiction. 
Say, for example, an Air Force base. The polling numbers show, Don't 
cut my Air Force base, but you can cut somebody else's.

  So here's my concern, Madam Chair. How do you cut Juvenile Justice 
and the COPS program? How do you cut the Justice Department for all of 
the voting rights enforcement?
  I want to stay on a path. This CR is not a pathway of creating jobs; 
it's no jobs, and it stops America in her tracks. Let's stay on track 
and keep investing in jobs in America.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I rise to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I rise today because I want to express my 
concern that I think of the House of Representatives as a place that 
involves a lot of critical thinking about the work that we do, but the 
continuing resolution in front of us is neither critical nor 
thoughtful. It eliminates the COPS program.
  Let me tell you about the COPS program, not just around the country 
where it's going to result in firing 1,330 law enforcement officers, 
but in one of the counties that I represent where we have had, 
unfortunately, 18 homicides since the beginning of the year, where we 
need every law enforcement officer on the beat. Fifty of those officers 
come from the COPS program. We would lose those officers under this 
continuing resolution.
  Looking at the firing of our firefighters, these are firefighters, 
first responders out there whenever they're called in every one of our 
communities across the country, 2,400 of them.
  Sometimes, Madam Chair, we speak in numbers that are so extraordinary 
that ordinary Americans don't understand them. But I think with respect 
to this continuing resolution, ordinary Americans understand that under 
the resolution 200,000 students--that's pre-kindergartners--will be 
kicked out of Head Start just when we need to give these students a 
start so that we can grow them and educate them so they're competitive 
in the 21st century. We're not doing that. Instead, 200,000 students in 
every State of this country kicked out of Head Start, thousands of 
teachers who teach them.
  This brings me to another cut, a number that the American people 
understands, Madam Chair--$845. $845 is the amount that would be cut 
from the Pell Grant program; $845, for those of us who sent a child to 
college, is the cost of books for the semester.
  Madam Chair, I am so shocked by these cuts that I think across this 
country, the students, if they're not going to get their $845 to buy 
their books, maybe they should send the bill to Speaker Boehner, send 
their book bill to the Speaker.
  I am challenged to understand these cuts, because when I think about 
an $845 cut to Pell Grants, in my State that's 123,000 students. Madam 
Chair, in Michigan, it's 646,000 students; in Arizona, it's 340,000 
students; millions of students across the country who lose $845 that 
allows them to buy their biology books, their economics books, their 
math books, the things that will enable them to be competitive in this 
century. So, like many Americans, I really don't get that. It is 
neither thoughtful nor critical.
  This cut would mean $2.5 billion in cuts to the National Institutes 
of Health for cancer research and for other diseases that plague our 
country and send our health care costs skyrocketing. We want to cut 
scientists and researchers and medical professionals who are trying to 
cure the great diseases of our time?

                              {time}  1710

  I don't understand it, and I don't think the American public 
understands it.
  And $1.4 billion in cuts for science and energy research, the very 
thing that will make us competitive in this next generation. The 
American people don't understand that.
  Children, 200,000 of them, in Head Start. Firefighters, 2,400 of 
them. Police officers, 1,330 of them; 123,000 students in the State of 
Maryland losing their 845 lousy dollars to buy their books.
  Madam Chair, I have to tell you that I think, like many of us in this 
Congress, we know that we need to bring spending under control, but it 
cannot be at the expense of working people. It cannot be at the expense 
of poor people. So it is a sad day in the United States when this 
Congress has exercised neither critique nor thought in bringing cuts 
that will devastate the American people and result in no job creation 
yet again for the last 45 days of this Congress.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I want to remind everyone that we are on the 
Defense appropriations bill. This is the Flake amendment, and we have 
cut approximately $15 billion from this defense bill. I understand that 
there is a lot of concern about the other items here, but I just wanted 
to make that point.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida if he has anything he wants to 
say at this point.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, America is at war. We have soldiers fighting, losing 
their lives, having serious injuries not only in Afghanistan but in 
Iraq and, before that, in Kosova and in Bosnia. We have known war for a 
long time, and cutting the defense budget was unheard of. Yet the 
subcommittee has been able to recommend $14.8 billion in a very short 
period of time that we don't think has any negative effect on the 
national defense.
  The idea of the Flake amendment may be a good idea. The subcommittee 
would like to be able to analyze it to make sure that it doesn't have 
any kind of a negative effect. It may be, as we go through our process 
for this year, that we would include that, but the subcommittee would 
very much like to have an opportunity to review this recommendation by 
the Flake amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I wanted to speak to the underlying CR, H.R. 1.
  Madam Chair, in particular I want to speak to the fact that the 
American people have been very clear in their understanding that what 
we need to do is rebuild the country and that we need to rebuild 
America. Yet everything that is being proposed by the Republicans in 
this continuing resolution undermines that goal.
  Rebuilding America means rebuilding our infrastructure, and we can 
talk about that infrastructure in a number of different ways. We can 
talk about rebuilding and investing in our physical infrastructure. 
That's roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, and building up the strength 
of our physical infrastructure, which we all know we have to do. All 
you have to do is look at the newspaper or watch television, and you 
will see examples every day of the crumbling infrastructure out there. 
So we have got to commit to that, but the Republican budget would 
undermine that objective.
  We have to rebuild the civic infrastructure of this country and keep 
it strong. What do I mean by the ``civic infrastructure''? I am talking 
about service programs like AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National 
and Community Service, which creates an infrastructure that says to 
those people who want to volunteer and serve their country--1,000 
points of light--we are here to partner with you in doing that. Yet the 
Republican proposal would zero out that civic infrastructure.
  It's about investing in human infrastructure and building up human 
capital. That's education and health care and job training and 
innovation and technology. That's what human capital and human 
infrastructure is about. Yet we can look through this budget and find 
examples of cutting those priorities as well.
  How does that build up America? That tears America down. It doesn't 
build it up.
  As for the last piece of this, if you're going to make America strong 
and keep it strong, you've got to preserve the natural resources of 
this country. I

[[Page H840]]

looked at a couple of the numbers here in terms of what's being done 
that would hurt our environment under the proposal. I'll just mention a 
couple of them.
  Cutting the Environmental Protection Agency by 29 percent, a $3 
billion proposed cut. Now, how are you going to protect the environment 
if you cut by almost a third the agency whose mission it is to do that? 
That's essentially giving a free license to the polluters of America. 
That's an unconscionable proposal.
  I come from Maryland. We care about the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. 
It has been a national commitment to preserve this national treasure, 
the Chesapeake Bay. Last year, through an executive order, the 
President made it a priority. There are partnerships at the Federal, 
State and local levels and with the private sector to try to save and 
protect the Chesapeake Bay, but these proposals would undermine that.
  Cutting over $1.7 billion from the Clean Water and Drinking Water 
State Revolving Funds. In Maryland, that would cost 1,000 jobs. This is 
an important source of financing for people to implement best practices 
to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Why would we undermine that?
  There are other elements with respect to our natural resources. We've 
got to enforce pollution standards. The EPA is in a position to do 
that, but not if we cut their funding. This would endanger rivers and 
streams that feed the Chesapeake Bay.
  The last observation I would make, and this is sort of the 
overarching concern that I have, is that I really believe in the idea 
of citizen stewardship, in the idea that ordinary citizens step forward 
every day and decide they're going to commit themselves to cleaning up 
the environment. Our young people are committed to that, the next 
generation; but they want to see that the Federal Government is going 
to be a real partner in that effort. If we abdicate that 
responsibility, then there are going to be a lot of young people, a lot 
of ordinary citizens, who are going to get disillusioned in terms of 
their own commitment to cleaning up the environment.
  We need to step forward. We need to stay strong and be a partner in 
protecting our environment; but what the Republicans have proposed in 
this continuing resolution would completely undermine that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Chair, the underlying bill is a special insult to 
the Americans who voted for the new majority on the promise of jobs. 
They might forgive that the mjority does not know how to produce jobs 
or that they haven't produced jobs yet, but they will never understand 
a bill that will make history on the number of jobs it affirmatively 
destroys.
  The deficit commission warned about cuts that are at the centerpiece 
of the majority's bill, cuts that don't distinguish between short-term 
and long-term deficits, between the job-producing role of government 
investment during an economic turndown and the needed savings to reduce 
the long-term deficit, which must go on simultaneously; but the 
majority loses its focus entirely with its obsession on snatching local 
authority, over local funds from the District of Columbia.
  While the majority wants to make draconian cuts in most Federal 
programs, putting at high risk the economy itself, it simultaneously 
expands Federal power into the local funds and affairs of a local 
jurisdiction, the District of Columbia. Three riders in this bill are 
anti-self-government, having nothing to do with the underlying bill or 
the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1720

  Particularly cruel, apart from the home-rule violation, is the 
attempt to reimpose a provision that would keep the District of 
Columbia from spending its own local funds on needle exchange programs. 
If this is reimposed, a rider I got off during the last few years, it 
will cost lives and spread HIV, as it did for the prior 10 years.
  But they're not through there. The majority takes a hard-line 
approach, even when I asked for and was denied the right to testify 
before the Judiciary Committee on yet another rider, a rider that would 
keep local District of Columbia funds from being spent on abortions for 
poor women. What business is it of any Member of this body how the 
District of Columbia spends its own money, which it raises from its own 
residents and businesses?
  Mr. Speaker, they go further. They try to reestablish a voucher 
program in the District, ignoring a compromise reached last Congress to 
allow every child now with a private school voucher to remain in the 
program until graduation. It disregards the fact that the District has 
the largest public charter school alternative in the United States. 
Almost half of our children attend these schools. If the majority wants 
to give money for alternatives to public schools, then they've got to 
respect our choice.
  Republican support for vouchers--only in the District of Columbia--
exposes them for where they really stand on vouchers and school choice. 
There is wholesale support in this body for public charter schools. 
They will not bring a voucher bill for the Nation to the floor because 
polls and referenda in the States show there is zero national support 
for private school vouchers. Instead, Republicans single out the 
District and only the District, ignoring the city's own extraordinary, 
flowering public charter school program. Our choice, not someone else's 
who has nothing to do with us.
  You cannot try on this floor to slash Federal power while dictating 
local policy and how local money should be spent. Those two don't go 
together.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I could spend my time talking about the cuts to the Low Income 
Heating and Energy Program, LIHEAP, and that's important because there 
are many people in my district suffering through the worst winter in 
Memphis' recent history and one of the worst winters in the country's 
history that need help with their utility bills more than ever. And 
that's, I think, an awful thing when people are suffering from the 
inability to pay their utility bills that we're cutting LIHEAP.
  I could talk about what we're doing to law enforcement, cutting the 
COPS program that puts police on the street and helps local government 
put new policemen on the street to protect our people, and cuts to 
State law enforcement spending.
  I could talk about the many calls and letters I've gotten from people 
concerned about title X cuts that will affect 5,500 in my community, 
women that won't be able to get family planning services, which include 
cancer screenings, annual exams in my city.
  I could talk about cuts to NPR, cuts to the National Institutes of 
Health, where they're looking for cures for cancer and Alzheimer's and 
diabetes and other illnesses that affect our populace which we need to 
cure as soon as possible. Or cuts to the FDA, $241 million to keep our 
food safe and preserve public health.
  Or cuts to Social Security and Medicaid. A gentleman stopped me 
Saturday and said, please, you tell the people in Washington, don't 
mess with our Social Security and Medicaid, but there are great cuts 
there as well.
  Or the $18 billion cut to transportation--and Memphis is a 
transportation hub with rails and roadways and runways and river 
transportation, and $18 billion in cuts to transportation is going to 
hurt the growth of our economy and sending goods to market.
  I could talk about any of those items. I could talk about the cuts to 
legal services and the fact that more and more people need legal 
services in these economic times. The housing crisis hasn't left us, 
and people need representation.
  I could talk about cuts to education in historically black colleges 
and universities and Head Start programs. How are we going to compete, 
which we are not doing well in science and math, with the Chinese and 
the Indians if we cut these programs? I could talk about any and all 
those programs.
  But one thing I want to do is I want to read a column called ``Eat 
the Future,'' and Paul Krugman, a Nobel

[[Page H841]]

Prize-winning economist, wrote this. So I just think it's worthy to 
listen and have it heard on this floor what Mr. Krugman said yesterday, 
Nobel Prize-winning economist.
  ``On Friday, House Republicans unveiled their proposal for immediate 
cuts in Federal spending. Characteristically, they failed to accompany 
the release with a catchy slogan. So I'd like to propose one: Eat the 
Future.
  ``I'll explain in a minute. First, let's talk about the dilemma the 
GOP faces.
  ``Republican leaders like to claim that the midterms gave them a 
mandate for sharp cuts in government spending. Some of us believe that 
the elections were less about spending than they were about persistent 
high unemployment, but whatever. The key point to understand is that 
while many voters say that they want lower spending, press the issue a 
bit further and it turns out that they only want to cut spending on 
other people.
  ``That's the lesson from a new survey by the Pew Research Center, in 
which Americans were asked whether they favored higher or lower 
spending in a variety of areas. It turns out that they want more, not 
less, spending on most things, including education and Medicare. 
They're evenly divided about spending on aid to the unemployed and--
surprise--defense.

  ``The only thing they clearly want to cut is foreign aid, which most 
Americans believe, wrongly, accounts for a large share of the Federal 
budget.
  ``Pew also asked people how they would like to see the States close 
their budget deficits. Do they favor cuts in either education or health 
care, the main expenses States face? No. Do they favor tax increases? 
No. The only deficit-reduction measure with significant support was 
cuts in public-employee pensions--and even there the public was evenly 
divided.
  ``The moral is clear. Republicans don't have a mandate to cut 
spending; they have a mandate to repeal the laws of arithmetic.
  ``How can voters be so ill informed? In their defense, bear in mind 
that they have jobs, children to raise, parents to take care of. They 
don't have the time or the incentive to study the Federal budget, let 
alone State budgets . . . So they rely on what they hear from seemingly 
authoritative figures.
  ``And what they've been hearing ever since Ronald Reagan is their 
hard-earned dollars are going to waste, paying for vast armies of 
useless bureaucrats--payroll is only 5 percent of Federal spending''--
and others.
  The bottom line is they've been hearing lies about the Federal 
budget. They've been hearing lies about the Federal bureaucracy. 
PolitiFact said that the biggest lie in 2009 was death panels. In 2010, 
it was government takeover of health care. If the Republicans get 
PolitiFact's Lie of the Year this year, they will get the Irving 
Thalberg lifetime achievement award. I hope they don't get it.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chair, I don't believe there's anyone in this 
body who doesn't believe we must get ahold of our budget. I don't 
believe that there's anyone in this body who doesn't feel that when we 
do that, we've got to keep in mind that we serve the people, and we 
also must keep in mind that the one thing that we all are here to do is 
not to make their lives worse but to try to make their lives better, 
and in addition to that, we are here to try to build that public 
confidence which is the only way we will see the rise in our economy.
  Madam Chair, when I looked at the amendment, the thing that struck me 
the most is that in my district, there was a provision in here that 
zeros out what is called the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant. It 
goes to zero. It's at $13 million now. In that same section, it also 
zeros out the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Public and 
Indian Housing revitalization of severely distressed public housing. It 
zeros out the Department of Housing and Urban Development's public and 
Indian housing. It zeros out the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's community planning and development brownfields 
redevelopment, just to name some of the programs that have been zeroed 
out.

                              {time}  1730

  Let me tell you about the program of native Hawaiians. This is a 
program that, in our difficult economic times, managed to build, 
managed to build roads, managed to build programs. This is a program 
that was leveraged, leveraged so we had construction projects going, so 
we had housing developments going, and we have zeroed them out, $13 
million, zeroed them out.
  When we start to look at the budget and we start to think about what 
we must cut, the one thing I would like to think that we put a lot of 
credence in is which one of these programs is being leveraged and doing 
what we want.
  In addition to that, Madam Chair, look at community health systems. 
Everyone knows the Hawaiian Islands are islands. The only mode of 
transportation for our people between islands is expensive airfare. We 
don't have a ferry system. We definitely don't have roads that join our 
islands. It's airlines. For the underserved, they have to fly for 
health care. So community health systems, when we cut $1 billion out of 
that budget, $1 billion, imagine what that means for the provision of 
one of the most essential, essential parts of a person's life, the 
feeling of knowing that you have health care, and we have cut that out 
of the budget. It's not only Hawaii; it's elsewhere. But think about 
what that means.
  And for small communities who rely on CDBG, the Community Development 
Block Grant program, we've cut it approximately $2.5 billion. Why? That 
is what gets services to the people. This is what we have.
  We have already discussed the fact many times that we are cutting 
Head Start. There are 200,000 young kids who are not going to get that 
opportunity.
  We are cutting the Pell Grants, and that, of course, is going to make 
a reduction of about $800 per middle class family.
  These are all part of this amendment as well.
  But for myself, as someone who represents this State that's gotten 
zeroed out on a program that has done exactly--exactly--what government 
wants to see done, which is to make jobs, to give opportunities, we 
have cut it. Now, why would we do that? That is because we have not 
taken into consideration or remembered what we are here to do. We are 
here to serve the people, Madam Chair.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I rise in support of this amendment but to oppose the 
underlying Republican continuing resolution.
  The spending bill before us is born out of an ideology that cuts 
right to the heart of our values as a country, and our priorities, too. 
Because that is what a budget is supposed to reflect: our values and 
priorities as a nation. Our priorities are to strengthen the middle 
class, to reduce the deficit, and to create jobs.
  And we can see very clearly where my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have placed their priorities. It's not in the well-being of 
our workforce, not in the effectiveness of our classrooms, not in the 
safety of our neighborhoods. The priorities of the majority party are 
not with the people who have worked hard all of their lives to earn a 
decent wage, buy a decent home, put their kids through school, and do 
what they can to keep their families and communities strong.
  The priorities of my friends on the other side of the aisle lay with 
America's most successful: the hedge fund managers, Wall Street 
financiers, and the investment bankers. Our Republican colleagues are 
pushing a spending bill that is irresponsible and ignores the needs of 
a healing nation. It cuts jobs, threatens American innovation, and 
diminishes investments in rebuilding America. And to what extent? Well, 
I can tell you, as a former mayor, I have seen firsthand the 
consequences of what is being proposed. Some of the most egregious cuts 
come at the expense of our most vulnerable and some of the most 
immediate job creators and economic growth engines that I know of.
  Our colleagues are gutting more than $340 million from the Community 
Service Block Grants and nearly $3 billion

[[Page H842]]

from the Community Development Block Grant program. These are real 
dollars that are putting Americans back to work and helping small 
businesses in communities all across this Nation.
  In addition, this budget slashes $1.6 billion in job training and 
cuts $120 million in alternative youth training that prepares kids for 
work in construction and other trades, critical skills that are 
necessary to help us make things again here in America.
  Our colleagues, since assuming the majority last month, haven't 
offered one single piece of legislation that would create jobs. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle, at the same time that they are 
cutting billions of dollars in jobs programs that will help put 
Americans back to work, are continuing to support hundreds of billions 
of dollars in tax breaks to companies that are shipping our jobs 
overseas. While they cut 200,000 children from receiving early 
childhood education through Head Start, they are giving $43 billion in 
subsidies to the oil and gas companies.

  This Republican proposal cuts Pell Grants for 9 million students, 
making it difficult and, for some, impossible to continue to go to 
college while at the same time continuing to give large agricultural 
corporations billions of dollars in Federal subsidies.
  This is a question of priorities, and it's clear what the priorities 
of my friends on the other side of the aisle are. The Republicans are 
moving forward with a dangerous spending bill, one that continues to 
give rewards to the rich and literally guts the initiatives most 
meaningful to middle class families.
  The work of reducing our deficit and controlling spending will be 
hard, to be sure. The fact of the matter is that we have to cut 
spending and we have to be serious about it, but we have to do it 
responsibly. We cannot cut what makes us competitive and what helps us 
to innovate, succeed in the global economy, and ultimately create jobs.
  I know that the priorities that we have set are the priorities of 
getting people back to work. My friends, we owe it to the hardworking 
people of our Nation who are struggling to get by, who are playing by 
the rules but just waiting for someone to stand up for them rather than 
stand up for the rich guy on Wall Street. We owe it to America's 
hardworking people to have a serious and thoughtful debate with the 
hopes of producing a smart and sensible budget for our country. And 
that's why it's critical we ask our Republican friends: Just what are 
your priorities? Do we have the courage to stand with our country's 
greatest assets, our hardworking people? Or do we stand with the people 
who have enjoyed the most at the expense of everyone else?
  America's future depends on harnessing the innovation, education, and 
entrepreneurship of our fellow Americans. This budget proposal 
undermines that opportunity, endangers our recovery, and makes our 
future less certain.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $2,840,427,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $1,344,264,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $275,484,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $3,291,027,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National 
     Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as 
     authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army 
     National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army 
     National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair, 
     modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and 
     equipment (including aircraft), $6,454,624,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Air National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; 
     transportation of things, hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     supplying and equipping the Air National Guard, as authorized 
     by law; expenses for repair, modification, maintenance, and 
     issue of supplies and equipment, including those furnished 
     from stocks under the control of agencies of the Department 
     of Defense; travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same 
     basis as authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel 
     on active Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau, $5,963,839,000.

          United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

       For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $14,068,000, of which 
     not to exceed $5,000 may be used for official representation 
     purposes.

                    Environmental Restoration, Army

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $464,581,000, to remain 
     available until transferred:  Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred:  Provided further, That upon a determination 
     that all or part of the funds transferred from this 
     appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided 
     herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this 
     appropriation:  Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided under this heading is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority provided elsewhere in this Act.

                    Environmental Restoration, Navy

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Navy, $304,867,000, to remain 
     available until transferred:  Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred:  Provided further, That upon a determination 
     that all or part of the funds transferred from this 
     appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided 
     herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this 
     appropriation:  Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided under this heading is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority provided elsewhere in this Act.

                  Environmental Restoration, Air Force

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Air Force, $502,653,000, to 
     remain available until transferred:  Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the

[[Page H843]]

     Air Force shall, upon determining that such funds are 
     required for environmental restoration, reduction and 
     recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and 
     debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar 
     purposes, transfer the funds made available by this 
     appropriation to other appropriations made available to the 
     Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriations to which transferred:  Provided 
     further, That upon a determination that all or part of the 
     funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary 
     for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be 
     transferred back to this appropriation:  Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided under this heading is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority provided elsewhere 
     in this Act.

                Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of Defense, $10,744,000, to remain 
     available until transferred:  Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of Defense, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred:  Provided further, That upon a determination 
     that all or part of the funds transferred from this 
     appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided 
     herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this 
     appropriation:  Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided under this heading is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority provided elsewhere in this Act.

         Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $316,546,000, to remain 
     available until transferred:  Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at 
     sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred:  Provided further, That upon a determination 
     that all or part of the funds transferred from this 
     appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided 
     herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this 
     appropriation:  Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided under this heading is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority provided elsewhere in this Act.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense 
     (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 
     404, 407, 2557, and 2561 of title 10, United States Code), 
     $108,032,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012.

                  Cooperative Threat Reduction Account

       For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union 
     and, with appropriate authorization by the Department of 
     Defense and Department of State, to countries outside of the 
     former Soviet Union, including assistance provided by 
     contract or by grants, for facilitating the elimination and 
     the safe and secure transportation and storage of nuclear, 
     chemical and other weapons; for establishing programs to 
     prevent the proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and 
     weapon-related technology and expertise; for programs 
     relating to the training and support of defense and military 
     personnel for demilitarization and protection of weapons, 
     weapons components and weapons technology and expertise, and 
     for defense and military contacts, $522,512,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2013:  Provided, That of the 
     amounts provided under this heading, not less than 
     $13,500,000 shall be available only to support the 
     dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines, submarine 
     reactor components, and security enhancements for transport 
     and storage of nuclear warheads in the Russian Far East and 
     North.

      Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund

       For the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce 
     Development Fund, $217,561,000.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Chair, I will not use 5 minutes.
  The United States imports over 60 percent of all the oil we consume, 
most of which is used for vehicles. OPEC alone exports 2 billion 
barrels per year to the United States. At a cost of $90 per barrel, 
approximate current price, this represents a $180 billion tax that our 
oil dependence imposes on American consumers.
  Some OPEC countries that profit from our oil dependence are listed by 
the State Department as sponsors of terrorism, Madam Chairman. 
Fortunately, we're using Clean Air Act amendments to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil. In April, automakers joined auto workers and 
President Obama to announce a landmark fuel efficiency standard that 
will improve auto efficiency 30 percent by 2016. These standards will 
save Americans $3,000 per vehicle for each car purchased in 2016 or 
later and reduce our oil dependence by 77 billion gallons over the life 
of the vehicles produced between 2012 and 2016. This efficiency 
improvement will keep $9.9 billion from being sent to OPEC countries.
  In section 1746 of this continuing resolution, the Republicans have 
proposed cutting off funding for implementation of the Clean Air Act, 
which is the law that has made these vehicle efficiency investments 
possible. Americans cannot afford, Madam Chairman, to send more money 
to Libya and Iran.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this attack on the Clean Air Act.
  I yield back.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $5,254,791,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2013.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,570,108,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2013.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including 
     ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes, $1,461,086,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2013.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,847,066,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2013.

                        Other Procurement, Army

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked 
     combat vehicles; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; communications

[[Page H844]]

     and electronic equipment; other support equipment; spare 
     parts, ordnance, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes, $8,145,665,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2013:  Provided, That of the 
     funds made available in this paragraph, $15,000,000 shall be 
     made available to procure equipment, not otherwise provided 
     for, and may be transferred to other procurement accounts 
     available to the Department of the Army, and that funds so 
     transferred shall be available for the same purposes and the 
     same time period as the account to which transferred.


                 Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  Mr. POMPEO. 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:

       Page 22, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $105,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $105,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $105,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $124,200,000)''.
       Page 34, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,200,000)''.
       Page 34, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,200,000)''.
       Page 359, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $502,400,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chairman, let me begin by thanking Chairman Rogers 
and Ranking Member Dicks for the hard work that they did on the Defense 
appropriations bill. It was yeoman's work in difficult and challenging 
fiscal times to present a defense budget that makes sense for America. 
And there is no one who's come to Congress as a Member of this new 
freshman class who believes more strongly in making sure we have a 
strong national defense. It's for that reason that I move to reduce 
spending in that budget by $502 million with the amendment that I am 
proposing. This $502 million is spread among various procurement and 
research and innovation programs, and it is money that was not 
requested by the Department of Defense. This $502 million could 
certainly go to some program that they had asked for, but it's in a 
place that used to be reserved for earmarks. There is no particular 
program to which this $502 million is attributed. It goes assertedly 
for innovation. But we all know that innovation occurs in the private 
sector. And that's what this new majority is about. It's wrong to add 
$500 million to our deficit for a series of programs with no particular 
purpose except for the needs of businesses that once survived on those 
very earmarks.
  And so, while I am very pleased with the fact that this piece of 
legislation has removed earmarks and has moved us towards a great deal 
more transparency, I would urge my fellow Members to vote for this 
amendment so that we can continue to get rid of the very vestiges of 
earmarks that voters asked us to get rid of.
  I yield back.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The amendment sounds good. But unlike the Flake 
amendment, which sounded good, and we'll learn more about it, that was 
a small amount of money. This is a half a billion dollars.
  A lot of people are of the opinion that government has the answer to 
everything. Government doesn't even have the questions to everything, 
let alone the answers.
  And how many people in this Chamber have any idea how much technology 
our warfighters are using today? Whether it's on the battlefield or 
whether it's in training, whatever it might be, how many people know 
how much was created by small business or large business?
  American industry produces good ideas most of the time. And much of 
what we see on the battlefield today and in the Armed Services came 
about because of innovations from small business and big business. Who 
knows?
  If somebody can tell me how much of those great systems that we 
create for our soldiers, how much of that came from innovation, how 
much of it came from the government, then I might change my mind.
  But we don't know today. You give the committee an opportunity, we'll 
find out. We'll find out how much this innovative, the SBIR, how much 
it provides compared to industry, large and small. But today we don't 
know the answer. And for a half a billion dollars, we need to know the 
answer.
  So I don't object to the gentleman offering the amendment, really. 
But I do object to the gentleman's amendment because we don't know what 
the effect of it would be. We'd like to find out, and we think we owe 
it to the Members of this House who are responsible for the national 
defense to find out for them.
  I yield back.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The 
amendment deletes $60 million from procurement and $502.4 million from 
research and development. The sum of this funding is for innovative 
research and procurement from small businesses and unsolicited 
proposals.
  And the gentleman from Florida and myself, and the gentleman from 
California, we've been here a long time. We have seen time after time 
when weapon systems like Predator and ScanEagle, I mean, there's all 
kinds of things that have happened because of small businesses. And 
when we made a decision to cut out earmarks for for-profit companies, 
one of the things that our committee did on a bipartisan basis, with 
unanimity on both sides, was to say let's put some more money into this 
competitive program, the Small Business Innovation and Research 
Program, which is at NIH, and at a number of agencies, I think DOE has 
one. This is a way to bring small businesses into the Defense 
Department on a competitive basis. And they do things that the 
Department needs to have done.
  So I rise with my chairman, Mr. Young, in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This was done to try to help the small business sector still 
make the contribution in the future for innovative new defense 
technologies. It's a good program and one that we should support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. I won't take the 5 minutes. I just want to rise in strong 
support of this amendment. The gentleman is right; this was not asked 
for by the Department of Defense. And if we could save a half billion 
dollars, money that will not affect the war or the warfighter--but we 
see these kind of programs all the time. And it's more a way to 
generate economic activity than actually respond to any need. It 
assumes that the private sector out there, and small businesses aren't 
innovating on their own unless we ask them to do it.

                              {time}  1750

  Unless we specifically direct them or provide money for them to do 
it, they won't do it at all. That's just a false assumption.
  So I commend the gentleman for bringing the amendment to the floor.
  I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chair, I would just like to add that I came from 
that very sector, small business. Until 45 days ago, I was running one, 
and I understand how small business works.

[[Page H845]]

  What we don't need is government taking our money and handing it back 
to folks. What we need is to be left alone. We need smaller government. 
That's my core problem with the legislation for SBIRs. Government 
doesn't do a very good job of picking out which of those small 
businesses will be successful and which piece of technology will prove 
to be the one that will be good for our warfighters.
  If it will shrink government, if it will reduce taxes, then those 
small businesses will be successful. They will provide those 
technologies, and they will take wonderful care of every one of our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
  Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, I just want to say, in closing, the 
gentleman is exactly right. Any dollar that we provide in this program 
has to be taken from a small business or an individual through taxes. 
That is money that they can't use to innovate on their own. And to 
actually go out and to respond to an RFP or to respond to needs of the 
Defense Department or to contract with them, they can do that without 
us having the specific program for them. So I urge support for the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I welcome this amendment.
  I am struck when I hear some of my colleagues on the more 
conservative side, although this is not uniformly them, some on the 
conservative side are offering this amendment. We have this interesting 
dichotomy about whether or not the Federal Government can ever create 
jobs. In general, the conservative view is the Federal Government never 
creates jobs. In the military area, somehow there's an exception.
  We are told here that there is a constructive relationship that can 
exist between small businesses and the military that we are told 
doesn't exist elsewhere; but the major reason for cutting this is we 
are, at this point, overextended militarily.
  Of course, there is unanimity here that we want Americans to be the 
strongest Nation in the world. We are of course the strongest Nation in 
the world, and no one is second. We are overcommitted in a number of 
areas.
  The military has become not the instrument of self-defense by the 
United States, but the instrument to protecting political influence, 
and protecting influence militarily is often inefficient so that 
reducing this spending, as reducing other forms of military spending, 
is essential if we are to begin to hold down the deficit.
  Now, I am going to be talking tomorrow, and we're only talking in 
military terms of half a billion dollars. In terms of the defense 
budget, that appears to be relatively small, but it is more than enough 
than would be needed to fund the Security and Exchange Commission and 
the Commodities Futures Trading Commission at the full level they need 
to regulate derivatives and hedge funds.
  We have a massive disproportion in which we overspend militarily far 
beyond what is needed to protect ourselves. Our military budget is the 
largest foreign aid program in the history of the world. It exists to 
provide subsidies to our wealthier allies who face no threat. And to 
the extent that we can reduce that, particularly in an area where the 
Defense Department itself did not even ask for the funds, we curb 
unnecessary spending.
  As I said, tomorrow I will be offering an amendment to try to give 
the Securities and Exchange Commission the ability to regulate hedge 
funds, or at least to keep track of them. We will be trying to offer 
funding to protect consumers from credit card abuse and trying to 
provide funding to regulate derivatives.
  Taken together, those three agencies are being cut by an amount 
smaller than one-half billion, and we will be told that we can't afford 
that. So I welcome the gentleman pointing out the inconsistency between 
those who say that the private sector should be left to its own and the 
public sector does not become the job creator here in this way, and I 
welcome also the chance to begin, as I will be supporting the amendment 
of the gentleman of Arizona, this massive disproportion in which we 
overspend militarily. And I say ``overspend,'' because it is far beyond 
what is needed for the legitimate defense of the United States. It has 
become a form of staking our political interests, and it comes at very 
great cost to virtually everything else we want to do, as well as 
constraining the deficit reduction.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to this amendment, in support of what 
the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee has said as well as 
Chairman Young both of whom have substantial years of experience behind 
them.
  Now, what Mr. Frank has suggested has merit, but to support this 
amendment is a non sequitur to that argument. As for the gentleman from 
Arizona, at least he is consistent. As for the gentleman offering the 
amendment, well, let me try to explain why it is counterproductive. It 
defines the phrase ``penny wise and pound foolish.''
  In fact, where we have made our greatest strides within the defense 
budget is in small business innovation. There are half a dozen very 
large defense contractors. They serve our country well. They take good 
ideas, they hire people, they develop them, they achieve major 
procurement contracts with the Defense Department. But, for the most 
part, they don't come up with the innovations. It's the small 
businesses throughout the country, that more often than not, come up 
with those innovations.
  For example, the predator drone that has been the most successful 
weapon in Afghanistan was an earmark for small businesses with an 
innovative idea. An idea, incidentally, that was initially opposed by 
the Defense Dept. Much of our IED success in saving lives has come from 
small businesses.
  Much of the simulation training that we provide our troops so they 
don't have to put their lives at risk, but rather can achieve the kind 
of training that gives them the skill set to represent us with such 
courage and effectiveness on the battlefield, that comes from small 
business innovation.
  And what we are trying to do now is to put a relatively small sum of 
money together so that thousands of small businesses throughout the 
country can compete for those small grants.
  Now, the fact is, as much as I respect the defense contractors, it is 
not necessarily in their interests to innovate, to come up with cost-
cutting efficiencies, because it means that you have to reduce 
personnel and contract costs. Oftentimes, it exposes the fact that 
we're paying more than we need to for innovative approaches to securing 
our country. It is the small businesses of this country that really 
provide the ability for us to find the highest level of efficiency and 
effectiveness within our Defense Department.
  For half a billion dollars, we will find more ways to save thousands 
of lives and we know we will save tens of billions of dollars in the 
long run. That's what this program is all about. It's a departure from 
the way we have done things. It's all about saving money, not relying 
upon Big Business or Big Government, but letting small businesses 
flourish who otherwise couldn't get the capital, wouldn't have the 
investors, couldn't pull the personnel together and pay them long 
enough to be able to adequately develop the potential of a great idea.
  So this small pool of innovative research money will fund great 
ideas, ideas that make our troops safer, that enable us to let our 
dollars go further, and in fact enable our Nation to be far more 
secure. This is just the kind of program we ought to be funding more of 
in the Defense Department. That's why I would strongly urge defeat of 
this amendment.

                              {time}  1800

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H846]]

the gentleman from Kansas will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway, $16,170,868,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2013.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Chair, I rise today to introduce my amendment to 
cut funding for the V-22, a hybrid helicopter/airplane that was in 
development for more than 25 years, cost the lives of 30 individuals 
before it ever saw combat, and still does not meet operational 
requirements in Iraq. Cost overruns have plagued the V-22 since its 
development. Initial estimates projected $40 million per plane. But 
today it has exploded to $120 million per plane--a threefold increase. 
This amendment would save $415 million for the remainder of fiscal year 
2011 by cutting funding for the V-22 from the Air Force and Navy's 
aircraft procurement accounts.
  In 2009, the GAO found that the Marine Corps received 105 V-22s. Of 
those, fewer than half--only 47--were considered combat deployable. But 
on any given day, there are an estimated 22--fewer than one in four--
ready for any combat. This is largely due to unreliable parts and 
maintenance challenges. It was reported that 13 of the V-22's parts 
lasted only 30 percent of their life expectancy and six lasted less 
than 10 percent. In addition, the GAO found that the V-22 did not have 
weather radar and its ice protection system was unreliable. Not me. 
GAO. So that flying through icy conditions is prohibited on this plane. 
Can't do it. Icy conditions are often found in Afghanistan. Oddly 
enough, the V-22 also had problems in dusty conditions, which, 
coincidentally, also exist and is common in Afghanistan.
  So I ask my colleagues, why do we continue to fund this boondoggle? 
The majority claims to have made some tough choices in this bill. 
Apparently this includes continuing to fund a plane that Dick Cheney 
called, a, quote, turkey and tried to kill four times when he was 
Secretary of Defense. It should also be noted that Dick Cheney did not 
often meet a defense program he didn't like, so this should be very 
telling to everyone here. In order to continue funding this plane, this 
Congress proposes steep cuts to be made on the backs of the most 
vulnerable citizens.
  H.R. 1 puts the safety of American families at risk. The bill 
eliminates COPS hiring, a program that will put 1,330 fewer cops on our 
streets. The bill cuts the SAFER program, which means there are 2,400 
fewer firefighters protecting our communities; so that we can build a 
plane that can't fly under icy conditions, can't fly when there's sand, 
and one out of four is ever used at any given time?
  The majority has made the shortsighted choice to cut $1.3 billion 
from community health centers which, according to the CEO of the 
National Association of Community Health Centers, is equivalent to 
terminating health care to the entire population of Chicago, or to 
everyone living in the States of Wyoming, Vermont, North and South 
Dakota and Alaska combined. Why? For a plane that cannot fly when it's 
icy, which cannot fly when it's dusty. And where are we at? In a combat 
situation where we need it to do both things.
  Look. If this weren't enough, the bill also eliminates title X 
funding which provides services for cancer screenings, annual exams, 
STD testing and contraceptives.
  H.R. 1 would also cut $5 billion from Federal Pell Grants. In 
Illinois, this will reduce financial aid to 61,000 poor students. And 
as I had suggested earlier here today, maybe as Members of Congress, 
maybe because we are in the top 1 percent of wage earners in the United 
States of America, people of America understand we make $175,000, each 
and every one of us, and there are over 150 millionaires in this body, 
maybe we don't care. Maybe you can cut the Pell Grant program because 
you don't care whether kids get ahead and are able to go to college. 
But some of us should, especially those of us that have been blessed 
with the riches of wealth in this Nation and allowed to be able to 
serve in this body.
  And so I simply say, Let the kids go to school. Let there be health 
care for the most vulnerable of Americans. And all we will be missing 
is this boondoggle of a hybrid helicopter that does not serve the 
purpose for which it was proposed.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and to speak 
in opposition to the amendment that was just proposed by the gentleman 
from Illinois.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Do we have an amendment before the House at the 
present time?
  The Acting CHAIR. We do not.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of this 
very, very significant and important piece of military hardware, the V-
22 Osprey. Notwithstanding the discussion in which the GAO has made a 
report, the fact of the matter is this is an instrument which has 
proven itself in the theater of war. Those who have been the most 
significant advocates for this very, very important airplane have been 
those who have used it in the theater of war, the United States Marine 
Corps. This has been used successfully in 14 different deployments, 
most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has proven itself time and 
time again; proven itself to have the flexibility to be able to 
accommodate the new challenge that the Marines are facing in these 
dramatically challenging circumstances; the functionality to be able to 
respond quickly to moving troops, not just to insert most effectively 
in a time fashion but to be also able to get there as quickly as 
possible, in real-world combat situations that are changing as we 
speak.
  Day and night raids. This is the instrument that the Air Force, 
Special Forces, and the Marines have identified as among the most 
important; the instrument that rushes to the front and medevacs the 
soldiers. I just visited Walter Reed just about a month ago, and the 
ability to get soldiers who are injured from the front lines back to 
the United States in time is remarkable. This is one of those 
instruments that allows them to do it. It's a technology which has been 
proven, not just in the battlefield but has also been proven by its 
performance. They have worked out the kinks. They have paid for it. 
This is the thing that the Marine Corps is asking for that's 
consistently within the boundaries of the existing defense budget. The 
soldiers on the front line are asking for the V-22 Osprey because it 
helps them do their job. We must stand in support of the soldiers who 
are doing the work defending our Nation most effectively. They are the 
ones who are proving that it works.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


               Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 23, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $21,985,000)''.
       Page 28, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $393,098,000)''.
       Page 359, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $415,083,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I have already used my 5 minutes prior, so I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H847]]

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Gutierrez amendment.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois would do an 
across-the-board general reduction to the aircraft procurement accounts 
for the Navy and the Air Force. The total reduction at $405.1 million 
would be transferred to the spending reduction account.
  Let me just say, he spoke to the V-22 aircraft that the United States 
Marine Corps uses today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me tell you, as a 
former infantry officer in the United States Marine Corps, I can't 
speak highly enough of the V-22 aircraft.
  There is no replacement right now if that aircraft were suspended in 
service. The CH-46 aircraft was put in the fleet in 1964 and retired in 
2004, and the CH-53, I believe, in 1966. These old air frames are 
retiring. They need to be replaced. The V-22 is an effective aircraft, 
serving our Marines in the field in places like Afghanistan and Iraq 
with the kind of effort that our troops deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. The amendment would remove $415 million total from Navy 
and Air Force procurement accounts. This funding would reduce the 
number of V-22 Ospreys from the DOD portion of the bill. The Osprey has 
proven itself under combat conditions to be safe, effective, 
survivable, and maintainable and is meeting all operational taskings. I 
have actually flown on the Osprey and I feel it is a very safe 
airplane. Today, flight-hours are increasing rapidly and will exceed 
100,000 flight-hours in the first quarter of calendar year 2011. Forty-
six percent of these hours have been flown in the last 2 years.
  The first combat deployment was September 2007. From that time to the 
present, the V-22 has been in the following deployments: three 
deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, three deployments in 
support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and three Marine Expeditionary 
Unit deployments.
  The Marine Corps has procured nearly two-thirds of the required fleet 
of aircraft, 250 out of a total of 360. The program is currently in the 
4th year of a 5-year multiyear procurement, and we only give multiyear 
procurements on programs that we think are highly stable.
  This is a proven aircraft, and I urge rejection of this amendment.
  This is an important program, one that the Special Forces are going 
to use, and I think we have to be very careful. For the Marine Corps, 
this is one of their essential programs that they have strongly 
supported for many, many years, and it would be a devastating blow to 
them not to finish this procurement.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Some of our Members have made some very eloquent statements why this 
is not a good amendment, so I am going to be very brief and just say 
very simply, this amendment could possibly have a serious adverse 
effect on the soldiers and the Marines who are operating in and around 
the mountains of Afghanistan who need what the V-22 can provide them. 
If it is not available, if it is not there, they could be in serious 
trouble.
  So this is not a good amendment, and I don't think we should support 
it in any way.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment introduced 
by my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez). If we are truly serious 
about reducing our long-term deficits, we must look at the whole 
picture, a picture that includes defense. There can be no sacred cows 
or pork.
  Today, defense spending, including security-related programs, 
comprises almost 20 percent of Federal spending, yet it is the only 
part of this budget that is exempt from the tough cuts facing all other 
Departments.
  The Osprey is one of the most egregious examples of waste in the 
defense budget, yet DOD continues to request this costly, ineffective 
machine. And with due respect, the only threat this amendment poses if 
it doesn't pass, it could kill our own troops. Even worse, Congress 
continues to fund it.
  The Osprey was originally created to allow Marines to carry troops 
and cargo faster, higher and farther than a traditional helicopter. Now 
the Osprey is 186 percent over budget, costs $100 million per unit to 
produce, it is not suited to fly safely in extreme heat, excessive sand 
or under fire, and, sadly, this aircraft has killed 30 Marines in 
accidents.
  The Government Accountability Office recommended DOD reconsider 
procurement of the Osprey, and experts argue a helicopter could achieve 
many of the objectives of the Osprey at a much lower cost. Let's show 
our constituents we are serious about cutting the deficit by looking at 
all parts of the budget. Waste is waste; bloat is bloat. The fact that 
it comes under the Department of Defense doesn't change anything.
  I urge adoption of this amendment because eliminating funding for 
procurement of a costly, inefficient and over-budget V-22 Osprey will 
prove to our constituents that we are serious about reducing spending. 
It will help realign our military strategy to meet today's needs, and 
it will save the taxpayers $415 million this year alone.
  I yield back.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I can understand why our colleagues from 
Illinois have offered this amendment. Assertions recently surfaced 
about the inability of the Osprey to operate in hot conditions, high 
altitudes or from U.S. Navy ships. But the fact is that these charges 
have been disproven repeatedly in daily operations. The fact is that 
the Osprey provides unparalleled flexibility for Marines and Air Force 
Special Forces in combat operations.
  We have had 14 fully successful deployments to date. No aircraft in 
the U.S. inventory has been subjected to as extensive a series of live-
fire testing as the V-22. It is the most survivable rotorcraft ever 
built for the Marine Corps and Air Force. When the enemy has been able 
to hit the V-22, the aircraft has absorbed the damage and returned to 
base without injuries to passengers or crew on every single occasion.
  Many of the initial readiness challenges stem from deploying the 
aircraft into combat before a supply chain and depot maintenance 
infrastructure was adequately in place. The reason it cost more was 
that the Special Forces felt they needed to bring it into combat 
operation immediately because it was such a successful rotorcraft. They 
needed it for the safety and effectiveness of our troops.
  The fact is that major studies from both government and industry have 
shown that the V-22 is more operationally effective and cost efficient 
than any helicopter alternative. It requires fewer aircraft, fewer 
personnel and support than conventional rotorcraft. That results in a 
reduced footprint and, what we all need to be concerned about, 
particularly in this context, a lower total life-cycle costs.
  For that reason, I think that we ought to reject this amendment and 
enable the Defense Department to choose its own priorities for cost 
cutting, and certainly Secretary Gates is in the process of doing that.
  I yield back.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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 Illinois 
will be postponed.

[[Page H848]]

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and 
     related support equipment including spare parts, and 
     accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $3,221,957,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2013.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $790,527,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2013.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

       For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
     or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including 
     armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools and installation thereof in public and private 
     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long lead time 
     components and designs for vessels to be constructed or 
     converted in the future; and expansion of public and private 
     plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, as follows:
       Carrier Replacement Program, $1,721,969,000;
       Carrier Replacement Program (AP), $908,313,000;
       NSSN, $3,430,343,000;
       NSSN (AP), $1,691,236,000;
       CVN Refueling, $1,248,999,000;
       CVN Refuelings (AP), $408,037,000;
       DDG-1000 Program, $77,512,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer, $2,868,454,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer (AP), $47,984,000;
       Littoral Combat Ship, $1,168,984,000;
       Littoral Combat Ship (AP), $190,351,000;
       LHA-R, $942,837,000;
       Joint High Speed Vessel, $180,703,000;
       Oceanographic Ships, $88,561,000;
       LCAC Service Life Extension Program, $83,035,000;
       Service Craft, $13,770,000; and
       For outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first 
     destination transportation, $295,570,000.
       In all: $15,366,658,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2015:  Provided, That additional 
     obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2015, for 
     engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such 
     budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of 
     ship construction:  Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided under this heading for the construction or 
     conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards 
     in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities 
     for the construction of major components of such vessel:  
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading shall be used for the construction of any naval 
     vessel in foreign shipyards.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For procurement, production, and modernization of support 
     equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy 
     ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and 
     ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only, and the purchase of 
     seven vehicles required for physical security of personnel, 
     notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger 
     vehicles but not to exceed $250,000 per vehicle; expansion of 
     public and private plants, including the land necessary 
     therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway, $5,804,963,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2013:  Provided,  That of 
     the funds made available in this paragraph, $15,000,000 shall 
     be made available to procure equipment, not otherwise 
     provided for, and may be transferred to other procurement 
     accounts available to the Department of the Navy, and that 
     funds so transferred shall be available for the same purposes 
     and the same time period as the account to which transferred.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, 
     and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, 
     appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in 
     public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine 
     Corps, including the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; and expansion of public and private plants, 
     including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, 
     $1,236,436,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2013.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft 
     and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized 
     ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts, 
     and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $13,483,739,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2013:  Provided, That none of the funds 
     provided in this Act for modification of C-17 aircraft, 
     Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and F-22 aircraft may be 
     obligated until all C-17, Global Hawk and F-22 contracts 
     funded with prior year ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'' 
     appropriated funds are definitized unless the Secretary of 
     the Air Force certifies in writing to the congressional 
     defense committees that each such obligation is necessary to 
     meet the needs of a warfighting requirement or prevents 
     increased costs to the taxpayer, and provides the reasons for 
     failing to definitize the prior year contracts along with the 
     prospective contract definitization schedule:  Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the Air Force shall expand the 
     current HH-60 Operational Loss Replacement program to meet 
     the approved HH-60 Recapitalization program requirements.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of 
     missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment, 
     including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground 
     handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public 
     and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $5,424,764,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2013.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $731,487,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2013.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For procurement and modification of equipment (including 
     ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground 
     electronic and communication equipment), and supplies, 
     materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided 
     for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only, and the purchase of two vehicles required for physical 
     security of personnel, notwithstanding price limitations 
     applicable to passenger vehicles but not to exceed $250,000 
     per vehicle; lease of passenger motor vehicles; and expansion 
     of public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway, $17,568,091,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2013:  Provided, That of the funds made 
     available in this paragraph, $15,000,000 shall be made 
     available to procure equipment, not otherwise provided for, 
     and may be transferred to other procurement accounts 
     available to the Department of the Air Force, and that funds 
     so transferred shall be available for the same purposes and 
     the same time period as the account to which transferred.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the

[[Page H849]]

     military departments) necessary for procurement, production, 
     and modification of equipment, supplies, materials, and spare 
     parts therefor, not otherwise provided for; the purchase of 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; expansion of 
     public and private plants, equipment, and installation 
     thereof in such plants, erection of structures, and 
     acquisition of land for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway, $4,009,321,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2013:  Provided, That of the funds made 
     available in this paragraph, $15,000,000 shall be made 
     available to procure equipment, not otherwise provided for, 
     and may be transferred to other procurement accounts 
     available to the Department of Defense, and that funds so 
     transferred shall be available for the same purposes and the 
     same time period as the account to which transferred.

                    Defense Production Act Purchases

       For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to 
     sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, and 2093), 
     $34,346,000, to remain available until expended.

                              {time}  1820


                 Amendment No. 86 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 32, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,200,000)''.
       Page 33, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $36,320,000)''.
       Page 33, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $32,000,000)''.
       Page 359, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $115,520,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to amend the Defense appropriations 
bill by cutting $115 million of additional funding. This $115 million 
is aimed at alternative energy inside the Defense Department 
appropriations budget. I will assure you that with the President having 
advocated in his budget for billions of dollars of alternative energy 
research, development, and other types of research, that we don't need 
$115 million of that in our Department of Defense budget.
  This funding is wasteful, it's duplicative, and won't help our 
soldiers. It's in five different parts of the appropriations 
legislation in small amounts, and this is new money. It's above and 
beyond that which the President had requested.
  We are not underfunding alternative energy research. Just this week, 
the Rand Corporation came out with a study talking about alternative 
energy research in the defense budget and they concluded it was not 
helping our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and our fighters.
  So I would urge support of this amendment reducing by $115 million 
the deficit that our Nation faces.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment. The Defense Subcommittee has spent much time over the past 2 
years looking into the effects of the services--all the services--to 
reduce their dependence on fossil fuel. The Department of Defense, 
which consumes 93 percent of all the fuel consumed by the U.S. 
Government, has made significant strides in reducing its consumption, 
but the associated logistics of moving fuel for vehicles, aircraft, 
forward operating bases remain massive and costly. It has also been 
shown that for every 24 fuel convoys in Afghanistan, an American 
soldier is wounded or killed.
  The Defense Subcommittee has made a conscious and dedicated effort to 
advance the Department's efforts, searching for better ways to reduce 
consumption and alleviate the costly and complicated logistics. This 
amendment, however, would unnecessarily erase that progress and further 
the Department's dependence on fossil fuels. For this, and many other 
reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. The amendment cuts $115.5 million in funding for 
development of alternative energy. The bill includes funding based in 
part on the Defense Science Board's February 2008 report on DOD energy 
strategy. The DSB report made numerous recommendations to improve DOD 
energy efficiency. In addition, the committee held a formal briefing 
with officials from the Military Services, the Defense Logistic Agency, 
and OSD to review energy efficiency and energy technology programs.
  DOD is the largest single consumer of energy in the United States. In 
2006, it spent $13.6 billion to buy 110 million barrels of petroleum 
fuel--about 300,000 barrels of oil each day--and 3.8 billion kilowatt 
hours of electricity. This represents about eight-tenths of 1 percent 
of total U.S. energy consumption and 78 percent of energy consumption 
by the Federal Government.
  In combat operations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, moving fuel to 
deployed forces has proven to be a high-risk operation. Reducing 
operational fuel demand is the single best means to reduce that risk. 
However, the Defense Science Board concluded that DOD is not currently 
equipped to make decision on the most effective way to do so.
  The DSB recommended increased investment in energy efficient and 
alternative energy technologies to a level commensurate with their 
operational and financial value. The Defense Science Board recommended 
that the Department of Defense invest in basic research to develop new 
fuel technologies that are too risky for private investments and to 
partner with private sector fuel users to leverage efforts and share 
burdens. The bill emphasizes funding these types of initiatives.
  I strongly urge rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I don't come here to argue that we don't have to make serious cuts 
and reduce our spending. I'm sure that we do--and we will. But I do 
find it remarkable that I stood in this place a matter of weeks ago and 
fought to have a small increase in taxes for millionaires that would 
have eased the burden that we face today, but the argument was made--
and made loudly from my colleagues across the aisle--that we couldn't 
afford to make millionaires pay more taxes. We were talking about 
increasing the tax rate on amounts over $250,000 from 36 percent to 39 
percent, and we were told that we could not do that.
  Yet here we are today and we're talking about cutting low-income 
heating assistance for families in the Northeast in New England that 
are suffering from the worst winter in decades. We're talking about 
cutting WIC for single moms who are trying to raise kids. We're talking 
about cutting education and funds for kids.
  It seems that our priorities are misplaced here. Save the tax cuts 
for the millionaires but cut everything for people who have nowhere 
else to turn. It's reverse Robin Hood. We're robbing from the poor to 
make sure the rich keep their tax cuts. I can't believe it. In that 
bill not many weeks ago--just a few weeks ago, we actually--I didn't, 
but those who voted for it did--cut $119 billion out of Social 
Security, but we kept those tax cuts for those millionaires.
  With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
from the tea party, I actually represent the city of Boston, the port 
of Boston. When you visit the Tea Party Memorial, that's in my 
district. Just for the record, I want to make sure people understand 
when the colonists at the tea party revolted, they threw the tea 
overboard. They didn't throw senior citizens overboard. They didn't 
throw kids overboard. They didn't throw young mothers on WIC overboard. 
We have a challenge before us about where our priorities are going to 
be going forward.
  I'm proud to say that I grew up in the housing projects in south 
Boston. I'm not ashamed to say that we struggled

[[Page H850]]

as a family when I was a kid. I'm too old to be a WIC baby; but if they 
had had it, I'm sure my family would have been on it. As my dad used to 
say, there were times in our family where we had to save up to be poor.

                              {time}  1830

  But we have a moral obligation here to get our priorities right. I 
hope that at some point in this process that ideology is set aside and 
that we really do tackle in a fair way the problems that this country 
faces. I've been here long enough to understand that fairness does not 
always carry the day in these debates.
  Then you see the cuts to people who have nowhere else to turn. You 
see cuts to Social Security. There was $119 billion cut out of Social 
Security several weeks ago, and we diverted that out. I'm sure at some 
point we're going to hear that it's unsustainable, that Social Security 
is unsustainable, because we cut $119 billion out of it; but we've got 
seniors in this country who have nowhere else to turn. They're on fixed 
incomes.
  We cut Social Security rather than ask millionaires to give a little 
bit more. I think that is not consistent with what this country is all 
about. I hope at some point that common sense and mutual interests on 
behalf of what's really important in this country do prevail in this 
Chamber, that ideology, both far right and far left, is tossed aside, 
and that we can actually get down to the business of moving this 
country forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I strongly 
support the comments from the gentlemen from New Jersey and the State 
of Washington. In fact, they understated the case.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States Department of Defense is the largest 
consumer of energy in the world. These, I think, ill-advised efforts to 
undercut important research areas have significant implications, first 
and foremost, for the operational activities of the Department of 
Defense. The Iraq war was four times more energy intense than the first 
gulf war given what has happened in terms of changing tactics; and, 
frankly, the danger to our troops was understated. Those tankers might 
as well have great big bull's-eyes painted on them because they were 
targets for terrorists, and they put our soldiers at risk; and all of 
us represent States that lost people because of that vulnerability. It 
costs over $100 a gallon to deliver this fuel to the front.
  I seriously hope that people take a deep breath and listen to the 
counsel of the people from the committee. This is a long-term threat to 
our men and women in the field. It is also a long-term threat to the 
budget of the Department of Defense. If you plot what their energy 
costs have been over time, it probably rivals only the cost of health 
care for our troops.
  I would hope that we understand the opportunities here. As my friend 
from the State of Washington pointed out, it is research that isn't 
going to happen from the private sector. This is the sort of investment 
that government needs to make up front. It's the same thing that led to 
the development of the Internet.
  It will have important economic benefits going forward because this 
will not be exclusively the province of the Department of Defense. The 
extent to which these technologies work and can be brought to scale, 
they will be developed by private companies. It will make a difference 
as to how we as Americans live, because, after all, we as a country 
waste more energy than anybody in the world.
  This is a very serious point. I deeply appreciate the wise counsel of 
the committee leadership, and I strongly urge that this amendment be 
rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTLETT. Last week, there was WikiLeaks activity that pointed 
out a huge problem that we in the world face. WikiLeaks released some 
confidential emails that indicated that the Saudis had only 60 percent 
of the oil that they had advertised they had. I think this is probably 
true of most of the OPEC countries that were incentivized to exaggerate 
their oil reserves when they were permitted to pump a percentage of the 
oil reserves.
  Mr. Chairman, there is almost nobody now who doesn't agree that the 
world reached its maximum production of conventional oil in 2006. We've 
been stuck now for about 5 years at 84, 85 million barrels a day of 
oil. Increasingly, the difference between conventional oils, which are 
now falling off in production, and that 84, 85 million barrels a day is 
that it is made up by unconventional oil, like the heavy sour of 
Venezuela and the tar sands of Alberta, Canada.
  Our military has been very wisely pursuing a goal that the rest of us 
should have been involved in. Maybe they read Hyman Rickover's speech 
from 1957 where he noted that, in the 8,000-year recorded history of 
man, the age of oil would be but a blip. He didn't know then how long 
it would last, but he said how long it lasted was important in only one 
regard--the longer it lasted, the more time we would have to plan an 
orderly transition to other sources of energy.
  Of course we have done none of that in spite of the fact that we have 
known for 31 years with absolute certainty that we were going to get 
here today, because by 1980, we were already 10 years down the other 
side of Hubbert's peak as predicted by M. King Hubbert in 1956.
  The military has been attuned to this problem much more than any 
other part of our society, and they have been very wisely pursuing 
alternative fuels because, as we wind down on the available fossil 
fuels, the world will ultimately, of course, move to alternative fuels. 
The military has several reasons for doing this. It is a very 
aggressive program, a very wise program; and I think that it would just 
be tragic if we were to eliminate the funds for this.
  They increasingly need to move to alternatives for all of those 
reasons; and the rest of us need to move to alternatives for an 
additional reason, that they now are moving to alternatives that they 
can produce on site to reduce the long supply trails that create so 
many casualties over there.
  They ought to have been doing this earlier. I am delighted they're 
doing it now, and I think it would be a national security tragedy if we 
were to deny them the funds to continue doing this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the 
amendment before this one, Congressman Gutierrez's amendment, to reduce 
funding for the V-22 Osprey.
  This program has been highly troubled since its inception. In fact, 
it was almost canceled several times. As my friend Mr. Gutierrez noted, 
former Defense Secretary Cheney actually called for its cancellation 
several times. During its testing, the V-22 killed 30 people; and in 
April 2010, a V-22 crashed in Afghanistan, killing four more people. 
The GAO has noted that this plane has trouble flying over 8,000 feet or 
in extreme heat.
  You know what? There's more.
  This plane has a problem carrying troops, transporting cargo, and 
operating off naval vessels. No wonder the Pentagon wants to cancel the 
program in its entirety.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. The Pentagon does not want to kill this program. I just 
want to make sure that you understand that, because this is one of the 
highest priorities for the Marine Corps, the Air Force and Special 
Operations. Most of the problems you're talking about have been taken 
care of.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is my 
understanding of what the Pentagon wanted to do, but I yield to your 
wisdom.
  I do believe that canceling the V-22 and saving $10 billion to $12 
billion over 10 years would be real fiscal savings.

[[Page H851]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POMPEO. 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 Kansas will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1840


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 370 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 87 by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
  Amendment No. 63 by Mr. Gutierrez of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 86 by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 370 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 223, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 41]

                               AYES--207

     Alexander
     Amash
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Landry
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Smith (NE)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--223

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boren
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Reed
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Giffords
     Lewis (GA)
     Waters

                              {time}  1908

  Messrs. GRIFFIN of Arkansas, ROTHMAN of New Jersey, GOSAR, Mrs. NOEM, 
Messrs. ROGERS of Alabama, ALTMIRE, OLSON, Ms. EDWARDS, Messrs. LATHAM, 
BECERRA and HINOJOSA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CLARKE of Michigan, CARDOZA, ROSS of Arkansas, TIERNEY, NEAL, 
ROGERS of Michigan, ALEXANDER, COHEN, LANDRY, FATTAH, INSLEE, CASSIDY, 
Ms. TSONGAS, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mrs. 
BACHMANN, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. THOMPSON of 
California, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. SUTTON, Messrs. ENGEL, FORTENBERRY, MILLER 
of Florida, Ms. SPEIER, Ms. DELAURO, Messrs. ELLISON, MURPHY of 
Connecticut and ROKITA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Pompeo) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 72, 
noes 358, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 42]

                                AYES--72

     Alexander
     Amash
     Bass (NH)
     Blackburn
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Gardner
     Garrett

[[Page H852]]


     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith (VA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Labrador
     Lummis
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Ribble
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Upton
     Walsh (IL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--358

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Giffords
     Lewis (GA)
     Waters

                              {time}  1913

  Messrs. LYNCH and WEINER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Gutierrez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 105, 
noes 326, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 43]

                               AYES--105

     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Heller
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--326

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson

[[Page H853]]


     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Giffords
     Lewis (GA)

                              {time}  1918

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. CLEAVER, RICHMOND, and DEUTCH changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 86 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Pompeo) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 109, 
noes 320, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 44]

                               AYES--109

     Adams
     Altmire
     Amash
     Bachus
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Conaway
     Costello
     Dent
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Flake
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Hall
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Labrador
     Landry
     Lankford
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Pence
     Peters
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Quayle
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rokita
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--320

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Giffords
     King (IA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Welch

                              {time}  1924

  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________