Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 25 (Wednesday, February 16, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 16, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H957-H1036]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

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

{time} 1330

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1) making appropriations for the Department of Defense
and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, with Mr. Price
of Georgia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 223, printed in the
Congressional Record, offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell) had been postponed and the bill had been read through page
263, line 9.
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. 2 by Mr. Rooney of Florida.
Amendment No. 95 by Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 237 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 97 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
Amendment No. 153 by Mr. Michaud of Maine.
Amendment No. 368 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
Amendment No. 260 by Mr. Latta of Ohio.
Amendment No. 125, as modified, by Mr. Weiner of New York.
Amendment No. 110 by Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 192 by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois.
Amendment No. 395 by Mr. Inslee of Washington.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
Amendment No. 259 by Mr. Latta of Ohio.
Amendment No. 98 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
Amendment No. 223 by Mr. Pascrell of New Jersey.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rooney

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Rooney) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 198, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 1, as follows:

[Roll No. 46]

AYES--233

Ackerman
Adams
Altmire
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Butterfield
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Cicilline
Clay
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Flores
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Hall
Hanabusa
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kind
King (NY)
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McKinley
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter

[[Page H958]]

Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Quayle
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reyes
Ribble
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ross (AR)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Sires
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tipton
Towns
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder

NOES--198

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Brooks
Bucshon
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Cantor
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costello
Cravaack
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Davis (KY)
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Emerson
Engel
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbs
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heller
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinchey
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Lamborn
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Manzullo
Marino
Markey
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pence
Peters
Pitts
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reichert
Renacci
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stutzman
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Visclosky
Walberg
Wasserman Schultz
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Watt

NOT VOTING--1

Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1349

Messrs. ENGEL and GRIMM changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. AL GREEN of Texas, ELLISON, Ms. DeGETTE and Ms. WILSON of
Florida changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 95 Offered by Mr. Jones

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Jones) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 135,
noes 294, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 47]

AYES--135

Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Goodlatte
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Hall
Hastings (FL)
Heller
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Mack
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Posey
Quigley
Rahall
Rehberg
Richardson
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Royce
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Upton
Visclosky
Waters
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOES--294

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hirono
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

[[Page H959]]

NOT VOTING--4

Cummings
Giffords
Latham
Turner

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1353

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 47, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 47, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Amendment No. 237 Offered by Mr. Holt

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt) 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

[Roll No. 48]

AYES--133

Amash
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richardson
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)

NOES--299

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
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 (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--1

Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1358

Mr. CARNEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio) 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

[Roll No. 49]

AYES--136

Ackerman
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hanna
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Richardson
Richmond
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen

[[Page H960]]

Velazquez
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--296

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinojosa
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
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
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Webster
Weiner
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--1

Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1402

Messrs. GARAMENDI, NEAL, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Mr. RUSH changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 153 Offered by Mr. Michaud

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Michaud) 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

[Roll No. 50]

AYES--305

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Forbes
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ross (AR)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Webster
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOES--127

Adams
Amash
Bachmann
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Cantor
Chaffetz
Chu
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Cravaack
Culberson
Davis (IL)
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellmers
Eshoo
Farenthold
Flake
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gonzalez
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hall
Hartzler
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Honda
Huelskamp
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jordan
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lankford
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Meehan
Moran
Napolitano
Nugent
Nunes
Palazzo
Pence
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Schakowsky
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Smith (NE)

[[Page H961]]

Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
West
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--1

Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1407

Messrs. GOSAR, COLE, and HERGER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. AL GREEN of Texas and WU changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 368 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 Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 262,
noes 169, not voting 2, as follows:

[Roll No. 51]

AYES--262

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Doggett
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--169

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lujan
Marino
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McIntyre
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schiff
Schilling
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--2

Bishop (UT)
Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1410

Mr. LEWIS of California changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 260 Offered by Mr. Latta

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Latta) 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

[Roll No. 52]

AYES--184

Adams
Akin
Altmire
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cuellar
Denham
DesJarlais
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts

[[Page H962]]

Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rangel
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuler
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Watt
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--247

Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Harman
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--2

Bishop (UT)
Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1413

Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 125, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Weiner

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Weiner), as modified, 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

[Roll No. 53]

AYES--228

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Butterfield
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chabot
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kissell
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nunnelee
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Richardson
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schilling
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOES--203

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Hall
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McKeon
McKinley
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West

[[Page H963]]

Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--2

Bishop (UT)
Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1418

Messrs. KEATING, GRIFFIN of Arkansas and CANSECO changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 110 Offered by Mr. Duncan of South Carolina

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Duncan) 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

[Roll No. 54]

AYES--171

Adams
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cravaack
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Fincher
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--259

Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunnelee
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--3

Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1422

Mr. FLORES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 192 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Mrs. Biggert) 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

[Roll No. 55]

AYES--170

Adams
Akin
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Culberson
Denham
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Holt
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Renacci
Ribble
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher

[[Page H964]]

Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--262

Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunnelee
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--1

Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1424

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 395 Offered by Mr. Inslee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee) 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

[Roll No. 56]

AYES--159

Andrews
Baldwin
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rogers (MI)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--273

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

[[Page H965]]

NOT VOTING--1

Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1428

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tonko

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Tonko) 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

[Roll No. 57]

AYES--208

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--223

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carnahan
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--2

Giffords
Miller (NC)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1431

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 259 Offered by Mr. Latta

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 58]

AYES--137

Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Culberson
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Hall
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Latta
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Paul
Pence
Peters
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)

NOES--293

Ackerman
Adams
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell

[[Page H966]]

Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hultgren
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--3

Denham
Giffords
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1434

Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio) 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

[Roll No. 59]

AYES--130

Amash
Baldwin
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Camp
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
DeFazio
DeGette
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Filner
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Garrett
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kingston
Kline
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Rahall
Richardson
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shuler
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Upton
Velazquez
Westmoreland
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--301

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Cicilline
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heller
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holden
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Maloney
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--2

Giffords
Roybal-Allard

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

[[Page H967]]

{time} 1438

Mr. NADLER and Mrs. MALONEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. PASTOR of Arizona and LYNCH changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 223 Offered by Mr. Pascrell

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pascrell) 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

[Roll No. 60]

AYES--318

Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--113

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carter
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Hall
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Huelskamp
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Labrador
Lamborn
Latta
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Markey
McClintock
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Ribble
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross (FL)
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Speier
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thornberry
Tipton
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--2

Giffords
Herger

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1442

Messrs. GARDNER and RIGELL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this deeply
flawed Republican funding resolution.
The bill is a reckless and sweeping attack on the public health and
environmental protections that keep our air safe to breathe and our
water safe to drink.
One of the most egregious assaults on public health and the
environment in the legislation is section 1746. This provision guts the
Clean Air Act and bars the Environmental Protection Agency from
addressing the grave threat to public health and the environment posed
by carbon pollution, and it does so while destroying thousands of jobs.
The science is clear and the evidence is overwhelming. According to
the National Academy of Sciences and the premier scientific
organizations of all the world's major economies, carbon pollution is
changing the climate and endangering the environment. But section 1746
prohibits EPA from taking commonsense, reasonable measures to address
this threat.
The Clean Air Act currently requires that new source plants, new
power plants, new oil refineries, and other major new sources of carbon
emissions take steps to reduce their carbon emissions. This requirement
makes sense because it is easier for facilities to plan for emission
reductions before construction than to install retrofits afterwards.
EPA says sources should be able to comply just by being energy
efficient. Section 1746 would prevent EPA from implementing this
commonsense requirement.
EPA has also indicated it plans to set minimum Federal standards for
the two largest sources of carbon pollution: power plants and oil
refineries. This section would prevent EPA from even proposing these
standards.
Instead of gutting the Clean Air Act, the top priority for this
Congress should be getting Americans back to work, but section 1746
does exactly the opposite. It imposes a de facto construction ban on
many areas of the country. The Clean Air Act requires the largest new
or expanding facilities to obtain carbon pollution permits before they
begin construction. The Republican bill doesn't change this legal
requirement to have a permit, but it does prevent EPA from actually
issuing the needed permits. This affects every jurisdiction where EPA
issues permits.

[[Page H968]]

This construction ban would apply to all or part of 13 States,
including my own State of California. It would block dozens of major
projects, including power plants, refineries, cement kilns, and large
manufacturing plants. The result would be the loss of thousands of
construction jobs and permanent jobs at these facilities.
Members have different views about how to reduce carbon pollution,
but we should all agree that a multi-State construction ban is a
terrible idea.
The Republican bill has other damaging impacts. The bill blocks
requirements to reduce carbon pollution emissions that Congress
established in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and expanded a few
years ago. The bill even blocks successful voluntary programs that
partner with industry like Energy Star, and it blocks the renewable
fuel standard that Congress established 4 years ago which aims to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
This is a sweeping, reckless, and irresponsible bill. I urge all my
colleagues to oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word to enter
into a colloquy with Mr. Denham of California.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentlewoman from
Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DENHAM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I originally planned on offering an amendment to cut the General
Services Administration's budget to force it to sell unneeded Federal
properties. My purpose was to get GSA's attention and compel it to stop
wasting billions of dollars on Federal buildings we no longer need or
barely use. However, through this colloquy, I hope our committees can
make a commitment to work together and accomplish this same goal.
Just last week, I held my subcommittee's first hearing in a freezing
cold, vacant Federal building on Pennsylvania Avenue. The building sits
on one of the most famous streets in America, within walking distance
of the U.S. Capitol and the White House. Yet it has been empty for over
a decade and loses over $6 million in taxpayer money each year. I am
sad to say there are buildings like this across the entire Nation.
According to GAO, Federal agencies reported over 45,000 underutilized
buildings that cost $1.66 billion annually to operate and maintain.

{time} 1450

At GSA's current rate of disposal, it will take over 800 years to get
rid of excess and surplus properties.
Our Nation is facing financial distress, and this wasteful spending
must stop. GSA needs to get serious about selling wasteful properties.
To date, GSA has failed to provide my office with detailed information
about the Federal Government's inventory of properties. Congress needs
to see the list of properties so we can hold GSA's feet to the fire,
sell wasteful properties and save taxpayer money.
Madam Chairman, I would greatly appreciate your commitment to work
with our committee on the following items:
To compel GSA to provide detailed property lists of unneeded or
money-losing properties to our committees, as well as an inclusive list
of the entire asset inventory under its jurisdiction;
Second, to compel GSA to greatly increase the number of properties it
sells or redevelops;
And, third, to work with the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on a legislative initiative to consolidate Federal employees
into fewer Federal buildings.
Mrs. EMERSON. Let me thank the gentleman for calling attention to
these important issues and offering to work with our subcommittee on
your three initiatives. The Appropriations Committee shares your deep
concerns about the number of wasteful properties in the government
inventory, and I commit to working with you on the three items you
mentioned so we can together save taxpayer money.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE VII--INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

Sec. 1701. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Management of Lands and Resources'' shall be $927,523,000:
Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in
division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this division by substituting
``$927,523,000'' for ``$959,571,000'' the second place it
appears.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana

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

Page 263, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 263, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I have talked to the
leadership of the committee, and I think that this amendment is
agreeable to them, and I don't think there is going to be a great deal
of opposition to it.
What I want to do is I want to send a message to the Bureau of Land
Management. This amendment only cuts about $2 million from the Bureau
of Land Management's Management of Lands and Resources Account, and I
know that is not much when you are talking about a $1.65 trillion
deficit this year. But the problem I am addressing is the Wild Horse
and Burro Management Program that they have. This program was started I
believe in 1971, and since then the Secretary of the Interior has been
charged with managing these mustangs that live on public lands out West
primarily.
By any stretch of the imagination, this program may have been
successful to a degree, but it is very, very costly. The cost has gone
from $20.4 million in fiscal year 2000 to $64 million in 2010, and the
President has asked for $75.7 million in this coming fiscal year. As
far back as 2008, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has
warned that the cost of this program will get completely out of control
unless we deal with it in an efficient way, and this has not happened.
What is going on right now is they are taking these mustangs and they
are transporting them from their habitat where they live now as far as
1,000 miles. They are putting them in holding pens. They just recently
rounded up I believe about 10,000 of these wild horses. They ship them
to a holding pen halfway from, let's say, Nevada to Oklahoma, and then
they transfer them the rest of the way, about 1,000 miles. It costs
about $2,500 per horse to keep them in these pens, and there are other
ways to handle this problem. So the Bureau of Land Management really
needs to get on with the problem of dealing with these wild animals in
a very efficient and humane way, and they are not doing that.
I have talked to the people over at the Bureau of Land Management,
told them we were going to bring this up, and that it was very, very
important that they come up with a program that is a responsible way to
deal with these animals and do it in a humane way.
Now, they are talking about, in addition to corralling them, to
killing many thousands of these horses through euthanasia, and a lot of
people in this country, the Humane Society and animal lovers, think
this is a very inhumane way to deal with this problem. The Bureau of
Land Management needs to talk to people who are interested in this
issue and come to a conclusion that is acceptable to people all across
this country that believe in the mustangs that are out West.
So, as I said, my amendment only cuts $2 million. It is just a drop
in the bucket when you are talking about this overall cost problem we
are facing. But it is one that I hope will send a very strong message
to the Bureau of Land Management, to treat mustangs in a humane way and
to solve this problem in a way that is acceptable to the Congress of
the United States and the people of this country across America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, we agree that there is a major problem

[[Page H969]]

with the wild horse and burro policy. It is too expensive and
problematic for multiple uses on public lands and conserving western
rangelands. I would like to work with Mr. Burton, Mr. Hastings, and Mr.
Bishop on this problem. The true problem is the law, not the funding of
the law.
In recognition of the problems that Mr. Burton raises, we will accept
this amendment, but first I would like to make some important points
about the wild horse and burro program.
The wild horse population is not native to North America and can
double every 4 years. If horses aren't removed from the range, it can
cause degradation and reduced foliage for wildlife and livestock. If
this program isn't appropriately funded and horses aren't removed from
the range, wild horses will continue to reproduce, over-graze and
eventually have a population crash, which means starving horses.
I would also point out that it is already illegal to slaughter wild
horses or burros, and the BLM spends no funds on slaughtering wild
horses or burros. But I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana pointing
out the problem, and I would like to work with him to find a reasonable
solution to this that doesn't cost the kind of money that it currently
costs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, we are going to hear some opposition to
the intent of this legislation, so let me share some thoughts about it.
Despite so much public support for allowing wild horses to remain
wild, despite multiple scientific studies of their management that
exposed poor analysis, fiscal waste, and no use of preventative
methods, the BLM continues to use helicopters to round up and remove
horses from the range and place them in long-term holding facilities.
There are about 40,600 horses in these pens currently.
The most recently completed fiscal year holding costs accounted for
$37 million out of a total wild horse and burro budget of $64 million.
The average lifespan of a wild horse in captivity is about 30 years.
Holding and maintaining one wild horse in these long-term facilities
costs about $500 a year.
Last year, BLM received a 30 percent increase in their budget.
Instead of using that to fix this broken wild horse management problem,
they permanently removed another 10,000 wild horses and burros and put
them into tax funded long-term holding pens.
BLM's approach has been enormously wasteful and misguided. Instead of
capturing wild horses and holding them in pens for life, BLM should
have already fully implemented a less costly, preventative, and more
humane option, that of controlling herd size through contraception.
According to a study by the U.S. Geological Survey, the BLM could
save up to $8 million a year with the implementation of herd reduction
through birth control. It plans to use birth control for approximately
1,000 horses this year but will still round up and remove nearly 10,000
others they feel are ``excessive,'' in their words. At the same time,
we have private citizens who are willing to use their own money to form
public-private partnerships that will preserve these horses in the
wild, promote economic activity, and reduce the cost to the Federal
Government.
Instead of embracing these opportunities, such as Mrs. Pickens'
generous plan, BLM has relied on procedural arguments to block such
initiatives and maintain the status quo. That is why this amendment is
important.
As we expanded into the West two centuries ago, we found millions of
wild horses thriving on the American prairies and high deserts. They
became part of our American heritage, helping us reach the West and
develop and thrive as a nation. They have been our companions and our
inspiration, but we have already destroyed too many of them.
The small herds that still run free symbolize our growth as a great
nation. That is why Congress declared them protected in 1971. We said
that they are entitled to the greatest protection possible, as they
were fast disappearing from the American landscape. But rather than
maintaining them in their natural state and allowing them to be free,
we captured them, often causing harm and even death, and we contained
them in these long-term holding facilities.

{time} 1500

We had millions of wild horses at one time, now reduced to only
30,000 still living on the range. We have more in captivity than we
have on the range. The fact is, it's time for the Bureau of Land
Management to wake up, take this issue seriously, work with all the
stakeholders to fix an unsustainable situation.
Mr. Burton's amendment is intended to make this point abundantly
clear to the Bureau of Land Management, and that's why we accept this
amendment.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chair, I rise to correct some of the statements
that were just made. In my home State of Wyoming, we have more than
30,000 wild horses. The wild horses have no natural predators. And I
have ridden BLM wild horses. My sister adopted two of them. I've ridden
them. We've used them on our ranch, and I know whereof I speak.
Wild horses overgrazing our fragile ecosystems in the West on lands
that were not conducive to the type of grazing that occurs when a
hoofed animal that does not have a split hoof is grazing causes the
soil to be tamped down. Horses are a solid-hoofed animal. When they
run, they tamp the soil. When we have our sparse rains, it runs off,
thereby causing soil erosion and causing difficult grazing situations.
The natural grazers on that land for millennia were split-hoofed
animals such as elk and bison, and that is why sheep and cattle are
more conducive to protecting the grazing of that sparse fragile
resource than a solid-hoofed animal. When you put too many solid-hoofed
animals tamping down that fragile grass with a very shallow reservoir
of top soil, you cause overgrazing and you are loving horses in a way
that causes the fragile grass ecosystem to the Western States to die.
It is this Congress that has caused the problems by saying that we
cannot slaughter horses. Yet we're not supposed to keep them in pens.
We're supposed to allow them to overgraze the West.
When the gentle people east of the Mississippi will take these excess
horses into their backyards, I will support this amendment. Until then,
I oppose efforts by those well-meaning people that measure animal unit
months by the acre and we measure acres by the animal unit month.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to discuss section 1746, which would
eliminate EPA funding from going to implementation of the Clean Air
Act.
Over the past 40 years, the bipartisan Clean Air Act has saved
hundreds of thousands of lives and improved the health of Americans in
every State. It protects the air we breathe. It protects our children
from developing asthma and our seniors from developing emphysema.
According to the American Lung Association, in 2010 alone the Clean Air
Act saved over 160,000 lives. Even since 1990, the EPA estimates the
Clean Air Act prevented an estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million
cases of respiratory illness amongst children, 672,000 cases of chronic
bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 200,000 premature
deaths.
And yet in the irresponsible Republican spending bill, there's an
attempt to eliminate all funding from the implementation of the Clean
Air Act. It is clear that the Republican majority is doing all it can
to stop EPA from carrying out its mission of protecting public health
and protecting our environment.
Many will claim that the EPA is moving at a faster pace than any
other administration in history. However, the EPA has proposed fewer
Clean Air

[[Page H970]]

Act rules under President Obama over the past 21 months than in the
first 2 years of either President Bush or President Clinton. That is
why in December of 2010, 280 groups, including the American Heart
Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health
Association, and others, sent a letter urging the Congress to ``reject
any measure that would block or delay the United States Environmental
Protection Agency from doing its job to protect all Americans from
life-threatening air pollution.''
The irresponsible Republican spending bill is not the place to
legislate these types of changes. These policy changes should not be
made during this sort of process. The Clean Air Act is promoting
innovation and breaking American oil dependence, but Republicans would
give big polluters a loophole to roll back our clean energy process and
continue our addiction to foreign oil.
The Clean Air Act is good for our economy. Many studies have shown
the Clean Air Act's economic benefits to far exceed any costs
associated with the law by as much as a 40-to-1 ratio. As President
Obama so eloquently spoke of during his State of the Union address, we
must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build our global competitors
and win the future. Rolling back a law that protects the air our
children breathe to allow oil companies--companies that are already
reaping record profits--the ability to spew chemicals, smog, soot, and
pollution into the air just to please a lobbyist or a Big Oil
corporation is irresponsible and extreme.
The Clean Air Act has been on the books for decades, with positive
results for our economy, our environment, and our businesses. Rolling
back these protections will only hurt our most vulnerable. We simply
cannot afford to go backward.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1702. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Construction'' shall be $2,590,000: Provided, That no less
than $1,000,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds
shall be used in addition to amounts provided by this
division.

Amendment No. 556 Offered by Mr. Pearce

Mr. PEARCE. 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:

On page 263, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,590,000)''.
On page 264, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,750,000)''.
On page 264, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $23,737,000)''.
On page 264, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $15,055,000)''.
On page 267, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $171,713,000)''.
On page 268, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $14,100,000)''.
On page 278, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,100,000)''.
Sec. None of the funds made available by this. Act may be
used for the Land and
On page 359, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increases by $239,045,000)''.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment in the form at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New Mexico?
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, I object to the modification.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chair, whenever a family is running behind on its
obligations, the family begins to stop its investments and its
purchases.
Madam Chair, I would draw the attention of our body to the chart in
front of me. We're spending $3.5 trillion a year, and we bring in $2.2
trillion a year. That means that we have $1.3 trillion a year in
deficit that goes into our debt barrel. Currently, our debt is around
$15 trillion a year. That's on top of the $89 trillion unobligated
funds that we have to pay in the future for Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid.
Madam Chair, it is time for us to live within our means as a Nation.
So my amendment simply strikes the ability for BLM to purchase new land
and buildings. It removes $15 million from fish and wildlife for land
acquisitions.

{time} 1510

It removes $14-plus million from national parks for land
acquisitions. It removes $9 million from the Forest Service for land
acquisitions. It removes $2.5 million from the OMB for new
construction. It removes $23 million from the Fish and Wildlife Service
for construction funds, and it removes $171 million from the National
Park Service for construction funds.
As we look at the picture here of us as a Nation--and we are seeing
that literally we are in the process of wrecking our economy, the same
as a family would be wrecking its economy--it is time for us to not
stop the purchases of land, but to simply put them off to a future time
when we can get our economic house in order. We are not talking about
stopping these programs forever, just for the rest of this fiscal year.
It is not the time for us to be spending money in this way. Our
future is at risk. We are having to look at cutting significant funds
from programs that matter. We are running a $1.3 trillion deficit this
year. The President says in next year's budget he wants to run a $1.6
trillion deficit. CBO and OMB both have a chart here that shows our
economy as simply discontinuous in the 2030 range.
When we are talking about the fiscal instability of our economy, when
we are talking about this picture for our ability to pay our debts,
when we are talking about this picture for the Nation, then it only
makes sense for us to look and to prioritize our funding and to
prioritize our expenditures the same way any family would.
I yield back the balance of my time.

POINT OF ORDER

The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Idaho continue to reserve
his point of order?
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairwoman, the amendment proposes to amend
portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered
en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment does not
merely propose to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill,
but also proposes language other than those amounts.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, in addition to its being a point of order, I
think it should be noted that what we are talking about, nature and
culture visitation, are huge industries, responsible for more than 3
million jobs.
The Park Service has a backlog in deferred maintenance of at least $6
billion. We can't be cutting construction. In fact, these funds enhance
national parks, wildlife refuges, public lands, and create thousands of
new jobs.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will confine his remarks to the point
of order.
Mr. MORAN. I would support, though, the motion that this is out of
order and trust that it will be ruled as such.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the
gentleman's point of order? If not, the Chair will rule:
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an
amendment must propose only to transfer appropriations among objects in
the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Mexico proposes also another kind of change in the bill, namely, a new
limitation on funds in the bill, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f)
to address portions of the bill not yet read.
The point of order is sustained.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Chair, there is bipartisan

[[Page H971]]

agreement that Congress needs to create jobs, grow our economy, and
live within our means. The bill before us today, though, goes too far,
with irresponsible and arbitrary cuts that will threaten the economy
and cost us more than 800,000 private and public sector jobs. Included
in today's bill is reckless language that will cost thousands of jobs
in coastal communities in my district and in Oregon by destroying the
recreational and commercial salmon fisheries.
Over the years, my district has been hit hard by politically
motivated water management decisions that have resulted in dramatic
declines in salmon stock. For example, in the Central Valley, we
witnessed a peak of 768,000 fall-run salmon in 2002, followed by a
collapse to a historic low of only 39,500 fish in 2009. These declines
have led to an estimated $1.4 billion in lost economic activity in
2008, 2009 and 23,000 lost jobs.
In these 2 years, the commercial fishery was completely shut down.
Last year, only 14,500 salmon were caught by the California salmon
fishery, which is about 20 percent as many as were caught during the
2006 disaster. This only exacerbates the economic crisis facing fishing
families in communities in my district. These fishing families have
been put out of work in my district and up through and into Oregon.
Some have lost their homes, their savings, and their livelihoods.
Water management decisions in the collapsing bay-delta ecosystem need
to be based on science, not politics. In 2002, the science on minimum
flows in the Klamath River was ignored, resulting in the death of some
80,000 salmon and the loss of countless fishing community jobs. Today's
bill does the same thing by waiving Federal protections, which put at
risk fishing industry jobs. By de-funding the biological opinions, this
bill also threatens water supplies for southern California farmers and
cities by placing the burden to comply with the California Endangered
Species Act solely on the State Water Project.
We know that with the right tools and careful water management we can
meet our water needs in a cost-effective way and restore salmon runs
and coastal economies. We need to continue the ongoing negotiations
aimed at reaching balanced solutions for California's water challenges.
This bill undermines that effort.
For these reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposing this reckless piece of legislation that hurts jobs, hurts the
economy, and hurts my district.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I am troubled to be on the floor this
afternoon.
Americans still are facing staggering unemployment rates, and our
economy has not yet fully recovered; but instead of talking about the
many ways we can generate jobs, especially clean-energy jobs that can't
be shipped overseas and about ways to improve the health of American
families, we have an extreme piece of legislation before us.
Americans all agree that fiscal discipline is a must, but special
interests giveaways and legislative earmarks to protect big polluters
won't balance our checkbook. Putting health protection on the chopping
block means dirtier air, dirtier water, and more children's lives at
risk. One of the most egregious legislative earmarks in the bill would
block the EPA from doing its job, which is to protect our health from
air pollution.
Madam Chair, not allowing the EPA to address carbon pollution under
the Clean Air Act is flat-out dangerous. Climate change is a serious
problem. The scientific evidence is clear. The debate is over. Climate
change is real. It is happening--and human beings are largely to blame.
2010 was the hottest year on record. In the last decade, the Earth
experienced nine of the 10 hottest years since data has been recorded.
We are also starting to see the irreversible damage to our economy and
to our environment. Sea levels are rising. Acidification is happening
in our oceans. The world is witnessing increased rainfall, floods,
droughts, and wildfires; and our fresh water supplies and capacity to
grow enough food will be severely challenged in the years ahead.
Madam Chair, the longer we delay taking action to address climate
change, the more difficult and expensive the solutions will be. That is
why the EPA is taking a cautious, flexible, and balanced approach to
addressing carbon pollution. Each of the steps it has taken so far has
followed the letter of the law. For four decades, the Clean Air Act has
protected the health of millions of Americans, including our children,
our seniors and the most vulnerable among us, from all kinds of
dangerous air pollutants. The law also has a tremendous track record in
providing certainty to businesses and delivering economic benefits.
Since the Clean Air Act was enacted, overall, air pollution has
dropped while the U.S. GDP has risen 207 percent. We have also seen
major health benefits, including asthma reduction, lower lung cancer
rates, and much greater productivity. In fact, by 2020, the benefits of
the Clean Air Act are expected to reach $2 trillion, exceeding any cost
by more than 30 to 1.
All of these benefits, Madam Chair, are jeopardized by this dangerous
rollback of the Clean Air Act included in the Republican omnibus
spending bill.

{time} 1520

And that's why groups, many groups ranging from the American Lung
Association to the American Sustainable Business Council, have decried
the harm of this proposal to people's health and our economy. And it's
why I stand with them today in opposing the extreme earmarks to gut the
Clean Air Act. This sweeping proposal has many impacts. It would block
new construction. It tampers with the clean car agreement between the
automakers, the States, and the Obama administration. And it would stop
the renewable fuels standard in its track.
Madam Chair, our constituents want us to create jobs and to stand up
for the health of our families. They don't want us to stand with the
big polluters. This attack just doesn't make sense.
Last month, President Obama stood on the House floor and talked about
``winning the future'' through innovation, and he used clean energy as
his central example. We know that clean energy will put Americans to
work. It will help our economy grow, and it will help America compete
in a global marketplace. Let's create jobs by investing in cleaner
forms of energy. Let's not obstruct the EPA from doing its job of
protecting the public's health and environment.
These are crucial issues, Madam Chair, for the public and the planet.
It's our duty here in this place to ensure both are protected from
harmful carbon pollution. Unfortunately, this extreme legislation does
not meet this crucial test. Congress should be investing in America's
future, not moving backwards.
So I urge my colleagues to say ``no'' to this irresponsible omnibus
with all of its reckless spending cuts.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chairman, this spending bill is simply unacceptable
on many levels. This is a bill drafted for a sound bite, not sound
policy for the American people. Handcuffing the EPA is proof of that
fact, and I have and will continue to oppose those attempts and propose
amendments where possible.
This CR arbitrarily kills jobs, hurts the public health, and is a
slap in the face to protecting our environment and clean air. This CR
will set our country back decades by curtailing scientific research
simply because Republicans don't like what the science says. Worse yet,
it puts our children's health at risk by handcuffing the EPA's ability
to simply police polluters. The American public needs real solutions
and thoughtful policies, not sound bytes.
This bill is a backhanded way of achieving a policy objective. Just
because the Republican Party doesn't like what the overwhelming science
is telling us and they've stopped time and time again any meaningful
reform, now they're attempting to legislate in a spending bill.
This bill simply continues the false logic often employed by
Republicans: underfund an agency, then complain about its
ineffectiveness, then call for

[[Page H972]]

further cuts because the program didn't have the funds to work in the
first place.
Madam Chairman, the EPA is working hard to protect us from pollution
in a responsible way that spurs the economy. This CR prohibits any
funding from being used to carry out the EPA's power plant pollution
safeguards, the rules that target the largest power plants and prevent
them from polluting our air.
The rules also spur economic growth. A recent study by MIT found that
nearly 1.5 million jobs could be created by simply letting the EPA
ensure that over time power companies move towards cleaner power
plants. That's 1.5 million jobs cut by this CR. Furthermore, this
provision only harms an industry by giving it increased uncertainty and
not allowing them to plan for the future. In some cases, it might even
lock up permits from going to companies that are a normal part of
business. We don't need sound bites; we need sound policy.
The Clean Air Act guards the most vulnerable Americans, those with
asthma and other lung disease, children, older adults, people with
heart disease and diabetes, from the danger, the real danger of
airborne pollutants, including threats from mercury, carbon dioxide and
methane. Each year, the act prevents tens of thousands of ill health
effects, including preventing asthma attacks, heart attacks and, yes,
preventing premature death. This year alone, the Clean Air Act will
save more than 160,000 lives, according to estimates by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Forty years of evidence shows that these health benefits come not
only without harm to the economy but with benefits to the economy.
Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has cut emissions by 60 percent. At the
same time, the economy has grown by more than 200 percent.
Madam Chair, I implore the majority party to stop making grand
gestures attempting to bully the EPA. Let it do its job of protecting
your family and my family from dangerous pollution. Let it do its job
to keep our air and our water clean.
This CR is a polluter's dream and a public health nightmare. I urge a
``no'' vote.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I move to strike the
last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, we all recognize the
need for us to reduce the deficit and curtail unreasonable spending,
but this continuing resolution obviously goes far too in the extreme
direction of harming our economy and harming many of the services that
our citizens have come to rely on to finish and bring their lives
together, whether they're working, whether they need health care,
whether their children need education, and this resolution is harmful
for that.
But I want to speak for the moment on section 1475, which is a rider
that is added to this legislation that will harm the California
economy, harm our ability to plan into the future for the use of water.
We have a water system in California that's dramatically
oversubscribed, and we're in the process now of bringing that together
to make sure that we can meet the future economic needs of our State
and also the needs of the various sectors of that economy, whether they
be the fishing sector, they be the energy producing sector, the farming
sector or the settlement of our cities.
But with this rider--this rider, first of all, throws out 18 years of
litigation successfully brought to an end, a long conflict on the San
Joaquin River to provide for that settlement, a settlement that is
agreed to by almost everyone. But more importantly, for the sake of the
long-term water using, this amendment defunds the biological opinions
that were going forward that are the cornerstone to provide for the
final elements of the plan to provide California and the apportionment
of that water for the protection of the fisheries and the economies in
northern California, for the protection in the water supplies of the
Central Valley's economy and the needs of the great urban areas of
southern California. That planning must be completed.
This is as close as we've come. After decades and decades of water
wars in the State of California, we finally have the opportunity now to
bring the various parties together from all geographic regions, from
all sectors of the economy, and plan the future of our State so that we
will have the water that is necessary to secure our economy, to secure
our families, to secure our agricultural areas of the State, and to
provide for the great ecology of the State of California.
We've gone through some disasters, if you will, because of the
droughts, because of water cycles, and my colleague from further north
in the State, Mike Thompson, laid out this. We saw thousands of jobs
lost, the fisheries decimated because of political water decisions that
were made over the last several years that decimated the salmon run,
not only affecting just the San Francisco Bay delta but affecting the
coastal regions of our State and the coastal regions of Oregon and
Washington.
These are important fisheries. This is an important part of our
economy. It's a renewable part of our economy if we take care of it,
but if we have mindless riders that are put onto legislation like the
one provided in section 1475, it will bring an end to these
negotiations.
It's taken a long time to get the water parties from the south, the
water parties from industry, the water parties from agriculture, from
the environmental community and the government, the Federal Government
and State government together. They are sitting at that table and
they're working it through.
Just in the last couple of days, we see the delta planning
organization put forth its first document to say what the requirements
will be for the conservation habitat plan that all of these elements
from north and south California working on. This amendment simply kicks
that negotiating table over. It drives the parties away from the
negotiation, and California goes back into water uncertainty, economic
uncertainty, ecological uncertainty that our State cannot continue to
have if we're going to grow our economy, if we're going to come out of
this recession.
So I would hope that on passage the Members would vote against this
continuing resolution, understanding the kind of damage that these
kinds of riders that were inserted in the middle of the night on behalf
of a few special interests have the opportunity to really destroy,
destroy bipartisan geographical negotiations that are the most
promising in the last 40 years in the history of our State.
The opposition from so many of the water users across the State, no
matter where they reside, to this rider is well-known, to the fishing
community, to so many parts of our economy in the San Joaquin-
Sacramento Bay delta, and to the future of our ability to get a handle
on these water issues that have plagued us for so many years in
California. I would hope that we would reject this provision of this
legislation.

{time} 1530

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chair, we all believe in economic growth and job
creation and environmental stability, but this resolution goes in the
wrong direction and affects my State and district adversely.
Madam Chair, water in California is never a dull subject. As we try
to repair the delta and prepare our water system for the generations to
come, it is imperative that we make progress and not take steps
backwards. That means achieving a healthy delta and finding a way for
water users throughout California to receive their water without
harming the delta. The amendments to the continuing resolution that
defund and cut funding from the San Joaquin River Restoration, the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, and the implementation of the
biological opinion of the delta smelt and salmon are steps backwards.
The balance that we have been trying to achieve in California is a
negotiation that must not be thrown off balance. Decades of work toward
a more certain future for California water is only attainable when
everyone works toward a solution rather than throw up

[[Page H973]]

roadblocks that cost us precious time. That work started during the
Bush administration and continues to this day. I urge you to oppose the
language in the continuing resolution and allow the work by key
stakeholders in California to continue.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YARMUTH. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Chair, I rise today to oppose section 1746 of H.R.
1 and to urge defeat of this bill.
In my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, and in communities all across
the United States, a provision of H.R. 1, section 1746, will
effectively ban new construction on power plants, refineries, and
manufacturing facilities. By freezing the Environmental Protection
Agency's ability to issue a mission-based construction permit, H.R. 1
would halt dozens of ongoing projects in communities like Louisville.
Under this provision, thousands of jobs in construction, contracting,
and manufacturing could be lost. In Louisville alone, plans to improve
Ford's Kentucky truck plant could be derailed, jeopardizing the jobs of
thousands of hardworking Kentuckians.
I know what you're thinking, what I'm saying can't possibly be true.
But it is. You're thinking, this must be an unintended consequence of
section 1746 or perhaps an error in drafting, but it's not. Apparently,
this is exactly what the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee
intended to do. They will let nothing stand in the way of their
feverish rush to handcuff the EPA, not even American jobs. In their
effort to slam through a package of irresponsible cuts and to thwart
the work of the very agency charged with protecting the air we breathe
and the water we drink, the casualties aren't just limited to our
national environment but real people and real jobs. Republicans in the
House are trying to shut down the EPA at all costs, except they aren't
the ones paying the price.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1. It is reckless. It
is irresponsible. And it is politics at their very worst.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, the draconian cuts to EPA funding will
negatively impact my congressional district which has one of the
highest rates of asthma in the Nation. For many years, I have worked
closely and been dependent on EPA's collaboration to address the impact
that poor air quality has had on residents of my district. The funding
limitation that stops the EPA from limiting greenhouse gases will
negatively impact air quality not only in my congressional district but
throughout the Nation. This would also cause the cancellation of
numerous projects which would eliminate thousands of jobs.
The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities are also facing
severe cuts. What kind of society have we become if we cannot encourage
and fund the arts and humanities? Are we focusing on jobs? We must
remember that giving our young people the opportunity to experience the
arts leads to a more qualified and educated workforce. The funding for
the NEA and the NEH helps to provide an important investment in our
local arts organizations.
Our national parks contribute to the standard of living that many
Americans enjoy. Our national parks are one of our greatest treasures,
available to all of us. We must continue to improve and protect this
valuable resource. The cuts to the National Park Service will also
negatively affect many historical and conservation projects. With cuts
to the Drinking Water Fund, we will be eliminating communities' ability
to provide clean and safe drinking water to their residents who we, as
elected officials, are stewards of.
Now I know that we continue, over the last 24 and over the next 24
hours, to discuss these very serious cuts. All I would hope is that as
we go forward and we deal with cuts that many of us agree have to be
made, that we pay special attention to the future of our country. One
thing is to simply say, cuts reduce the deficit. The other thing is to
say, what are we going to do to parks, what are we going to do to
drinking water, what are we going to do to the air we breathe, what are
we going to do to all the good things we've done over the last 30, 40,
50 years to make our country even better? As we cut budgets, we must
take that into consideration.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Guam is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Chairman, I will not be offering my amendment No.
487 in the Congressional Record. It would restore funding to the
Assistance to Territories Account under U.S. Department of the
Interior's Office of Insular Affairs to fiscal year 2008 levels. The 7
percent reduction in funding offered by the Republican majority would
cut necessary assistance to the governments of Guam, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands. The U.S. territories are provided assistance
through the Office of Insular Affairs, and the financial assistance
provided by the account to be cut has allowed our governments to fund
disaster mitigation programs, coral reef conservation initiatives,
infrastructure repairs, and environmental preservation. In fact, Madam
Chairman, the Constitution under article IV, section 3, clause 2 gives
this Congress explicit authority: ``The Congress shall have power to
dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the
territory or other property belonging to the United States.''
While this impacts all territories, on Guam, in particular, funding
from the OIA has been critical to the mitigation of invasive species,
management of coral reef conservation programs, technical assistance to
modernize and develop our port which provides direct economic benefit
as well as assistance in modernizing our tax collection and our
auditing systems. If my colleagues on the other side want to help
diversify and develop the economies of the territories, then it is
essential that we continue to provide this technical assistance in a
targeted fashion, as is done now, to jump-start that development
process.
My colleagues from the U.S. territories, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr.
Pierluisi, Mrs. Christensen, and Mr. Sablan, all agree that this
funding cut is yet another example of the majority's lack of concern
for the over 4 million residents of the U.S. territories. While the
majority's removal of our symbolic voting rights at the beginning of
the 112th Congress did not affect the livelihoods of our constituents,
this funding cut would tangibly result in a reduction of public service
in each of our districts, and I oppose the Republicans' continued
neglect of our local governments in the territories.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for
5 minutes.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the goal to cut
spending and reduce the deficit, which is projected to hit $1.6
trillion this year; and I am very pleased with the approach laid out by
President Obama. In his budget proposal for FY 2012 and beyond,
President Obama is making the case for selectively cutting spending
while increasing resources in areas like education and clean-energy
initiatives that hold the potential for long-term payoffs in economic
growth.

{time} 1540

This commonsense approach will help bring down annual deficits to
more substantial levels, but not at the peril of programs that are
vital to economic growth, job creation and the well-being of our fellow
Americans.
Madam Chairman, this spending bill, H.R. 1, which proposes to cut
programs and funding under section 1729 and 1730 does not help our
economically struggling fellow Americans through initiatives involving
education, the environment and housing and employment. It

[[Page H974]]

will cut critical programs and projects that are essential to economic
development and job creation, not only in the 50 States, but also in
the insular areas.
Madam Chairman, in particular, the proposed bill will cut
approximately $6.6 million from the current budget outlays for the
Department of the Interior's Office of Insular Affairs. These cuts also
include an 8 percent reduction for technical assistance, and about 4
percent reduction of OIA salaries and expenses.
Madam Chairman, the OIA budget has maintained relatively constant
funding levels since FY 1998, despite disproportionate need for
improvements in the territories. For instance, the OIA Office General
Technical Assistance program provides critical support not otherwise
available to insular areas, combating deteriorating economic and fiscal
conditions and to maintain momentum needed to make and sustain
meaningful systematic changes.
Reduction in the OIA and the compact association funding will
translate to cuts to the vital projects including, but are not limited
to, these projects which foster development of the insular areas in
accountability, financial management, tax systems and procedures,
insular management controls, economic development, and also with regard
to energy, public safety, health, immigration, the whole thing, Madam
Chairman.
And, Madam Chairman, these projects are also critically needed
funding for implementation of our obligations under the Compact of Free
Association for the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to continue support for the
needs of these insular areas and our obligations to our compact friends
in the Pacific.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I rise in support of Ms. Bordallo's amendment
and to protest the gutting and slashing of more than $6 million for the
insular areas. This will hurt American families and communities all
across the country, from the Northern Mariana Islands to the northern
border of Maine.
It hits our outlying territories particularly hard and the American
citizens and families who live and work there. This bill takes more
than 7 percent out of the Assistance to Territories Account which funds
critical programs at the local level in Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
These communities have unique needs and this account helps them address
those. It helps fund disaster mitigation programs, particularly
important in low-lying islands susceptible to tropical storms. It helps
ensure a strong and robust judiciary in American Samoa, a crucial
program to ensure that the American Constitution and U.S. laws are
upheld in every corner of our Nation. It helps these areas make needed
infrastructure repairs, which creates jobs that are critical during
this tough economic time.
This amendment would restore this funding; and just because these
communities may be farther away does not mean that they are any less
American and in any less need of the services this funding provides.
Just because these communities are farther away does not mean that the
slashing of programs will go unnoticed.
As chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I
want to express my strong support for the amendment offered by Ms.
Bordallo and oppose the cuts to the Assistance to Territories Account
offered by the Republican majority in H.R. 1.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SABLAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SABLAN. Madam Chair, people in the Northern Mariana Islands pay
up to 40 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. That's four times the
national average because we're dependent on diesel oil shipped long
distances.
A technical assistance grant for the Department of the Interior's
Office of Insular Affairs, however, has helped identify a possible
source of geothermal energy on one of the islands. Further exploration
and more investments are needed to be sure that this alternative source
will work for us; but without the technical assistance grant from
Interior, we wouldn't even know that we have this possibility of
getting off our dependence on expensive foreign oil.
And now, H.R. 1 proposes to cut the funds that Interior uses to help
the Northern Marianas and the other insular areas in this way. That
kind of thinking is penny wise and pound foolish.
But helping us get free of foreign oil is only one example of how
this Interior Department funding helps us. These cuts threaten the
brown tree snake program. I know this may sound like a joke to some,
but on Guam there are literally 500,000 or more of these snakes. A few
came in on military aircraft and spread quickly. They have caused
millions of dollars in damage to electrical distribution systems and
destroyed the rare indigenous bird life.
And we don't want to see these pests spread to the Northern Mariana
Islands or Hawaii or mainland United States. And the Interior
Department funding is keeping these snakes in check. Do away with this
funding and these unwanted immigrants will break through our borders.
The Interior Department funding that H.R. 1 cuts supports training
programs for high school and college students in the islands. It
supports training for our professional people in financial management,
accounting and auditing to help us manage our money to U.S. standards.
Take away that training money and you will make it even more difficult
for us to build capacity and become fully integrated into the American
family.
Our economy is based on tourism. Tourists come to enjoy our warm
oceans and beautiful coral reefs there, but these reefs are at risk.
Run-off from development on land kills the coral. Funding that H.R. 1
cuts is helping us to protect the coral that underpins our tourism
economy. Take away the funding and you hit our already fragile tourism
industry.
We all know that the Federal Government has to cut spending. There is
no disagreement there. We need to weed out wasteful programs. We have
to get more efficient and effective with our own spending.
But the money that goes to the Interior Department to help the
insular areas is not wasted. It is effective. It is targeted on
precisely the problems that the insular areas confront. It will be a
mistake, it is a mistake, to cut this tiny amount of money that has a
large positive effect in the Northern Mariana Islands and all of the
U.S. insular areas.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HEINRICH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HEINRICH. Our Nation's unsustainable budget deficit is staring us
in the face, but it is at critical moments like this when we must
approach our Nation's greatest challenges with responsibility and
prudence. Make no mistake that what's at stake here is grand in scope,
and we could have grave consequences for our Nation's security, our
infrastructure, and our economy.
Just this morning, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called the
Republicans' stopgap spending plan ``a crisis on our doorstep'' in
terms of our national security, and these shortsighted budget cuts
could lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later.
The approach we take must focus on responsible cuts which will have a
lasting impact on our deficit, not arbitrary short-term cuts to
programs to win a few votes back home.
We should be making decisions based on the best available science,
not the worst possible politics. For example, my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are focused on de-funding the Mexican Wolf
Recovery program, instead of protecting the critically important jobs
at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

{time} 1550

The NNSA is responsible for the management and security of our
Nation's

[[Page H975]]

nuclear weapons and nuclear nonproliferation, and provides crucial
funding for the work being done at our national labs.
Our national labs, like Sandia National Lab in central New Mexico,
have a tremendous impact on our local communities and our national
defense. Last year, Sandia Labs hired a little over 700 people; 203 of
these new hires graduated from a New Mexico university.
I am in favor of reducing government spending. In fact, this week I
voted to cut $3 billion in unnecessary spending. But installations
critical to our national security which are also successful private
sector economic drivers like Sandia National Labs should not take the
hit.
Elsewhere in their spending plans, Republicans want to gut the Land
and Conservation Fund, a proven economic multiplier that has yielded $4
in economic activity around national parks for every dollar of Federal
investment. They want to slash the Antiquities Act, which, since 1906,
has provided an economic lifeline to rural communities surrounded by
public land.
Madam Speaker, in the West, outdoor recreation and public lands means
jobs. They mean hunting and fishing and camping and a western way of
life.
Also on the chopping block is vital funding for women's health care
and service agencies like AmeriCorps.
In regard to infrastructure, the Republicans' continuing resolution
cuts key investments aimed at fixing our crumbling roads, energy grids,
and clean water programs. Just this month, in my home State of New
Mexico, we experienced a major gas outage emergency. On the coldest
night of the year, with temperatures as low as negative 32 degrees,
families were left without heat due to distribution infrastructure
failures across the Southwest.
In an era of infrastructure failures which wreak havoc on
communities, cutting key transportation and infrastructure investments
would leave America dangerously vulnerable. At the same time, these
cuts will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The middle class is still on a shaky path to recovery from the worst
recession since the Great Depression. Let's not pull the rug out from
underneath the hardworking people we came here to represent.
It has been 2 months since the Republicans took over the majority,
and they still haven't introduced a jobs package. It was bad enough
that the Republicans were ignoring jobs, but with this CR, they are now
actively trying to cut jobs. I don't know about you, but a ``so be it''
attitude is simply not going to cut it when it comes to the families I
represent back home.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to resist the
temptation to politicize the very serious business of reducing our
Nation's deficit. That is the only way we will ever rebuild the
public's trust in government and grow our economy.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am going to speak on the issue of water.
I represent an area where we have a Superfund site called the San
Gabriel groundwater contaminated site. This resolution will risk the
water supply of over 30 million people and directly affects the ability
to continue the 20-year cleanup that has been in effect, with another
15 years to run on the contaminated site--the size of Connecticut--
which undermines the agreement the local, the State, the Federal, and
the potential responsible parties have come together on in doing the
Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
With regard to Klamath settlements, which helps secure a clean water
supply, an adequate water supply to farmers and the environment in the
San Joaquin Valley and the Klamath Basin, impacting the entire State of
California, the settlement impacts an agreement developed by not only
the farmers, the tribes, and the conservation groups, but the power
companies and the States of California and Oregon, negotiated by no
less than the Bush administration for voluntary removal of these
privately owned dams. This will prevent fair congressional
consideration of the Klamath agreements.
Madam Chair, the San Gabriel Restoration Fund, the Superfund list
that I cited before, on H.R. 1, is the last line of defense against
migrating groundwater contamination that has affected our basin for
over 35 years, which was due to pesticides, fertilizer, and other
contaminants. The fund has treated 24,000 acre feet of contaminated
groundwater, helped fund the construction of 24 treatment facilities,
and has removed thousands of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs,
carcinogens, which threaten the health of some 40, 50 communities in
the southern California area. With another decade or more to complete
this cleanup, the funding to fight the spread of this contamination
must not be eliminated.
In the Bay Delta, the further cuts would also abolish key elements of
the San Joaquin River Restoration program and the implementation of two
biological opinions on endangered species protecting wild California
Bay-Delta fisheries, risking millions of people's water supply
delivery. Fish are species. So is the human race another species.
Conservation and water recycling save jobs, save money, and talking
about conservation and these cuts is not warranted. We need that water,
our economy needs the water, and the jobs all of these will produce.
Our communities need our support in developing local and sustainable
water supplies through all the programs we can afford.
Association of California

Water Agencies,

Sacramento, CA, February 15, 2011.
Hon. Tom McClintock,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water & Power, House Natural
Resources Committee, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Grace Napolitano,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water & Power, House Natural
Resources Committee, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Napolitano: The
Association of California Water Agencies strongly supports
the Bureau of Reclamation's Water Recycling and Reuse
Program, known as Title XVI, and believes it should be funded
in the continuing resolution. For this reason, ACWA opposes
amendment 286 to HR 1. ACWA represents nearly 450 public
water agencies in California that collectively supply over
90% of the water delivered in California for domestic,
agricultural, and industrial uses.
As you are aware, managing water supplies in Western states
is challenging. Title XVI projects provide a valuable source
of water and help alleviate conflicts. In California alone,
this program helps generate over 525,000 acre-feet of
recycled water each year. It is strongly supported by local
project sponsors who provide three local dollars for every
one federal dollar invested in recycling and reuse projects.
Title XVI projects also create jobs and help local
economies. As the projects are constructed, jobs are created
in both the primary and secondary job market. As noted by
Reclamation's Commissioner Mike Connor in his July 21, 2009
testimony to the House of Representatives Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Water and Power, there is a $600 million
unfunded backlog of authorized Title XVI projects. These
projects are approved by Congress and have local support and
funding. Instead of decreasing funding for this program, ACWA
encourages Congress to provide more funding. The water reuse
program creates jobs and provides near-term solutions to
water supply challenges facing many Western states.
Sincerely,
Timothy Quinn,
Executive Director.
____

WateReuse Association,

Alexandria, VA, February 16, 2011.
Hon. Tom McClintock,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on
Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Grace Napolitano,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on
Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Honorable McClintock and Napolitano: On behalf of the
WateReuse Association, I am writing to oppose efforts to
eliminate funding for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title
XVI program and WaterSmart grant program. The WateReuse
Association opposes amendments 286 and 289 of the fiscal year
2011 continuing appropriations bill (H.R. 1) that would
eliminate these vital water supply programs.
The Title XVI program of P.L. 102-575 allows local
communities to reduce their reliance on imported water
supplies. Communities throughout the West are able to
supplement dwindling local water supplies, reduce energy
consumption associated with

[[Page H976]]

transporting water, and allow greater quantities of fresh
water to be reserved for municipal water supply, irrigation
or environmental needs. The Title XVI program allows local
communities to leverage federal funds by a factor of three by
obtaining additional financing to complete projects. These
projects create jobs and new water. The Title XVI program is
a necessary tool to meet the growing demands on western water
resources. Eliminating the perennially under-funded program
will only exacerbate the burden on local communities in the
West.
The WaterSmart grant program is another critical program to
conserve and maximize local water supplies. The WaterSmart
grant program allows communities to compete for grant
opportunities for conservation projects and projects that
address the viability of using brackish groundwater,
seawater, impaired waters, or otherwise creating new water
supplies. This program addresses the most significant
challenges facing our water supplies in the 21st Century,
including population growth, climate change, rising energy
demands, environmental needs and aging infrastructure.
Title XVI and the WaterSmart grants programs are important
tools to conserve water supplies in the West. These programs
need funding and should be funded through H.R. 1. I encourage
you to join the WateReuse Association in supporting these
programs.
Sincerely,
G. Wade Miller,
Executive Director.

I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Chair, I am committed to cutting the
deficit, and I sought a seat on the Budget Committee to do so. But I
rise to express deep concerns over the congressional Republicans'
irresponsible fiscal scheme that will harm communities and students
back home that I represent.
We need a multiyear strategy to cut the debt and the deficit, but a
strategy that ensures that America retains its superiority in
education, innovation, and research.
We must cut waste and close the huge tax loopholes written by
lobbyists, like the ones for oil companies. But congressional
Republicans do not do this.
Instead of tackling the debt and deficit in a smart and strategic
way, the congressional Republicans' scheme will result in job losses,
and it will make economic recovery more difficult for American families
and businesses. And here are some stark examples from the community I
represent back in Florida in the Tampa Bay area.
First, on education and the Pell Grant. I represent an education
community, with a large public research university, a private college,
and many community colleges. When the Republicans propose cutting the
Pell Grant and support to students, this harms our ability to maintain
our superiority in education when we are competing with countries all
across the globe.
You know, over 9 million students and families rely on the Pell Grant
every year in America, and we have worked very hard through the
economic recovery to help those students maintain that same level of
Pell Grants. So don't take us backwards. You shouldn't be taking us
backwards.
Do you know what it's like for a hardworking family to pay tuition
right now? Is tuition going down? Is tuition being cut? Are books being
cut? No. So let's not turn our backs on our students and families at
this time.
The same thing for Head Start. In Tampa and Hillsborough Counties, we
have an award-winning Head Start initiative. And the evidence that Head
Start gives students a boost in life is very well known. Parents have
to be involved. We wish all eligible kids could get that boost. Even
now, before the congressional Republican cuts, we have 2,400 families
on the waiting list and 1,000 infants and toddlers on the Early Start
list. The Republican cuts again take us backwards. I hear from back
home that 452 families will be told that there is no room for their
child.
They will also lay off 123 teachers just in my home county alone,
because in the State of Florida they predict that they will have to lay
off almost 2,000 teachers under your cuts.
Schools and students. The Republicans again are off base in cutting
my local schools, particularly the title I schools that serve kids that
need a little extra attention. We estimate that Republicans will be
eliminating 20 to 30 jobs in my home district that serve students that
need that achievement gap boost. You are harming the high poverty
middle and high school students also in the county across the Bay that
recently was able to expand beyond elementary school.

{time} 1600

Madam Chairman, rather than close the tax loophole for the oil
companies that are making multi-billion dollar profits, the Republicans
instead cut my local police and sheriff's departments, like the help we
get under COPS for the anti-methamphetamine initiative and for our
juvenile justice initiative to try to prevent gangs from forming in the
counties. The youth initiatives have received national awards from the
Attorney General, and it would be a real shame if we had to turn these
back.
Also, in my home county, we rely on some very robust ports in the
Tampa Bay area as our economic engine. You are going to cut that
support for that economic engine to dredge the canals and ports so the
ships can come in, and we rely on those for jobs.
You also are going to cut the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Now, after the Gulf of Mexico suffered the economic hit
under the BP oil blowout, our coastal communities were hurt badly. The
tourism industry, the seafood industry and our wildlife habitat
suffered significant damage.
So, coming from Florida, when you all say that you are going to turn
your backs on our ability to monitor our oceans, that is very harmful,
because clean oceans and clean beaches mean a healthy economy.
Certainly closing the oil company tax loophole would be a wiser course
of action.
We all know how harsh it has been under the Great Recession with
foreclosures. It has hit us especially hard, so hard that a local
expert told me yesterday that the Republican budget cuts to the
magnitude being considered would greatly and immediately increase
homelessness, place more than 1,000 families at risk and put seniors on
the street.
Vote ``no'' on this CR.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1703. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Land
Acquisition'' shall be $2,750,000: Provided, That no less
than $2,250,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds
shall be used in addition to amounts provided by this
division: Provided further, That the proviso under such
heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to
funds appropriated by this division.

Amendment No. 193 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of
order.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 264, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,750,000)''.
Page 264, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,250,000)''.
Page 264, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $15,055,000)''.
Page 264, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
Page 278, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,100,000)''.
Page 278, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,400,000)''.
Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $35,055,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chairman, in December, I voted for that historic
agreement between President Obama and Congress to keep American taxes
low and to extend unemployment benefits. Now we are here to debate how
to pay for that, and I have an idea about how to help pay for that.
My amendment, No. 193, would strike the remaining funding for this 6
months in this year totaling $35 million from the budgets of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM and the Forest Service for the
purpose of buying new Federal land. There are many alternatives to
buying land with cash that would allow them to continue using Yankee
ingenuity, and those include land exchanges.
In my own State, we have over half a million acres that have been
designated for disposal by Federal agencies because these lands don't
fit into

[[Page H977]]

good land management, yet there are other lands that these same Federal
agencies would like to acquire. They can do exchanges. They can do
sales of this land that is designated for disposal and purchase other
lands that work better for the fragmented land ownership patterns that
we sometimes experience in the West. This is a much better alternative
to using $35 million to pay cash to buy new land that adds to the
management base and responsibility. At the same time, it would free up
land that would be disposed of for people to buy and begin to earn a
living on.
So this is a way to create jobs, not to burden the Federal
Government, and to recognize that good stewardship and good
conservation can be practiced by good Federal and private partnerships.
Those are the opportunities that are available if we adopt this
amendment. It saves the taxpayers money and it helps pay for those
people receiving unemployment benefits, and this is a win-win
amendment.
It is only a moratorium, and when we begin the next fiscal year, we
would have an opportunity, from having reviewed projects between the
Natural Resources Committee and the Interior Subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee, and have a better understanding of the
ultimate goal of our land acquisitions programs within these Federal
agencies.
So, Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I withdraw the point of order, and I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, let me give this body the top 10 reasons
to defeat this amendment.
Number one, these are not really taxpayer dollars. The money comes
from oil drilling receipts.
Number two, this amendment represents a complete elimination of a
bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years.
The third reason is that this amendment will eliminate all the land
and water conservation funding, even the few dollars remaining under
the continuing resolution for management of these programs.
The fourth reason is that this amendment would force land management
agencies to end all the work on congressionally approved projects that
are now underway using previous-year appropriations. It will hurt
willing seller landowners by preventing agencies from finishing out
commitments that are already in place.
The fifth reason is that many landowners, ranging from elderly
widowers and family trusts to ranchers and forest owners, have pressing
financial needs that now depend on completion of these ongoing land and
water conservation projects.
The sixth reason is that by eviscerating the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, you are going to cause severe impacts on many others
as well, including schoolchildren in the State of Wyoming. The
amendment will bring to an immediate halt the negotiated agreement
between the State of Wyoming and the National Park Service to transfer
$107 million of school trust lands to Grand Teton National Park.
Without the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the State can't meet its
mandate to sell those lands and generate revenue to support its
educational system.
The seventh reason is that the amendment would frustrate land
exchanges that are currently in process, many of which have been years
in the making and are important for local private economic development
and public land management.
The eighth reason, under this amendment, the staff wouldn't be in
place to even accept and process donations of important natural
historic and other properties from the public.
The ninth reason is that, without staff, right-of-way work to provide
or maintain access for key public needs would be rendered impossible.
The public would be unable to secure critically needed routes for fuel
and wildfire management, watershed management, and access for sportsmen
and other recreational use.
The tenth reason is that the amendment would exacerbate an already
draconian cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that
is already paid for using a very small percentage of oil drilling
receipts.
This amendment should be rejected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman from New Jersey
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOLT. In every State of the United States, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund has been one of the most successful programs for
preserving open space and our environment for future generations. It is
important to note, as the ranking member has said, that the LWCF is not
funded by taxpayer dollars but by fees charged to the industry for the
extraction of oil and gas from public lands.
Congress created the LWCF 45 years ago on the principle that some
funds garnered from extraction of resources should be devoted to the
preservation of other resources, in fact protecting permanently
important lands and waters and access to recreation for all Americans.
The LWCF is the only environmental preservation program in the Federal
Government that is fully offset, and under the LWCF, polluters, not
taxpayers, pay to protect the environment.

{time} 1610

So cutting this program doesn't save taxpayer dollars. It robs
taxpayers of the returns. And, actually, as in so many things in this
continuing resolution, it does away with jobs.
It's my belief that the LWCF should be fully funded at the authorized
level of $900 million and the stateside program should receive at least
$200 million to match State funds. This is what the President requested
in his fiscal year 2012 budget--and I think that's a fair proposal. The
draconian continuing resolution in front of us not only would zero out
the stateside portion of the LWCF, it would cut the LWCF overall
program to the lowest level in its history, ending much-needed balance
between resource extraction and resource conservation. We should reject
this amendment.
The budget before us and this continuing resolution would really turn
back the clock on efforts to preserve open spaces. The stateside
portion of LWCF, which I helped revive in one of my first acts when I
came to this Congress, through its matching grants has saved over
73,000 acres in my State of New Jersey; and in our 12th District, which
I have the privilege to represent, we've received tens of millions of
dollars in stateside LWCF funding. Every family that visits Veterans
Park in Mercer County, the Sickles recreation area in the Borough of
Shrewsbury, or the Colonial Lake playground in Lawrence Township, to
name a few of the hundreds of LWCF projects, have benefited directly
from this successful program.
Preserving open space is more than an environmental issue. It really
is a quality of life issue. It's not just about preserving beautiful
vistas. It's about preserving nature's way of cleansing herself. It is
about providing recreation and parks. It is particularly important for
States east of the Mississippi, but it is no less important for all 50
States.
Every State has positive stories to tell about LWCF. Voters
consistently have supported funding open space preservation. Recent
polling found that 86 percent of Americans are supportive of
reinvesting funds from offshore drilling fees to land and water
protection.
President Johnson said, ``If future generations are to remember us
more with gratitude than with sorrow, we must achieve more than just
the miracles of technology. We must also leave them a glimpse of the
world as it was created, not just as it looks when we get through with
it.''
The Land and Water Conversation Fund is one of the few government
programs that really benefits all Americans, does not use taxpayer
dollars, and receives the overwhelming support of the Nation.
I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand and sympathize with the

[[Page H978]]

amendment that the gentlelady from Wyoming is proposing. We in the West
sometimes have a little bit different point of view. Regardless of
where the funding comes from, whether it comes from money that comes
from oil sales or other things, when you're buying additional land in
the States with 64 percent of Federal land currently, that causes some
concern to westerners. So I understand why sometimes people from New
Jersey and Massachusetts and other places that don't have a lot of
public lands sometimes don't understand the same concern that we share
out there.
So I sympathize with what the gentlelady is saying in this amendment,
but I would point out this started out in 2010. There was $450 million
in the Land and Water Conversation Fund appropriated for this year. We
have reduced that in this bill to $58 million. It already terminates
funding for any new Federal land acquisition projects, an action we had
to take in order to meet the subcommittee's allocation halfway through
this fiscal year. All that remains is enough funding for managing
projects funded in prior years and for emergencies and in-holdings for
small acquisitions that make sense and save taxpayers money in the long
run. So we've reduced this fund for any new land acquisition.
I can't tell you what's going to happen in the next bill, but this
one would allow for those in-holdings to be purchased, those things
that are ongoing and currently under negotiation. So I think it's the
appropriate thing to do. Terminating these programs will pull the rug
out from under private landowners that we've already made commitments
to, many of whom have fallen on hard times in this economy, who need to
sell their lands and who would want to conserve those lands for the
benefit of all Americans.
So as much as I sympathize with what the gentlelady is trying to do,
I think reducing all of the funds out of that account would be
inappropriate. And I would oppose the amendment and urge all Members to
oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a nearly 50-year-
old promise to the American people that if we are going to allow giant
oil companies like BP to deplete our ocean energy resources, we will
take a small sliver of their massive profits and deposit it into a
conservation fund.
Since its creation in 1965, the Land and Water Conversation Fund has
allowed Federal acquisition of critical acres inside the national
parks, vital wildlife habitats, conservation easements, and water
rights, as well as construction of local recreational facilities
through grants to States. The fund has served as one of the most
important tools in building and protecting our national resources
heritage.
The underlying bill devastates this revered program by slashing the
amount to be paid out of the fund for conservation by almost 90 percent
compared to current levels--almost 90 percent of a cut from current
levels. The funding level contained in the underlying bill is the
lowest proposed amount since the program was created in 1965. This is
not a return to fiscal year 2008. This is not a return to fiscal year
2009. This is a return to fiscal year LBJ. That's their goal, to go
back right to the very beginning, and if they could, to the year before
when it did not exist at all. That's the real goal of what this debate
is trying to accomplish from the Republican side. And now this
amendment proposes a further reduction in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
To be clear, this amendment does not save this money. Rather, it
borrows this money from a trust fund and uses it to offset spending
that has already occurred. This is diverting oil money from its
intended conservation purpose in violation of a promise made to the
American people. The Outdoor Industry Association points out that
outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the United
States economy and supports more than 6 million jobs. The Land and
Water Conservation Fund is good for the environment, it's good for the
economy, and it's a 50-year-old promise to every American.
The cuts contained in the underlying bill would cripple the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. Further cuts could kill it. This amendment
should be defeated, and it should be seen in the context of this
massive attempt by the new Republican majority to take the EPA and to
turn it into every polluter's ally; to take the clean air and the clean
water laws and begin to undermine them systematically; to take each and
every one of these environmental areas that we've made tremendous
progress in over the last 30, 40, and 50 years and begin to roll back
those gains as though America was not the beneficiary.
There's a good reason why America is the number one box office smash
in the world, and that's because they look at us and they appreciate
the commitment that we have made to the public health, to the public
lands, to clean water, to clean air. And if we begin to undermine that
image, then we will be hurting our country; we will be hurting our
tourism; we will be hurting our ability to be able to pass on this
planet in better condition than the way we found it. I urge that under
no circumstances we support a provision that would accomplish all those
goals.

{time} 1620

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. 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 gentlewoman from Wyoming
will be postponed.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. I rise more in sorrow than in anger about the
legislation now before us.
Mr. Chairman, all Members will agree we have to confront our budget
deficit; but we have to do so, I think, in a sensible fashion. I grieve
that that does not happen here. The cuts of the magnitude that we are
making today and the places they are being made is destructive beyond
belief. We risk a continuation or, indeed, a re-igniting of the
recession which has plagued us, and we risk seeing to it that the great
needs of our country are not met. We are looking at the strong
possibility of a loss of jobs.
The Economic Policy Institute estimates that 800,000 jobs will be
lost, jobs that are not only important but that are, indeed, of major
national priority, which are being put on the chopping block. Let us
look at some of the things about which our Republican friends are
dismissive.
The education of our children: the continuing resolution will
eliminate or reduce aid for almost 1.5 million low- and middle-income
students paying for college.
The safety of our food: these cuts here will hamstring the Food and
Drug Administration's ability to implement critical food safety
legislation, leaving us vulnerable to food-related illness and death.
Americans' health: the continuing resolution cuts billions from the
Department of Health and Human Services, over $1 billion from the
National Institutes of Health, and over $1 billion from community
health centers.
The welfare of our homeless veterans: even housing vouchers for the
homeless defenders of our country are eliminated. This is disgraceful,
and indeed it is a dishonor to those who have served their country.
Job training: the continuing resolution cuts billions from job
training for displaced workers, turning our backs on those hit hardest
by the recession.
U.S. exports, which make jobs: even though both Democrats and
Republicans have called for a reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, the
continuing resolution severely cuts into our primary export promotion
effort.
Security on our streets: millions will be cut from the funding for
State and

[[Page H979]]

local policing activities to fight drugs, gangs and terrorism.
Moreover, the continuing resolution eliminates Federal grants that help
police departments around the country hire or rehire police officers.
Critical conservation programs: the Land and Water Conservation Fund
and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, all of which are
solid, bipartisan programs, would either be completely or effectively
gutted. In addition, this legislation prevents the Environmental
Protection Agency from taking important steps to protect the waters of
our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, with unemployment hovering around 9 percent
nationally--and much higher in my own State--and with many Americans
still struggling through this recession, we cannot pull the rug out
from under them. Politics aside, cuts of this magnitude would be
unhealthy, untimely, and would provide uncertainty for our Nation as we
try to get back on our feet.
Instead of draconian cuts, we should be looking to see to it that we
have wise and prudent cuts, while at the same time we have an
investment in the future of our country and in our people. I do not see
that in this proposal before us at this time.
As the President has said, we can and, indeed, we must out-educate,
out-innovate and out-build our competitors. That is the only way that
the United States can achieve the kind of hope for recovery and
economic activity that will benefit our next generations. Contrary to
H.R. 1, we need to balance investments that will help our economy
recover while also committing to decreasing the Federal deficit.
It is clear that neither goal will be achieved overnight and that
they certainly will not be achieved in this legislation. I stand ready
to work with my colleagues and with the President to find responsible
and effective ways to trim the budget, but I refuse to permit my
Republican colleagues to gut vital government programs and bring our
economic recovery to a standstill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I offer this motion to speak out against the
blatant attack on clean water, which is contained in section 1747 of
this Republican continuing resolution--a provision that does not save
the taxpayer one single dollar.
As we know, the Clean Water Act became law in 1972 with the stated
purpose of cleaning up America's waterways and wetlands. Since then,
this landmark legislation has served as a framework for protecting our
drinking water from deadly toxins and for preserving the ecological
integrity of our waterways.
In my home State of New York, from the mighty waters of rivers like
the Hudson to the many lakes of the Adirondacks, this legislation has
been absolutely critical, where 95 percent of our population relies on
public drinking water in some form. Unfortunately, in the last 10
years, millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams
have lost Clean Water Act protection.
Healthy streams and wetlands naturally filter and replenish our
drinking water supplies. They absorb flood waters and protect
coastlines and support local hunting, fishing, boating, and recreation
industries. One-third of Americans get their drinking water from the
types of streams that are vulnerable to pollution under recent
rollbacks; and this bill includes a provision that would ban the EPA
and the Army Corps of Engineers from working within their legal
authority to mitigate that threat.
This is an appropriations bill. According to my colleagues across the
aisle, it is a bill with the sole purpose of reducing the deficit--a
noble goal. However, the clean water rider in section 1747 of this bill
does not save one dime of taxpayer money. It is not about funding. It
is about restricting the legal authority of the EPA and the work of the
Army Corps of Engineers in an underhanded ``politics as usual'' attack
on our drinking water, on our environment, and on the thousands of
recreational fishing, hunting and boating jobs that these water
resources support.
We may have banned formal earmarks this year, but this rider amounts
to a handout to big polluters at the expense of basic public health
protections.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. The legislation before us, the continuing resolution, I
believe is a full-throttled extremist assault on the environment, on
the public health of the American people, and on the jobs and economic
well-being of our Nation as a whole. In these difficult times that we
are in, it is the economy and jobs that should be the top priorities
for this Congress and for the Republican majority.
Mr. Chairman, this CR does irreparable harm to the environment,
including to the air, water, our public lands, and to wildlife. The
virtual elimination of public health protection by the reckless
dismantling of the jurisdiction of the EPA and of the funding of the
EPA will bring health crises to the American people and will endanger
families and children.

{time} 1630

Today, the President is announcing his great outdoors initiative, and
at a time when he is asking for private, State, local, and Federal
cooperation in the protection of public places in the enhancement of
recreation and outdoor activities for the American people, this CR
talks about the elimination of State and tribal wildlife grants which
are essential in that coordination. It talks about reducing by 90
percent the land water conservation fund, which is essential to
promoting that cooperation and promoting the joint planning and joint
jurisdiction of many of our special places in this country.
And the upcoming punitive attempt to eliminate the national landscape
conservation system will leave 800 public units abandoned without
coordination and without the ability to plan for the future and to be
coordinated in such a fashion that they save money and serve the
American people the best.
This CR places our special public places and lands on the endangered
list, with irrational cuts in ending the shared responsibility to
protect and conserve. Big Oil and gas and mining do not own these
public places and lands--the American people do--and to turn to
extraction as the only goal for these public lands denies history,
ignores science, and welcomes the exploitation of a shared resource by
the American people.
If deficit reduction is the item on the agenda--and we all agree that
we must confront that and be prudent, be pragmatic, and be realistic in
cutting programs--then we also should put everything on the table
because if it is indeed an issue of deficit reduction, then let's talk
about some items that the majority did not put in their CR, some of the
subsidies, some of the giveaways to industries that are part of the
public land agenda and part of what happens within the Interior
Department:
Expensing reforestation expenditures, $600 million under public land;
excessive percentage over cost depletion for nonfuel minerals, $500
million; expensing exploration for nonfuel minerals, $400 million;
intangible drilling costs, $8.9 billion; oil and gas royalty relief,
$6.9 billion; domestic manufacturing and tax deduction for oil and gas
companies, $6.2 billion. And if you keep going down that list with coal
subsidies, nuclear industry subsidies, oil and gas subsidies, public
land subsidies, you end up with a figure of $100 billion to $200
billion.
I'm not saying that all those cuts should be eliminated. I don't
think we should take an axe to those areas. Some are productive and
needed; but if we are going to scrutinize this budget, let's do it in a
fair way that shares and balances what we're going through while we
protect important things in our public lands and in our public health.
I urge all my colleagues to balance public health of families and
children, the public lands we love, the shared responsibility we have
to clean air, water, public health, and our national resources, balance
that with the narrow agenda that is confronting us

[[Page H980]]

today, an agenda that punishes taxpayers and the American people at the
expense and for the profit of private oil and gas interests in this
country.
As we confront this issue, I would suggest to my colleagues that the
legacy of our public lands and our environment, the legacy of our clean
air and water, the public health of our people should be the priority.
And if cuts need to be made, then all cuts should be placed on the
table, all cuts should be looked at, including subsidies and including
giveaways and deductions that are not part of the norm with our public
dollars. That would be good for the taxpayer, and it would be good for
the environment, and it would be good in reducing the deficit.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying
bill.
I was an early and strong supporter of the President's bipartisan
commission on the debt; and while I do not agree with all of the
commission's recommendations, I recognize that their report to the
President offered an important starting point for debate on an issue
that affects the lives of every American, as well as future
generations.
In the report, the commission warns against disrupting our fragile
economic recovery: ``We need a comprehensive plan now to reduce the
debt over the long term. But budget cuts should start gradually so they
don't interfere with the ongoing economic recovery. Growth is essential
to restoring fiscal strength and balance. We should cut red tape and
unproductive government spending that hinders job creation and growth.
But at the same time we must invest in education, infrastructure, and
high-value research and development to help our economy grow, keep us
globally competitive, and make it easier for businesses to create
jobs.''
The bill before us fails to heed this sound advice, making
shortsighted decisions that will sabotage our short-term recovery and
undermine our long-term competitiveness. The reckless decisions made in
this bill will lead to lost jobs in my district and throughout the
Nation.
Some of these job losses are obvious. Deep cuts to COPS and SAFER
funding will ensure that we will lose thousands of police officers and
firefighters protecting our communities nationwide; but other losses
may be less obvious but just as painful.
For instance, this legislation imposes deep cuts on the food Food and
Drug Administration. Every single drug, vaccine, biologic and medical
device must be approved by the FDA before it can ever be offered to
patients. This means that not only do patients rely on the FDA but also
American pharmaceutical and medical device companies that need an
efficient and effective FDA to ensure that they can continue to
innovate, grow, and create jobs.
We are lucky to have a medical device industry in this country that
is on the cutting edge of technological advances in medicine. What we
should be doing is modernizing the FDA to make it more efficient,
transparent, predictable, and rigorous; and to do that, we need to
ensure that the FDA has all the necessary resources to conduct proper
and speedy review of life-saving devices that not only benefit patients
but our innovative businesses so that many of them can get to work
putting people to work.
For these private sector firms, cutting FDA resources means slowing
down their approval process, driving some of them overseas, and losing
many jobs here in our country as well. Likewise, cuts to local funding
included in this bill will harm communities I represent, particularly
the deep cuts to the Community Development Block Grant program. When I
have asked leaders in the cities I represent how we can best help their
recovery efforts, the answer has been unhesitating and unequivocal:
CDBG funding.
Last week, the city manager in my hometown of Lowell wrote, saying,
``This is probably the most valuable tool that the Federal Government
offers cities to address economic development, infrastructure, and
community needs.''
What is most discouraging about the attack on CDBG funding is that it
does just what my colleagues say they support: it provides local
flexibility, allowing stakeholders to decide what makes sense for their
communities, while ensuring an extremely efficient use of funds. For
example, last year in the city of Lowell, every $1 in CDBG funding
generated more than $16 in additional funding.
Over the years, Lowell has successfully used CDBG funds to redevelop
a historic building into a much-needed senior center, turning a blight
into a landmark and prompting the entry of private businesses nearby.
It has used funds to spur the development of a mixed-use development
that is bringing in millions of dollars in private development and
restoring architectural treasures key to the city's identity. And it
has provided seed money to nonprofits like the United Teen Equality
Center, recognized nationally for the revolutionary work they're doing
every day to curb gang violence in the city of Lowell.
All of these actions have improved the quality of life and created
jobs for Lowell residents, and none might have been made possible
without this modest Federal investment.
So I do not support the underlying bill, and I encourage its
rejection.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. I rise today to let the American people and all
Minnesotans know that this continuing resolution is an unprecedented
assault on our public health and environment.
We know that the Federal budget is in crisis, and we know we must
make tough choices; but those choices must be prudent, wise, and invest
in our future. It should not put the basic health of Americans at risk.
The Republicans' plan before us proposes to cut $3 billion from the
EPA's budget, the largest percentage cuts to this critical agency in 30
years.

{time} 1640

The bill also proposes radical policy language to keep the EPA from
carrying out its historic mission--a mission to protect the health of
the American people--by limiting the EPA's ability to enforce the Clean
Air Act and Clean Water Act.
The EPA needs to be allowed to do its job, and it needs the resources
to do this job. This bill would cause the EPA to lay off 80 percent of
its employees who are responsible for protecting public health.
State clean water programs are gutted by $2 billion in the Republican
budget. Our local communities are struggling with their own budgets,
and these vital funds allow for communities to hire engineers,
construction workers, to upgrade water plants and drinking water
projects.
It is the EPA's investment in clean water that allows parents to know
that if their child walks up to a drinking fountain anywhere in
America, they can have the peace of mind that that water is safe for
their child to drink. These irresponsible cuts jeopardize that peace of
mind.
The EPA does important work, and the work that the EPA does saves
lives. I strongly oppose these reckless Republican cuts and radical
deregulation proposals that endanger our communities. Congress needs to
make difficult choices. Mr. Chair, I believe that these are foolhardy
choices to shortchange clean air, clean water, and the health of our
families.
On Monday, I received over 1,000 valentines from Minnesotans, and
those valentines were dedicated to the EPA. My constituents understand
the important work that the EPA has done to protect our water, our
land, and their health over the past 40 years. And it's work that they
feel must continue. This continuing resolution would turn back all the
tremendous progress we have made in cleaning up our environment, and I
firmly reject it and urge my colleagues to do as well.
Mr. Chair, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate Speaker Boehner and my
Republican colleagues providing for an open discussion on this
legislation, and

[[Page H981]]

I appreciate the Speaker's request that we be respectful of the
process. I think that is important. But I think it is also important to
come to the floor at this point to make a couple of observations that
are critical to the people I represent.
We are ready to move forward to actually deal with cutting the
budget. We have already seen today a significant amendment adopted
dealing with defense. There are opportunities for us to accelerate
health care savings in Medicare. And from the beginning of my coming to
this body, I have been working on a bipartisan basis to deal with
reductions in unnecessary and wasteful agricultural subsidies.
There are several items that we are dealing with in the continuing
resolution that have nothing to do with saving money. Indeed, they are
actually going to cost money in economic impact in my community and
around the country.
I note, for instance, the policy rider that would prevent the EPA and
the Corps of Engineers from clarifying provisions of the Clean Water
Act. As a result, millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles
of streams will lose Clean Water Act protections. Because these affect
so much of the headwater streams supply to public surface drinking
water in my State, it could end up threatening drinking water quality
for almost 2 million people.
The cut to the State revolving funds are extraordinarily imprudent.
This money leverages a great deal of activity and helps us deal with
the massive infrastructure deficit with water quality. The American
Society of Civil Engineers backs this up. We are talking about hundreds
of billions of dollars we need to be investing in the next 20 years.
Cutting the revolving fund is a dramatic step backward.
In the area of air quality, there is a rider that attempts to prevent
EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Now I will tell you, on
its merits, dealing with greenhouse gases, that this will look foolish
for the people who are proposing it to their children and
grandchildren. They will wonder, What were you thinking?
But put aside for a moment the problem of greenhouse gas emissions
and carbon pollution. The language will have far-reaching--and I hope
unintended--consequences. It would hinder EPA's ability to relax
requirements on biomass plants that matter, for example, to my friend
from Idaho and others in the Northwest. Very important to us. In
addition, because of the way it was drafted, to prevent the issuance of
permits, the language would impose a de facto construction ban on new
sources in many States, including Oregon. This could block not only new
or expanding power plants but refineries and large manufacturing
plants. With unemployment rates high in my State and around the
country, this construction moratorium hardly seems to make sense.
The budget decimates the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This was a
program that represented a commitment to offset some of the destructive
effects of oil and gas production by preserving many of America's high-
quality recreational opportunities and vital wildlife habitat.
This is violating a commitment that this body has made to finally
allow these funds to flow. Unfortunately, future investments are going
to be at risk if this CR passes with the existing funding level,
missing opportunities to complete landscapes and protect watersheds and
actually preventing agencies from meeting commitments already in place.
My final concern at this point deals with the assault on energy
investments. The United States invests approximately 0.5 percent of the
trillion-dollar energy sector. If anything, we should be ramping this
up. We are losing our competitive edge around the world. We are losing
economic opportunities and opportunities to preserve the environment.
Mr. Chairman, I have other concerns. There are other people who have
things to say. But I hope that we can reject these provisions in the CR
that actually make no difference in terms of reducing the budget and
violate commitments that we have made.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1704. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Resource Management'' shall be $1,204,240,000:
Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in
division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this division as follows: by substituting
``$20,945,000'' for ``$22,103,000''; and by substituting
``$10,548,000'' for ``$11,632,000''.

Amendment No. 295 Offered by Mr. McClintock

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

Page 264, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $7,537,000)''.
Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,537,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation is a government-established, government-financed, so-called
private nonprofit set up to act as a conduit to funnel public dollars
to private environmental advocacy groups. The authorization for these
grants has expired. Let me repeat that. There is no congressional
authorization for this program, and yet the money just keeps rolling
on.
If we are actually serious about spending taxpayer money as carefully
as they spend what they've got left after they've paid their taxes,
then we ought to start by insisting that if Congress has not authorized
a program, it should not be funded. If we ignore this principle, then
why do we have any committees other than the Appropriations Committee?
When Ronald Reagan very reluctantly signed the original legislation,
NFWF's budget was $100,000. It has grown to $7.5 million, 75-fold. Nor
was Reagan's signing statement exactly a ringing endorsement. Here is
what he said: ``I must convey my serious reservations about the bill.
The statements in the bill to the effect that the foundation shall be a
nonprofit, charitable corporation and that it shall not be an agency or
establishment of the United States are contradicted by the facts.
Establishment of the foundation under the terms of the bill is an
unwise and dangerous precedent.'' Well, Reagan had ``serious
reservations'' about an unwise and dangerous precedent.

{time} 1650

Reagan's ``serious reservations'' were well founded, and, at the very
least, there ought to be a full congressional review of this program
and a decision made to reauthorize it before we throw more money at it,
money, by the way, if you haven't checked the newspapers recently, that
we don't have.
In this particular case, these are public dollars being funneled to
private concerns, many of which have a disconcerting habit of then
turning around and suing the government, that is, suing taxpayers over
environmental issues. As we all know, all funds are fungible. So, in
essence, through this agency, we are using taxpayer money to give to
groups to sue taxpayers.
Not all of these private foundations are even domestic. These grants
have gone to such foreign groups as the Prakratic Society of India, the
Centre for Dolphin Studies of Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in
Central Mozambique, and to the San Lorenzo Public Outreach Program in
Panama.
Mr. Chairman, with our Nation facing the worst peacetime fiscal
crisis in our history, do we really need to continue these
expenditures? And shouldn't we at least review the program and renew
the authorization before we throw more money at it?
I yield back the balance of my time.
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. I oppose the gentleman's amendment that reduces the Fish
and Wildlife Service by $7.5 million. The gentleman says that it is
aimed at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, although it doesn't
say so. But whether it is or not, it's still a bad idea.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation raises private funds with
minimal Federal seed dollars. It should be

[[Page H982]]

encouraged, not eliminated. Last year, the foundation leveraged $40
million in Federal funds into more than $180 million for on-the-ground
conservation projects. That's a leverage ratio of 4\1/2\ times.
The Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be the best financial
investment of public dollars to leverage private funds that pay for
Federal priorities. In 1984, a quarter century ago, during challenging
budget times, as well as we have today, the Foundation was created by a
bipartisan group of Members of the House and Senate to leverage
taxpayer dollars with private dollars.
This amendment would affect more than 400 conservation projects this
year in most U.S. States and territories. These programs are
nonregulatory, community driven; they promote working landscapes and
foster innovation. In this critical time of constrained budgets, you
would think we would want the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
more than ever.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1705. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Construction'' shall be $23,737,000.
Sec. 1706. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Land Acquisition'' shall be $15,055,000: Provided,
That no less than $2,500,000 in available, unobligated prior-
year funds shall be used in addition to amounts provided by
this division.
Sec. 1707. Of the unobligated amounts under the heading
``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Landowner Incentive Program'' from prior year
appropriations, all remaining amounts are rescinded.
Sec. 1708. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund''
shall be $2,479,000: Provided, That the amounts included
under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall
be applied to funds appropriated by this division as follows:
by substituting ``$2,479,000'' for ``$29,000,000''; by
substituting ``$0'' for ``$5,145,706''; and by substituting
``$0'' for ``$56,000,000''.
Sec. 1709. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, North American Wetlands Conservation Fund'' shall be
$0.

Amendment No. 338 Offered by Mr. Moran

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

Page 265, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 274, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
Page 274, line 25, after the second dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that this continuing
resolution eliminates all funding for the very successful, bipartisan-
sponsored North American Wetlands Consersation Fund. It cuts $48
million.
My amendment simply adds $50 million for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act. The offset is the EPA Diesel Emissions Program which,
in fact, has been eliminated in the budget just proposed by the
President.
Now, both Houses unanimously reauthorized what's called NAWCA. That's
the acronym for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
We authorized it unanimously in 2006. The appropriation authorization
for NAWCA was increased to $75 million for fiscal years 2007 through
2012. It's wildly popular with all sportsmen and those who value our
wetlands. So I'm surprised that H.R. 1 would eliminate it. This,
frankly, shows what a meat axe approach has been taken here today by
some in the Republican majority.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund conserves our
waterfowl, fish and wildlife resources while, at the same time,
generating environmental and economic benefits. This is a successful
partnership involving Federal, State and local governments and
especially nonprofit organizations like Ducks Unlimited.
The current CEO of Ducks Unlimited, Dale Hall, who incidentally was
President George Bush's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director, wrote,
and I quote, ``If these cuts and actions take place, waterfowl,
waterfowl hunters and wetlands conservation would lose in a big way. In
short, these actions would adversely affect all of us who care about
and have funded wetlands and waterfowl conservation. We should
remember, conservation in America pays for itself through the economic
return from hunters, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts.''
I could not have said it better than the spokesperson, the CEO of
Ducks Unlimited, who served in the Bush administration as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Director.
Every Federal dollar provided by NAWCA must be matched by at least $1
from non-Federal sources. Because the program is so effective, NAWCA
funds are usually tripled or quadrupled on the local level.
In short, this is both a highly popular and very successful program.
Since its inception in 1989, more than 1,600 NAWCA projects have
contributed to the conservation of more than 25 million acres of
habitat across North America.
The offset we use, the Diesel Emissions grant program, is a good
program. But sometimes we have to make hard choices. The President's
fiscal year 2012 request also eliminates the Diesel grant program so as
to encourage the truck industry to increase its own diesel R&D.
I ask the Members to support this amendment to protect our wetlands
and wildlife and support the people who enjoy it.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I just want to rise in very strong support. This has been
one of the most successful conservation programs. It brings in the
private sector. They add two or three times to the contribution here.
And I think this is a program that is very worthy and should be
supported, and I hope the gentleman's amendment will be accepted.
Mr. MORAN. I greatly thank the Chair of the full committee.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund is a good program. I
have no objections to that program. It's just a bad offset that the
gentleman is choosing to move ahead with.
Mr. Chairman, the $50 million that's included in the continuing
resolution to support Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grants is a good
program. Because heavy diesel engines can operate for 20 to 30 years
after they enter service, many of these engines operating today were
manufactured years before the modern clean air standards. DERA grants
support projects to retrofit over 20 million aging diesel engines
currently in use with modern technologies to reduce toxic emissions and
improve air quality.
This successful environmental program is supported by a unique broad
coalition of environmentalists, industry, State and local governments.
This program enjoys strong bipartisan support in both the House and the
Senate and was reauthorized in the lame duck session last Congress.

{time} 1700

Since 2008, the EPA has awarded over 500 DERA grants for projects
nationwide. These grants leverage two State and local dollars for every
one Federal dollar invested and provide $13 of economic benefit for
every dollar spent. These leveraged dollars buy us cleaner air and more
green jobs in every State in our Nation.
Perhaps most importantly, recent studies indicate that black carbon,
like that emitted from diesel engines, is the worst kind of pollution.
The retrofit technology supported by DERA reduces black carbon
emissions by 90 percent.

[[Page H983]]

The EPA's third ``National Assessment of Toxic Air Pollutants'' found
that 2.2 million Americans now live in areas where the air they breathe
increases their risk of cancer to levels deemed grossly unacceptable,
one in 10,000. Given these findings, we owe it to our constituents to
continue to support clean air technology.
Mr. Chairman, DERA is a win-win program. It supports green American
jobs and improves the air quality for all Americans.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in opposition to
the gentleman's amendment, section 1709; however, I want to state for
the record I am completely supportive of the program that he spoke of
today.
This particular amendment, however, seeks to eliminate funding for
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, a vital public health, environment
and infrastructure program that was reauthorized with huge bipartisan
support that Representative Calvert referred to, through a bill I
authored last year. That is the purpose of my standing, because I was
an author of that bill this year.
DERA is a proven program that improves air quality by reducing diesel
emissions. It has strong bipartisan support in both the House and
Senate and from a diverse coalition of transportation, health, and
environmental organizations.
I thank Congressman Moran, and I applaud his leadership efforts to
protect and preserve our environment and natural resources. He has been
a stalwart advocate in the struggle to reduce harmful emissions from
antiquated coal-fired power plants and protect green space and green
infrastructure. However, today is a rare moment that he and I do not
agree.
DERA is a voluntary national and State-level grant and loan program
that reduces the diesel emissions by upgrading and modernizing older
diesel engines and equipment. For someone like me and my district, this
is important. It's the lives of my constituents. By design, it looks to
reduce the emissions from 20 million existing diesel engines in use
today by as much as 90 percent.
The $50 million designated for DERA is but half of the authorized
level and already a 20 percent cut in the program from last year's
funding. Although I would say, for the record, that it has not been
terminated, it is merely a recommendation by the President at this
time.
Eliminating funding entirely would be a huge mistake and cause
substantial detriment to the economic health and environmental
interests, particularly of communities that are along port areas.
Since DERA funding began in 2007, more than 3,000 projects nationwide
have benefited from this program, creating considerable employment
opportunities in the area of manufacturing, installation and servicing
of emissions-related technology. The bill I authored this last year,
which passed in December, will actually amplify job creation further by
expanding the program and increasing the number of eligible
beneficiaries.
Additionally, DERA is widely considered one of the most cost-
effective Federal programs in the Nation. The EPA has estimated that in
California alone the program averages more than $13 in health and
economic benefits for every $1 that it receives in funding. Projections
estimate that nearly 2,000 lives will be saved by 2017 in direct
relation to DERA's impact on air quality.
In my district, the positive benefits of DERA are far reaching, home
to the two busiest container ports in the United States, the Port of
Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. On average, 35,000 trucks
commute to and from these ports daily. By the year 2030, this number
will be expected to triple. Just imagine for a moment the pollution
caused by these vehicles in a single day.
Now, think of those Americans who live along those freight corridors
and are exposed to the pollutants on a daily basis. Would you want that
for you and your family? In my district, these folks already suffer
from asthma and cancer rates far above the national average, and it's
documented. Air quality improvements and reductions in emissions are
vital to the quality of life and health of these families and countless
others throughout the Nation.
I would also like to add that DERA is often mentioned in association
with the trucking industry and freight movement. There is another
important area where diesel engines are most frequently utilized and
where DERA will create a substantial necessary improvement in our
public transportation and our school bus system.
These vehicles are vital to the millions of Americans who rely upon
them every day to get to work or school. Many of these folks include
young children whose lungs and immune systems are still developing and
who are especially susceptible to health problems. We owe it to these
young people and their families to give the DERA program our full
support and see its funding maintained.
DERA has been endorsed by a large coalition of leading environmental
health and transportation organizations who also believe in its
effectiveness at protecting and creating jobs, promoting healthy
economies and healthier citizens. At a time when our future is so
heavily dependent upon economic growth, infrastructure investment, and
improving the quality of life of average Americans, it seems
counterintuitive to cut funding for a program that provides us with so
many benefits.
For these reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment, but I seek to
work with my colleagues to support other funding to support the program
laid out.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to very strongly oppose
the gentleman's amendment and associate myself with the remarks of the
gentlewoman from southern California.
Before going to that, though, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a
moment to express my deep appreciation to both the work of my chairman
and his ranking member putting together what I consider to be overall a
very, very fine bill. I know of Mike Simpson's concern about those
issues that relate to our environment and the interior especially. He
is a fabulous chairman, assisted today by a very, very fine young
person who is his staff director, not so young as he used to be, Dave
LesStrang. But this fine bill also is put together by a cross-section
of great staffers who are doing all they can to improve the conditions
in which we live.
I rise to oppose this amendment in no small part because Ken Calvert
and I over the years have shared the same problem. We live in a region
known as the Inland Empire, and it is surrounded by beautiful,
beautiful mountains. It's a wonderful area; but during much of our
lifetime, indeed for decades, for 250 days-plus a year you could not
see the mountains. How come? It wasn't because of the fog. It was
because of 7 million automobiles starting their engines in Los Angeles
and that which was spewed out going up against the mountains
crystallizing with sunlight creating a thing called air pollution or
smog. Indeed, the battle against air quality problems began many, many
years ago for us, efforts to create a new standard of regulatory
enforcement that would make a difference in the region.
Today, you can see that beautiful valley almost every day of the year
because of the progress that we have made in terms of cleaning the
emissions from mobile sources. We are very proud of the fact that we've
controlled stationary sources. It is easy to point a finger at the big
smoke stack and say, Oh, my God, that's the problem. Indeed, we have
solved 99 percent of all those emissions, and air quality still is a
challenge.
When you come to this question today, we are talking about serious
efforts to improve the emissions that come largely from trucks, but
diesel-using engines and those emissions have a tremendous impact upon
air quality as well.
Over the years, all of our efforts have saved I don't know how many
tens of

[[Page H984]]

thousands of lives because we have improved the conditions in which
these people have to live and breathe. But to suggest that we ought to
begin to break down the progress being made on these engines by way of
this relatively easy but, I must say, simplistic kind of transfer is a
very, very big mistake.
So, Mr. Chairman, in the strongest way I urge our members to vote
``no'' on this $50 million transfer and recognize it's a lot more
important to save the lives of those breathing foul air than to give a
pittance to a very important environmental problem.

{time} 1710

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Acting CHAIR announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1710. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation'' shall be
$4,430,000.
Sec. 1711. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Multinational Species Conservation Fund'' shall be
$7,875,000.
Sec. 1712. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants'' shall be $0.

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. Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed that the committee
zeroed out the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program. I think this
has been a great program that has helped the States do plans on how
they can use their habitat to protect endangered species. This is the
kind of work that is necessary so that we don't get future listings.
I know my friend from Idaho and others are concerned about the
Endangered Species Act and the number of listings, and we will talk
more about that later, but this was a very important program and one
that I as chairman strongly supported and actually created.
So I just want to mention that I hope in conference we can at least
maintain some level of funding for this program.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning
on the date of enactment of this division, the Secretary of
the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April
2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any
other provision of statute or regulation that applies to
issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this
section) shall not be subject to judicial review.

Amendment No. 194 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 266, strike line 12 and insert ``on February 27, 2008
(73 Fed. Reg. 10514 et seq.) without''.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of
order.
The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank you
personally, as well as your colleague from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and also
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of Washington, for your work on this amendment.
The continuing resolution as written would reinstate a 2009 Fish and
Wildlife determination that the gray wolf in Montana and Idaho should
be removed from the endangered species list. This amendment would
replace that 2009 determination with an earlier-approved Fish and
Wildlife determination, the one made in 2008, and that expands the
scope of delisting of the gray wolf to include the full range of the
Northern Rockies wolf.
Mr. Chairman, after gray wolves were introduced in 1995 into
Yellowstone National Park in my home State and placed on the endangered
species list under section 10(j), which is the nonessential
experimental population section of the Endangered Species Act, a list
was determined about what it would take to recover the species, when
would we consider it recovered, and it was determined by experts at the
time that the recovery would be complete if the population of wolves
grew to 300 wolves with at least 30 breeding pairs. That was the
target, that was the goal, 300 wolves, 30 breeding pairs.
So how many wolves are there today, Mr. Chairman? Here we are, 16
years later. There are more than 1,600 wolves and 113 breeding pairs.
By every reasonable definition, the wolf has recovered, and yet these
wolves remain on the endangered species list. They remain protected,
even as they overwhelm and decimate other wild game herds. For example,
in the Grovont, the moose population in terms of young calves has
declined 90 percent, 90 percent, and it is due to wolf depredation.
Wolves remain protected in each State because of court
determinations, not because of science, and it is now time to be honest
about the wolf and its recovery. Its continued inclusion on the
endangered species list has everything to do with special interests and
emotion and nothing to do with science. Organizations that repeatedly
sue the government at taxpayer expense orchestrate these strategies and
make people believe that the wolf is not recovered. The simple truth is
the wolf is doing very well.
Lest anyone be confused, my amendment will not create an open season
on wolves. It will return management of the wolf populations back to
the States, and they are the ones who suffer the effects of the wolves.
It will allow for appropriate management of wolf herds, wolf herds by
any definition, that have fully recovered.
So it is time to be honest. It is time to delist.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states, in pertinent part, ``an amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment imposes additional duties beyond what is legislatively
authorized.
So I now ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there any other Member who wishes to speak to
this point of order?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the
Secretary to reissue a different final rule than is required to be
reissued by the pending section. The amendment therefore constitutes
additional legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1714. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Operation of the National Park System'' shall be
$2,237,674,000.
Sec. 1715. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Park
Partnership Project Grants'' shall be $0 and the matters
pertaining to such account in division A of Public Law 111-88
shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division.
Sec. 1716. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National
Recreation and Preservation'' shall be $57,829,000, of which
$0 shall be for projects authorized by section 7302 of Public
Law 111-11.
Sec. 1717. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Historic
Preservation Fund'' shall be $54,500,000: Provided, That the
amounts included under such heading in division A of Public
Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this
division by substituting ``$0'' for ``$25,000,000'': Provided
further, That the proviso under such heading in division A
of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds appropriated by
this division.
Sec. 1718. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior,

[[Page H985]]

National Park Service, Construction'' shall be $171,713,000:
Provided, That the last proviso under such heading in
division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this division: Provided further, That of the
unobligated balances available under such heading in division
A of Public Law 111-88 and in prior appropriation Acts,
$1,000,000 is rescinded from amounts made available for the
(now completed) project at Cape Hatteras National Seashore,
North Carolina, and $1,000,000 is rescinded from amounts made
available for the (now completed) project at Blue Ridge
Parkway, North Carolina, and such unobligated balances are
reduced accordingly: Provided further, That no less than
$23,000,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds shall
be used in addition to amounts provided by this division.
Sec. 1719. The contract authority provided for fiscal year
2011 by 16 U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.
Sec. 1720. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Land
Acquisition and State Assistance'' shall be $14,100,000:
Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in
division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this division as follows: by substituting
``$0'' for ``$40,000,000''; and by substituting ``$0'' for
``$9,000,000'': Provided further, That no less than
$3,400,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds shall
be used in addition to amounts provided by this division:
Provided further, That section 113 of division A of Public
Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this
division.
Sec. 1721. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, United States Geological
Survey, Surveys, Investigations, and Research'' shall be
$1,086,163,000: Provided, That the amounts included under
such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be
applied to funds appropriated by this division as follows: by
substituting ``$53,500,000'' for ``$40,150,000''; and by
substituting ``$4,807,000'' for ``$7,321,000''.
Sec. 1722. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management'' shall be
$239,478,000: Provided, That the amounts included under such
heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied
to funds appropriated by this division as follows: by
substituting ``$109,494,000'' for ``$89,374,000''; and by
substituting ``$154,890,000'' for ``$156,730,000'' each place
it appears.
Sec. 1723. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
Oil Spill Research'' shall be $10,632,000.
Sec. 1724. During fiscal year 2011, the Secretary of the
Interior, in order to implement a reorganization of the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement, may establish accounts and transfer funds among
and between the offices and bureaus affected by the
reorganization only in conformance with the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations reprogramming guidelines
described in the joint explanatory statement of managers
accompanying Public Law 111-88.

{time} 1720

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we're fortunate that the new Republican
majority brought their proposal before this Congress the day after
President Obama submitted his budget plan for next year. We are
fortunate because it gives the American people the opportunity to
compare very different approaches.
The President's budget is tough but it is responsible. It's tough
because it cuts non-security discretionary spending by $400 billion
over the next decade to the lowest share of the economy since the
Eisenhower administration. It's responsible because it steadily reduces
the deficit while making targeted investments in areas like education,
clean energy, infrastructure, and scientific innovation--investments
that will strengthen our economy and make sure America wins the future
in a competitive global marketplace.
One of those key areas of investment the President has proposed is
infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers--hardly a left-
wing group--issued a report card on the state of America's
deteriorating infrastructure. They gave us practically failing grades--
mostly Ds and D-minuses--for the state of our roads, schools, transit,
and drinking water--not grades that we would want our kids to bring
home from school.
So I'm very pleased that the President has announced that he wants to
make critical investments in this area. As reported yesterday in USA
Today, using the analysis of the Associated General Contractors--again,
not a liberal group--his plan could create about 5.4 million
construction jobs and 10 million more jobs in related industries in the
broader economy. At a time when the construction industry is facing
over 20 percent unemployment, those are exactly the kinds of smart
investments that will help grow our economy. This proposal and this
investment is supported by a diverse range of groups, from the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO.
The President's tough and balanced approach stands in stark contrast
to the proposal we're seeing on the floor today. The proposal that
we're talking about today, with very immediate and deep cuts, is a
reckless approach when too many families are struggling to make ends
meet, and it will do virtually nothing to address our long-term
structural deficit.
The Economic Policy Institute found that the proposal before this
House today would likely put 800,000 Americans out of work. Indeed,
that's why the bipartisan commission charged with reducing our deficits
and debt, along with the bipartisan Domenici-Rivlin Commission,
recommended against taking deep, immediate cuts. Yes, they're coming
together now to put together a plan to reduce the deficit in a stable
way. No, to immediate deep cuts that could hurt a very fragile economy.
Let me read you exactly what the bipartisan commission on deficit and
debts reduction said. ``In order to avoid shocking the fragile economy,
the Commission recommends waiting until 2012 to begin enacting
programmatic spending cuts.'' In other words, below the CR level. And
that's exactly what the President's budget does.
Why should we cut essential investments in Head Start and in
education rather than eliminate huge taxpayer subsidies to the oil
industry? In fact, just today, the GAO came out with a report talking
about the huge bonanza oil companies are getting for lack of royalty
payments on many of their lands.
Just yesterday, in the Budget Committee, we had the OMB director,
Jack Lew, testify. Mr. Lew reminded us that the last time he had
testified before the Budget Committee was when he had served as the OMB
Director for President Clinton. When he left office, he left the
country with a $45.6 trillion surplus and an economy that during that
8-year period added 20.8 million private sector jobs. Unfortunately, we
know the end of the movie. Those huge surpluses were squandered. The
previous administration to this one, the Bush administration, cut taxes
for the very wealthy. And, through a number of other policy actions,
turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into a sea of deficits. By the end of
that 8-year period, 653,000 private sector jobs were eliminated.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we will oppose this approach and accept the
approach the President has presented.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1725. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Operation of Indian Programs'' shall be $2,336,865,000:
Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in
division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this division as follows: by substituting
``$220,000,000'' for ``$166,000,000''; by substituting
``$585,779,000'' for ``$568,702,000''; and by substituting
``$46,129,000'' for ``$43,373,000''.
Sec. 1726. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Construction'' shall be $216,100,000.
Sec. 1727. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements and Miscellaneous
Payments to Indians'' shall be $46,480,000, of which $0 shall
be for the matter pertaining to Public Law 109-379.
Sec. 1728. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Departmental Offices, Office of
the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be $117,336,000:
Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in
division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this division by substituting ``$10,636,000''
for ``$12,136,000''.
Sec. 1729. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Departmental Offices, Insular
Affairs, Assistance to Territories'' shall be $78,516,000:
Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in
division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this division as follows: by substituting
``$69,590,000'' for ``$75,915,000''; and by substituting
``$8,926,000'' for ``$9,280,000''.
Sec. 1730. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior,

[[Page H986]]

Departmental Offices, Insular Affairs, Compact of Free
Association'' shall be $5,422,000: Provided, That $2,104,000
of such funds shall be available for section 122 of division
A of Public Law 111-88.
Sec. 1731. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Departmental Offices, Office of
the Solicitor, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be $64,845,000.
Sec. 1732. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Departmental Offices, Office of
Inspector General, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be
$48,389,000.
Sec. 1733. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Departmental Offices, Office of
the Special Trustee for American Indians, Federal Trust
Programs'' shall be $168,115,000: Provided, That the amounts
included under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-
88, as amended by Public Law 111-212, shall be applied to
funds appropriated by this division by substituting
``$31,534,000'' for ``$47,536,000''.
Sec. 1734. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Department-wide Programs,
Wildland Fire Management'' shall be $769,897,000: Provided,
That the amounts included under such heading in division A of
Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by
this division by substituting ``$150,000,000'' for
``$125,000,000''.
Sec. 1735. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Department-wide Programs,
Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration, Natural
Resource Damage Assessment Fund'' shall be $6,320,000.
Sec. 1736. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of the Interior, Department-wide Programs,
Working Capital Fund'' shall be $80,119,000.
Sec. 1737. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Environmental Protection Agency, Science and Technology''
shall be $790,510,000.

Amendment No. 376 Offered by Mr. Flake

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

Page 273, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $64,100,000)''.
Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $64,100,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to reduce the EPA's
Science and Technology account by $64 million. It transfers the money
into the Spending Reduction Account. Sixty-four million dollars is the
level of the agency's astronomically expensive Science to Achieve
Results, or STAR program, funded in fiscal year 2010. It's the intent
of this amendment to zero out this costly program for the rest of the
year, something that due to procedural limitations will be accomplished
by supporting the cut to the account's top line for that purpose and
the agency's operational plan that will come forth in 2011.
According to the EPA, the STAR program is the agency's primary grants
program for funding extramural research in environmental science and
engineering. In a recent press release, the EPA boasts that the
taxpayer-backed awards ``ensure the best science is being used to
protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we build
our communities on.'' What it doesn't mention is that these grants
average 3 years and about $1 million.

{time} 1730

This program was funded at roughly $60 million last year, and the
President requested $87 million for it in fiscal year 2011. I believe
the committee used $50 million as an assumed funding level based on
this CR for the rest of the year.
Don't get me wrong. If we were printing money in a basement and if we
had plenty of it, this may be something we'd want to spend some money
on. I'm sure something good comes out of it, but we're not in that
situation now. We have a debt of $14 trillion, and we have an annual
deficit now of $1.5 trillion. When we're funding research like this,
just out of an account to give to grad students, I think it's time to
question whether or not this is the time we should do this or not.
Not all of the grants that are issued, obviously, are used for good
research. It's not all above reproach. For example, here are just a
couple of the reports that we've received for the research that was
done on these topics:
Environmental Regulation and Productivity Benefits in the Paper
Industry;
Estimating Ownership and Use of Older Cars;
Transforming Office Parks into Transit Villages;
Public Opinion on Environment and Water Quality Management in the New
York City Watershed;
Ironically, there is a study on Experimental Programs to Stimulate
Competitive Research.
I thought that's what this program does.
I've often talked about a lot of the earmarks we used to have that
were just simply earmark incubators that begot more earmarks. It seems
that some of the funding for studies like these are studies that beget
further studies.
If we can't move in now and say, hey, maybe we ought to slim back a
little and save a little money for the taxpayer--remember, the money
saved here will go into the spending reduction account and can be
applied against this year's deficit--then we have to ask ourselves:
How can we go back to our constituents and explain, ``Sorry, that $50
million was better spent giving out research dollars to study
experimental programs to stimulate competitive research or to transform
office parks into transit villages or for public opinion on the
environment and water quality management in the New York City watershed
or for environmental regulation and productivity benefits in the paper
industry?''
Let's say to the taxpayer that we are serious here, that we are
serious about this debt and this deficit. Let's vote for this amendment
and put $50 million into the spending reduction account.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words
in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, the scale of this reduction to EPA science
shuts down EPA's STAR research grants this year and next, affecting
researchers in universities throughout the Nation. The Science to
Achieve Results program, whose acronym is STAR, grants money to
leverage innovative, cutting-edge research with universities across the
Nation.
Now, I don't know about the way they have titled some of these
grants, but I suspect that the gentleman doesn't know much more than I
do about the specific grant itself, other than the title.
What I do know is that this amendment ends funding for the Children's
Health Research Centers, which focus on the study of children's
environmental health hazards, including asthma and exposure to
chemicals.
It ends funding for research for four EPA air research centers that
focus on the health effects of air pollutants on all ages of Americans,
especially the most physically vulnerable and those in smog-laden
communities.
It ends funding for EPA's groundbreaking computational toxicology
research effort, which enables us to screen literally thousands of
chemicals at one time. I've seen how this works, and it's
extraordinarily productive and cost-efficient. It screens chemicals for
environmental health hazards, and it saves millions of dollars in the
process. These innovative and cost-saving tools also offer the
potential to greatly reduce our dependence on animal testing.
The amendment ends funding for critical research to assess risks of
nanotechnology and to develop approaches to ensure the safe development
of nano materials.
The amendment also wipes out EPA's STAR academic research fellowships
program, affecting 350 current and future fellows and creating real
economic hardship in the midst of our depressed economy. Cutting
funding for the STAR fellows program eliminates the opportunity to
develop the future generation of the best scientific minds to address
21st century environmental problems with new and innovative scientific
and technological solutions.
Now, it's not the end of the world, but it will be the end of a
program that works very well--a program that recruits, trains, and
integrates some of the very best minds in preserving and protecting our
environment.
So, for those reasons, I would urge the rejection of this amendment,
Mr. Chairman.

[[Page H987]]

I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in the CR, we have already proposed deep cuts with
tough choices. In the Interior and Environmental section, we have
proposed to cut $4.4 billion and to eliminate 26 different programs.
The STAR program competitively funds research grants and graduate
fellowships in numerous environmental science and engineering
disciplines.
I would note, as the gentleman from Arizona knows, that this is
competitively awarded in that they actually, as I said, compete for
these.
The EPA receives approximately 2,000 to 2,500 proposals each year,
and it funds about 150 research grants and 125 graduate fellowships.
I'd be a little leery about coming down here and just naming off the
title of what a research project is and then saying that it's silly,
because I don't know. I don't know exactly what they're trying to do
with some of these things. You actually need to dig into it and find
out what they're trying to find out with some of these research grants.
A few years ago, some people did this with, I think it was, the
National Academy of Sciences research grants. I can remember some of my
colleagues brought down amendments to defund this research grant or
that research grant. One of them was to defund a research grant on
studying brown fat in panda bears.
Of course, we all on the floor went, Wow, that sounds silly. Why are
we studying brown fat in panda bears? Can't we actually study brown fat
in American bears?
When I called the National Academy of Sciences, what I found is that
who supported that research was NASA, because, if you're ever going to
do deep space research, you need to know something about brown fat.
Guess what animal has more brown fat than any other animal on Earth?
Panda bears. That's why they were doing it.
So just to look at the title of a research project is kind of a silly
way to propose eliminating it and making fun of the program. Some of
them may be silly--I don't know--but I know these are peer-reviewed,
that they actually are competitively granted, and that the gentleman
from Arizona has always been concerned that we give earmarks that are
not competitively granted. Here we have a program that is competitively
granted, so that seems, to me, to be the right way to do it.
Like many other EPA programs, the CR reduces the STAR grant funding.
We did so by applying a $10 million reduction to fund the grants at $51
million in the CR, which is $8 million below the 2008 level. Therefore,
while we understand the intent of the amendment is to eliminate all
funding for the STAR grants, there is no longer $61.4 million in the CR
to reduce for STAR grants, and other research programs would need to be
reduced based on the way the amendment has been drafted.
In addition, I believe we must maintain our scientific
competitiveness as we work to bring our fiscal house in order, and
zeroing out this program, I don't believe, is in the best interest of
our country or that it is the right thing to do.
This is a program that we should--and will--discuss on the record
with the EPA during the 2012 budget hearings, and we will either build
the case for further reductions or an elimination of the program, or we
will have a better understanding of why we should look elsewhere for
additional cuts.
Therefore, I recommend my colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment
given that it would unintentionally cut the EPA's research by more than
that which is in the CR for the STAR grants and given that we will be
taking a look at this during our hearings. The gentleman sits on the
committee, and will be, obviously, involved as we have the EPA before
us for our oversight hearings.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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 noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.

{time} 1740

Amendment No. 407 Offered by Mr. Hall

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

Page 273, after line 3, insert the following new section:
Sec. 1738. The Environmental Protection Agency is directed
to enter into a contract, within 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, with the National Academy of Sciences
to perform a comprehensive review of non-mercury hazardous
air pollutants emitted by electric generating units and
industrial boilers, and related health and economic data
(including impacts on job creation and energy price, supply,
and reliability) associated with potential regulation of such
non-mercury hazardous air pollutants. The National Academy of
Sciences shall prepare recommendations on appropriate
regulatory standards for addressing non-mercury hazardous air
pollutants and shall establish appropriate health-based
exposure standards for such emissions. Upon completion of the
study, the National Academy of Sciences shall report findings
and recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Congress within 24 months of entering into the
contract. The Environmental Protection Agency is discouraged
from issuing any regulatory determination for non-mercury
hazardous air pollutants, including a maximum achievable
control technology standard for non-mercury hazardous air
pollutants from electric generating units and industrial
boilers, until the Environmental Protection Agency fully
reviews the results and recommendations of such study.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment
directing the United States Environmental Protection Agency to enter
into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to perform a
comprehensive review of non-mercury hazardous air pollutants emitted by
electric generating units and industrial boilers, recognizing the
boiler maximum achievable control technology, called MACT, is moving
toward the end of the rulemaking process while the utility MACT will
debut soon.
My amendment requires that the review provide for health and economic
data, including impacts on job creation, energy price, supply and
reliability associated with the potential regulation of non-mercury
hazardous air pollutants.
The Clean Air Act regulates two kinds of air emissions: criteria
pollutants, which are high in volume; and hazardous air pollutants,
which are low in volume but can be toxic.
Folks are familiar with the most noteworthy of the hazardous air
pollutants for utilities and industrial boilers, mercury. Let me be
clear, my amendment does nothing to affect mercury controls. The
amendment focuses only on those hazardous air pollutants other than
mercury. EPA simply fails to do all the necessary homework when it
comes to potential regulation of hazardous air pollutants other than
mercury.
This amendment asks the National Academy of Sciences to assist EPA in
doing its homework and encourages EPA to listen and encourages EPA to
learn. This will assist EPA in establishing a clear and direct
administrative record for non-mercury hazardous air pollutants; and
without adequate study, regulations in this area could place jobs and
economic output at risk, while threatening household budgets.
The power sector faces an avalanche of regulations from EPA, and it's
important to get each of them right and correct. A recent executive
order laid out a new review process for regulations and asked that the
agencies consider costs and how best to reduce burdens for American
businesses and consumers.
The amendment echoes the need for responsible regulations that
protect health and environment but also provide for reasonable rates
and dates.

[[Page H988]]

The EPA maximum achievable control technology rule for industrial
commercial and institutional boilers and process heaters could impose
tens of billions of dollars in capital costs at thousands of facilities
across the country.
I, along with a large number of my colleagues, sent a letter to EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson expressing our concerns with the proposed
rule. It's my understanding that although the boiler MACT rule will
come out later this week, upon reconsideration of the rule, the
information gathered by the review required under this amendment may be
useful.
I remain concerned as EPA moves toward a utility MACT rule.
Logically, I bring this amendment to the floor today to protect a
simple way of thinking. The government should not regulate without
sound science to back it up. Let's remind EPA to slow down and allow
for reasoning along with regulation.

Point of Order

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the gentleman
from Texas, and we pledge to work with him as the EPA comes before our
committee to address this issue, but I must insist on my point of
order.
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to
change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation
bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in
pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not
be in order if it changes existing law. This amendment gives
affirmative action in effect.
I ask for a ruling by the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? Seeing none, the Chair finds that this amendment includes
language imparting direction. The amendment, therefore, constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUJAN. I rise today in opposition to the drastic cuts in this
continuing resolution and the amendments that make further cuts that
threaten to weaken our economy and destroy jobs.
It is critical that while we face growing budget constraints we do
not shortchange investments that will create jobs or provide vital
services that New Mexicans rely on.
Unfortunately, many of the cuts proposed in this bill and in a number
of amendments would negatively impact our communities in New Mexico.
For example, in the wake of the natural gas outages that left thousands
of homes across the State without heat, this bill cuts the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program that helps working families, senior
citizens, and disabled individuals heat their homes.
At a time when New Mexico needs critical investments in education so
that we can prepare our children to be the next generation of leaders,
the House Republican plan makes drastic cuts to education at all
levels. Beginning with early education, Republicans cut the Head Start
program, which helps build a strong foundation for New Mexico's
children. The bill also cuts programs that help poor school districts.
With more than one-third of New Mexico's students failing to graduate
from high school, we must do more, not less, to ensure our children
succeed. In addition, the Republican bill cuts Pell Grants that our
young adults rely on to help make college more affordable.
Arbitrary cuts to New Mexico's national labs that are contained in
this bill will hinder their ability to promote U.S. competitiveness and
job creation.
We're ending our ability to win the race before we can even begin.
Instead of making these cuts, we need to outpace the competition. We
need to out-educate and out-innovate the rest of the world in order to
grow our economy and put people back to work right here in New Mexico.
And as we debate the proposed amendments in this section of the bill,
I am extremely concerned with amendments that will be proposed today
that make cuts to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In New Mexico,
we take pride in our beautiful landscapes and the protection of our
water. The LWCF has helped to protect dozens of New Mexico icons,
including Tent Rocks National Monument, Valles Caldera National
Preserve, Rio Grande River Gorge, Santa Fe National Forest, and
Petroglyphs National Monument, just to name a few.
These attacks on the Land and Water Conservation Fund would eliminate
a bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years by preventing
revenues deposited in the LWCF account from being used for their
authorized purposes, such as protecting public lands and promoting
recreation.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was established by Congress in
1964 as a bipartisan conservation offset for offshore oil and gas
drilling. Under current law, Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases
and royalty receipts are deposited in a dedicated LWCF account in the
Treasury. However, only a fraction of the annual receipts deposited in
the LWCF have been appropriated, despite a surplus of over $17 billion.
In New Mexico, outdoor recreation is an integral part of the economy,
and I know when I visit with many of our colleagues here in the
Congress, Democrats and Republicans, everyone is eager to get out to
New Mexico. The Outdoor Industry Association reports that recreation
contributes about $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy, supports
nearly 6.5 million jobs across the country, and generates $88 billion
in annual State and national tax revenues.
A recent study by The Trust for Public Land found that every $1
invested in the LWCF returns $4 in economic value. Protecting the Land
and Water Conservation Fund will expand opportunities for all Americans
to have access to parks and natural areas for outdoor recreation and
for hunting.
Protecting the Land and Water Conservation Fund has immediate
relevance to our efforts to create jobs in this country, and it is
critically important that we ensure funding for this important Federal
program is protected, while also working together to find a permanent
solution to LWCF funding shortfalls over the long term.
I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments and vote ``no'' on
this shortsighted spending bill that will hurt families and put more
people out of work. While Republicans say, So be it, to chopping
American jobs, the people of New Mexico deserve better.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1738. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and
Management'' shall be $2,571,099,000: Provided, That of the
funds included under this heading $305,784,000 shall be for
the Geographic Programs specified in the explanatory
statement accompanying Public Law 111-88: Provided further,
That of such amount for Geographic Programs, $225,000,000
shall be for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative;
$40,000,000 shall be for Chesapeake Bay; and $20,000,000
shall be for Puget Sound.

Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

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

On page 273, line 6, insert ``(reduced by $8,458,000)''
after the aggregate dollar amount.
On page 359, line 13, insert ``(increased by $8,458,000)''
after the dollar amount.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to return just under
$8.5 million to the United States taxpayers by sending $8.5 million to
the deficit reduction account.

{time} 1750

In November, America elected a different set of leaders to this House
of Representatives. They elected a set of leaders who understand job
creation. But the EPA has not gotten the message. This Congress has
refused to pass cap-and-trade and yet EPA continues down the road to
try to implement cap-and-trade through regulations when there is no
statutory authority to do so, and it's beyond its constitutional
powers.
My amendment takes on only one very costly piece of the EPA's effort
to destroy jobs, the Greenhouse Gas Registry. I'm not against bridal
registries or even the registration of property

[[Page H989]]

deeds, but forcing businesses to comply with these unnecessary and
burdensome regulations will destroy jobs in Kansas and all across
America. This registry drives up the cost of doing business all with
the asserted mission of satisfying the left's obsession with regulating
every nook and cranny of our existence.
Now EPA would, I'm sure, tell you that they are simply collecting a
little bit of data on greenhouse gases, that this registry is just a
very innocent effort to learn a little bit more about who is emitting
greenhouse gases, who or what. But this data is the very foundation of
the EPA's effort to pursue its radical anti-jobs agenda. Indeed,
continuing the Greenhouse Gas Registry at currently funded levels will
permit the EPA regulatory nose inside the job-destroying tent. We
cannot head down this path.
The amendment I am proposing is very modest. In 2006, the registry
had $3.2 million appropriated. That was increased to almost $16
million. I'm simply trying to roll back the amount of money that this
registry has to 2008 already bloated levels.
Mr. Chairman, until about 45 days ago, I was in the private sector. I
was running a small business. I can attest to you that this Greenhouse
Gas Registry, an attempt to implement cap-and-tax, will destroy jobs in
Kansas; it will increase the cost of manufacturing for every Kansas
airplane manufacturer; it will increase the cost of energy for every
Kansas farmer, and it will increase the cost of energy for every Kansas
family.
With unemployment at record levels and energy prices already high,
America cannot afford this additional government mandate, and our
taxpayers would be well served by reducing the funding to this
misguided Greenhouse Gas Registry. Please join me in rolling back to
2008 levels the amount of funds appropriated for the Greenhouse Gas
Registry.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to the Pompeo amendment which would
basically strip all funding from EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program. It's part of an effort to ignore what scientists tell us is
the most serious environmental problem of our time--climate change.
Some Republicans have introduced legislation that would repeal a
scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health.
The underlying bill we're considering says that no stationary source no
matter how large should ever have to reduce its carbon pollution. This
amendment goes even further. It says that we should not even bother to
find out how much pollution is being put into our air. I guess you
could call it the ``ignorance is bliss'' amendment.
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program simply requires the largest
sources of carbon pollution--power plants, refineries, and the very
largest factories--to tell EPA and the public how much they pollute. If
we are ever going to deal responsibly with this pollution, we need to
know where it is coming from and have some idea of how much is being
emitted.
This amendment is yet one more example of putting profits and
pollution ahead of people and public health.
Americans understand that pollution is dangerous to their health. The
scientists tell us that. We know it intuitively. It makes us sick.
Let's allow EPA to fulfill its legal responsibility to collect this
information.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pompeo amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Kansas, one of our new Members, Mr. Pompeo, for not only a thoughtful
amendment but an amendment when he is jumping right into the fray some
45 days after he has assumed office here. I think I was here for about
2 years before I even gave my first floor speech. So congratulations to
him.
Sadly, however, we have to oppose your amendment. This was an account
that the committee and the staff looked at hard as the CR was being
prepared. It has been reduced by $5 million in the continuing
resolution. It was at $16 million. It's down to $11 million in the CR.
The feeling continues to be that cutting it further would be
irresponsible because cutting the funding does nothing to change the
mandate that's in the law of March 31 of this year that the industry
has to report their emissions by that date.
Since this is the first time through this reporting requirement,
there are obviously a lot of questions that businesses and industries
all across the country have, and they are calling the EPA for technical
assistance on how to be in compliance. If the program is reduced, as
the gentleman's amendment would suggest, it will leave companies high
and dry with a reporting requirement with no one on the other end to
answer the telephone to help them out to meet their obligations.
Considering that, we have felt that we could achieve the $5 million in
savings now.
And I can tell the gentleman that it's at least a majority of the
committee's feeling that we will review and address this issue in a
more comprehensive manner as we proceed with the 2012 budget. As such,
I recommend that our colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment.
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.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1739. The matter pertaining to planning and design of
a high-performance green building to consolidate the multiple
offices and research facilities of the Environmental
Protection Agency in Las Vegas, Nevada under the heading
``Environmental Protection Agency, Buildings and Facilities''
in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this division.
Sec. 1740. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Substance
Superfund'' shall be $1,273,765,000: Provided, That the
matter under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88
shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division as
follows: by substituting ``$1,273,765,000'' for
``$1,306,541,000'' the second place it appears; by
substituting ``September 30, 2010'' for ``September 30,
2009''; and by substituting ``$24,527,000'' for
``$26,834,000''.
Sec. 1741. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Environmental Protection Agency, Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund Program'' shall be $106,101,000, of
which $71,671,000 shall be for carrying out leaking
underground storage tank cleanup activities authorized by
section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6991b(h)).
Sec. 1742. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal
Assistance Grants'' shall be $2,716,446,000: Provided, That
the amounts included under such heading in division A of
Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by
this division as follows: by substituting ``$690,000,000''
for ``$2,100,000,000''; by substituting ``$830,000,000'' for
``$1,387,000,000''; by substituting ``$10,000,000'' for
``$17,000,000''; by substituting ``$10,000,000'' for
``$13,000,000''; by substituting ``$0'' for ``$156,777,000'';
by substituting ``$70,000,000'' for ``$100,000,000''; by
substituting ``$50,000,000'' for ``$60,000,000''; by
substituting ``$0'' for ``$20,000,000''; and by substituting
``$1,056,446,000'' for ``$1,116,446,000''.

Amendment No. 379 Offered by Mr. Reed

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

Page 274, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 274, line 22, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment.
But before I talk about that, I want to say that I am proud to be a
part of this process. Last night, I heard one of my colleagues say that
what we should do is, because the President threatened to veto this
process at the end of the

[[Page H990]]

day, we should pack it up, go in the back room and try to resolve our
differences there.
To me, this is what the process was all about, to have this debate on
the floor of the House so that we can have an open and vigorous debate
about these spending issues because, ladies and gentlemen, today we
face a national crisis, and that national crisis is a national debt
that is going to destroy us as a nation and destroy it for our children
and our grandchildren. So I am proud today to stand up and say that we
need to shine the light on every aspect of every dollar that is spent
in our Federal budget.
And today I rise to ask that we rescind and amend the continuing
resolution to remove $10 million of spending on a sewer project in
Tijuana, Mexico. When we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar on the
backs of our children and our grandchildren, I ask the question: Why
are we spending $10 million so that a sewer could be constructed in
Tijuana, Mexico?

{time} 1800

Now, I understand and I empathize with my friends from San Diego and
that area where waste apparently washes on the shore from Tijuana
because they're not acting responsibly with their matters.
But I say this: today it is to hold the country of Mexico accountable
for the situation in Tijuana. And rather than use our dollars, our
borrowed dollars that are being absorbed by our children and
grandchildren, we hold them accountable. And I think this is exactly
what we should be doing and standing and calling out this kind of
wasteful spending, in my opinion.
And I am proud and ask that my colleagues join me in approving this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chair, again, as with Mr. Pompeo's amendment, the
gentleman from Kansas, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) is also a
new Member of the body, and I commend him for coming to the floor and
offering this thoughtful amendment.
For those of us who have been here a little while, the seat which Mr.
Reed holds used to belong to our dear friend Amo Houghton, who was a
friend and a champion for many issues for many years in this body.
And although we welcome Mr. Reed to our company, we oppose his
amendment. In the CR we have reduced the U.S.-Mexico border program by
$7 million from $17 million in 2010 to $10 million in the continuing
resolution. It's a 41 percent decrease. This action taken on behalf of
the committee reduces the CR level to a level below the increase that
was added in 2010 by the previous majority party, over and above
President Obama's request.
This is a program that we plan to have active discussions on with the
EPA during the 2012 budget hearings, and we'll either build the case
for further reductions, or we will have a better understanding of why
we should look elsewhere for additional cuts based upon programmatic
needs.
Therefore, while I congratulate my friend and new colleague from New
York, I recommend that our colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment,
given that we have achieved what we intended to achieve via the CR, and
that is to take the necessary first step at past programmatic increases
and allow for a deliberative process in 2012 to examine the true needs
of this program.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 415 Offered by Ms. Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 275, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.
Page 274, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,816,446,000)''.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I understand that a point of order is
reserved and, of course, I have the amendment as modified with language
that would ensure that the amendment is budget neutral. I would ask
unanimous consent for the modified amendment that is at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maryland?
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I object to the modification of the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Idaho has reserved a point of order.
The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before you takes rescinded
funds, increases the amount of State Trouble Assistance Grants to make
sure that we can really fund our water and sewer infrastructure. The
continuing resolution really deals a death low to our water and sewer
infrastructure in this country. That means jobs all across the country
in every single State.
I would ask support of the amendment and note that in April 2000, the
Water Infrastructure Network released its first report, ``Clean and
Safe Water for the 21st Century,'' and that report documented
significant improvements in water quality and public health that was
associated with America's investments in water and wastewater
infrastructure.
But it also documented unprecedented financial problems. Over the
next 20 years, America's water and wastewater systems will have to
invest $23 billion a year more than current investments to meet the
national environmental and public health priorities in the Clean Water
Act and Safe Drinking Water Act to replace aging and failing
infrastructure.
The epidemic isn't isolated. Eroded infrastructure is prominent in
every neighborhood across this country; and nationwide, wastewater
infrastructure needs range from $300 billion to $400 billion over the
next 20 years. My home State of Maryland has self-reported that it has
an $8.4 billion deficit in water infrastructure needs.
Just last month, out in my district on a cold winter morning, not far
from Capitol Hill, a 54-inch water main broke that created massive
destruction, overturned cars, destroyed businesses, and left residents
like me without safe drinking water for days. It stopped the traffic
along the Nation's beltway. The trucks that travel up and down the
eastern seaboard were stopped, stopping commerce along the way. This
happens all across the country. We've had at least 278 water main
breaks just since January 1 in the counties that I represent.
I would note that under the continuing resolution, States like
Maryland would lose $33 million in funding, 937 jobs in States like
Idaho, for example. In that State alone, there would be a loss of $6.9
million and 192 jobs, and this at a time when we need to do real job
creation.
Overall, the continuing resolution would see a loss of about at least
$1.4 billion in funds from wastewater and water treatment, to the tune
of 39,253 jobs at a time when the economy is really staggering.
So I would strongly urge consideration of this amendment; and whether
or not it's done in this continuing resolution, the fact is that our
water infrastructure is failing. It's failing all across the country.
We have needs that are unmet. Local communities cannot meet those
needs, and it's really incumbent upon us to improve the Nation's water
infrastructure so that we improve our competitiveness and we ensure
that we have clean drinking water.
I would not like any other community across the country to have to do
what I've done three times just during this last year, that is, boiling
every single bit of water that I use because of our failing
infrastructure. And this isn't just about my community in

[[Page H991]]

Maryland. It's about communities across the country.
And I think if anything, in this continuing resolution we need to be
thinking about economic development and job creation. And the
resolution in front of us does exactly the opposite. It takes millions
of dollars away from communities for wastewater and water
infrastructure and ensures that we won't be competitive over this next
century. So I would urge strong consideration of the resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I continue to reserve my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho continues to reserve a
point of order.
Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to be on the record strongly agreeing
with the concept of the gentlewoman's amendment, to add $200 million to
State and local grants.
Our congressional districts are on either side of the Potomac River.
We can also see the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant from Maryland
and Virginia.
Now, we've made strides thanks to Federal funding in cleaning up the
Potomac River, which all of us can see, and most of us cross every day;
but much work still lies ahead.
This bill's cuts to State and local infrastructure grants will
undermine the progress that we have made on this river and will cripple
hundreds of State and local government efforts throughout the country.
The Republican bill slashes the clean water and safe drinking water
State revolving funds by $2 billion, or 56 percent, reducing the number
of wastewater and drinking water projects by about 750 nationwide.

{time} 1810

The needs of our Nation's aging water infrastructure exceed $660
billion. This would also be a missed opportunity to add thousands of
engineering, construction, and other support service jobs if we cut
these programs. Additionally, the bill includes an undesignated $300
million rescission to EPA already that will most likely also impact
these revolving funds.
So the gentlewoman's amendment does have great merit. Albeit
technically it may be out of order, it should be offered because it
addresses a very important problem with this continuing resolution. It
should be accepted.
I yield back the balance of my time.

point of order

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.
The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase a rescission to offset
an increase in an appropriation. And I would ask for a ruling from the
Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an
amendment must propose only to transfer appropriations among objects in
the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Maryland proposes also another kind of change in the bill, namely, to
increase the amount of a rescission, it may not avail itself of clause
2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read.
Therefore, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is out
of order.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Simpson) would be willing to engage in a colloquy with me
concerning the climate change provision in the bill.
Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to ask the gentleman, first of all, if he could
explain section 1746 of the bill to me.
Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to.
Section 1746 hits the pause button on the EPA's efforts to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions because of what I think are unfounded fears
about global climate change.
As the chairman knows, and as the gentleman from Kentucky knows, over
the last 2 years, EPA Administrator Jackson has been very busy creating
an enormous body of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. These
regulations will cost jobs, drive up energy costs, and further imperil
the American economy.
EPA's greenhouse gas regulations need to be stopped in their tracks,
and that's what section 1746 does. It provides a time-out for the
balance of this fiscal year, during which time EPA will be prohibited
from acting on them or enforcing them.
Section 1746 is intended to put a halt to the regulations that we
feel will harm this economy. It is not intended to affect permitting or
other matters unrelated to greenhouse gas emissions such as
construction starts or permit approvals.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman, and I do agree with you
wholeheartedly.
I might add that Congress and the U.S. Senate have specifically
addressed this issue on three separate occasions, and on every one of
those three occasions have said ``no'' to EPA regulation.
I might also add that last week we had a hearing with Administrator
Jackson, and Mr. Green, our colleague from Texas on the Democratic
side, asked her a question. He said: My question is this. What happens
if only the United States acts to reduce these emissions while major
emitters like China or India do not take action, do not follow suit?
Can we really address climate change without strong mandatory
reductions by other major emitters around the world?
And Ms. Jackson, the Administrator of the EPA, said: We will not
ultimately be able to change the amount of CO2 that is
accumulating in the atmosphere alone.
So I would say, Mr. Chairman, that EPA's regulations will lead to
higher costs for the coal industry, the oil industry, and natural gas
industries that comprise 85 percent of America's energy mix, burdening
both individuals and businesses and, most important of all, destroying
jobs.
So let me ask the gentleman. Is this a debate about global warming
science?
Mr. SIMPSON. No. It's not even necessary to be a climate change
skeptic to be an EPA greenhouse gas regulations skeptic. These
regulations are all economic pain for little, if any, environmental
gain.
EPA can only regulate American companies, and we know that China
already emits more carbon dioxide than we do. Its rate of emissions
growth is many times faster than ours, and the Chinese Government has
repeatedly made clear that they will never impose such job-destroying
regulatory measures on themselves. Even Administrator Lisa Jackson, as
you said, has concluded that unilateral action would have little or
negligible impact on further temperatures.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman.
I do want to mention that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has
released a discussion draft on exactly this same issue, called the
Energy Tax Prevention Act, that would block EPA's global warming agenda
under the Clean Air Act.
The bill does not weaken the Clean Air Act, however. It would have no
effect on the agency's ongoing efforts to deal with smog, soot, lead,
mercury, and all the other pollutants that have been addressed under
the Clean Air Act. It is simply a bill to stop the agency and
bureaucrats from issuing regulations absent congressional approval.
As our former chairman John Dingell said, avoiding the glorious mess
is what we would be doing, because the Clean Air Act was never designed
to regulate greenhouse gases.
As it is, EPA's global warming regulatory agenda, which is just
beginning to roll out, is so open-ended that it is already having a
chilling effect on investment and job creation. The longer it moves
forward, the more domestic manufacturing jobs will be forced overseas
to countries not similarly burdened.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H992]]

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. When do you expect Congress to act on the Energy Tax
Prevention Act?
Mr. WHITFIELD. We have already had our first hearing, which was on
February 9. We have heard from a wide range of industries about the job
creation issue, and I expect that we will be moving this legislation
within the next month and a half.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognuized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, in light of the last colloquy, I find it
necessary to make a few points about this underlying bill.
It contains language that stops EPA from limiting greenhouse gas
emissions for the term of the continuing resolution in other words,
through the end of fiscal year 2011.
First, let me point out that this issue should not be included in an
appropriations bill that has received zero days in the Appropriations
Committee for debate. I do understand that the Energy and Commerce
authorizers are working this issue through a regular order process, but
this is anything but regular order. Not that we would necessarily agree
on the language that they are working on. But the reason you don't deal
with complicated policy issues in eight lines of bill text is because
often the only thing you achieve is unintended bad consequences. In
this instance, I believe that is exactly what has happened.
EPA has a new permitting program that is currently in place as of
January. It is to be implemented by both the States and EPA. There
would be serious implications from this CR language, since new and
modified large facilities are now required by law to obtain greenhouse
gas permits before construction, but this bill's language would prevent
Federal and State permitting authorities to take action to issue the
permits. This would subject large facilities to legal challenges from
citizens for failing to obtain permits and will lead to construction
delays effectively eliminating thousands of American jobs. This is
going to be held up in the courts indefinitely because of this
language.
We have heard the arguments that these regulations will stop power
plants and refineries and other big industry from creating jobs, but
EPA's regulations encourage companies to make major new investments and
to find cleaner ways to do business. This language is an actual assault
on jobs.
The chair of the Republican Energy and Commerce Committee stated last
week at a hearing, I bring this up since in the last colloquy the
Chinese Government was mentioned, and I quote the Republican Chairman,
``The Chinese Government and other competitors have no intention of
burdening and raising the cost of doing business for their
manufacturers and energy producers the way EPA plans to do here in
America.''

{time} 1930

Now, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that we should be taking our cues on
public health and environmental policies from China, the People's
Republic of China, exposes a majority party that is clearly on the side
of industry, but not of their constituents, let alone being on the
right side of history.
This language is not about deficit reduction. It is a free pass to
allow certain industries to pollute at whatever damage to the public
health, they choose. We know that pollution is dangerous to the public
health, we know that EPA has a legislative responsibility to limit that
pollution, and yet this language would gut EPA's legal responsibility
to carry out that legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your
attentiveness to this process. I know it is laborious.
I want to draw attention, I want to go back just a few steps here
when we were listening to an amendment brought to us by my good friend
from New York (Mr. Reed).
As we are going through this process, there are those who have been
working extremely hard, the Appropriations Committee and Members all
across this House, and Mr. Reed dug very deep and he found something I
think all of us wanted to see, something that was exposed, that the
American people pointed out clearly, that the Federal Government has
been spending money where it does not need to be spending money.
Think about where we are as a nation: $14 trillion in debt;
unemployment unacceptable; GDP dropping; $1.5 trillion of deficit,
which is almost 150 percent of what the Federal Government takes in.
Think about where we are. And then children, upon conception, you ask
any economist, they will vary somewhere between $42,000 and $47,000 of
debt inherited upon conception.
Yet Mr. Reed, he points out here today a great find: That this
government is funding a Tijuana sewer rehabilitation project. There is
something about that that just stinks. And I would hope that this
House, that Americans all across this country, that Members of this
House would see that just $10 million is being funded for a
rehabilitation project of a sewer facility in Mexico, yet we are in
this position of this fiscal house being out of order and in disorder.
I would hope that this House would see and recognize that this simple
amendment, only $10 million, a small amount compared to that $1.5
trillion deficit, is worthy of a ``yes'' vote of amending this out of
this CR, and we would send a message to the American people: It doesn't
matter if it is $1, $10 million, $1 billion, if it is unnecessary
funding coming from this government, we are going to get it out and get
this fiscal house back in order.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1743. The matter pertaining to competitive grants to
communities to develop plans and demonstrate and implement
projects which reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the second
proviso under the heading ``Environmental Protection Agency,
State and Tribal Assistance Grants'' in division A of Public
Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this
division.
Sec. 1744. Notwithstanding section 1101, the amounts
authorized to transfer under the heading ``Environmental
Protection Agency, Administrative Provisions, Environmental
Protection Agency'' in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall
be applied to funds appropriated by this division by
substituting ``$225,000,000'' for ``$475,000,000''.
Sec. 1745. Of the unobligated balances available for
``Environmental Protection Agency'' $300,000,000 is
rescinded: Provided, That the Administrator shall submit to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a proposed
allocation of amounts by account and program project to
rescind 30 days prior to the rescission: Provided further,
That no amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Sec. 1746. None of the funds made available to the
Environmental Protection Agency by this division or any other
Act may be expended for purposes of enforcing or promulgating
any regulation (other than with respect to section 202 of the
Clean Air Act) or order, taking action relating to, or
denying approval of state implementation plans or permits
because of the emissions of greenhouse gases due to concerns
regarding possible climate change.

Amendment No. 521 Offered by Mr. Braley of Iowa

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 276, line 11, after ``climate change'' insert ``:
Provided, That nothing in this section shall prohibit the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from
implementing or enforcing section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act
(relating to the renewable fuel program)''.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho reserves a point of order.
The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, all day we have been hearing a lot
of talk about job-killing regulations, but, Mr. Chairman, section 1746
is a job-killing statute that would block implementation of the
Renewable Fuel

[[Page H993]]

Standard that was established just 4 years ago. The Braley amendment
would allow the Renewable Fuel Standard to move forward and allow this
burgeoning industry, which is reducing our dependence on foreign oil
and creating thousands of jobs all over the country, to move forward.
The continuing resolution prevents the Renewable Fuel Standard from
promoting clean, renewable home-grown fuel that reduces our dependence
on foreign oil.
Prior to the RFS, my State of Iowa produced less than 1 billion
gallons of ethanol annually, and in large part because of its
implementation, we now produce more than 4.5 billion gallons per year.
Ethanol and biodiesel support nearly 49,000 jobs throughout the Iowa
economy. This accounts for nearly $550 million in State tax revenue.
Without the Renewable Fuel Standard, we would take a huge step
backwards, potentially having a devastating impact on rural economies
across the country in every congressional district.
The RFS promotes biofuels by ensuring that transportation fuel sold
in the United States contains certain volumes of renewable fuels,
including advanced biofuels, cellulosic biofuels, and biomass-based
diesel. That includes advanced biofuels, including ethanol from waste
material, from crop residue, vegetative waste, animal waste, food
waste, yard waste, biomass-based diesel, bio-gas, and butanol.
The RFS promotes biofuels and is supported by the American Coalition
For Ethanol, Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, and
the Renewable Fuels Association, and this particular legislation was
described by the American Advanced Ethanol Council as language that
would defund efforts to implement the RFS.
The required volume of each type of fuel is established annually by
the EPA, and this summer EPA needs to propose the volume requirements
for calendar year 2012. But the Republican provision in this section
would prevent EPA from doing so. If EPA can't set the volume
requirement, then RFS won't function next year, and renewable fuel
producers all across country are counting on these requirements.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, in your area, there are two plants, White
Plains Energy in Plainview and Hereford Renewable Energy and White
Energy in Hereford that will be affected if this provision becomes law.
In fact, the gentleman from Idaho has Pacific Ethanol in Burley, a 50
million gallon producer, and Idaho Sustainable Energy, which is on the
front edge of biofuels with algal biodiesel, in Glenns Ferry, Idaho,
which will be impacted if this provision becomes law.
So instead of investing in certainty that allows these producers to
move forward, this provision would pull the rug from farmers and
refiners all across the country. That is why I urge my colleagues to
oppose this flawed funding language and support my amendment to ensure
the Renewable Fuel Standard is allowed to move forward. It is a bad
policy to have job-killing statutory provisions that are going to
increase our dependence on foreign oil and move us backward, not
forward, in the important area of bioenergy.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Idaho continue to reserve
his point of order?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate the gentleman's
concern on section 1746 of the continuing resolution that some people
think would negatively impact renewable fuel standards. That rider in
the bill specifically prohibits the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas
emissions from stationary sources. However, reports that this provision
will also block EPA from setting standards for the 2012 Renewable Fuel
Standard are totally unfounded. The Energy and Commerce Committee
confirms this and everyone else. The gentleman, I know, used to be a
member of that committee.
I think it is really important to clarify that the rider in the CR is
narrowly focused on EPA's new stationary source permitting authority
and does not affect EPA's renewable fuels program.
Under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which was
referred to, Congress expressly stated that the Renewable Fuel Standard
does not, and I say not, constitute regulation of greenhouse gases
under the Clean Air Act. The fundamental purpose of the Renewable Fuel
Standard is to ensure our Nation's energy security and to reduce our
dependence on foreign sources of oil while providing a valuable
incentive for the production of agriculture.

{time} 1830

As an Iowan, I understand the vast importance of agriculture to our
economy by creating thousands of good-paying jobs and contributing
numerous economic benefits to our rural communities. I understand
concerns that may have been expressed. However, it is very clear that
the renewable fuel standard falls outside EPA's rulemaking authority
addressing climate change. I want to assure my colleagues and the
people of Iowa that this legislation will not affect the renewable fuel
standard or bring an end to the program, as some have erroneously
suggested.
Mr. Chairman, rules have already been written. Anything in this bill
is prospective. We already have the standard in place, and this does
not affect that anyway. In the Senate, Senator Rockefeller, a Democrat
over there--and I hate to see this be politicized because it should not
be a political issue--but the Democrat Senator from West Virginia has
this identical language and nobody has said anything about that. He
wants to have a prohibition for 2 years. The Energy and Commerce
Committee is having debates as to making permanent as far as the
prohibition. And I have not heard any concerns about that.
So it is, I think, very unfortunate that some information is being
put forth on the floor of the House here that is not true. The Energy
and Commerce Committee has said over and over again that this does not
affect renewable fuel standards. It will have no impact as far as
ethanol is concerned.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The problem with the language as drafted, Mr. Chairman, is that it is
so broad and poorly drafted that it does threaten the renewable fuel
standard, which is why all of those renewable energy advocate groups
that I mentioned in my remarks are in support of the amendment that I
have offered. The RFS promotes biofuels by ensuring that transportation
fuels sold in the United States contain the requisite number of volume
for each type of fuel that's established annually.
This summer, the EPA has to make sure that those standards are
identified for each one of the various categories; but if they don't
have the required guidance available to them because of the confusing
language that's currently in this provision, it's going to create
confusion and those same industries that waited and waited and waited
for the tax extenders package to be passed at the end of the last
Congress are going to have the same type of uncertainty governing their
investment decisions moving forward, which is why those groups that I
mentioned earlier are so concerned about this matter and are in support
of the Braley amendment.
They are Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, the
American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association, and
the Advanced Ethanol Council. If the Advanced Ethanol Council believes
that this language is so vague that it would de-fund efforts to
implement the RFS, that's not me speaking. That's the very groups that
would be subject of regulation by the EPA, and that's why this
amendment is important to clarify that that is not within the scope of
EPA's powers.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.

[[Page H994]]

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman from Idaho.
If there are people concerned about this, why didn't they come to us
and talk to us before? We talked about the different groups out there,
and that's because they've been given bad information that's not true.
It is clear from the 2007 bill--and if someone would read it around
here, they would understand that the renewable fuel standard is not
affected by this. It is specifically outside the jurisdiction of what
we're talking about, and so to make any assertion otherwise is simply
giving erroneous information purposely on the floor. And that's very,
very unfortunate because you do have people that are being told
something that is not true, and now they're getting all worked up about
it. I think it's very, very unfortunate.
We had a meeting this last week with the Iowa delegation talking to
each other. If you have concerns, why don't you bring it forth so we
can take care of the problem? If you want to have the amendment, I
would have supported it, but it's not needed. It is absolutely
fictitious, this idea that this is somehow going to affect the
renewable fuel standard. I think it's very unfortunate that this issue
has become something that has been dreamt up for other reasons, I
think. That's very, very unfortunate because we should need to work
together for energy independence in this country and to lessen our
dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Point of Order

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
rule XXI. The rules states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a
general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing
law.'' The amendment gives direction in effect.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that section 1746 of the bill contains a legislative
limitation on the use of funds. Such a provision may be properly
amended by a non-legislative exception or by a germane, merely
perfecting change.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, rather than merely
excepting section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act from the terms of the
limitation, seeks to impart direction to the EPA Administrator with
regard to the application of that section of the Clean Air Act.
The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained.

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. 193 by Mrs. Lummis of Wyoming.
Amendment No. 338 by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
Amendment No. 376 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
Amendment No. 84 by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
Amendment No. 379 by Mr. Reed of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 193 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming
(Mrs. Lummis) 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 213,
noes 216, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 61]

AYES--213

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--216

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rooney
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

[[Page H995]]

NOT VOTING--4

Alexander
Clay
Giffords
McCarthy (NY)

{time} 1902

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, and Mr. BOREN changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. COLE, MEEHAN, BONNER, LANDRY, and McKEON changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 338 Offered by Mr. Moran

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) 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

[Roll No. 62]

AYES--73

Andrews
Bachmann
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Clay
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Davis (CA)
DeGette
Dicks
Dingell
Ellison
Farr
Fattah
Fortenberry
Gerlach
Griffith (VA)
Harman
Heinrich
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Landry
LoBiondo
Lowey
Marchant
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moran
Napolitano
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Pitts
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rigell
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scott (VA)
Shuler
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Weiner
Welch
Wittman
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOES--352

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
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
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Watt
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

Amash
Paul

NOT VOTING--6

Giffords
Lummis
Lynch
McCarthy (NY)
Sullivan
Waters

{time} 1906

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 376 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 noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 63]

AYES--199

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Cuellar
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)

[[Page H996]]

Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--230

Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hultgren
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nunnelee
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Crenshaw
Giffords
McCarthy (NY)
Sullivan

{time} 1911

Messrs. COHEN and RAHALL changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 84 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

[Roll No. 64]

AYES--239

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--185

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Bachus
Capps
Carney
Fattah
Franks (AZ)
Giffords
McCarthy (NY)
Miller (NC)
Smith (NE)

{time} 1914

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H997]]

Amendment No. 379 Offered by Mr. Reed

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reed) 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

[Roll No. 65]

AYES--228

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)

NOES--203

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Canseco
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flores
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Landry
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--2

Giffords
McCarthy (NY)

{time} 1919

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. INSLEE. I rise to ask, what happened to the party of Teddy
Roosevelt? What happened to the party that helped us adopt, under
Richard Nixon's leadership, the Clean Air Act? What happened to the
Republican Party that used to be allied in the adoption of the clean
air rules that have so helped the health of Americans? What happened to
the party that adopted the Clean Air Act 40 years ago which has helped
save over 200,000 lives? And I ask why today, in this continuing
resolution, the Republican Party has abandoned any pretext whatsoever
to stand for clean air when they eviscerate the clean air law in their
continuing resolution.
This is a sad statement to think that a party that at one time helped
us clean up the air, reducing cancer deaths and reducing respiratory
illness and reducing heart attacks, has seen fit to go and leave with
the polluting industries to gut the Clean Air Act.
I want to make it clear so people know what the Republican continuing
resolution does. Even though the Clean Air Act today requires the
Environmental Protection Agency to clean up our air against dangerous
gases like carbon dioxide and ozone, even though the Supreme Court has
ruled that Americans are entitled to this protection, the Republican
Party has decided to make it illegal for the cops on the beat to do
their job.
This bill, amazingly enough, the Republicans have passed a provision,
or want to in this bill, that would make it illegal for the
Environmental Protection Agency to protect the environment. Now, why
would you want to make it illegal for the Environmental Protection
Agency to protect the environment?
And I want to make clear how radical this action is. There is no
fiscal reason for this. This is just an assault on clean air. The
``dirty air act'' is not going to revise any proposed rules of the
Environmental Protection Agency. It isn't going to modify any clean air
laws. It's going to eliminate them by saying that it is illegal for the
EPA to enforce these clean air laws.
And the sad thing about this, Mr. Chairman, this is an assault on
science. You read the specific scientific conclusions of the thousands
of scientists who have reviewed this, and here is what the scientists
and the physicians say. Mr. Chairman, not the politicians, the
physicians. Here is what they say: Greenhouse gases are the primary
driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves
that threaten the health of the sick, poor, or elderly, increases in
ground level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory
illnesses, as well as other threats to the health and welfare of
America.
Now, why would the Republican Party want to make the air more
dangerous for our kids who are using those inhalers to try to prevent
asthma attacks?
In our Commerce Committee hearing, we had a young woman from North
Carolina, and she talked about the fact that increasing ozone increases
and aggravates her asthma. What reason on

[[Page H998]]

this green earth do we have to increase the rates of asthma of our
kids? And that's what the Republican Party wants to do in this
continuing resolution.
Now, that's kind of a harsh statement. It's a harsh statement to say
that one of our noble parties wants to increase the availability of
ozone to damage our kids' health. But facts are stubborn things, and
this is what the Republican Party is sentencing our kids to, which is
more dangerous air. And it's a real sad statement when you consider the
past history of the Republican Party which helped, under Richard Nixon
and Teddy Roosevelt, to adopt these environmental laws.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that at some point we will get a little more
bipartisanship here for clean air, we will abandon this commitment to
the polluting industries that are running this effort, and reject this
continuing resolution and these anti-clean air laws.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating amendments on a
continuing resolution because the leadership of the 111th Congress
failed to do one of their most basic jobs last year: Pass a budget to
fund the Federal Government.
Left without a budget to work with and our financial house in
shambles, it is clear that we are in a state of financial crisis. Our
debt requires immediate action, and the CR is just the beginning.
I came to Congress because, like many other new Republican Members of
the freshman class, I run a small business, sticking to my budget and
trying to make plans for the future. All the while I was watching
Washington politicians drive this country's economy into a ditch. I
knew that something had to change.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are trying all the same
worn-out tricks. But I am here to say to the American people, this is
not about tricks or politics. This is about preserving the greatness of
America.
No one in this Chamber finds joy in the tough decisions we have to
make, but we can no longer ignore them. The American people have
elected this Congress to be good stewards of their money.
Today is not a happy day. This is not a happy speech.
Government spending and burdensome regulations have driven the
American people to anger and frustration with good reason. Sadly, our
Nation stands on the edge of bankruptcy. Our love for future
generations of Americans requires that we not ignore today's problem
only to find them, years from now, in irreparable financial ruin.
Regardless of the program, today's deficit spending is tomorrow's tax
increase. In my neighborhood, there have been three babies born
recently. Each of those babies now owe $45,000 in Federal debt.

{time} 1930

We are fighting for our very survival. At risk are the freedoms
representative of a free market economy and free society; the freedom
to choose, freedom of private industry to compete, freedom from
burdensome taxation, and freedom from mandated government programs.
Washington today is slowly smothering the personal liberty Americans so
greatly esteem.
As the 112th Congress struggles to pass legislation that meets our
Nation's current challenges, fundamental disagreement remains.
Unfortunately for the American people, the debate is being framed by my
colleagues on the other side as ``vicious cuts to vital programs by
Republicans who simply don't care.'' Hear me now when I say this has
never been farther from the truth.
Today we come to terms with the fact that we cannot spend money on
everything we want, regardless of the good intentions. For years
politicians have ignored these problems. Not this Congress. Not this
Congresswoman. The people elected us to end the talks and take swift
action, and we must.
As a small business owner, when finances get tight, we cut where
necessary. Raising prices isn't always the option. As painful as it may
be, you make tough decisions to cut waste, operations, production
costs, and eventually jobs as a last resort. Why should the Federal
Government be any different?
Today's debt crisis is a very real threat to our liberty. Liberty
allows people to work hard and achieve what they want, be responsible
for their own actions and be free. No one shackled by debt is free.
Today's budget crisis is dangerous and threatens our basic freedom.
Free societies value every citizen equally, placing no preference one
over another. I believe that no one should be entitled to another's
hard-earned provisions, and that government should support its
citizens, not burden them with insurmountable debt and obligations they
cannot fulfill. Government spending is not the answer to our looming
problem.
I know there will be those who argue that my rhetoric is too harsh
and that the financial crisis is not as bad as it seems. This crisis is
real; and without immediate action, America will continue spiraling
toward financial disaster.
Today, I challenge my colleagues to let real leadership begin. No
longer should we turn to China to finance that which we cannot afford.
Let us have the courage to right our wrongs, the strength to see it
through, and the vision to lead with the powers entrusted to us from
the consent of the governed, rather than selfish ambition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this
bill and the priorities and the values it represents.
Republicans repeat like robots the same talking points we have heard
again and again tonight, that to get our debt under control, middle
class families are going to have to suck it up. We face tough choices,
harsh choices; but really there is no choice. We are going to have to
cut public education drastically, along with Head Start for the
children who otherwise would start kindergarten too far behind to ever
catch up; job training for workers who have lost their jobs; Pell
Grants so middle class kids can afford a college education; research at
the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy, and on and
on.
Mr. Chairman, we do have choices. We have this deficit because of
choices we have made. Just a decade ago, the debate here was what to do
with the surplus. Alan Greenspan, who was then the chairman of the
Federal Reserve Board, worried that it might unsettle the economy if we
paid off the national debt too quickly. President Clinton urged that we
use the surplus to shore up Social Security and Medicare so that my
generation could live in dignity when we retire.
A Republican President and a Republican Congress decided instead to
cut taxes sharply for the richest of the rich. The deficit we face now
is because of that choice, and we saw just 2 months ago that protecting
those tax cuts for the richest of the rich, even Americans making more
than $1 million a year, was their first priority. So despite all of the
weeping and wailing, the gnashing of teeth, the rending of garments
about the deficit now, just 2 months ago they said not a word about the
deficit when they were voting to cut taxes, to explode the deficit by
cutting taxes on the very richest Americans.
So now Congress is voting to kick 200,000 kids out of Head Start so
that Americans who worked and strived to be conceived to the right
parents will pay little in inheritance taxes.
Now Congress is voting to fire 17,000 teachers and special educators
so Americans making more than $1 million a year will not have to pay
the income taxes that they paid in the nineties, which was hardly a
confiscatory rate.
And much of the bill obviously has nothing to do with saving money or
whether the government is too big or too small. It is about whose side
the government is on. This bill cuts drastically the funding needed to
protect middle class families from the gouging that has lurked in the
legalese, the fine

[[Page H999]]

print of financial contracts, the tricks and the traps written by
banks' lawyers. That cut has nothing to do with saving money. It is all
about putting government on the side of financial predators, not on the
side of hardworking honest Americans trying to make an honest living.
We have seen clusters of rare cancers and birth defects that we know
are the result of an environmental exposure to something, and this bill
devastates environmental protection. Middle class children are facing
life with lower IQs because of unchecked environmental exposure so
polluters can have bigger profits and CEOs can reward themselves with
bigger bonuses.
Many of my colleagues have argued that this bill is penny wise and
pound foolish, it is shortsighted and will hurt the economy. All of
that is true. But I am most disturbed that this bill represents values
that are incompatible with values that I learned at my mother's knee,
the values of generations of Americans, the values of the faith
traditions of most Americans, including me, the values that have been
the glue that has held our country together in tough times. I will vote
``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I am totally opposed to this resolution. I knew
back in December when Congress cut taxes for millionaires and
billionaires that in February we would be cutting services for the
working poor, children, and the disabled.
The House Republican CR in fact is very similar to the last December
tax cut bill, which included billions of dollars in tax breaks for the
wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, while driving up the budget deficit
an extra $700 billion. The proposed continuing resolution will be what
I usually call reverse Robin Hood: it will rob from the poor and
working people to give tax breaks to the rich.
In my area of specialization, transportation and infrastructure, this
bill would rescind $2.5 billion for high-speed rail projects already
awarded, as well as cancellation of 76 transportation projects in 40
States, bringing about a loss of 25,000 new construction jobs. Pink
slips.
While the unemployment rate is still 9 percent in our Nation, it is
critical to invest in infrastructure at this time. As I always said,
Federal transportation and infrastructure funds are essential to job
creation, and for every $1 billion invested in infrastructure projects,
over 42,000 well-paid, permanent jobs are created and over $2 billion
in economic development.
This resolution also cuts programs to assist homeless vets. Over
130,000 of our Nation's 24 million veterans are homeless on any given
night. In this time of foreclosures and uncertainty in the housing
market, it is inconceivable that we would limit the help available to
those who serve and protect our country's freedom that we hold so dear.
So we are going to give pink slips to over 130,000 veterans. I want to
say that that will not happen--but pink slips to the veterans.
In addition, over 200,000 children we are going to kick off of Head
Start. A pink slip for the Head Start program. We are going to reduce
the maximum Pell Grant $800 per student. It takes away over 20,000
researchers supported at the National Science Foundation. And a program
that is near and dear to my heart, over 1,300 cops will be taken off
the beat. This program was started under President Clinton, where we
put an additional 100,000 cops on the beat and cut down crime.

{time} 1940

We cut another 2,400 firefighters. Pink slips for the firefighters.
And we cut $2.5 billion to the National Institutes of Health. Budget
decisions by Congress and the President should prioritize the most
vulnerable communities who are struggling to make ends meet at this
difficult economic time, not the wealthy and the powerful.
Today's bill on the House floor does absolutely nothing to create
jobs or improve our Nation's economy but is a direct assault on the
most vulnerable by cutting the budget in every single area, from
transportation to our Nation's veterans to our Nation's children to
police on the beat protecting our citizens. Once again, the Republican
Party is asking our seniors, our students, our children, and working
families to make fiscal sacrifices while millionaires and billionaires
and powerful special interest groups get to walk off without a scratch.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1747. None of the funds made available by this
division or any other Act may be used by the Environmental
Protection Agency to implement, administer, or enforce a
change to a rule or guidance document pertaining to the
definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
Sec. 1748. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest and
Rangeland Research'' shall be $297,252,000: Provided, That
the amounts included under such heading in division A of
Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by
this division by substituting ``$61,939,000'' for
``$66,939,000''.

Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

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

Page 277, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $7,400,000)''.
Page 359, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,400,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will
reduce spending for the International Forestry Program by $7.4 million.
Some on the other side have said $7.4 million isn't very much money
when we have a deficit of a little over $1.5 trillion. In Kansas,
that's still a little bit of money.
This program started out a long time ago to provide funds for saving
the Brazilian rainforest. But like so many programs that had good
intentions, it's morphed, it's morphed into something terribly
different. Just this past year, this program funded field trips for
students in Mexico to follow the migration of monarch butterflies. It
funded research in China to protect the Panda habitat and make sure
that we didn't have the infestation of forest pests in China. I think
the Chinese can fund themselves if someone thinks that's a worthy task.
Last year, the International Forestry Program funded a study on the
declining hummingbird populations in the western United States, Canada,
and Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, there are difficult decisions to make when the country
is at this point in its economic life, but this is not difficult. These
are precisely the kind of programs that Americans sent a new Congress
to take care of to make sure that we're not doing things that make no
sense for America. So I would urge support for this amendment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, 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 yield to Ms. McCollum from Minnesota to
explain why the Democrats on the subcommittee are very strongly opposed
to this amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to make it clear
that while the Congressman says the amendment eliminates the U.S.
Forest Service's International Programs, it does not. The amendment
only calls for a reduction in the budget of the Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, State and private forests. Should this
shortsighted amendment pass, the agency would decide what to cut within
its budget. That being said, the gentleman from Kansas has unfairly
maligned an important agency that's doing unsung work.
The U.S. Forest Service's International Programs plays a unique role
as one of the few Federal agencies working with international
governments and NGOs to, one, stop the flow of illegal wood that is
undercutting our U.S. timber industry and costing us jobs. Another
example, protecting western Canada's boreal forests in partnership with
Ducks Unlimited to ensure future generations of hunters will have
access to waterfowl habitats. This area is the second most productive
breeding ground for ducks that migrate to the United States.
The examples of working with China and Russia are important, working

[[Page H1000]]

with China and Russia to address such invasive species as the emerald
ash borer and the Asian gypsy moth, both of which currently are
threatening millions of forest acres in my home State of Minnesota and
have devastated parts of the eastern part of the United States.
Similarly, all wildlife salmon migrate from the rivers of the West
Coast of North America to eastern Russia to the Pacific Ocean. The
Forest Service is working with the Russians to improve the watershed
management on these rivers in eastern Russia to preserve the wild stock
of this important species for future generations.
One of the things that disturbs me most is the way that a program has
been described that allows students to interact with one another and
learn about forestry management, biology, and how we are interconnected
in this world. There are no Mexican students that go on field trips
here in the United States, but there is an exchange of classrooms in
Canada and the United States and in Mexico where teachers online follow
the migration of the monarch. Students learn about, yes, insects. They
learn about the trees that are important to them, and they learn
biology.
These are very, very important programs. They should not be maligned.
And this amendment, while it does not eliminate the program, should
still be opposed.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself strongly with the
remarks of the gentlelady from Minnesota, and strongly urge rejection
of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The International Forestry Program has already been reduced by 25
percent in this proposal. It's funded at $7.4 million in the CR. In
FY10 it was funded at $9 million. The International Program brought in
an additional $36 million in funds from State and USAID. The
International Program brings in approximately $3 for every dollar
invested. This program, regardless of the amount of money spent, is
still a lot of money in Idaho, just as it is in Kansas.
But this program is critical to protecting forestry and the forest
products industry in the United States. It's the only forestry entity
representing the U.S. at trade summits. International Forestry is the
only program working directly to counter the flow of illegally
harvested forest products abroad. These materials compete with legally
and sustainably harvested U.S. forest products.
The U.S. negotiators from the Department of State and the U.S. Trade
Representatives rely on the International Program to provide technical
input to effectively advocate for the domestic forest products
industry. These agencies do not have this expertise.
The International Program also prevents the introduction of invasive
and nonnative pests that would cause millions of dollars of damage to
U.S. forests and the U.S. economy. The International Program, though
funded through funding from USAID, plays a critical role in protecting
U.S. security interests in conflict-prone areas. Unrelated, illegal
resource extraction many times leads to unrest and corruption abroad.
So I would oppose this amendment, even though I understand that it's
easy to go after international programs when we have such problems
here. The fact is that they protect industry here in this country, in
the U.S. forest products industry in this country, because, as I said,
they're the only ones representing the U.S. forest products industry
and forestry in general in international trade agreements.
I would oppose this amendment and hope that my colleagues would also.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1750. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forest
System'' shall be $1,525,339,000: Provided, That no less than
$10,000,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds shall
be used in addition to amounts provided by this division.
Sec. 1751. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Capital
Improvement and Maintenance'' shall be $495,409,000:
Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in
division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this division by substituting ``$50,371,000''
for ``$90,000,000'': Provided further, That no less than
$10,000,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds shall
be used in addition to amounts provided by this division.
Sec. 1752. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land
Acquisition'' shall be $9,100,000: Provided, That no less
than $3,400,000 in available, unobligated prior-year funds
shall be used in addition to amounts provided by this
division.
Sec. 1753. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wildland Fire
Management'' shall be $1,978,737,000: Provided, That the
amounts included under such heading in division A of Public
Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this
division by substituting ``$200,000,000'' for
``$75,000,000'': Provided further, That of the unobligated
balances available in the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve
Fund for the Department of Agriculture created by section
502(b) of Public Law 111-88 (43 U.S.C. 1748a(b)),
$250,000,000 is rescinded.
Sec. 1754. The authority provided by section 337 of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat.
3102), as amended, shall remain in effect until September 30,
2011.
Sec. 1755. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health
Service, Indian Health Services'' shall be $3,883,886,000:
Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in
division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this division as follows: by substituting
``$862,765,000'' for ``$779,347,000''; by substituting
``$53,000,000'' for ``$48,000,000''; and by substituting
``$444,332,000'' for ``$398,490,000'': Provided further, That
of the funds included under this heading, $29,211,000 shall
be for staffing and operating costs of newly constructed
facilities.
Sec. 1756. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health
Service, Indian Health Facilities'' shall be $255,497,000:
Provided, That no less than $10,000,000 in available,
unobligated prior-year funds shall be used in addition to
amounts provided by this division.
Sec. 1757. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences'' shall be $77,546,000.
Sec. 1758. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, Toxic Substances and
Environmental Public Health'' shall be $74,039,000.
Sec. 1759. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental
Quality and Office of Environmental Quality'' shall be
$2,848,000.
Sec. 1760. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Salaries
and Expenses'' shall be $10,799,000: Provided, That the
matter pertaining to methyl isocyanate in the last proviso
under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall
not apply to funds appropriated by this division.
Sec. 1761. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Smithsonian Institution, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be
$634,661,000: Provided, That no less than $200,000 in
available, unobligated prior-year funds shall be used in
addition to amounts provided by this division.
Sec. 1762. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Smithsonian Institution, Facilities Capital'' shall be
$123,600,000: Provided, That no less than $1,400,000 in
available, unobligated prior-year funds shall be used in
addition to amounts provided by this division.
Sec. 1763. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Smithsonian Institution, Legacy Fund'' shall be $0.
Sec. 1764. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``National Gallery of Art, Repair, Restoration and Renovation
of Buildings'' shall be $48,221,000: Provided, That the
amounts included under such heading in division A of Public
Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this
division by substituting ``$42,250,000'' for ``$40,000,000''.
Sec. 1765. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Operations
and Maintenance'' shall be $22,500,000: Provided, That the
proviso under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88
shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division.

[[Page H1001]]

Sec. 1766. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Capital
Repair and Restoration'' shall be $13,920,000.
Sec. 1767. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Salaries
and Expenses'' shall be $9,844,000.

{time} 1950

Mr. SIMPSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 281, line 17 be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Idaho?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1768. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities,
National Endowment for the Arts, Grants and Administration''
shall be $145,000,000.

Amendment No. 196 Offered by Mr. Walberg

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

Page 281, line 21, insert ``(reduced by $20,594,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 359, line 13, insert ``(increased by $20,594,000)''
before the period at the end.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, currently, the CR funds the National
Endowment for the Arts at the approximate fiscal year 2008 level of
$145 million. Amendment No. 196 takes the funding levels back to the
fiscal year 2006 levels at $124.4 million. If accepted, this cut
returns $20.6 million to the spending reduction account.
Though some would call for the full defunding of the NEA, I'm not
doing that. You see, I believe in the true fine arts, and of course
that's defined by individual standards, I understand. I found that to
be a fact for a number of years when I was a finance chair of a
symphony orchestra. People will support what they appreciate.
However, at a time when our government is in a position where it must
cut Federal spending, I believe one of the main sources of the funding
for the arts needs to be through philanthropy, but that only happens
best in a sound and a growing economy. This budget crisis, this
economy, continues to be frustrated by the spending of government,
which frustrates individuals, who, indeed, would be willing to support
and, in fact, still do support the arts as well.
The National Endowment for the Arts does provide benefits to our
country, and helps fund some true fine arts. However, we are asking
them to only fund their true priorities, priorities approved by the
majority of taxpaying citizens, of sponsors and of patrons of the arts.
Limiting resources sometimes refocuses and defines that focus.
We know that the public has had questions on some of the programs
that the NEA has supported--major questions, major concerns. Attention
to those concerns will gain the support of the taxpayer as well as of
the philanthropist. Our country is in financial hardship, and we are
not taking programs like the NEA off the table.
I refer to a letter I received last night from a very strong patron
of the arts, of the symphony for which I served as a finance chair. He
is the chairman of a major manufacturing corporation in my district,
who is writing about what they have just gone through as a business. I
will just read excerpts:
Until today, we have been operating under a forbearance agreement
that began in 2008. It has been a struggle. Our leadership group
accepted 15 to 50 percent cuts in salary, and our hourly staff accepted
10 percent wage reductions. Our salesmen continue to find new
opportunities. We reduced our spending tremendously and only spent for
essentials. Our belt was very tight. We did all we could to help
ourselves, and we all made many sacrifices. Above all, we never stopped
believing in our future.
That's the type of impact that happens in the private sector, even in
programs we enjoy, benefit from and help out on, that we need to
understand. Our country is in financial hardship, and we are not taking
programs, even like the NEA, off the table.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The NEA has already been cut by $22 million in this continuing
resolution. The NEA's contribution to deficit reduction is really
infinitesimal, but its elimination would not be. It would be very
costly.
Mr. Chairman, the NEA represents less than 1/100th of discretionary
spending. The economic dividend this Nation receives from the Endowment
for the Arts, however, far exceeds the investment we make.
It seems to me that, when there are too many issues that divide this
Nation, and when there remains too much harshness and rancor, the arts
have an even more important role to play because they remain a powerful
medium through which we can all transcend our common differences,
appreciate beauty, and empathize with all of humankind. This is what
the arts are all about. This is what the NEA enables all Americans to
more greatly appreciate. The NEA budget is small, but it is such an
important catalyst in helping to create and sustain the arts.
Last year, actor Jeff Daniels spoke at an Interior Appropriations
subcommittee hearing as to how the NEA had supported the revival of a
theater in his hometown in Michigan. It was a small grant, but in his
case, it restored the theater and its productions so that neighboring
owners could then restore their homes and turn them into bed and
breakfast places. Restaurants and antique shops saw boosts in their
businesses. In fact, the State of Michigan just built an exit ramp off
the State highway to serve the increasing numbers of cars that are
flocking to his hometown, which otherwise would be a virtual ghost
town.
The NEA is a magnet for businesses in every place to which they
locate, and it searches out those opportunities. There are 668,000
businesses involved in the creation and distribution of art, and there
are millions of jobs. I have two examples in Virginia. Actually, to
save time, I'll just give one example:
Signature Theatre in Shirlington, Arlington, Virginia, received NEA
grants for its nationally recognized artistic and education programs.
I would suggest that all of our Members go there some time. They will
invariably see an extraordinary good performance, one that has
generated economic activity throughout that community and one that
could not have gotten on its feet without the help of the National
Endowment for the Arts.
When you cut that budget, you will see a dramatic adverse impact on
the national arts community and on specifically the arts education
programs that are developing throughout community centers and in our
schools.

{time} 2000

We do need to invest in the cultural lives of our citizenry and in
our children's future. I can't help but fathom how a Nation as rich and
prosperous as ours could not find it in its heart to provide $167
million for the Endowment for the Arts.
The arts and humanities will survive, but they will not be accessible
for the large majority of our citizens who couldn't otherwise afford
the expensive tickets that too often are charged at those performing
arts places where frankly the financially elite are only able to afford
to go. What the NEA does is to expand artistic achievement, to give
people an opportunity to fully appreciate and for us to appreciate
their talent.
Denyce Graves, who grew up in Washington in the Anacostia area, said
that The Kennedy Center could have been a world away. She never would
have seen it had it not been for a National Endowment for the Arts
grant. That enabled her to then pursue a career that ultimately
resulted in one of the finest operatic performers in America, in the
world.
The chair of the National Endowment for the Arts, Rocco Landesman, a
Broadway producer, extraordinarily effective, active leader, he has
suggested reform, that we probably have too

[[Page H1002]]

many arts venues. Let's consolidate them. Let's make sure that all of
them are of the highest quality. It has started a discussion that needs
to be done, but what shouldn't be done is to cut the National Endowment
for the Arts even further than this continuing resolution does.
I would urge rejection of the amendment, Madam Chair.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman from Washington is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. First of all, I have been on the committee for a long
time, the Interior Appropriations Committee, and I can remember when
Sid Yates from Chicago was the chairman, and we had arts funding at
about $180 million, then we had new Republican leadership come in in
1994 and 1995 and they cut the endowments in half. What we found out
was that when the endowment had less money to give out in grants, the
private sector started to give less money for grants and to help these
institutions. I applaud the gentleman for being a leader in his local
arts community.
Americans for the Arts did a major study 4 or 5 years ago about the
economic impact of the arts, and the gentleman from Virginia is
absolutely correct; the arts have exploded across the country. We have
given grants now in almost every single congressional district, which
has helped the proliferation of arts institutions. Consolidation, it
doesn't scare me. I think that, in some areas, it might be a good idea.
I've seen in the Puget Sound area, in Seattle, and in Tacoma how much
this has meant to the local communities, and this is a relatively small
amount of money.
When I was chairman of the committee, I did increase it, but I never
increased it by an amount that the Republican ranking member could not
also support. So Rocco Landesman said, well, why didn't you just put up
the $250 million. We did this on a bipartisan basis. We also have an
Arts Caucus in the Congress that operates on a bipartisan basis, and
we've had on the floor over the years a multiple of votes, and we've
had, you know, 40 or 50 enlightened Republicans who have joined with us
and made a good majority in support of these programs.
The humanities is also extremely important in literature and in
education and helping our teachers. So I think these are worthy
programs. I think the committee made the right decision here. I wish it
was still at $167.5 million, but they've reduced it down to about $145
million. I think that's good enough. I think going further than that
will really do damage to both of these endowments that have been there
since 1965 back in the Johnson administration, and I just think this
would be a mistake.
I support what the committee did, and I think we should stay with
that number.
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. MALONEY. I rise in opposition to this amendment and want to
state that the arts not only contribute to education and enlightenment,
they're important job creators. The NEA contributes to the development
and economic growth of communities nationwide, and each year, the arts
industry generates $166 billion in economic activity and provides 5.7
million full-time jobs. In my district alone, nearly 120,000 people are
employed in the museum, theater, art galleries, and other arts
organizations that I'm proud to represent.
So this is not the moment for trying to score political points in the
name of fiscal responsibility, and we should not be proposing deep cuts
that will take effect right away and destroy jobs in the arts and other
places at the very time we're trying like mad to create them. This CR
threatens our recovery just as the economy is bouncing back from the
worst recession in decades, and it proves that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are tone deaf to the American people's number
one priority, which is jobs.
Earlier this week, President Obama laid out a budget that makes tough
choices, a thoughtful budget that includes a 5-year freeze on non-
defense discretionary spending and reduces the deficit by $1.1
trillion. It does all of this while making important investments in
education, infrastructure, jobs, and our Nation's competitiveness,
investments that will prepare us to compete now and in the future.
As the President said at his press conference on Tuesday, when it
comes to this budget, we need to use a scalpel, not a machete. The
Republicans, by contrast, are making deep, painful, and seemingly
arbitrary cuts, cuts that would result in more than 200,000 children
being dropped from Head Start. Thousands of teachers would lose their
jobs and be forced to leave the classroom. Some $2.5 billion in NIH
cuts would jeopardize critical cancer and other disease research, and
1,300 fewer cops would be on the beat as a result of eliminating the
COPS hiring program, which we restored in a vote on this floor earlier
tonight, thankfully. There will be 2,400 fewer firefighters through the
elimination of SAFER grants, which again we fought to restore. Science
and energy research, to help drive our clean energy economy, would be
reduced, and the horrible list goes on and on, including this cut that
is before us right now.
Let's be clear: Cutting education, the arts, letting our
infrastructure deteriorate further, and failing to harness the power of
innovation is a recipe for declining competitiveness in an increasingly
competitive global economy. It's imperative that we must invest in the
future, invest in creating jobs, and this grant to the National
Endowment for the Arts is an important investment that will pay
dividends years down the road.
I strongly support the program, and I'm opposed to the gentleman's
proposal to cut it.
Sure--it's harder to be strategic--but it's required.
It's required that we recognize some investments make sense and some
don't.
We need to do more of what's working and eliminate what's not.
The reality is that we have to keep growing the economy to bring down
the deficit.
And we have to bring down our long-term deficits to sustain that
growth.
But indiscriminate steep cuts--like the ones now being advocated by
the Republicans--will jeopardize our recovery and make deficit
reduction that much more difficult to achieve.
This CR is bad for the recovery, bad for jobs and will hamper efforts
to get out our long-term deficit under control.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.

{time} 2010

The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1769. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities,
National Endowment for the Humanities, Grants and
Administration'' shall be $145,000,000: Provided, That the
amounts included under such heading in division A of Public
Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this
division by substituting ``$130,700,000'' for
``$153,200,000''.
Sec. 1770. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs'' shall be
$4,500,000.

Amendment No. 249 Offered by Mr. Canseco

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

Page 282, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,500,000)''.
Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would
eliminate Federal funding for the National Capital Arts and Cultural
Affairs grant program which the underlying continuing resolution funds
at $4.5 million. This program provides noncompetitive grant funding for
overhead costs to support artistic and cultural programs in the
District of Columbia exclusively.

[[Page H1003]]

In his budget last year and this year, President Obama has requested
that this program's funding be cut by 50 percent, which the underlying
legislation does. In this year's budget, President Obama notes that
``in general, these institutions are also able to apply for Federal
funding from other resources.''
I'm not here to debate the merits of the program. I'm not here to
question whether or not the money has been used by the institutions to
accomplish good things. What I'm here to do today is to debate and
question why this program should be considered a priority and receive
taxpayer funding when we're in a fiscal crisis. Make no mistake, we are
in a fiscal crisis that threatens not only our economic security but
our national security.
However, you don't have to take my word for it. Admiral Mike Mullen,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, ``I think the biggest
threat we have to our national security is our debt.'' Dr. Alice
Rivlin, a former Office of Management and Budget Director under
President Clinton and member of the President's Deficit Commission,
said in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last February,
``On any reasonable set of economic assumptions, the U.S. budget is on
an unsustainable track. There is no disagreement among the Office of
Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government
Accountability Office, and leading private forecasters on where the
budget is headed if we do not change course.'' And she continued, ``The
growing deficit will be more and more difficult and expensive to
finance. Ultimately, we will not be able to borrow enough to finance
the widening gap between spending and revenues.''
Even before the government's spending spree began that occurred under
President Obama, then-Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid,
our Nation was headed for a day of fiscal reckoning. They simply sped
up the day our Nation will hurtle off the fiscal cliff, increasing non-
defense discretionary spending by 84 percent in just 2 years. Under
their leadership, Federal spending has risen to levels as a share of
our economy not seen since World War II and resulted in the Federal
Government borrowing approximately 40 cents out of every dollar we
spend. Where is all this headed if we don't stop our spending?
If you followed the situation that occurred last year in Greece, you
know that that nation had to make many painful choices very quickly
because it had spent too much and investors were demanding higher
interest rates to take on the risk associated with buying Greece's
debt. If we don't get our fiscal house in order, what occurred in
Greece is a preview of events to come to America. If we don't stop the
spending and get our fiscal house in order, we will be the first
generation of Americans to leave the next generation with a legacy of
less freedom and prosperity. Do we want to leave our children and
grandchildren a legacy of debt and limited opportunity?
We have two choices: we can either stop the spending that is driving
our fiscal crisis, or we can continue the spending and one day become
the next Greece.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman. This amendment would entirely eliminate funding for a
successful, proven program. The National Capital Arts grant program was
established in 1986 to fill a substantial funding gap affecting the
major private arts groups in the District of Columbia, our Nation's
Capital. It now funds 23 such groups. In every other major city in the
United States, major private arts groups receive Federal funds from
their State arts councils, which frequently have such a major
institution's funding category.
That's not particularly important, but those who are involved in arts
organizations understand that that's the money they depend upon. In
D.C., they don't have that money to depend upon. No similar flow of
government funds from any level is available to major arts groups in
Washington, D.C.
The 23 groups that receive this money employ thousands of people.
Outreach efforts to schoolchildren is one of the principal things that
is funded through this National Capital Arts grant program. If we
didn't have this, those outreach programs would be virtually
eliminated. They constitute almost all of the arts outreach and arts
educational programs that are available to children in the D.C. schools
and schools in the suburbs. It's a program that has widespread popular
support. It is not a lot of money for each organization, but it's
essential money to enable them to continue functioning.
The fact that we are talking about such a small amount of money in
the context of such an enormous deficit, it really seems wrong that
children in our Nation's Capital would be denied outreach from these
arts institutions that are proximate to where they live but wholly
inaccessible without this program. So I would urge that we have a
heart, particularly for the children in the schools in Washington, D.C.
Reject this amendment and leave this very small amount of money in this
interior appropriations bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I want to associate
myself with the remarks of the ranking member, Mr. Moran. This is a
program that was created because the arts institutions in the District
of Columbia, many of them do not get any support from the District of
Columbia government. And there's no State government. In New York, they
get money from the city, from the boroughs, from the State government
for their major arts institutions.
This program was a very modest program that helps 23 performing arts
institutions which are extremely important, all of which have very
solid educational programs that help inner city youth here. We have a
very high population of inner city youth in the District of Columbia.
So I just think this has been a proven program. It is very modest.
It's been cut in half. Last year I think we had it at about $9.5
million. It has been cut in half. I think we should leave that. I think
the committee has made a decision; and to go further would just be, in
my mind, punitive.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

{time} 2020

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1771. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Presidio Trust, Presidio Trust Fund'' shall be $15,000,000.

Amendment No. 381 Offered by Mr. Reed

Mr. REED. 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 282, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $15,000,000)''.
Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REED. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment
seeking to rescind $15 million of funds out of this continuing
resolution.
As I've listened to the debate here this evening and yesterday and
over the last few days, as a freshman Member of Congress, I've come to
a realization that part of the problem is that many Members of this
esteemed body look at our spending in terms of it's a relatively small
amount of money; it's a small sum. But we're talking about millions of
dollars. We're talking about $15 million in this situation.
Now, I proposed this amendment without any disrespect to any Member

[[Page H1004]]

of this House. But I proposed it in a time when we face a national
crisis that goes to our very existence for generations to come, a
nation that won't be here for our children and our grandchildren.
And when I look at the Presidio Trust fund and I look at the park--
and it's a great park. I concede that point. But the plan for the park
was to be self-sufficient. And upon researching, going through page by
page of this budget and doing the hard work, my staff and I have
uncovered that this park is at the point where it can be self-
sufficient on its own.
They receive grants of $80,000 from the Cowell Foundation for three
projects. They have a $15 million gift from the private sector from
Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. LucasArts video games and Industrial Light
& Magic are leasing portions of the park, and it's a private revenue
stream. This is a success story. And at this point it's time for us to
put all our cards on the table and say, Now that you are standing on
your own two feet, when we face this fiscal crisis, this government now
has to make a responsible decision. And to me, that responsible
decision is to allow the park to stand on its own two feet--it has
shown plenty of ability to do that--and save the children and
grandchildren so that we can have a nation that they can be proud of
and can have a nation that they can live in, because that's the point
that we are in our Nation's history.
So I stand today and ask your support for this amendment. I think it
is the responsible action to do. And I applaud this process, because
this process is being conducted in the open and through a vigorous
debate, and that's what the American people have called upon us to do.
No line of our spending shall be left under stones. We shall uncover
each stone.
I urge all my fellow Members to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment that would
eliminate funding for the Presidio Trust.
The Presidio was in continuous use as a military post from 1776 until
1994. An Army installation, the post was closed in 1994 as part of the
BRAC process and transferred to the National Park Service. In 1996,
Congress established the Presidio Trust to govern this unique national
park site and to ensure its preservation by making it financially self-
sustaining. And that's exactly what has happened.
Over the past 12 years, appropriations as a percentage of the overall
trust budget have been reduced from over 95 percent Federal funding in
fiscal year 1998 to less than 20 percent in fiscal year 2010. The
current ratio of private investment in the Presidio to Federal
appropriations is already greater than 4:1. Appropriations, though, are
authorized through fiscal year 2012. That was the deal. After 2012, the
trust itself, by itself, alone, is responsible for long-term operations
and maintenance of the Presidio.
Since it took over management of the Presidio in 1998, the trust has
rehabilitated and leased 97 percent of the Presidio's housing units and
rehabilitated 75 percent of the Presidio's 433 very historic buildings.
I've been there. I've seen it. It's phenomenal what the trust has
accomplished.
Eliminating funds just 1 year short of its goal violates the spirit
of the 1996 law, and it undermines the trust's ability to achieve self-
sufficiency. This would result in higher future obligations, as the
Federal Government might have to assume full responsibility to maintain
the historic properties.
It also sends a terrible signal to communities across the country
that may also have innovative solutions in partnering with the Federal
Government. They are time-controlled; in other words, it's not forever.
But they say for a certain period of time, if you'll partner with us,
we'll take this responsibility off your hands.
The $23 million appropriated for the trust in fiscal year 2010 has
created 860 jobs. Federal appropriations in this current fiscal year
will help expedite rehabilitation of historic buildings and take
advantage of favorable construction costs that exist today.
At a recent oversight hearing, the members of our Appropriations
subcommittee received assurances that the trust will accomplish its
financial stewardship and public use goals. That was the deal. They
said, We'll meet our part of the deal, assuming that the Federal
Government will meet its obligation.
As one of the Nation's oldest and most important military posts, the
trust has had some unique extraordinary challenges since the Defense
Department closed out its installation, but the trust is well on its
way toward meeting its legislative objectives. It should not be
undermined by this amendment.
This has worked well. It's an example for the rest of the country.
Let it serve as an example. One more year to go, and then it will be
off our books. The trust will take over responsibility, and we will
point out that this is the way to do it, in partnership, where we will
not be perpetually responsible but, in fact, the private sector will
come in, let the market work and have a national gem, really, a
national asset for everyone to visit and appreciate and learn from.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time and strongly urge
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in concurrence with the comments
of my ranking member from Virginia. Funding for the Presidio in this CR
is $8.2 million below the FY10 enacted level, and $7 million below the
fiscal year 2008 level.
When the government closed down the Presidio Army base in 1994, it
was transferred to the National Park Service as part of the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area. It could have been turned over to the
National Park Service and run as a historic park, but that would have
cost tens of millions of dollars per year to the taxpayers. Instead,
Congress devised a unique management and funding model by creating the
Presidio Trust to preserve the Presidio and help it become financially
self-sufficient. The trust manages 80 percent of the Presidio lands,
including most of the buildings and infrastructure. The Park Service
manages the remaining 20 percent, including the coastal areas of the
Presidio. The Presidio Trust receives Federal appropriations that are
diminishing each year and, as was mentioned, will cease at the end of
FY12, when it becomes self-sufficient.
This truly is a model of how we can do these things where they will
become self-sufficient and off the roll of the taxpayer. But our part
of this is we have to keep our end of the deal. And so through FY12 we
need to make sure that we keep our word on what was agreed on in 1996
and let this Presidio Trust take over and become self-sufficient at the
end of the next fiscal year.
So I rise in opposition to this amendment and would encourage my
colleagues to vote against it.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REED. 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 New York
will be postponed.

{time} 2030

The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1772. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission, Salaries and
Expenses'' shall be $0.
Sec. 1773. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission, Capital
Construction'' shall be $0.
Sec. 1774. Section 409 of division A of Public Law 111-88
(123 Stat. 2957) is amended by striking ``and 111-8'' and
inserting ``111-8, and 111-88'', and by striking ``2009'' and
inserting ``2010''.
Sec. 1775. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
section 415 of division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be $0.
Sec. 1776. Section 433 of division A of Public Law 111-88
(123 Stat. 2965) is amended by striking ``2010'' and ``2009''
and inserting ``2011'' and ``2010'', respectively.

[[Page H1005]]

Sec. 1777. Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this division, each of the following departments
and agencies shall submit to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations a spending, expenditure, or operating plan
for fiscal year 2011 at a level of detail below the account
level:
(1) Department of the Interior.
(2) Environmental Protection Agency.
(3) Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
(4) Indian Health Service.
(5) Council on Environmental Quality.
(6) Smithsonian Institution.
(7) National Gallery of Art.
(8) National Endowment for the Arts.
(9) National Endowment for the Humanities.
Sec. 1778. None of the funds made available by this
division or any other Act may be used to implement,
administer, or enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by
the Secretary of the Interior on December 22, 2010.

TITLE VIII--LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES

Sec. 1801. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Training and Employment Services'' shall be
$221,699,000: Provided, That the amounts included under such
heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied
to funds appropriated by this division as follows: by
substituting ``$0'' for each amount included in paragraph
(1); by substituting ``$167,538,000'' for ``$470,038,000'';
by substituting ``$29,160,000'' for ``$229,160,000''; by
substituting ``$0'' for ``$200,000,000''; by substituting
``$0'' for ``$102,500,000''; by substituting ``$54,161,000''
for ``$389,043,000''; by substituting ``$44,561,000'' for
``$93,450,000''; by substituting ``$0'' for ``$48,889,000'';
by substituting ``$0'' for ``$108,493,000''; by substituting
``$0'' for ``$40,000,000''; by substituting ``$0'' for
``$125,000,000''; and by substituting ``$0'' for
``$12,500,000'': Provided further, That of the funds made
available for dislocated worker employment and training
activities under such heading in division D of Public Law
111-117, $65,000,000 is rescinded: Provided further, That of
the funds made available for dislocated worker employment and
training activities under such heading in division D of
Public Law 111-117, up to 25 percent may be used for the
period April 1, 2011, through September 30, 2011, for youth
activities.
Sec. 1802. (a) Of the unobligated balances available for
``Department of Labor, Departmental Management, Office of Job
Corps'', $300,000,000 is rescinded.
(b) None of the funds made available by this division or
any prior Act may be used to initiate a competition for any
new Job Corps center not previously approved by the Secretary
of Labor as a Jobs Corps center through a competitive
selection process.
Sec. 1803. Of the unobligated balances of the funds made
available for ``Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Training and Employment Services, Federally
Administered Programs, Dislocated Workers Assistance National
Reserve'' in division D of Public Law 111-117, $100,000,000
is rescinded.
Sec. 1804. Of the unobligated balances of the funds made
available for ``Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Training and Employment Services, National
Activities, Evaluation'', $10,000,000 is rescinded.
Sec. 1805. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Community Service Employment for Older
Americans'' shall be $300,425,000, and for purposes of funds
appropriated by this division, the amounts under such heading
in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied by
substituting ``$0'' for ``$225,000,000'', and the first and
second provisos under such heading in such division shall not
apply.
Sec. 1806. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration,
Salaries and Expenses'' shall be $355,843,000, of which up to
$15,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of Labor to
be transferred to ``Departmental Management, Salaries and
Expenses'' for activities related to the Department of
Labor's caseload before the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Review Commission, and the amounts included under the heading
``Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration,
Salaries and Expenses'' in division D of Public Law 111-117
shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division by
substituting ``$0'' for ``$1,450,000''.
Sec. 1807. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Labor, Departmental Management'' shall be
$315,154,000, and the third proviso under such heading in
division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this division.
Sec. 1808. Of the unobligated balances available for
``Department of Labor, Working Capital Fund'', $3,900,000 is
permanently rescinded, to be derived solely from amounts
available in the Investment in Reinvention Fund (other than
amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget
or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985).
Sec. 1809. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources
and Services Administration, Health Resources and Services''
shall be $5,313,171,000, of which (1) not more than
$100,000,000 shall be available until expended for carrying
out the provisions of Public Law 104-73 and for expenses
incurred by the Department of Health and Human Services
pertaining to administrative claims made under such law; (2)
no funds shall be for the program under title X of the Public
Health Service Act (referred to in this title as the ``PHS
Act''), to provide for voluntary family planning projects;
and (3) $352,835,000 shall be available for health
professions programs under titles VII and VIII and section
340G of the PHS Act.
(b) The eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, twenty-
second, and twenty-fifth provisos under the heading
``Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources
and Services Administration, Health Resources and Services''
of division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this division.
(c) Sections 747(c)(2) and 751(j)(2) of the PHS Act, the
proportional funding amounts in paragraphs (1) through (4) of
section 756(e) of such Act, and section 511(f) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 711(f)) shall not apply to funds made
available by this division for ``Department of Health and
Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration,
Health Resources and Services''.
(d) For purposes of this section, section 10503(d) of
Public Law 111-148 shall be applied as if ``, over the fiscal
year 2008 level,'' were stricken from such section.

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. As I visit all the communities of my district, I am asked
about high unemployment, how government can help promote job growth,
and how we can get the economy working again for families trying to
make ends meet. It is clear that the top priority in New York and
across the country is creating jobs. But when I'm in Washington, I
don't hear the House leadership answering that call.
Since the beginning of the year, we have yet to debate a single bill
that would create a single job. There have been no attempts to make the
targeted investments in innovation and education that will help us win
the next century, as the President mentioned in the State of the Union.
In the last decade, unemployment has skyrocketed while the number of
abortions has decreased. Yet today the majority is pursuing an extreme
assault on women's health and reproductive rights by eliminating the
cost-effective Family Planning Program.
My amendment would restore $317 million for title X family planning
because it is a wise investment. Publicly supported family planning
clinics save taxpayers nearly $4 for every $1 that is spent providing
contraceptive care. In New York, more than 340,000 women are served by
title X funding clinics and 66 percent have incomes at or below poverty
level. Elimination of the program in the CR would only guarantee higher
government health care costs for these low-income Americans in future
years.
If our goal is to cut spending, it is reckless to eliminate this
program that saves taxpayer dollars. It is unconscionable that those
Americans who most need access to the affordable basic health care
title X provides, like cancer screenings and contraceptives, have
become victims of the extreme right's divisive partisan attempts to
deny women a full range of legal health services.
Even as we consider this wrongheaded bill, they are simultaneously
pursuing legislation and authorizing committees to roll back the clock
on a woman's right to choose, women's services available to victims of
rape and incest, and even allow hospitals to deny lifesaving treatments
for women.
Not once have I heard a constituent say that it's important for the
government to get to work on restricting women's health choices and
denying basic care. At a time of high unemployment and enormous
economic challenges, Congress should focus on job creation. The assault
on women's health must stop now.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, in a breathtaking and a radical step, the
Republican majority has proposed to eliminate title X funding which has
connected millions of American women to health care since 1970.
In 2009, title X funding provided 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2
million Pap tests, and nearly 1 million HIV tests to

[[Page H1006]]

men and women both. This Republican Congress is trying to turn back the
clock on women's health and turn back the clock on women's basic
rights. They are taking us back to a day when family planning was not a
given opportunity for women.
In Connecticut, more than 62,000 men and women benefit from care at
title X-funded health centers each year. Over 70 percent of them have a
family income of less than $16,245 a year. In other words, this is the
only way they can afford health care. In fact, six of every 10 women
who seek care at a title X-funded center consider it their main source
of medical care. Yet the majority is trying to take these important
services away.
It is argued that we need to cut title X services to reduce the
deficit. This is simply not true. For every dollar invested in title X,
taxpayers save just under $4. The fact of the matter is that vital
preventive care and family planning services supported by title X save
money and save lives.
Make no mistake, cutting title X funding is a breathtaking and a
radical step. The majority is using the guise of budget cutting to
launch an assault on title X, which would endanger women's health.
Understanding their purpose has nothing to do with the deficit. They
want to impose their traditional view of a woman's role.
Let's get real. This legislation is not about Federal funding for
abortion. Federal funds, including title X, are already banned from
going toward abortion services under the Hyde amendment. Rather, much
like the repeal of health care reform, this is part of an agenda to
force women back into traditional roles with limited opportunities.
Under their proposal, more than 5 million people lose access to basic
primary and preventive health care. As a cancer survivor myself, who is
only here today because my cancer was found at stage I, I can tell you,
losing access to screenings will cost lives.
It comes down to this: The proposal to eliminate title X is a bad
policy. It will hurt women and do nothing for our economy. It costs
money. Instead of making it harder for women to get health care, we
should be standing up for these vital services.
The American public called for job creation and turning our economy
around last November. I believe that my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle have not heeded that call. This bill will do nothing to
create jobs nor reduce the deficit.
On behalf of women, on behalf of middle class and working families we
represent, I urge my colleagues to leave this extreme and divisive
social agenda out of the picture of support. We should not be playing
games with women's health and with basic rights.

{time} 2040

Mrs. ROBY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. ROBY. I oppose increased funding for title X. We should not
allocate Federal funds to groups like Planned Parenthood that use the
money for abortion.
Planned Parenthood has recently made plain the centrality of abortion
to its mission, mandating that every affiliate have at least one clinic
performing abortions within the next 2 years. Additionally, it is
beyond shocking that Planned Parenthood employees were recently found
on video aiding and abetting in the alleged sex trafficking of minors.
This is not the first time that Planned Parenthood has shown such
shocking behavior. It happened in my home State of Alabama back in
2009. A Planned Parenthood counselor was caught on hidden camera
telling an alleged 14-year-old statutory rape victim that the clinic
``does sometime bend the rules a little bit'' rather than report sexual
abuse to State authorities. Two years later, we are still seeing this
outrageous behavior by Planned Parenthood employees. It is time to stop
funding such an organization with taxpayer dollars.
Planned Parenthood ignores statutory rape law reporting, pushes
abortion procedures, and opposes any effort to elevate the legal status
of a fetus at any stage of development. It is not a proud day that
citizens learn that these activities have been continually funded by
the Federal Government. It is an even worse day when we are told that
our government has funded Planned Parenthood with more than $363
million in government grants and contracts.
Since fiscal year 1998, title X has seen increased funding for 10 of
the 12 years. From fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2010, title X
funding has increased by over 56 percent. In appropriations for fiscal
year 2010, title X saw a 3.3 percent increase in funding, which was a
$10 million increase over 2009 funding. This is unacceptable spending
at a time that we must cut Federal spending.
The continual action by Planned Parenthood and its employees is
demeaning for women and a black eye on our society. Funding must be
stopped. We should not spend any more taxpayer dollars to push Planned
Parenthood's agenda to take away the rights of the unborn.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment to add money to
title X.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1810. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
the first undesignated paragraph under the heading
``Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Disease Control, Research,
and Training'' shall be $5,742,989,000, of which (1)
$750,000,000 shall be derived from funds transferred,
pursuant to section 4002(c) of Public Law 111-148, from
amounts appropriated by section 4002(b) of such Public Law;
(2) no funds shall be available for acquisition of real
property, equipment, construction, and renovation of
facilities; and (3) $523,533,000 shall remain available until
expended for the Strategic National Stockpile under section
319F-2 of the PHS Act.
(b) The amount included before the first proviso under the
heading ``Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Disease Control,
Research, and Training'' of division D of Public Law 111-117
shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division by
substituting ``$0'' for ``$20,620,000''.
(c) Paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 2821(b) of the
PHS Act shall not apply to funds made available by this
division.
(d) For purposes of this section, section 4002(c) of Public
Law 111-148 shall be applied as if ``, over the fiscal year
2008 level,'' were stricken from such section.
Sec. 1811. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases'' shall be $4,214,275,000, and the
Director of the National Institutes of Health shall transfer
up to $256,627,000, on a pro rata basis, based on total
funding levels, from the other Institutes, Centers, and
Office of the Director accounts within the National
Institutes of Health Account to ``National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases'', and the requirement under
``National Institute of Allergy and Infection Diseases'' in
division D of Public Law 111-117 for a transfer from
Biodefense Countermeasures funds shall not apply.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division,
the first proviso under the heading ``Department of Health
and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases'' in division D
of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated
by this division.
Sec. 1812. The amount provided by section 1101 for
``Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institutes of Health'' is reduced by $260,000,000, through a
pro rata reduction in all of the Institutes, Centers, and
Office of the Director accounts within ``Department of Health
and Human Services, National Institutes of Health'', based on
the total of the projected funding levels for the Non-
competing Research Project Grants in fiscal year 2011 for
each such Institute, Center, and Office of the Director
account. In addition, the Director of the National Institutes
of Health shall ensure that the average of the total cost of
Competing Research Project Grants for all of the Institutes,
Centers, and Office of the Director accounts within
``Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institutes of Health'' during fiscal year 2011 shall not
exceed $400,000.
Sec. 1813. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institutes of Health, Buildings and Facilities'' shall be
$22,700,000.
Sec. 1814. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services'' shall be $3,202,152,000.
(b) The amount included before the first proviso under the
heading ``Department of Health and Human Services, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services'' in division D of Public
Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this
division by substituting ``$0'' for ``$14,518,000''.
(c) The second proviso under the heading ``Department of
Health and Human Services,

[[Page H1007]]

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services'' of division D of
Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by
this division.

Amendment No. 565 Offered by Mr. Bass of New Hampshire

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

Page 291, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $98,000,000)''.
Page 293, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 293, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Madam Chairman, my amendment very simply
adds $50 million to the Low Energy Assistance Program, otherwise known
as LIHEAP. Winters in the Northeast and elsewhere in America are long
and hard, and especially this year it has been difficult. It has been a
tough year. In January we saw more or less twice the average amount of
snow. Temperatures have been well below average in some parts of the
country; and there are similar stories not only in New Hampshire, but
elsewhere in the Northeast and around the Nation.
The problem with reducing the contingency fund in the Low Income
Energy Assistance Plan is we are in the middle of the winter right now,
and what my amendment does is add $50 million to ensure that we have
adequate resources to make it through March and into April. The
amendment also reduces the substance abuse and mental health services
by an equivalent amount, but that is only about 1 percent of the total
funding for that line item.
Let me point out that what this amendment will do is ensure that low-
income individuals in America have the necessary resources in order to
ensure that they have adequate heat throughout the rest of the year.
This is a difficult process that we are going through here, and I
recognize there are trade-offs; but this is a very small change in a
safety net that provides an enormous resource very quickly. We can
debate the rest of the Low Income Energy Assistance Plan later in the
year. What this $50 million increase does is make it possible to get
through the winter.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REHBERG. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REHBERG. We accept this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Hampshire will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1815. The amount included under the heading
``Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Research and
Quality'' of division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be
applied to funds appropriated by this division by
substituting ``$372,053,000'' for ``397,053,000''.
Sec. 1816. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
amounts transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust
Fund for ``Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Program Management''
shall be $3,012,162,000, of which the level for the Research,
Demonstration, and Evaluation program shall be $0.
(b) The amount under the third proviso under the heading
``Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, Program Management'' in
division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this division by substituting ``$9,120,000''
for ``$65,600,000''.
(c) The sixth proviso under the heading ``Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, Program Management'' in division D of Public Law
111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this
division.
Sec. 1817. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance''
shall be $4,709,672,000, of which $4,509,672,000 shall be for
payments under subsections (b) and (d) of section 2602 of the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C.
8621); and of which $200,000,000 shall be for payments under
subsection (e) of such Act, to be made notwithstanding the
designation requirements of such subsection.
(b) The second proviso under the heading ``Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance'' of division D
of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated
by this division.

Amendment No. 160 Offered by Mr. Markey

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

Page 293, line 4, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $390,328,000)''.
Page 293, line 8, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $390,328,000)''.
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new sections:

SEC. 4002. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``End Big Oil Tax Subsidies
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 4003. AMORTIZATION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL
EXPENDITURES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 167(h)(5) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``major integrated oil company'' and inserting ``covered
large oil company''.
(b) Covered Large Oil Company.--Paragraph (5) of section
167(h) of such Act is amended by redesignating subparagraph
(B) as subparagraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph
(A) the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Covered large oil company.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `covered large oil company' means a
taxpayer which--
``(i) is a major integrated oil company, or
``(ii) has gross receipts in excess of $50,000,000 for the
taxable year.

For purposes of clause (ii), all persons treated as a single
employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 shall be
treated as 1 person.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for paragraph (5) of
section 167(h) of such Code is amended by inserting ``and
other large taxpayers''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2011.

SEC. 4004. PRODUCING OIL AND GAS FROM MARGINAL WELLS.

(a) In General.--Section 45I of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(e) Exception for Taxpayer Who Is Not Small, Independent
Oil and Gas Company.--
``(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
taxpayer which is not a small, independent oil and gas
company for the taxable year.
``(2) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), all
persons treated as a single employer under subsections (a)
and (b) of section 52 shall be treated as 1 person.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to credits determined for taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2011.

SEC. 4005. ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Section 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f) Exception for Taxpayer Who Is Not Small, Independent
Oil and Gas Company.--
``(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
taxpayer which is not a small, independent oil and gas
company for the taxable year.
``(2) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), all
persons treated as a single employer under subsections (a)
and (b) of section 52 shall be treated as 1 person.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2011.

SEC. 4006. INTANGIBLE DRILLING AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS IN THE
CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 263 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``This subsection shall not apply
to amounts paid or incurred by a taxpayer in any taxable year
in which such taxpayer is not a small, independent oil and
gas company, determined by deeming all persons treated as a
single employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52
as 1 person.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2011.

SEC. 4007. PERCENTAGE DEPLETION.

(a) In General.--Section 613A of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:

[[Page H1008]]

``(f) Exception for Taxpayer Who Is Not Small, Independent
Oil and Gas Company.--
``(1) In general.--This section and section 611 shall not
apply to any taxpayer which is not a small, independent oil
and gas company for the taxable year.
``(2) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), all
persons treated as a single employer under subsections (a)
and (b) of section 52 shall be treated as 1 person.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 613A(c)(1) of such Code
is amended by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting
``subsections (d) and (f)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2011.

SEC. 4008. TERTIARY INJECTANTS.

(a) In General.--Section 193 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Exception for Taxpayer Who Is Not Small, Independent
Oil and Gas Company.--
``(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
taxpayer which is not a small, independent oil and gas
company for the taxable year.
``(2) Exception for qualified carbon dioxide disposed in
secure geological storage.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in
the case of any qualified tertiary injectant expense paid or
incurred for any tertiary injectant is qualified carbon
dioxide (as defined in section 45Q(b)) which is disposed of
by the taxpayer in secure geological storage (as defined by
section 45Q(d)).
``(3) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), all
persons treated as a single employer under subsections (a)
and (b) of section 52 shall be treated as 1 person.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to expenses incurred after December 31, 2011.

SEC. 4009. PASSIVE ACTIVITY LOSSES AND CREDITS LIMITED.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 469(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(C) Exception for taxpayer who is not small, independent
oil and gas company.--
``(i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any
taxpayer which is not a small, independent oil and gas
company for the taxable year.
``(ii) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of clause (i), all
persons treated as a single employer under subsections (a)
and (b) of section 52 shall be treated as 1 person.''.

SEC. 4010. INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(e) Exception for Taxpayer Who Is Not Small, Independent
Oil and Gas Company.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
income derived from the production, transportation, or
distribution of oil, natural gas, or any primary product
(within the meaning of subsection (d)(9)) thereof by any
taxpayer which for the taxable year is an oil and gas company
which is not a small, independent oil and gas company.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2011.

SEC. 4011. PROHIBITION ON USING LAST-IN, FIRST-OUT ACCOUNTING
FOR MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL COMPANIES.

(a) In General.--Section 472 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Major Integrated Oil Companies.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section, a major integrated oil
company (as defined in section 167(h)) may not use the method
provided in subsection (b) in inventorying of any goods.''.
(b) Effective Date and Special Rule.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.
(2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any
taxpayer required by the amendment made by this section to
change its method of accounting for its first taxable year
beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act--
(A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the
taxpayer,
(B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
(C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken
into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account
ratably over a period (not greater than 8 taxable years)
beginning with such first taxable year.

SEC. 4012. MODIFICATIONS OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT RULES
APPLICABLE TO DUAL CAPACITY TAXPAYERS.

(a) In General.--Section 901 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (n) as
subsection (o) and by inserting after subsection (m) the
following new subsection:
``(n) Special Rules Relating to Dual Capacity Taxpayers.--
``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this chapter, any amount paid or accrued by a dual capacity
taxpayer to a foreign country or possession of the United
States for any period with respect to combined foreign oil
and gas income (as defined in section 907(b)(1)) shall not be
considered a tax to the extent such amount exceeds the amount
(determined in accordance with regulations) which would have
been required to be paid if the taxpayer were not a dual
capacity taxpayer.
``(2) Dual capacity taxpayer.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `dual capacity taxpayer' means, with
respect to any foreign country or possession of the United
States, a person who--
``(A) is subject to a levy of such country or possession,
and
``(B) receives (or will receive) directly or indirectly a
specific economic benefit (as determined in accordance with
regulations) from such country or possession.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxes paid or accrued in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2011.
(2) Contrary treaty obligations upheld.--The amendments
made by this section shall not apply to the extent contrary
to any treaty obligation of the United States.

Mr. REHBERG. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, we all recognize that we must make
calculated decisions to drive down our deficit, but today we see the
cold calculations of the Republican leadership, who are cutting
hundreds of millions of dollars that would help our Nation's poorest
families heat their homes while continuing the billions in taxpayer
subsidies we send to big oil companies.
My amendment would fully restore LIHEAP funding and reduce the
deficit by repealing these $40 billion in tax breaks for Big Oil. Oil
companies don't need the 100-year-old tax breaks to sell $100-per-
barrel oil while making $100 billion per year.
For millions of families across the country this year, heating bills
have been piling up along with the snow, and so are the record numbers
of people turning to LIHEAP to help them get through the winter.

{time} 2050

In my State of Massachusetts alone, LIHEAP is projected to help
250,000 families this winter. But even as the mercury has dropped,
House Republicans are now considering dropping this important safety
net for millions of low-income families nationwide. The only way this
bill is going to help families heat their homes would be if they tossed
all 359 pages in the fireplace.
It takes a frigid heart for the Republican leadership to continue to
defend tax breaks for oil and gas companies while putting heating fuel
assistance for America's neediest on ice. But that's exactly what they
are doing.
The majority spending bill presents us with a false choice. We
shouldn't be cutting heating assistance for the poorest families before
repealing the $40 billion in tax subsidies to big oil companies, the
most profitable companies in the history of the world. The Republicans
can continue to make their choices, but the American people will not
stand with them. When they are faced with giving tax breaks to Exxon or
fuel assistance to low-income Americans, they have chosen Exxon. When
they are forced to choose between a free lunch for BP or lunch for
hungry senior citizens, they make the choice for BP. We should not be
balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest families. I urge
support for this amendment to protect the neediest amongst us with a
``no'' vote on this cold-hearted funding bill.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
And the amendment directly amends existing law.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
The Chair finds that the amendment proposes directly to change
existing law, to wit: the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained.
Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H1009]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the
continuing resolution. Instead of fighting the war on cancer, this bill
declares war on cancer research and those who undertake it. The
National Cancer Institute Director, Dr. Harold Varmus, said it best in
December when he warned that the proposed cuts would have dire and
lethal consequences. He is right. The proposed $1.6 billion cut to the
National Institutes of Health would undermine the most successful
innovation model the world has ever seen. The classic view of
innovation is that government funds basic science while industry comes
up with new innovative products based on that science. This model has
worked well.
Over the past 40 years, 153 new FDA-approved drugs and vaccines were
discovered through research carried out at public institutions with
Federal funds. In the last 20 years alone, one out of every five
important medical advances approved by the FDA was invented in a
federally funded lab. Those inventions, which included 40 new drugs for
cancer, are currently generating more than $100 billion a year in sales
for drug and biotechnology firms.
This includes drugs like Herceptin for breast cancer; Avastin for
lung cancer; and Gleevec for gastrointestinal stromal tumors that
inhibit and/or block cancer cell growth. This research in cancer alone
supports over 1,300 clinical trials each year for promising new
therapies for more than 200,000 cancer patients.
President Nixon, a Republican, recognized the importance of a
sustained public commitment in basic research when he signed the
National Cancer Act in 1971. Last year, under President Obama, $5
billion was provided to the National Cancer Institute to continue that
mission.
This funding bill would take us back years, decreasing the National
Institutes of Health budget by 5 percent, disrupting this tremendously
successful innovation model. The only failure in cancer research is
when you quit or you're forced to quit because of the lack of funding.
Our sustained commitment to biochemical research is vital to the
community I serve in western New York, where approximately $100 billion
in Federal funding supports research each year. Institutions like
Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Hauptman Woodward Medical Research
Institute, the University of Buffalo, and companies along the Buffalo
campus all rely on this funding to conduct research and translate that
research into new treatments and products to improve quality of life.
The cuts proposed would not only hurt these institutions and small
businesses, it will hurt the entire Buffalo community that is now
beginning to realize the tremendous economic benefit of this research.
Alleviating suffering due to diseases like cancer in our lifetime
should be Congress's goal. This continuing resolution falls dangerously
short of that.
Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HIGGINS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Right now, 2010, we spent $172 billion on Alzheimer's patients--$172
billion, Medicare and Medicaid. You're cutting the budget for NIH to
find a cure for Alzheimer's. By the time all the baby boomers have
retired, the budget for each year is going to be $1 trillion to take
care of the 15 million baby boomers that are going to have Alzheimer's
in nursing homes.
So what are you guys doing? You're saying, We're going to cut the
budget for Medicaid, which pays for Alzheimer's patients in nursing
homes, and we're going to cut the budget for the cure for the funding
for the NIH. You're having it both ways. No cure--and you're then going
to cut the money for these poor families under the Medicaid and
Medicare budget. You shouldn't do this.
The NIH are the National Institutes of Hope--researchers in
medicine's field of dreams from which we harvest the findings that give
hope to millions of families in our country. You are cutting this
budget and you're not giving us an opportunity to make amendments in
which we'll be able to put the funding in for the NIH budget. And that
is just a very bad moral decision which you are making. And you're
sending a false hope to people that you're actually solving the problem
by cutting the NIH budget.
All of those people who are going to have Alzheimer's--and it's a
demographic certainty--are going to cost $1 trillion by 2050. You are
doing nothing about that right now. And, by the way; you won't have the
courage to tell people you're not going to take care of them in nursing
homes across the countries. That demographic is going be so strong. Put
the money in NIH for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, for all of these
diseases. Please, God, let's at least agree on that as a bipartisan
issue--that all our families are going to be equally struck by all of
these diseases.
The gentleman from New York has put his finger right on this great
moral and political dilemma for our country. A stitch in time will save
nine. The money we put up now will save not 9 but 900 times the money
that is ultimately going to have to be spent on all of these
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients. It is a demographic certainty.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, today I am rising to speak out on the severe
lack of centers and facilities for Level 1 trauma centers throughout
this Nation. I introduced an amendment, which I am withdrawing.
Madam Chair, in my home State of Illinois, our family members are
dying due to the tragic lack of Level 1 trauma centers in close
proximity to those who need it. Sadly, our newspaper headlines,
including yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times, are filled with tragic stories
of victims struck by bullets, stabbed, and other kinds of trauma
visited upon them. Despite the best efforts of witnesses, bystanders,
and paramedics, the lack of nearby Level 1 trauma centers dramatically
reduces survival rates and drives up long-term acute care needs and
costs.
Madam Chair, in 1999, my son, 29-year-old Huey, was shot two blocks
from a hospital. But he couldn't go to that hospital because they
didn't have a Level 1 trauma center. So they had to transport him some
10 miles away, where eventually he passed.
This is just one example of one of these sad stories. It is not only
patently unfair, but it's an injustice that in a Nation as vast and
prosperous as ours that we have a tragic lack of such misplaced
priorities by not having Level 1 trauma centers close to the
communities where people reside. The fact that a community that's home
to about 750,000 people on the greater South Side of Chicago, an
overwhelming portion of which sits in my congressional district, does
not have one Level 1 trauma care center literally results in the
needless loss of life for far too many of us.

{time} 2100

Our Nation has seen time and time again the amazing work that gifted
trauma surgeons and fully equipped trauma care facilities can deliver
to pull patients back from almost certain death. What I want to ensure,
Madam Chair, is that the same level of care that is available in the
affluent communities in this Nation is also available to the men, women
and children in low-income communities.
The aforementioned editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times reported on the
tragic set of circumstances that befell an 18-year-old trauma victim,
who, after being struck by a bullet in a drive-by shooting last August,
could not go to the nearby University of Chicago Medical Center, which
was only four blocks away, because that facility did not have a trauma
center. The University of Chicago Medical Center, one of the major
hospitals in this Nation, does not have a level 1 trauma center.
Instead, at a time when every moment counts, when every minute counts
to save a life, paramedics had to drive the victim 9 miles to the
nearest level 1 trauma center, to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, where
the victim later died.
Madam Chair, situations like this simply should not happen in
America. As I stand here today, I am fully aware of the need to provide
funding to trauma centers for the financial losses they

[[Page H1010]]

incur. The National Trauma Care Foundation has estimated that the
economic loss to trauma centers due to their treatment of the uninsured
and underinsured patients is $230 million per year.
In the same Sun-Times editorial that I mentioned before, they also
reported on a study last year by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
which found that almost three-fourths of the Nation's emergency rooms
are unable to provide round-the-clock specialty care and that almost
one-fourth of hospitals cited this as a reason for the loss or
downgrading of their trauma center designations.
It is time for us to address the nationwide shortage of trauma care,
especially in underserved areas.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIMM. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIMM. I rise in support of Representative Bass's amendment,
which supports the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The
continuing resolution cuts the LIHEAP program by almost $400 million.
Madam Chairwoman, this program is crucial to the homeowners of the
Northeast, specifically in my district of Staten Island and Brooklyn,
New York. LIHEAP helps low-income families and seniors remain healthy
and secure from cold winters in the North and from hot summers in the
South, as well as keeping them from having to face the impossible
choice of paying their home energy bills or affording other
necessities, such as prescription drugs and food.
I am cognizant of the fact that at a time of record deficits and of
reduced spending, we must tighten our respective belts. However, it is
imperative that we make smart spending choices. That being said, I
believe, when given the choice between ensuring that our seniors have
the ability to heat their homes during frigid New York winters or
putting even more money into the catchall slush fund at NASA, there is
no choice at all.
As I have stated numerous times, I absolutely believe that deep
budget cuts are required to get our government back on a sound fiscal
path. However, we must first look to cut spending that is truly
wasteful. For that reason, I stand in support of Representative Bass's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I am really intrigued by my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle who have made the determination to cut
LIHEAP by $390 million, a decision that, in fact, wasn't important
enough to consider the well-being of people, whether they are in the
Northeast, whether they are in the Midwest, or whether they are in
other parts of the country which have very tough winters. So now what
they would want to do is take money from other worthy programs that, in
fact, they have cut but would further cut.
In the instance of Mr. Bass's amendment, he would reduce the money
from SAMHSA. That is the money for substance abuse and mental illness.
What it does is help to reduce the impact of substance abuse and mental
illness on America's communities by focusing its services on the people
who are in most need. It translates research, and makes it useful and
more effective so that we can get this into the general health care
system.
How do you treat addiction? How do you treat mental illness? Very
difficult issues.
So they would take that money, but they have cut LIHEAP, low-income
energy assistance, which, for the most part, we are looking at low-
income people. Then if it's applied to seniors, what they will do is
they won't cook their food at the right temperature, which will put
their health in jeopardy. They will buy space heaters, potentially,
which will put their lives in jeopardy.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really cared about
low-income energy assistance, they wouldn't have started to make their
cuts there. They would have moved to the $40 billion in subsidies for
oil and gas. They would have moved elsewhere to look for this funding.
What they would have done is cut back on the subsidies for special
interests to do that.
It is a bit disingenuous, and it robs Peter to pay Paul; but I
believe that that's the nature of what this unfixable bill is all
about.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I rise today to support the amendment
offered by my friend and colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey). This
amendment would restore vital funding to the title X family planning
program.
Now, I am all for reducing our deficit and for getting our fiscal
house in order, but let's be clear on something: this cut to title X
will not save money.
The proponents of eliminating family planning funds want us to
believe that cutting these funds is fiscally responsible and that it
has to be done to balance our budget. What they don't want us to know
is that investing in family planning actually saves money. For every
public dollar invested in family planning, taxpayers saved nearly $4.
So while cutting family planning appears to be a savings up front, over
the long run it will cost us both in dollars and in the health and
well-being of millions of women.
While we are being honest, let's also discuss the other motive of the
proponents of cutting title X. They argue that cutting funds for family
planning will reduce abortions. Once again, they are wrong. In fact, if
they wanted to reduce abortions, they would increase funding for title
X. Why? Because title X services prevent nearly 1 million unintended
pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in
abortion.
If we want to get serious about cutting Federal spending and reducing
abortions, a good start would be investing in title X, not eliminating
it, which is exactly what this amendment will do. Of course, in
addition to reducing unintended pregnancies and saving taxpayers'
money, family planning providers, like Planned Parenthood, provide
essential life-saving and preventative care.
In 2009, title X providers performed 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2
million Pap tests, over 6 million tests for STIs, and close to 1
million HIV tests. For six out of 10 women who receive care from
women's health centers, this is their only source of health care.
Eliminating all funds for family planning would cut millions of women
off from their primary and, in many cases, their only source of health
care.
To the millions of women out there who want comprehensive
reproductive health care: this is what they think of you.
They think that women should not have access to basic reproductive
health care, including birth control. Recent legislation revealed that
they think you shouldn't be able to access care even if you are a
victim of rape or incest.

{time} 2110

This is what they think of you.
All these bills reveal the true mindset of the opponents of choice:
women are not capable of making their own decisions about their own
health and their own lives.
These cuts to family planning programs would have a devastating
impact in my community. Ten Planned Parenthood health centers in
Illinois that provide primary and preventive care, including flu
vaccines, diabetes screening, and cholesterol screening would all be
forced to close. This would affect approximately 30,000 low-income
patients and eliminate the jobs of 200 health center workers. Not
exactly the kind of job-stimulating legislation we should be focusing
on.
The conversation we're having today is not about choice, but choices.
With family planning, we can reduce abortions and save the Federal
Government money; without, we only pretend to do either. With family
planning we can embrace educating and providing health care to women;
without, we abandon women when they need care the most. With family
planning, we can empower the women of America; without, we undermine
them.

[[Page H1011]]

We have the choice. And we must choose to stand up to these attacks
and fight back against the mistruths because the health, well-being,
and lives of millions of women and their families are at stake.
This amendment is a strike against these wrongheaded cuts to family
planning. I encourage my colleagues to restore funding to title X
family planning programs and vote ``yes'' on Mrs. Lowey's amendment.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
continuing resolution because it ignores the needs of America's
families and does nothing to create jobs, strengthen the middle class,
or effectively lower the deficit.
The $1.3 billion cut to community health centers is astounding. In my
district alone, if these cuts are enacted, over 112,000 individuals
will suffer a significant loss in primary health services, and they
will be forced to use costly hospital emergency care. Nationally, these
cuts mean health centers will be unable to serve 11 million patients
over the next year. It means 127 new health centers in underserved
districts will lose their funds. And it means the loss of thousands of
health care jobs.
Also on the chopping block is the title X program, which provides
over 8,000 men and women in my district with reproductive health care
and cancer screening. Nationally, the $317 million cut to title X will
force many clinics to close, eliminating another primary care safety
net for 5 million men and women.
Also unbelievable is the $210 million in proposed cuts to the
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program. This cut will devastate
primary and preventive health services in California for an estimated
2.6 million pregnant women, infants, and special needs children.
The cuts also endanger other critical programs such as California's
newborn screening program, which last year tested almost 550,000
newborns for treatable genetic and metabolic diseases, which if
undetected could have become painful and life threatening. On the
national level, these cuts in MCH grants will reduce or eliminate
prenatal health services for 2 million women and primary health care
for more than 17 million children. In a country that ranks far behind
almost all other developed nations in maternal and infant outcomes, we
can ill-afford to slash funding for the only Federal program that
focuses solely on improving the health of mothers and their babies.
Madam Chair, this bill is a Trojan horse that pretends to address our
Nation's deficit crisis at the expense of the most vulnerable among us.
This bill is not worthy of this House, for it fails to honor the true
priorities and values of the American people, and I urge my colleagues
to join me in rejecting this irresponsible resolution.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I rise to speak in strong support of the
Lowey amendment reinstating the funding for the title X program, which
supports family planning services for all of our constituents. While we
all agree on the need to reduce spending, it is just bad policy to
eliminate a proven, successful program that saves the taxpayer money
and provides critical health care services for our mothers, our
sisters, our friends. This is bad policy.
The title X program, the only Federal program devoted to family
planning, is the core of the public effort to ensure that all women,
regardless of income, have the knowledge and health care they need to
plan for their families. Its flexible grant funds not only help pay for
direct client services but also help to ensure that State and local
governments and nonprofit organizations across the country can place
safety net clinics in the communities that need them the most. These
clinics are the primary source of health care for millions of low-
income American women.
By helping women and couples plan and space their pregnancies, family
planning services have led to healthier mothers and children and have
been instrumental in the long struggle for women's equality in
education, the workforce, and society.
In light of the economic downturn, the freedom that the title X
program has given to women in the workforce is particularly important.
But this program hasn't just been successful for the over 4\1/2\
million Americans who use it every year. It has been successful for the
American taxpayer, as every dollar spent on this program saves our
Nation nearly $4 in return.
In light of the important role that family planning has played in
health care and society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
has called family planning one of the top 10 greatest public health
achievements of the 20th century, alongside other critical
breakthroughs like vaccinations and the campaigns against smoking.
Over 40 years ago, title X family planning funding was enacted on a
unanimous vote in the Senate and by an overwhelming majority in the
House. When signed into law, then-President Richard Nixon said it
fulfilled a promise that ``no American woman should be denied access to
family planning assistance because of her economic condition.''
How far we have come from that time to this day, when we have the
research to prove that a program works, and yet the House Republican
leadership has recklessly decided to cut it completely. Eliminating
title X now would be a devastating blow to the health, the security,
and the dreams of millions of American women and their families,
denying 5 million women preventive care, including annual exams,
lifesaving cancer screenings, contraceptive services, and testing and
treatment for sexually transmitted infection.
If Members of Congress really want to reduce our Federal deficit, we
would double funding for family planning, which studies have shown
could save the taxpayers nearly $2 billion per year. And yet, for some
reason, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to believe that
cutting this program, defunding a program that actually saves Americans
money and improves the health, improves the health of millions of
Americans, that somehow this is a good idea.
For those Members who oppose title X funding, I ask you: How do you
plan to ensure that the women in your district and your State have
access to lifesaving prevention services? This sham of a Republican
omnibus spending bill contains no answers to these questions, just
broken promises for the American people.
Let's be clear. A vote against title X is a vote for unintended
pregnancies. A vote against title X is a vote for the spread of
sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. A vote against title X is a vote
for increased rate of cervical cancer and breast cancer if caught late
or if at all. And a vote against title X is a vote for increased
abortion rates.
While I would like to think of this as an oversight, it is not the
first attack to women's access to health care that has been seen in the
112th Congress. Combined with the mean-spirited bills moving through
House committees that reopen the culture wars, it is obvious that this
extreme and reckless proposal by the Republican majority to defund
title X clinics is just the next step in an all-out Republican assault
on women's health.
This Congress should be focused on creating jobs for the millions of
moms working to put food on the table, not attacking their rights and
their health.
I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey amendment to add some
common sense to this omnibus spending bill.

{time} 2120

Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, first let me just say, I am shocked and
appalled at the comment yesterday by the Speaker when he said ``so be
it'' in response to the likely job losses that will occur as a result
of this continuing resolution.
An independent analysis by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute
indicates that this bill will result in the

[[Page H1012]]

direct loss, mind you, of 800,000 private and public sector jobs.
Instead of doing everything we can do to halt the loss of jobs and put
people back to work, this bill takes the wrong approach, putting our
economy and our country back on the path to recession.
For every job opening in this country, we have 4.7 unemployed people
who are looking for work. Why would we want to add to their numbers?
``So be it'' cannot and should not be our response to this economic
crisis, not with a 9 percent unemployment rate and over 15 percent in
communities of color, and record layoffs and furloughs at the State
level, and especially not when Republicans have the temerity to demand
tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires paid for through borrowed
money. This is just wrong, and it's immoral.
As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, I am in strong opposition to these
cruel cuts. Budgets are moral documents, and they are a reflection of
who we are and what we value. This spending bill makes it clear that
the poor, the young, women, the elderly, teachers, firefighters, cops,
and the communities that they protect and serve are not valued. Make no
mistake, this bill will harm the most vulnerable among us, and it
represents a wrongheaded approach to reducing the deficit or expanding
job growth in our country.
Madam Chair, I am especially concerned about the proposed cuts to
education and training programs. Among the range of cuts include
Workforce Investment Act programs, which last year helped over 8.4
million job seekers find jobs. They got additional education and job
training support. This is being cut.
All told, when counting rescissions of prior funding, elimination of
the requested FY11 funding, and the advanced funding needed to run
these employment and training programs, they will experience nearly a
$5 billion cut. Republican cuts in job training will only prolong the
recession, keep unemployment high, and keep more Americans collecting
unemployment instead of training and getting ready for our 21st century
job opportunities.
How can we justify cutting job training programs in the middle of an
economic crisis? How will my Republican colleagues respond to the
unemployed in their communities who come to them and ask them for help?
Will they just say ``so be it''?
Pell Grants. Pell Grants provide vital funds for students who wish to
attend 2- and 4-year colleges but who need help to pay their expenses.
In my district alone, there are 16 institutions that provide Pell
Grants to over 18,000 recipients. This proposal would cut Pell Grants
by $845, making college less affordable and accessible for low- and
moderate-income students. More than 8 million students benefit from
Pell Grants, and many would be hurt by this cut, especially as schools
are raising tuition fees to meet rising costs and to deal with tighter
budgets.
The bill also entirely eliminates Federal funding for Supplemental
Educational Opportunity Grants, which colleges and universities use to
assist undergraduates who have the greatest financial need. That
program assisted 1.3 million college students last year.
Head Start, under this proposal, is cut by nearly $1.1 billion. This
will effectively knock out 200,000 children, mind you, in Republican
and Democratic districts from participating in this critical early
education program. This helps provide health, nutrition, and supportive
services to prepare our children for school.
The Job Corps program, this program is cut by $891 million, which
will result in 21,384 jobs lost in communities in every State, the
majority of which are in the private sector. There will be $1.7 billion
lost in economic activity as a result of this. And 36,000 at-risk young
people will be turned away from Job Corps, costing the government and
the economy as much as $17 billion over the course of their lifetimes.
Additionally, the cuts will guarantee the closure, mind you, of 75 Job
Corps centers across the Nation in your districts and in our districts.
Slashing one of the most effective, accountable, and market-driven
solutions for millions of youth who leave our schools unprepared is
really the wrong move at the wrong time.
The majority has stated that they want to cut the deficit, but, in
effect, they are cutting the social safety net lifeline for those who
need it the most. This CR leads us down a path that will result in
hopelessness, joblessness, and desperation, and it destroys the future
for our young people.
I urge my colleagues to meet the challenge before us and reverse the
potential harm that will be inevitable if this bill is enacted.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, let me thank the former chair
of the Health and Human Services Subcommittee and now the ranking
member, Ms. DeLauro, and the manager and the chairman of the
subcommittee.
I thought, Madam Chairwoman, that we lived in a country that was a
land of the free and the brave. We had a sense of pride in the progress
that America has made, and we have always said we would never want to
go back, whether it has to do with actual equal rights for women,
whether it is civil rights and the ability to be empowered to vote. But
I stand on the floor today with a great deal of disappointment because
it seems as if, with this continuing resolution, that will literally
stop in its tracks the functioning of this government. We are really
going back.
I rise to support the Lowey amendment because I really can't believe
that this CR is eliminating $327 million in family planning. It just
baffles the mind that this critical aspect of health care is now in
jeopardy. It is now being part of turning the clock back. It is amazing
that we would not acknowledge the fact that lives of women have been
saved, lives of young girls have been saved because they've had access
to family planning.
As much as we have fought to be able to ensure that around the world
where indigent women who have lost their lives through the birthing
process now have access to good medical care--and yes, family
planning--so that they can have live births, now we come here to the
soil of the United States, and to take $327 million out of the mouths
and the hands of women and children--yes, children who can be born
healthy. Children who are part of the health care process that these
women are able to secure through the many clinics that are around this
Nation and in this community.
I am disappointed in the games that are played with Planned
Parenthood and to be able to demonize them with false and fraudulent
tapings and a lot of bogus arguments about the fact that they are not
in the business of helping people. I am disappointed in using those
tactics because this is a very serious issue. Mrs. Lowey's amendment
addresses the seriousness of it because she realizes that if we were to
go through with the elimination of $327 million, there would be many,
many lives that are lost.
We have a Planned Parenthood office in my community. It is mostly
focusing its attention on educating the community about healthy births,
about ensuring that teenagers are not alone when decisions have to be
made, decisions that will allow for the healthy birth or determination
that is made by their faith leader with their family. They will not be
left alone. In fact, family planning and Planned Parenthood
extinguishes, I hope for good, the back alley procedures and, as well,
the rusty hangers that were used in years past.
Just a day or two ago, we heard of a horrible abortion clinic that
saw the lives lost of babies and their mothers because of the dastardly
tactics that were being used. That is not what we speak of here today.
We speak of the right of a woman to be able to choose but also to
accept the good health care of family planning.

{time} 2130

We speak of the rights of the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence that really ensure that we all are created equal, with
certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. The Bill of Rights, which allows us due process, is what is
being denied in this continuing resolution for, as we speak, if that
money is eliminated, clinics around America will have their doors
closed. Women will be standing outside, banging on

[[Page H1013]]

the door and asking for good health care.
So I ask my colleagues to support Congresswoman Lowey's amendment,
and I truly ask you to not take this Nation back and eliminate $327
million in family planning, benign but healthy and good health care and
good policy for America and for America's women and for America's
children.
Let us support the Lowey amendment and let us reject the elimination
of $327 million in family planning and this continuing resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. I move to strike the last word, Madam Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, as we continue to work our way out of
the recession towards the thriving economy that offers economic
opportunity to all Americans, we must out-innovate, out-educate and
out-build the rest of the world; but the House Republican continuing
resolution will do none of that. What it accomplishes is nothing but
irresponsible slashing of necessary programs just so they can go back
home and say that they cut government spending.
Now, I'm not sure if our Republican colleagues realize that actions
have consequences. House Republicans are going too far, and they're
sacrificing Americans' health, safety and future in the process, all in
order to protect special interests. And what makes it worse is they are
offering no real plan to deal with the deficit or create jobs.
Madam Chairman, American competitiveness depends on our ability to
innovate and keep America number one. But, instead, this bill holds
$2.5 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, representing
a significant setback in cancer and other disease research. We have to
properly fund the key agencies like NIH that are essential to
disseminating medical research and assisting in the development of new
drugs and devices. Declining or stagnant Federal funding for research
and development has an impact on all sectors of our workforce. And I
want to use my home State of New Jersey as an example.
A report that was released last year showed that the pharmaceutical
and medical technology industries are the leaders in private sector
capital construction in New Jersey. In fact, in 2008, that meant $1.4
billion to the State and almost 6,000 jobs for construction alone.
In addition, there's a new report, ``Research America,'' that notes
that New Jersey is the third largest R&D employer in the United States
with more than 211,000 jobs supported by health R&D, including 50,000
direct jobs in health R&D. The same report shows the economic impact in
New Jersey is $60 billion.
And that's why I believe that we must provide R&D incentives,
additional research grants and more technology funding. These
investments will provide new jobs, not only in the research sector, but
in the construction and maintenance of labs and research facilities.
So, Madam Chairman, the government must be responsible for
facilitating an environment where Americans can continue to innovate.
This is what President Obama talked about in his State of the Union
speech. That is the key to creating new thriving industries that will
produce millions of good jobs here at home and a better future for the
next generation.
If government abandons its role in R&D, we run the real risk of
squandering many, many opportunities. Oftentimes, government can
support and advance initial research that is then developed by the
private sector. Government can plant the seeds, often with modest
investments relative to the long-term payoffs in new products, new
discoveries, new jobs, and economic growth.
Government has limited resources in these tough times, but that
doesn't mean we abandon our role. In fact, we have a responsibility to
the future to make wise investments that can lead to so many innovative
discoveries and so much in economic benefits.
Now, last Thursday, Speaker Boehner said, ``Everything's on the
table. We're broke. Let's be honest with ourselves.''
But the Pentagon, in this CR, gets 99 percent of what they ask for.
Now, defense spending makes up more than half of our discretionary
budget. The non-defense discretionary spending in this CR is enduring
brutal cuts. Why should defense spending remain so high when all this
non-discretionary spending, including R&D, is cut so severely? It
simply makes no sense.
And I would say, Madam Chairman, really this is all about priorities.
The Republicans clearly have the wrong priorities. They're not making
investments in the future. They're not creating jobs. They're not
creating an environment where people can be educated for new jobs and
be trained for new jobs. They simply have the wrong priorities here
with their spending cuts.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer my strong support for
the Lowey amendment, which would restore nearly $318 million in title
X, and I rise to vehemently oppose the continuing resolution which
completely eliminates title X funding.
Title X funding provides low-income women with access to
contraceptive services; but it also provides coverage for primary care
services, prevention services, including screenings for breast and
cervical cancer, STD and HIV testing, screenings for high blood
pressure, diabetes, anemia, pregnancy testing, health education and
referral for other services. It has nothing to do with abortion. Title
X, of course, prohibits recipients from expending these monies for
abortions.
Madam Chair, I find this CR particularly troubling because I know
that the overwhelming majority of title X patients are very, very poor.
In fact, 70 percent of the these patients have incomes at or below the
Federal poverty level, meaning that they earn less than $10,830 a year;
92 percent have incomes at or below 250 percent of the Federal poverty
level, meaning that they earn less than $27,075 a year.
Now, you know what? We begrudge these patients Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families, so that if they would become pregnant and have an
unintended pregnancy, we would call them welfare queens and begrudge
them welfare benefits. And these patients, who are disproportionately
poor, women of color, would not be able to receive the economic support
they need and, with this cruel continuing resolution, would not be able
to receive the primary care that they deserve and that they need.
We talk about the need to have jobs in this tough economic time. How
can women who have no family planning dollars sustain a job or get a
job when there are unplanned pregnancies?
As a co-chair of the Women's Congressional Caucus, I want to take a
final moment to note that access to family planning services has been
nothing short of revolutionary for women in the United States. Women's
ability to control their own reproductive destiny has changed the
landscape at home, at work, and in the community. It's fundamentally
altered women's role in society, and researchers tell us that it's
helped to decrease infant mortality, child mortality, and maternal
deaths. These are all incredibly worthy goals for women, men and
families.
We've heard the cry of those who want our country back. We've heard
the cries of those who want limited government. We've heard the cries
of those who want to cut spending.
Well, I say, we want our bodies back. We want to govern our
destinies, and we want to cut suspending our choices.
And so, therefore, I urge all of you to join me in supporting
Congresswoman Nita Lowey's amendment to restore title X funding.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I rise to support Mrs. Lowey's amendment to
restore title X funding.
At a time when we need to come together around jobs and the economy,

[[Page H1014]]

the Republicans are, instead, focusing on bills attacking women's
health. The Republican gutting and slashing spending plan isn't about
Federal funding; it's about undermining women.

{time} 2140

This bill is an unprecedented display of disrespect for American
women and shows no concern for their health. And all this raises the
key question: Isn't the Republicans' real goal here just to end women's
access to birth control?
Preventing unintended pregnancies and thus the need for abortion
should be a goal on which both pro-choice and anti-choice lawmakers
should agree. But the Republicans' anti-women continuing resolution
includes language that dismantles Federal funding for family planning,
attacks successful organizations that provide critical women's health
care, and jeopardizes women's access to affordable birth control.
Now, this is a program that affects real people, and these drastic
cuts will only hurt American women when they need help paying for these
basic services the most.
Title X funding helped Shania, a woman who received care at Planned
Parenthood in Los Angeles. She learned a terrible lesson when her
mother broke her hip, was brought to the hospital, and then was
discovered to have stage 5 cervical cancer, too late for a cure. But
thanks to Planned Parenthood, her daughter is with us today, because
after learning about her mother's illness, doctors urged Shania to get
checked for the same diseases. Unemployed and without health insurance,
she couldn't afford to go to a regular doctor. Instead, she walked into
that clinic, which indeed did the testing and found her cervical cancer
early enough to save her life.
Title X funding helped Beth, a volunteer soldier in our military who
put her life on the line for our country. But in the military, they do
not provide family planning services for our hardworking servicewomen,
forcing them to look elsewhere for the care they need and deserve. When
Beth needed help, Planned Parenthood and the title X fund was there for
her even when the military wasn't, and she was able to get the help she
needed for birth control.
This Federal money is a critical health care safety net for women
around the country. It has helped improve the quality of women's
health, given women free choice, and saved lives. What will Republicans
tell Shania when she can no longer get the lifesaving checkups she
needs? What will they tell Beth when she no longer has access to her
reproductive choices despite serving her country?
It is clear that the real Republican agenda is to roll over women's
health and steal away their rights. This Congress and this bill should
be about creating jobs, not attacking American women.
Instead of working on the economy, Republicans are working to limit
women's choices. Instead of doing the bidding of ideological
extremists, let's address the true needs of the American people.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 111 Offered by Mr. Barletta

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

Page 321, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $42,676,000)''.
Page 293, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $42,676,000)''.

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Chair, I rise today to voice my concerns with a
number of items listed in this continuing resolution.
I understand that the time has come for the government to tighten its
belt, and I accept the fact that painful decisions must be made in
order to get our economy on the right track. However, it is my belief
that we have a responsibility to conduct our due diligence before
defunding some of our most important programs.
For my district in Pennsylvania, that includes a thorough examination
of alternatives to any cuts in clean coal technology research.
According to the National Mining Association, 52,000 Pennsylvanians
are dependent on our coal industry for their jobs, jobs that may be put
in danger without an investment in the future. And as the recent events
overseas have demonstrated, we no longer have the luxury of time when
it comes to our energy independence.
While clean coal research will prepare us for the future, the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program invests in our most vulnerable.
Last year, LIHEAP provided heat to 545,000 families in our country. And
with an unemployment rate that's held over 9 percent for 21 consecutive
months, we must remember that the cuts we debate here today will have a
drastic effect on families who are already struggling to make ends
meet.
The same can be said for the Community Service Employment for Older
Americans. In 2008, this program helped nearly 90,000 older Americans
prepare for the next phase of their careers, even assisting in their
placement in the workforce.
Seniors constitute 16.5 percent of my district's population, and
given the current nature of our economy, many of these hardworking men
and women will be forced to prepare for changes in their future.
As a former mayor, Madam Chair, I understand how important the
Community Development Fund is to supporting our local communities. It
serves as a critical lifeline to towns, cities, and communities that
are already struggling to pay their most basic bills.
It also supports revitalization programs in our communities and
assists communities that have fallen victim to disasters.
And in a similar vein, State and local law enforcement assistance
helps to keep our communities and neighborhoods safe. In particular, it
supports communities that are forced to incarcerate illegal aliens for
extended periods of time as well as programs that strive to protect our
borders.
Madam Chair, I understand that we are broke, that programs such as
those I have listed here today will be forced to bear the brunt of our
new economic realities. Yet, I stand here today to reiterate my support
of these important programs, and to remind my colleagues to remain ever
cognizant of the fact that our cuts are again both necessary and
painful.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HIRONO. I rise today in strong support of the Lowey amendment and
in strong opposition to cuts to the title X funds in this continuing
resolution.
These cuts are a threat to women's health, as you have heard from so
many of the previous speakers. For example, these cuts will prevent
Planned Parenthood from receiving needed Federal funds. Much of the
cuts in H.R. 1 target the most vulnerable among us, the poor, children,
young adults, and women.
We are a diverse country, proud of it, with good people on all sides
of an issue, including of course the issue of abortion. We know that
cutting title X funds strikes at a favorite target of the anti-choice
group, Planned Parenthood.

{time} 2150

Sadly, in pursuing their anti-choice agenda, tens of thousands of
women in our country will be denied health care services that have
absolutely nothing to do with abortions. The vast majority of Planned
Parenthood's medical services are related to contraception, testing and
treatment for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening and
other services, like pregnancy tests and infertility treatments.
Abortion services comprise only 3 percent of the medical care Planned
Parenthood provides. Federal law already prohibits title X funds from
being used for abortion services. It is important to point out that
there are no known violations of this law.

[[Page H1015]]

I would like to share with this body my views on how Planned
Parenthood Hawaii has helped women and their families in my State. In
Hawaii, there are three Planned Parenthood centers: one in Honolulu on
the Island of Oahu, one in Kahului on the Island of Maui, and one in
Kailua-Kona on the Island of Hawaii. Together, these three centers
served over 7,800 patients. They provided 2,582 cervical cancer
screenings that detected 321 abnormal results that required further
diagnoses and treatment. These represent lives saved. They provided
2,705 breast exams. They conducted 3,346 tests for chlamydia, the
leading cause of preventible infertility, that resulted in 172 positive
results and follow-up treatment.
By cutting funding for title X family planning programs, the Planned
Parenthood clinic in Kailua-Kona would have to close its doors. That
center is one of the only dedicated sexual and reproductive health
clinics on that island. The centers in Maui and Oahu would be forced to
reduce their clinic hours. Cutting title X funds eliminates a safety
net program that provides family planning services and lifesaving
preventative care to 3 million Americans every year.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1, and I join my
colleague, Mrs. Lowey, in saying to the women of this country, we need
to take our bodies back.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 1, which cuts the heart out of safety net programs which sustain
and help sustain the most economically challenged and most vulnerable
individuals and families in our society.
Of particular concern to me are the maternal and child health
programs, Community Development Block Grants, cuts to legal assistance
services, education and training, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, known as LIHEAP, and others which sustain the most vulnerable,
the most disadvantaged, the most disjointed, and, in many instances,
the most helpless and the most hopeless members of our society.
I am obviously concerned about health services in a real sense,
because if you have all of these other problems and then you are sick
on top of it and have no way of taking care of yourself, then you have
no way of addressing the other needs that you have.
I have been involved with health services for more than 40 years, and
I have had a good look at what we call Community Health Centers, which
have become to me the most effective way of providing quality health
care to large numbers of low-income people in this country.
When we talk about cutting over $1 billion to Community Health
Centers, we are talking about ending funding for 127 new centers in
underserved areas across the country. It means ending funding of
Increased Demand for Services, or IDS grants, which have allowed health
centers to expand to serve 3.3 million new patients in the last year
and a half.
These cuts would raise costs in the Medicaid program and overall
general health care services to the country. As a result, patients
would lose access to primary care, to a regular doctor, and seek care
for nonemergency health situations by using hospital emergency rooms,
which would cost the country billions of dollars and continue to
increase high-cost health care to our economy.
If these cuts go through, it would have an additive effect to the
States that are cutting nearly $90 million in financial support to
health centers due to their own fiscal crises, therefore leaving health
centers with no way to continue to serve their existing patients.
Community Health Centers provide high quality health care and they do
it cost-effectively and efficiently. In the State of Illinois, in 2008,
40 of these centers operated over 350 sites, contributed almost $1
billion to the Illinois economy and directly employed almost 6,000
individuals. For every 10 people employed by an Illinois health center,
an additional four jobs were created in their surrounding communities.
These programs served over 1.1 million patients, nearly 80 percent of
whom all fell below the Federal poverty level and 30 percent of whom
had no health insurance at all. Without these cuts, these centers can
continue to operate and provide services.
I say let's not be what my mother used to call penny wise and pound
foolish. It might look like we are saving, but every time we take care
of one's health, we are making an investment.
I urge that we reject these cuts.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that
Mrs. Lowey presented and in opposition to this continuing resolution,
which would completely eliminate the national women's health and family
planning programs known as title X.
The resolution we are considering would cut care to Americans who
need it most. Title X funds ensure that millions of low-income and
uninsured individuals have access to primary health care. For most of
these individuals, this is the only medical care they receive. Without
access to this health care, they are at risk of developing serious
medical conditions. If title X funding is eliminated, it would remove
the only access point to primary health care for millions of women and
would increase the health care costs for all Americans.
Now, some of my colleagues would argue that title X is all about
abortion. That statement is simply not true. These programs fund
prevention, provide lifesaving care to millions of women each year,
cancer detection, care provided, women and families treated with the
dignity they deserve, and it is family planning.
I know these claims, and I know the work of these clinics and their
importance to our society. Maybe the men who put together this
continuing resolution don't know what these programs do. I assure you,
I do. Cutting funding to these programs would be devastating for
women's health, and I strongly oppose efforts to do so.
These programs prevent an estimated 1 million unintended pregnancies
each year. For every dollar spent on family planning, several dollars
are saved, saved, in Medicaid costs. These clinics provide lifesaving
and preventive care to millions of women. In 2009 alone, providers
performed millions of Pap tests, millions of breast exams, over 6
million tests for sexually transmitted infections and nearly 1 million
HIV tests.
In my home State of New Jersey, it is estimated that the elimination
of these programs would cause as many as 40,000 patients to lose their
access to women's health care. I estimate that without these funds, 14
Community Health Centers would close their doors.
We need to take a careful look at whom we hurt by cutting these
programs. In 2009, these funded health centers provided services to
over 135,000 patients. Eliminating national family planning programs
would result in millions of women across the country losing access to
primary care and preventive health care.

{time} 2200

I can't emphasize that too strongly. Simply put, without these
programs, more women will experience unintended pregnancies, face
potentially life-threatening cancer, and other disease--diseases that
could have been prevented. This is unacceptable.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentlewoman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman,
Representative Lowey's, amendment to restore funding for the title X
family planning program. I also want to convey my strong opposition to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana prohibiting Planned
Parenthood from receiving any Federal funds, including any funds for
cervical or breast cancer screening. These draconian proposals will end
preventive and primary care for millions of American women--primary
care services that are for so many women the only

[[Page H1016]]

medical care they receive throughout the year. In fact, six in 10 women
who access care from a family planning center consider it to be their
main source of health care.
What we are seeing here today is nothing less than an attack on
access to women's health services. The real impact of these cuts is
that 5 million women across this country will lose access to basic
primary and preventive care services.
Let's be clear, Planned Parenthood does offer needed family planning
services, and they also offer preventive health care services. In 2009,
in the State of Ohio, Planned Parenthood served 97,574 patients by
providing primary health services like cervical and breast cancer
screenings, birth control, along with general services including
smoking cessation, flu vaccinations, and screening for diabetes and
anemia. Planned Parenthood in Ohio provided 32,532 cervical cancer
screenings in 2009. Planned Parenthood in Ohio provided 32,717 breast
exams in 2009--32,717 women given piece of mind that they are free from
cancer or put on the path to necessary further treatment for breast
cancer; 32,717 women given access to preventive care services that each
and every American woman needs.
From the cuts to the Women, Infants, and Children program to these
cuts targeted at women's health care, a pattern is quickly emerging.
And it's unacceptable. It shows a disregard for women's health and
safety. Rather than jeopardize the health of women and children across
our country; rather than cutting heating assistance for those with low
income; rather than cutting funding for Community Health Centers that
help our most vulnerable; rather than cutting Community Development
Block Grant funding that helps with economic development and job
creation, this Congress can cut things like billions of dollars out of
oil subsidies that go right to the profits of those oil companies. We
can require the negotiations of lower drug prices to benefit our
seniors and the bottom line.
We as a Congress, rather than focusing on these draconian cuts to
jeopardize the health of women and children, we should focus on job
number one, and that is making investments helping Americans get back
to work. We need to be working to strengthen U.S. manufacturing,
rebuilding our infrastructure, and stopping the outsourcing of American
jobs. I urge my colleagues to join us in these efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I think for over an hour we've been
hearing people say, I rise in support of this amendment, over and over,
speaker after speaker.
My parliamentary inquiry is: Is there an amendment before the floor
right now?
The Acting CHAIR. No.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand strongly in support of
Congresswoman Lowey and her amendment and title X and its protections
for women and family. What a shame we're here tonight defending a
woman's reproductive rights--defending a woman's right to make choices
that work for her, that work for her family, that work for their
future. Instead, we should be debating how we can get our economy
going, how to provide jobs. Instead, we're defending a woman's right to
control her body, her right to good health care, her right to prevent a
pregnancy, and her right to end a pregnancy.
This, my friends, is the 21st century. We are not in the Middle Ages.
It is time to respect women and to respect their choices. It is past
time to begin creating jobs here in the United States of America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1818. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Payments to States for the Child Care
and Development Block Grant'' shall be $2,088,081,000, of
which no funds shall be for the Child Care Aware toll-free
hotline.
Sec. 1819. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Children and Families Services
Programs'' shall be $7,796,499,000, of which $405,000,000
shall be for making payments under the Community Service
Block Grant Act (``CSBG Act''), except that such level shall
include $10,000,000 for section 680(a)(3)(B) of the CSBG Act
and $6,151,783,000 shall be for making payments under the
Head Start Act.
(b) The fourteenth and fifteenth provisos under the heading
``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Children and Families Services
Programs'' of division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not
apply to funds appropriated by this division.

Amendment No. 457 Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. 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 293, line 25, insert ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 294, line 1, insert ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 359, line 15, insert ``(increased by $100,000,000)''
before the period at the end.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the Administration
for Children and Families programs by $100 million, with reductions
specifically targeting the Community Service Block Grant program. Under
this amendment, this reduction would be transferred to the savings
reduction account and would save the taxpayers $100 million. The agency
has already spent $295 million on this program for fiscal year 2011.
This amount of money is already out the door, and an authorization
requiring $10 million to be spent on discretionary activities is
already out; but this amendment would essentially zero out funding for
grants for the remainder of the fiscal year.
The program is administered through the Department of Health and
Human Services. It provides Federal funds to States, territories, and
tribes for distribution to local agencies to support a wide range of
community-based activities. This program, however, has been flagged
previously for its lack of accountability and oversight for the use of
taxpayer dollars.
In 2006, GAO was asked to review the administration of the Community
Service Block Grant program. GAO indicated in a letter to the Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families on February 7, 2006, that ``the
Office of Community Services does not have the policies, procedures,
and internal controls in place needed to carry out its monitoring
efforts.''
Later, GAO writes: ``By sending staff without sufficient expertise in
financial management on monitoring visits, the Office of Community
Services failed to ensure that States spend Federal dollars
appropriately.''
We have a projected deficit, as we've said many times today. It's
$1.5 trillion this year alone. Sobering reports say that the national
debt may soon exceed our annual GDP. Simply put, the Federal Government
does not have the resources to fund every grant program, particularly
one that has little accountability over how taxpayer dollars are spent.

{time} 2210

Beyond issues related to oversight, there have been concerns related
to the effectiveness of taxpayer dollars spent on grants under this
program.
In a New York Times article published on February 5, White House
Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew wrote about the CSBG
program, stating: ``For the past 30 years, these grants have been
allocated using a formula that does not consider how good a job the
recipients are doing.''
In fact, presumably for this reason, President Obama cut funding for
the Community Service Block Grant program by 50 percent in his FY 2012
budget request. Let me say that again: the President for the FY 2012
budget has cut this program in half, from $700 billion to $350 billion.
I suppose it's likely because of these problems.
The President defended this reduction by stating: ``CSBG provides
funding for the important work of Community Action Agencies, but does
not hold

[[Page H1017]]

these agencies accountable for outcomes.''
On November 2, taxpayers sent a clear message to all of us here to
spend money more wisely.
As I mentioned, we are borrowing 40 cents for every dollar we spend.
So when you have programs we are told by GAO and other groups that
simply aren't using taxpayer dollars wisely, it behooves us to cut the
funding. If we don't cut this funding, we will actually be funding this
program at a greater level than the President is asking for. Let me
repeat that:
Unless we do this cut that we are talking about today, we will be
funding for fiscal year 2011 this program at a greater level than the
President is requesting for the following year.
I think that we ought to move now, when we have a deficit of $1.5
trillion and a debt nearing or over $14 trillion, to save money where
we can for the taxpayers.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just
wanted to ask the gentleman a question.
Has the gentleman given any consideration as to what the impact of
this Federal cut is on State programs and as to the likelihood that
States are to follow suit after the enactment of his proposed
amendment?
Mr. FLAKE. I think any impact there will be is dwarfed by the impact
of having a $1.5 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion debt and what
happens to us as a country if we continue to run that kind of deficit
and debt.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to the Flake amendment and
to the Republican cuts of the Community Service Block Grant.
Mr. Chairman, there isn't any question that Democrats are committed
to reducing the deficit. We believe we should start by ending the tax
subsidies and special interest waste. We also must make sure that
programs are accountable and that we end those that do not work.
But what we have here is a program that serves as nothing short of a
lifeline. It provides assistance to our Nation's poorest families,
families who are trying to meet the most basic of human needs. We have
the latest Census data, which tells us that more than 43.7 million
people are living in poverty in the United States. That number is
growing.
A striking point is that many in this category are hardworking
Americans who have, in fact, been making it; yet some may refer to them
now as the ``new poor.'' In this Great Recession, life has changed very
quickly for so many American families who have first lost their jobs
and then lost their homes. The majority of Americans served by this
program can be described as extremely poor, with incomes below 75
percent of the Federal poverty threshold. That's $9,735 for a family of
three. That's the average size: $9,735.
Is that what we make in this institution here, $9,735? You know what,
Mr. Chairman? We'd be hard-pressed to find a corner of our Nation that
doesn't feel the impact of these severe cuts. The service areas of
Community Action Agencies cover 96 percent of the Nation's counties.
I just might add that not so long ago this body voted for a tax
increase for the richest 2 percent of the people in this Nation,
providing them with $100,000 in tax cuts--the richest 2 percent of the
people in this country as opposed to people who make $9,735. Now, if we
really want to be serious about that deficit, let's start with several
items.
Let's go to the oil subsidies of $40 billion over 5 years and
eliminate 10 tax breaks for the oil companies. Let's start there. What
about ending what they call ``treaty shopping,'' which would be a $7.4
billion savings over 10 years? Let's shut down the current practice
that allows multinationals to avoid paying their taxes. I think that's
a good idea that we ought to implement. That certainly is un-American
if they're not going to pay their taxes.
As for other savings, why don't we cut agricultural subsidies in half
and save almost $8 billion? We can do that. We could save $3 billion a
year if we ended the licensing agreements in which pharmaceutical
companies pay competitors to slow the introduction of cheaper generic
drugs. That raises the cost of health care for all of us. Then we could
immediately save $450 million and almost $3 billion if we stop spending
on the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.
It's very interesting. Those total about $61 billion, which is the
size of the cuts that the other side of this venerable House has
proposed we cut: K-12 education for the neediest people in this Nation
and the National Institutes of Health, which provide the opportunity to
look for groundbreaking discoveries to cure disease.
One should really be opposed to this amendment for what it would do
to the most vulnerable people of this Nation. It is effectively a 100
percent cut. It is again the example of how the Republican resolution
hits those who can afford it least.
With 9 percent unemployment in our country, this is not the time to
be cutting critical services. These are services in local communities
to help low-income families get on their feet. The issues are child
care, job training, nutrition. The money goes to nonprofit agencies, to
the Boys and Girls Club, to Habitat for Humanity, to Feeding America,
to hundreds of local faith-based churches and synagogues, to the United
Way, and to Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
I urge defeat of the Flake amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the Community Service Block Grant program
provides grants and other services to States to combat poverty and to
increase self-sufficiency. The funding is directed to community
organizers in poor neighborhoods. The range of services provided
includes emergency services, housing, health care, food and nutrition,
economic development, and education.
States award the funds to Community Action Agencies. I've got several
of them in my congressional district, which are nonprofit, private and
public organizations established under the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964. Today, there are approximately 1,000 Community Action Agencies
serving the poor in every State.
Now, I know the gentleman from Arizona is basing part of his cut on
what is in the President's budget. From my perspective, the President's
budget is wrong on this subject. To cut this program in half and then
say we're going to have competitive bidding for the other half is going
to hurt thousands, if not millions, of poor people in this country. It
is not the right thing to do. This is shredding the safety net. Then
this last $100 million, because so much of this money has already been
spent this year, would take this program down to zero. It would be a
disaster. All of these agencies would have to close, and the people who
are the poorest people would not have any place to go to get help.
So I just think it's despicable that we have finally gotten down to
where we're going to go after the Community Service Block Grant, which
helps the poorest people in each of our districts around the country.

{time} 2220

It's indefensible, it's just not right, and I hope that the gentleman
from Arizona will reconsider this amendment, and I would hope that the
committee would reconsider this in conference committee. I don't think
the other body should in any way embrace this. This is a bad amendment,
a bad cut, and it's going to hurt people, the poorest people in this
country.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the

[[Page H1018]]

Lowey amendment, I rise in strong opposition to the Flake amendment,
and I want to begin by saying that my friend, Mr. Flake from Arizona,
is a very nice man. He's a decent man. He's just dead wrong on this.
He's just wrong, wrong, wrong. Before I get into the specifics of the
amendment, I want to highlight the deep cuts my friends on the other
side of the aisle want to make to the accounts in the Labor-Health and
Human Services and Education bill.
This subcommittee not only funds the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, but programs that make vital investments
in people. That's why the Labor-H bill is often referred to as ``the
people's bill.'' It provides resources that train people for jobs;
offers educational opportunities in early, secondary, and higher
education; and expands social safety net programs to millions of
Americans that need temporary assistance.
While some of my colleagues will argue that with our growing budget
deficit and growing levels of spending that we need to make some cuts--
and we must, by targeting wasteful and unnecessary spending--the
legislation that has been brought to the floor by my colleagues from
the other side of the aisle seeks to weaken some of the critical social
safety nets for the most vulnerable amongst us: for working families,
for children, for seniors, and for the poor.
Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to this debate for a couple of
hours now, and as we get later and later into the night, I'd just like
to take a moment to remind my friends that these cuts are not just
about dollar amounts and percentage cuts over the last fiscal year, but
cuts to real people. I think some of us often forget that. So the way
this works is the Federal Government cuts these programs. Without
matching funds available from the Federal Government, States then in
turn cut the exact same programs, and suddenly, millions of Americans
wake up without the Federal Government or without the State government
providing them with any assistance. This isn't just about the Federal
deficit and the Federal budget. The ramifications of this cut spiral,
trickle all the way down to the States, and the ramifications for
States' indebtedness continues to grow.
Under the Department of Labor, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle propose a $2.5 billion cut to programs to support job training
opportunities for dislocated workers, the unemployed, and young
Americans at a time when the unemployment rate remains at a historic 9
percent. That's nearly 14 million Americans. By some estimates, this
number is even higher. This is a 40 percent cut to programs that help
unemployed people get out of the unemployment office and get their feet
in the door.
From Health and Human Services, this legislation cuts $1 billion for
1,250 community health centers. That does not include the ramifications
of States that are not likely to fund the exact same health centers and
even more. These health centers serve nearly 20 million low-income
individuals by providing access to primary, dental, and preventative
care.
The $1.8 billion cut from the Head Start program will threaten jobs
of thousands of teachers and teachers' aides and will cut off access to
an estimated 200,000 low-income children across this country.
And $694 million will be cut for grants to schools that serve
disadvantaged students. Teachers, tutors, and teachers' aides are
likely to lose their jobs, and after-school and supplemental programs
will be cut. And the students that need the help the most will suffer.
Nearly $558 million will be cut from special education programs that
serve children with disabilities.
As the cost of tuition, textbooks, and living expenses continues to
rise, the 8 million students in community colleges and universities
that benefit from Pell grants will no longer be able to receive the
current maximum award of $5,550 per year. My colleagues across the
aisle believe that $4,705 is adequate.
I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, with the detrimental cuts my
colleagues plan to make to these social safety net programs. But the
fact is that the legislation in front of us provides cuts to people in
this country that can least afford it. These devastating cuts to health
care, to education, to energy assistance, and other programs means the
most vulnerable Americans will be left to fend for themselves, in the
midst of the worst economy of our lifetime.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend my colleagues vote against any amendments
that further cut any of these vital programs for Americans. I strongly
urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible continuing
resolution.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The spending bill that the
Republicans have introduced is a threat to our economy, a threat to our
competitiveness, and a threat to America's working families, and with
this amendment, a threat to America's poor.
No one is in favor of wasteful spending and outdated government
regulations that don't work or special spending for the powerful and
the special interests. Instead of identifying real governmental waste,
like subsidies to Big Oil and tax cuts to billionaires, the House
Republicans have decided that all the cuts will fall on the backs of
working people, on students, and on the poor in this country. The
universe of cuts will be limited to those parts of our population, the
most vulnerable parts of our population, those who struggle every day
to keep their jobs and provide for their families, to hold on to their
homes, or maybe to catch a break and get a job, or maybe to catch a
break and have their child be put into Head Start, or to have mental
health services for a member of their families.
They deny workers the basic rights and protections on the job, and
they prevent unemployed Americans from getting job training that will
give them a leg up in this economy because they zero out these
programs. Simply put, the Republican spending bill eliminates hundreds
of thousands of jobs and hundreds of thousands of job opportunities for
Americans who are seeking to get back into the economy. This bill is
reckless and irresponsible. The programs that are targeted in this bill
are a lifeline to the future of our economy.
These cuts mean over 200,000 young children will lose their spots in
a Head Start classroom. For the first time, as we celebrate the 100th
birthday of President Reagan, we destroy Ron and Nancy's favorite
program. Those children will not be allowed into the Head Start
classroom, and we know exactly what that means. They will start school
behind, they will continue behind, and if they graduate, they will
graduate behind. That's what we cast them into. That's why it's called
Head Start. These children need a head start. These quarter of a
million children will not get a head start. They will go to the back of
the line. It means that parents will have to choose between going to
work and putting their children in a low-quality child care without an
option for those Head Start classes.
It means that 2,400 disadvantaged schools that rely on title I, the
funding that will provide quality education, will lose the funding for
teachers and tutors and after-school programs. And again, the most
vulnerable children, the children who start without that head start,
the children who are the poorest in our Nation, they will receive the
least resources available so that they could participate in an economy
if they can get a good quality education, and have the opportunity to
achieve it.
These cut means reduced support for students with disabilities. It
will leave some 7,000 special education teachers and staff unemployed.
And the services those students so desperately need--and they can
prosper when they're given those services in our education programs and
thrive in regular education programs--they will be denied that
opportunity.
And of course, as has already been mentioned, it means that $845 that
would have been available for the poorest students, middle-income
students who are starting college, whether it's community or 4-year
college or it's a proprietary school, that money won't be available for
them. But mind you, the costs in the community colleges, the costs in
the public institutions, the 4-year institutions, the proprietary

[[Page H1019]]

schools, they're all going up. These students' resources to pay for
college are going down, and many of these students do not have the
ability to replace those resources.
By eliminating the Corporation for National Community Services, we
break the great bipartisan compact here that we would join together to
provide people an opportunity to give back to this Nation, that we
would organize services to serve our community and to volunteers in our
community, whether they be senior citizens or whether they be young
people starting out, and the people could earn an opportunity by
serving their community to earn a scholarship, and grandparents could
earn a scholarship to give to their children if they gave back to their
community and volunteered in their community. Those programs are gone.
They're eliminated. They're zeroed out in this legislation.

{time} 2230

By eliminating critical job training opportunities offered through
the Workforce Investment Act, some 200,000 unemployed Americans who
need these skills to compete in the workplace will be denied their
services, as will the returning vets from the vets program who use the
One-Stop services. In April, 3,000 of them will be gone, closed down
because of the budget cuts here.
Where will those veterans go? Where will those veterans go that are
seeking opportunities? Where are we going to take these veterans who
were harmed, who have suffered in combat, who are recovering from their
injuries and trying to navigate the employment sector and our economy?
They can go to a One-Stop shop. They can get special treatment as a
veteran in that place. They can see the array of opportunities that
they might have to bring to them. But no, now they can cruise the
community. They can go from place to place, trying to find and knit
together the services that are available today in those One-Stop
centers.
So this legislation is devastating, devastating to millions of
Americans. Millions of Americans with the slightest bit of help would
be able to engage in our economy, be able to engage in our society, and
be able to prosper for themselves and for their families. Tonight, the
Republicans foreclose that future. They foreclose that future for
millions of Americans who will not be able to fight back or hire
lobbyists.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, for the last 5 weeks or so since the new
majority has taken over the House, as 15 million people are unemployed
in this country, as people are losing their homes, losing their
businesses, the majority has focused like a laser beam on everything
except job creation for the American people. They have found time to
dabble in a variety of political issues while ignoring the essential
purpose for which I believe we were all sent here, which is to foster
an environment where businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs for
this country.
This week they have changed. They have gone from ignoring the jobs
problem to making it worse. The legislation that's on the floor tonight
does reflect a good faith and necessary goal of reducing spending in
our country. I don't think there is anyone here who would disagree with
the proposition that continuing to spend more than we take in
eventually will cause even greater pain and harm to the U.S. economy
than it has already caused, which is considerable, indeed.
But all spending cuts are not created equally, and all spending
decisions don't have the same consequences. The prism through which we
have to look at spending cuts is whether they are sensible or reckless,
whether they help to create jobs or destroy jobs. And I would submit,
ladies and gentlemen of the House, that the legislation before us is
worsening the very deep economic crisis in our country in three ways.
First of all, you can't have economic growth if you don't have safe
streets and a safe country. But the provisions of this bill will lead
to the layoff of more than 10,000 police officers in cities and towns
across our country. The provisions of this bill will lead to the
dismissal or furlough of over 1,000 people whose job it is to check
containers coming into this country to see if they have dirty bombs or
chemical weapons in them. A country that isn't safe won't grow.
Ladies and gentlemen, the other cuts in this bill, let's talk about
education. A country that can't learn won't grow. But this legislation
will result in the elimination of 10,000 reading tutors and math
coaches for the neediest students in this country. It will remove 7,000
teachers who teach autistic kids, children with a learning disability,
from classrooms. For the single mom who is struggling to pay her bills,
raise her children, and go to school, it will raise her tuition by up
to $825 this year by eliminating the college scholarship on which she
relies to go to school. A country that doesn't learn doesn't grow, and
these cuts will lead us into a country that makes it very difficult in
which to learn.
And finally, this country is fueled by research and development,
inventing and creating new products, new cures, new solutions to the
world's problems. Yet in this bill, in one of the most important areas,
medical research, the majority has given us an unwelcomed surprise.
There is a spending cut in excess of $600 million from the National
Institutes of Health that is described, ladies and gentlemen, as
further cuts to get to the 2008 levels. I don't know what that means. I
don't think anyone on the majority side will tell us what that means.
But I do know this: Thousands of Americans work doing medical research
through the National Institutes of Health. Millions of Americans depend
upon the miracles which grow out of that research, and this country's
economy is stronger when that research continues. That research will be
cut. The average cancer research grant in this country is about
$500,000. Looking at the cut that's in here, it appears that over 500
cancer research grants will go by the wayside.
A country that isn't safe, a country that isn't learning and
investing won't grow. This bill means America won't grow. This bill
should be defeated.
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 noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1820. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on
Aging, Aging Services Programs'' shall be $1,445,323,000.
(b) The first proviso under the heading ``Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging, Aging
Services Programs'' in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall
not apply to funds appropriated by this division.
(c) None of the funds appropriated by this division for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on
Aging, Aging Services Programs'' shall be used to carry out
sections 1701 and 1703 of the PHS Act (with respect to
chronic disease self-management activity grants), except that
such funds may be used for necessary expenses associated with
administering any such grants awarded prior to the date of
the enactment of this division.
Sec. 1821. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the
Secretary, General Departmental Management'' shall be
$375,938,000: Provided, That amounts included under such
heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied
to funds appropriated by this division by substituting ``$0''
for ``$5,789,000'': Provided further, that the third and
seventh provisos under such heading in division D of Public
Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this
division.
Sec. 1822. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the
Secretary, Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund''
shall be $708,510,000, of which $65,578,000 shall be for
expenses necessary to prepare for and respond to an influenza
pandemic, none of which shall be available past September 30,
2011, and $35,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary for
fit-out and other costs related to a competitive lease
procurement to renovate or replace the existing

[[Page H1020]]

headquarters building for Public Health Service agencies and
other components of the Department of Health and Human
Services: Provided, That in addition, $318,000,000 of the
funds transferred to the account under the heading
``Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the
Secretary, Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund''
in Public Law 111-117 under the fourth paragraph under such
heading may be used to support advanced research and
development pursuant to section 319L of the PHS Act and other
administrative expenses of the Biomedical Advanced Research
and Development Authority: Provided further, That no funds
shall be made available to the United States Postal Service
for the delivery of medical countermeasures.
Sec. 1823. Of the funds made available for ``Department of
Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Public
Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'' in Public Law
111-32, $1,397,439,000 is rescinded.
Sec. 1824. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged''
shall be $3,994,365,000, of which $3,944,530,000 shall become
available on July 1, 2011, and remain available through
September 30, 2012 (in addition to the $10,841,176,000
previously appropriated under such heading that became
available on October 1, 2010), and an additional
$10,841,176,000 to remain available through September 30,
2012, shall be available on October 1, 2011 for academic year
2011-2012: Provided, That of the amounts available for such
heading (1) $6,405,844,000 shall be for basic grants under
section 1124 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (``ESEA''); (2) $1,365,031,000 shall be for
concentration grants under section 1124A of the ESEA; (3)
$3,014,000,000 shall be for targeted grants under section
1125 of the ESEA; (4) $3,014,000,000 shall be for education
finance incentive grants under section 1125A of the ESEA.
(b) The tenth, eleventh and twelfth provisos under the
heading ``Department of Education, Education for the
Disadvantaged'' in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not
apply to funds appropriated by this division.
(c) Of the unobligated balances available for ``Department
of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged'' in division D
of Public Law 111-117, $189,000,000 is rescinded, to be
derived from the amounts specified under such heading for
availability under section 1502 of the ESEA.

Amendment No. 276 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers

Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 296, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $336,550,000)''.
Page 296, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $336,550,000)''.
Page 297, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $500,000,000)''.
Page 298, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $500,000,000)''.
Page 299, line 20, after the first and second dollar
amounts, insert ``(increased by $557,700,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It
increases funding for the part B program of IDEA, which provides
educational grants to States for children with disabilities, by $557
million, restoring funding for the program to 2010 levels. The
amendment is fully offset by reducing funding to the Teacher Quality
State Grant program and the School Improvement Grant program, two
programs that have received substantial funding increases since 2009.
Mr. Chairman, 35 years ago Congress recognized that too many special
needs children were being denied an education and the opportunity to
maximize their potential and contribution to our society, and 35 years
ago severely disabled children who were confined to State institutions
received no education. Special needs students did not attend school.
They were kept out of classrooms, receiving little education.

{time} 2240

Today, more than 6 million children receive an effective education
because of IDEA. Special needs children are no longer confined to
institutions. The number of special needs students who graduate high
school with a diploma has increased. The number of children who go on
to enroll in high school has more than tripled since IDEA's enactment.
And through IDEA, we have increased our Nation's expectations of our
children. But more can and must be done.
The McMorris Rodgers/Kline/Sessions/Harper amendment ensures that
Congress keeps its promise. Too often IDEA is overlooked in our
education debates. For example, Congress has yet to meet its commitment
to cover 40 percent of a student's cost. Barriers to reliable research
prevent effective teaching. Low expectations continue to plague our
school systems. The reductions to IDEA in H.R. 1 are just another
example of the challenges that IDEA experiences.
This amendment reaffirms that there is no greater priority in
Congress than ensuring all children have access to an appropriate
education.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Providing a quality education for all students,
including those with disabilities, should be one of our highest
priorities. So I agree with the goal of this amendment.
But, in fact, we are considering a Republican resolution, this
continuing resolution this evening, and it's the majority party, to
which the gentlewoman belongs, which cuts IDEA. It cuts special
education by $558 million. So now we have an amendment that attempts to
undo the damaging cuts to IDEA, but only by cutting other critical
education programs. The damage done in this bill cannot be alleviated
by robbing Peter to pay Paul. That's what this amendment is about.
Let me just mention to you that--and our colleague spoke about
special education and what it does. But $558 million is where they come
from with regard to education for special needs kids. What that means
is almost 7,000 special education teachers and aides and other staff
who serve these youngsters would not be there. And it is critical.
Teachers and staff are critical to the education of these youngsters.
As a matter of fact, the Federal Government mandates that local school
districts have to provide this education. And when it was determined
that that would be the case, it said that the States would do 60
percent, the Federal Government would do 40 percent.
What's happened now is we've been at about 17 percent in terms of
Federal contribution. With the $558 million cut we go down to about 15
percent.
I would suggest that if there is such a great urgent need and a great
burning desire to be able to provide education to special needs
children, that we do not cut $558 million.
Now, where does the money come from? As I mentioned, we're talking
about other critical education programs. School improvement grants. I
venture to say that everybody is concerned about those schools that are
failing, that there's got to be student achievement at these schools.
And that's what the current Federal law requires, that there's
demonstrable success in student achievement. The funds for the school
improvement grants are appropriated precisely for those schools that
fail the test and are seeking to implement a strategy for turning
around our Nation's lowest-performing schools. That's where we would
take money from in order to turn a potentially failing school, to turn
around so that they can go from the lowest-performing to better-
performing schools.
The other place that my colleague takes funds from is something
called the Teacher Quality Grants, an approximately $3 billion program
and a major piece of No Child Left Behind. This provides funds to
States and school districts to develop and support a high quality
teacher force.
Aren't we all about making sure that those people who teach our
children are qualified to do that? These funds are distributed by
formula to all States. They are relied upon tremendously to reduce
class size, to ensure that classroom teachers have the proper training
and credentials to be effective instructors.
There isn't a day that goes by that we aren't talking about school
reform, and at the center of school reform is to develop quality
teachers. And, in fact, we want to try to link merit pay to quality
teachers, do everything we can, but my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle would like to take the money for school improvement grants,
teacher quality grants.
I suggest to you that what you do, if you are really truly interested
in educating special needs children, that you

[[Page H1021]]

decide that a $558 million cut is just not the right thing to do to
children who have these special needs and who are mandated by the
Federal Government to States to get the kind of training that they need
to achieve their level and realize their dreams and aspirations.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KLINE. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment, and
I intend to vote for the amendment.
Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, budgeting is about making tough choices. Congress has a
responsibility to outline a budget the country can afford that sets
priorities to live within those means. Too often in recent years
Congress failed in this basic duty. I'm pleased to see us beginning to
move in a new direction.
The choice we face today is whether we will begin to uphold our
commitments or continue to kick the can down the road for another
debate another time. That's why I'm proud to support this amendment.
This amendment will move Congress closer to meeting its commitment to
students with disabilities and help schools, all schools across the
Nation. It adds to our effort to set the right priorities.
In 1971, a landmark decision was handed down by a Federal judge that
ruled the U.S. Constitution prohibits schools from denying access to
education based solely on a child's disabilities. While this
represented the judgment of one court, states soon followed.
Four years later Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act. That law, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, was designed to help states meet their obligation to
provide a quality education to students with disabilities. It is a law
that has been improved over the years, most recently, in 2004.
We've worked to strengthen the law's focus on academic achievement,
empowered parents to take greater responsibility for the direction of
their child's education, and helped to improve the critical
relationship between local school leaders and the parents and students
they serve. Despite our efforts over the years, more work remains to
strengthen the law to ensure students with disabilities receive the
education they need. That's why we're here today.
Over the past 35 years, while states have worked to follow the letter
of the law and serve these students, the Federal Government has failed
to deliver on its promise to fund 40 percent of the additional costs of
educating students with disabilities. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we've
never funded 20 percent. We haven't made it halfway.
This amendment reallocates resources at the Department of Education
to improve our commitment to meet this important need. It makes tough
choices we were sent here to make. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this
amendment. The suggestion has been made by the chairman of my committee
that somehow if you vote for this amendment you're increasing the
government's commitment to fully fund IDEA. No you're not. You're
simply restoring the cut that the Republican caucus already made a
decision about, and that was to cut $558 million. That would be
admirable if you restored the cut.
But when you decide therefore to restore the cut, you're going to now
have to make additional cuts, and those additional cuts will come out
of the most difficult, hard-pressed failing schools in our country,
many with increased populations of children with disabilities. Those
will be the schools that we will target.

{time} 2250

We will target those schools in the poorest neighborhoods with the
poorest records where now, for the first time we have a proposal made,
carried out by the Governors, by the local school districts to turn
those schools around and to provide the quality education that those
children are entitled to so they can take advantage of the
opportunities that America presents.
But now money for those schools is going to be taken away on the
theory that somehow you are doing a favor for students with
disabilities. Don't do them such a favor. I don't think they would
appreciate that you are taking the money from their poorest neighbors.
And then, on top of that, you are going to take the funds that we are
speaking to. And you have all given the speeches, you have all told
people, the most important thing outside of the family is the teacher.
Well, this is the funding by which we have prepared teachers to be
special education teachers, to be title I teachers, to teach math, to
teach science. And now we're going to take that money in the name of
somehow that this is a restorative amendment that will be good for
IDEA.
Let us understand something. When we were doing No Child Left Behind,
we circulated a petition signed by Republicans and Democrats. We had
over 300 people sign that and said let's go for full funding. When we
offered that amendment in the conference committee, the Republican
Members voted it down. You signed the petition. You just didn't have
the courage to stand up and put the funding into play, and you have
been screwing around with this program ever since. You have tried to
use funding for IDEA to batter some other portion of the education
community. Little incremental parts were offered year after year, but
it always came out of the hide of the less fortunate. You ought to stop
it. You ought to stop it.
Poor children need access to high-quality education and students with
disabilities need access to high-quality education. The kind of
barbaric attitude that is being carried out here in terms of playing
these two populations off against one another is simply outrageous.
It's unfair to the students with disabilities because it is being done
in their name, and we know how desperate they and their families are
for education and for the resources to carry out that education. And in
their name, we are stripping the resources from some of the poorest
children, and also some of the poorest children with disabilities we're
stripping the resources for them. That doesn't sound like a win-win.
That doesn't sound like a plus for disabilities.
I have been at this a long time. I had the honor of writing this
legislation with my colleagues back in 1975, 1976, and it's an honor
and I have defended it my whole life and it's changed people's lives.
And the nicest thing that has ever been said to me in public life is
when a parent says, But for that law, my child would have never had an
education.
But for that law. But I don't think they would have thought that we
are now trading their child's education for somebody to deny another
student an education. That's not the game that they wanted to play.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members that they must
address their remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second
person.
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank the chairman for recognizing me.
And I have great respect for my colleague from California and all the
hard work that he has done now for generations, practically on this
issue.
I would point out that from the late seventies through all of the
eighties, special education was funded at 1, 2, 3, 4 percent. And it
wasn't until 1995, 1996, 1997--actually '96, '97, '98, '99, into the
2000s that funding for special education began to increase
significantly under the Republican-controlled Congress.
President Clinton's own Education Secretary said on a number of
different occasions that full funding of special education had to take
a second place to the new programs that the administration was offering
at the time, which

[[Page H1022]]

was school construction, school improvement, and these other programs
that my friend, the maker of the amendment, was proposing to reduce in
order to fund special education.
I have felt for many years that IDEA funding should be the top
priority for education funding in the Congress, and I am pleased that
we have this amendment that will restore funding to the same level that
it was in fiscal year 2010. I would certainly like to have it higher
than that, but under the circumstances I believe that this is a good
and justifiable improvement. It is especially important and it is
different from SIP and teacher quality grants because we make the
rules, when it comes to special education, here at the Federal level,
and the school districts put out their individual service plans for
students, which they have to pay for. So without this amendment and
with a cut in funding for special education, it is a direct dollar-for-
dollar cost shift to every school district in America.
So this is an amendment that is good. It should be bipartisan, and we
should all support its passage so that we can get special education
funding back to FY10 levels.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. 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 gentlewoman from Washington
will be postponed.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I offer this motion to speak out against the
egregious cuts that are being addressed here to public education
contained in this irresponsible Republican spending bill.
This spending bill cuts over $1.25 billion in education funding that
goes directly to States and school districts to support educating
disadvantaged students and special education students. Now is not the
time to choke off funding to school districts when stimulus money is
eroding and when States are cutting their own budgets. I fear we are
leaving schools and our Nation's most vulnerable students behind.
These sections of the irresponsible Republican spending plan
represent a nearly 5 percent cut in aid to school districts. For title
I funding that supports school budgets and teacher jobs in low-income
school districts, this means a $693.5 million cut. For Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, the IDEA Act, special education funding
that supports school districts educating children with special needs
and disabilities, this means a $557.7 million cut.
Title I funding has helped school districts with high poverty levels
meet State education standards and ensure equal access to quality
education for all of their students. More than 50,000 public schools
around this Nation depend on these Federal dollars to maintain their
educational services.
This cut to title I funding alone would affect 2,400 schools that
serve nearly 1 million disadvantaged students. These schools would lose
funding for teachers, for tutors, and for after-school programs. It
would mean that nearly 10,000 teachers and aides could lose their jobs.
Children could see larger class sizes. And, yes, access to quality
education would again be threatened.
Not only does this bill cut funding for education for low-income
children, but it institutes painful cuts to special education programs
funded with the IDEA dollars.
For 35 years, IDEA has supported special education, guaranteeing
students with disabilities the right to a free, appropriate public
education. Millions of students with disabilities have been able to go
to public schools because of the IDEA funding school districts receive,
allowing them to provide an individualized education for children with
those special needs. This bill cuts over one-half billion dollars out
of special education funding to school districts. Cuts of this
proportion could force States and school districts to lay off almost
7,000 special education teachers and aides and other staff serving
children with disabilities.
Just last week, I met with members of the New York State School Board
Association who advocated for full funding for title I and especially
for IDEA. They stressed the fact that special education funding has
never been fully funded to the amount that was originally promised to
our schools. These cuts are giant steps backwards after several years
of quality investments in title I and IDEA funding.
Furthermore, these cuts would come at a time when States across this
country are also slashing education funding. These cuts come at a time
when supplemental stimulus aid is drying up. Cuts mean that school
districts in local communities will have to make up the difference,
potentially with teacher layoffs, larger class sizes, reduced programs,
and higher--higher--property taxes. This is not responsible
policymaking, especially while our economy is still in recovery.
The majority in this House is lauding the fact that this bill
represents the largest spending cut in the history of our country. If
they want to cut funding to satisfy their base, fine, but I will not
stand for cutting education funding. I will not support budget cuts
balanced on the backs of our Nation's students, our youngest citizens,
and, indeed, our future.
Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2300

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in strong support of the amendment to add funding back to
title X from my colleagues Congresswoman Lowey and Congresswoman
DeLauro, who have always been fierce advocates for women's health, and
I am thrilled to join them in this important fight.
Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a key
component of our Nation's health care infrastructure and an essential
element in the winning strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies.
Efforts to cut the title X program would take away funding from
essential women's health care providers like Planned Parenthood.
Today, title X serves over 5 million low-income individuals every
year. In every State, women and men rely on title X for basic primary
and preventative health care, including annual exams, lifesaving cancer
screenings, contraception, and testing and treatment for sexually
transmitted diseases. In fact, in 2009 alone, title X providers
performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over 6
million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including nearly 1
million HIV tests. And preventative care isn't limited to cancer
screenings and education on how to avoid STDs.
If Republicans truly wanted to reduce abortions in this country, they
would vote for this amendment. Indeed, title X actually reduces the
number of abortions. Title X services help to prevent nearly 1 million
unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise
end in abortion. So we can say for certain that title X funds play a
vital role in helping to reduce the number of abortions in our Nation,
working towards the goal of making abortions safe, legal, and rare.
But it goes further. The title X programs through providers like
Planned Parenthood provide vital family planning services which help
improve the life of the mother and the child. It has been proven time
and again that family planning keeps women and children healthy.
Studies have shown that when women have better access to family
planning, it leads to healthier outcomes for both mother and child.
When women plan their pregnancies, they are more likely to seek
prenatal care, improving their own health and the health of their
children. In fact, access to family planning is directly linked to
declines in maternal and infant mortality rates.

[[Page H1023]]

Eliminating the national family planning program will result in
millions of women across the country losing access to basic primary and
preventative health care and to the providers that offer these
services. Without title X, more women will experience unintended
pregnancies and face potentially life-threatening cancer and other
diseases that could have been prevented.
In recent weeks, Republicans in this Congress have produced some of
the most anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-family bills that we have ever
seen, trying to redefine rape, raising taxes on women who have private
insurance with comprehensive health care coverage, telling women who
need our help the most that they are on their own.
But that just didn't just go far enough for them. Republican
proposals to cut title X funding and completely shut down Planned
Parenthood, where millions of women receive their only health care, is
one of the most spiteful, egregious moves we have ever seen.
It is truly mind-boggling that the same Members who purport to be
anti-choice can turn around and say in the same breath that they want
to strike all Federal family planning funding. So now they don't just
want to make abortions illegal, they also want to throw a huge obstacle
in the path of those who want to prevent themselves from ending up in a
situation where they might need one. This helps no one. It doesn't help
women, it doesn't help families, and it certainly doesn't help reduce
our deficit. That is because title X actually saves taxpayer dollars.
Since many of the patients served by title X are on Medicaid,
preventive care like cancer screenings and contraceptive counseling
actually means fewer costs to the taxpayer in the long run. Indeed, for
every public dollar invested in family planning, $3.74 is saved in
Medicaid-related costs. That is savings to both Federal and State
governments.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this amendment of my good friends
that would reinstate title X funding in the continuing resolution. The
decision by Republicans to defund title X was not only reckless, but
thoroughly anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-taxpayer.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help correct a
massive injustice against American women and families.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1825. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Education, School Improvement Programs''
shall be $3,066,967,000, of which $2,978,515,000 shall become
available on July 1, 2011, and remain available through
September 30, 2012 (in addition to the $1,681,441,000
previously appropriated under such heading that became
available on October 1, 2010), and an additional
$1,681,441,000, to remain available through September 30,
2012, shall be available on October 1, 2011 for academic year
2011-2012: Provided, That of the amounts available for such
heading (1) $7,463,000 shall be available to carry out
subpart 6 of part D of title V of the ESEA; and (2) no funds
shall be available for activities authorized under part B of
title II, part D of title II, subpart 9 of part D of title V,
part B of title VII, or part C of title VII of the ESEA, or
part Z of title VIII of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
(b) The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth,
twelfth and thirteenth provisos under the heading
``Department of Education, School Improvement Programs'' in
division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this division.

Amendment No. 532 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

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

Page 298, line 12, insert, ``or'' after ``title II,''.
Page 298, beginning on line 12, strike ``, part B of title
VII, or part C of title VII''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike the
language in H.R. 1 that prohibits the Department of Education from
funding the Alaskan Native Education Equity Act and the Native Hawaiian
Education Program. The amendment will not add money to the Department
of Education budget but will allow the department to fund those
programs as they see a need.
I yield at this time to the good lady from Hawaii for a very short
statement.
(Ms. HIRONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HIRONO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of this amendment introduced by my
colleague, Congressman Don Young, to support Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiian education. This amendment makes these worthwhile programs
eligible for these education funds.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the amendment introduced
by my colleague Congressman Don Young.
I appreciate the opportunity to work with him on this amendment. For
many years, Congressman Young has been a leader on issues of importance
to the indigenous, aboriginal peoples of the United States. He
understands that we have a special trust responsibility to American
Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. And while we sit on
different sides of the aisle, the bond between the native peoples of
Alaska and Hawaii transcends political party.
The Native Hawaiian Education Act was enacted in 1988 and was last
reauthorized in 2002 as a part of the No Child Left Behind Act. Native
Hawaiians have historically experienced educational risk factors, such
as high rates of poverty and low academic achievement. The modest
appropriations provided under the Native Hawaiian Education Act have
helped to improve educational opportunities for Native Hawaiian
children and remain necessary in reversing low achievement trends.
One of the successes of the program has been the flourishing of the
Hawaiian language. Following the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in
1893, use of the Hawaiian language in public classrooms was banned.
This decline in the use of the language paralleled declines in other
aspects of a once vibrant culture and community. We know that loss of
one's language is part and parcel of the loss of one's culture. Like
all too many native languages, Hawaiian was on the brink of extinction.
It was only in 1986 that the ban on Hawaiian language in schools was
removed. Now, with funds from the Native Hawaiian Education Act,
Hawaiian language is taught through immersion schools, beginning in
kindergarten and continuing through high school.
We now have a growing cadre of young people who are fluent in the
Hawaiian language--thanks in great part to the existence of the Native
Hawaiian Education Program. Several tribes have looked to the success
of the Hawaiian language program as a model for how they can ensure the
survival of their language.
I met with a student named Kuulei last week. She grew up in a
Hawaiian homestead community where attending college was not thought
possible. She attended a Native Hawaiian immersion school and through
hard work and perseverance is now a student at the University of Hawaii
at Hilo. After graduation, she plans to become a teacher so she can
inspire the next generation of Native Hawaiian students.
The school that Kuulei attends, the University of Hawaii at Hilo is
home to the Ka Haka Ula O Keelikolani College of Hawaiian Language. In
December 2010, the College awarded its first two doctorates in Hawaiian
and Indigenous Language and Culture Revitalization. The honors went to
Katarina Edmonds, a Maori educator from New Zealand, and Kauanoe
Kamana, the first of Native Hawaiian ancestry to receive a Ph.D. in
Hawaiian Language from UH Hilo.
The amendment before your today does not increase funding for Alaska
Native or Native Hawaiian education programs. All this amendment does
is make these worthwhile and successful programs eligible for funds
from the Department of Education School Improvement account.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mahalo nui loa (thank
you very much).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes
on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the current definition of
an earmark as defined by this body, the two programs that the gentleman
is seeking to restore are both earmarks.
Alaskan native education and native Hawaiian education programs are
worthy programs, there is no doubt in my mind, and I believe the
overall purpose of both is to ensure that the unique educational needs
of Alaskan and Hawaiian natives are met. Clearly we all

[[Page H1024]]

want the same for our constituents. But I think we have to be clear
about what these programs are. They are earmarks with a pricetag that
approaches $70 million.
Now, this majority has been very proud of their policy to ban all
earmarks. If I might, I would like to just read from the comments of
the chair of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, in his summary
for the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution.
``The continuing resolution includes no earmark funding and
eliminates all previous earmark funding from fiscal year 2010, saving
the taxpayers approximately $8.5 billion. In addition, the bill
includes language specifically negating any and all earmarks as defined
by House rules.''
Again, as I say, this majority has been very, very proud of their
policy to ban all earmarks. That is why, really, the decision by my
Republican colleague from Alaska is therefore hard to understand, and
the support that the majority is providing for this amendment is hard
to understand. But I think it is clear evidence that the status quo
remains when it comes to special favors and when it comes to special
interests.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REHBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am deeply disappointed in the lady from
Connecticut. This is a program that has been in existence since 1994,
and you voted for it every time. This is not an earmark. This is an
existing program. And I've heard you rail all night about restoring
money, which are all earmarks. You're dead wrong.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, doesn't the gentleman have to address the
Chair?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Well, all right. I'll address the Chair, but
I'll look over there.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind all Members to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am going to say respectfully, this is an
existing program, and the reason it was started is because Alaskan
natives and the Hawaiian natives do not receive money from the BIA. It
was started to recognize an inequity of those people that live in both
of our States. It is not a new program, and this language as written is
at the discretion of the Department as they see a need.
Like I say, I thought we were going to start a little bit of a
bipartisan effort on this side, and I don't see it when those people
will take away from some of the most impoverished people who have not
had that opportunity.
So I am urging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. And I
say to those that oppose it, shame on you. I have heard the bleeding
hearts all night, and it deeply disturbs me that they would say this is
something different when it is an existing program.

{time} 2310

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my colleague and friend, I might
add, and my friends here, that this in fact is in the same category of
a program as Teach for America, the National Writing Project, and other
projects, just to name a couple, that have been designated by the
majority as earmarks. This is the same category of programs. We cannot
be talking about a series of programs on the one hand which are
categorized as earmarks and then the other the same, in the same
breath, then say these, because they are of specific interest to me or
anyone else, that in fact then they are not.
If the majority is going to be true to it's principle--and it has
been a very, very defined principle. It's one which I quoted
specifically the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who made a
special point of letting not only us but the country know that earmarks
were not going to be a part of this continuing resolution. I did not
say that. I have not stood here and made a claim that the problem with
spending in this country is about earmarks and they should all be gone.
Now you either have to define the earmarks, stick to your definition
and your principle, or don't. And then let's talk about Teach for
America, the Writing Project, and the others that have been categorized
as earmarks. Let's have a level playing field.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1826. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Education, Innovation and Improvement'' shall
be $885,786,000, and no funds shall be available for
activities authorized under subpart 5 of part A of title II,
part D of title II, part D of title V, or section 1504 of the
ESEA, or part F of title VIII of the Higher Education Act of
1965.
(b) The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventeenth
and eighteenth provisos under the heading ``Department of
Education, Innovation and Improvement'' in division D of
Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by
this division.
Sec. 1827. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Education, Safe Schools and Citizenship
Education'' shall be $191,341,000, of which no funds shall be
available for activities authorized under subpart 3 of part C
of title II or subpart 2, 3, or 10 of part D of title V of
the ESEA.
(b) The first, second, and third provisos under the heading
``Department of Education, Safe Schools and Citizenship
Education'' in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not
apply to funds appropriated by this division.
Sec. 1828. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Education, Special Education'' shall be
$3,414,870,000, of which $3,168,654,000 shall become
available on July 1, 2011, and remain available through
September 30, 2012 (in addition to the $8,592,383,000
previously appropriated under such heading that became
available on October 1, 2010), and an additional
$8,592,383,000, to remain available through September 30,
2012, shall be available on October 1, 2011 for academic year
2011-2012.
(b) The first and second provisos under the heading
``Department of Education, Special Education'' in division D
of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated
by this division.
Sec. 1829. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services and
Disability Research'' shall be $3,453,388,000.
(b) The second proviso under the heading ``Department of
Education, Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research''
in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this division.
Sec. 1830. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Education, Career, Technical, and Adult
Education'' shall be $1,017,338,000, to become available on
July 1, 2011, and remain available through September 30, 2012
(in addition to the $791,000,000 previously appropriated
under such heading that became available on October 1, 2010),
and an additional $791,000,000 to remain available through
September 30, 2012, shall be available on October 1, 2011 for
academic year 2011-2012: Provided, That of the amounts
available for such heading, no funds shall be available for
activities authorized under subpart 4 of part D of title V of
the ESEA, or part D of title VIII of the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998.
(b) The first, second, third, seventh and eighth provisos
under the heading ``Department of Education, Career,
Technical, and Adult Education'' in division D of Public Law
111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this
division.
Sec. 1831. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Education, Student Financial Assistance''
shall be $18,475,492,000, of which $17,495,000,000 shall be
available to carry out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 and $980,492,000 shall be
available to carry out part C of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965. The maximum Pell grant for which a
student shall be eligible during award year 2011-2012 shall
be $4,015.

Amendment No. 490 Offered by Ms. Chu

Ms. CHU. Mr. 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 301, line 16, strike ``$4,015'' and insert ``$4,860''.

[[Page H1025]]

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlelady's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved by the gentleman from
Montana.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I rise today to strongly support investing in
America's future. I rise to present the Chu-Moore-Jackson Lee amendment
to restore full funding to the Pell Grant program.
With this CR, the Republicans slashed the very funding that ensures
every American has the opportunity to go to college. H.R. 1 does
something that is shocking, especially in these tough economic times.
It deprives millions of students of the financial support that they
need to go to college. At a time when people are losing jobs, when
people can't find jobs, when people are scared about whether they have
a future, Republicans are cutting Pell Grant financial aid by 15
percent for students across the board. This is an astounding number.
If the Republicans gut this program, there will be 9 million students
who will have cuts in their financial aid, endangering their ability to
go to college. It is the largest cut in student financial aid in
history. This will hit the neediest students hardest. In California, my
home State, one-third of undergraduates--nearly 65,000 students--get
this money for college. And most come from families making less than
$30,000 a year.
But this is about more than just numbers and statistics. This is
about real people and real students, whose real futures are at stake.
Students like Chris Hamm who attends the University of Cincinnati.
Chris' Pell Grant pays for a quarter of his college tuition. Without
this money, Chris doesn't think he will be able to afford school and
will be forced to drop out, leaving him few options in this tough
economy.
Today, we know we are no longer in an arms race. Today, we are in a
brains race. Every year, we are falling further and further behind
other countries. Fewer Americans are getting a college degree compared
to those from other countries. We don't have all the science, math, and
talent we need to compete. America's ability to remain competitive in a
global modern economy hinges on our ability to encourage and grow a
highly educated workforce.
Gutting Pell Grants in this bill will only compound our future
economic challenges and undermine the dream that we have for our young
people to join the middle class. Pell Grants aren't just an investment
in an individual student but an investment in the future of our Nation.
We need a comprehensive approach that makes strategic cuts in
investments with an eye to the future. Instead, the Republicans are
taking a meat ax to programs that are crucial to American
competitiveness. This strategy is senseless and it is tragic. It is
tantamount to telling our young people, You will not have a future.
Instead, we must win the future by out-innovating, out-building, and
out-educating the world. We must train all Americans from every class
and background to succeed in the economy of tomorrow. We must give them
the financial aid that they need. So I ask Members to support this
amendment and restore Pell Grant funding to our students.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in
budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under
section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states:
``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I think that
the point of order should not be considered in order because this
continuing resolution looks at striking waste, fraud, and fat out of
our budget. And I would argue that amendment No. 490 is in fact the
bone, the nerve, the blood, and the sinew of our economy.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will confine her remarks to the
point of order.

{time} 2320

Ms. MOORE. I am, Mr. Chair, making the point that this amendment is
in order because it deals with the continuing resolution which would
slash the Pell Grant funding by $845 and that the purpose of this
continuing resolution is to slash funding that is unnecessary in our
budget. I would argue that this amendment should be made in order
because the Pell Grant is the cornerstone of our Federal financial aid
programs.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would again remind the gentlewoman to
confine her remarks to the point of order.
Ms. MOORE. Will the gentleman restate his point of order?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized to restate his point of
order.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not in order under
section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states:
``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Montana makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California violates section 3(j)(3) of
House Resolution 5.
Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order
is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

Amendment No. 239 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. 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 301, at the end of line 16, strike ``$4,015'' and
insert ``$4,860.''

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana reserves a point of
order.
The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I respect the gentleman, but there were
individuals who wanted to debate on the amendment of Ms. Chu, and I
think we are allowed to do that except that the gentleman rose on his
point of order and started speaking to it before we could strike the
last word.
Will others be allowed to debate before the gentleman pursues his
point of order?
The Acting CHAIR. The Members may offer pro forma amendments. But
when an amendment is offered, there is no requirement that any point of
order be reserved rather than pressed.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. A further parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. So, if Members are on their feet, you would
be kind enough to recognize them before the gentleman from Montana
pursues a point of order, which he has already reserved?
The Acting CHAIR. A pro forma amendment may not be offered while a
point of order is pending.

[[Page H1026]]

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me say that I rise to join with the
Chu-Moore-Jackson Lee amendment and that I now rise to introduce the
Jackson Lee amendment, which also addresses the question of the Pell
Grant. I would hope that my colleagues would be allowed to debate it. I
consider this an emergency, and I will make this point as the gentleman
makes his point of order.
Mr. Chair, let me just refer to where we are today because we are
needing to be engaged in creating jobs. I am not sure what my
colleagues heard in the last election, but what I heard was that we
needed jobs.
It is clear--and I hope that we can see this--we have been here for 5
weeks plus, and the number of jobs that have been created by the
Republicans is zero. So here we are now with a 15 percent cut on Pell
Grants.
What does that mean?
It means that schools all around the Nation will not be able to
provide Pell Grants to the individual students who need them. In fact,
in my own district, with this 15 percent cut, this 5,550 going down to
4,705 will drastically impact students in my constituency.
For example, the cuts will jeopardize education and the future of
16,570 students who are currently dependent on Pell Grants in order to
finance their education. 5,726 are currently studying at Texas Southern
University and 10,847 at the University of Houston--16,570 in my
district alone. Those from the State of Montana will lose their Pell
Grants. Those from the State of Alabama, from the State of Connecticut,
and from the State of Wisconsin will lose their Pell Grants. But the
real insult is that this will stop the education of thousands upon
thousands of students in the middle of their education.
Again, how many jobs have the Republicans created?--zero.
I always want to bring this chart, which is very hard to see, but we
can see how many jobs we lost in the last administration. We are on the
rise of creating jobs. In fact, the CBO said that our future is great.
It will not be great with a misguided plan to eliminate $600 million
from the Pell Grant program. It is absolutely absurd. For example, let
me share with you thoughts from The New York Times:

This CR is ideologically driven. We started with a $74
billion cut, but because the Republicans decided that it is
preferable to abide by polls, they decided to move to a
draconian and ludicrous $100 billion.

That means that $600 million was cut from Pell Grants.
In addition to an amendment that I did not offer, the NIH, we see
that those grants that were competitive for fellowships and research
have also been drastically cut at Texas Southern University and at the
University of Houston, and many State institutions in Texas are
impacted by the cuts of the NIH grants.
But this is the greatest sin: In a meeting that I had with my
community colleges and my school districts, they were in complete panic
about losing Pell Grants that will then impact on the wonderful upsurge
of jobs from what we had lost in the last administration.
I would simply ask my colleagues: Why are we going down a pathway
that would take away the growth that we have provided?
So I would ask, as we look to the future, that this be restored. My
amendment and Ms. Chu's amendment--the one that I joined and the one
that I intended to speak on--was, in fact, to restore these dollars.
A new Wall Street Journal survey of economists shows they expect the
economy to expand at the fastest pace since 2003 but not with these
draconian cuts. Why wouldn't they do as the President's budget has
done, which is to get rid of the 2 percent tax cuts for the
billionaires? We might be able to provide $600 million for students.
But no. We want to, I guess, stand with ideological viewpoints and with
individuals who say, I was sent here to budget cut.
You were sent here to govern. You were sent here to protect the
American people. Students who will create the workforce of the 21st
century, you are now telling them they can't get an education.
Let me say this: The Constitution reminds us of what a wonderful
country we live in--a country that believes we all are created equal.
We don't have the same economic opportunities, meaning the same wealth,
but we do have the ability to access education through wonderful
programs like the Pell Grant program. Now you're telling poor and low-
income students the door is closed; the lights are out; you're not
equal, and you don't deserve an education.
I would say that this is an abomination. Support the amendments that
will provide for $600 million restored to the Pell Grants. I ask my
colleagues to vote for the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution making appropriations to fund the
federal government through September 20, 2011 contains some very deep
cuts that will be very hurtful to many Americans, especially those who
are the most vulnerable--disadvantaged women and families, children,
minorities, the elderly, and our nation's university students. The
proposed cuts in the CR will have a disproportionate effect on the low-
income and minority portions of our population.
As we face a large deficit and growing debt, we know that cuts will
have to be made. And yes, some of those cuts will be painful. However,
we must be careful not to place added burdens and cause greater harms
to those Americans who are the most vulnerable and in need of our
support the most.
The proposed CR calls for a 15 percent reduction in funding for Pell
grants. Such a cut will reduce the maximum Pell grant award from its
current level of $5,550 to $4,705. This would present a serious problem
for institutions of higher learning, but more importantly, it creates a
major hardship on students.
Current students who receive Pell grants would have to figure out a
way to come up with nearly an additional $1,000 in order to continue
their education. Students who have been accepted to school and have
received their financial aid packages are also put in a position that
would force them to find and secure additional funds for their
schooling. Pell Grants provide the basic foundation of federal student
aid and help more than 8 million students afford to attend college.
To some of us, $800-$1,000 may not seem significant. However, to a
student who qualifies for Pell grant assistance, and relies on those
funds, this would be a great hardship, potentially forcing students to
take time off from their schooling.
In my district in Houston, TX, these cuts will jeopardize the
education and future of 16,570 students who are currently dependent on
Pell grants in order to finance their education--5,726 currently
studying at Texas Southern University and 10,847 at University of
Houston. 16,570 students in one Congressional District alone will be
unfairly affected by these cuts.
In the entire state of Texas, 650,790 students currently enrolled in
school will be forced to deal with unexpected financial hardships under
this provision. In other words, in my state alone, the number of
students negatively impacted by this drastic cut to Pell grant funding
is more than the entire population of Washington, DC. Nationwide, more
than 9 million students would potentially be impacted.
Mr. Chair, these cuts are an unnecessary and unfair hardship that
will be forced on college students. These young men and women represent
the future labor force of our country, and in these trying economic
times, I believe it is extremely appalling for Members of Congress to
purposefully jeopardize the educational and economic future of our
country.

ESTIMATED STATE-BY-STATE IMPACT ON FEDERAL PELL GRANT PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AY 2011-12 $5,550 Maximum Grant AY 2011-12 Difference at $4,705 Maximum Grant
State or Area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aid Available Recipients Avg. Award Aid Available Recipients Avg. Award
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................... $772,900,000 178,348 $4,334 ($127,700,000) (184) ($713)
Alaska............................................ $32,700,000 8,434 $3,877 ($5,400,000) (8) ($637)
Arizona........................................... $2,221,700,000 601,345 $3,695 ($356,500,000) (337) ($592)
Arkansas.......................................... $416,200,000 94,780 $4,391 ($68,800,000) (97) ($722)
California........................................ $4,330,700,000 1,038,137 $4,172 ($704,000,000) (980) ($675)
Colorado.......................................... $594,400,000 150,699 $3,944 ($98,200,000) (156) ($648)
Connecticut....................................... $281,300,000 72,492 $3,880 ($46,400,000) (75) ($636)

[[Page H1027]]

Delaware.......................................... $65,500,000 16,594 $3,947 ($10,800,000) (17) ($647)
District of Columbia.............................. $165,600,000 44,606 $3,713 ($27,400,000) (46) ($612)
Florida........................................... $2,563,500,000 587,309 $4,365 ($416,200,000) (388) ($706)
Georgia........................................... $1,365,500,000 314,859 $4,337 ($223,000,000) (241) ($706)
Hawaii............................................ $80,700,000 18,859 $4,279 ($13,300,000) (19) ($702)
Idaho............................................. $211,600,000 48,803 $4,336 ($35,000,000) (50) ($714)
Illinois.......................................... $1,693,800,000 395,672 $4,281 ($277,500,000) (282) ($699)
Indiana........................................... $802,900,000 204,045 $3,935 ($132,700,000) (210) ($647)
Iowa.............................................. $809,200,000 205,546 $3,937 ($133,700,000) (212) ($647)
Kansas............................................ $316,500,000 76,782 $4,122 ($52,300,000) (79) ($678)
Kentucky.......................................... $593,300,000 138,742 $4,276 ($98,000,000) (143) ($702)
Louisiana......................................... $578,200,000 130,187 $4,441 ($95,600,000) (134) ($730)
Maine............................................. $133,000,000 31,503 $4,222 ($22,000,000) (32) ($695)
Maryland.......................................... $492,600,000 123,070 $4,003 ($81,400,000) (128) ($658)
Massachusetts..................................... $575,600,000 136,517 $4,216 ($95,100,000) (141) ($693)
Michigan.......................................... $1,404,800,000 346,109 $4,059 ($231,700,000) (461) ($665)
Minnesota......................................... $583,000,000 148,629 $3,923 ($96,300,000) (153) ($645)
Mississippi....................................... $566,100,000 120,540 $4,696 ($93,500,000) (125) ($771)
Missouri.......................................... $736,600,000 179,451 $4,105 ($121,700,000) (185) ($675)
Montana........................................... $104,700,000 23,896 $4,381 ($17,300,000) (25) ($720)
Nebraska.......................................... $171,400,000 43,355 $3,953 ($28,300,000) (45) ($649)
Nevada............................................ $129,600,000 32,896 $3,940 ($21,400,000) (34) ($647)
New Hampshire..................................... $86,100,000 21,354 $4,032 ($14,200,000) (23) ($661)
New Jersey........................................ $804,000,000 185,446 $4,335 ($132,800,000) (192) ($712)
New Mexico........................................ $274,000,000 66,784 $4,103 ($45,300,000) (69) ($675)
New York.......................................... $2,832,900,000 536,983 $5,276 ($466,200,000) (713) ($863)
North Carolina.................................... $993,900,000 249,958 $3,976 ($165,700,000) (312) ($659)
North Dakota...................................... $81,000,000 18,821 $4,304 ($13,400,000) (20) ($708)
Ohio.............................................. $1,499,800,000 366,549 $4,092 ($247,900,000) (705) ($670)
Oklahoma.......................................... $455,400,000 107,109 $4,252 ($75,200,000) (110) ($699)
Oregon............................................ $459,600,000 111,109 $4,136 ($76,000,000) (115) ($680)
Pennsylvania...................................... $1,226,500,000 302,255 $4,058 ($209,900,000) (804) ($686)
Rhode Island...................................... $151,600,000 36,251 $4,182 ($25,000,000) (38) ($686)
South Carolina.................................... $541,300,000 128,126 $4,225 ($89,400,000) (132) ($694)
South Dakota...................................... $109,800,000 26,634 $4,123 ($18,100,000) (28) ($676)
Tennessee......................................... $778,500,000 184,299 $4,224 ($128,700,000) (190) ($695)
Texas............................................. $2,723,000,000 650,790 $4,184 ($444,800,000) (805) ($679)
Utah.............................................. $390,800,000 96,550 $4,048 ($64,600,000) (100) ($666)
Vermont........................................... $55,200,000 13,301 $4,150 ($9,100,000) (14) ($680)
Virginia.......................................... $746,300,000 180,219 $4,141 ($123,300,000) (186) ($681)
Washington........................................ $574,000,000 139,500 $4,115 ($94,800,000) (144) ($676)
West Virginia..................................... $274,800,000 61,818 $4,445 ($45,400,000) (63) ($730)
Wisconsin......................................... $486,000,000 119,192 $4,077 ($80,300,000) (123) ($670)
Wyoming........................................... $51,100,000 12,284 $4,160 ($8,400,000) (13) ($680)
Puerto Rico....................................... $1,258,000,000 270,060 $4,658 ($195,800,000) (535) ($717)
U.S. Territories.................................. $71,300,000 15,628 $4,562 ($11,700,000) (16) ($744)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... $39,718,500,000 9,413,225 $4,219 ($6,517,200,000) (10,437) ($688)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment to strike the
provision of the Continuing Resolution, CR, that would significantly
reduce the level of funding used by the National Institutes of Health,
NIH, to fund competitive and noncompetitive grant programs. The
proposed cuts would have a direct detrimental impact on students
studying at institutions of higher learning.
Majority of the fellowships offered at institutions of higher
education are funded by these competitive and non-competitive grants
issued by the National Institutes of Health, NIH. Under the proposed
Continuing Resolution, NIH funding would be cut by close to $1 billion.
Such a cut would have a massive and immediate impact on the ability of
students to continue their studies.
Many of the fellowships funded by NIH are multi-year programs,
meaning that many of the students in receipt of these fellowships are
studying in expectation of a certain level of funding. These students
are dependent on these funds in order to continue their studies and pay
their living expenses. Drastic cuts such as the ones proposed would
leave these students in a very difficult situation financially, and in
some cases, may even require them to put their studies on hold.
My district, the 18th Congressional District in Houston, TX is home
to a number of colleges and universities, amongst those, Texas Southern
University--a Historically Black College, and the University Houston
system--a massive institution responsible for the education of over
60,000 students.
In 2010, Texas Southern University, a relatively small institution,
received $895,228 in educational grants from NIH alone. The University
of Houston, a much larger school, was able to offer close to 900
fellowships to students because of over $13.9 million dollars of grant
funding received from NIH. Under the cuts proposed in the CR,
approximately a thousand students in my district alone would be
potentially negatively impacted.

These grants from NIH enabled students in my district at Texas
Southern University and University of Houston to study and research in
the fields of engineering, pharmacy, optometry, education, social work
and other sciences. These students, and hundreds of thousands of other
students across the country, are our future. They are actively taking
steps to win the future for America, and the cuts proposed in this CR
creating hardships that could lead to failure.
Not only will these cuts to NIH funding affect current students, but
it will reduce the number of fellowships that colleges and universities
will be able to offer to students in the future. We are living in a
highly competitive global economy. If America intends to remain a
global super power, we must arm our students with the knowledge and
tools to remain competitive, specifically quality education. Cutting
funding to these organizations will impose a great hardship on students
striving to educate themselves in order that they may be competitive in
a global economy.
Just a few weeks ago, during the State of the Union address,
President Obama laid out his blueprint for how America can ``win the
future.'' He acknowledged the need for America to tighten its belt and
make difficult cuts to address our national debt Saying, ``we need to
take responsibility for our deficit and reform our government.'' And I
wholeheartedly agree--cuts will have to be made, and some of those cuts
may be painful.
However, in the next breath, President Obama stated, ``The first step
in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.'' The
research grants and fellowships that NIH has been providing to students
do exactly that. They allow American students to research and spur
innovation, which is a long term investment in our economy.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

{time} 2330

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I tried to craft my
discussion in the form of an emergency. The loss of thousands upon
thousands of

[[Page H1028]]

students' access to education, I consider that an emergency.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will suspend.
Will the gentlewoman speak to the point of order.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will.
I consider this an emergency, and I would ask that this point of
order be waived in order to provide for the thousands of students, Mr.
Chairman, that are now going to stop school because of the $1,000, $800
they will lose. I'm asking the gentleman for a waiver so that this is
based on an emergency and the fact there was no offset available that
would not impact negatively other vital programs to make America equal.
I'd ask for a waiver and I'd ask for this amendment to be accepted and
the point of order to be waived.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Montana makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas violates section 3(j)(3) of House
Resolution 5.
Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order
is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Chu-Moore-Jackson Lee
amendment for the continuing appropriations act, H.R. 1, because we're
deeply concerned about the cuts to the Pell Grant funding contained in
the continuing resolution which would slash funding by $845, a 15
percent cut, and, of course, this amendment would preserve the Pell
Grant program and maintain the full award level.
I am, you know, again, just a little bit perturbed, Mr. Chairman.
This cut, like so many cuts in the resolution, would disproportionately
harm traditionally underserved communities. According to the National
Center for Education Statistics, Pell recipients are more likely to be
female, first-generation college students, and less likely to be white
than those who don't receive the grants. In other words, Mr. Chairman,
they kind of look like me.
Minority students also face disproportionate unmet need, meaning the
amount that they still need to pay for college even after family
contributions, parties, raising money from their churches, grants,
nonprivate loans still will not meet their needs to go to college.
Women sometimes come into college with more precarious financial
situations. They're already parents and mothers.
Now, you know, if this country is prepared to just slide into
irrelevancy in the global economic community because we don't educate
our workforce, this would be the loss leading legislation to do that.
Cutting the program is so counterintuitive to our remaining a first-
rate power.
And what is our secret weapon in this country for staying on top?
It's our diversity, our diversity to be competitive. We're women. We're
blacks. We're Asians. We're Hispanics. We're Indians. We're Hmong. We
bring different talents and abilities to the table, and our ability to
educate these young people comes with our ability to provide a Pell
Grant which levels the playing field for all students.
There's not a politician in this country that doesn't make part of
their platform that this country has got to have a highly educated 21st
century workforce. There's not a politician, Democrat, Republican,
Independent, or any other stripe, that doesn't say and pronounce that
education is the key, and yet we're not willing to provide the
lubricant so that key can fit into the lock, and that is the resources
to make sure our students can go to school.
This Pell Grant is that opportunity. Don't deny it to students. Don't
deny it. Don't deny it, Mr. Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1832. Of the unobligated balances of funds made
available in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of section
401A(e)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $986,433,851
is rescinded.
Sec. 1833. (a) Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Education, Higher Education'' shall be
$1,690,285,000, of which no funds shall be available for
activities authorized under part A of title II, part B of
title VII or subpart 1 of part D of title VII of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, section 1543 of the Higher Education
Amendments of 1992, part H of title VIII of the Higher
Education Amendments of 1998, part I of subtitle A of title
VI of the America COMPETES Act, or section 117 of the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006.
(b) The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth,
eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth provisos under
the heading ``Department of Education, Higher Education'' in
division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this division.
Sec. 1834. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences''
shall be $530,106,000.
Sec. 1835. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Corporation for National and Community Service, Operating
Expenses'' shall be $0.
Sec. 1836. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Corporation for National and Community Service, National
Service Trust'' shall be $50,000,000.
Sec. 1837. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Corporation for National and Community Service, Salaries
and Expenses'' shall be $68,000,000.
Sec. 1838. (a) Of the funds made available for
``Corporation for Public Broadcasting'' in title IV of
division F of Public Law 111-8, the unobligated balance is
rescinded.
(b) The amounts included under the heading ``Corporation
for Public Broadcasting'' in division D of Public Law 111-117
shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division as
follows: by substituting ``$0'' for ``$86,000,000''; by
substituting ``$0'' for ``$25,000,000''; by substituting
``$0'' for ``$36,000,000''; and by substituting ``$0'' for
``$25,000,000''.

Amendment No. 436 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

Page 303, strike lines 3 through 9 and insert the
following:
(b) For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(``Corporation''), as authorized by the Communications Act of
1934, an amount which shall be available within limitations
specified by that Act, for the fiscal year 2013,
$460,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds made available
to the Corporation by this Act shall be used to pay for
receptions, parties, or similar forms of entertainment for
Government officials or employees: Provided further, That
none of the funds made available to the Corporation by this
Act shall be available or used to aid or support any program
or activity from which any person is excluded, or is denied
benefits, or is discriminated against, on the basis of race,
color, national origin, religion, or sex: Provided further,
That none of the funds made available to the Corporation by
this Act shall be used to apply any political test or
qualification in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking
any other personnel action with respect to officers, agents,
and employees of the Corporation: Provided further, That none
of the funds made available to the Corporation by this Act
shall be used to support the Television Future Fund or any
similar purpose.
(c) For taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the allowance under section 611 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to an oil or gas
well shall be calculated without regard to subsection (c) or
(d) of section 613A of such Code.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana reserves a point of
order.
The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I'm sad to have to offer this amendment
this evening. It's more unfortunate that if we're going to be subject
to a strict interpretation of the House rules, I have a list of
provisions already in this young session where time after time the
majority has chosen to waive the rules since they were first adopted,
when it served their purpose. If our colleagues are serious about
cutting the deficit, they will not just allow the amendment to be
debated, but they will vote upon it and pass it.
Mr. Chairman, the public doesn't care whether the deficit is reduced
by closing a tax loophole or reducing spending. I'll bet it would
rather stop another giveaway to large oil companies rather than cutting
programs that are important to them. For that matter, I think the
voters like public

[[Page H1029]]

broadcasting a lot more than they like Congress.
These funds for public broadcasting are absolutely essential to
protect. It helps serve 170 million Americans every month. Especially
important are the innovative programs for education, culture, and
public affairs.
Make no mistake, the reduction of the funds that are contemplated by
my colleagues in 2 years, eliminating public broadcasting support
altogether, will damage all the stations, and, indeed, I think all of
us listen to these stations ourselves. But it would particularly hurt
the stations in rural and small town America.
First, small town stations rely more heavily on public funds than the
stations in big cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, and even
Portland, Oregon.
Second, not only do these smaller communities rely more heavily on
the stations that are located there, but in rural and small town
America, the circumstance is that it is much more expensive to
broadcast to them. Taking an example in a region familiar to the
Chairman, in our Pacific Northwest, for Oregon public broadcasting,
which serves both our districts, it costs 11 times as much to broadcast
to remote Burns, Oregon, than it does in the metropolitan area.
Public broadcasting is also the source of innovative journalism that
you're not going to find anyplace else. At a time when large corporate
newsrooms are cutting back on foreign affairs, for instance, public
broadcasting, because of the generous support of viewers and support
from the country itself, is being able to expand its foreign coverage.

{time} 2340

I'll bet most of us in this Chamber today relied on NPR first thing
in the morning as we were getting ready to go to work to be aware of
the recent events, for example, in Egypt. It is particularly important
for our children. Public broadcasting is the only source of programming
that is geared to educate our children, not try to sell something to
them. Pulling out this vital public funding stream is going to
undermine that mission of educating our children.
And at a time when I would think that we would want to support
public-private partnerships, taking away the essential contributions
that the Federal Government has provided since 1967 undermines that
public-private partnership where we see six, seven times the funding
leveraged as a result of that public contribution.
Mr. Chairman, we've seen this movie before. The Republicans, when
they came into power before, tried to shut down public broadcasting,
and we have seen the American public push back. Just this last week,
tens of thousands of people have called our offices entreating us to
allow the funding to continue. I would strongly urge that there not be
selective application of the rules to this amendment but waive, as the
majority has done time and time again for their purposes, to enable
this provision to go forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment adds a limitation to a
general appropriations bill. Under clause 2 of rule XXI, such
amendments are not in order during the reading of a general
appropriations bill. The rule states in part: ``Except as provided in
paragraph D, an amendment proposing a limitation not specifically
contained or authorized in existing law for the period of the
limitation shall not be in order during consideration of a general
appropriations bill.''
Mr. Chairman, the amendment adds a limitation and is not specifically
contained or authorized in existing law during the reading. The
amendment, therefore, is in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment includes a limitation. As such, under clause 2(c) and
2(d) of rule XXI, it is not in order, as a matter of form, until the
reading for amendment has progressed to the end of the bill.
The point of order is sustained.
Mrs. LOWEY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. It's deja vu. Here we go again. This week, we are again
fighting extreme efforts to dismantle the public broadcasting services
that 170 million Americans use for news and education. In 1995 and in
2005, we defeated efforts to slash the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. How long will it take for some people to learn that the
public wants Congress to focus on creating jobs, not laying off Burt
and Ernie with GO-pink slips. My grandchildren are learning from not
only old favorites like Big Bird, but also Maya and Miguel, Clifford
the Big Red Dog, and a cast of other fun and educational characters.
Millions of Americans rely on public TV and radio for vital news in
the community, and broadcasters leveraged $6 for every $1 in Federal
funds. Do we want to live in a society in which the only characters
that appear on children's programs are those who gross the highest
profits rather than those who deliver the most compelling lessons to
our kids? Or one where our news is delivered primarily from sources
focused on their bottom line? Of course not. That is why I am so
pleased to support this amendment to restore cuts.
In recent years, we have already cut funding for programs related to
public broadcasting, including the Department of Education's Ready-to-
Teach Program. We cannot abandon the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting altogether. Republicans should be less preoccupied with
silencing Cookie Monster and more focused on getting our economy back
on track.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hard work that the
House Appropriations Committee has done in crafting a bill that in so
many ways is making the tough choices necessary to bring back fiscal
sanity to Washington. I am pleased that they have incorporated a bill
that I had earlier filed in this session, H.R. 69, which also would
eliminate taxpayer subsidies for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. There are a number of well-known accountability groups,
such as the Club for Growth, Americans for Limited Government, and
National Taxpayers Union, that have all endorsed this end of funding
for taxpayer-supported broadcasting.
You know, if we go back in time, in 1967, when the Public
Broadcasting Act was first enacted, the intent of that act was ``to
provide telecommunications services to all citizens in the United
States.'' Well, that has been accomplished. That was over 40 years ago.
Now we have 500 channels on cable TV. People get Internet access on
their cell phones. We have satellite, wireless available around this
country. We have so many media options that are available now that were
not available 40 years ago. So we have fulfilled the purpose of that
Act.
Now that Republicans are in control of the House, we're getting
serious about getting the budget under control.
There is some good programming that the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting produces that I personally enjoy and like; but that's not
the issue, whether we like it or not. It's whether taxpayers should
subsidize this form of broadcasting. When something puts out good
quality programming, like the corporation does, they could survive, if
they wanted to go into the free market and get funding--whether it's
selling advertising or something like that. They are perfectly capable
of surviving, and not just surviving but thriving in the open market
because they do have some good-quality programming. They don't need to
rely on taxpayers.
And when you look at what a deep fiscal hole we are in now as a
country--for instance, this annual deficit that we are in the middle of
right now is going to be $1.6 trillion, the highest in the history of
this country. The time has come to end funding for government programs
that are no longer necessary.
So it's a matter of fiscal responsibility and fiscal sanity that the
Appropriations Committee has produced this

[[Page H1030]]

amendment. It's not against the Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
but it's for the taxpayers, saying, You don't have to keep subsidizing
something that no longer needs the government crutch that it originally
was given.

{time} 2350

The amount of money we're talking about is considerable. For fiscal
year 2011, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting appropriation is
$430 million. For next year, it will be $445 million. And President
Obama's budget request that was just submitted that we got on Monday
asks for $451 million for 2014. That's almost half a billion dollars.
When we have $1.5 trillion annual deficits, we have to get our budget
in order. And the reason is because, by leaving money in the private
sector, that will create jobs. Rather than the government and the
favored programs having the money, if that can stay in the private
sector, people can invest and create private sector jobs, and those are
the jobs that Americans are really looking for.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Oregon that the majority has, unfortunately,
ruled out of order.
In this continuing resolution, the Republicans are trying to
dismantle one of the most precious landmarks of the entire media
landscape. Public broadcasting is an electronic oasis for learning in
what has been called the vast wasteland of commercial television.
Now, why do I say that? Well, I say it because you just have to look
at what is on commercial television from the perspective of a parent
with children trying to ensure that those children are given the
educational and informational programming that will help in their
development.
Here's a short sampling of what was on television during the day
today. There's a spate of daytime soap operas which are full of adult
themes not appropriate for young children. Then there were programs on
this afternoon such as ``Hoarding,'' ``Buried Alive,'' and ``The
Babysitter's Seduction.'' Again, more programming not suitable for
children. In addition, there was ``Hollywood's Most Shocking
Breakups,'' and ``Dog, the Bounty Hunter,'' and they were not talking
about Clifford the Big Red Dog.
Ladies and gentlemen, what we hear is that the private sector,
private television, commercial television is taking care of the
children's audience. It does not. The Cartoon Network is in no way to
be compared to what is on the Public Broadcasting System from 6 a.m.
every morning until 6 p.m. every night, 12 hours every day, something
that parents can rely upon for their children to see which is
educationally nutritious for their development. And it's on every
television station, every public television station in the country,
every single day.
Let me give you a typical day. On WGBH up in Boston, but on every
other public television station, beginning at 6 a.m., it's ``Between
the Lions,'' then ``Clifford the Big Red Dog'' and ``Arthur,'' followed
by ``Martha Speaks,'' ``Curious George,'' ``Dinosaur Train'' and
``WordWorld,'' which brings us all the way up to noontime. The parents
are happy. The kids have good programming that they're watching.
And then rather than soap operas in the afternoon, on the Public
Broadcasting System, the kids get to see ``Sid the Science Guy,''
``WordGirl,'' ``The Electric Company,'' and on and on and on until 6
every night.
PBS is really the children's television network, and generations of
children and parents have benefited from this programming being on.
What the Republicans are trying to do is just end this era and just
toss these families over to this commercial world, which is fine if you
really do believe that Cartoon Network and other networks like that
targeted at children for commercial purposes can in any way substitute
for this Sesame Street diet that children have been on for more than
one generation and have immeasurably helped, not just those that come
from the white upper middle class, but in polling it's actually above
80 percent, whether your family is Asian, Hispanic, white, African
American. All poll out at 80 percent in terms of what those parents
believe about the benefit that comes from the Public Broadcasting
System in the children's programming that is presented to those
children.
So CPB doesn't just stand for Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It
also stands for Children and Parents Benefit. And that's why it's
important. And that's why it was important in 1967, and that's why it
is important today. This has been the crown jewel in our national media
mix when it comes to the children of our country. And this attempt to
take out a meat cleaver and to cut this programming source off in a way
that would harm those families in our country is a huge mistake.
Now, Mr. Blumenauer has attempted to offer an amendment that would
have restored the full $460 million in funding for the Public
Broadcasting System. But in turn, what his amendment would have tried
to do is to go to the big tax breaks for oil and gas companies in our
country.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. I would ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Massachusetts?
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. And it's altogether understandable why the gentleman who
did object objected because I know where he's coming from on this. He
did not want to hear the next sentence, because the gentleman from
Montana is someone who does believe that the tax breaks for Big Oil
should stay on the books. It's $40 billion over the next 5 years, and
he'd rather see a cutting of Big Oil be substituted by a cutting of Big
Bird. Okay? That's what tonight's all about, just this misallocation of
resources within our society.
And I understand why the gentleman from Montana doesn't want to hear
those words spoken, but he should get ready to hear it over and over
again. Big Oil is going to get all the breaks that they want, and it
might come at the expense of children's television or poor people. But
I will tell you this much. Grandma isn't going to get her lunch because
of these people over here. And these guys want to continue to take Big
Oil to lunch, but we're going to have a big debate about this as each
and every day goes by.
I thank the gentlelady, and I congratulate the gentleman from Oregon
for making this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Very briefly, and I thank the gentleman
from Massachusetts for confirming the strategy that is being used by
our friends on the other side of the aisle. If it's good, if it has
been good, it's time for it to go.
I'm going to join the gentleman in supporting the gentleman from
Oregon's amendment and to cite Channel 8 in Houston, Texas, that
compensates for bloody domestic fights on domestic or commercial TV
during the day and doesn't expose our children to opportunities for
learning.
I might add, the National Public Radio, as well, has its challenges.
So I just hope that as we begin to understand that our economy is
churning, that we will invest in our children, which the National
Public Radio represents.
And as my friend from New York said, Big Bird is still alive, and
other new characters have been utilized to teach children. Public
broadcast equalizes opportunity for good education in preschool for
children who are at home, or in home daycare, to give them an exposure
to learning, reading, writing and colorful activities.
So let me just say that I'm sorry the gentleman's amendment was ruled
out of order. It looks as if we have just turned our head away from
investing in education--cutting Pell Grants, cutting NIH fellowships
and scholarships,

[[Page H1031]]

cutting public broadcast. It looks like we've just said enough is
enough with job creation and let's get rid of education as well. And I
ask, of course, that this CR be defeated.

{time} 0000

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1839. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Institute of Museum and Library Services, Office of Museum
and Library Services, Grants and Administration'' shall be
$265,869,000.
Sec. 1840. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Salaries and
Expenses'' shall be $12,450,000.
Sec. 1841. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``National Labor Relations Board, Salaries and Expenses''
shall be $233,400,000.

Amendment No. 410 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made
in order by the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 303, line 19, after the dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $233,400,000)''.
Page 359, line 15, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $233,400,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I think it's important to put this discussion
tonight in a little context.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying that we
want to dismantle this and slash that and cut that. And the truth of
the matter, Madam Chair, is that what we want to do is save. We want to
save the American taxpayer and, yes, save the country. Because what is
happening, and the American people know it, is that this Federal
Government has for year after year after year and more over the last 4
years borrowed too much and spent too much and taxed too much, and it's
destroying jobs. It is destroying jobs.
If you don't believe the words, all you have to do is look at the
picture. The pictures show very clearly that's what is happening. This
is 2006 down here when Speaker Pelosi came into power, and the amount
of spending at the Federal level. And this is where we are right now,
about one-third more under this administration, and this is where it is
going. And the American people are sick and tired of it. And what they
sent folks here to Washington to do is to decrease spending, to
decrease borrowing, and to decrease taxes so that we can put the
American people back to work.
That's what this is all about. It's not about some small program here
or some large program there. It's about putting American people back to
work and making the government the right size.
So I rise on my amendment, which identifies an agency that can only
be described as anti-worker and anti-business and anti-jobs. You know
what it is, Madam Chair. It is the National Labor Relations Board. It's
a New Deal relic charged with conducting elections for labor union
representation and investigating unfair labor practices. However, what
has happened is that the board has gotten beyond any claims that it's a
neutral arbiter of labor relations. And this starts with Craig Becker,
the recess appointment, which means no Senate confirmation by the Obama
administration, to lead the board. He has got huge ties to SEIU and
AFL-CIO, and has proven to be very adept at carrying the water for Big
Labor while siding against American employers and the American
taxpayer. He could hardly be characterized as an impartial voice.
The out-of-control NLRB now is seeking to expand the board's role
beyond current law. American businesses are under constant threat from
the NLRB. They tried to push for card check, which is actually the
``Secret Ballot Destruction Act.'' You will recall, Madam Chair, that
this was a bill that the Democrats, when they were in charge of this
whole place, couldn't get through Congress so now they want to do it by
rule. They want to enact it by rule through the NLRB. A remarkable,
remarkable overreach. They try to rig the deck over and over again.
But the rigging of the deck is just what Big Labor needs at this
point, because the private sector unionization is only about 7 percent
in this country of our workforce. So a new influx of dues-paying
members is needed for their contributions and for their political
campaigns.
So my amendment is very simple. At a time of crippling national debt
that destroys jobs, my amendment would defund the NLRB and save the
American taxpayer $283 million. It makes sense, since this agency
really has seen its role remarkably diminish. The NLRB's caseload has
shrunk dramatically, by some estimates, a 40 percent drop in elections
and petitions since 2001. And yet, while its role has been diminishing,
its reach into America's workplaces and into America's pocketbooks has
only expanded.
So a vote for this amendment would be a vote for America's job
creators, and we would work to defund an agency whose time has really,
really passed. So I urge the adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentlewoman from Connecticut is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. This is amazing. What a step backward for democracy if
there was support for this bill. This amendment would actually
eliminate all funding for the National Labor Relations Board.
The NLRB has been in existence for 75 years. Its functions are to
protect the rights of workers to unionize or not unionize; to promote
peaceful, productive relations between labor and management. It
conducts secret ballot elections to determine whether workers want to
be represented by a union. It investigates, it resolves complaints of
unfair labor practices that are brought against both unions and
employers. It protects workers from retaliation from exercising their
rights. These functions are fundamental to democracy and a workplace.
Why do we want to throw out the entire system with nothing to replace
it?
If the amendment were adopted, what would take the place of the NLRB
in determining workers' preferences about unionization? If workers are
fired for joining a union, where would they go for a remedy?
The continuing resolution itself is bad enough as far as the NLRB is
concerned. It cuts the board's budget by $50 million, an 18 percent cut
to be made in the last 6 months of the year. So it really winds up
being a 36 percent cut. It would have to furlough employees to get
through the rest of the year, furloughs that could be as much as 3
months per each employee. Now, these are folks who want to really
create jobs, and now we are going to lay off people. In other words,
the CR has crippled already the ability of the board to protect
workers' rights. It's simply about protecting workers' rights, and to
shut down the board completely truly is a backwards step for democracy.
I urge the defeat of the amendment. And I certainly hope whatever the
final appropriations legislation for 2011 ultimately emerges will
ensure that the NLRB has enough funding to continue to do its job.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. This amendment sets a new standard of irresponsibility
that I hope the House never again emulates.
Let's assume that a worker who is trying to organize a union is fired
because of his or her union organizing activity, files a complaint
against the employer for an unfair labor practice, and the National
Labor Relations Board is in the process of determining whether that
claim is right or wrong and what should happen as a result.
Or, let's imagine that a worker believes that he or she has not been
properly represented by the union they are in, and they file a claim
against their union claiming that the union has failed in its duty to
represent that worker.
This amendment says that both of those claims and others will just
stop in the middle. We will pull the plug from the adjudication of the
rights of these Americans.

[[Page H1032]]

I frankly think that it's ironic that a majority which chooses to
define itself in terms of its great devotion to the Constitution may be
proposing an amendment that violates the due process rights of American
citizens kind of on its face.
If you file a claim and a duly constituted adjudicatory body starts
to hear that claim, my sense is the Congress cannot step in and
interrupt that claim in the middle of its adjudication and take your
rights away. But that appears to be what is happening here.
This is a precedent that would be inappropriate and even dangerous to
the extreme in this regard: The principle that apparently informs this
amendment is if Congress doesn't like something that an agency is doing
substantively, we can pull the plug on the agency and not give it any
more money in the middle of its deliberations.
Imagine for a moment if during the runup to the Wall Street meltdown
in 2008 that those of us who were unhappy with decisions of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, which we were unhappy with, said
we're so unhappy with what the SEC is doing, we're going to defund that
organization and stop the process of any investigations they are doing,
stop the process of any decisions they are making. Just pull the plug
in the middle of their deliberations.

{time} 0010

I think that the majority would have correctly criticized us for an
act of irresponsibility. We didn't do that. When we disliked the
actions of the SEC, we came together and passed a law, the Dodd-Frank
law last year, that tried to improve its operations. That is the way a
responsible legislative body acts.
So forget for a moment about the consequences of this amendment for
those who work for the NLRB or for those somehow engaged in it. Let's
talk about the litigants, the workers, the employers, the unions, all
of those involved here. The agency just disappears the day that this
law is signed.
Yes, Congress has the power of the purse, but with power comes
responsibility. This is an amendment which sets a new low standard of
irresponsibility in this House. If we don't like the substantive
decisions of an agency, then amend the statute they are operating under
or litigate those decisions. But to pull the plug in the middle of
decisionmaking that affects thousands of Americans is, frankly, an
abuse of the power of the purse. I think it is unconstitutional or a
violation of the due process rights of those litigants, and I would
urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition
to this legislation. As my colleague from New Jersey has pointed out
and the ranking member of the subcommittee, this amendment, to begin
with, seems to make no sense at all. It is interesting, as the
gentleman said, you pull the plug, but then everybody is left without a
right. There is no private right of action. There is no place to go.
There were some 1,571 secret ballot elections for union
representation last year that were supervised by the National Labor
Relations Board to certify those unions, or to decertify unions in some
cases where that action was taken in the secret election; and now there
will be no remedy. You won't be able to decertify the union; you won't
be able to certify the union.
There are employees every day who are fired for simply suggesting to
their employer that they would like to have a union. That alone will
get you fired over and over again in this country. That employee is now
without a job, but no right of action to go back and find out whether
that person was wrongfully fired.
The same is true if an employer wants to make an allegation of
secondary boycott, which is illegal under the law. Where do they go for
the remedy? Where do they go? There is no private right of action. It
is contained within the National Labor Relations Act, and it is
administered by the board.
So this amendment just sort of creates chaos; and it denies people
rights, be they employers or employees, be they pro-union or anti-
union, whatever it is. Whatever their situation is, this simply denies
them the ability to take advantage of the law or to have the law
administered in any way or fashion, and it provides really no
alternative to them, because, as I said, this occupies the entire area
for these individuals.
So I don't know if this law is a temper tantrum. I don't know if this
law is just--I don't know what the hell it is. But clearly it doesn't
address what might be legitimate concerns about the operation of the
board.
The board has been controversial over the years and back and forth,
and people have agreed and disagreed with its rulings and its actions.
Or you might want to amend the law. But this amendment doesn't do any
of this. And I would certainly hope that we would continue--when you
look around at other countries, I think you would say this is a pretty
successful system of managing labor relations in the workplace. It
certainly took a history of actions that people considered wrong and
dangerous and concerned about the economy, concerned about individual
safety, concerned about the safety of workplaces and the ability of
businesses to survive, and through the passage of the National Labor
Relations Act regularized that so people had a place to go for their
complaints and determine their rights.
So I would hope that Members of Congress would reject this amendment
and maintain the rights of workers and employers to have their concerns
addressed and adjudicated, if necessary.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1842. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Railroad Retirement Board, Dual Benefits Payments Account''
shall be $57,000,000.
Sec. 1843. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Social Security Administration, Payments to Social Security
Trust Funds'' shall be $21,404,000, and in addition such
funds may be used to carry out section 217(g) of the Social
Security Act.
Sec. 1844. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for the
first paragraph under the heading ``Social Security
Administration, Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' shall
be $10,675,500,000.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Tonko

Mr. TONKO. 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 304, beginning on line 3, strike section 1844.

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chairman, I offer this amendment because I am
seriously concerned about the effect the irresponsible Republican
spending plan will have on our Nation's seniors.
This amendment would stop the cut of $125 million to the Social
Security Administration's operating budget. Slashing funding for the
Social Security Administration is slashing money out of Social
Security, plain and simple. Cuts to Social Security will directly
affect our seniors, there is no way around it; and my amendment seeks
to avert this impending crisis.
The funding in this irresponsible Republican spending plan is over
half a billion dollars less than what Social Security spent in 2010 to
process payments to seniors and carry out basic operations. But the
cost of running Social Security in 2010 will not suffice for 2011. Our
Nation's baby boomers are retiring each month, growing the number of
seniors in the system and the number of claims Social Security must
process each month. This continuing resolution leaves Social Security
more than $1 billion short of what they actually need to help keep
checks going out on time to seniors.

[[Page H1033]]

This irresponsible Republican spending bill creates an enormous
funding shortfall that Social Security will not have to survive on for
the remainder of the year. Both Social Security and the Office of
Management and Budget have confirmed that these massive cuts would
force Social Security to lay off nearly 3,500 employees, furlough other
employees, and close their offices in States across the country for up
to 4 weeks.
What does this mean for seniors on Social Security? It means that
400,000 seniors would not have their applications processed this year.
It means that 290,000 people would not have their disability
applications processed, adding months of wait time for newly sick and
disabled workers with no other source of income.
It means that 70,000 fewer people will have their appeals heard,
burdening seniors and the disabled with wait times of over a year
before their cases can move forward and allow them to receive their
benefits earned. And it means that there will be 32,000 fewer
investigations to root out improper payments, fraud and abuse.
Each month Social Security processes nearly 500,000, half a million,
yes, half a million, new applications from seniors and the disabled.
Employee layoffs and office closures lasting a month would delay
benefits to all those applicants, disrupting seniors' and widows'
checks and delaying payments for those trying to live on a fixed
income.
Furthermore, closing Social Security offices would create a backlog
of applicants, so even when offices reopened they would be dealing with
an ongoing backlog of applications affecting our seniors long into the
future. Who knows when they would ever catch up on the claims.
Never in the history of Social Security has there been a backlog of
retirement and survivors' benefit applications. This bill is certainly
precedent setting. Without a doubt, it would create the first Social
Security backlog in our Nation's history.

{time} 0020

This bill would force the Social Security system to shut its doors
for up to a month, something that will affect every person receiving
Social Security payments. People will get busy signals or unanswered
rings when they call their local offices for help. Seniors will wait
weeks for appointments and wait even longer to access their hard-earned
benefits. Make no mistake about it, the seniors we represent--the
entire body here represents--will feel the impact of these cuts.
The majority is lauding the fact that this bill represents the
largest spending cut in the history of our country. If they want to cut
funding to satisfy that base, fine. But I will not stand for cutting
Social Security. I will not support budget cuts balanced on the backs
of our Nation's seniors and middle class that bail out the rich and
comfortable. I urge defeat of this bill and the adoption of my
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, the amendment proposes a net increase in
the budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under
3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: ``It shall
not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations
bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless
considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an
equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause
2(f) of rule XXI.''
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to speak against the point of order.
My amendment eliminates the extreme and irresponsible budget cuts to
Social Security. These cuts will create massive gaps in Social
Security's operating budget, leading to even larger costs in the
future. My amendment averts this shortsighted downfall, creating a net
budget savings that addresses the gentleman's point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the point
of order.
Mr. TONKO. These cuts pose real threats and force to Social Security
Administration and senior benefits.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York will confine his
remarks to the point of order.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I ask that this point of order be waived. And
on behalf of seniors in my district and seniors across this country who
rely on Social Security, I ask that the gentleman withdraw his point of
order. We cannot blindly cut Social Security in the name of reducing
the deficit without regard to drastic consequences.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. TONKO. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Montana makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York violates section 3(j)(3) of
House Resolution 5.
Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order
is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1845. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for the
first paragraph under the heading ``Social Security
Administration, Supplemental Security Income Program'' shall
be $39,892,164,000, of which $3,402,164,000 shall be for
administrative expenses.
Sec. 1846. Of the funds appropriated for ``Social Security
Administration, Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' for
fiscal years 2010 and prior years (other than funds
appropriated in Public Law 111-5) for investment in
information technology and telecommunications hardware and
software infrastructure, $500,000,000 is rescinded.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Tonko

Mr. TONKO. 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 304, beginning on line 12, strike section 1846.

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I offer this amendment because I am seriously concerned about the
effect of the irresponsible Republican spending bill on our Nation's
seniors and most specifically on our Social Security system. If my
amendment does not pass, $500 million will be stripped from Social
Security. In this nearly 400-page irresponsible Republican spending
bill, which has held no hearings, which was written and debated through
the night and is being rammed through this Chamber, Social Security is
put at risk.
The bedrock and foundation for so many of our Nation's seniors and
retirement is Social Security; and yet this bill would steal half a
billion dollars from the program. This is money that helps keep the
lights on, the doors open, and the checks going out to those who earned
it--those who worked hard and play by the rules. It goes to those who
have rightfully paid into the system and deserve their return on
investment. And it should not be taken away in the dead of night.
Nearly half a billion dollars, if stolen back from Social Security,
will be devastating. In fact, we might as well put the sign on the door
of Social Security now: Sorry, we're closed for business. That is
because a cut of $500 million will lay off employees that process and
mail these checks to seniors. It will furlough every Social Security
Administration employee for a month or more this year. Every worker
that works for the Social Security Administration could potentially
lose his or her job for at least 1 month this year.
Most of my constituents might say, Well, I don't really know anybody
that works for the Social Security Administration. What does that mean
for me? Unfortunately, it means 400,000 people across these United
States will not have their claims processed this year. Think of it.
You're finally eligible for

[[Page H1034]]

Social Security. Your plan for monthly income and budget based on this
program is disrupted. Perhaps it even allows you to retire completely
after a long and productive life of work. You walk up to the office to
apply, but you are greeted with a dark and empty building. Or perhaps
you called to ensure your payments will soon be processed, and all you
get is a dial tone. Nobody is there to answer.
This is unthinkable. Even more egregious, 290,000 disabled workers
would wait months for their claims to be processed, threatening already
vulnerable people with further insecurity. Or imagine you want to
appeal your funding amount or there's an error in your payment. What do
you do?
Something my office prides itself on is helping these appeals get
heard and settled to give Social Security recipients their due payment
and peace of mind. Under this irresponsible Republican spending bill,
which will cut half a billion dollars to Social Security, some 70,000
appeals cases would cry out but nobody would be there to listen, nor
would the Social Security Administration be able to clean up cases of
fraud, abuse, and improper payment. This cut could actually cost the
government more than it saves.
It is no secret that the majority in this body seeks to privatize
Social Security. Their top budget-maker has already proven that in his
plan. This provision in the irresponsible public spending bill is
simply another brick laid along the path to Social Security's
destruction.
President Bush proposed privatizing this program in 2005, and
Americans said ``no.'' We were right to say `` no,'' as Social Security
would have trillions in the stock market during the meltdown of the
Bush recession lost. Instead, Social Security did not lose a single
penny. That bears repeating. In the worst economic recession since the
Great Depression, Social Security did not lose a single penny.
We must protect Social Security from being raided for short-term
political gains. Without it, almost half of all our seniors would be
living in poverty. It makes up 76 percent of the total income for
middle- and low-income seniors. But it is not just the seniors who
depend on Social Security. Families who have lost loved ones are able
to survive on their loved one's benefits, including about 6.5 million
children. Raiding Social Security would hurt them, too.
In 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt uttered a quote that is
as true today as it was 76 years ago. He said, ``We put those payroll
contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and
political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment
benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap
my Social Security program.''
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, the amendment proposes a net increase in
budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under
section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states:
``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments
proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard?
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to speak against the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized and is asked to confine
his remarks to the point of order.

{time} 0030

Mr. TONKO. I want to be clear so that everyone in this House and
everyone watching knows what a $500 million cut to Social Security will
do.
On the point of order, Madam Chair, my amendment eliminates harmful
budget cuts to Social Security, which actually saves more money in the
long term than what is cut by the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York will confine his
remarks to the point of order.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, on the point of order, the Social Security
Administration has said that an additional cut in their funding would
lead to many local offices closing their doors, stopping all claims
processing, and not being able to answer the phones for a month.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemen from New York and Montana will
suspend.
The Chair needs to hear the argument that the gentleman from New York
is making.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, on the point of order, I am disappointed that
the other side submitted a rule that doesn't allow an amendment to save
this funding for Social Security and guarantee that checks go out on
time; but they can right this wrong right now. My amendment will ensure
that checks go out on time. It will ensure that we continue to save
billions by allowing Social Security to continue to go forward.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York will suspend. The
gentleman is not confining his remarks to the point of order.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, I ask to be heard on the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will hear the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Through all of the talking and interrupting, the
gentleman was addressing the point of order directly.
Madam Chair, the point of order alleges that, if Mr. Tonko's
amendment is accepted, it will raise net budget authority in this line.
In fact, as Mr. Tonko has said, if you will look at the net effect of
reducing this line item, the net effect is to increase the amount of
senior poverty, to increase the amount of seniors who are not getting
Social Security checks on time and, therefore, raising the cost to
society and ultimately raising the cost to the budget. In fact, unless
you adopt the Tonko amendment, you will be agreeing not only to slash
services to seniors but to increase the deficit by raising costs
throughout the system.
It is directly on point, and it is important to understand that the
points that Mr. Tonko is making about the quality of the service under
Social Security impacts directly on whether or not this is net higher
budget authority, which it is not. It saves money to endorse the Tonko
amendment. This House should consider it on its merits, ``yes'' or
``no.'' This point of order should be ruled out of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Montana makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York violates section 3(j)(3) of
House Resolution 5.
For the reasons stated in the previous ruling of the Chair, the point
of order is sustained.
The amendment is not in order.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, the support for your last three points of
order rulings against Mr. Tonko has been relying upon the Budget
Committee chairman's advice to the Chair. The Budget Committee chairman
is someone who advocates on behalf of the majority for privatizing
Social Security.
To explain to the viewers and to this Chamber what that means, it is
that he believes and the Republicans believe, if you take Social
Security, which is a guaranteed program that can pay 100 percent of all
of its benefits for at least 26 years, and if you invest a portion of
that in the stock market, it is a better policy.
It is on that person's advice that you have been ruling on the last
few occasions that Mr. Tonko is out of order in trying to preserve that
system that we have.
If there is an important debate in the context of the American budget
in the year 2011, it is the one that Mr. Tonko is trying to engage: It
is privatizing Social Security, which is what this side of the aisle,
Madam Chair, seeks to do, versus keeping this program the way it is--
the single most successful government program, arguably, in American
history.
What Mr. Tonko and many of us are trying to do is to preserve that
program. Let's have this debate on this

[[Page H1035]]

floor in an honest way. For months now, we've had this kind of strange
shadow dance around the idea of the privatization of Social Security.
Well, the chairman of the Budget Committee, not some fringe element of
the Republican Party, has suggested in a book that they paraded around
the country that they are going to offer the privatization of Social
Security as the foundation for their budget.
Now, for the last three amendments, Mr. Tonko has been trying to
engage that debate, and the Chair has said, in using the best judgment
of the Budget Committee, it seems that his policies would increase the
net budget authority in the bill.
Let's put that aside for a moment and have a real full-throated
debate about whose side the different people in this Chamber are on
with regard to this fundamental question of the security of the Social
Security system. Let's review the bidding.
On one side, you have Democrats who have created, supported, and
fought for the Social Security program ever since it was passed in 1933
and ever since the first check went out in 1935. We say it should be
something that generation by generation is there for seniors. One group
works; the seniors retire, and we support each other as part of that
contract. It is fundamental to democratic values--I believe with a
capital ``D'' but also with a small ``d.''
Then you have my Republican friends. They say, You know what? In
watching the stock market, we think it would be a good idea to take a
portion of that Social Security trust fund and sock it into stocks and
equities and bonds. They make an argument that actually has an element
of truth to it. They say, if you'd invested every dime of Social
Security into the stock market since the beginning of the Social
Security system, you would have had more money in it today, because
they say, Look. The stock market has gone way up since 1933.
Yes, but as we all know, it didn't go like this (indicating). Let the
stenographer note my hand going up. It went like this (indicating). Let
the stenographer note a roller coaster shape.
So I ask: Do you want to be one of the seniors who retires in the dip
of the roller coaster?
They apparently want to take that chance. My Republican friends want
to take that chance. We Democrats say, No, this is not a program that
seniors get wealthy on, but it's a safety net program--and it worked.
It took, roughly, a 30 percent poverty level among seniors to the
single digits that we have today.
Then they say, Oh, no, but it will never be there in the future.
The baby boomer generation, the biggest generation in American
history. We've heard that one before. Huh-uh. The baby boomers had
babies. Now they're the biggest generation in American history. Now
they're paying in.
By the way, do you know what helps the Social Security program more
than anything else? People working, people paying Social Security
taxes, people on the job, which are all the things that they're cutting
in this very same budget.
So, as Mr. Tonko tries to make that point and engage that argument, I
see nothing but Members on this side of the aisle cowering under their
desks and hiding behind Roberts Rules.
When the Chair makes her rulings, listen carefully. She says she is
relying on the best judgment of the chairman of the Budget Committee.
Now, I like the chairman of the Budget Committee. He is a fine man--his
judgment, not so much. I think that we should have this conversation
because, if there is a fundamental difference here, it is on Social
Security and its future. We want it to be there.
So I say to people watching at this hour:
First of all, have a warm glass of milk. There might be other ways to
get to sleep. I would say to you, think very carefully about what the
budget debate is about. It's very easy to lose sight of page this, line
that. What it is really about is a fundamental difference in
philosophy.
On the Democratic side of this debate, we are saying let's try to
build this country on a foundation of everyone having a safety net, of
everyone having a basic opportunity, and none of us can really get too
far ahead if we're leaving a whole bunch of people behind.
This debate is not new, and I will let someone else continue it.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I appreciate the comments from my colleague from New
York.
Madam Chair, I think that one thing that comes out, the clarity that
comes out of tonight's debate on this bill, is to look at what, in
fact, the American people have asked us to do. They have asked us to
truly work together to address what their top priority is, which is
creating jobs and fostering economic recovery.
Again, as we listen to this debate that unfolded tonight, what we see
is that, unfortunately, the majority's priorities are deeply out of
touch with those of the country. Democrats are committed to reducing
the deficit. We believe that we start by ending tax subsidies and
special interest waste. We need to make programs accountable and end
the ones that will not work.
But the challenge is not whether we address the deficit and spending,
or not to do that. The question is: Where do we start? Do we start with
slashing special interest waste and ineffective programs, or do we
start with what helps the middle class, our businesses, our working
families, with children, and with seniors?
We could have achieved cuts. We could have achieved cuts in spending
in this continuing resolution.

{time} 0040

It was where the majority decided to start to make cuts. What about
those oil subsidies that we spoke about tonight, $40 billion over 5
years, and eliminating the 10 tax breaks for the oil companies? What
about the $7.4 billion we can save over 10 years by shutting down the
current practice that allows multinational corporations to avoid paying
their taxes? What about cutting agriculture subsidies in half and
saving $8 billion? What about the $3 billion a year we can save by
saying to the pharmaceutical companies that you can no longer pay to
delay in order for us to get cheaper generic drugs to market because it
raises the cost of health care?
Let's do away with the $3 billion that we want to spend on an
alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. That's about $61
billion. That is approximately the amount of money that you are taking
out of K-12 education, Pell grants where you lower the amount of
maximum award that people could get, 9 million people trying to get an
education, trying to be able to get that education in order to be able
to get a job and to go to work, take care of their family, pay their
taxes, and do the right thing. You say no.
Another 1.3 million, you say no to the Supplemental Education
Opportunity Grant so that they can no longer get education. You take
218,000 kids off of Head Start. You lay off 55,000 teachers, you close
down centers around the country, and you don't give youngsters the
opportunity for early childhood education, and we know that that
succeeds.
You tell seniors, up to 10 million, meals will no longer be served to
you because you're a homebound elder, you can't get out. We're not
going to do anything about low-income energy assistance for you--you're
on your own.
It is, in fact, Washington to the country: Drop dead, is what you're
saying to them, and all because there is no courage, no courage at all
to go after the special interests and the tax subsidies that could
overwhelmingly pay for the cuts that we need in order to be able to
bring down the deficit.
That is what's wrong with this bill tonight. The issue is where do
you start. Do you start to cut in that reckless rush to slash without
regard to the impact on our economy, without regard for our businesses
to create jobs, or the middle class or working families who are being
responsible? They're doing the best for their families today. They're
trying to educate themselves for the future. You are hitting families
with children and the elderly, and that is your starting point. It is
not our starting point. Therein lies the difference of Democrats and
Republicans in this continuing resolution debate.

[[Page H1036]]

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair must remind Members that remarks must be
addressed to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 1847. Notwithstanding section 1101, and section 505 of
division D of Public Law 111-117, section 505 of division F
of Public Law 111-8 shall apply to funds appropriated by this
division.
Sec. 1848. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Salaries and Expenses'' shall be
$459,653,000, of which $138,928,000 shall be for compliance
assistance programs: Provided, That the amounts included
under such heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall
be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by substituting
``$89,502,000'' for ``$104,393,000''.
Sec. 1849. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for
``Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institutes of Health, Office of the Director'' shall be
$1,128,800,000, and the fifth proviso under such heading in
division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this Act by substituting ``$495,609,000'' for
``$544,109,000''.
Sec. 1850. The amount provided by section 1101 for
``Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institutes of Health'' is reduced by $639,463,000 through a
pro rata reduction in all of the Institutes, Centers, and
Office of the Director accounts within ``Department of Health
and Human Services, National Institutes of Health'', based on
the total funding levels for each such Institute, Center, and
Office of the Director accounts (excluding the Common Fund).
In addition, the Director of the National Institutes of
Health shall ensure at least a total of 9,000 new competing
research grants are awarded in fiscal year 2011 from all
Institutes, Centers, and Office of the Director accounts
within the ``Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institutes of Health''.
Sec. 1851. Of the unobligated balances available for
``Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Refugee and Entrant Assistance'' in
division D of Public Law 111-117, $77,000,000 is rescinded.

Amendment No. 221 Offered by Ms. Lee

Ms. LEE. 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 306, after line 7, insert the following:
Sec. 1852. (a)(1) Section 4002(b)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``80'' and inserting
``131''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``20'' and inserting
``34''.
(2) Section 4002(f) of such Act is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Rules relating to additional weeks of first-tier
emergency unemployment compensation.--
``(A) In general.--If a State determines that
implementation of the increased entitlement to first-tier
emergency unemployment compensation by reason of the
amendments made by section 1852(a)(1) of the Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 would unduly delay the
prompt payment of emergency unemployment compensation under
this title, such State may elect to pay second-tier, third-
tier, or fourth-tier emergency unemployment compensation (or
a combination of those tiers) prior to the payment of such
increased first-tier emergency unemployment compensation
until such time as such State determines that such increased
first-tier emergency unemployment compensation may be paid
without undue delay.
``(B) Special rules.--If a State makes an election under
subparagraph (A) which results in--
``(i) the payment of second-tier (but not third-tier)
emergency unemployment compensation prior to the payment of
increased first-tier emergency unemployment compensation,
then, for purposes of determining whether an account may be
augmented for third-tier emergency unemployment compensation
under subsection (d), such State shall treat the date of
exhaustion of such increased first-tier emergency
unemployment compensation as the date of exhaustion of
second-tier emergency unemployment compensation, if such date
is later than the date of exhaustion of the second-tier
emergency unemployment compensation; or
``(ii) the payment of third-tier emergency unemployment
compensation prior to the payment of increased first-tier
emergency unemployment compensation, then, for purposes of
determining whether an account may be augmented for fourth-
tier emergency unemployment compensation under subsection
(e), such State shall treat the date of exhaustion of such
increased first-tier emergency unemployment compensation as
the date of exhaustion of third-tier emergency unemployment
compensation, if such date is later than the date of
exhaustion of the third-tier emergency unemployment
compensation.
``(4) Coordination of modifications (relating to additional
first-tier emergency unemployment compensation) with extended
compensation.--Notwithstanding an election under section
4001(e) by a State to provide for the payment of emergency
unemployment compensation prior to extended compensation,
such State may pay extended compensation to an otherwise
eligible individual prior to any additional emergency
unemployment compensation under subsection (b) (payable by
reason of the amendments made by section 1852(a)(1) of the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act of 2011),
if such individual claimed extended compensation for at least
1 week of unemployment after the exhaustion of emergency
unemployment compensation under subsection (b) (as such
subsection was in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of this paragraph), (c), (d), or (e).''.
(3) Section 4004(e)(1) of such Act, as amended by section
501(b) of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law
111-312), is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
``(H) the amendments made by section 1852(a)(1) of the
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011; and''.
(4) Section 4007(b)(3) of such Act, as amended by section
501(a)(1)(C) of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law
111-312) is amended by striking ``June 9, 2012'' and
inserting ``September 22, 2012''.
(b) The Secretary of Labor may prescribe any operating
instructions or regulations necessary to carry out this
section and the amendments made by this section.
(c) The amendments made by this section shall take effect
as if included in the enactment of the Unemployment
Compensation Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-205),
except that no additional first-tier emergency unemployment
compensation shall be payable by virtue of the amendments
made by subsection (a)(1) with respect to any week of
unemployment commencing before the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(d)(1) The budgetary effects of this section, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
(2) This section--
(A) is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-139; 2 U.S.C. 933(g)); and
(B) is designated as an emergency pursuant to section
3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) and as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13
(111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2010''.

____________________