Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 26 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 26 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1081-H1162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MOMENT OF SILENCE IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES AND THEIR
FAMILIES

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas). We are one nation under
God.
The Chair would ask all present to rise for the purpose of a moment
of silence.
The Chair asks that the Committee now observe a moment of silence in
remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their
lives in the service of our Nation in Iraq and in Afghanistan and all
over the world, and their families, and all who serve in our Armed
Forces and their families.
Haven't we got a great military.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehner was allowed to speak out of
order.)

Saluting the Hon. Sam Johnson of Texas

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, you should know that 38
years ago today, Sam Johnson stepped off a plane in Texas after being
held as a prisoner of war for 7 years in Vietnam.
He's a great American.

Amendment No. 196 Offered by Mr. Walberg

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). Without objection, 2-
minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Walberg) 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 217,
noes 209, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 68]

AYES--217

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
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
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
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)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
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
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
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
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
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--209

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

NOT VOTING--7

Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Green, Gene
Matheson
Sullivan
Wittman
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1037

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 68, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 249 Offered by Mr. Canseco

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

[[Page H1082]]

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. 69]

AYES--248

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
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
Chandler
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
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
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
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 (MI)
Rohrabacher
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
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--177

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rogers (KY)
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
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Biggert
Coffman (CO)
Giffords
Gohmert
Keating
Matheson
McIntyre
Wittman

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1041

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 69, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 381 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. 70]

AYES--239

Adams
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
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
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
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
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi

[[Page H1083]]

Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--186

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kinzinger (IL)
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
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
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)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Aderholt
Giffords
Marchant
Matheson
Scott, Austin
Sullivan
Wittman
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1044

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

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

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Price of Georgia). The unfinished business is
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) 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 104,
noes 322, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 71]

AYES--104

Aderholt
Austria
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Camp
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Courtney
Cravaack
Crenshaw
Critz
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Duffy
Ellmers
Emerson
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Granger
Grimm
Guinta
Hall
Hanna
Hayworth
Heinrich
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latham
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marino
McKinley
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Quigley
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Tipton
Tsongas
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Weiner
West
Whitfield
Womack

NOES--322

Ackerman
Adams
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crawford
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hultgren
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kissell
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

Amash
Cicilline

NOT VOTING--5

Gardner
Giffords
Green, Gene
Shuster
Wittman

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1047

Messrs. GARAMENDI and VAN HOLLEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 71, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes.''

[[Page H1084]]

Amendment No. 457 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. 72]

AYES--115

Adams
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Bartlett
Benishek
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Harris
Hartzler
Hayworth
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Long
Lucas
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Palazzo
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Renacci
Ribble
Roby
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Stutzman
Sullivan
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--316

Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
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
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hultgren
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--2

Giffords
Wittman

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1050

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

Amendment No. 276 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The unfinished business
is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) 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. 73]

AYES--249

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
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
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
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
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
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
Shuler
Simpson

[[Page H1085]]

Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--179

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
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)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
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
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
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
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--5

Culberson
Giffords
Green, Gene
Hall
Wittman

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1054

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 73, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 532 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) 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. 74]

AYES--313

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heinrich
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
Kingston
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--117

Amash
Bachmann
Barletta
Barrow
Benishek
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Chabot
Coffman (CO)
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Cravaack
Davis (KY)
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hayworth
Heller
Hensarling
Holden
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Lamborn
Lankford
Lee (CA)
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pence
Peters
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Roby
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--3

Giffords
Jordan
Wittman

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1057

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 74 on H.R. 1, I
mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''
I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record
following rollcall vote No. 74.

[[Page H1086]]

Amendment No. 410 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Price) 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. 75]

AYES--176

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Scalise
Schmidt
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Upton
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--250

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Camp
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
Cravaack
Critz
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hultgren
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
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
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--7

Crowley
Giffords
Harman
Schweikert
Shuster
Sullivan
Wittman

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1100

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

Amendment No. 100 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) 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. 76]

AYES--268

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
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
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dingell
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)

[[Page H1087]]

Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
Weiner
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--163

Ackerman
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kingston
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu

NOT VOTING--2

Giffords
Wittman

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1104

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

Amendment No. 248 Offered by Mr. Canseco

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Canseco) 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. 77]

AYES--274

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
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
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peters
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
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--155

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kildee
Kinzinger (IL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Giffords
Herger
Smith (NJ)
Wittman

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1107

Mr. DIAZ-BALART 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. 29 Offered by Mr. Heller

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Heller) on which further proceedings were

[[Page H1088]]

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. 78]

AYES--190

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boswell
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Costello
Culberson
DeFazio
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kissell
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--241

Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
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
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hultgren
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rogers (AL)
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--2

Giffords
Wittman

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1111

Mrs. ROBY and Mr. NUNNELEE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Sessions

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) 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. 79]

AYES--176

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)

NOES--250

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz

[[Page H1089]]

Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Hartzler
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
Kelly
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
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rogers (MI)
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

DeLauro
Giffords
Hall
Herger
Lewis (CA)
Serrano
Wittman

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1114

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. For the purpose of entering into a colloquy, I
yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the goal of this colloquy is to clarify language
associated with funds provided for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle,
or EFV, in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy section
of the bill. It is my understanding that the accompanying table states
that $145 million of the funds provided for the EFV termination
liability may be released only for use in system development and
demonstration activities upon certification by the Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, is that the language included in the report
accompanying this bill?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The
language which is included in the explanatory tables provides $145
million for termination liability, or for continued system development
and demonstration if certified by the Secretary.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that the Department of Defense
may interpret this language as direction from Congress to terminate EFV
in this year, regardless of any recommendations made by Congress during
debate on the fiscal year 2012 budget.
No matter how this issue is resolved by Congress in fiscal year 2012,
orderly conclusion of the fiscal year 2011 SDD activities that are
already under contract and well underway is essential for the Nation to
get a usable product for its $3 billion investment. My reading of this
language is that it provides sufficient flexibility for the Department
to continue through SDD, and we encourage the Department to do just
that.
Mr. Chairman, is it the intent of the committee to provide sufficient
flexibility for the Department to continue SDD activities related to
the EFV?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman,
that it is the intent of the committee to provide that flexibility. In
fact, it is my hope that the Department exercises this flexibility to
finish SDD activities and get something usable for the $3 billion
investment that we have already made.
Here is a unique opportunity for a win-win situation. The Marines
want to cancel the program, and they would normally pay a $145 million
termination fee. Here is an opportunity, and we believe the contractor
is agreeable, to forego the payment of the $145 million to them, but
use that money to continue the program so that we at least get
something for the $3 billion that we have already appropriated.
If I might expand on the colloquy, one of the problems that we have
in our defense budgeting is that we too often start a program, spend a
lot of money on it, and then decide to terminate it and get little or
nothing for what we already did. So I believe it is important for the
Department to have this flexibility as they negotiate the remaining
activities for the fiscal year.
It is my hope the Department would be able to reach an agreement
which would provide for an orderly conclusion of the fiscal year 2011
SDD activities and ensure the Marine Corps is able to harvest the
advances in technology and beneficial equipment from the program,
should the program not be continued.
Mr. AKIN. Chairman Young, I would appreciate a commitment from you to
work together on the issue, the Appropriations Committee and the Armed
Services Committee, as we consider the fiscal 2012 defense budget. The
Congress must ensure that marines have the equipment they need to
successfully accomplish the missions they are asked to perform, and
that includes amphibious assault.

{time} 1120

I appreciate your willingness to work on this. I think that what
we're doing is we've got $3 billion already invested. As you say, it
doesn't make sense to waste that investment, especially when you're
talking about a very small amount of money to finish up. It leaves the
flexibility to take a really good look at how do we accomplish that
critical mission of moving marines from the ocean to the shore.
So I appreciate your working on this colloquy and agreeing to where
we're going.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman knows that he and I are on the
same page on this issue. We want to get something for the money we've
already spent, and we think this is a way out.
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, as I understand it, if we can add $34
million to the funding, we can get all the testing completed and not
have to pay termination costs under the contract. So it seems to me you
can make a case that this is the most cost-effective thing to do.
That's at least what I understood.
Is that the gentleman's understanding, or should we get the Marine
Corps up here to try to explain this, or somebody?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. My understanding is the $34 million would be to
complete the research and the development of the program and to develop
the new innovations to this particular vehicle.
Mr. DICKS. I think that's a wise course. I look forward to working
with the gentleman on this.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to engage in a colloquy with my
colleague from Florida, the chairman of the House Defense
Appropriations Committee. I stand today to support wounded warrior
rehabilitation programs that support our brave military

[[Page H1090]]

men and women who have sacrificed parts of their body for our freedom;
men and woman who have sacrificed so much that today we can stand here
on this floor and offer our remarks. These programs provide life-
saving, life-changing rehabilitation services to thousands of injured
servicemen and -women.
We must keep our promise to our troops and veterans, consistent with
the Pledge to America, which allows exceptions related to government
funding so that we can honor our commitment to those who have served.
We all know in this Chamber that we can never repay what our military
men and women have sacrificed for us and for our freedom, witnessed
today by Mr. Johnson's presence at the chair and our recognition of the
troops who have served. These programs are a small way to support those
who have sacrificed so much to keep us safe and free.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Dicks, as you begin the difficult
task of reviewing the fiscal year 2012 budget, I ask that you consider
the needs and the well-being of our injured servicemen and -women. I
hope that we can work together to ensure that these types of
rehabilitation programs for wounded warriors are given fair
consideration during that process.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to highlight the success of the
wounded warrior rehabilitation program, specifically those which use
community-based partnerships to provide injured U.S. military personnel
with the opportunity to engage in sports activities as part of their
rehabilitation at DOD medical centers in their home communities. These
programs illustrate the power of sports activities to help wounded
warriors return to a healthy and active lifestyle. Today, thousands of
injured servicemembers from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have
benefited from these programs, and some even participated in the
Department's first Wounded Warrior Games competition held last May.
Wounded warrior rehabilitation programs are located at major DOD
medical treatment facilities, military installations, veterans
facilities, and the communities around the country where our injured
servicemembers live. Wounded warriors, as we all know, ladies and
gentlemen, are heroes for serving our country and important role models
to so many people in our communities. We greatly appreciate their
service, their sacrifice, and their leadership.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue.
Wounded warrior rehabilitation programs that have worked with national
and community organizations have provided substantial support for
injured members of our Armed Forces to participate in physical activity
as an important aspect of their rehabilitation. Research shows that
daily physical activity enhances wounded warriors' confidence,
achievements, and quality of life. These programs are essential, and I
would like to work with my colleague in the upcoming year to ensure
that those programs will continue.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate and thank
the gentleman from Washington for bringing this matter before the House
today. It is something that Mr. Dicks and I have worked with ever since
these wars began--something that we cannot overlook, something that is
extremely, extremely serious--a major debt that we owe to the men and
women who serve our country as warfighters. And so I would say again to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), thank you very much for
bringing this matter before the House today.
Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the ranking
member. I look forward to working with you and Mr. Langevin in making
sure that our wounded veterans returning home are rehabilitated, are
counseled, and receive the medical care and encouragement they need to
lead a fruitful life.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REICHERT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I really think we've got to solve this problem. This is
very unfair, this one program. This is a national program in every
sense of the word, and we have either got to get it authorized or do
whatever we have to do to make this possible. I look forward to working
with you to achieve that.
Mr. REICHERT. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I look
forward to working with you. I really appreciate your enthusiasm and
passion. I know all of us in this body would support this issue once we
can get it solved.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a
colloquy with my friend and distinguished chairwoman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General
Government. I would like to thank you, Madam Chairman, as well as
Chairman Rogers and your respective staffs, for all your hard work. I
appreciate your willingness to work with me and my staff on this issue.
I planned on offering my amendment, No. 264, that would have
prevented any funding in this act to be used for vacant Federal
properties. However it's drafted, this language would have had serious
unintended consequences. We see those sorts of things happen around
here a lot.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the intent behind my
amendment and how it highlights an increasingly larger problem.
According to a Senate report on questionable spending, roughly $25
billion is spent annually to maintain vacant or unused Federal
properties. My goal is to close off that spigot of Federal waste.
Unfortunately, my amendment as drafted would have inadvertently
prevented basic security or the ability to respond to an emergency
situation such as a broken pipe or others.
That being said, even with the current funds, we have numerous vacant
Federal buildings crumbling all across our Nation. The Veterans
Administration alone spends $170 million a year, often on buildings
that they would rather sell, were Congress not standing in the way. In
fact, a good example is those at the Charlie Norwood VA Center in
Augusta, Georgia, that I represent.
If we intend to tackle other difficult problems, we cannot continue
to punt on the simple ones. It is outrageous that hundreds of billions
of dollars have been wasted on unused buildings sitting for over a
decade waiting for renovation funding. We need to sell what isn't
absolutely necessary and in the meantime stop burning dollars on the
maintenance of buildings going to waste.

{time} 1130

The problem with these buildings is symbolic of the Federal
Government as a whole; so large and bloated that some are lost in
limbo, decaying and sapping valuable resources. We have redundant
agencies and regulations lost in the bloat, just like these buildings.
Again, if we hope to make headway on the critical budget issues that we
face as a Nation, we must begin with these smaller commonsense changes.
I hope that my colleagues will allow me to work on this issue with
them during this process and the upcoming 2012 appropriations cycle.
And I just request from the chairman, I hope that you will work with
me. We've got many vacant unused Federal properties all over this
country that we need to stop funding. We need to sell these and reduce
the debt by the funds that we do.
So I'd like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee if she'll be
eager to work with me on this issue.
Mrs. EMERSON. The gentleman raises an absolutely critical issue that
there are examples of all over the country. We are more than willing to
work with you on a continuing basis.

[[Page H1091]]

You may be happy to note that we have cut $1.7 billion from the
public buildings fund in this continuing resolution. But we've got a
lot more work to do. And as we prepare the FY 2012 spending bill, I
think that we'll find more examples. It's very critical to save every
penny we can.
I just want to thank you so much for your dedication to finding all
the waste that we have in the Federal budget.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, chairman. I appreciate your
willingness to work with me.

Amendment No. 189 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by division A of
this Act may be used to research, develop, test, evaluate, or
procure any of the following:
(1) Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
(2) V-22 Osprey aircraft.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentlelady's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate the V-22
Osprey aircraft and the expeditionary fighting vehicle. For years, the
Pentagon has been throwing billions at weapons systems that don't work
and don't keep us safe; weapons systems that are obsolete in the post-
Cold War era; weapons systems that are not giving us bang for the buck.
The V-22 Osprey is essentially a lemon. It makes defense contractors
rich but doesn't make our military strong. It has a notoriously bad
safety record, having killed 30 of our own people in training
exercises, and a deadly V-22 crash in Afghanistan last year was claimed
as a victory by the Taliban. Billions over budget for a weapons system
that's killing our own people--not a good deal for the taxpayer, to say
the least.
The GAO has noted that this plane has trouble flying over 8,000 feet
or in extreme heat. It also has problems carrying troops, transporting
cargo, and operating in high-threat environments.
A combat plane that can't operate in high-threat environments? Is
there anything the Osprey can do? Actually, can it deliver mail? The
President's deficit commission recently recommended we stop writing
blank checks for the Osprey. So did another top official who more than
20 years ago said: ``Given the risk we face from a military standpoint,
the V-22 is at the bottom of the list, and for that reason, I decided
to terminate it.''
That's not a prominent Democrat speaking, Mr. Chairman; that's a
former Secretary of Defense named Dick Cheney.
The Marine Corps' expeditionary fighting vehicle would provide almost
as much savings, between $8 and $9 billion over the next decade. The
President's proposed budget pulls the plug on this system, which is
more than 14 years behind schedule and has also experienced major cost
overruns.
According to the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget, the EFV
breaks down on average every 8 hours and has trouble steering in water.
Shouldn't we be worried about an amphibious vehicle that doesn't steer
well in water? Would you spend billions of dollars on a family car that
breaks down every 8 hours and doesn't steer well?
And besides, even if the EFV ran like a dream, when was the last time
we needed to launch an attack by sea? Once again, we're developing
weapons for enemies that no longer exist.
With spending cut fever having hit Capitol Hill, you would think
these wasteful systems would be among the very first on the chopping
block. But naturally my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
rather scale back the very things keeping people safe and strong--
police on the streets, investments in innovation and infrastructure,
NIH research, education assistance from Head Start to Pell Grants, and
much, much more.
I say we go in a different direction. If we're serious about
restoring fiscal discipline, both the V-22 Osprey and the EFV must go.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the reservation on
the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. We have already had a straight up-or-down vote on the
Osprey and resoundingly supported it here in the committee.
On the expeditionary fighting vehicle, there's a decision been made
by the Secretary of the Navy to end this program. What we're trying to
do is to do it in a way that finishes the research with an additional
$34 million and avoids termination liability.
I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the chairman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We just had a
very good colloquy on the issue of the EFV and we think we have a
solution here that is good for the taxpayer, is good for the Marine
Corps, and is good for the Marines. Here's an opportunity to get
something for the $3 billion that we've already spent on this program.
So I must be opposed to that.
On the V-22, we've already voted on that once during the earlier
procedures on this bill. The V-22 did have some developmental problems
years ago. The V-22 is a most effective weapon being used in
Afghanistan. Because of the high mountains, because of the high
altitudes, because of the weather, the V-22 is the vehicle of choice to
move our war fighters from where they are to where they have to be.
I would hope that the vote would be the same on this amendment as it
was earlier on the V-22, and that's to defeat it. Here is an airplane--
the Marines use this V-22 in Afghanistan on a regular basis because it
has the capability that the CH-46 does not have. It has the ability for
altitude, it has the ability for speed, and it is an outstanding
aircraft today.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, although I support Secretary Gates' call
to terminate the Expeditionary Force Vehicle (EFV), I must
unfortunately oppose the Woolsey amendment because it also seeks to
cancel the Osprey program, whose termination I do not support.
The EFV is clearly not a wise use of American tax dollars. It is 14
years behind schedule and estimated to cost 168 percent more than
originally estimated. Because of these realities, along with the
evolving nature of naval warfare, Secretary Gates, the Secretary of the
Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have all recommended that
it be terminated--and it was not included in President Obama's FY 12
Budget. By contrast, after overcoming a number of operational and cost
concerns, the Osprey has become a top priority for the Marine Corps and
does enjoy command support.
If I could split this amendment into two separate votes, I would do
so. Since I cannot, I will oppose it and continue to pursue a
deliberate, program by program approach to finding needed savings in
our defense budget.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. 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 California
will be postponed.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I would like to turn to my colleague, Chairman Mica of
the Transportation Committee, with an amendment that he has.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Aderholt, first of all, I want to
thank you for recognizing me and also giving me this opportunity to
speak on my amendment which in consultation with you, Mr. Chairman, I
will withdraw and not offer.
That is amendment, I believe it's numbered 543 as printed. Mr.
Aderholt, first I want to thank you for your pledge to continue to work

[[Page H1092]]

with your subcommittee and our full committee in your rigorous
oversight of how the Transportation Security Administration is spending
our scarce resources.

{time} 1140

Unfortunately, the TSA bureaucracy has mushroomed since 9/11 from a
workforce of 16,500 to 62,000 employees today.
The purpose of my amendment is my concern about the growth and
administrative overhead--a huge number of personnel. TSA has more
employees than the Department of State, the Department of Education and
Labor, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development combined.
Now listen to this: TSA headquarters, which is within a few miles of
where we're standing, has 3,776--latest count--administrative
bureaucrats employed, and 27 percent are supervisors of them. The
average pay of these 3,700-plus bureaucrats here is $105,000.
Having helped create TSA in the aftermath of 9/11, I can tell you we
never intended to support this kind of bureaucracy.
Now listen to this: if you think the bureaucracy in Washington is
bad, there are 9,233 non-screener employees at the airports across the
country. There are only 400 airports in the program. That's 20
bureaucrats per airport on average. This agency is totally out of
control. In addition, in the 2012 budget, they have asked for 3,300
more positions.
In its nearly 10 years since creation, Mr. Chairman, TSA still lacks
the institutional capacity to become a performance-driven organization.
On January 28, TSA shut down the most successful screening program we
had. We set up two models, both with Federal supervision and one using
private contractors. Every positive initiative we have ever gotten from
TSA came from those programs, and they shut it down. In addition, one
week later, they granted collective bargaining rights to TSA workers.
It is time that we dramatically reform TSA and cut its massive
administrative bureaucracy. I will work with you. My cuts are not as
surgical as maybe they need to be, but we will work with you to improve
its mission. My goal is for less bureaucracy and to redirect TSA to its
important security mission.
Finally, the failure of TSA puts this Nation at risk--read the GAO
reports--with the total failure of the SPOT program, the behavior
recognition program. Get the classified briefings on the failure of the
advanced technology. They went out and bought $500 million worth of
equipment, and spent another $500 million to install it. The failure is
dramatic. You can read that as Members of Congress.
The failure of the pat-down program. Everyone is getting patted down.
Do you think that's helpful? I implore Members to get a classified
briefing and see, again, the results of that failure.
The failure to have even a pilot identification. Six years ago, I
asked for a pilot identification that's durable, not something that
looks like it came out of a crackerjack box, with the pilot's
photograph on it and a biometric measure. After spending millions of
dollars, TSA gave a card, but the only pilots on it were Wilbur and
Orville Wright. The biometric measure that they put in is a total
failure. Any credit card you have in your wallet has a better
capability than what they have produced.
It is failure after failure, and they put us at risk. I thank you for
offering to work with me to make the necessary changes.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say, Mr. Mica, that I completely understand your interest in
pushing TSA to meet its mission in a most cost-effective manner.
Because of these concerns, we have placed a number of provisions
within the CR, provisions which constrain TSA spending to include a
firm cap on the number of airport screeners TSA may hire in FY11.
Additionally, we have included a strong oversight provision requiring
them to report on their efforts to incorporate more advanced integrated
technology into the checkpoints.
Let me add that our subcommittee fully intends to review all of TSA's
security and management practices as we prepare for the FY12 Homeland
bill. I plan to carry forward and expand within the FY12 bill the
oversight that we began with the CR. I would like to work closely with
you and your committee in an effort, as we move forward, to try to
address these concerns that you shared with us this morning.
Let me just say that we certainly in this country want to strike a
balance between having security in this Nation and making sure that we
have appropriate oversight.
I appreciate you calling attention to these issues that you mentioned
this morning. I can assure you our committee will work with you in
trying to work toward doing a better job in oversight for TSA and in
making sure we do have the security we need for this country.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, when we first stood up
TSA, I chaired that subcommittee. We put a limit on the number of
employees that TSA could have.
They first wanted, I think it was, 30,000 people. We said no. Then
they went up to 35,000; then they went to 40,000; then they went to
43,000. I said time out. So we put a limit of 44,000 on the number of
TSA employees that were allowed. That cap stayed in place until 2006,
which is when the other party gained control of this body. The cap came
off.
Mr. Mica, I don't know the total number. I think it's in the 60s.
Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. The number is 62,000, of which we have 3,770 administrative
personnel in Washington, DC, and another over 9,000 administrative
personnel in non-screening positions across the country.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. We've heard your statement. We're up to
62,000 now and it's way too much.
Let me ask the chairman: Is there a cap now reinstated in this bill
for TSA employees?
I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. We have a cap of 46,000 in this bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. They can't go above 46,000?
Mr. ADERHOLT. That is correct.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. There are 62,000.
So there will be some reductions; am I correct?
Mr. ADERHOLT. We are looking at absolutely doing that, yes, sir.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Chairman Mica and Chairman
Aderholt, who are working together to rein in this organization, which
has almost gone beyond belief, so that we can get some discipline and
some savings in this organization.
I don't know about you, but at the airports I go through, there are
way too many TSA employees just standing around, making conversation
with each other. That's okay, but we are overstaffed at TSA. This bill
gets us back to being within some degree of reason.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me just clarify that the number of screeners is
capped at 46,000 right now.
Let me assure you that we will continue to monitor that to make sure
that your concerns from when you were chairman of this subcommittee--
and of course the chairman of the Transportation Committee's concerns--
will be addressed. I appreciate both of your input this morning, and we
look forward to working with you both.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Really quickly, I support everything my
colleagues just said, but I want to deviate

[[Page H1093]]

a little bit and talk about something real quickly that needs to be
discussed.
Mr. Chairman, we have sent two or three letters to the President--
Congressman Poe, Congressman Royce and I and others--regarding our
southern border. We just had two ICE agents attacked. One was killed.
Seventy, eighty miles into Arizona, there are signs telling the
American people: Don't go south of here because of the danger.

{time} 1150

This is in America. We have drug dealers sitting in spy sites in the
United States monitoring the border from the U.S. side to make sure
that they can bring their drugs across and bring people across in their
vans and other ways. It is a real problem.
Now, we sent 17,000 people down to the gulf when the oil spill took
place. We haven't sent over 1,400 National Guard people down and not
even near the border in many cases, and we've got a terrible problem.
Farmers and people are scared to death to go along the 1,980-mile
border between us and Mexico, and the President has ignored letter
after letter after letter that would deal with this problem.
And I would just say to the administration, if they were listening,
let's get on with protecting that southern border. It's a war zone, and
people are afraid, scared to death down there, and they're being killed
and bullets are coming across the border. So I'd just like to say that
I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage the administration to
really get on with protecting our southern border.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I agree with the gentleman. I've been down there on that
southern border. I would just point out, though, that yesterday we
killed the National Drug Intelligence Center, which is used by the
Justice Department to try and target the people coming across, I mean,
this was a Justice Department program, but your side killed it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reclaiming my time, sending National Guard
troops down there en masse to protect that border until it's completely
secure, along with the border patrol agents, will do the job. The cut
yesterday would not affect this kind of an approach to solving the
problem.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Latham, in a colloquy.
As the gentleman knows, I believe the implementation of the next
generation of air traffic control is a very necessary and critical step
in bringing our aviation system into the 21st century. The Nation's
aviation transportation network is currently based on an outdated,
outmoded, decades-old, land-based radar system. Our cell phones have
better capability than our air traffic control system. The next
generation of air traffic control reflects an approach to move forward
while making our aviation system much safer, much more efficient, and
much more cost-effective by moving it to a satellite-based system that
will benefit all Americans.
Once fully implemented, the next generation system will reduce flight
delays, saving Americans billions of dollars in lost productivity.
Aircraft will be able to operate more efficiently, resulting in less
fuel consumption. Congestion at some of our Nation's busiest airports
will be significantly reduced, freeing up much needed airspace to
accommodate growth in the aviation sector.
And I'm particularly proud that most of the work that is being done
to validate the FAA's next generation of air traffic control is being
done at the Federal Aviation Administration's Technical Center in my
district in New Jersey that will help develop this and implement it.
That is why I rise today, and while I strongly support the House's
effort to reduce wasteful government spending, I am also very concerned
about programs that could be affected unintendedly, and this measure
includes a slight reduction in the FAA's facilities and equipment
account, an account which could provide some of the funding for the
work associated with NextGen. Can the gentleman assure me that this
reduction will not negatively impact the critical work that is taking
place on the next generation of air traffic control.
Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I, too, share his commitment to NextGen, and I believe that this
program is essential to achieving the much-needed improvements in our
aviation system. The committee has consulted with the FAA. We believe
that these modest savings will be beneficial to the taxpayers while
providing the FAA with the funds necessary to continue to do the
important work in bringing NextGen to fruition.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Latham, for sharing that information and
for your commitment to the next generation of air traffic control, and
I look forward to continuing to work with you and the committee and
this body to see that accomplished.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. I had an amendment, which has now been ruled out of order,
to create an Afghanistan-Pakistan study group. The war in Afghanistan
has been going on for 10 years. The first person killed in Afghanistan
was from my congressional district, Michael Spann. I was the author of
the Iraq Study Group, where we got Baker and Hamilton in a bipartisan
way to come together to look at the war. I have asked the
administration to do something, and quite frankly, when I read
Woodward's book, ``Obama's War,'' it was depressing because it almost
looks like they're approaching this on basically political ways,
political means.
The war has now been going on for 10 years, and quite frankly, I
think not only has the administration failed, but Congress has failed.
So what I hope to do is to, at an appropriate time, offer an amendment
to create an Afghanistan-Pakistan study group, modeled after the Iraq
Study Group, and put on people like Sam Nunn; former chairman of the
House Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter; Ryan Crocker, who was our
former ambassador to Iraq and who supports the concept; General Jack
Keane, who was author of the surge; General Charles Krulak, who was the
Commandant of the Marine Corps; General Zinni, who was Commandant of
the Marine Corps; and Ike Skelton, former chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee, to see are we fighting this war the right way, are
we doing the right thing.
And I believe we need fresh eyes on the target, and when you look at
and read ``Obama's War'' by Woodward, you can see there are no fresh
eyes on the target, and we owe it, we owe it to the men and women that
are fighting in Afghanistan and dealing with this issue to make sure
that we are doing everything possible--and I don't know what the answer
is--everything possible to make sure that we're doing what we should do
as a Nation.
And with that, I hope when there's an opportunity I can offer this
amendment--because I don't think the administration is going to do this
by Executive order--that we can adopt because we owe it to our fighting
men.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. HARTZLER. I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman
from Florida.
I stand today to support our brave military men and women and their
families who sacrifice in the service of freedom. Mr. Chairman, can you
assure me that this bill will not in any way harm or put to risk our
troops?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. HARTZLER. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentlelady for raising the
question. It's something we should discuss more and more, and in fact,
we have an obligation to our troops and our warfighters and our
veterans.

[[Page H1094]]

I would say that Mr. Dicks and I worked long and hard to come up with
the savings that we were instructed to come up with, and I can
guarantee the gentlelady, we did not create anything that would have an
adverse effect on our warfighters. It would not have an adverse effect
on our Nation's readiness, would not have an adverse effect on their
training and their preparation for war.
So I say to the gentlelady, I share her very strong commitment, and I
thank her for her strong commitment, and our subcommittee has the same
strong commitment. So I can assure her.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, in our
Constitution one of the few things that we're supposed to do here is to
provide for the common defense, and I know I'm committed to doing that,
and I know you're committed to doing that, and yet we have this
continuing resolution, and so that certainly makes me feel more
confident that in our efforts that our troops are being watched out for
and their families.
So I thank you for that commitment, and will you continue to promise
to work with me through this coming year to move forward to ensure that
our troops and their families are supplied with all that they need?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I can, and I would like to say that we look
forward to working with you during this Congress as we do what it is
that you want us to do.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you very much for your commitment. I look
forward to it.

{time} 1200

Mr. CULBERSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chair, in an effort to help my constituents
understand, the country understand, and even almost understand the
scale of the problem we face, it's important I think to think of the
expenses, the obligations of the Federal Government in terms of our own
budget, that if we in our own lives take our income, you've got to
calculate your income and your expenses. And the things you have got to
pay first are the mortgage; you have got to pay the light bill. You
have to make sure that, above all, the expenses of your home are paid
first. And in the same way, the Federal Government must pay the
expenses of the mandatory programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, Social
Security, the interest on the national debt, our obligation to our
veterans. Those programs must be paid first.
We bring in about $2.2 trillion in revenue every year from all
sources. When you take into account what the Federal Government must
pay to our veterans, to the mandatory spending programs, those programs
cost about $2.3 trillion. Therefore, the way to think about the scale
of the problem we face is to analyze it in terms of, when do we, as a
Nation, run out of cash and have to start borrowing? When is national
credit card day? And in analyzing that, I discovered that we actually
don't have a national credit card day.
At the stroke of midnight on the first day of the fiscal year, the
United States Government has already borrowed $105 million. Now, tax
freedom day occurs in May, far too late in the year when we begin to
work for ourselves and no longer are working to pay taxes. But as a
Nation, we begin to borrow money. We have already borrowed $105 million
at the stroke of midnight that must be paid off by our kids. And the
scale of the problem, therefore, is far larger than the appropriations
bill we face here today.
We, in this new majority, were elected by the Nation to begin to deal
with the terrible burden of the debt, the terrible burden of these
unfunded liabilities that our children and our grandchildren are going
to pay. For the first time in history, our predecessors in this
Congress, our predecessors in the White House, and this President have
loaded our children up with an unparalleled, unprecedented level of
debt that we today in this debate on this appropriations bill are
beginning to deal with. The $100 billion cuts that we are making here
today will allow us to stop borrowing for about 5 days. We'll get out
to, say, Friday before we have to start borrowing money.
The scale of the problem is so huge that if we think of it in terms
of when, as a Nation, we have to start borrowing money, when is
national credit card moment, then we, I think, can help explain to the
public the urgency of getting spending under control, of cutting back
everywhere we can, of focusing the Nation on its core functions under
the Constitution.
We, in this new majority, are committed to restoring the
constitutional limits on our Federal Government, restoring the 10th
Amendment, restoring individual liberty wherever we can. And in so
doing, as Thomas Jefferson liked to say, if you apply the Constitution,
the knot will untie itself. No matter what the problem is, Mr.
Jefferson liked to point out, that if we simply apply the Constitution,
the knot will untie itself.
What lies ahead of us if we do not deal with this problem, not only
of the spending year to year, but we've got to really dramatically deal
with the fraud, the waste, and the abuse in our social welfare problems
to begin to deal with them realistically--both parties, Republicans and
Democrats--and controlling the explosive growth of the entitlement
programs.
In looking at the history of the Roman Empire, Mr. Chair, we see that
at the end of the Roman Empire one writer of the period went so far as
to suggest that those who lived off the Treasury in the Roman Empire
were more numerous than those paying into it. At the end of the empire,
under Diocletian and Constantine, when it really began to decline, the
Roman Empire taxed its citizens more heavily, conscripted their labor,
and regulated their lives and their occupations in every detail. The
Roman Empire became a coercive, omnipresent, all-powerful organization
that subdued individual interests and levied all resources towards one
overarching goal, the survival of the state.
We, as a Nation, have got to deal with the scale of the spending, the
debt, these unfunded liabilities that are being passed on to our kids
or, if we're not careful, the United States will follow the Roman
Empire in devaluing our currency, in the level of debt at a scale that
can't be repaid. And you saw it towards the end of the Roman Empire
where taxation became so heavy that it consumed all the resources of
the state.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I would point out that at the end of the
Roman Empire, the one writer of the period pointed out that it was
actually very common for Romans who were taxed so heavily, who were
crushed and so overwhelmed with bureaucracy, that they actually
welcomed the invaders who were taking over the Roman Empire.
It's a decisive moment in American history, Mr. Chair. We in the new
majority, this constitutional conservative majority, are bringing these
amendments. I thank Mr. Rogers for bringing this bill to the floor, the
largest cuts we've ever seen in annual spending. We as a nation are at
a turning point, and I am convinced that we finally are beginning to
deal with this problem and we'll get spending under control.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 208 Offered by Mr. Cole

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment, and it's on an
issue we voted on as recently as 3 weeks ago. Very simply put, my
amendment prohibits the use of funds under this act to administer or
carry out any of the activities for the Presidential Election Campaign
Fund or to transfer public dollars to political conventions under
chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Just 3 weeks ago, this House passed H.R. 359, which eliminated
taxpayer financing for Presidential election campaigns and political
party conventions. This bill passed by a vote of 239-160

[[Page H1095]]

under a modified open rule. If signed into law, it will save $617
million over 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, today's amendment is a down payment on that goal. CBO
scored this amendment as saving $38 million in budgetary authority and
$40 million in outlays for fiscal year 2011. We all know on this floor
we need to cut spending. Mr. Chairman, we can start today by canceling
political welfare for politicians and political party conventions. This
is an easy amendment that I urge all Members to support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentleman from New York is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
It's interesting that the gentleman calls it political welfare for
elected officials. We should remember why this was created and when it
was created. This was created after Watergate, and it was created as an
understanding that we needed to move more and more to a situation where
folks with a lot of money would not go around controlling our
elections. The gentleman calls it political welfare for Presidential
candidates, but, in fact, without this, it is totally in the hands of
people making donations; whereas, here, it is the average American
citizen who gets a chance to donate to this campaign.
We know that a lot of the amendments that will come up today are
directed not necessarily at issues but, I believe, and many of us
believe, are directed at who is the resident of the White House right
now. We have an election coming up in 2012, and I think some would
rather have an open-ended private contribution situation where a lot of
very wealthy people in this country control the giving to elections. I
really think that this is an amendment that sounds like a savings, but
it isn't. It is part of many amendments we will see today to strike at
this particular President and at the White House and at the expenses
that have to do with the President of the United States.
So I would hope that folks understand first of all why this was
created, why it's been important, why Presidential candidates accept
this kind of funding, but, most importantly, why it allows the American
taxpayer the ability--the ability--to decide if he or she wants to
participate in having something to do with how the election gets
funded.

{time} 1210

No one is forced to do this. This is just an opportunity for the
average American to participate. So I really hope that, in a bipartisan
fashion, people turn this down and reject this amendment.
I yield back.
Mrs. EMERSON. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. I rise in support of the Cole amendment because I think
political candidates should rely on private donations rather than tax
dollars for their political campaigns.
And I might mention to my very dear friend, Mr. Serrano, that I think
that the President of the United States today showed the best example
of people all around the country of every financial means contributing
to his campaign. Friends of my children did $5 a month or offered $10.
I mean, that was the most incredible show of involvement that I've seen
in my life. And so to say that it would be against this precedent, I
think, is just not fair.
I also think that this amendment adds to the good work done by Mr.
Cole and our leader's office, with the YouCut bill, H.R. 359. And
according to the CBO, this amendment will actually save $38 million.
And $38 million is $38 million. And quite frankly, we're looking to
save as many tax dollars as possible.
So, Mr. Chair, I would strongly support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. 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 Oklahoma
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 514 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce the requirements in--
(1) section 34(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229a(a)(1)(A));
(2) section 34(a)(1)(B) of such Act;
(3) section 34(c)(1) of such Act;
(4) section 34(c)(2) of such Act; and
(5) section 34(c)(4)(A) of such Act.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as Members are aware, H.R.
1 provided no funding in 2011 for firefighter hiring grants, also known
as SAFER grants, a reduction of $420 million. Fortunately, yesterday
the House resoundingly overturned that ill-advised move and adopted an
amendment by Mr. Pascrell to restore the funding.
But my colleagues should be aware that funding is only part of the
problem with this bill when it comes to the SAFER program. The
underlying bill also neglects to maintain provisions enacted in fiscal
years 2009 and 2010 that allowed fire departments to use these grants
to rehire laid-off firefighters and to prevent others from being laid
off in the first place.
The law traditionally permits SAFER grants only to hire new staff.
That provision makes sense when our economy is booming and local
governments are in a position to hire new workers. But when the
recovery is still fragile and local budgets are actually contracting
and workers are being laid off, FEMA needs the flexibility to use these
grants to keep firefighters from being cut off in the first place.
After all, the purpose of the SAFER program is to help maintain a
safe level of fire staffing across the country. According to the
firefighter organizations, over 5,000 firefighter jobs have been lost
since 2008, and another 5,200 are currently at risk. Right now, the
safety of our communities is being jeopardized by potential and actual
layoffs of public safety personnel, not mainly because of a reluctance
to hire new personnel.
This amendment also continues provisions from 2009 and 2010 that
waived certain budgetary requirements local fire departments have to
fulfill in order to receive a grant. These include not allowing our
fire department's overall budget to drop below a certain level, not
reducing staff over a number of years, even if budgets continue to
suffer, and providing local matching funds. Again, these provisions are
fine when local coffers are healthy, but we all know how strapped our
cities and counties are right now, and these requirements, quite
simply, are impossible for many of them to meet.
So, Mr. Chairman, if we don't pass this amendment and waive these
provisions, the fire organizations tell me that very few departments
will be able to apply for funds. The burden of these requirements is
simply too much right now. The result will be more firefighter layoffs,
fewer rehires, and a less prepared country.
Mr. Chairman, in weighing this amendment I encourage colleagues to
consider the intent of the SAFER program: ensuring we have a safe level
of staffing of our Nation's preeminent first responders, firefighters,
and ensuring that our communities have workable options for keeping
their firefighting staffs at full strength.
We've already overwhelmingly supported funding for firefighter jobs
by adding funding back to the SAFER program. If we really support these
jobs, we should vote to allow these funds to be used flexibly, in the
best way possible to keep the firefighters on staff.
I yield back.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.

[[Page H1096]]

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to add
$510 million to assistance to firefighter grants by devastating the
Department of Homeland Security's developing science and technology
programs.
It's only prudent that we use this money in a very responsible
manner, by forcing the local communities to comply with the original
intent of the SAFER programs, by sharing in the cost of hiring their
personnel, by creating new jobs, and by committing to retain newly
hired firefighters.
In today's lean economy, we cannot use precious taxpayer money to
subsidize a local responsibility.
At this time I would like to yield to the past chairman of this
subcommittee on Homeland Security and the new chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations, Chairman Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding, and thank
him for the great work he's doing chairing this subcommittee in the
House.
As Chairman Alderholt has said, SAFER was originally authorized for
the purpose of increasing the number of new firefighters in local
communities, a hand up, not a handout.
SAFER was not intended to rehire or retain firefighters, and
certainly was not intended to serve as an operating subsidy for what is
unquestionably a municipal local responsibility.
The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act contains very specific
requirements that local communities have to meet in order to obtain
funds. However, the Democrats waived many of these requirements in
fiscal 2009 and then again in 2010.
When initially proposed by the Democrats in 2009, then Chairman
Price, my friend, acknowledged that these waivers were just a short-
term, temporary effort that would expire at the end of fiscal 2010.
Yet, here we are today, debating the continuation of a subsidy that our
country simply cannot afford.
Under these costly waivers, there are no controls, no salary limits,
no local commitments. These proposed waivers totally undermine the
original purpose and intent of the SAFER program by forcing the
taxpayers to subsidize the everyday operating expenses of local first
responders, taking over, in essence, the funding of the local firemen.
Given our Nation's dire fiscal situation, we must take a stand that
it is not the Federal Government's job to bail out every municipal
budget or to serve as the fire marshal for every city and town across
the country.
I want to thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding. And I
strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and vote
``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ADERHOLT. 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 North
Carolina will be postponed.

{time} 1220

Amendment No. 404 Offered by Mr. Walden

Mr. WALDEN. 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:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement the Report and Order of the Federal
Communications Commission relating to the matter of
preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices
(FCC 10-201, adopted by the Commission on December 21, 2010).

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of
my Energy and Commerce Committee colleague, Mr. Stearns, as well as Mr.
Terry and Chairman Upton, and my appropriations colleagues, Mrs.
Emerson, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and Mr. Graves of Georgia.
We all want an open and thriving Internet, and that Internet exists
today. Consumers can access anything they want with the click of a
mouse, thanks to our historical hands-off approach. Changing direction
now will only harm innovation and the economy.
I am bringing up this funds limitation today to prevent the Federal
Communications Commission from spending funds to implement its network
neutrality rules regarding the Internet. It is a stopgap measure while
we work toward passing a more permanent solution, a Resolution of
Disapproval, H.J. Res. 37, which would nullify the rules themselves.
And I would encourage everyone who cares about keeping the government
out of the business of running the Internet to cosponsor that
resolution.
Before we even get into the harm the network neutrality rules would
cause, it is important to realize the FCC's underlying theory of
authority would allow the Commission to regulate any interstate
communication service on barely more than a whim and without any
additional input from the Congress. In essence, the FCC argues it can
regulate anything if, in its opinion, doing so would encourage
broadband deployment.
I am relieved, however, that the FCC declined under its newfound
authority to regulate coffee shops and bookstores, airlines, and other
entities. Now, this of course means that the FCC believes that if it
had not so declined, it would have subjected WiFi and coffee shops and
bookstores to government management.
If left unchallenged, this claim of authority would allow the FCC to
regulate any matter it discussed in the national broadband plan. Recall
that the FCC concluded that consumers' concerns over privacy are
deterring broadband. So does that mean the FCC can regulate Internet
privacy?
The national broadband plan also addresses health IT and distance
learning, smart grids, smart homes, smart transportation. Can the FCC
regulate all these matters, too, in the name of promoting broadband?
Under the FCC's rationale, its authority is only bounded by its
imagination.
The Internet started as a Defense agency project to connect computers
at research facilities. It did not become the explosive driver of
communications and economic growth it is today until it was opened up
to free enterprise to participate in. And the American entrepreneurs
and innovators did what they did best: They grew jobs and they created
new technology.
As early as the 1970s, the FCC took a hands-off approach to data
services. FCC Chairman William Kennard reaffirmed this approach during
the Clinton administration. In rebuffing requests to regulate cable
Internet access service, Chairman Kennard explained in a 1990 speech,
and I quote, ``The fertile fields of innovation across the
communications sector and around the country are blooming because, from
the get-go, we have taken a deregulatory competitive approach to our
communications structure, especially the Internet.''
There is no crisis warranting departure from this approach. Most
everything that the order discusses is either an unsubstantiated
allegation or speculation of future harm. The FCC even confesses in its
order that it has done no market analysis. It only selectively applied
the rules to broadband providers, shielding Web companies.
If the mere threat of Internet discrimination is such a concern, and
if the FCC has done no analysis to demonstrate why one company has more
market power than another, why would discrimination by companies like
Google or Skype be any more acceptable than discrimination by companies
like AT&T or Comcast?
Instead of promoting competition, such picking of winners and losers
will stifle the investment needed to perpetuate the Internet's
phenomenal growth, hurting the economy.
Section 230 of the Communications Act makes it the policy of the
United States to ``preserve the vibrant and competitive free market
that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer
services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.''
Statutory statements of policy are not grants of regulatory
authority, but they can help delineate the contours of

[[Page H1097]]

that authority. In light of Congress' statutory pronouncement that
Internet regulation is disfavored, the FCC's theory of regulation by
``bank shot'' stretches too far.
At bottom, this is little more than an end run around the D.C.
circuit court's April 2010 ruling in the Comcast case that the FCC
failed to show it had ancillary authority to regulate network
management. Therefore, I urge your support of this amendment, as well
as your support of H.J. Res. 37, our resolution of disapproval.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
It shouldn't surprise me by now, but it's amazing how folks will
continue to get up during the day, during the year, during the next 2
years in support of the big guys against the little guy. And so the FCC
ruled, and ruled in a way that protects and keeps the Internet open for
all of us, and we should remember that.
It issued an order providing for a version of net neutrality that
allows the FCC to regulate how Internet service providers manage access
to content, requires certain transparency from the providers about
their policies, and requires reasonable management of traffic on their
networks. Now, all of a sudden there is such a reaction to simply
setting some rules.
While we all use the Internet, there are still many parts of this new
service behavior that have not been looked at and where it allows some
folks to just overrun other people. And if there was ever a decision
made by the FCC that's in favor of the consumer, this is one of them.
So, of course, we will try to scale it back.
But there are other issues here. I am a member of the Appropriations
Committee, and, as such, I think it's the greatest committee and the
most important committee in the history of man- and womankind. But I
know that there are times that even we should not take up an issue that
belongs to people who are much more qualified and have the time to sit
down and look at it carefully. And when I say ``qualified,'' I know
that scares a lot of people. We're all qualified, but there are some
people who pay a lot of attention to this issue on a daily basis. And
we have the folks from the Commerce and Energy Committee who have done
a lot of work, and my first feeling here is that this should be left to
the authorizing committees to continue to work on. In fact, they have
been holding hearings and doing that kind of work.
One of the great virtues of the Internet: its openness. The ability
of so many people to connect with so many other people without
interference from companies providing the service. The FCC has been the
guardian of that openness and needs authority to continue to do so.
The Internet has become more and more important in our lives, and we
need to allow the FCC to play an appropriate role in making sure that
it continues to remain accessible to everyone as a level playing field.
The FCC's ability to address other Internet policy concerns such as
privacy and accommodation for people with disabilities is also at
stake.
Now, for Members who are on the floor who may be new to Congress, let
me just alert you to something. You are going to see amendments today
and during this Congress telling the FCC not to get involved. Then you
are going to see some issues come back that haven't been around for a
few years about certain personalities on radio and TV, and you are
going to see the same folks who are telling the FCC to stay out of it
telling them to get into it and control what those folks say on radio
and TV. And that's going to create a big debate once again. So we have
to be careful what we wish for. Do we want less involvement? More
involvement? We should be consistent.
Lastly, I really believe that this should be left to the authorizers
to continue to work on, a ruling by the FCC to be respected at this
point, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

{time} 1230

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. I rise in support of this amendment. As the chair of
the subcommittee that has oversight over FCC from the appropriations
standpoint, I feel very strongly that in spite of what my friend on the
other side of the aisle said with regard to the authorizers doing their
work because they are doing a good job, but the fact of the matter is,
as usual, the regulators have swept in again and without authority, or
at least moving well past authority that Congress provides to agencies,
and particularly to this agency, they have run in with a sweeping
regulation that if we don't do something today about it, they will put
small businesses like Boycom in my district, which is a family-owned
business, husband and wife who own a small company, who will be
devastated by this regulation.
The fact is that it is our responsibility to legislate, and the
regulators should follow the legislation that we write and we pass and
get signed into law, not create it on their own. Certainly this is
very, very important for us as appropriators. As a result of the FCC
overstepping its bounds, we have to get involved. So I would urge a
``yes'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman from New York has indicated that this is
the big guys against the little guys. Actually, he has it wrong. But if
the government steps in and regulates the Internet, then really the
little guy, the upstart company, won't have a chance. So anytime the
government comes in and stipulates through regulation, it really hurts
the little guys. The big guys can handle the litigation. They can
handle all the legal forms and filling them out and handle the politics
of it, but the little guy has no chance. So this really is trying to
help the little guy.
The other point is, I think as the gentlelady pointed out from the
Appropriations Committee, the FCC really doesn't have the jurisdiction.
This belongs in Congress. So really this amendment in a larger sense is
trying to prevent the FCC from regulating the Internet.
I think all of us agree that one of the bright spots of this economy
has been the technology sector; yet for some reason the FCC has decided
to step in and overstep its bounds and apply perhaps 19th-century
regulation.
They would really like to put this into title II, which is the old
rotary telephone service, instead of keeping it in title I, which is
information service. So they tried to compromise and put something into
title I. But they still have a process in place to put Internet
regulation into title II. They have created a chill in the broadband
economy because a lot of the manufacturers and a lot of the Internet
providers and people who are putting down broadband see this open
process and are concerned. So it creates a chill because they see the
FCC still going about considering regulating the Internet under title
II instead of the information services so again there is uncertainty
created in the broadband marketplace.
I think this amendment is simple. In a sense it says the FCC does not
have the jurisdiction, and in a larger sense says we don't need the
government to step in with new and cumbersome regulation.
At this point let me yield time to the chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Stearns.
I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friends Mr.
Walden, Mr. Stearns and others on both the authorizing as well as the
Appropriations Committee.
There is an old adage, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Internet
is not broken. It is working. It is creating jobs. Look at all the
devices out there, whether it be iPods, iPhones, BlackBerrys, cell
phones. Look at all the things that are working. We don't need
regulations on the Internet.
I think it was George Will that said that most Americans think the
government doesn't work so well and the

[[Page H1098]]

Internet does. Why are we allowing the FCC then to regulate the
Internet? It makes no sense.
This amendment denies funds to the FCC to implement this order. It is
a good amendment. I would like to think it would be bipartisan. I
support the authors that are offering this.
Mr. STEARNS. I would just close by saying it is not appropriate for
the unelected FCC to regulate interstate communication services on
barely more than a whim and without any additional input from the
United States Congress. If left unchallenged, this claim of authority
would allow the FCC to do anything, anything it could allege to promote
broadband under their jurisdiction, which they don't have.
So Congress must stop the FCC. This amendment will do that just by
preventing any money from being spent to implement these rules. I urge
its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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. I thank you very much for recognizing me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the proposal.
This amendment is bad policy. It would overturn a decision by the FCC
enacted last December that would protect the Internet from those who
might interfere with the ability of consumers to access whatever they
want.
Mr. Upton simply said a minute ago a lot of jobs are created by the
Internet. Well, that is why we shouldn't stop the FCC. The most vibrant
sector of our economy today is our Internet economy. U.S. companies
like Google, Facebook, Amazon and E-Bay are leading the world in
innovation; and they all urge the FCC to protect and open the Internet
because commonsense baseline rules are critical to ensuring that the
Internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation and global
competitiveness. In fact, these high-tech and high-growth companies
urged the FCC to adopt even stronger rules than it did.
Contrary to the hyperventilated rhetoric from the majority, the FCC
rules do not regulate the Internet. They do not grant the government
the power to turn off the Internet. They do not determine what content
is appropriate for users to access. Their goal is just the opposite.
They prevent Internet gatekeepers, like Verizon, from deciding what
content their subscribers can access.
But the FCC rules were a very light touch regulation, and it is
notable that AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner, three of the Nation's
largest network operators, support these rules. As AT&T's CEO stated,
``We didn't get everything we wanted. I wanted no regulation. But we
ended at a place where we have a line of sight and we know we can
commit to investments.''
Major Wall Street investment analysts have concluded that the FCC's
open Internet order removed any regulatory overhang for telecom and
cable companies and reflected a light touch version of regulation that
will not hinder innovation or growth.
Now, what is at stake here is those who are offering this amendment
to stop the FCC from doing what it has ordered want the people who
carry the Internet able to restrict the access for consumers and
creators who have used the Internet for such great success. That would
be a serious mistake.
We had a broad, diverse coalition of more than 120 organizations,
including public interest groups, religious leaders, technology
associations, labor unions, Internet companies and small businesses who
wrote to us strongly opposing the Republican efforts to block the open
Internet regulations. They argue that overturning the regulations would
eliminate the FCC's ability to protect innovation, speech and commerce
on broadband platforms.
If we stop the FCC from regulating, well, then we leave the status
quo, which means that those who deliver the Internet into our home can
start regulating it themselves. The American people, I think, would be
against this. They want us to stop this re-litigation of FCC's sensible
open Internet rules. We should be working together on a bipartisan
solution to expand broadband access and create tomorrow's economic
opportunities.
The FCC took landmark action to preserve the open Internet. Let us
not roll back the clock and stop those regulations by the FCC to
preserve the open Internet from being put into place.
I urge opposition to this effort. And I want to say that this does
not save any money. This proposal will not cut costs. This is only
about policy, and the high-tech high-growth companies have urged the
FCC to adopt these rules. We shouldn't use the appropriations process
to make this effort to stop the FCC from doing its job.
I yield back my time.

{time} 1240

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm here today in support of
this amendment, and I want to thank those who have been working in this
effort--Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Walden, Mr. Upton, and Mr. Diaz-Balart. I
appreciate them letting me join in this debate.
As we've heard a lot of the conversation, it gets complicated
sometimes when you have elected officials get up and start talking
about broadband and Internet and FCC. Well, let's make it simple.
Government control means uniformity, regulations, fees, inspections,
and yes, compliance. Just think if those words had existed since the
1990s with the Internet. We wouldn't know one thing about
``broadband,'' let alone a ``tweet.'' The Internet's marketplace is
defined by fierce competition, and that competition has transformed
this world with innovation, investment, and what we need most of all
right now--jobs. It's possible that the most intelligent and bipartisan
policy that Washington has had thus far has been to leave the Internet
virtually untouched by the Federal Government and regulators. And the
result? Internet-based industries have flourished and employed a
generation of Americans. So let's be clear today: there is no net
neutrality crisis.
The speed and depth of the Internet as we know it today came from
consumer choice and competition. Consumers have successfully picked
those winners and losers, not government, and they've done it without
the FCC's help. Imagine that. Consider the choices in rate plans, the
various points of access, and demand for openness and accessibility. A
service provider that restricts access would do so at their own peril
and to the prosperity of their competitors.
So after all the life-changing innovation, the accidental
billionaires, President Obama's revolutionary e-campaign, after all the
groundbreaking technology that has defined this age of the Internet, we
must ask that question, Why? Why would unelected bureaucrats at the FCC
want to take over and feel good about this Internet takeover right now
with their new rules and policies, keeping things neutral being their
claim. Well, three words come to mind to me today, and that is: Trojan
Horse virus.
So, Mr. Chairman, let's pass this amendment today and let's install
some antivirus protection for Americans on the Internet.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to really just echo what the gentleman from Georgia just did
here on the floor of the House. He actually brought some common sense
to this debate. Everybody has their talking points and their little
notes and they're reading them and they're trying to confuse the issue.
Let's take a step back, if we might, Mr. Chairman. Let's just ask a
very simple question, a very simple question. Can somebody name an area
in this country or in this world that has had more innovation, that has
blossomed more, that has opened up communications and connected people
more in our country or anywhere in the world in the last decade than
the Internet? Can anybody name it? Anything. No. It's impossible.
Think about what's happened. The Internet was even recently credited
for helping bring down the government of

[[Page H1099]]

Egypt. It's allowed the people to see the atrocities in Iran. It's
allowed things like Facebook and Twitter and iPhones to blossom. It's
given access to millions of people, and it has created millions of
jobs.
So what is the answer then for that incredible blossoming of
something that has revolutionized the way we communicate, that the
world communicates? What is now the answer of the Federal Government?
We keep talking about letters. It's the Federal Government. What is the
answer of the Federal Government to deal with that unprecedented
blossoming, of innovation, imagination, of job creation? Oh, Mr.
Chairman, the Federal Government now has to regulate. Why? Because it's
too much innovation. The prices have dropped too much. It's too much
imagination. It's too positive. And, therefore, the Federal Government
must step in because the Federal Government can do it so much better.
The Federal Government has all the answers.
Mr. Chairman, a little bit of common sense. I'm talking to my
colleagues here but also to the American people. If you believe--and
think about 10 years ago--if you believe that the Federal Government,
if it's in charge, if it would have been in charge, would have done a
better job in blossoming this innovation, this job creation, then you
have to be with our friends on the other side of the aisle. You then
should support Federal Government intervening, taking care of,
regulating the Internet. But if you believe that that miracle of
innovation took place because of individuals, people with imagination,
and because the government got out of its way, you would support this
amendment.
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 think a little bit of telecommunications
history would be appropriate at this juncture. First of all, just let
me explain that AT&T and the regional Bell companies had nothing to do
with the invention of the Internet. In fact, they were asked by the
Federal Government in 1966 if they wanted the contract to build the
packet switch network that would operate simultaneously with the Long
Lines Network across the country, and AT&T and Bell South and Verizon
all said, No, we don't want to build the packet switch network. Give it
to someone else. And so they did. They gave it to a tiny company, Bolt,
Baranek and Newman up in Massachusetts, which built the Internet across
the country, designed it, without any of the Bell operating companies.
Back in the 1960s and the 1970s, when people said to AT&T and said to
Verizon and said to Pac Bell, How about allowing people to be able to
go out and buy another phone other than a black rotary dial phone?
Well, here's what AT&T and Bell South said. They said, If you allow
someone to buy another phone other than a black rotary dial phone, it
could destroy the entire phone system of our country.
Back in the 1970s and early 1980s there were new companies called MCI
and Sprint that wanted to provide competing long distance service.
Remember, up until the mid-1980s, whenever grandma called from
California, people would run to the phone saying, Run, it's long
distance. It costs a dollar a minute. That was AT&T, that was the Bell
system across our country. No competition, no incentive to introduce
innovation, no incentive to lower prices, no incentive to make the
consumer the king.
And then along comes the 1990s and 2000s. We here on the floor of
Congress said we must introduce competition. This system--this AT&T,
this Bell South, Verizon, Pac Bell system--it does not innovate. Not
one home in America had broadband in February of 1996 when we passed
the Telecom Act here. We had to order it. There were no broadband users
in America in any home as we passed the bill.
So what we tried to do is to induce Darwinian, paranoia-inducing
competition. What do the broadband barons seek to accomplish? They, as
the private sector, want to quash competition. They don't ever and they
never will invent a Hulu, an Amazon, an eBay. They will never invent
any of these thousands of smaller companies which are the engine of
economic growth in our country, which leads to our ability to export
these products.
Verizon is not going to invent anything to do. What they want to do
is squeeze the competitors. Price them out of the market so that they
can maintain a monopoly or an oligopoly across the country. That's what
this debate is all about. That's what the FCC rules are saying. They're
saying that the new Steve Jobs, the new Bill Gates, the new Sergey Brin
or Larry Page in the garage somewhere--and there are thousands of them
across the country--must be able to get into the marketplace to create
these new jobs without having to be tipped upside down and having every
last cent poured out of their pocket to pay these large companies.
That's what this debate is all about. It's about whether or not we want
vigorous competition in the marketplace. Those who are opposed to the
open network, those who are opposed to giving every competitor equal
access with the biggest broadband behemoth, that is what this debate is
about.

{time} 1250

They're covering it as though the government is really trying to
control the Internet. Not so. They are siding with the broadband barons
against those thousands of companies who are out there, who have
reinvented telecommunications and information delivery in our country
and across the planet just 14 years after the Bell system had 100 years
to do so and had invented every single technology. They had invented
them all, but they had no incentive to deploy those new technologies
because they had a monopoly.
That's what the debate is about. If you vote for this amendment to
give control by the broadband barons over the Internet once again, then
you will see an inexorable, inevitable decline in innovation, in
investment, in the private sector in these new products, these new
technologies, these new applications, these new devices which are
basically invented by hundreds and thousands of smaller companies in
our country. That's the choice you have. Vote ``no'' on this amendment
that shuts down the Internet.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, this is such a fascinating debate that's
taking place here on the floor today. I think that anyone that
considers themselves connected in the country--and I'm not talking
about being connected to wealth but connectivity in terms of
communications--I hope you're tuned in, because this is a consideration
about preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices.
Now I don't know how many of you have spoken to your kids, but I have
to tell you, if you've had a conversation with any young person in your
family, and I don't remember what the average age is of Congress, but
talk to young people in your district. And I want to tell you, they
will say, over and over and over and over again, the way they spoke to
the FCC, over 2 million people contacting the FCC, over 90 percent of
them saying, Leave the Internet alone. Leave it alone. Leave it open.
Leave it accessible to everyone.
In just over 5 years, $250 billion has been invested by the venture
capital community, which makes its home in my congressional district.
And I have to tell you, I think if you took this amendment to Silicon
Valley, when you go out there--and I know you travel out there--the
next time, go there for an Internet 101 series, not for fund-raising,
but go listen to people there. That's where the innovators are. And I
have the privilege of representing them. They want an open, free,
accessible Internet.
I think that your disdain for government is spilling over onto the
Internet, and I would caution you to pull up the emergency brake on it,
because if in fact corporations get their way instead of consumers, and
there is any blockage of content or where consumers have to pay more
because corporations are in control instead of consumers, there's going
to be a revolution in the country. I would not fool around with an
open, accessible Internet. You are barking up the wrong tree. You
really are. This is a big mistake.

[[Page H1100]]

So you want to hate the government. You want to try and hurt agencies
that carry out what the Congress does. That's where your party is.
That's where your disdain lies. But I think this is a march to folly. I
don't know if you really fully appreciated the Internet and what it
represents and what it has done, not only for the people of our country
but for people around the world. You wouldn't go near this.
If you suggested to anyone in Tahrir Square in Cairo that you were
doing this, I think they'd laugh a lot of people off the floor of the
House of Representatives. This is so wrongheaded. And it says to me
that you don't get it; that you simply don't get it. Without some clear
rules of the road--and believe me, what the FCC did is so light. I
thought that they could have done, and should have done, more. Large
corporations carve up the Internet into fast and slow lanes charging a
toll for content and blocking innovators from entering the information
superhighway. You know what? I want to be at your town hall meeting
when you have to explain that to your constituents. They will have your
heads for that. They will. This will supersede any other issue.
So, my friends, anyone that considers themselves in the know in the
beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, let's not turn the
hands of the clock back. Let's be on the side of innovators, who
weighed in at the FCC, and I as the ranking member placed all of those
letters of support representing hundreds of organizations in our
country, all the way from the Catholic Conference of Bishops in our
country to TechNet.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. ESHOO. Vote against this. This is a bad, ill-informed amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendments before us today
that would prevent the FCC from moving forward in its efforts to
preserve a free and open Internet. Over the past 15 years, the open
Internet ecosystem has resulted in more than 3 million new U.S. jobs.
In just over 5 years, $250 billion has been invested by the venture
capital community in industries reliant on an open Internet. During
this time, we've seen innovative companies like Netflix, Skype, Amazon
and eBay flourish. These Internet companies have created tens of
thousands of jobs and new competition in areas like phone service,
video and online shopping, not just in my District, but across the
nation.
Without some clear rules of the road, large corporations can carve up
the Internet into fast and slow lanes, charging a toll for content, and
blocking innovators from entering the information superhighway.
I believe consumers, not corporations, should be in the driver's seat
to pick the content they view, listen and watch over the Internet.
The FCC's actions to preserve an open Internet would ensure consumer
choice, certainty and greater clarity in a debate that has gone on for
almost a decade. The FCC's rules are important for Internet service
providers as well as edge and content providers, so they may focus on
investment, innovation, and job creation.
We must ensure the Internet remains a vital resource to improve the
lives of Americans and everyone around the world for generations to
come.
I stand united with my Democratic colleagues on the Energy and
Commerce Committee, that these amendments represent bad process, they
reflect bad policy for our nation and should therefore be rejected.
I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments and protect a free
and open Internet for generations to come.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DOYLE. I rise in opposition to the Walden amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the FCC's Open Internet Order brings certainty and
clarity to a debate that has raged on for almost a decade, allowing
Internet service providers as well as edge and content providers to
fully focus on broadband investment, innovation, and other pressing
business matters. In fact, broadband providers like AT&T, Time Warner
and Comcast have all expressed support for the rules and have indicated
that the FCC has achieved a balanced result. Wall Street investment
analysts have also concluded that the FCC's Open Internet Order removed
any regulatory overhang for telecom and cable companies and reflected a
``light touch'' version of regulation that will not hinder growth and
innovation.
At the end of the day, the FCC's rules simply maintain the status quo
principles that most broadband providers have already embraced. The
rules preserve a number of existing business models for broadband
providers to pursue as well as paving the way for new innovative
offerings. Contrary to the claims by opponents of the FCC, these high
level ``rules of the road'' do not allow the agency to micromanage
broadband providers. They balance clarity with flexibility. And they
don't require broadband providers to seek permission from the
commission before deploying a network management practice. In fact, the
rules specifically recognize the unique network management challenges
across different platforms and afford broadband providers the latitude
they need to manage their networks effectively.
Some opponents of the FCC argue that we don't need any rules in this
area because antitrust laws are sufficient. But antitrust remedies
occur after harm occurs. These rules, in contrast, allow companies and
innovators regulatory certainty, a key component that allows businesses
to thrive.
Mr. Chairman, the FCC's open Internet rules are just these three
simple promises:
One to consumers--that we can visit any Web site we want, using any
service we want, on any device we want.
Two for innovators--that they can create new tools without getting
permission from the government or the company that the consumers use to
get online.
Three--that we provide a cop on the beat to make sure that both sides
are doing what they're supposed to and to be a neutral arbitrator.
That's all this does.

{time} 1300

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It represents
bad process and bad policy, and it should be rejected.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. As a general matter, the Chair must remind Members
that remarks must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in the
second person.
The Chair is not referring to the remarks of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment because I
believe in a free and open Internet.
It was December 21, less than 2 months ago, that the Internet lost
its freedom when the FCC, on its own, initiated an order, a rule, to
start regulating the Internet.
Now, who believes that by regulating it you are creating freedom?
When the system was unregulated and when the FCC couldn't micromanage
the Internet was during the time when innovation and investment
occurred on the Internet and in the cyberworld. That's when we got the
eBays, the Hulus, the Apple TVs, and all of the great applications that
we use today. So, when I go back to my district and look my
constituents in the eye, I can honestly say I am the one fighting to
keep the Internet free and open.
There are three points that we need to discuss here today: First of
all, the regulation of the Internet by the FCC is not a congressional
initiative. It was three votes on the FCC while Congress was away. Now
they think they've got the power, but that's under dispute. There is
already a lawsuit telling them they don't have that authority. I don't
believe they have the authority. It was an incredible stretch by the
FCC to take a sentence out of section 706 of the Telecom Act of 1996
that actually used a phrase about data and that the FCC can't put up
barriers. Somehow they assume, now that they have power from that
phrase, they can start implementing and putting in barriers.
I worry that these new rules and regulations controlling the Internet
will stifle investment in innovation in the long run. Let's look at
what this order does that will affect investment.
On the investment side, the power that the FCC has sought to regulate

[[Page H1101]]

says that, in the cyberworld, there can't be discrimination. Who wants
discrimination unless you find out that it's maybe a business model?
For example, as a typical business model, you pay for what you use. If
you're at 1 megabit, that may be $14; 7 megabits of speed is a higher
price; 20 or 30 megabits is going to even be a higher price. The issue
is that some people now say that that is unreasonable discrimination.
In fact, I have an email newsletter from a friend of mine who runs a
software company that can stop viruses. I am a client--or soon won't
be. But listen to this. This is their interpretation of the FCC's net
neutrality, ``What Net Neutrality Means for You.''
Here is what it says: ``Deregulation,'' which is what we are being
accused of doing, which is regulating the Internet, ``could mean higher
Internet access prices as ISPs institute tiered models that offer
speedier downloads to higher-paying customers.''
That is the current business model. You will pay for what you use. If
the business model is struck down by the FCC, you won't have the
investment. You won't have an expansion of the Internet.
I think it will stifle innovation. Frankly, the creator, the
Godfather, the grandfather of the Internet, Dr. David Farber, agrees
with this position. He has co-written an article that basically says,
if you put regulators in charge of the Internet instead of engineers,
it will reduce innovation. It makes sense, because now, if you're a big
enough company--like a Google or an eBay--you just hire lawyers and
lobbyists to go and lobby the FCC instead of hiring engineers to
innovate.

[From the Trend Micro Consumer Newsletter, February 2011]

What Net Neutrality Means for You

Net neutrality has been in the news for some years now, but
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just released
some important new rules on the topic. ``Net neutrality''
refers to the principle that Internet service providers and
the government shouldn't restrict content or service levels
for different users. In other words, supporters of net
neutrality think that ISPs shouldn't favor one user over
another when it comes to Internet access.
Net neutrality opponents argue that intentional content
blocking and performance degradation is more of a theoretical
problem than a real one. They also argue that less
regulation, not more, is what's required to create greater
competition among ISPs and better service levels for
everyone.
For consumers, deregulation of the Internet could mean
higher Internet access prices as ISPs institute tiered models
that offer speedier downloads to higher-paying customers.
Some people also worry that allowing businesses to choose
what content or sites they'll offer to whom will result in
the commoditization of a formerly free and open environment,
akin to the evolution of television from an essentially free
service to a highly fragmented and fairly expensive one.
The FCC's new rules appear to favor net neutrality
proponents. They require ISPs to be more transparent about
network performance and management; they prevent fixed (as
opposed to wireless) service providers from blocking content
(for example, sites owned by their competition), and they
don't allow ISPs to discriminate against specific
applications (such as Netflix, BitTorrent, or Hulu). In other
words, you can expect things to pretty much remain as they
have been--for now, anyway.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mack). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the number of requisite
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The gentleman from Nebraska has spoken twice on this
issue. Was that by unanimous consent?
Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I want an answer to my question first.
Mr. TERRY. If you yield, it will solve the question.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair believes that the gentleman from Nebraska
spoke only once.
Mr. TERRY. Yield to me, please. Give me a little bit of respect.
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. TERRY. I spoke one time, which is right now. I don't know who
you're confusing me with or why you're standing up right now.
Mr. DICKS. You're such a handsome guy, I thought you spoke twice. I'm
sorry.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
because, I think, if you look all across the country--and of course we
had a watershed election in November--and if you listen to the voters
all throughout this country, as so many of us do who hold town hall
meetings--people are tired of all of these government regulations that
are killing jobs and stifling innovation. In fact, most people will
tell you they are scared to death about the concept of the Federal
Government regulating the Internet.
So there was this net neutrality ruling that came up by the FCC in a
3-2 decision where all the Democrats voted for net neutrality, for this
regulation, and where all the Republicans voted against. The FCC rarely
ever has any kind of major ruling like this on a divided vote.
I think it shows you that there is already controversy. The courts
have already said that they don't necessarily have the authority to do
this. That's why, as my colleague from Nebraska just pointed out, there
is already litigation that is going on because we think the FCC
overstepped its boundaries.
You had a bipartisan group in Congress that came together and said,
We don't want this kind of action going forward. This is something that
should be done and solved in the halls of Congress.
Of course, our colleagues on the other side, Mr. Chairman, haven't
even identified a problem. If you actually want to look at it and if
you look throughout our economy and at all of the troubles we have with
it, one of the few segments that is growing is the technology segment
of our economy because of the innovation that has been allowed to
thrive, primarily due to the lack of government regulation.
I think that goes to the heart of the real difference between our
side and their side. They are the party of regulation, which stifles
job growth, which stifles innovation. We are the party that says, let's
allow a college student at Harvard University the opportunity to come
up with an idea--and he dropped out of Harvard and is now a
billionaire. In fact, maybe the largest percentage of billionaires in
this country is that of Harvard dropouts, those who actually went out
and came up with ideas to innovate, using the Internet, who are now
billionaires who are creating thousands and millions of jobs--good,
high-paying jobs. These are American jobs. Yet, through this net
neutrality ruling, they want to stifle that innovation.
So the first thing, I guess, we would have to ask is: Was net
neutrality the reason that we were able to have that innovation that
led to Facebook? Was net neutrality the reason that we were able to
have such a proliferation of broadband that now over 95 percent of
people in this country have access to broadband? By the way, they like
it. They're not calling, saying, We want the government to come
regulate the Internet now because there's a problem. In fact, they say
just the opposite. They say look at this innovation that is happening.
We had a hearing with the FCC yesterday about this issue. One of the
FCC commissioners pointed out that, over the last 10 years, Mr.
Chairman, over $500 billion--billion with a ``b''--of private
investment has been made to develop broadband throughout the country.
This is without any kind of taxpayer money.

{time} 1310

This is private sector money being put into the marketplace to go and
create jobs, to go and create the kinds of technologies that allow you
to view and use all the kinds of apps that are available on these kinds
of devices. That was done without net neutrality. They would tell you
that they need net neutrality in order to have this innovation. Of
course, they fail to point out that net neutrality was not in place
when all this innovation happened. In fact, most people will tell you
that net neutrality is one of the things that's in the way of this kind
of innovation, and we're already starting to see a stifling of the
growth, a stifling of the private investment because of these threats
of new regulations coming in from the FCC.

[[Page H1102]]

And that's why it's so important that this amendment actually
addresses this problem and says, Federal Government, get your hands off
the Internet, allow the innovation to continue, because it happened and
it's continuing to happen without that kind of government intervention
that they so strongly want through net neutrality.
And so when you look and they talk about these companies that have
said that this is a great thing, net neutrality is a great thing. Some
of the companies they listed, they failed to mention in that same
letter the company said, well, maybe we can live with it but they also
have some concerns about it. I didn't hear them mentioning that when
they're talking about these companies.
And you look at all of the innovation that has happened, and we're
talking about massive job growth. You know, here at a time when our
main focus needs to be on jobs, you've got the government coming in
with yet another threat of regulation that will stifle innovation and
run more jobs out of this country to countries where they don't tell
you how to operate your network, they don't tell you what to do with
the billions of dollars that you are investing to build broadband.
Maybe our friends on the other side want the Federal Government to be
running the Internet because they only want the government to be the
one that can tell you what you can and can't do. And, in fact, in our
hearing yesterday with the FCC chairman, we pointed out that in this
net neutrality ruling, it allows the Federal Government to pick winners
and losers. That's not what we should be about. We should be about
innovation. We should be about passing this amendment to allow that
innovation to grow and get rid of net neutrality.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we look at
what this process of net neutrality is. I rise in support of the
resolution that we're bringing to block this funding at the FCC from
being used to implement it.
Bear in mind--and I think it's important that we realize this and
remember it--after we adjourned from the last Congress and all headed
home at Christmas, the FCC convened and the FCC decided that they were
going to go where they had no authority to go. They were going to go in
and implement net neutrality rules. Now, bear in mind that this body
has stood in a bipartisan manner against the FCC taking this action. We
have had over 300 Members stand and move forward with letters stating
that they didn't think the FCC should move forward. This is an issue
that should come back to Congress.
But Christmas week they moved forward and the gentleman from
Louisiana is exactly right in his comments. We heard from the FCC
yesterday, and we heard about how they plan to move forward in this.
Bear in mind, they have not done any analysis that would indicate that
there has been a market failure. Indeed, by the actions taken in this
body in 1996 in the Telecom Act, adopting a hands-off approach to the
Internet and broadband, what we were able to do is see this country go
from 8 million to over 200 million users; 95 percent of the country has
access. Get this, according to the FCC, over 90 percent of those that
have Internet access are satisfied with what they have. That has been
done because we left it alone.
Government created the environment. They made the spectrum available,
companies came in, bid on that spectrum, secured that spectrum. They
spend 60 billion private sector job-creating dollars every single year
to build and maintain that spectrum.
When we talk about the creative economy, when we talk about 21st-
century jobs growth, much of it is based off of technologies that are
going to be attached to, developed, or applied to broadband, the
Internet, and Web sites.
It is in support of this resolution that we should all stand. We
should vote ``yes.'' We should rein in some of these Federal Government
agencies. We should stop the FCC from enacting the fairness doctrine
for the Internet.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chair, I rise to express strong opposition to
Amendment 404, offered by Mr. Walden, and urge my colleagues to vote
against it.
The FCC's Open Internet Order brings certainty and clarity to a
debate that has raged for almost a decade, allowing Internet service
providers as well as edge and content providers to fully focus on
broadband investment, innovation, and other pressing business matters.
In fact, many broadband providers have expressed support of the rules
and have indicated the FCC's achieved a balanced result.
At the end of the day, the FCC's rules simply maintain the status quo
principles that most broadband providers have already embraced. The
rules preserve a number of existing business models for broadband
providers to pursue, as well as pave the way for new, innovative
offerings.
Contrary to claims by opponents of the FCC, these high-level ``rules
of the road'' do not allow the agency to micro-manage broadband
providers. They balance clarity with flexibility. And they do not
require broadband providers to seek permission from the Commission
before deploying a network management practice.
In fact, the rules specifically recognize the unique network
management challenges across different platforms, and afford broadband
providers the latitude they need to manage their networks effectively.
Some opponents of the FCC argue that we don't need any rules in this
area because antitrust law is sufficient. But antitrust remedies occur
after harm occurs. Prophylactic rules, in contrast, allow companies and
innovators regulatory certainty--a key component to allow businesses to
thrive.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on Amendment 404. It represents both
bad process and bad policy, and should be rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALDEN. 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 Oregon will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 334 Offered by Mrs. Lowey

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, State and Local Programs may be used to provide
grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative under section
2003 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604) to
more than 25 high-risk urban areas.

Mr. ADERHOLT. We are prepared to accept the gentlelady's amendment,
Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chair, while I have serious misgivings about the funding levels
for FEMA first responder grants in the CR, my amendment ensures that
one program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, is restored to its
intended purpose.
By limiting UASI recipients to the 25 highest-risk cities, we will
restore its original purpose--addressing the unique planning, equipment
and training needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas in order to
prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from, acts of
terrorism.
Originally distributed to seven metropolitan areas, UASI has
ballooned to 64 regions, many of which are neither high-threat, nor
high-density.
Rather than provide the highest possible funding to our most at-risk
targets, FEMA made UASI a virtual earmark account. FEMA wastes
resources, disregards Congressional prerogatives, and dilutes resources
available to truly high-risk areas. For instance, despite a $50 million
increase for UASI since Fiscal Year 2008, the New York City area
receives less funding despite the grave and growing threats it faces.
We need look no further to Faisal Shazad's failed plot to detonate a
car bomb in Times Square in May 2010 or the 2009 arrest of Najubullah
Zazi for his role in an attempted bombing of the New York City subway
system to understand the disproportionate threat New Yorkers face.
Just last week in fact, Secretary Napolitano testified before the
Homeland Security Committee that we are at our most ``heightened
state'' of terrorist threat since September 11th.

[[Page H1103]]

Now is the time to provide the most targeted cities with the
resources they need and deserve. If the CR is adopted and the same
number of UASI recipients remains, the New York City region would stand
to LOSE nearly $15 million in Fiscal Year 2011 alone--this is totally
unacceptable.
To my new colleagues who came to Congress pledging to make government
more efficient, this is your chance. Don't let the CR pass with the
same number of UASI recipients, shortchanging the top terror target in
the country by a $15 million decrease in funds.
While the horrific World Trade Center attacks in 1993 and 2001 were
in New York, they were aimed at the United States and all Americans. We
all have a responsibility to ensure our most targeted regions are
adequately prepared.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment which
would provide more funding to New York under the Urban Areas Security
Initiative. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment with my colleague
from New York.
The Republican's funding bill that we are debating today is, in many
ways, putting the future of our Nation at risk. But the cuts made to
Homeland Security grants are literally putting our communities at risk
and in harms way.
Under current funding levels, the Urban Area Security Initiative
provides grants to 64 metropolitan areas, including New York City. As
we are all keenly aware, New York City is at the top of the target list
for terrorists wanting to strike our country. It is clear that we must
do what we can to rein in spending by the federal government, and this
requires making difficult choices, but New Yorkers and the American
people rely on homeland security measures to keep them safe on their
way to work, home or while touring New York City.
I believe that we have to make smart choices, and cutting $12 million
that could help New York City prevent the next terrorist attack on this
country is not a smart choice. But there is a way to protect our
Nation's most-vulnerable targets without adding to the deficit and the
amendment I have offered today with my good friend and colleague from
New York accomplishes both goals.
Our amendment limits the number of metropolitan areas that are
eligible to receive Urban Area Security Initiative funds, increasing
the share each eligible city receives. Currently, this Continuing
Resolution that my colleagues on the other side of aisle have brought
to the floor cuts funding for these critical grants by $87 million. New
York City officials estimate this cut will result in a loss of $12
million for the city. That means $12 million less for important
technology investments; $12 million less for critical personnel; $12
million less for training for police and firefighters; $12 million less
for ongoing counter terrorism operations and overall emergency
preparedness.
Mr. Chair, less than ten months ago, Faisal Shahzad attempted to set
off a car bomb in Times Square, putting at risk the lives of thousands
of New Yorkers, along with visitors from across the country and around
the world. The risk to New York City is real and we must remain
vigilant.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and
ensuring that the funds we are spending on the Urban Area Security
Initiative are going to the cities that are the most at risk.
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 413 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in Department of Defense overseas contingency
operations budget for military operations in Afghanistan
until the President to seeks to negotiate and enter into a
bilateral status of forces agreement with the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, amendment 413 states that none of the
funds made available by this act may be used in Department of Defense
overseas contingency operations budget for military operations in
Afghanistan until the President seeks to negotiate and enter into a
bilateral status of forces agreement with Afghanistan.
Mr. Chairman, we've had troops deployed in Afghanistan for nearly a
decade now, making this the longest war in our Nation's history,
costing more than $378 billion, with no real end in sight. Close to
1,500 brave Americans have been killed, and they've been killed in the
line of duty there. Roughly 10,000 have been wounded, and yet the
United States does not have a status of forces agreement, or SOFA, with
Afghanistan.
The SOFA is a very basic tool which spells out the terms of U.S.
military operations in a given country. The United States is party to
more than 100 such agreements, for engagements great and engagements
small, including Mali, Montenegro, and Micronesia.

{time} 1320

We have a SOFA with Iraq, signed in the year 2008, which sets out a
deadline for complete withdrawal of troops by the end of the year.
SOFA agreements determine how the laws of the foreign jurisdiction
should be applied to U.S. personnel while in that country. They lay the
foundation in a number of areas, including economic, cultural, and law
enforcement matters.
So it's beyond irresponsible, Mr. Chairman, that in Afghanistan, the
country where we are currently waging our longest and most expensive
war, we have no such agreement. There is no formal structure to provide
rules governing the presence of hundreds of thousands of Americans in
that sovereign nation. This must end. It's both morally and fiscally
irresponsible. And that's why I have submitted this amendment. It
requires the President to negotiate and enter into a bilateral SOFA
with the Government of Afghanistan.
A SOFA would establish that the temporary presence of U.S. troops in
Afghanistan is at the request and invitation of the host government. It
would prohibit permanent military bases in Afghanistan, and it would
provide a date no later than 1 year after the signing of the agreement
for complete, safe, and orderly redeployment. That includes Armed
Forces, civilian DOD employees, and military contractors.
Without a SOFA with Afghanistan, Mr. Chairman, our leaders can
continue to extend our occupation indefinitely while the cost surges,
our deficit rises, and our economy falters. That is poor military
strategy and poor fiscal planning.
A SOFA provides certainty and clarity about what we're doing in
Afghanistan and how much longer we need to be there. It would provide
the framework and momentum for redeployment consistent with the terms
of the Iraq SOFA.
My amendment would move us a critical step closer to an end to this
disastrous war, the safe return of our troops back home, and taxpayers'
dollars invested in domestic needs right here in the United States.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order and 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.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order? The Chair will rule.
The amendment contains a legislative condition on the availability of
funds in the bill. As such, the amendment violates clause 2 of rule
XXI.
The point of order is sustained.

Amendment No. 516 Offered by Mr. Camp

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

At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. _. None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used for the opening of the locks at the Thomas J. O'Brien
Lock and

[[Page H1104]]

Dam or the Chicago River Controlling Works.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CAMP. Today I offer an amendment that is long overdue. Last June,
a live bighead Asian carp was discovered 6 miles from Lake Michigan,
north of the locks and well past the electric barrier. This discovery
shows that Asian carp, one of the world's most rampant invasive
species, are at the doorstep of the Great Lakes.
Weighing up to 100 pounds, spanning over 6 feet, and eating half
their body weight daily, Asian carp have the ability to decimate fish
populations indigenous to the Great Lakes. These giant bottom feeders
would destroy the region's $7.5 billion fishing industry as well as the
800,000 jobs that are supported by it. To prevent this catastrophe,
ecological experts have said that closing the locks that separate the
Illinois River from Lake Michigan is the single most important step we
can take to prevent these species from entering the Great Lakes.
In 2009, the Michigan attorney general filed a petition in Federal
court to direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to immediately close
the locks. This petition was supported by Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio,
Indiana, New York, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, the court denied
the petition. But after the court's decision, I introduced the Carp
Act, along with Senator Stabenow of Michigan, that would immediately
close the locks. And since then, despite the imminent threat of Asian
carp, the administration has refused to close the locks and all we have
received is promises of studies that will take years to complete.
You will surely hear arguments from those opposed to closing the
locks that doing so will disrupt the movement of cargo and cause
serious economic harm to the region. Economists who have examined those
claims have found them to be grossly exaggerated.
An economic study conducted in 2010, found on the Michigan attorney
general's website at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/1-
Appendix_Renewed_ Motion_310133_7.pdf, found that if cargo passing
through the locks had to be transported by land, it would increase
truck traffic in the surrounding area by only one-tenth of 1 percent,
or the equivalent of adding two additional freight trains to the over
500 leaving the region each day. Any supposed economic impact of
closing the locks would pale in comparison to the multibillion dollar
industries that would be wiped out by Asian carp.
The State of Michigan's response to the administration's Asian carp
framework pointed out, ``The Framework's statement that the Chicago
lock is the Nation's second busiest ignores the fact that, in 2008,
only 39 loaded barges carrying approximately 100,000 tons of cargo,
mainly sand and gravel, moved through that lock. Moreover, according to
the Corps' own data, the 2008 vessel traffic consisted of 34,000--not
50,000--vessels, mainly recreational watercraft.'' The canal is now
only 9 feet deep in some areas.
You will also hear critics claim that this amendment will tie the
hands of the Corps in assisting flood emergencies. Again, those claims
are not accurate. The Corps has sufficient authority to protect human
life and property in the event of flooding and other disasters under
the authority granted to it by the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies Act and other Corps regulations. Those authorities allow
district commanders to issue a declaration of emergency and use Corps
resources to help State and local authorities respond. Opening the
locks to deal with flooding is the exact type of scenario this
authority is intended for.
Mr. Chairman, every day of inaction puts the Great Lakes ecosystem,
the largest body of freshwater in the world, and the 800,000 jobs
sustained at risk. Inaction is unacceptable, and I urge all Members to
vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition and stand to oppose the
gentleman's amendment, first of all, to make the observation,
representing the northwest corner of the State of Indiana, that I
believe the gentleman is mistaken in suggesting that the State of
Indiana supports the closure of the locks. It is my understanding that
the State of Indiana opposes the closing of the locks.
I would agree with the gentleman's assertion that we face a very
serious problem as far as the carp, and I and others have certainly
joined in that concern. As a member of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee for over a decade, we have been working acidulously on
this particular problem, not only with the Army Corps of Engineers, but
with an assortment of State and Federal regulatory bodies, because no
one wants carp in the Great Lakes. But I would emphasize to this body
that it is a work in progress. And at this point, the closure of the
locks is uncalled for.
The second point--and the gentleman talks about the economy, there is
an economic issue. Speaking for the State of Indiana, I would point
out, if those locks were closed, the impact as far as the loss to
economic activity in the State of Indiana is $1.9 billion, and 17,655
jobs in Indiana would be affected.

{time} 1330

We're trying to create jobs in this economy, not strike them from
beneath us.
And, finally, this issue is not without controversy. It has ended up
in the courts. The gentleman's absolutely correct about that. Twice the
United States Supreme Court has rejected arguments by the Michigan
Attorney General that closing the locks is eminently needed at this
point in time.
Last year the State of Michigan brought the question of lock closure
before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On December 2, Judge Robert Dow ruled against the State of Michigan on
their request for a preliminary injunction, explaining that the lock
closure could inflict certain harm on the economy, and that the State
of Michigan had failed to demonstrate that the Asian carp presented an
ecological threat to the Great Lakes that was imminent.
So again, I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, particularly at the
opening of your remarks when you spoke of your involvement in this
issue for more than a decade. And the problem we have is we've run out
of time. Really, since 2009 when EDNA was found north of the locks, and
now we found live Asian carp north of the locks----
Mr. VISCLOSKY. If I could reclaim my time, I understand the finding
of DNA. That is not carp. And again, everyone is working on keeping the
carps out of the lake. The locks are not impermeable either. And we
have court intervention and court rulings on this matter. And again,
would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that has grown and grown
and grown. But let me say that I would agree with the gentleman from
Michigan, that we do not want the Asian carp to be able to get into the
Great Lakes and into Lake Michigan first.
We have been working on this issue for 12 years and it really makes
me upset to think that they seem to say, well, nothing has happened,
and now it's an emergency, that the Asian carp are going to get into
Lake Michigan. Let me tell you that we have set up two electronic
dispersal barriers that are in my district to stop the Asian carp from
getting through. This is the only path from the Gulf of Mexico to the
Great Lakes and these two barriers are there.
The Asian carp are 42 miles from the city of Chicago, and this is an
emergency and they have 42 miles to go. They have moved very slowly.
Most of the population of the Asian carp are in the Illinois River
around Channahon and right now, Channahon, they have a

[[Page H1105]]

contract with China to send the Asian carp over to be used as food in
China.
The Army Corps of Engineers has been doing everything, and this is
for the last 12 years, and the Congress has funded this, to make sure
that those Asian carp never reach the Great Lakes. And if they do, it
would be devastating. So things that have happened, the two dispersal
barriers, the bubble barriers, electro-fishing, oxygenation, rotenone
used to kill the fish, the bypass screening barriers to combat the
Asian carp.
The problem is, and it's not just that the carp will get in there--
and the gentleman from Michigan raised the question of whether this was
the only way that the Army Corps has said to stop the carp. It is not.
And, in fact, the Army Corps has said that even if the locks are
closed, the Asian carp will be able to get through those locks. So this
is not the answer. The answer is to find all of these ways to combat
that.
Invasive species are legally hard to deal with, but I think what Army
Corps and all of the other agencies have been doing is something that
we will be able to contain them and eventually--I've been on fish kills
before. There were 22,000 fish that were killed to make sure that these
Asian carp had not gotten beyond the barriers. Not one of these fish
was an Asian carp.
But the problems that we're really facing are economic, devastating
to the State of Illinois, devastating to the States below Illinois,
down to the Gulf of Mexico, devastating to anyone that is using the
locks to send goods back and forth.
And, in fact, we are facing 800,000 jobs lost with the barge traffic.
People don't realize how much this is used because of the barge. You're
not stopped by a barge when the gates go down. You're not stopped
having a barge on the streets.
What has been determined is that if we were to shut down the barge
traffic, it would take--oh, well, we just put them on the rail and we
put them on trucks. If we were to put these on trucks, if you were to
take and line up the trucks from the east coast to the west coast, line
them all up across the country and then put them all back going back to
the east coast, that's how many trucks would be to be able to move the
asphalt, the salt, the coal, all of these big, big items that are used
and used in the economic thing of things. As well as the food and
everything else that goes up and down.
So I think that the Corps has testified that all the things are
working. There is another study out that is going to be finished by
2015. We have got to get this right and they worked. But having worked
for 12 years on this, it really upsets me when the gentleman states a
study from Wayne State saying that it would only cost $4.5 million in
damages for economic. Oh, no. The barge people, all the people estimate
it's at least $29 billion.
This bill was to make sure that we can get the economy back, that we
can create the jobs. This will destroy jobs.
And I'm also talking about flooding. It will flood the city of
Chicago, and it will flood 124 suburbs. I urge a negative vote on this.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I move to strike the last word, Mr.
Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Michigan, I
appreciate his interest in this issue. I have to strongly stand up and
oppose it, though.
The 11th in Illinois, which is my district, is very, very focused and
very reliant upon the ability to move commerce, the ability to have
transportation, the ability for free flow of goods back and forth.
That's a major, major industry in my district. A lot of jobs rely on
that.
One of the great assets we have is the ability to float goods. That's
a great thing. The fact of the matter is, when we talk about closing
the locks and dams, we talk about the entire Chicago region's water and
sewer infrastructure system is built on the idea that water flows out
of Lake Michigan via the lock system; and cutting those off would
completely devastate the area.
Possibly closing the locks permanently is totally not a solution to
the problem. As most people have seen, the locks themselves are not
even completely sealed. Even when closed, it still allows for some
leakage.
At a time when we are addressing a continuing resolution, we should
give the Army Corps of Engineers time to finish their study. Let's
continue to be cautious. We're talking about $30 billion in commerce
that's going to be affected in my area because we want to quickly make
a judgment on this. I understand the passion. I understand the concern,
but let's be very cautious.
At a time when the Chicago area, when my district has an economic
downturn and people are waking up every day wondering if they're going
to be able to feed their family or if they're going to have a job the
next day, or people are driving on the interstates wondering if they
can even get to work on time because there's already enough trucks, and
now we want to add more and more trucks if we close these. That is the
absolute wrong answer to this.
And so I'm asking, let's defeat this in this continuing resolution.
Let's give the Army Corps of Engineers the time they need.
I ask my fellow colleagues to stand up and oppose this. It's too
quick. We have to be cautious. We have to wait. We have to see.
When we took the majority, one of the things we talked about is being
cautious when we get involved in free market and commerce; and we've
talked about that caution and what we want to do to create jobs and
what we want to do to allow people to get back to work and to solve
this deficit not just by cutting spending, but by cutting the
unemployment rate.
Well, I'm telling you, this would be terribly devastating for the
people in Illinois, for the people in the 11th district and, frankly,
for folks in the region.

{time} 1340

Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding.
And I just want to comment, the gentlewoman from Illinois mentioned
about her 12-year involvement in this issue. In fact, she and I worked
very hard in 2006 to get the first funding for the electronic barrier,
but that was 5 years ago. To wait for the study that I hear my
colleagues call for is another 5 years. How much time is it going to
take before we eliminate the threat to the entire Great Lakes
ecosystem?
Again, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. No problem.
I understand, this takes time. When we talk about affecting $30
billion in economic commerce, I would expect that to take some time.
Now, again, I appreciate the concern. I appreciate everything we're
dealing with. This is a very serious issue. But, my goodness, the
people in my district are already waking up wondering if they are going
to have a job tomorrow, begging the free market to work. And that's all
we're asking.
If we want to take this up at a later time, fine. But is it really
appropriate, when we're debating hundreds of amendments to a continuing
resolution, for this to be the area where we do something that's,
frankly, been working or has been in study for 5 years and has a lot
more to go?
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment.
As a resident of the Chicagoland area and a lifelong resident of the
State of Illinois, this amendment would have devastating implications
for the economy. Right now we need jobs. Everybody on both sides of the
aisle has been talking about how we need to jump-start the economy and
put people back to work.
I have a great amount of respect for the chairman and his work, but I
think this is an amendment that is going to have devastating
implications for people all across that region. It's going to look to
cost approximately $29 billion.
When we look at the amount of commerce that's going to be coming up
from the Gulf of Mexico, through the Mississippi River, into the
Chicagoland area and, yes, through the Great Lakes

[[Page H1106]]

and back and forth, this is something that we must, at this point in
time, not rush to judgment.
I recognize that we have been studying this problem for a period of
time. I recognize that there are actually even interim studies. In
fact, there is an interim study that's even out. Interim study number 3
has been actually out allowing us to move forward and to try to address
some of the problems.
I would ask my colleagues that we do not rush to judgment. This is a
decision that will have an enormous effect on thousands of jobs and on
commerce across the Great Lakes going actually down to the Mississippi
River and into the gulf. Today when we're talking about jobs and the
economy, we have to look at how many things we can promote.
I spent time in, actually, the locks. I have gone through the locks
several times. I use them not only for recreational use, but I have
also seen the barges come through. This is a very active lock, and it's
one that we need to make sure is alive and well.
I do want to recognize that we have a problem with Asian carp. It's
not one that we want to ignore, and certainly please hear that I am not
saying that we should ignore it. I think that we need to continue the
studies. We need to be looking at alternative ways to try to prevent it
from invading the Great Lakes.
No one is going to be a greater proponent of the Great Lakes than I
am, but this is an amendment that I ask my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to rise up and stand against.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to concur with the
last group of speakers who have indicated that they were in opposition
to this amendment.
I have worked with individuals in the State of Illinois for the last
several years. My congressional district runs right along Lake
Michigan, and we have had a tremendous amount of effort to try and
resolve this problem. It has not been resolved. And I would plead for
more time, more study, more opportunity to come up with a resolution
that works for all of the Great Lakes area, not just for some to the
detriment of others. I strongly oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chair, I do rise today in opposition to the amendment
offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Camp, from Michigan. And let me
say, I think I take a second chair to no one in my respect for the
gentleman from Michigan. I respect his passion and his leadership on
the Ways and Means Committee and his passion for the ecosystem known as
the Great Lakes. I know it's sincere and it's real. And this problem is
real.
Anyone who has taken more than a passing glance at the issue of Asian
carp recognizes that this is a serious but manageable threat to the
Great Lakes region. It is one that deserves the continued attention of
this Congress and this administration and the States within the Great
Lakes region.
But that being said, I rise in opposition to the Camp amendment for
the following reasons:
Principally, because I believe that this amendment would have a
devastating effect on Hoosier jobs and the Ports of Indiana.
The Camp amendment would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from
operating the navigation locks located in the city of Chicago.
It is the only waterway in the Great Lakes system with access to the
Mississippi River Basin.
The separation of the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River will
cost thousands of jobs and will cause great harm to many Hoosiers who
manufacture and grow our products. According to a study by the Ports of
Indiana, commerce through the Chicago locks is responsible for $1.9
billion in economic activity and nearly 18,000 jobs in my home State.
In addition to the economic damage this action will inflict, I would
submit respectfully that there is no evidence that actually closing the
locks will definitely keep the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife found a year ago that there is no ``combination
of lock operation scenarios that experts believe would lower the risk
of Asian carp establishing self-sustaining populations in Lake
Michigan.''
In fact, according to the Asian Carp Working Group, there are dozens
of alternative methods fully to be explored. And Indiana is fully
participating in the Federal Government-led effort to stop the Asian
carp migration. Electronic barriers have shown promise. We need to
continue energetically to work in that area. The gentlewoman from
Illinois also outlined different areas.
Let me say, while I urge my colleagues to oppose the Camp amendment,
allow me to use this moment to say that we will continue to lock arms
with the gentleman from Michigan, with our neighbors in Michigan, our
neighbors in Illinois to deal with what is a very, very real threat to
the ecosystem, to commerce in the area, and to the enjoyment of the
waterways in the area.
Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. I appreciate the gentleman's words and also his commitment
to try to work together to resolve this issue, and I appreciate the
arguments he is making. But the concern on the economics argument is
that the damage to the Great Lakes, if this problem is not addressed,
is irreversible and cannot be calculated. I can cite the statistics on
the jobs and economic impact, but the ecosystem, the damage to that
cannot be remedied.
The concern I have is this has really been a problem since 2006, when
we worked to get the electronic barrier, which has not worked. And here
and now we are, in 2011, saying let's wait another 5 years for the Army
Corps to complete their study, and the problem is more imminent than
that. And I cannot seem to get the administration to move on the
immediacy of the threat to the system.
I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. PENCE. I was pleased to yield to the gentleman.
Let me just say that the demonstration projects of the electronic
fence began slightly before 2006. The fence and the studies are
ongoing.
Let me say, on behalf of other Hoosiers in that delegation, we're not
patient to wait 5 years for action. We will continue to work with the
gentleman from Michigan to work, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of immediate
action and continue to call on this administration. The economic
impacts are devastating. The impact on the ecosystem broadly would be
equally devastating, and so we join the gentleman from Michigan in
calling for urgent action by this Congress and this administration.
I just respectfully offer that both with regard to its economic
impact and with regard to its questionable effectiveness, that dealing
with this from the standpoint of the locks and this continuing
resolution is not the best approach. So I urge my colleagues to oppose
the Camp amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1350

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMP. 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 Michigan
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 576 Offered by Ms. Eshoo

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into any contract with a corporation or
other business entity that does not disclose its political
contributions.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.

[[Page H1107]]

The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I admire the most about
our country is our commitment and our love for democracy. We were
founded on the ideal that it is the people who choose their government.
We believe in the principle of one person, one vote; not $10,000 or
$100,000 a vote. We believe in the free exchange of ideas to be able to
decide which candidates deserve our votes.
But money, and lots of money, heaps of money from undisclosed
sources, are having a corrosive influence on our political campaigns.
Money distorts the voice of a particular point of view, making that
voice seem louder, making it seem more influential, or making it seem
more persuasive than it actually is.
We don't know who is saying what to whom. Is it Big Oil? Is it
polluters? Is it the insurance industry? Is it the tobacco industry?
All too often these distorted views come from corporate interests, and
they try to undermine the public interest through campaign
expenditures. These corporate interests can buy elections by throwing
hundreds of thousands of dollars into a race for a particular candidate
with attack ads against another.
Last year, sadly, the Supreme Court overturned landmark law and other
centuries-old precedents aimed at limiting the influence of
corporations in our elections. Now, today, we have stealth
organizations formed for the sole purpose of running attack ads, and
the American people don't have a clue who is footing the bills. The
American people have a right to know who is trying to influence them,
and if corporations want to try to persuade voters about their point of
view, then they should stand behind their words.
Let voters judge the facts for themselves. Voters are smart. Let them
make up their own minds on election day, as long as they have full and
accurate information about the interests that are at stake.
So my amendment is a commonsense solution to a difficult political
problem. It requires that any company that does business with the
Federal Government disclose their political contributions. Period. It
is simple, it is clear, it is fair, and it is called disclosure.
This amendment says if you are a Federal vendor receiving taxpayer
dollars, you are required to disclose how much you spend to influence
the political system. Why? Because with public funds come public
responsibilities. My amendment honors the First Amendment and it places
no limitation on political speech. It simply requires transparency.
I yield back my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment
presented by Congresswoman Eshoo on behalf of the public's interest,
the people's interest, free elections, and a healthy, transparent, and
open public discourse.
More than one year ago, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to
unlimited corporate spending, secret unlimited corporate spending and
influence over our campaigns and our public policy debates. In doing so
in the Citizens United decision, they dealt a harsh blow to a
fundamental principle of our democracy: That voters determine the
outcome of elections, not moneyed special interests.
In response, with bipartisan support in this House of
Representatives, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act to require
corporations to stand by their ads, the same way candidates do, and to
keep foreign-owned entities from playing any role in our elections. The
measure included a provision to keep government contractors and TARP
recipients, beneficiaries of taxpayer support, out of our elections,
preventing them from using taxpayer dollars for their own agendas.
In the Senate, the Republicans blocked the DISCLOSE Act. Yet the
value it represented, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, must
remain a call to action for both parties in both Houses.
Many of the new Members who are here campaigned on the principle that
special interests play too big a role in our democracy. The American
people have constantly called upon Congress to act in the people's
interest, not the special interest.
Today, we have another opportunity, thanks to Congresswoman Eshoo, to
answer the public's call to action for transparency, for openness, for
true Democratic elections. Thanks to Congresswoman Eshoo, we are
highlighting this critical challenge to our democracy through an
amendment to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not directed to Federal
contractors who refuse to disclose their political expenditures.
No dollars in this act can be used to enter into a contract with any
corporation or company which refuses to disclose its political
expenditures. They could be using taxpayer dollars to weigh in in a
secret unlimited way in campaigns.
I know that some of you may not want to receive this message, but it
is a message that the American people have delivered to us over and
over again--that they do not want special interests with their secret
unlimited expenditures dominating our elections, and therefore
dominating public policy in this Congress.
So I am grateful to Congresswoman Eshoo for highlighting this
critical challenge to our democracy, again through an amendment to
ensure that taxpayer dollars are not directed to Federal contractors
who refuse to disclose their political expenditures. With this measure,
we could take one step forward in the fight to restore fairness to our
political process and preserve the integrity of our elections by
disclosing the unlimited, secret, endless flow of corporate dollars
into campaigns.
This Republican majority, many of you voted for the DISCLOSE Act as
presented by Mr. Van Hollen in the last session. I hope that you will
choose again between putting the corporate interest ahead, or choosing
the public interest. It should not be a hard choice, but we will find
out soon enough where you stand.
I urge all of my colleagues to join Congresswoman Eshoo in continuing
the fight for meaningful reform and to advance the cause of
accountability in our campaigns. We owe it to the American people, we
owe it to our Founders who invested so heavily in this democracy, and
we owe it to the future.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1400

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment by my
distinguished colleague from California.
This isn't that complicated. It all gets down to the lesson that we
all learned in grammar school: Honesty is the best policy. Not more
complicated or not more complex than that. Honesty is the best policy.
There is not a Member of this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, who doesn't
believe in the First Amendment. I believe in the First Amendment. I
believe that in a democracy you can say almost anything you want about
almost anybody. You have the right to say what you want. But people
have the right to know who is funding your message.
When people turn on their television sets and they see a political
commercial making outlandish claims, they deserve to know whether that
commercial is being funded by a foreign-owned corporation. They deserve
to know whether that commercial is being supported by a special
interest group. They deserve to know when they're watching a commercial
about how evil a candidate is whether it is being funded by a special
interest that is trying to defeat that particular candidate because
that particular candidate supports the Environmental Protection Agency,
supports clean air, supports clean water, and whether a special
interest is trying to defeat that candidate because they want to
dismantle the EPA. They have the right to know when one of those
commercials permeates our airwaves whether those commercials are being
funded by a special interest, for example, that wants to dismantle
Federal inspections of meat because those Federal meat inspections are
impinging on the bottom line of that particular special interest.

[[Page H1108]]

And so this is simply about the right to know. This is simply about
upholding our right to say what we want when we want about whom we want
but making sure that the American people, no matter what side of the
aisle you're on, understand who is behind that message. This says that
the American people and the American taxpayers shouldn't be unwittingly
subsidizing dirty campaigns and secret donations. And that is why this
amendment is so important, because the American people and taxpayers
have the right to know and because honesty is the best policy.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of
order.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
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, the issue raised by this amendment is to
whom does this Congress belong; in whose interests are the Members of
Congress working.
Now, Mr. Chairman, every one of our constituents will draw a
conclusion about that question based upon how we vote, what we do, and
what we say. And every one of us will face the consequences of that
conclusion in the next election. One of the facts that I think every
voter has a right to know is who is funding and supporting the
campaigns of any one of us who seeks the honor of serving here.
Whether you belong to the most progressive group on the Democratic
side, the most libertarian group on the conservative side, whether
you're a member of the tea party, whether you're a member of a union or
the Chamber of Commerce, I think every voter deserves and believes that
they deserve the right to know who is funding the campaigns that bring
people here. This is a basic matter of transparency and full
disclosure.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think if we're honest among ourselves, we
know how much the American people despise the political ads that
vandalize their television screens every fall. A lot of people I know
turn the television off or turn the sound down because they're so
exhausted of hearing ridiculous personal dirty attacks by one side
against the other. I would hope that some day the level of civility
could rise to where we all stop that, but I think until we get to that
day, people, at the very least, have the right to know who's paying for
it, from where is this money coming.
Ms. Eshoo's amendment is very simple, very plain, and should be
supported by people of all ideological stripes. It says the public has
a right to know where the money is coming from. And if you think a
special interest group that promotes traditional energy supplies--oil
and gas--is a good thing, then you'll be happy that they're paying for
commercials. And if you think like someone who's running on a platform
promoting the woman's right to choose, then you'll be happy knowing
that some of their money may have come from people who sympathize with
that point of view. So irrespective of where you come out on substance,
shouldn't we all come out to a place to say the public has a right to
know who's funding these campaigns.
So to whom does this Congress belong? Well, if we look at the
legislation before us today, it certainly looks like it doesn't belong
to oncological nurses, because money for cancer research is being cut
in this bill. It certainly doesn't look like it belongs to police
officers working the beats of America's towns, because upwards of
15,000 police officers will be laid off as a result of this bill. It
certainly doesn't belong to America's schoolteachers and guidance
counselors, because under this bill upwards of 10,000 reading tutors
and math coaches will lose their job under this bill. Seven thousand
special education teachers under one version of this bill would lose
their jobs.
So if this Congress doesn't belong to nurses, police officers,
teachers, to whom does it belong? One of the answers to that question
would certainly come from answering the question: Who paid the bills to
get the Members here? Who wrote the checks and who made the
contributions?
I hope that our friends would join us in supporting this amendment. I
think it's clear and simple. But if they don't, maybe one of the
reasons they don't want to join us in supporting this amendment or even
hearing this amendment is they don't want the public to know who wrote
the checks, who paid the bills, and who paid the freight.
Everyone should have the right to know who funded the campaigns that
brought people here. It's as simple as full disclosure. It makes great
sense. And I urge a ``yes'' vote on Ms. Eshoo's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to this amendment.
This is a continuation of the effort by the other side to undo the
evenhanded approach that was utilized by the U.S. Supreme Court in
their decision in Citizens United. In that case, the Supreme Court
decided that the Fifth Amendment protections that you have for free
speech are not in any way diminished by virtue of the fact that you say
it not with a single voice but you join with others.
Every response that we've heard from the other side has said, Well,
we don't like what the court did, so what we're going to do is put
certain requirements on those who are corporations but not the same
requirements on those who are unions representing those who are
employees of the Federal Government. And there is as much a conflict of
interest in that regard as there is on those corporations that have
contracts with the Federal Government.
So, once again, they're trying to talk about how this action by the
Supreme Court was unfair, it somehow requires that there is an
unfairness involved, that our elections were taken over by
corporations. Every study has shown that there were far more
expressions of political thought in paid advertising by those on the
left than those on the right in the last election, but we don't hear
about that.
If they would bring forward something that would have equal
treatment, maybe then we could take a look at it. But the fact of the
matter is we have seen effort after effort. We can recall last year
when they brought it to the floor, one of the things they wanted to do
is not only have uneven treatment with respect to corporations and
unions, but they were engaged in an auctioning off of First Amendment
rights according to whether you were a favored or disfavored group.
We saw organizations that were given special exemptions. The National
Rifle Association was one of them. And there were those on the left.
And if you had enough political sway, you got exempted from the
disclosure requirements. And that really is the definition of ``Capitol
cronyism,'' where the government decides who is favored and who is
disfavored, and that the essence of the decision by the Supreme Court
was the acknowledgment that the First Amendment has its most essential
protection in speech, which is political speech.

{time} 1410

And if that be the case, we should tread very lightly where we
require disparate treatment between different groups, those favored and
those which are disfavored. If there's one thing the First Amendment
stands for, it is that we treat everybody the same. And this again is
in keeping with what we saw last year. Some people are more favored
than the others, and when you're talking about First Amendment rights
and expressions of political thought, we should be very wary of it.
And, by the way, nothing with the Supreme Court decision changed the
prohibition against direct contributions to campaigns by corporations.
That has been, that continues to be, and will be a felony. And if
people on the other side have evidence of that happening, they ought to
give that information to the Justice Department and have people
prosecuted.

[[Page H1109]]

So let's at least talk about what the facts are and let's remember
the history of this effort on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We've heard a lot about the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United,
and we may agree with that decision or disagree with that decision. But
the fact of the matter is that's the law of the land. This amendment
does not try to overturn that decision. This amendment is perfectly
consistent with that decision. It simply says that when you are
spending the money, expending the money, you have to disclose to voters
that you're trying to influence their vote. It's the right to know.
Now because we are dealing with an appropriations bill, a government
spending bill, we can't address all of the entities out there in the
country that may be trying to spend money to influence elections.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Not at this moment. I've got my 5 minutes and I'm
going to use them, but I thank you.
What we're saying in this bill is that if we're really trying to save
the taxpayers some money, which we should all be trying to do, we
should try to curb the influence of the special interests who spend a
lot of money hiring lobbyists to influence us and spend money in
campaigns trying to influence the outcome of elections.
Now just in the last couple of days, we've had a lot of votes on some
issues that could affect Federal Government contractors in a very big
way. Just yesterday, we had a vote on something dealing with a big
military contract. So here's my question. That contractor, the
contractor that got taxpayer money or the one that didn't, could say,
Look, I want to reward the folks that supported me. I'm going to run a
bunch of TV ads in their campaign supporting them; say thank you, I
want to get you reelected. Or they may say to the folks who voted
against that Federal Government contract, hey, I want to make sure that
person doesn't come back here because they may vote against my contract
again, they may want to save the taxpayer some money, but we're going
to spend some of our money--a Federal contractor, contractor getting
taxpayer dollars--we're going to spend some of our money to try and
unelect that person who voted against our contract.
This amendment is really simple and it would have a direct impact on
all the conversations we're having. If you're a Federal Government
contractor, if you're getting taxpayer money and you decide to run
political advertisement in people's campaign to try and reward those
who supported you or punish those that didn't, you at least have to
disclose that information to the voters. You at least have to say who
you are and how much you're going to be spending. And it seems to me if
we're genuinely interested in saving taxpayers' dollars, which we all
should be, we should give the taxpayer, whose dollars are going to
those contractors, the right to know whether those contractors are
turning around and spending money in these elections.
So if we're ever going to really work to try and curb those
interests, those special interests that work so hard to try and get
special benefits out of the Federal Government, we should at the very
least say, ``Come clean with the taxpayers.'' This is not an
infringement in any way on free speech. They can still run an ad in
anyone's district and they can say whatever they want to the voters; no
restrictions whatsoever. All we're saying is when you do that, let the
taxpayers know. After all, the taxpayers have helped provide the funds
for your contract. At the very least, you should tell the taxpayer, the
voter, who you are that's spending money to try and influence the
outcome of an election. It seems to me that that's the very least we
can do to try and provide more accountability and more transparency. We
keep hearing from everybody, that's what we want--more transparency.
Okay, let's let the voters know. Why wouldn't you want to let the
voters know?
Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying, this is a very simple
amendment. If you're a Federal Government contractor, you're getting
taxpayer dollars, you decide to get engaged in the political process as
is your right; and after the Citizens United, you can get directly
involved expending money in those campaigns. You can do that and say
what you want. Just tell the taxpayer who you are and what you're
spending to try and influence their vote. I hope that we will adopt
this amendment, and I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Eshoo)
for offering it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman continue to reserve the point of
order?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, I do.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I would just say this: At the core of the Supreme Court decision was
a protection of the First Amendment right of political speech, and that
it would not be lost because you joined with others. As a corollary of
that, the court in the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy
talked about the fact that one of the real fears of the Founding
Fathers was the government acting in disparate ways; that is, treating
different groups differently for a political reason.
And so I just say, in the scenario by the gentleman from Maryland,
one would force an obligation of disclosure on one group and not
another. So that the defense contractors, he said, would if he funded a
statement on television, but the union members who work for the defense
contractor would not; or those who are Federal employees represented by
unions would not.
I guess what we're saying here is we know that corporations influence
elections, but it is absurd to assume that unions do. And if you
believe that, then support this amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
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. I thank the gentleman for reserving
his point of order so that we can speak to this amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from California.
I really believe that this is about transparency. I'm for widening
that circle of transparency as much as we possibly can. This amendment
speaks to a very important part of trying to gain transparency for the
American people. You know, it's a rather remarkable process how we all
get here. We engage in some form of politics that is straight out of
the first Congress of the United States. It's out of the first people
who ran for office here. We go to our neighbors and we go to our
friends and we go to town councils and we talk to people and we ask
them to support us. We go into their organizations and we ask them to
support us. We tell them what we're going to do, we tell them what we
think, we tell them what we like and don't like, maybe what we like
about them and don't like about them. But it's a process of
interchange. It's a transparency of ideas. You're held accountable for
those ideas. And you raise money because you want to publicize your
message further. You go to your friends, you go to organizations that
support you, organizations you support, and you raise money to do this.
And right now that's essentially all disclosed.
But what we've seen now in the last few years, and especially after
this Supreme Court decision, is there's two campaigns that are being
run--you run one, the best you can under the rules we have; campaign
contributions are all reported, and then an independent group comes in
and they run a campaign either for you or against you in your district.
Your constituents may never know what even hit them. They may never
know where it came from. It may only be about an issue that's linked to
you. It has nothing to do with disclosure.

{time} 1420

That's their right now under the Supreme Court decision, but the
question

[[Page H1110]]

really should be: Should those expenditures be disclosed? Because very
often we all know that one of the unpleasant things that happens to you
in this business, I guess unless you fund your campaign out of your own
pocket, is that you'll cast a vote, and the newspaper will immediately
go and say Congresswoman ``so and so'' got a contribution from this
entity on this side or from this person on this side of the argument or
a contribution from this person on the other side of the argument. It
happens all the time. That's disclosure. That's the price you pay--
except for these expenditures. They may come from the very same side of
that argument and will be completely invisible to the press, to your
neighbors, to your constituents, and that should not be allowed. The
disclosure should be full and complete on people who spend money on
behalf of these campaigns.
You can't have a situation where people move through the night, move
with secret money--undisclosed money--and seek to influence the outcome
of the elections in this country. This isn't Egypt where secret
societies move through and create a party for the purpose of diverting
votes from this party over here. This isn't Russia where the oligarchs
and the billionaires move around and create parties to defer one
another and where people never see where the expenditures are coming
from or if they're speculated about.
In this country, in a long, hard struggle, one campaign has full
disclosure--be you a working person or be you a corporate chief.
Whatever the source of money is in your campaign it is disclosed. But
now we have a shadow campaign, and the shadow campaign threatens to
dwarf what is taking place in the other campaigns.
How many Members on both sides of the aisle know that they had a
campaign run? We've all listened to our friends on both sides about the
independent expenditures, about the undisclosed money that came into
the campaign. Think how that turns the stomachs and the hearts and the
minds of our constituents when they think that this was going on--an
election where they in good faith maybe stood in line to vote and made
sure they got in their absentee votes, and they might have asked the
rest of the members of their families to vote. All of that was taken
away by a tsunami of $6 million, $3 million, $9 million, $12 million
that just showed up on the doorstep of your district, all of it
undisclosed, now gathering the forces once again to get ready for the
next cycle--people bragging about how much money they will have, people
bragging about their involvement, their success ratios--all of that to
intimidate Members of Congress, to make people think about the vote;
but they will never be held accountable for those actions.
That's what transparency is truly about. Transparency is as much for
us as it is for our constituents, and it is important to our
constituents because they do make judgments about us; they do make
judgments about issues; they have expectations of us; they have hopes
of us. It is only that information and that transparency that will let
them act in a rational way on behalf of their votes--to protect their
votes, the votes they just cast and the votes they anticipate casting
in the future.
We have an amendment here to rip away the $3 checkoff, which is a
modest effort by constituents to say, I want to make sure the elections
are clean and transparent. Now we see that the undisclosed far exceeds
anything that they can possibly do.
I thank the gentleman again for reserving the point of order.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PEARCE. It is, indeed, interesting to listen to the arguments
that are coming on this particular amendment, Mr. Chairman, as I have
been on the receiving end for a third cycle in a row of about $1.5
million in ads that have been run against me by a group that is
protected, by a group whose secrecy is protected under the DISCLOSE Act
that was passed under the last Congress. So the people who are here,
proclaiming that transparency is the ultimate aim of this legislation,
themselves are protected through this legislation of the last Congress,
certain organizations if they fall within their parameters, which these
groups do.
So I do find it amazing that we are sitting here talking about the
transparency of some of the people who will enter into discussions of
campaigns, but not all of them. We want some of those entire lists over
there prohibited from disclosure. I find it refreshing to hear the
comments about transparency and about the American system coming from
the floor of the House, which decided it did not want that transparency
for certain groups. I suspect those certain groups are still allowed to
be fully clothed in secrecy even under the guise of this particular
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from New Jersey continue to
reserve his point of order?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this very
modest amendment by Congresswoman Eshoo.
In the words of the young people, ``This is a no-brainer.'' This
should be an easy call for Members on both sides of the aisle--people
who believe in fairness and democracy and transparency. It should be an
easy call for us to say, You know what? We know that there may be
Federal contractors out there who are getting billions of dollars in
benefits from Federal contracts, but they should disclose the money
that they are spending on campaigns. The American people expect that.
I wasn't a supporter of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, but that's not what this is about, Mr. Chairman.
This is not about a protected First Amendment right.
I read the decision in Citizens United. What I took away from it is
that, in fact, the one area in which the Congress does have some
authority is in regulating the disclosure of expenditures in campaigns.
The Court was very explicit about that. I know there have been a number
of statements here on the floor that suggest otherwise, that suggest
that this very fine and modest amendment would, in fact, impede our
constitutional rights, but that's not what the Court said at all.
What the Court said is that it's important and that Congress has the
authority to regulate the disclosure of corporate expenditures on
campaigns. This amendment does exactly that. It says, You know what? To
play by the rules, these are the rules that we set. If you spend money
on campaigns, the public has a right and interest in knowing what your
interest is.
So I am a strong supporter of this amendment. It is simple. Who funds
campaigns? What is your special interest, Mr. Chairman?
At a minimum, government contractors who really stand to gain
billions of dollars should disclose their interests in our campaigns.
This is a simple question of democracy. Members can declare here today
that either they are on the side of the public interest and will
support this amendment or that they are on the side of secrecy and
collusion and will oppose the amendment.
It is imperative that we really prevent secret donations in our
elections. We have eliminated the Presidential Election Campaign Fund,
so much more unfettered spending will take place in Presidential
campaigns. We can't afford to continue to obstruct commonsense reforms
that diminish the voices of the American people. I am not alone. Across
this country, fully 80 percent of the American public actually believes
that the Citizens United decision was decided wrongly, but that's not
why we are here today. We will take that up at another time.
We are here today, Mr. Chairman, to declare once and for all that
there will be some of us--and I hope a majority of us--who will stand
in support of the Eshoo amendment, which is on the side of fairness, on
the side of democracy, on the side of transparency: on the side of the
American people. We will declare here today with our vote that we stand
for the public interest, and some will so shamefully declare that they
stand for special interests.

[[Page H1111]]

With that, I urge us to stand on the side of public interest and in
support of the Eshoo amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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 rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.''
The amendment requires a new determination.
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 will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination of whether certain political contributions were
disclosed, a determination not required by existing law.
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.

{time} 1430

Amendment No. 195 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:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the payment of fees and other expenses under
section 504 of title 5, United States Code, or section
2412(d) of title 28, United States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff of this House of
Representatives. We adjourned this morning at 3:48 a.m. with a staff
that diligently stayed and worked these amendments, the staff outside
that provides security. It is an amazing effort by the people who serve
this country as the staff members of the U.S. House of Representatives,
and I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their outstanding
service.
Mr. Chairman, I'm here to propose an amendment and tell a story about
laws, and it is ironic that these two proposals came up simultaneously.
In 1980, a law was passed called the Equal Access to Justice Act, and
it allows Americans who are being challenged by the Federal Government
to recover their legal fees if they successfully sue the Federal
Government when the Federal Government has wronged them. It is a very
fair law.
The problem is, in 1995, the Federal Government quit keeping records
on who is receiving payouts and how much under the Equal Access to
Justice Act. Consequently, this law has been hijacked by certain groups
who use it to sue and recover judgments. For example, there are 14
environmental groups that have recovered $37 million by filing 1,200
lawsuits for which they've recovered judgments and even legal fees
under settlements with the Federal Government, thereby fueling the fire
of suing the Federal Government over sometimes procedural issues.
There's a group at Virginia Tech University who, through the FOIA
law, the Freedom of Information Act, has uncovered how many abuses
there are of this law and how many unintended consequences there are of
the use of this law by certain groups, and we need to have a 6-month
moratorium on expenditures and payouts under EAJA so we can get
information about who's receiving this money, what the lawyers are
being paid per hour, and who it's going to, how many environmental
groups are actually paying for their organization by routinely suing
the Federal Government to stop certain activities on Federal lands.
This is taxpayer money that's being used for this purpose; and in
light of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle's enthusiasm
for sunshine, for full disclosure, for knowing where taxpayer dollars
are going, I strongly encourage you to support my amendment.
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. Mr. Chairman, equal access to our Nation's courts for all
Americans is a hallmark of our democracy and our system of justice.
Providing attorneys' fees to successful plaintiffs, which is what the
Equal Access to Justice Act does, ensures that the government is held
accountable when it overreaches its power. These fees are only
available when a party prevails on the merits of a lawsuit and only
then after careful consideration by the presiding judge as to how
deserving each plaintiff is.
Attorneys' fees are available to individual citizens, local
communities, small business, tribal entities, nonprofits, all
regardless of where they stand on any particular issue. Providing
attorneys' fees ensures that powerless, less wealthy individuals who
wouldn't otherwise have a voice as a result of their not being wealthy
or representing a corporate interest can nevertheless be heard by our
government, by our court system; otherwise, they wouldn't have the
means.
We already suffer under a system where too often big money, as was
discussed in the last amendment, crowds average people out of our
political system, squeezing them out of this political process here on
Capitol Hill. Now you want a system where big money squeezes average
people out of the courthouse as well, out of our justice system?
Awarding attorneys' fees makes it possible for environmental groups--
I acknowledge that--to bring court actions to protect our environment.
I happen to think that's a good thing, but it also allows small
business owners, farmers, ranchers, timber workers to ensure that their
rights are protected as well when they believe that the Federal
Government is in the wrong. It works both ways.
This Republican zeal to target every program that protects natural
resources is just difficult to comprehend. You're proposing an
amendment that would slam the courthouse doors closed for any average
citizen plaintiff, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.
Instead of finding practical solutions that protect the environment
and create jobs, this amendment would do nothing more than financially
punish citizens who want and need, and deserve to have their voices
heard.
That's why this amendment should be defeated.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I rise in
strong support of this legislation offered by my good friend from
Wyoming.
It would be one thing if what the gentleman from Virginia says were
the case in reality. It's not the case in reality. I think that's the
reason that this law was passed, so that those people, the powerless,
less wealthy individuals that the gentleman referred to, would have
access to the courts. And the last thing we want to do is deny citizens
their right to have a say in how, in this case, our public lands are
managed.
But it has become, frankly, a cottage industry: suing the Federal
Government, which is suing the people, and then asking the people to
pay for your legal fees to do so. The Equal Access to Justice will
allow those suing the Federal Government to be reimbursed for their
legal costs even if they don't prevail on a majority of the counts. The
implication that the gentleman just gave is that you have to win. They
can be reimbursed even if they don't prevail on a majority of the
counts.
The law has been abused by several interest groups who have turned
this into, as I said, a cottage industry and now sue the government on
a regular basis. They fund their organization through this and that's a
problem. If somehow we could get it back to what the gentleman said it
was, that would be one thing. So far we haven't been able to do that.
And, in fact, we had language in our last appropriations bill that
didn't make it to the floor, along with the other appropriations bill,
that would have at least said why don't we find out who's getting this
money. If I'm a farmer out there and I get payments under the farm
program, every

[[Page H1112]]

citizen in this country has the right and ability to look it up and see
who's getting those farm payments. You know what, that doesn't happen
with who's getting these fees, who's being reimbursed by the Federal
Government.
They're supposed to keep track of that, but they don't do that; but,
in fact, when we asked the Secretary, does this come out of your budget
or does it come out of the justice fund, who pays for this? Nobody
really knew.

{time} 1440

And if it doesn't come out of their own budget, what's their
incentive to do things the right way?
Quite frankly, many of these lawsuits prevent the management of
Federal lands for the benefit of the people. For example, holding up
important forest-thinning projects and wildfire prevention projects.
This, as I said, has become a cottage industry and needs to be
reformed. This would prevent these fees from being paid during the term
of this CR the next 7 months or however long it takes.
Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to my friend from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend from Idaho.
Is it not the case that you only get fees on that part of the suit
that you brought where you actually win? That you do have to prevail in
order to get something in order to get reimbursed. And it's only on
where you prevail that you get any fee reimbursement.
Mr. SIMPSON. That's accurate. But you don't have to prevail in the
overall case. You could actually lose the case for what you are trying
to do. It is the problem that good intentions have gone awry. And I
will tell you that there are groups all across this country who have
seen this as a way to fund their organizations, and we need to put a
halt to it. Because what we're doing is asking the people of this
country to fund people to sue them. I don't know who else does that.
But on the other hand, I agree with the gentleman that we want those
people that don't have the ability or the resources to have a say in
how public lands are managed, to have a say in that. But it has gone
awry, and we need to put an end to it, and we need to reform the
process.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. I move to strike the last word.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. This amendment is overbroad, to use a euphemistic term,
in order to describe what its impact will be upon those who are the
least powerful, and most agreed in terms of the impact in which the
Federal Government has upon their lives as individual citizens.
Let me give you an idea of how broad the impact of this amendment is.
If this amendment had been in place, would the citizens who had been
unwittingly turned into nuclear guinea pigs in the 1940s and 1950s
during Federal Government-sponsored radiation experiments using
thousands of American citizens without their permission have been able
to bring their lawsuits decades later in order to reclaim some small
compensation for their families? Would they have been able to bring
their suits against the Federal Government? Who do you want to empower,
the people who were the guinea pigs or the Federal Government?
Would a widow who sued the Social Security Administration for
refusing to provide the survivor's benefits that she was still due,
would she be able to sue? Or are the legal fees just so great that the
widow just has to live without the benefits? Would those who live
downwind from a nuclear test and suffered cancer or other health
effects, would they be able to sue? They've only found out years later
what the impact is on them. How can they possibly afford the legal fees
to take on the Federal Government?
Would the atomic veteran deployed at the test site during the
atmospheric nuclear testing of the 1950s ever have been able to afford
to bring their case to court? Would those people all across Nevada,
Arizona, Utah, those States out West where these poor victims only
found out later, how could they have ever afforded to have brought a
lawsuit if they are not going to know that their legal fees would be
covered when they win?
Would government whistleblowers be able to bring a case in response
to retaliation by their supervisors? How can they sue the government?
It's this lone individual against the Federal Government. We should be
empowering these individuals against the Federal Government when it
acts in an imperious, arbitrary, capricious way that ruins people's
lives. Would citizens harmed by a contamination at a Superfund site at
a military base in their neighborhood be able to sue the Federal
Government because of the harm that has now gone into their
neighborhoods? Or should we just say, Sorry, you are out of luck. The
Federal Government did it to you. They did it to you in your
neighborhood. You don't have the capacity because you are just some
poor citizen living accidentally near a military base.
What would the black farmers who were discriminated against for
decades by the Agriculture Department have been able to do in terms of
bringing a lawsuit? They couldn't have done it. Those poor black
farmers took a generation. Who funds that? How do they take on the
Federal Government which had a policy of discrimination for 200 years
against black farmers? How do they do it? You are defunding all of
those lawsuits with this one amendment. What would have been the impact
on Native Americans who trusted the government to protect their
interests and natural resources and instead were ripped off? How do
those Native Americans bring their case?
All of these things are now basically undermined by the amendment
that we are now considering. That is this impact that is being visited
upon all of these victims and all future victims, all actions by the
Federal Government of the United States of America. This is where you
get to show what your attitude is towards the Federal Government when
they are acting in a way which does direct harm to the health, the
well-being, and the safety of ordinary Americans in our country.
I will read the amendment. ``None of the funds made available by this
Act may be used for the payment of fees and other expenses under
section 504 of title 5'' of the U.S. Code. So this covers every suit
that could be brought by any citizen against any Federal agency of the
United States Government. I don't know how you can side with the
Federal Government against ordinary citizens and their right to sue,
especially those who have been harmed the most seriously.
So I urge a very strong ``no'' by every Member of Congress who really
does believe that the Federal Government has to be put in its place
when they harm ordinary citizens.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I think Mr. Markey has it about
right. You have to kind of decide where you're going to stand. Lawsuits
are brought every day that infuriate us in one way or another,
depending upon where you stand and what you think about that issue or
what you know about that issue. But the idea that we would take this
right away from the American people to go up against the government
when the government every day makes a series of decisions--not all of
them are perfect. Many of them are wrong-headed. Many of them had
repercussions that they hadn't thought through when they made the
decision. Those are the challenges that go on every day, whether it's
in OSHA or the EPA or the Department of Labor, the Department of
Interior. And many decisions that are made upstream have a lot of
ramifications downstream.
Let's not pretend that every Forest Service sale is perfectly
configured and thought about the externalities, the impacts on grazers,
the impacts on farmers downstream, the impacts on the streams, the
sedimentation, the impact on the fisheries. We live with that in
California all the time. The salmon don't have a lawyer. But the harm
to the fisheries, the harm to the small fishermen, to the small boat
owners, the people who go out and brave their lives in the Pacific
Ocean. When the Federal Government makes decisions about water flows
and the Federal Government makes decisions about timber sales and when
the Federal Government makes decisions

[[Page H1113]]

about construction on the dam, they have a right to be heard. But this
isn't true if they were Taxpayers For Justice who argue about whether
or not the royalties are fair and returned to the taxpayers, whether or
not the Federal Government issued the permits in the right way. You
think it's a right that somebody else has that maybe you don't like
until you think you might want to exercise it.
This is a magnificent tool. I have no problem with the gentleman from
Idaho who talked in terms of disclosure and accounting and
transparency. That should all be there. I don't know why the Department
stopped listing this, but they should have never done it. And I would
assume in other agencies, they should disclose what the payouts are
because it's a measure of the management, to some extent. This isn't
just funding your organization to keep going to court; it's also a
measure of the management. You know, it's like a business. If you keep
paying out a lot, your insurance company says, Maybe we ought to change
the operations. Maybe we ought to change the way you are thinking here.
Something's wrong when you have these payouts.
You can argue that this is one of the metrics of performance of a
governmental agency. If they keep losing the lawsuits, you might want
to think that you've got to have somebody else running the show.

{time} 1450

So I would hope that we would reject this amendment and understand
that it's a much broader dissipation of citizens' rights to confront
the government when the government may very well be wrong. And again,
the pay-out comes only when you--you have to prevail on those measures.
And on those measures where the court found that the government was
wrong, you're entitled to recover your costs and your expenditures.
So I think this is very fair. It's worked for many, many years; and
it's protected a lot of citizens of this country against arbitrary and
capricious actions by the Federal Government.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Now, we have heard a lot about this particular
fund and the difficulty it has and some exaggerations as to where it
actually goes, what it actually does.
The problem is severalfold, one of which is that since 1994 there has
been no clearinghouse of information. We do not know what has been
funded. We do not know what has been used. We do not know what has been
abused. And repeated requests to try and find that information have
fallen on deaf ears.
In this CR, which is for a limited time, this particular provision
would, once again, as I heard other people saying yesterday, raise
attention to this issue and give someone a reason to actually give that
information.
It is estimated in the last 15 years there have been around 1,100
lawsuits, and that doesn't even include administratively brought
actions that go before Interior Land Boards, and within the Forest
Service. So all of those are part of the situation.
I heard some great speeches about how this would hurt poor people.
And he's actually right, except you're not looking at who are the poor
people who are hurt with the current situation.
Under the way this is administered correctly, any nonprofit,
regardless of the amount of money they have, is eligible for these
funds. But a for-profit individual, these poor farmers you're talking
about, if they have over $7 million in net worth, which means a farmer,
a rancher who is land rich and cash poor, have several options. They
can just sit out and hope something happens for them, or they can put
money out of their own pocket to try and force their way into this
particular situation.
Let me tell you how this has been abused. I'll go with one case that
took place in Federal courts in Idaho in which there was a settlement.
No one was right. No one was wrong. They came to an agreement. And yet,
even though that settlement which represented no admission of fault on
behalf of the government or what it did, the environmental special
interest lawyers were given $43,000 in attorney fees under this
proposal, under this program. And we don't know if that's just the top,
or the tip, of the iceberg or how far it particularly goes.
This is simply an element that we have. We have an unfair balance of
who is available to get these funds. We have an unfair balance of what
happens if someone prevails, and we have an unfair balance if certain
groups get paid with taxpayer money, even though they didn't win the
case, even though the government did nothing wrong.
This system is broken; and this is a good amendment to say, all
right, for the rest of the termination of the CR, we're not going to
spend any more funds in a system that does not work, and we're going to
demand some transparency so we can make some changes. This halts
spending only for a short period of time till we can find out who was
given what and what was spent from whom and to whom. And that's the
point of the amendment. I urge everyone to support it.
I yield back.
Mr. REHBERG. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I just want to real briefly say I was here
when it was created. I was a congressional staffer. And talk about the
law of unintended consequences. I might point out the people from the
other side of the aisle fought us on the creation of the Equal Access
to Justice law. It was never intended to be used for the purposes it is
currently being used for.
So I guess I'd better apologize to the people of America for having
been a supporter of Equal Access to Justice. And, in fact, as a
staffer, I helped talked my Congressman that I worked for into it. I
was his small business aide; his name was Congressman Ron Marlenee of
Montana. I helped talk him into it because it made sense. It was
supposed to give an opportunity for small business to be able to
counter the lawsuits that were going to occur against them by the
government coming in oftentimes with frivolous regulations.
The other side has figured how to turn it into a jobs bill for trial
lawyers. They very effectively, in the Endangered Species Act and some
of the other environmental acts, figured out how to use it to stop
development within the United States.
So, unfortunately, in about the early 90s, we, as small business
advocates, were the ones that helped push this through. The only group
at that time that was exempt was the IRS. We wanted everybody to be
under this law, giving the small businesses an opportunity to protect
themselves.
It has been twisted. They have done everything they possibly can to
turn an industry into suing on behalf of people and then making money
off it. It never was intended for this purpose.
We need to get back to its original purpose. It would be fun to go
back and find out how some of the people that are talking about what a
great law it is now, whether they were supporters at the time because,
if I remember correctly as a young congressional staffer, a lot of the
people that are supporting it today were our biggest opponents back in
the early 80s when we wanted to create this on behalf of small
business.
So I hope you will support the Congresswoman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I rise just to make this very simple point so you all
know what you're doing. The law that this amendment wants to prevent
funding for was a Ronald Reagan law. This is a law Ronald Reagan signed
and put on the books, just so you understand. And of course the reason
he put it on the books was that he sided with the little guy against
the Federal Government. This is a way to make the Federal Government
accountable. And recovery of attorneys' fees and legal expenses is
needed to ensure that the people can keep their own government
accountable when they, the smallest of the

[[Page H1114]]

small, are having the Federal Government intrude itself into their
lives and bringing tremendous harm to the health and well-being of the
families in any particular community in our country.
As of 2009, by the way, Social Security and veterans cases make up
the majority of Equal Access to Justice awards. So you're going to be
disempowering, for the most part, Social Security and veterans cases
that otherwise would not be able to be brought against the Federal
Government. And I just think that this is not well thought out.
This is an across-the-board blunderbuss attack upon the rights of
citizens all across the country who otherwise are just going to sit
there in their home wondering what's going on in Washington. If ever
there was a tea party amendment that has to be made to counter what
you're doing, this is it. You guys are here representing Big Government
against the essence, the heart, the soul of the tea party movement,
wondering how the Federal Government can get away with intruding
themselves. And all we're really providing here is minimal financial
assistance if they win. If they lose it's a frivolous case. If they
lose, the jury decided against them. This is only if they win, if they
put up their life savings to try to take on the Federal Government and
they win because the Federal Government had compromised the rights of
their family.
So, I just want to let you all know, environmental cases amount to a
very, very, very tiny fraction of all the cases that we're talking
about. We're talking about, for the most part, ordinary families. And I
understand why some people might not want to give these people the
right to sue, but you're making a big mistake. It's at the heart, it
seems to me, of what the tea party movement was about, and voting for
this will be a very difficult thing to explain.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Terry). 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. 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 gentlewoman from Wyoming
will be postponed.

{time} 1500

Amendment No. 222 Offered by Ms. Lee

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available by division A
of this Act may be used for any account of the Department of
Defense (other than accounts excluded by subsection (b)) in
excess of the amount made available for such account for
fiscal year 2010, unless the financial statements of the
Department for fiscal year 2010 are validated as ready for
audit within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(b) The following accounts are excluded from the
prohibition in subsection (a):
(1) Military personnel, reserve personnel, and National
Guard personnel accounts of the Department of Defense.
(2) The Defense Health Program account.
(c) In this section, the term ``validation'', with respect
to the auditability of financial statements, means a
determination following an examination engagement that the
financial statements comply with generally accepted
accounting principles and applicable laws and regulations and
reflect reliable internal controls.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, this is unbelievable. But I rise today in
support of my amendment.
It really does hit at the heart of the issue of fiscal
responsibility, discussed with such passion on the floor over the past
few days. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why a point of
order would be called on this amendment. It's short and to the point.
If enacted, all it would do is freeze the Department of Defense
programs at the fiscal 2010 level, unless the financial statements of
the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010 are validated as ready
for audit within 6 months of enactment of this act.
This amendment would exempt military personnel, Reserve personnel,
and National Guard personnel accounts, as well as the defense health
program account from this potential funding freeze.
Let me take a moment and clarify what is expected of the Department
of Defense in this amendment.
My amendment would simply require a determination that the
Department's financial statements comply with generally accepted
accounting principles, applicable laws, regulations, and that they
reflect reliable internal controls. These are just basics if you are
managing a budget.
Sadly, the Department of Defense Inspector General and the GAO have
documented time and time again the Department's inability to answer
this basic question: Where are our defense dollars going?
I would like to summarize just a few highlights from a 2009 Pentagon
Inspector General's report on the subject of DOD audit activities and
financial controls.
The Department of Defense ``acknowledged that it does not meet
accounting standards for the financial reporting of public accounts
payable because it lacks standard procedures for recording, reporting,
and reconciling the amounts of the financial accounting and reporting
systems.''
We're talking about a $700 billion budget. No standard procedures for
recording, reporting, and reconciling these amounts.
The Department of Defense ``continues to enter material amounts of
unsupported accounting entries.'' In other words, they are balancing
the books with figures not tied to specific programs or expenditures.
The Department of Defense audit trails ``for estimated environmental
liabilities are insufficient, and there is uncertainty regarding the
accounting estimates used to calculate the reported environmental
liability.''
And, lastly, ``despite efforts and limited progress towards auditable
financial statements, DOD still struggles with material control
weaknesses that make the financial data unreliable.''
Until these and any other weaknesses in this $700 billion budget are
resolved, DOD will not be able to meet its goal of an unqualified
audit.
I anticipate that some of my colleagues may make the argument that
DOD is making progress on this issue in response to congressional
engagement. They might reference language in recent Defense
authorization bills requiring the DOD to develop and implement plans to
achieve auditability by September 2017.
That is kind of hard to believe. We're talking about taxpayer
dollars; we're talking about a huge deficit, a recession. We can't even
audit the Department of Defense until 2017. It doesn't make any sense.
It's unacceptable that we are still developing plans. Do you hear me?
Developing plans for the Department of Defense? This is almost
laughable. Developing plans for the Department of Defense to have its
fiscal house in order until 6 years from now, 2017. It makes no sense.
The problem is not newly discovered, and further delay is
unacceptable given the enormous and increasing proportion of Federal
dollars going toward the defense budget. Even if we do freeze base
Defense Department appropriations at fiscal year 2010 levels, if we
wait until 2017, Congress will watch more than $3 trillion--you hear me
again?--three trillion taxpayer dollars will be allowed, once again, to
go to a black hole at the Pentagon, with no oversight, no
accountability, and no consequences.
In the 1990s, Congress was promised these financial deficiencies
would be solved by 1997. The timeline was delayed to 2007. That was in
the early 2000s. Is there any expectation that the 2017 timeline will
not be delayed without Congress demonstrating a willingness to hold the
Defense Department accountable? Come on.
I think that this should be a bipartisan vote. We should look at this
amendment. It should not be subject to a point of order. We have to
have some fiscal responsibility in our defense fund.

[[Page H1115]]

Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change the existing law and
constitutes legislation in the appropriations bill. Therefore, it
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. I ask for a ruling from the
Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, when you talk about
fiscal responsibility with the Defense Department, taxpayers' dollars,
trillions and trillions of dollars that are unauditable, there should
not be a point of order.
These are our dollars, our constituents' dollars. They deserve a vote
to see who wants to make sure that there is some fiscal responsibility
at the Department of Defense.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment contains a legislative condition on the availability of
funds in the bill. As such, the amendment violates clause 2 of rule
XXI.
The point of order is sustained.

Amendment No. 211 Offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. For ``Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Justice Assistance'' for an additional amount to
amounts otherwise made available by this Act for carrying out
title I of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, as
authorized by section 107 of such Act (Public Law 110-401),
there is hereby appropriated, and the amount made available
by this Act for ``Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Justice Assistance'' is hereby reduced by,
$30,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for my colleagues'
support of an amendment to protect our most vulnerable constituents,
our children.
This bipartisan amendment is a simple one. It says that child victims
of sexual predators should not be forced to fight for funding scraps if
deep cuts to the Department of Justice occur.
This amendment fences off $30 million within the Department of
Justice's Justice Assistance Account for child exploitation prevention
and interdiction. It ensures that, even in this time of painful budget
cuts, that we will protect the most precious and vulnerable among us.
Over the last decade, child pornography trafficking has exploded into
a multi-billion-dollar global industry. The majority of both demand and
supply is based in the United States and, sadly, most often involves
parents or adults that the victim knows and trusts.
Tragically, the demand for images of young children being sexually
exploited, raped, and even tortured can only be supplied through the
continued sexual abuse of more children. Literally, every image of
child pornography is a crime-scene photo.
Several years ago, law enforcement informed Congress that it could
identify hundreds of thousands of individuals perpetrating child
exploitation offenses online, but admitted it was investigating fewer
than 2 percent of these known individuals due to a lack of resources
that left them outnumbered and overwhelmed.
The vast majority of these identifiable sexual predators remained at
large, and their young victims beyond rescue.
Congress and the President responded by passing and signing into law
the PROTECT Our Children Act, which provides desperately needed
resources for the vital Internet Crimes Against Children task forces.
These task forces are teams of local, State, and Federal law
enforcement agencies and prosecutors that lift the digital
fingerprints, rescue the children, and hold perpetrators accountable.
The ICAC task forces rescue child victims in real time, victims like
Alicia Kozakiewicz, who was sexually assaulted at age 13 by a man who
befriended her online and abducted her from her Pittsburgh home. She
was rescued by the FBI and the Virginia ICAC task force.
Now is not the time to pull the funding rug out from under these ICAC
task forces. Congress is already funding this effort at only half of
its authorization. Yet the law is making a difference. The Department
of Justice recently released its ``National Strategy'' to combat child
exploitation, but it is only first getting up and running. Now is not
the time to impose draconian funding cuts on the Department of Justice
that could thwart this progress.
I want to thank Congressman Shuler, Congressman Lamar Smith, and
Congressman Dan Lungren for supporting me in this bipartisan effort.
This important amendment will give State, local, and Federal law
enforcement the resources they need to protect our most vulnerable.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1510

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to accept the
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. We accept the amendment on our side.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 165 Offered by Mr. Carter

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the rule
entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry
and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants''
published by the Environmental Protection Agency on September
9, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 54970 et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. cement industry is among the most
regulated in the world and has long served not only as a responsible
steward of the environment, but as a provider of high-wage family jobs
in communities throughout this country. It competes against imported
Asian cement, which has the advantage of low wages and nonexistent
environmental regulations. Yet the EPA has plans to drop a bomb of job-
killing, ineffective regulations on this industry which, by the EPA's
own admission, could result in an increase in global mercury pollution
as production moves to those countries with no air quality standards.
Specifically, in September of 2010, EPA finalized the Portland Cement
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, NESHAP, a
rule based on questionable science.
The U.S. cement industry provides more than 15,000 high-wage jobs
with an average compensation of $75,000 per year, and, along with
allied industries, accounts for nearly $27.5 billion of the gross
domestic product. Due to the recession, the cement industry has already
lost over 4,000 jobs. This bad rule threatens to close another 18 of
the 97 cement plants nationwide and throw another 1,800 Americans out
of good-paying private sector jobs.
Mr. Chairman, as bitter as this would be in the middle of a horrible
recession, if it were to guarantee that it would reduce mercury
pollution, at least this high human cost might be justified. But when
the cement production from these plants is shifted to China and India
with no air quality standards, we could face increased mercury
pollution worldwide and in this country.
Today, 75 percent of our annual mercury deposits are already coming
to the United States from outside this country. That is indicated by
this map prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute.
If you look at this map very briefly, here is the regulation chart.
Red is somewhere between a little under 80 percent and 100 percent of
the mercury.

[[Page H1116]]

If you look west of the Mississippi, in fact it actually crosses the
Mississippi, all this area of red, that means the Asian pollution,
Asian pollution, pollutes the mercury in this part of the United States
in a percentage between 80 and 100 percent.
Now, as you move across into the Midwest and the South, it is only
between 60 and 78 percent that is provided by the winds bringing
pollutants from Asian pollution. Of course, Florida is down here. It is
in the red, so it is between 80 and 100 percent.
It is only on the east coast that you get down in this range here,
which is 20 to a little over 55 percent, and the blue is below that,
which is just a few dots over here on the east coast.
So right now our mercury problem is not our problem; it is from
outside the United States right now. And we are going to implement
rules and regulations dropped on this industry by the EPA, which is
going to drive at least 18 of these plants and possibly the vast
majority of these plants offshore. Where are they going to go offshore?
They are going to go to Asia.
Right now we have ways to measure this and protect ourselves in our
plants already in place, and most of the things that EPA is asking for
are in place. But they changed the rules in the middle of the game.
Therefore, we are asking that we do the right thing and force the EPA
to sit back down at the table and draft a rule that actually reduces
mercury pollution and saves U.S. jobs.
This is important. This is a bad rule, and it is going to be bad for
our environment. And the best thing we can do is say time out on this
by basically saying no funds will be spent on the enforcement of this.
And we would hope that EPA would go back to the table, sit down with
industry, and come up with a real solution for what they are trying to
do.
This is the purpose of my amendment, and this is what this is all
about.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Is this for 1 year, or what is the timeframe?
Mr. CARTER. Basically, I don't have a timeframe in here.
Mr. DICKS. So it is permanent law?
Mr. CARTER. It is basically permanent.
But what we are saying is the real issue is the mercury issue and the
hydrochloric acid issue, and those things have not even been discussed.
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. This amendment would attempt to put to an end a rule that,
first of all, would increase revenues in the industry sectors that
design, manufacture and install pollution control equipment by as much
as $2.2 billion and increase employment in the cement industry by as
much as 1,300 jobs. So, in effect, the amendment could be considered a
job-killer amendment.
But what it does is to prohibit EPA from implementing, administering
or enforcing final rules to control air toxins from the Portland cement
industry.
The standards for Portland cement kilns have already been
promulgated. The amendment would not relieve the industry of the
obligation to meet these standards. Even though the agency would be
precluded from spending funds to enforce the standards, citizens or
States could bring enforcement actions against these sources of
pollution that didn't comply with the standards.
This amendment would also prevent EPA from providing technical
assistance to such sources of pollution to assist them in understanding
and complying with the rule or to the States to assist the States in
enforcing the rule.
The compliance date is 2013, so the regulated industry sources are
now in the process of evaluating control equipment needs and preparing
to order large amounts of equipment in order to be in compliance. Lack
of EPA assistance and oversight at this critical time may ultimately
result in a number of facilities not being prepared to comply on the
compliance date. This in turn could result in numerous enforcement
actions and citizen lawsuits, all of which would ultimately result in
significant costs that would have to be borne by the States and
regulated sources which this amendment would make avoidable.
These funding limitations to stop EPA rules really have unintended
consequences. They don't stop the legal requirements to regulate
polluters. They really do, though, contribute to the pockets of lawyers
that would litigate these issues out in the courtrooms.
It seems to me that we should defeat what is really an unnecessarily
costly amendment and an ill-advised and ill-timed one. So I would urge
defeat of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, in advance of last fall, the
election last fall, the Republican Conference presented a governing
document called the Pledge to America, which put forward our ideas on
how we intended to deal with the unsustainable level of deficit
spending that has created a crippling debt being forced upon our
children, our grandchildren and future generations.
The American people agreed with us and entrusted the Republican Party
with a new majority here in the House in order to carry out what we put
forward. In that pledge we promised that we would cut $100 billion from
the fiscal year 2011 budget, and with the passage of this legislation,
the underlying legislation, which I support, we will have kept that
promise.
Unfortunately, President Obama did not seem to get that message, as
he has threatened to veto this legislation.

{time} 1520

The President remains committed to an agenda that calls for ever-
higher spending, higher taxes, trillion-dollar deficits, huge debt, and
a government that is out of control. The President presented his budget
to the Congress this past Monday and patted himself on the back by
saying that his budget, Mr. Chairman, reduces the deficit over the next
10 years by about a trillion dollars. But he said little of the fact
that, according to his own math, more than $7 trillion would be added
to our national debt. Today, our national debt is in excess of $14
trillion. At the end of the President's 10-year budget window, it will
be nearly $23 trillion. It's clear that the President's budget was not
a governing document like the Pledge to America was. It was a political
document in which he refused to take on the tough challenges that we
face in our Nation.
In the Illinois State Senate, President Obama, then-State Senator
Obama, voted ``present'' 130 times, refusing to take a position on the
various issues facing his State. In his irresponsible budget on Monday,
President Obama once again voted ``present.''
Mr. Chairman, President Obama needs to know with the many challenges
facing our Nation, now is not the time to vote ``present.'' Now is the
time to provide leadership.
You don't have to believe me that the President's budget doesn't
provide the serious leadership that our Nation needs now. Just read The
Washington Post. One of the President's strongest supporters in the
media said this about the Obama budget: ``The President punted. Having
been given the chance, the cover, and the push by the fiscal commission
that he created to take the bold steps to raise revenue and curb
entitlement spending, President Obama in his fiscal 2012 budget
proposal chose instead to duck. To duck and to mask some of the ducking
with the sort of budgetary gimmicks that he once derided.''
Well, Mr. Chairman, punting in football is the equivalent of voting
``present'' in politics. By once again voting ``present,'' the
President refused the mantle of leadership at a time of fiscal crisis
in our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, we in the Republican Party will take that mantle and
continue to put forward an agenda for America that gets our fiscal
house in order and empowers the private sector to create new jobs. We
listened to the American people, and they concede today our seriousness
in dealing with the out-of-control spending problem that we have. In
our budget we will show once again that we are serious about reducing
these unsustainable deficits.

[[Page H1117]]

We understand, Mr. Chairman, that out-of-control government spending,
borrowing, and debt limits the opportunities available to our children
and to our grandchildren to help them achieve the American Dream. We
will continue to tackle these tough issues head on. If President Obama
believes that his political supporters simply will attack all of our
efforts to return this Nation to fiscal sanity, if he believes that by
voting ``present'' and by taking a pass on the tough decisions that
somehow he will gain political advantage, Mr. Chairman, I believe that
the President has seriously underestimated the political will of the
American people and seriously misread the message from the last
election.
The American people, Mr. Chairman, understand that the status quo is
not sustainable. They understand that we cannot build our economy on
top of a mountain of debt. And the American people understand that it
is simply unacceptable for the leader of our Nation at this time in our
history to be voting ``present.''
This week, the Members of the House are making the difficult choices
on this continuing resolution which we have been debating this week.
The Republican majority will be presenting our budget in the near
future--and we will not be voting ``present.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to say I rise in strong support
of Judge Carter's amendment. It's absolutely necessary. Let me give you
a few reasons why.
First, I'm cochair of the Cement Caucus along with Congressman Mike
Ross of Arkansas. My district is one, if not the top, cement-producing
district in America. This is a critical industry to our infrastructure
and certainly to the people of our country.
Nationally, the cement industry employs about 17,000 Americans. We've
lost more than 4,000 jobs in this industry since 2008. I am deeply
concerned that EPA has failed to properly address the economic impact
of this NESHAP rule. I'm extremely concerned about this for a variety
of reasons. It seems to me in many respects this industry seems to be
specifically under attack by the EPA. This rule is critically flawed.
It cobbles together a range of different performance characteristics
for different pollutants without determining if it is possible for any
single cement plant to comply with all the standards simultaneously.
Nobody has determined if anyone can comply with this rule. This means
a lot to the people of my district. This rule is going to restrict our
ability to remain competitive with foreign cement producers. Foreign
imports currently make up about 20 percent of total U.S. cement sales.
Most foreign operators basically are producers. They operate without
anything close to the level of environmental standards currently in
place in America. While the EPA is trying to limit cement production
with this ill-advised, job-destroying regulation, the Obama
administration stimulus is providing financing to build a cement
importation terminal in New York City. Stimulus dollars are being used
to fund a cement importation terminal in New York City. The cement
that's produced in my region supplies the New York market. It's the
equivalent of one full plant. Why are we subsidizing foreign producers
of cement with our stimulus dollars? It makes no sense.
So the Federal Government on the one hand is enabling foreign
producers and on the other hand it's using the EPA to further cripple
the domestic industry, which was flat on its back in 2010 and this year
in 2011 is going to be even worse. We need a viable infrastructure, we
need a viable cement in America. This amendment I think in an effective
manner addresses this problem.
Somebody at EPA is going to have to answer for this because I know my
constituents were enormously offended that the Federal Government would
be doing so much to undermine this industry on the one hand through a
stimulus and then on the other hand using EPA to further limit their
ability to operate.
Again, this rule could force, we estimate, as many as 18 to 90 cement
plants to end operations. Others will be forced to dramatically reduce
those operations. So, again, I urge everybody in this Chamber,
everybody who's listening, paying attention, please support Judge
Carter's amendment. It's important for American jobs and American
infrastructure.
Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DENT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to address for a moment some of the things that were
said by my friends on the other side of the aisle. It's true that there
may be 1,300 new jobs, as he quoted. But 1,300 new inspectors are not
jobs in the cement industry. The cost of doing the conversion,
according to the industry spokesman, is about $3.5 billion
industrywide, and even then they're not sure they're meeting all
standards that are being required by EPA.
One for-instance in this requirement of EPA is, hydrochloric acid has
never been considered a problem by EPA, and all of a sudden there's a
regulation on hydrochloric acid. This is an almost $4 billion cost to
an industry whose total net worth is approximately $10 billion. That is
a tremendous, tremendous burden to place on this industry.
Quite honestly, what we're trying to accomplish by this before this
regulation is actually implemented is to say, Time out. We're not
funding this until you get back to the table and start working out a
reasonable way to save American jobs and not encourage foreign jobs to
take jobs away from America. That's what this does. And obviously with
this thing that's going on in the port in New York, that's even more
horrendous, that we are actually attacking American jobs by our own
efforts.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to be recognized in opposition to
this Carter amendment. This has nothing to do with saving costs. This
has nothing to do with lowering the deficit. What this amendment would
do is to stop EPA from going ahead and enforcing a rule that they put
into place dealing with mercury toxic emissions.
It took them 10 years to get that rule in place. And why did they
finally adopt a rule? Because mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that
causes learning disabilities and developmental damage, especially in
young children.

{time} 1530

Every year an estimated 60,000 American newborn babies are threatened
with a diminished ability to think and learn due to exposure to mercury
pollution.
Now we have to balance things out. We want to protect the cement
manufacturers. We want them to be profitable. But if we're going to let
them continue with that mercury pollution, we're going to have 60,000
kids that are going to be born with neurological problems. Are we a
Congress that cares about life? Well, I think we want both--the
industry to prosper and to stop the poisoning of our kids.
So we asked the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt a rule. They
met with the industry people. They put out a proposed rule. They got
comments to their rule. They finally put it into place. And now we
would be asked under this amendment to stop it. As the gentleman from
Texas suggests, go back and renegotiate. Well, there's nothing to
renegotiate. There's no rule in place. The National Association of
Clean Air Agencies wrote a letter, which I'm going to make part of the
record at the appropriate time, and they said, Please oppose this
amendment. They said, While there will be costs associated with the
implementation of the rules, the benefits will far outweigh them. EPA
estimates that the regulations will yield $7 billion to $18 billion
annually in benefits, which is enormous when compared to the estimated
$350 million to $950 million in annual costs that EPA has calculated.
If you want to do it by dollars and cents, this is a real good deal
for the

[[Page H1118]]

American people. But if you want to do it for something even more
important--life of babies and children. We're talking about keeping
them from being poisoned.
These standards that are being put in place will limit toxic mercury
pollution from cement kilns, the third largest source of mercury
pollution in America. These standards will reduce mercury pollution
from cement kilns by 92 percent. They also reduce other hazardous air
pollutants, such as lead, arsenic, dioxins and benzene which are known
to cause cancer, birth defects and other catastrophic health
consequences. Reducing these toxic chemicals also reduces the fine
particulate pollution, or soot, which interferes with heart and lung
function and triggers strokes, heart attacks and lung disease.
The Carter amendment would stop all of these efforts to protect the
public health. And the only reason we've heard is that they fear
there's going to be a cost to the cement industry. Yes, there will be.
But that cost can be handled. And we've always heard throughout the
debate on environmental laws that the costs are going to outweigh the
benefits. A rigorous economic analysis was conducted and the economic
analysis shows that the benefits of this regulation far outweighed the
costs to the industry. Let's not put corporate profits ahead of our
children. I urge my colleagues not to agree to this amendment. They're
common sense, they'll save money, they'll create jobs, and they'll save
lives.
Let me just tell you further what EPA estimated what these standards
will prevent.
Up to 2,500 premature deaths; 1,000 emergency room visits; 1,500
heart attacks; 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma; 32,000 cases of upper
and lower respiratory symptoms. We're talking about reducing health
costs that could amount to $18 billion every year and I think that's a
great savings for the American people. I urge opposition to the Carter
amendment.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Thank you.
I just wanted to address a couple of issues about the EPA. I've tried
to point out, very thoughtfully, that the EPA has failed really to
properly address the economic impact of this proposed rule. It is
critically flawed.
Let me restate once again why this rule is so flawed. Because it does
bring together, cobbles together, a range of different performance
characteristics for different pollutants without determining if it is
possible for any single cement plant to comply with these standards
simultaneously. That is the problem. My distinguished colleague from
California is making a point that there will be less emissions. That is
true. Because there will be fewer plants. They will not be emitting
anything. We expect 18 plants that may be shuttered out of the 90 in
this country; tremendous capital investment for an industry critical to
our basic infrastructure.
These are high-paying jobs that we're talking about. We can't afford
to lose that many more. That industry has become much more efficient
over the years. These plants today produce far more than numerous
plants would have produced years ago. I just can't emphasize enough
that as we are having this great debate about the nature of the economy
and jobs, that we would be willfully using regulatory agencies that we
know are going to cost thousands of jobs in America, high-paying jobs.
When is enough enough? I won't get into the New York plant again, about
how we're using stimulus dollars to bring cement from Peru to New York
to serve the market. They're going to kill more jobs than they're going
to create with this importation terminal.
I just can't get over this. They're bringing this cement here because
they would prefer to have fewer cement trucks from Pennsylvania, and
even upstate New York and Maryland supplying New York, they would
rather have fewer cement trucks on their roads. They would prefer to
have huge ships coming in from Peru with cement rather than deal with
the inconvenience of those cement trucks.
My region takes a lot of garbage--trash, waste--from New York. We get
garbage trucks every day in my district, with New York garbage. We
landfill it. We're required to under the U.S. Constitution, under the
interstate commerce clause. It's been to the Supreme Court. We do that.
We're not shutting down our State line to them and that industry.
The point is, it's about cement. It's about a basic industry. It's
about American jobs. Judge Carter's amendment is the right thing. It's
the right thing to do.
Mr. CARTER. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. I thank you for yielding.
I just want to point out what my friend from California was pointing
out. Under the plan that's before us from the EPA, we're pretty well
sure that 18 of our 90 plants are going to move offshore. So we get to
add 18 plants to the people who are polluting this area of the United
States at an almost hundred percent pollutant, and good scientific
evidence already tells us that 75 percent of the mercury pollution,
which is the argument the gentleman made, is coming from outside the
United States. Now we're adding 18 new plants to the 75 polluters and
we're taking 18 plants away from the 25 percent side. To me, I wonder
how that balances out to make good sense for those poor sick kids that
he was talking about. We're adding more pollution to the unregulated,
full-scale polluters, and we're harming and taking American jobs, the
fathers and mothers of those very children he was talking about.
They're no longer going to have a job and somebody in China or India is
going to have that job. And I think the American people are pretty fed
up with us trying to constantly ship good American jobs overseas.
I hear my friends talk about, we are outsourcing. This is a form of
outsourcing by regulating us out of business and sending those jobs
over to where they open with open arms and no regulations and lower
wages, come on in, make your cement, we'll ship it back to the United
States and use that New York terminal to bring it into the United
States.
I think we need to rethink this. All we're asking is an
implementation that doesn't drive us out of the country. It's that
simple. It's not that tough.
Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. If some of the pollution is coming from offshore, from
China, which is true, that's no excuse for us to allow more pollution
to come from the sources here in the United States. And simply asking
businesses to lower their emission levels does not mean we push them to
do business overseas. American businesses have thrived even with
environmental regulation.

{time} 1540

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
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. What we are hearing this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is a
whole bunch of phony baloney numbers about how this is going to affect
the cement industry, about how this is going to affect the concrete
industry, when, in fact, industry after industry in the United States
has been able to comply with rules which protect the public health and
safety.
First, let's just define what we're talking about and why American
families are concerned about what the Portland cement industry is
doing:
It is airborne mercury which settles in lakes and rivers. It
accumulates in fish and shellfish. In its most dangerous form, it is a
neurotoxin that can lead to birth defects and stunted brain
development.
Since we are at the top of the food chain and doctors and dieticians
across the country are urging families to eat more fish, we are
simultaneously urging them, especially those with small children or who
are women who may be pregnant, to consume these fish that

[[Page H1119]]

have the neurotoxins in them that we know lead directly to brain
damage, that lead to harm in children in our country.
So this is a concrete example of what the Republican majority is now
trying to do. This is kind of a regulatory earmark for a single
industry, aimed at giving it the right to pollute, to send mercury into
our atmosphere, and ultimately into the bodies of the children of our
country when we know that thousands of them are going to die from the
consumption of that mercury and that thousands more will have an
aggravation of asthma, which they already have. The same thing will be
true for senior citizens. Yet they're over here and are almost ignoring
the health care impacts on families in our country.
We have people all across the country who are now going through food
stores, looking to find what the mercury count is in the food which
they're purchasing for their families. Instead, what the majority wants
to do here today is to put a pair of Portland cement shoes on the EPA
and then throw it into the river. And if the EPA doesn't die from
drowning, the mercury is going to kill it. That's ultimately what the
impact is going to be of this amendment.
So I understand, if I were a trade association, that I would be
arguing, You can't impose any kind of restrictions upon us to protect
the children of our country. It's just too expensive. It's too hard for
us to do. The Chinese will take advantage of our protecting children
from having mercury put into their brains, into their systems.
But do you want to know what? That's not a good enough excuse for our
country. Our country is supposed to be the leader in ensuring that the
public health of our citizens is protected. What has been constructed
here is a very careful balance which ensures that the industry can
survive and thrive at the same time that it is protecting the health
and safety of the children in our country.
There are, by the way, many other people in the cement manufacturing
industry who have contacted me, including companies in my own district,
who do not support this position. They say that it is actually quite
within their power to be able to comply with these rules in terms of
ensuring that mercury is reduced in the production of cement, of
concrete in our country.
So this is for the narrow number of small companies which are seeking
to be exempted from having to participate in something that the vast
majority of the industry can comply with. I do not believe that our
country is going to sink to a level where the health and safety of the
children in our country are going to be allowed to be compromised by
amendments on this House floor on behalf of a single small industry,
without any scientific justification except the bleatings that come
from those who do not want to comply, and knowing that the consequences
will be the loss of thousands of lives and brain damage done to
thousands of more who are children right now but who will be affected
by the vote that we cast here today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to very quickly rise in strong support of
Congressman Carter's amendment.
I have three cement plants in my district in Midlothian, Texas. It is
the cement capital of Texas.
Mr. Chairman, Republicans are not for no regulation of mercury. We
think this particular mercury rule is flawed. My good friend, the
former chairman Mr. Waxman of California, talked about the rigorous
analysis that was done. His definition of ``rigorous'' and my
definition of ``rigorous'' are not one and the same. We think that
analysis was fairly flawed.
I would point out that most pollutants--and we do agree that mercury
is a pollutant--are measured in tons. Mercury emissions from these
plants are measured in pounds per year, so mercury is a trace element
of these pollutants. We think that we should go back and actually do a
real economic analysis and also a health analysis.
My good friend from Massachusetts was talking about the dangers of
health. Those are real dangers. But again, given that the trace amounts
of mercury that are emitted per year are in pounds, it is a very
tenuous connection to say that the mercury from a cement plant has a
direct correlation with some of the potential side effects that the
gentleman from Massachusetts was talking about.
So I think this is a good amendment, and I want to support it.
I now yield to my good friend Mr. Akin. I believe he has an amendment
to the amendment.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman offering a secondary amendment?
Mr. AKIN. I was intending to offer amendment No. 181, Mr. Chairman,
but I decided to withdraw the amendment, and was going to simply speak
on the subject.
The Acting CHAIR. The Carter amendment is pending, and the gentleman
from Texas has yielded his time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to my good friend from Florida (Mr.
Diaz-Balart).
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Just very briefly, look. Come on. Let's get real.
Mr. Chairman, everybody supports protecting the environment. Every
American supports protecting the environment. We also support
protecting the jobs of the people who live within that environment. Yet
some of us don't support arbitrary decisions that are made that are
going to cost thousands of jobs and that are going to close plants.
So, again, while there is a consensus in this body on protecting the
environment, there does not seem to be, Mr. Chairman, a consensus on
protecting the jobs of the American people, of those who are desperate
for jobs. But without this amendment, we are going to lose more jobs.
Let's have some common sense. Let's protect the environment and protect
American jobs.
Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. Having raised four children and being a person who cares
about children, I was a little offended that I was being accused of
wanting to harm children, which is not the purpose of this.
In fact, I would argue that between 75 and 100 percent of the mercury
pollutants on two-thirds of the American continent, of the country of
America, is coming from foreign sources. Of those who cannot meet these
onerous requirements, the only solution they have in order to stay in
business is to move to foreign countries, where they do not regulate
air quality. I would argue, with this amendment, we are taking it away
from the polluters and are saying, Wait a minute. Let's look at this
and talk it out.

{time} 1550

That's really what we are trying to do, and so I would argue that I'm
trying to save the lives of American children because the foreigners
are polluting our air, and 75 percent of those pollutants were created
by foreign companies where the only choice for these people to stay in
business is to move there.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield back 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. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding.
I just am astounded by some of the things that are said in the House,
that there has not been a careful analysis of this proposal and the
harm that comes with these mercury pollutants, because the National
Association of Clean Air Agencies, the people in your State that
enforce the clean air laws, talked about regulation yielding $7 billion
to $18 billion annually in benefits, which is

[[Page H1120]]

enormous when compared to the estimated $350 million and $950 million
in annual costs.
Cement plants employ workers who also can get sick from all of this,
but the American cement industry did us a report of their own on this;
and in November of last year, analysis by the Portland Cement
Association predicts that domestic cement production will increase more
than 25 percent from today's levels by 2013 when these rules go into
effect and more than 50 percent by 2015. So they don't think they're
going to be losing jobs under this proposal.
My friend from Texas (Mr. Barton) says, well, these are trace
amounts. This is a very intense toxic substance. And he said there
hasn't been a vigorous analysis. Well, we've got numbers with the
analysis that we've had. I don't know what analysis the cement caucus
has for us, but I think that Mr. Markey was correct when he stated this
is an industry in certain areas that wants to avoid spending money to
stop the pollution from their plants, and it is just not a good excuse
to me to say that because some of the mercury comes from overseas and
other places we should allow the mercury to continue right here in the
United States.

National Association of

Clean Air Agencies,

Washington, DC, February 17, 2011.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association
of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), we are writing to express our
opposition to Amendment No. 165 to H.R. 1 (introduced by Rep.
John Carter and expected to be considered on February 17,
2011), which would prohibit FY 2011 funds from being used to
implement, administer or enforce the ``National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland
Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance
for Portland Cement Plants.'' The standards affected by this
amendment were published on September 9, 2010 and are
designed to reduce emissions of air pollutants from Portland
Cement Manufacturing facilities. NACAA is the association of
air pollution control agencies in 51 states and territories
and over 165 major metropolitan areas across the United
States.
The rules EPA adopted are not only consistent with the
provisions of the Clean Air Act, but are necessary to protect
public health. Portland Cement manufacturing facilities emit
mercury, hydrochloric acid, hydrocarbons, dioxins, sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, and other harmful pollutants,
which are known or suspected to cause a host of significant
health problems, including cancer, and even death. These
facilities are the third largest source in the United States
of air emissions of mercury, which is a persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic air pollutant. Even very low
emissions of this potent neurotoxicant can result in
unacceptable impacts to the nation's water bodies. To date,
all 50 states have issued health advisories for fish
consumption due to mercury contamination, with the primary
loadings being from atmospheric deposition.
NACAA believes the controls contained in the regulations
are essential and should be implemented. The rules will
result in significant and much-needed reductions in emissions
from cement kilns, including decreases of 92 percent in
mercury, 83 percent in total hydrocarbons, 92 percent in
particulate matter, 97 percent reduction in acid gases (e.g.,
hydrochloric acid), 78 percent in sulfur dioxide and 5
percent in nitrogen oxides, according to EPA data. The agency
also estimates that the cement kiln rules will prevent up to
2,500 premature deaths each year and will avert a host of
health problems, including cases of aggravated asthma, heart
attacks, chronic bronchitis, and upper and lower respiratory
symptoms. The reduced emissions from the rules will also
result in fewer emergency room visits, hospital admissions,
lost work days and lost productivity.
While there will be costs associated with the
implementation of the rules, the benefits will far outweigh
them. EPA estimates that the regulations will yield $7
billion to $18 billion annually in benefits, which is
enormous when compared to the estimated $350 million to $950
million in annual costs that EPA has calculated.
If the amendment is adopted, EPA will be unable to proceed
with the implementation of this rule during this fiscal year.
As it is, the rules for this source category are already
several years overdue, during which time public health has
suffered as a result of exposure to unnecessarily high
emissions. Further delaying the public health protection from
these rules would be detrimental to our nation's residents.
NACAA urges you to allow the NESHAPs and NSPS for Portland
Cement plants to proceed as adopted and to provide the public
with the cleaner and more healthful air it deserves. Please
do not support Amendment No. 165 to H.R. 1.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
G. Vinson Hellwig,
Michigan Chair,
NACAA Air Toxics Committee.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank my friend Congressman Serrano.
Would Mr. Waxman agree with me that, if you get one of these new
squiggly mercury bulbs and break it, you're going to be exposed to more
mercury than the amount of mercury you're exposed to from a cement
plant?
Mr. WAXMAN. Absolutely not. I don't agree with that.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I think that's a factually correct statement.
Mr. WAXMAN. I don't know enough to answer that question.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, you might check it out because some of the
benefits and some of the costs you talk about are not borne out in the
real world when you do a real analysis.
Mr. WAXMAN. I should trust your analysis more than the Environmental
Protection Agency, OMB, the people in the air pollution control
business?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the
Carter-Ross Amendment (#165) to H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution. This
amendment would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from
implementing and enforcing long-overdue safeguards that will protect
our children from toxic air pollution generated by cement kilns.
Cement kilns are the third-largest source of mercury pollution in
America. Mercury is a dangerous chemical that impairs a child's ability
to learn, write, walk, talk and read. Mercury especially is a concern
for women of childbearing age, unborn babies and young children because
studies have found that high levels of exposure damage the developing
nervous system. Cement kilns also pump lead, arsenic and dioxins into
the air, which can cause cancer, birth defects and other catastrophic
health impacts.
Last year, EPA finalized standards that will limit this toxic
pollution from cement plants. These standards will prevent 2,500
premature deaths, 1,000 emergency room visits, 1,500 heart attacks and
17,000 cases of aggravated asthma every year. We'll achieve these
health benefits while improving the economy because reduced pollution
will allow people to do their jobs and go to work on 130,000 days they
would have otherwise missed. We'll reduce health care costs by up to
$18 billion every year. The benefits of reducing this dangerous
pollution are between seven and nineteen times greater than the costs.
In fact, despite hyperbolic claims of economic collapse, EPA
estimates that as many as 1,300 net new jobs could be created as a
result of these new protections. That is because cement plants will
employ American workers in building, installing, operating and
maintaining the equipment that will keep these dangerous toxins out of
our children's fragile bodies.
The Carter amendment would overturn affordable, commonsense
protections that provide tremendous benefits at a reasonable cost. As a
nurse, mother and grandmother, I urge my colleagues oppose this
amendment and protect our children.
Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I was thinking I was going
to offer, and actually we can't, is on the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007. It's an interesting topic because we're going
back again once more to the subject of mercury; but, really, we're
going to a more basic subject than mercury, and that is the subject of
freedom because this Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is a
de facto ban on the plain old lightbulb that Americans have known a
long time. It's the incandescent bulb.
And this de facto ban essentially says that all the new lightbulbs
have to be these mercury vapor fluorescent lightbulbs. And so the
question that comes to my mind is, aside from the benefits of one type
of lightbulb over another--and you could argue the benefits, the
mercury vapor lightbulb is a little more expensive but it saves energy,
but the incandescent lightbulb

[[Page H1121]]

burns more energy. But it doesn't have any mercury you're bringing into
your living room.
But the point, though, is don't we trust our constituents to pick the
kind of lightbulb that they want? I'm just wondering if there's anybody
in this Chamber who wants to stand up and vote and say, I'm going to
tell my constituents what kind of lightbulb they ought to buy. I mean,
lightbulbs are used in a lot of different contexts, a lot of different
situations; and if people want one of those mercury vapor bulbs that's
got good efficiency, fine, let them buy one. But don't tell them they
can't buy another kind of bulb that may meet their circumstances.
And I think that's the kind of arrogance that the public is really
fed up with out of Congress is when we have this arrogant attitude that
we're going to tell people even what kind of lightbulb to buy. And so
what my amendment was going to do was, of course, to strike this piece
of legislation. Technically, we can't do that on this appropriations
bill so we have to wait for a different venue in order to do it.
But I would conclude with the observation that for decade after
decade in America the symbol of innovation and bright ideas was always
the lightbulb, and unfortunately this bill is a bulb that just seems to
barely get dim.

Amendment No. 204 Offered by Mr. Scalise

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay the salaries and expenses for the following
positions and their offices:
(1) Director, White House Office of Health Reform.
(2) Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate
Change.
(3) Special Envoy for Climate Change.
(4) Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and
Innovation, Council on Environmental Quality.
(5) Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury
assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry
and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy.
(6) White House Director of Urban Affairs.
(7) Special Envoy to oversee the closure of the Detention
Center at Guantanamo Bay.
(8) Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation,
Department of the Treasury.
(9) Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer,
Federal Communications Commission.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, we've seen over the last 2 years under
President Obama a very disturbing proliferation of czars, these
unappointed, unaccountable people who are literally running a shadow
government, heading up these little fiefdoms that nobody can really
seem to identify where they are, what they are doing.
But we do know that they're wielding vast amounts of power, many of
them making six-figure salaries, and yet you can't find out exactly
what they're doing. Yet you have got the separate Cabinet that's
actually appointed, goes through the scrutiny of Senate confirmation,
which is the process that is supposed to be followed for the people who
make these kinds of high-level decisions.
In fact, I support the ability of the President to organize his
administration; and, of course, if you look at article II, section 2 of
the Constitution, it lays out the process for having these types of
appointments, and it requires Senate confirmation. Yet you've got this
shadow government that literally, completely avoided the transparency
and the accountability of that Senate scrutiny.
What we do in this amendment, which actually sacks these czars, we
actually go through, and I'll start with the ObamaCare czar. Of course,
we had a vote here on the House floor to repeal ObamaCare, which I'm
proud to have supported, hope we continue to see move through the
Senate. But in the meantime, we just had a hearing the other day, over
900 companies have already gotten exemptions, went and I guess lined up
at the White House and must have known somebody right over there and
were able to get exempted from this law that the President says is so
important, so great, going to solve all these problems, and yet 900
companies have already been able to get secret exemptions.
How have they done this? Who didn't get an exemption? Of course, our
local businesses on Main Street would love to get that exemption. They
didn't get that opportunity. We can't even find out who got these
exemptions.

{time} 1600

So we are getting rid of the ObamaCare czar.
Let's go to the climate czar. Of course you've got a person in there
right now that supposedly is going to be leaving. This is a person
who's continued to do things behind closed doors. In fact, when the
moratorium on drilling came out, it was found out that it was the
climate czar that actually doctored the President's own scientific
study to try to say that the scientists that the President appointed
recommended a moratorium on drilling. It turned out the scientist
didn't say that at all. The White House actually had to apologize for
the actions of the climate czar, for what they did. Again, behind
closed doors, nobody can find out exactly what they are doing. So she's
leaving. Let her leave, and take the funding, too.
The global warming czar. There's actually a czar out there trying to
still impose the cap-and-trade regime. Of course Congress has rejected
cap-and-trade. We've seen study after study. In fact, Spain came up
with a study that showed what happened when they tried to implement a
cap-and-trade regime. What they found out was that for every green job
that they created, they lost over 20 full-time jobs in the private
sector. And they detail that out very well in their study about what
that policy does. The National Association of Manufacturers said cap-
and-trade would run over 3 million jobs out of this country. Yet we
have got a global warming czar that's running around out there with
taxpayer money, promoting a policy that would destroy jobs that this
Congress doesn't even support.
Again, you have got the green job czar. The green job czar, they
haven't even filled the job of the green job czar since the last one
resigned in disgrace. The last green job czar we had left in disgrace
because he expressed comments embracing communism and actually tried to
blame the American Government for the September 11 attacks. So of
course that person left in disgrace. The job is still vacant. Let's get
rid of it.
The Guantanamo closure czar we get rid of in this amendment.
Guantanamo Bay--in fact, if you look at it, it's estimated that we have
to spend over $200 million to build another facility to hold them.
Nobody wants them. New York said, We surely don't want to try these
terrorists on American soil right down the street from where the World
Trade Center was attacked. And yet you've got a Guantanamo Bay closure
czar when the President, himself, now has even backed off of closing
Guantanamo Bay. I support him in that. We shouldn't be closing
Guantanamo Bay, but we surely shouldn't have a czar that's running
around out there doing who knows what for closing down Guantanamo Bay.
There is a fairness doctrine czar that we get rid of. A fairness
doctrine czar that is trying to undermine the First Amendment right of
talk radio hosts. You know, there may be some people on the other side
that don't like some things said on talk radio. That's their
prerogative. The beauty is you have got a First Amendment that dictates
that, and you have a marketplace.
So the bottom line is it's time that we reestablish our
responsibility as a legislative branch. Let's get back to those
constitutional principles, and let's get rid of these czars. We
shouldn't have the government running car companies. We shouldn't have
the government running the shadow government, and we shouldn't have all
these czars.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
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. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
The so-called czars in the Obama administration are basically
exercising a

[[Page H1122]]

traditional function of the White House staff, which is advising the
President, coordinating policy on complex issues that cut across
Cabinet departments and Federal agencies.
Let's take a look at one example. One target of criticism has been
the climate change czar. But what Cabinet Secretary or other agency
head would otherwise have to lead on climate change issues? The
administrator of EPA? The Secretary of Energy? The Secretary of the
Interior? The Secretary of State, because climate change is
fundamentally an international issue?
The fact is that all of these officials, and many more, have a role,
and that's why the President has designated a senior White House staff
member to coordinate activity and policymaking on climate changes. They
do not have legal authority to take action. Rather, that final
decisionmaking authority can only be exercised by heads of agencies or
other officials properly appointed and, in most cases, confirmed by the
Senate. In modern times, there's nothing unusual about the White House
and its staff playing a leading role in policymaking, especially on
issues important to the President.
But let me touch on a subject now that some people may not want to
touch on. Look, let's be honest. This is not about czars. This is about
the person that lives in the White House. Today we're going to see
amendments that say we should not have repairs on the White House
structure. Tonight we're going to see an amendment that says--listen to
this--that the President should not have, paid for by the taxpayers, a
teleprompter. Can you believe this? This may be the 6 o'clock national
news. There's an amendment up there about the teleprompter.
So I'm going to give some folks on the other side, with all due
respect and love and affection, some advice. When you look at the White
House, think of it as the monument it is. Think of it as the structure
where the President of any party lives. Don't get hung up on the fact
that he lives there. Notice I didn't mention the name because I don't
want to upset you. Don't get upset at who uses the teleprompter. Don't
get upset at whose plumbing needs repair in the White House for 50
years. Make believe it's the last President. Please repair the White
House. Please allow him to have staff. Please allow him to be
President. But don't get hung up on the fact that ``he'' is the
President, because I know that upsets you. You can't accept the fact
that ``he'' is the President. So don't let that bother you. Just
concentrate on the issue.
Mr. Chair, I think we should concentrate on the fact that the White
House structure itself is a building we should keep in good shape. It
falls under my subcommittee's jurisdiction and Mrs. Emerson's
chairmanship. We have a President who may at times use a teleprompter.
Let him use it because if we get into that, then our staff may not be
able to write notes for us in the future, because it's the same thing.
So, yeah, sometimes it may not be this President. It may be another.
I wish I could mention his name right now, but I know it upsets the
heck out of many people on that side. So don't go after him, just do
what needs to be done.
This is a terrible amendment, and it should be defeated.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would love to allow my very close
friend and colleague from New York to continue. However, I will say
that I do agree with him--and we will discuss this later this evening--
that, in fact, the White House is the White House, and it's a historic
building, and it should be cared for. But the issue at hand is the
number of people not subject to Senate confirmation who work there.
I want to rise in support of our colleague from Louisiana's amendment
to address the issue of czars in this administration, and I will admit
that there were too many in several of the past administrations as
well. And I also hope that the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee will actually mark up the Scalise bill so that we can address
this issue once and for all.
I do know for a fact that, in spite of what my good friend from New
York said, the health care czar who is no longer in that position--and
that is why we have actually eliminated that position as well as the
climate change position in the continuing resolution--I believe that
several colleagues had set many, many meetings with the health care
czar in the White House when that position was filled and that she was
actually coordinating all of the work done on the current health care
law. So the statement that these folks don't have any power is
absolutely not true, based on personal experience with the person who
actually held that position.
I love the idea of getting rid of more of these czars. It will save
us a lot of money. We have excellent people, even if we don't agree
with them, who are the heads of agencies and departments in the
government. They should be allowed to do their jobs themselves instead
of having interference from even more people.
So with that, I support the amendment from Mr. Scalise.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, being of an optimistic
nature, I look for silver linings. So I welcome the fact that my
colleagues on the other side have decided to adopt gender-neutral
language, because a lot of the czars would have been called czarinas in
the old days.

{time} 1610

So I appreciate the fact that we've gotten beyond sex stereotyping of
people.
Also, I guess they were in a little bit of a hurry. The gentlewoman
from Missouri has spoken, the gentleman from Louisiana, and they listed
the czars they didn't like. They overlooked one. Maybe it was hard to
read. Here's one of the ones they want to eliminate. By the way, you
notice that many of the ones they want to eliminate have already been
eliminated. They're not there. So they are denying funding for
nonexistent positions--climate change, healthcare.
Mrs. EMERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
Mrs. EMERSON. But the money and the funds still exist; so we're
trying to save some money here.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Then rather than deal with it this way, I
would have thought in the CR, you're telling me that the Republican
Appropriations Committee majority funded some nonexistent positions.
I would have some advice, Mr. Chairman, for the gentlewoman. Next
time, don't do that and we won't have this problem.
But there are some positions that they did fund that they would
defund that still exist. And I understand they were in a hurry; so they
forgot to mention all of them. They talked about climate change and
they talked about health care.
Here's the one they forgot to mention: The special master for TARP
Executive Compensation, Department of the Treasury, that is the special
master, whose job it is to monitor excessive compensation of those TARP
recipients who got special assistance and still owe the Federal
Government money.
So what they want to do is knock out the person whose job it is to
monitor compensation at AIG and at General Motors and at Chrysler and
at Ally.
Mrs. EMERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
Mrs. EMERSON. I'm pleased to tell my good friend that that position
is removed from this legislation as well.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have an amendment which says special
master for TARP Executive Compensation, Department of the Treasury. So
the amendment I have defunds and says you can't pay--I want to make it
clear. This is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana.
The one I got says, lines 18 and 19, Special Master for TARP Executive
Compensation, Department of the Treasury.
Is the gentlewoman telling me I was given a defective copy?

[[Page H1123]]

I yield to the gentlewoman.
Mrs. EMERSON. Yes. I must tell you, my good friend, that you must
have received a copy that perhaps missed a page. Do you have the
diversity czar or the pay czar?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reclaim my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. What's the text of the amendment? This is
the one we were given. Could I get a reading of the text of the
amendment, or could I get a copy of the amendment?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may ask unanimous consent for that.
Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Excuse me. Does this have anything to do with cement? If you mention
cement, I'm not yielding.
Mr. CARTER. I promise not to mention cement.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Then I yield. Because where I come from,
cement was not good news for the people who were put into it.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CARTER. I'm a little confused on your question and I may be able
to clarify.
If you're asking the question are we attempting to defund that czar,
we are.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, then reclaiming my time, and I ask
unanimous consent that special debate time be allotted so the gentleman
from Texas can debate the gentlewoman from Missouri because they seem
to be undecided between them about it.
So the question I have is, this amendment, as it was presented, says
you can't pay the person whose job it is to stop excessive compensation
at TARP recipients. Now, the gentlewoman from Missouri says it's not in
there, that I've got a bad copy.
Okay, so it is in here.
So this amendment would say to AIG and General Motors and Chrysler
and Ally, the financial company, no one will now be supervising what
you do. And even though you haven't yet paid back the Federal
Government, there will be no enforcement of restrictions on your
bonuses, no enforcement of restrictions on your compensation.
I should note, by the way, in the condemnation of these czar
positions, one of the ones that's now vacant that they'd bravely get
rid of is the senior advisor on the auto industry. That's one of the
great successes of the Bush-Obama administration and transition.
I would tell the gentlewoman that she should work it out with the
gentleman from Texas and then come up with a joint answer. But I want
to make my other point.
One of the czars they are complaining about presided over a Bush-
Obama transition policy that kept General Motors and Chrysler alive. We
have auto industries flourishing in America and suppliers today. That
was partly because of this position that's now vacant that they want to
get rid of retroactively.
Please explain to me what it means when you say you were going to
deny the funds for the special master for TARP. I will yield to whoever
wants me to yield. The gentleman from Kentucky. The gentlewoman from
Missouri.
Mrs. EMERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
Mrs. EMERSON. I would just like to tell my friend that the Office of
Financial Stability in the Department of the Treasury, which does
oversee all of this, still remains and it is mandatory funding.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, so now the third
answer I get is, yes, they do get rid of the special master. There's an
office there with nobody heading it.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would ask for an additional 2 minutes,
having yielded so much of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reserving the right to object, we have tons
and tons of amendments to go, ladies and gentlemen. I hope we can
expeditiously move.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I just asked for 2 minutes, having
yielded so much of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2 additional
minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate that.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield briefly?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. To the czars, I say, ``Nyet.''
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I will leave to the gentleman to
work out his Lenin fantasy, but I want to reiterate what this amendment
now does.
There is a special master, a high visibility individual whose job it
is to prevent excessive compensation from those TARP recipients that
are still out there: AIG, General Motors and Chrysler and Ally. This
amendment strikes it. This amendment leaves us without a person of
great responsibility, and I think that--and, by the way, it's only the
top hundred employees, and there are two levels, 25 and 75.
I cannot understand why Members would want to send this signal,
because many of these positions are already vacant, that one of the
positions that is not vacant is our effort to put limits on
compensation bonuses and other excessive compensation for those
entities that still owe the Federal Government money. And why our
colleagues decide that that position should be abolished and a high-
level individual charged with that responsibility should not be there
is baffling to me. I cannot believe that that's what people think the
American people want; namely, a restriction on the restriction, a
relaxation on the restriction of bonuses and other compensation paid to
large recipients who have not yet paid back their TARP money.
And I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his consideration.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on
this amendment very similar to one I was going to offer as well. This
amendment, as we know, would strike the climate change czar, the global
warming czar, also known as the cement czar, as well.
Mr. Chairman, all kidding aside, my question I would have is: What is
the President afraid of? This is not an issue of what is covered here.
The issue is that the President has overstepped his constitutional
authority in naming these czars and disregards the separation of powers
and refuses to resubmit these names for confirmation. And it's, of
course, my opinion, one of many examples of executive excess from this
administration. Czars are unaccountable, unelected, and they're given
considerable authority, which undermines the rule of law.
Again, why is the President afraid of submitting these names for
consideration? I would argue, probably because they might not be
confirmed. More than 30 czars have been appointed by the President. Not
all of those are directed at in this amendment, but this amendment
seeks to defund approximately nine of these czars, including the czars
to oversee global warming policy as well as the closure of Gitmo.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that just yesterday the
administration indicated that if they did catch Osama Bin Laden, they
would send him to Gitmo. At the same time, they have a czar that
continues to close Gitmo.
Certainly, the President has the authority to appoint staff as
necessary. But, at the same time, his advisers are not there to make
laws, Mr. Chairman. That is our job. That is the job of the Senate.
This is an issue of whether the legislative branch is going to write
the laws, Mr. Chairman.
Supporters of this type of style of government suggest in the past
other Presidents have appointed czars. And, Mr. Chairman, czars might
not have started with the Obama administration, but they should end
with this budget.
I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H1124]]

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.

{time} 1620

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me do as my good friend from New York
did, Mr. Serrano, and not mention any President's name. And I just ask
my colleagues, how do you--again, I explain to all of us and hopefully
those who are listening, this CR stops work in the middle of its
tracks. This is a cutoff of functioning work as we speak, and there is
functioning work.
Just as we have a prototype of a special master who is attempting to
refund to the damaged, the worn and the torn of the BP oil spill,
czars, or names that you would call, them are working.
And I am reminded of the fact that czars also are an exploratory term
that Presidents use to get tasks done that ultimately may be valuable
enough that are actually placed in a position that responds to a
particular agency.
Now, we still call the drug czar the ``drug czar.'' And I am reminded
of a number of drug czars who were enormously effective. And the reason
for the czar term for the President is to emphasize how important the
issue was or is to the American people.
Why would my friends desire to tie the hands globally, if you will,
in a broad-based amendment that eliminates funding for individuals who
are in the course of their work impacting for the American people,
whether it's the TARP, whether it's the BP oil spill? They are in fact
helping get through a difficult problem. The very nature of the term, a
difficult problem.
So I would say to my friends, as I will be saying later about an
amendment that has been offered, but I'm disturbed about denying
funding to the Transportation Security Administration. What I would say
in cutting their office not recognizing the value of their work, I
would likewise say that it is crucial that we allow the Presidents,
plural, to establish difficult tasks and to be able to select
individuals to complete those tasks. I rise to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Scalise amendment.
I actually also have an amendment which I filed which I am withdrawing
to de-fund 24 czarships, instead of czar and czarina-ships to suit the
other side. But I decided that comity would be better if I joined Mr.
Scalise.
I think he has a good amendment here. My chairman has asked that we
move forward, and I agree.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on this amendment that's
being offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), and I just
want to say at the outset that I don't think any of this is a joke.
First of all, czars and czarinas are from Russia. This is the United
States of America. And I think that throwing this kind of terminology
around is really not befitting of the House and what we do. If we
disagree with policy, and we do, we debate that.
If in fact there are people that work in the government that are
policy advisers and have no legal weight to their position, so be it.
Most frankly, every single one of us has them in our offices. Your
chiefs of staff, your policy advisers on legislation, they don't carry
any legal weight, but they are policy advisers to us.
This particular target is to one individual. One individual. This is
very unusual where you go after one individual in the middle of a
bureaucracy who is the chief diversity officer at the FCC, the Federal
Communications Commission. This individual is in charge of expanding
opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to
participate in the communications marketplace.
Now, I think one of the things that absolutely goes to the core of
democracy is how many voices speak to the many, whether there is media
consolidation in this country or not.
There's some right-wing radio people that seem to dislike this
person. I don't really agree with these right-wing radio talk show
hosts, nor do I care to jump into what they dislike about this
individual. But to bring something like this to the floor of the House,
where an individual is working to expand opportunities for women,
minorities, and small businesses, an appropriate role, participating in
the communications marketplace, I think, is an amendment that is not
worthy of the support of Members.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I want to stress again, I have not heard a defense of the proposal
that we remove from the Federal Government the highest profile
individual charged with controlling compensation excesses at four
companies which continue to be the recipients of special assistance. I
do not understand this desire to free AIG from restrictions and General
Motors and Chrysler. They have been successful, and I'm glad, but they
owe the Federal Government money. Allied, the financial company, owes
the Federal Government money.
I do not understand, you can go one by one and I haven't heard a
defense of it. Why would we say that the individual most responsible
for limiting excessive compensation to TARP recipients should no longer
be able to work for the Federal Government and no one should be able to
fill that position?
I thank the gentlewoman.
Ms. ESHOO. Reclaiming my time, I think that we need to start
rethinking some of this. I can't help but think that campaign ads
should just be played on the floor, get it out of everybody's system on
this czar issue, and move on. But these are individuals that are
carrying out their duties in the executive branch.
If you want to vote against expanding opportunities for women and
minorities in the media, then do an amendment on that. Why saw this
guy's head off? Because some talk show host says so?
So I think that this is poorly devised, poorly thought out, and does
no grace to the House of Representatives.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate it, and I associate myself with your remarks.
Did you mention that the associate general counsel and chief
diversity officer of the Federal Communications is cut out of this as
well?
Ms. ESHOO. Yes.
Mr. DICKS. That's rather shocking.
Ms. ESHOO. That's what's in the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry. Hasn't the
gentleman already spoken?
Mr. BOUSTANY. No, I have not spoken.
Mr. DICKS. Did you offer the amendment?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in very strong support of the Scalise amendment, and let me
explain why. One word: accountability.
Americans across this country are tired of the lack of
accountability. They want to know what is going on with their
government, and they are tired of empty platitudes.
We have seen this when we brought Cabinet Secretaries and others who
are in official positions in front of our committees, and we can't get
answers to simple questions on energy policy, tax policy, health care
policy. No, we get empty platitudes, because the policy is being
formulated in the White House with these so-called advisers, these
czars, whatever you want to call them.
I just want to point out something. When we had this situation with
the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and a panel of experts, engineers,
scientists, came forth and looked at this and gave their initial
report, there was no recommendation for an industry-wide

[[Page H1125]]

moratorium on drilling. They issued a formal report. And what happened?
This formal report was altered after the fact by somebody within the
White House, the so-called Special Assistant to the President for
Energy and Climate Change.

{time} 1630

Now, this is not the kind of open and transparent policymaking that
the American people deserve and demand. I think in the last election
they spoke out because they did not like what was happening, the lack
of oversight. And if this Congress is going to do oversight, we have to
have access to those who make the policy and get answers. When we get
railroaded and the runaround and just empty platitudes time and time
again, whether it is on health care policy or energy policy or tax
policy, trade policy, whatever it is, that is not what the American
people want, and if this Congress is going to be able to legislate and
do right by the American people, we have to be able to get the
information from this White House.
That is why I stand here with the American people and say it is time
to put an end to this opaque atmosphere in Washington. Let's be open
with the American people. Those who are making policy should come
before our committees and testify so we know what the policy is the
White House is advocating and we can legislate in a responsible way.
So for those of you who didn't understand the Russian word ``no,''
which is ``nyet,'' I want to say it is ``no'' to the czars.
I yield back.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. I think that this amendment is typical of many of the
proposals from the other side of the aisle that paint with a broad
brush the entire Federal Government.
This is a complex world. A President needs an ability to govern. The
President relies on many of these executive positions to effectively
govern this country. It is not a Democratic or Republican thing. It is
about having an effective executive and effective administrative
branch.
That doesn't mean that there is not common ground; and while I
certainly oppose this amendment, I would love to work with the
gentleman and others to look at these positions one by one. We have
discussed a proposal to eliminate the drug czar, for instance. The drug
czar's office spends $21 million a year, and yet drug use has gone up
since its inception, illegal drug use.
There are ways that we can work together, but a blatant removal of
the ability of a President to effectively govern the country is not a
wise measure, and one that I rise in opposition to. I encourage a more
thoughtful discussion that could in fact lead to the elimination of
some of these so-called czar positions.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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 Louisiana
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 458 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for the
``Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,
Enforcement'', by reducing the amount made available for the
``Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,
Operations Support'', by reducing the amount made available
for the ``General Services Administration, Real Property
Activities, Federal Building Fund'', by reducing the amount
made available for the ``General Services Administration,
General Activities, Government-Wide Policy'', and by
increasing the amount made available for the ``Independent
Agencies, Securities and Exchange Commission, Salaries and
Expenses'', by $77,000,000, $46,000,000, $7,000,000,
$1,000,000, and $131,000,000, respectively.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is a deficit-neutral
amendment. It provides more money for the Securities and Exchange
Commission than the resolution. It takes it from other agencies.
I should say that I regret some of the choices I had to make here.
Particularly I have spoken with the ranking member of the subcommittee.
I was not happy to have to ask that the General Services Administration
be diminished, although by small amounts; and I would hope that this
could be amended later in the Senate when there was more flexibility.
But the key issue here is therefore not a deficit issue, but a policy
issue: Should the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was given
increased responsibilities in the financial reform bill, be given less
money in this fiscal year than it had in the previous one?
The current budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission is
$1.118 billion, or the last year's budget. Under the CR, that would be
reduced by nearly $50 billion--$50 million. I shouldn't say
``billion.'' This is a relatively small agency. The Republican
resolution would reduce the amount given to the SEC for this fiscal
year by $48 million from the last fiscal year.
Now, one of the things we did in the financial reform bill was tell
the SEC that we want hedge funds to register. We want them to begin to
regulate derivatives, not by putting margins on end users as they just
made clear they are not planning to do, but by requiring that the price
be made public.
There has been a lot of talk about the shadow banking system. Well,
in the financial reform bill, with regard to a variety of these
entities not regulated now by the bank regulators, we are asking them
to show some information. Hedge funds aren't being told what to do;
they are being asked to register. We have tried to, frankly, bring some
light to the shadow banking system; but as a result of the CR, the
shadows will remain unpierced.
The SEC is given new responsibilities for investor protection. We
have asked the SEC to enforce a new fiduciary responsibility for people
who are telling other people how to invest their money in various ways.
They won't be able to carry it out. Technologically, they are not yet
up to the point where they can deal with things like the flash crash.
Now, people will point to mistakes by the SEC in the past. Of course
there were. They were partly ideological by people who didn't believe
in regulation, but they were partly a matter of competence; but it was
also partly inadequate resources.
What we do in this amendment, frankly, is not even reach the proposal
that the administration wanted. I would have liked to have done that,
but there were constraints here because we had to take money from the
IRS and the General Services Administration and from the Treasury
Department. So what we have done is to give them part of what was
asked. We do give them an increase over fiscal 2010. We do not reach
the amount the administration says they need to carry out the new
responsibilities given.
So let's be very clear: this is not about the deficit. This is
deficit neutral. The question is, Do you want to fund increased
responsibilities for the SEC, or do you not? Do you want them to be
able to hire the kind of people they need? Do you want them to improve
their technology?
The issue here is that in fiscal 2010 this agency spent $1.118
billion. The administration asked for $1.258 billion. We would get them
to $1.2 billion. We would undo the reduction and get them part of the
way there. We don't get them all the way there because we are under
constraints; but the notion that you should give the SEC less in the
current fiscal year than they had last year and ask them to monitor
hedge funds, to ask them to improve investor protection, to ask them to
look at derivatives, makes no sense.
Now, if you don't believe we should increase transparency of hedge
funds and derivatives, then don't vote for this amendment. If you think
we are at a perfect solution here, don't vote for this. But it is hard
for me to believe

[[Page H1126]]

that people think the SEC is adequately funded.
By the way, what the CR will do is to make the SEC not so much a
regulator as a profit center, because the SEC brings in more money than
this budget will give them. They bring in money with transaction fees,
and then they distribute money to investors.
So here we have, and I know there were many on the other side that
didn't like the bill we passed, but I thought there were some parts
they liked more than others. I didn't know we had a view that
derivatives should remain totally unregulated.
By the way, when I talk about derivative regulation at the SEC, we
are not talking about imposing margin requirements. We are talking
about making things transparent.
So I hope the amendment is agreed to and we begin to get the SEC back
into the position of being a responsible regulator.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. Since 2001, in the wake of the Enron scandal, this
committee has more than doubled the SEC's budget. In fact, the SEC's
budget has increased 163 percent since 2001. I would like to remind my
colleagues that in 2001 the SEC was funded specifically at $423
million; and last year, with the fiscal year 2010 act, this committee
provided the SEC with an appropriation of $1.1 billion.
Yet even with all of the money that we have given them and the
opportunity they have had to begin upgrading their computers so, yes,
they could deal with flash crashes and the like and hire more people
and tougher enforcers, in spite of that they missed two major Ponzi
schemes. They have had difficulty every single year since 2004
submitting clean budget statements for audit. They have had consistent
trouble in their leasing practices, which has led to millions of
taxpayer dollars wasted. And just even more specific to the Ponzi
schemes, regarding them, the SEC has had multiple complaints filed
against both entities over a decade before either individual was even
charged.

{time} 1640

So how is it also that the agency that's in charge, as my good friend
said, and needs to be in charge of regulating our financial market,
can't even produce an accurate financial statement of their own since
2004, in spite of the fact that since 2001 we've increased their
budget.
In addition, the SEC's own inspector general has cited the agency for
poor leasing practices, which has led to millions of taxpayer dollars
being wasted on unused leased space. I'm sure my colleagues have read
in the newspapers about the hundreds of thousands of square feet of
leased space that they leased in anticipation of the work they might do
on Dodd-Frank, but they leased it before the bill was even passed and
money appropriated.
So when my colleagues argue that the SEC doesn't have enough funding,
I've got to argue perhaps they do but they're not using the funding in
the appropriate ways. All of us have had to tighten our belts. And I
understand the need for us to have strong regulation. I am not opposed
to strong regulation of the financial industry--of banks and nonbanks
and hedge funds and the like. But at a time when we're all trying to do
more with less, I think that it's important for all of the agencies of
the government to do more with less, too. And so even with the cuts in
this bill, the SEC is still going to be funded at over a billion
dollars.
I believe very, very strongly that we must make this agency
understand that they've got to try to revamp the systems they've got
within and to use the moneys that we've given them, in addition to all
the fees they've collected, more appropriately. And they need to try to
do that. If they can't, then we can discuss this again. But we need to
continue saving money.
Plus, my colleague has taken too much money from the GSA in addition
to the $1.7 billion we've taken. So you're cutting them or you're
cutting the IRS by over $600 million. We are cutting the IRS. We are
cutting the IRS by over $600 million. You want to cut on top of the 600
that we're already cutting it. What you want to add to what we want to
add perhaps cuts the legs out from them.
So, consequently, we have to vote against my friend's amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In the first place, our additional cuts
are a small percentage of your cuts to the IRS and the GSA, and I hope
they are restored when we get a broader sets of things. But the basic
point is, yes, there were problems with 2004 and before. I believe we
have a better-run SEC now, better people who care about it. And to
punish the investors, to punish the American public because of past
mistakes by the SEC by reducing from one year to the next is a very
grave error.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from Missouri has
expired.
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 rise in support of the Frank amendment.
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
First of all, she wants to punish the American public and the
American economy because some people were not up to it in the past. As
to Madoff, we have a new set of commissioners. It broke in the end of
2008. We have a new Director of Enforcement.
Yes, I want the SEC to get better, but the notion that they can take
on complex new responsibilities regarding derivatives and hedge funds
with less money this year than they had last year is laughable.
For the gentlewoman's sake, she's for regulation, but she voted
against the bill. It was her right to do that. And if we're going to
relitigate that bill, let's do it.
By the way, many in the financial industry do not want to see these
cuts because, while some of them didn't want to see the rules, for them
the worst situation is to have the rules and no capacity to have them
promulgated and enforced.
Yes, the SEC has made mistakes.
By the way, if the standard was that if you'd wasted money in the
past you would lose the budget, we would be saving hundreds of billions
in the Pentagon budget. That logic never appears to apply to the
Defense Department.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I, again, support the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chair, since 2008 we have faced the most serious financial crisis
since the Great Depression, and we are just not emerging from this
difficult period. As we have debated the Continuing Resolution in the
House this week, I have urged my colleagues to consider the impact that
our near term actions will have on unemployment and on our nation's
economy, which remains fragile. In this regard I have deep concerns
about the magnitude of the cuts contained in the version of the
Continuing Resolution that has been drafted by the majority leadership,
with little input from the minority.
At this time I am particularly concerned about the impact of this
bill on the Securities and Exchange Commission, which this bill would
cut by $189 million from President Obama for Fiscal Year 2011. This
level of spending will preclude the implementation of the Dodd-Frank
Act, meaning that hedge funds, credit rating agencies, and broker-
dealers will continue to operate without regulation, therefore
increasing the risk of another fiscal meltdown. It also takes a big
step backwards toward the enforcement situation we had before the
crisis, leaving the agency with fewer staff to investigate potential
misconduct and police securities markets to prevent another financial
crisis.
Why is this important? Look at the history: In response to what was
clearly an economic crisis in our country in 2007-2009, Congress
established a bipartisan Commission on the Causes of the Financial and
Economic Crisis in the United States. In its final report that was
issued in January, the Commission concluded that the financial crisis
was entirely avoidable. It wrote:

The crisis was a result of human action and inaction . . .
the captains of finance and the public stewards of our
financial system ignored warnings and failed to question,
understand, and manage evolving risks within a system
essential to the well-being of the

[[Page H1127]]

American public . . . Widespread failures in financial
regulation and supervision proved devastating to the
stability of the nation's financial markets. The sentries
were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely-
accepted faith in the self-correcting nature of the markets
and the ability of financial institutions to effectively
police themselves.

So what did we do about this ``combination of excessive borrowing,
risky investments, and a lack of transparency'' that the Commission
said put our financial system on a collision course with crisis? We
passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
which was intended to enable federal regulators to better understand
and manage evolving risks; providing transparency in the financial and
derivatives markets; and, maybe most importantly, putting the sentries
back on duty and giving them the tools to do their jobs.
This Dodd-Frank legislation charged the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with new
responsibility to oversee the financial industry and provide for
regulation of the massive derivatives industry.
Now I understand that some members of the Republican caucus who may
have opposed Dodd-Frank did not believe that a failure on the part of
Federal regulators to enforce the law played a significant role in the
financial crisis. It seems that this misguided conclusion has led the
new Majority to attempt--through the appropriations process--what it
could not accomplish through the regular legislative process: to scale
back federal regulation to the pre-crisis level. I cannot imagine a
more risky thing to do at this time.
Thus I support the amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts,
the Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee, has offered,
restoring $131 million of the funding that will go to the SEC in this
fiscal year to implement the oversight functions mandated by Dodd-
Frank. I believe this amount would allow the agency to carry out its
basic functions and start the process implementation so that we will
not be risking another calamity like the situation we faced in 2008.
Like many of the amendments proposed to this Continuing Resolution
during this debate under such unusual rules, the funding offset is
problematic. The Internal Revenue Service's Enforcement division is
already taking a massive and unwise cut in this bill and I regret that
this amendment would add to that cut. It is difficult to talk seriously
about deficit reduction while at the same time ignoring the tens of
billions of dollars in taxes that go unpaid every year because of a
lack of enforcement. So I believe we have some work to do, as we move
forward, to ensure adequate funding for tax enforcement while at the
same time we proceed to putting in place the important oversight
functions of Dodd-Frank.
I urge my colleagues to support the Frank amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
The majority's continuing resolution cuts funding to the SEC by $188
billion. Such a cut would leave our financial markets, including the
derivatives market, unpoliced and effectively unregulated. In effect,
the continuing resolution would take the Wall Street cop--its only
cop--off the beat.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will
prevent another financial crisis like the one that crippled credit
markets in 2008 by authorizing the SEC to regulate derivatives, provide
oversight of investment advisers and broker-dealers, and rein in credit
rating agencies. In order to do this, the SEC needs additional funding.
I am a little bit surprised that the gentlelady from Missouri talks
about punishing the agency and making them understand. No, this is
about accepting responsibility and helping to protect the average
investor. We have people who lost all of their savings in their 401(k)s
with the meltdown, and now we're talking about not funding the very
agency that has the responsibility for protecting the investors? I
don't think so.
Unfortunately, House Republicans don't want the SEC to staff up or to
even maintain their current staffing levels. If this cut becomes law,
the SEC would have to lay off hundreds of staff and cut its information
technology budget down to $86 million, it's lowest level of information
technology spending since 2003. At this level, the SEC would not be
able to implement the new system it needs to protect the Nation's
security markets.
From 2005 to 2007, during the period up to the crisis that imploded
in 2008, the SEC lost 10 percent of its staff. In addition, from 2005
to 2009, the SEC's investments in information technology declined 50
percent. During this time period, trading volume doubled. The number of
investment advisers has increased by 50 percent and the funds they
manage have increased 55 percent to $33 trillion.
Let's put these numbers into perspective. The SEC's 3,800 employees
currently oversee approximately 35,000 entities, including 11,450
investment advisers, 7,600 mutual funds, 5,000 broker-dealers, and more
than 10,000 public companies. Furthermore, these staff police companies
that trade, on average, 8.5 billion shares in the listed equity markets
alone every day.
What does this mean for the average investor? Without adequate
funding, the SEC won't be able to do its job, as simple as that, of
protecting the average investor. As financial markets and investors
become more and more complex, the average investor has confidence in
making an investment because he or she knows that there is a system in
place to protect them. This continuing resolution will undermine that
system.
We've all heard of Bernie Madoff and the massive multiyear fraud he
perpetrated on thousands of investors. Bernie Madoff was just one man.
Imagine a world in which there are hundreds of Bernie Madoffs who prey
unchecked on investors. That's the world we will be in if the
majority's cut for the SEC becomes law.
So, Mr. Chairman and Members, if we want to create jobs and spur
investment in our economy, we must fully fund the SEC. I don't see how
anyone can make a rational argument that the SEC should be level funded
or underfunded when we know that that's the only police on the beat to
protect our investors and ensure that people who have invested in their
retirement won't have to go back to work at 65 and 70 and 75 years old.
That's what happened when we had this meltdown.

{time} 1650

And so now we know what happened. We have good management over there.
We have people who understand what they need. They have come to people
who have been elected and sent to Congress to do a job. That job is to
look out for the average person, the average American. All of our
constituents are not interested in punishing the SEC. They want to make
it work. And I submit to you that this amendment is important to help
make it work. Do not follow the lead of the people on the opposite side
of the aisle who would endanger all of us and all of our investors.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARRETT. I thank the Chair and I thank the gentlelady from
California on her opening comment with regard to accepting
responsibility. I think that's all that this side of the aisle has ever
been asking for when it comes to the SEC, to accept the responsibility
of their past poor performance in so many different ways.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield? Is the way to make them better
by cutting money, for the SEC?
Mr. GARRETT. I did not yield, but I appreciate the gentleman's
comment.
In any other realm of life, personal life, business life or whatever,
when you have a failed business, what have you, when you have failed
portions of that company and they fail in their performance, is the
response, well, the solution to that problem is more people, more
authority and more money? That seems to be only the case here in
Washington, D.C., in our Nation's capital when you can have a failed
entity like the SEC where they failed in so many areas; where they
failed, as we've already discussed, with regard to Ponzi schemes like
the Madoff situation, the Stanford Ponzi scheme; where they failed in
the area of operating a failed investment bank supervising program as
well; where there was a lack of supervision over in the money market
fund which led to for the first time, I guess, in history the breaking
of the buck with the reserve primary money market fund account. They
failed in all

[[Page H1128]]

of these areas. And what is Washington's response or at least what is
the response from the other side of the aisle? Let's give them more
money.
The irony here is that the gentleman from Massachusetts comes to the
floor today to enhance their funding, but, if I remember correctly, the
Democrats controlled this House from 2007 through 2010. They had all
that time to go in and do a complete audit of these agencies. They had
all those 4 years to look at them to see where they were making
mistakes, how to fix them, improve them, and then increase their
resources. But they failed to do that during the last 4 years. And now
in this CR they say this is the time to do so.
The gentlelady talked about punishing the agencies. Well, they are
punishing people. They're punishing the enforcement folks over at the
GSA. They're punishing the folks in enforcement over at the IRS. And I
would question the gentleman from Massachusetts before he put in this
language, did you contact any one of those agencies to see what the
implications would be on those agencies for cutting to the extent that
you are here?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARRETT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Thank you.
Yes, I think it is unfortunate. Of course our cuts are much smaller
by multiples than the cuts inflicted by the subcommittee majority.
Mr. GARRETT. Did you contact those agencies, was my question?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I spoke to the people at the subcommittee
who worked at them and I think the cuts are too deep.
Mr. GARRETT. I would like to reclaim my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize. I thought the gentleman
wanted an answer.
Mr. GARRETT. It is a simple question to ask, that when you come to
the floor with an amendment to say that we're going to take money and
yank money out of one agency that has a primary responsibility to the
members of the public of this country, to first go to those agencies
and ask, well, what impact will they have? It's not a matter whether
other amendments are coming down that will have a larger or more de
minimis impact. It's incumbent upon the gentleman from Massachusetts to
do his research before he comes to the floor with his amendment. I'm
sorry to see that he did not.
Finally, as well, he comes to the floor with this amendment saying,
well, we need to do this action now. Don't look back at their past poor
performance. Let's take this action now. I remind the gentleman as the
author of the Dodd-Frank reform legislation that his very own
legislation mandated a study, it was in section 967, to reform the
operation of the SEC and asked to do a study in that to see how their
reform has occurred.
Why don't we wait for the studies to come out, for the information to
come out, to see whether or not the SEC has changed its performance.
Even after they've lost their majority, we see the conduct of the SEC
and it still continues to fail. Even now we see that they are under
investigation by the Inspector General. Why? For allegedly leasing more
space before receiving funds to do so. So they've had a poor track
record in the past. Unfortunately in some areas today, I'm sorry to
say, they still have a poor track record right now with regard to their
finances. And who knows where they will be in the future.
Now is not the time to say, let's just throw out more money to them.
And when we talk about throwing out more money, I just harken back to a
comment that the gentleman from Massachusetts made just earlier this
week. We were looking at the actions of the SEC and we were looking at
the actions of the CFTC in a hearing just the other day. And whereas
our side of the aisle, Republicans, were looking at this issue and
saying, what can we do to honestly reform and make the rule-making
process and the rules that come out more consistent and proper and be
able to perform better in the regulatory climate. Their side of the
aisle was doing the same thing this week as they are on the floor right
now, saying the answer to everything is, what? More money. He said it
in committee. He's saying it on the floor right now. The answer to
every single problem, I must tell the Chair--and the American people
know as well--is not paying more money for programs. It's making sure
that those agencies perform correctly, and that's what this side of the
aisle is all about.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. During the campaign season, there was a meeting with the
Wall Street barons by the leaders of the other side. They promised them
exactly this: that they were going to essentially go back to an
unregulated system. It almost bankrupted the entire country.
I want to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
Massachusetts. And the American public should not be fooled again by
people on the other side saying that somehow they're doing this to
protect their interests on Wall Street.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from New Jersey asked me a question. I foolishly
thought he wanted an answer, and I apologize for my false assumption.
The answer is that I know that the proposals we have made to reduce at
the GSA and the IRS go too far. I will point out again that they are a
small percentage of the very deep reductions made by the subcommittee.
The problem we had is under the very restrictive rules, we had to
choose among certain agencies. My hope is that the House will
demonstrate its support for increased funding for the SEC and when it
gets to the Senate, they will have more flexibility and can take it
from elsewhere. And we will see fiscal discipline imposed in some other
places.
I did not call those agencies because I knew what their answer was. I
knew it from the ranking member of the subcommittee, that the
chairwoman in my judgment of the subcommittee had already cut them too
deeply. We had no options. What we are doing here is simply trying to
make the point that the SEC should be funded.
I want to now respond to the notion that we always think it's more
money. No. We have talked also about reforms. And, by the way, they
talked about 2004. They talked about 2008. A prior administration. I
believe that there has been a real change in this administration in the
seriousness of the appointments to the SEC, in the understanding of
what they should do. There is a new SEC director of enforcement, Mr.
Khuzami. By the way, disciplinary proceedings, the new chair, Mary
Schapiro, has announced are now under way over the people who didn't do
what they should have done in the Madoff, which of course is from prior
years.
So, yes, the SEC has been less than perfect, but it has a very new
set of responsibilities. And the notion that they can deal with that
new set of responsibilities with less money than they had last year
comes only from people who are not in favor of the new responsibility.
I understand that. But becoming more efficient doesn't allow you to get
into monitoring all the hedge funds that have to register and to
monitoring derivatives.
What we have here is an ideological opposition to reform of the
financial system, a preference for keeping the shadow banking system in
the shadows, masking as a fiscal argument. Because we can do this in a
deficit neutral way and the SEC will continue to be a profit center.
So this notion that we think the answer is always more money, no, we
don't. And if the majority has some improvements to make to the SEC,
let's see them. I don't remember any being offered by them as
amendments when we were doing the financial reform bill. We have worked
with Mary Schapiro. We do believe she's making significant improvements
in a lot of ways. But the notion that you can give them significant new
responsibilities and give them less money than they had in the year
before when they're supposed to now be looking into derivatives and
hedge funds makes no sense.

{time} 1700

The gentlewoman from Missouri acknowledged she had misspoken when she
said we had cut it by $600 million. She cut it by $600 million. I wish
she

[[Page H1129]]

hadn't done that. I wish they hadn't done other things.
Within those constraints, what we are trying to do is to send a
message that we believe the SEC should get some of the funding, not all
that it asked for and not all that the administration asked for. What
we have here is a test about whether or not people want to support the
re-deregulation of the financial system, whether they want to keep the
shadow banking system in the shadows. I believe the answer is that we
shouldn't.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentlewoman from New
York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MALONEY. I rise in strong support of accountability and
oversight, and I rise in strong support of the Frank amendment, which
would help give tools to the SEC so that they could better enforce the
laws of this country.
Madam Chair, our Republican colleagues have proposed that the SEC's
budget should be cut back to roughly 2008 levels; but I can hardly
imagine that anyone in this body on either side of the aisle is pleased
at the level of oversight that was performed by the SEC in 2008, the
year the economy cratered under the Bush administration.
According to the SEC Inspector General, the Republican proposal would
force the agency to let go 600 staff right when we need more activity
by the SEC in oversight. Just as our colleagues across the aisle are
calling for more accountability, they would cripple one of the key
agencies that holds people in a key sector accountable.
The SEC's budget for all of 2010 is equal to just a small fraction of
the bonus pool for just one major investment bank or hedge fund in the
financial sector that they are charged with overseeing. It is a small
fraction of what they are charged to oversee.
The total loss of household wealth as a result of this Great
Recession has been estimated at approximately $14 trillion. It was a
financial disaster that did not have to happen. A lack of adequate
oversight and regulation were major contributing factors. We heard that
from the Angelides committee report yesterday. So the Republicans' new
proposal to cut the badly needed oversight of our financial system
brings to mind one of the oldest sayings in our country: ``They are
being penny wise--and pound foolish.''
The majority party is basically resisting any increase in the funding
for the cops, the major cops on the financial beat. They apparently can
look back on the carnage of the past years, look at the way the middle
class has been brutalized, look at how people have had their dreams
stolen in this recession, look at how their hopes were crushed, and
declare that the status quo is ``just fine, thank you.'' We're not even
going to fund it at the status quo at the time that we had the great
debacle and crash of our financial system. They want to de-fund it even
more.
I really do not agree. I feel strongly about it. This is a huge
mistake. They would deny the needed relatively modest funding that is
required to begin supervising over-the-counter derivatives trading.
Let's take a look at some of the numbers.
The over-the-counter derivatives market is valued at about $600
trillion. In 2010, the GDP of the entire world was just over $74
trillion. The infamous ``flash crash'' on May 6 temporarily wiped out
of our economy $1 trillion. In 2010, the budget for the entire CFTC was
just $169 million.
So the number of new staffers that the SEC is saying it would like to
hire will understand this new type of trading--the algorithmic trading,
the kind of high-frequency trading that tends to dominate today's
marketplace. It is trying to hire five new oversight professionals; but
the number of such specialists the opposing party seems willing to fund
is absolutely zero so that there will be no one looking over this new
type of trading. Zero is the level of effort that the Republicans seem
willing to make to see to it that we don't suffer through another great
recession and to make sure that a Bernie Madoff doesn't happen again.
This is not the way to proceed. We should fund the SEC appropriately
so that it can oversee the new Dodd-Frank bill, which requires many new
studies and new rules, and so that it can give this country the
protection it needs from risky trading. How can we know that the
capital markets and the leverage rules that we are putting in place are
enforced? We can't do that unless the SEC is properly funded.
This is an important amendment. I think it is one of the most
important before this Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support the Frank amendment so that we can oversee the
financial markets, so that we can make sure that the rules are
enforced, and so that we can make sure that the American investor, the
American public, is protected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I just wanted to put a few comments on the record
with regard to the impassioned speech of the last speaker, the
gentlewoman from New York.
Madam Chair, I serve on the same committee as the gentlewoman, and I
heard the same testimony yesterday. It is interesting that she is
talking about trying to continue to fund an agency that was totally
absent with regard to the crash back in 2008.
Yesterday, we asked the question of the SEC representative as to
whether there was anybody who had been put in jail, as to whether
anybody had been fired, as to whether there had been any changes to the
personnel who were there. The answer was ``no.'' There were some
ongoing investigations; but at this point, nothing had been done. So we
are going to try and give some more dollars to the group that was
mismanaging the thing to begin with without its having any more
accountability. I think that's the wrong way to go.
With that, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding.
Madam Chair, I just want to point out a couple of things that I
believe need some clarification.
Number one, yes, we had the Inspector General in our committee
earlier in the week. I want to say, when he was talking about the loss
of 600 jobs, that would be if we were to go back to funding at 2008
levels, which we have not done in this continuing resolution.
Number two, this agency has probably received more money than any
other government agency in the last decade, and it has hired over 1,000
employees during that time period. Certainly, with that complement of
excellent staff, they should have been able to see all of the problems
with regard to Madoff, Stanford Financial, and other things.
At the end of the day, they've got to prove their own ability to
manage money. They have to do their financial reports correctly. They
have to, perhaps, take the structure they have and make it work in
order to comply with Dodd-Frank. In the new bureaus, there is a lot of
overlap that Dodd-Frank asks them to do, but they've got offices that
do those functions already, so they can use what they have and perhaps
fix it by moving employees around within that office.
At the end of the day, they still have to prove that they can do the
job. They have not. They already receive too much money as far as I'm
concerned; and if they can better manage personnel and do that job,
then I'm more than happy to look at funding them at the levels that my
colleague suggests, but not until they can prove they can manage what
they have got already.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Let me first clarify something.
Madam Chair, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) came to me
and told me where he wanted to take the cuts to pay for this. We were
both unhappy about it, but we felt that it was so important to do this
that we would take it from where we had to

[[Page H1130]]

and then deal with it later. But let's understand something.

{time} 1710

There are some new Members here who are either watching in their
offices or here on the floor who need to know something. I've been in
public office 36 years--this is my 37th year--in the State Assembly in
New York and in Congress. I've never seen, except for once, a
commissioner or a Secretary or a director of an agency come before me
as chairman of a committee, and when I ask them, Do you want, do you
need more money, they said to me, No, we don't want, we don't need any
money. You know who that was? You guessed it. The SEC a few years ago
told us that they didn't want any more money, they didn't need any more
money. Why? Because that was during that era when there was the word
out throughout an administration not to enforce, not to regulate, not
to practice oversight, let it go, the water will clean itself, the air
will clean itself, Wall Street can monitor itself. That was the
attitude.
Now, we're seeing another pattern, and I look at folks on the other
side that--you know, we always say this but they know I mean it--who I
have tremendous respect and admiration for, but we know, I'm not fooled
what the game is. The game is we pass a health care bill some insurance
companies don't like, so we're not going to fund it. We pass
regulations on Wall Street that could go a long way to stopping the
criminals from doing it again, we're not going to fund it. That's what
this is all about. This is not about whether the SEC did a good job or
will do a good job. It's simply about a law that now will make it very
difficult to commit the crimes that were committed on Wall Street which
tumbled down the whole economy, and now we're saying that we're not
going to fund it.
So as we move forward this year, this weekend, the next 2 years, and
we propose not funding certain things, every so often at least let's do
it and kind of wink at each other, because we know the truth. This is
not about cutting a budget. This is about not enforcing some rules.
And so we will open it up again and the same folks, because they're
pretty smart, who pull all those crimes on this society will do it
again, and my God, interestingly enough, the movement that brought you
into the majority, those folks that I saw on TV at those town hall
meetings did have one thing in common with the folks over here. They
agreed that something had to be done to the folks on Wall Street; that
they couldn't run amok and go crazy again. That was the one thing we
agreed on. So it could be that this time you're running counter to your
own base--not that I should advise you on that--but running counter to
your own base because they want Wall Street police.
So the SEC needs to enforce this bill, and if you really want to undo
Dodd-Frank, then try what you're doing with health care, which is to
change the law, but not to fund it is simply to find a very funny way
of accomplishing the same thing.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Chair, just so we don't forget where we were,
Colorado in August of 2008 had about a 4, 4\1/2\ percent unemployment
rate. We had a crash the likes of which we haven't seen in decades in
September, October, November of 2008 on the financial markets centered
on Wall Street. Colorado then went to 8 percent unemployment. Thousands
of people in Colorado lost their jobs because of the recklessness that
we saw on Wall Street. There were no police on the beat, or if they
were on the beat, they were told to look elsewhere.
Since Barack Obama took office at the beginning of 2009, when we were
losing 800,000 jobs a month, the stock market in the fall of 2008,
under the last months of the Bush administration, lost thousands of
points. Since March of 2009, the stock market has doubled, because
people understand that there is some restraint and enforcement of the
financial markets now. People are starting to get back to work. The
middle class is realizing they have pensions that are growing again. We
have to have confidence. We have to have certainty in the financial
markets. And to underfund and take away the police that are trying to
deal with these unbelievably complicated types of financial
transactions is wrong for Middle America. Middle America got hit hard.
It's just getting back on its feet, and my friends on the Republican
side of the aisle just want to pull that rug out from underneath them
again and let the bums start pillaging Wall Street again.
No, we had Ponzi schemes. I look to my friend from Missouri because I
was listening to her. Two of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever in the
history of the United States, $65 billion with Mr. Madoff and I can't
remember how much Mr. Stanford was, or the Stanford Investments, but
billions of dollars, millions of transactions. We had testimony in our
committee that the SEC during the period from about 2001 to 2007 was
notified 21 times during that period about Mr. Madoff and they did
nothing.
So now we finally have certainty back in the marketplace. The market
has doubled, and now we want to take those police back off the beat
when Middle America is strengthening itself again?
Mrs. EMERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
Mrs. EMERSON. I just want to add or perhaps comment to my good friend
from Colorado that the IG said to our subcommittee that it wasn't for
lack of resources--since we have increased that budget 163 percent over
the last 10 years--it wasn't for lack of resources but, rather, the
staff working within the SEC did not perform their duties properly.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Reclaiming my time, I would say resources have now
been added, and they're performing their duties, and the stock market
has doubled so that the people in Colorado, the moms and pops of Middle
America, finally see their pensions growing again.
So much wealth was lost because of what happened on Wall Street,
whether it was out-and-out fraud like in Madoff or just recklessness.
We can't have that anymore. That almost brought this country to its
knees, and this cut to the SEC is just very misplaced. We can't forget
what happened 2 years ago.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I think I now understand what
Dr. King meant when he said that the truest measure of the person is
not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience, but
rather, where do you stand in times of great challenge and controversy.
This is a time of challenge and controversy that will measure our
truest measure as people of goodwill. I ask anyone to show me the
empirical evidence connoting that we should reduce funds to get better
service, to get better scrutiny, to get better cops on the beat with
the SEC.
Every police department in this country has some problem or has had
some problem. No one would say let's eliminate the police department
because it has not performed up to a standard of 100 percent. The SEC
is not perfect but what it does is this: It oversees 38,000 entities,
11,450 investment advisers, and these investment advisers are managing
$33 trillion. Some things bear repeating. These investment advisers,
11,450 of them, are managing $33 trillion. Do we really want to take
the cops off the beat? Would we ever make such an announcement as it
relates to any police department in this country?
Let us stop for just a moment and take a deep breath and understand
what is about to take place here. We are about to send a signal to
those who would perform dastardly deeds that we are going to allow you
to do this with impunity, not because we want you to do so, ostensibly,
but because there will not be the deterrent in place that we know
should exist to prevent them from doing these dastardly deeds.

{time} 1720

So I'm going to ask all of my friends on both sides to stop, take a
deep breath, and let us ask ourselves: In this time of challenging
controversy, will we prevent the SEC from overseeing

[[Page H1131]]

the 7,600 mutual funds as they properly should, from overseeing the
5,000 broker-dealers as they properly should, from overseeing more than
10,000 companies as they properly should, 35,000 entities as they
properly should?
This is a time of challenge and controversy, and I am proud to say
that I am going to stand for making sure that those who invest are
properly protected. This is our time. This is a moment to stand up and
be counted. And I hope that every investor out there will look to see
who stood for making sure that investments are properly protected and
that the integrity of the system is properly in place. I stand for
doing the right thing, and the right thing is to make sure that this
SEC has the right amount of capital in place to protect our investors
and our investments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.

Amendment No. 506 Offered by Mr. Holt

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise made available by this Act
are revised by reducing the amount made available for
``Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,
Enforcement'', and increasing the amounts provided in section
1517(a) for transfer from the Federal Reserve to the Bureau
of Consumer Financial Protection for activities authorized to
be carried out by such Bureau under title X of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and amounts
made available in section 1517(b) for obligation by such
Bureau during fiscal year 2011, by $63,000,000, respectively.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, the continuing resolution bill before us
handcuffs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by setting a maximum
level that the Federal Reserve can fund the CFPB for the fiscal year
that we are in.
This amendment would allow the CFPB to function as intended. As a
result of an open process last year that included a rare House-Senate
conference, the House passed historic reforms to the Nation's financial
system. It included such things as providing for disassembly of large,
failing financial institutions so taxpayers wouldn't be saddled with
the bailout. And it did a number of other things. But I would argue
that probably the most important thing it did was to create a Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau.
Members of the House and the Senate, after much deliberation,
concluded that in order for the CFPB to protect effectively American
consumers, it must be independent. The Dodd-Frank legislation, which is
the law of the land, is clear on this point. This new financial
watchdog which would serve consumers in every kind of financial
transaction where they had had no aid, no protection, no help before
would be an independent organization, insulated from partisan fights on
Capitol Hill, deriving its operating budget from the Federal Reserve.
Section 1017 2(c) was very explicit on this.
Some of the appropriators, being the appropriation animals that they
are, may not like the fact that this is to be kept independent of
appropriations, but it was to give this commission independence so that
they could offer protection for the consumer.
Now, I suppose we should applaud the ingenuity of the authors of this
continuing resolution to get around the law of the land. Maybe we
should applaud their sheer nerve in trying to de-fund this board.
Less than 2 months into the 112th Congress, the majority, through
this continuing resolution bill, is attempting to sneak through a
provision in direct conflict with the spirit of the law, the intention
of the law, and in direct contradiction to this intent to protect the
consumer. It handcuffs the CFPB in order to preserve the status quo
that benefits big banks at the expense of American consumers.
If we've learned any lesson from the financial crisis of the last
several years, it should be this: by protecting consumers, we can
protect the rest of the financial system. This amendment simply would
correct section 1517 by inserting the appropriate amount of money that
the CFPB estimates that it will need to get the work done for the sake
of American consumers. This amendment would ensure that the recently
created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, when it assumes consumer
protection authority this summer, will have the independence and will
have the resources that it needs to begin its critical work of
protecting consumers and, by extension, protecting the entire financial
system of this country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. EMERSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The continuing resolution already cuts the IRS by over $600 million
compared to FY10 and over $1 billion compared to the FY11 request; and
I believe that the further cuts to the IRS enforcement division will
ensure that the tax cheats win because there are going to be fewer
audits, fewer investigations, fewer prosecutions, fewer convictions.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created by Dodd-Frank to
promote fairness and transparence, but the bureau itself seems to be
anything but transparent. The general powers, organization, and goals
of the bureau are laid out very well in the law, but the specifics of
how the bureau will use its powers and achieve its goals are not known.
Moreover, the Dodd-Frank law provides $500 million a year from the
Federal Reserve to the bureau without any input from the Congress at
all.
And without a doubt, I am not disagreeing that there is a strong need
for consumer protection. I'm a mom. I believe in that very strongly.
But just as commerce shouldn't run wild, neither should consumer
protection. So the limitation in the bill, I believe, represents an
adequate level. It represents the level of resources that are currently
expended by regulatory agencies on consumer protection activities, for
example the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which we all
know parts of it will move into the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau.
I believe that we should look at this a little later because, as the
bureau-specific activities become known and the cost of those
activities become known, then we're going to have an opportunity to
revisit the limitation. Providing $500 million a year without any
congressional oversight to the bureau is, I believe, a very
irresponsible abdication of a constitutional check and balance and I
would ask colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment and oppose
unchecked and unbalanced bureaucracy.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I want to congratulate the
gentlelady from Missouri for an acrobatic defense of the continuing
resolution's treatment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This is not about whether government should be big or small. It's about
which side government should be on.

{time} 1730

The CR, the continuing resolution, does not save a penny from the
deficit because the money for the CFPB, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, comes from a separate source of funding. This is
really about hobbling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to keep
it from getting up and running and doing its job.
The CFPB is to put government on the side of Americans who are trying
to make an honest living so they don't have to worry every time they
sign a financial contract that they're going to

[[Page H1132]]

get gouged, they're going to get cheated out of their income and their
life savings by some trick or trap, some dishonest little clause hidden
in the fine print of the legalese written by the banks' lawyers.
The CFPB will set rules to make sure those contracts are honest, and
it will enforce those rules. And it has not started yet, so it's a
little early to criticize them for not getting the job done.
The CR, by cutting funding by half, or a little more than half, is
really about putting government or continuing to have government, as it
has been for most of the last decade, on the side of the financial
predators who are not trying to make an honest living but who are
trying to make a killing and succeeding in making a killing by cheating
ordinary Americans with the fine print. And they cheated them on
mortgages, on credit cards, on overdraft fees, and on and on, and every
American knows it because just about every American has experienced it.
Now, in talking about the FCC earlier, Ms. Waters and Mr. Green both
used the term ``cop on Wall Street.'' They didn't attribute that
phrase, but it's from Will Rogers.
Back in the Great Depression, even after we learned of all the
corruption and the fraud that had led to the collapse, the stock market
crash, when Congress was considering legislation, a bill, a law that
would have set rules for Wall Street and given the Securities and
Exchange Commission the power to enforce it, the securities industry
fought it fiercely because, as Will Rogers said, the boys on Wall
Street don't want a cop on their block. Of course they don't want a cop
on their block. They will make less money. They don't want a cop on
their block now either. They don't want a CFPB now either, because if
their contracts have to be honest, they will make less money.
Vote to put government on the side of the Americans trying to make an
honest living. Vote to put a cop on the Wall Street block. Vote for
this amendment.
Mrs. EMERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Missouri.
Mrs. EMERSON. I just want to point out one thing. The text of the
bill scores our limitation at $30 million for FY 2011.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. And when we saw that CBO did that, we
decided to offset that, so we did, as the gentlewoman indicated, go to
the IRS. And I do want to say the gentlewoman is, I guess, is being
very responsible, the chair of the subcommittee, she is defending the
Internal Revenue Service against the Consumer Bureau and the SEC. And
the gentlewoman is entitled to due credit for her staunch support of
the IRS as we try to divert funds to protect consumers and police Wall
Street. And I am sure there are many in the Tea Party who will be very
grateful for her staunch support for the IRS funding.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I yield back.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chairman, I rise this afternoon to oppose this
amendment. Let me start my discussion by talking about two things:
Number one, about the usefulness of the committee, and then about the
funding of the committee as a whole.
Number one, I have some grave, grave concerns with regards to the
usefulness of the committee to begin with. As a former bank regulator
in one of my previous careers, it's kind of astounding to me that, with
all of the laws that are in place, we had all the problems that we did.
We don't need more laws; we need to enforce the ones that are in place.
And in testimony yesterday in our committee, in Financial Services,
that was the general consensus of many, many of the folks that were
there. And so what we're doing is trying to continue to over-regulate
and again put in place another entity to confound and to promote some
more regulation, exactly what we don't need in the private marketplace.
But again, why are we having another committee to do more regulation
when we could have the existing people do the job the right way?
It's kind of like, to me, having a police department that doesn't do
its job, and instead of firing everybody at the police department and
starting over and finding some good folks who could do the job, you
create another police department, so now we have two police departments
to fund. And I think that's what's going on here. And this is why I'm
very concerned about this model, this committee, this board.
And from the standpoint of being a former examiner, this is exactly
the wrong thing to do with regards to the mission of this committee. We
are now putting consumer protections over the safety and soundness of
our institutions, and that's wrong. That is absolutely the wrong model.
We are flipping completely upside down. We are re-prioritizing the way
our markets should work and regulatory systems should work. In my view,
we're going in the wrong direction.
But, with regards to the funding mechanism that's in place, this
group, at this point, has a line of credit basically from us, and this
CR cuts that off to a limited amount, which the chairman a minute ago
addressed as $80 million, and we think that's adequate funding at this
point. They are only going to use at the annual rate of about $65
million, and this amendment intends to put $63 million back into it. I
think that's unnecessary. It's wasteful. At a time like this when we
need to be consolidating and finding ways to cut our dollars, we don't
need to empower an agency that we don't need, number one, with powers
that are not defined at this point. We don't need to be doing it. From
the standpoint we don't even have a director in place yet, we need to
be confining this thing so we can provide oversight over it, rather
than giving it a blank check and unlimited powers.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman and Members, I have long been an advocate
of consumer protections and consumer rights. And I'm proud of the work
we accomplished in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010 to create a Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau.
Madam Chairman, and Members, I didn't get elected to the Congress of
the United States of America to protect big banks, banks too big to
fail, or to protect their shoddy products, criminal schemes that are
designed to rip off innocent citizens who go to work every day. I don't
know how anybody can come to this floor and represent that the
consumers, the workers, the people of this country, don't need any
protection.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is needed because it is very
clear that our current regulatory framework inadequately protects
consumers. Just look at the wrongful foreclosures on our veterans which
was exposed by reporters last month and was the subject of a Veterans
Affairs hearing last week. You go tell those veterans that they didn't
need that protection, that they shouldn't be protected.
The proliferation of harmful financial products and practices went
unchecked because our banking regulators were tasked with both consumer
protection and bank safety and soundness responsibilities. And we've
seen that the pro-bank, anti-consumer stance won every time. That's why
we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to make sure that
the consumer voices aren't shouted down by the industries, and that an
independent agency is beholden to the consumers and not the CEOs of the
big financial institutions.
Opponents of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau claim we don't
need this agency, they say, because the other banking regulators are
already charged with consumer protection. This argument doesn't hold
water because there are several types of consumer financial products
which, because they were offered by nonbanks,

[[Page H1133]]

fall into what may be classified as the shadow banking industry. These
products and institutions escape Federal regulation, yet often lead to
Federal problems such as our current economic foreclosure crisis. The
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would bring nonbanks that offer
financial services to and interact with consumers into our regulatory
system.
Another reason the CFPB is needed is to protect consumers from
complicated products and hidden predatory fees. According to Elizabeth
Warren, who is a special adviser to the Treasury on the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, the average credit card offer now comes
bundled with more than 100 pages of fine print. Buried within this fine
print are provisions about restrictions, teaser rates, and penalties.
This fine print makes it nearly impossible for consumers to make
informed decisions and pick the credit card or other lending product
which is right for them. This leads some borrowers to be trapped in
credit cards or loan products with hidden and abusive fees.

{time} 1740

The CFPB would resolve this problem by working with the industry to
reduce the fine print and hidden fees. We also need CFPB to provide
stability to our financial markets, which is supported by consumer
lending.
Our current crisis began when collateralized debt obligations and
mortgage-backed securities were packed with exotic products, which are
known as no doc loans and liar loans. It was exacerbated as consumers
were continually squeezed with excessive penalties and fees from bank
products, reducing purchasing power, and leading families everywhere to
make tough decisions.
A strong regulator, one which focused solely on consumer safety and
championed simpler disclosure and product, could have prevented all of
this. We need CFPB. This kind of crisis should never occur again.
Amendments to defund CFPB or to prevent it from doing its work will
only hurt American consumers and, in turn, our economy. So I urge a
``no'' vote on these amendments.
Madam Chair and Members, I don't know how any elected any official
could go home and talk to their constituents and tell them they want to
limit the funding to the SEC, the cop on the Wall Street block to
protect investors, and then add to it, ``and I don't want you to have
any consumer protection.''
We don't like what has been done. We're against these kinds of
regulations. It is baffling. It is not to be understood, and I believe
that in the final analysis this body will do the right thing.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Holt
amendment.
In listening to the banter that we've been hearing back and forth,
you would think that we were trying to eliminate the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, but, in fact, what we're trying to do is limit it.
One of the things, if you look at the history of this entity, is that
it's the typical answer in Washington. When we have other regulators
that aren't doing their job, the solution always is let's throw more
regulation, more regulators, and more money at the problem.
And so what did we do with this new bureau? Well, we said--guess
what?--we're going to throw $700 million at this new agency. We're
going to take $500 million out of the Fed and we're going to give them
the ability to come and ask for another $200 million.
Now, what is going on right now is that we don't even have a Director
at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, yet they are standing up a
new organization. So basically what we have from this administration is
another czar. I don't know how many czars that they have over there,
what the latest count is. But here we are, an agency that has the
authority to spend millions of dollars, yet we can't even get one of
the most egregious parts of this right.
And it was very clever by the other side. They realized in the last
days of the 111th Congress that there was possibly going to be a change
in November. They tucked this entity over into the Fed, trying to be
able to limit Congress' ability to have oversight over this
organization. So I want to applaud the Appropriations Committee for
figuring out a way to bring some accountability to this organization.
Now, what is at play right now is that this entity in August received
$18.4 million. In December they received $14.37 million. And if you
annualize that rate, they are going to need less than $65 million, and
yet what we're saying is Republicans want to limit that to $80 million.
The Holt amendment wants to increase that another $63 million.
Madam Chair, what is exactly wrong and the reason we've been having
these hours and hours and hours of debate is the American people spoke
very clearly last November. They are tired of Big Government. They are
tired of government trying to make all of their decisions. And what
this new entity is going to do is it is going to hurt consumers in that
it is going to drive the cost of consumer credit up for many Americans.
Some of the financial services that they have been able to enjoy, this
new czar will have the ability to say that those new products cannot be
offered anymore.
So bringing this kind of accountability into this process is a very
positive thing. It was a mistake to put this entity into the Fed to
begin with. It's a mistake to let this administration continue to stand
up this organization without going through the appropriate
constitutional requirement that this person be confirmed by the United
States Senate. It's an egregious use of the Executive power. And one of
the things that we hope that the President will do very quickly is
nominate someone to oversee this organization.
Basically, we have people that haven't been nominated or confirmed by
the Senate making very big decisions, spending millions of dollars over
here, standing up an entity, quite honestly, that will not, in fact, do
what a lot of the folks in this building think this entity is going to
do, and that's provide consumer protection. What this entity is going
to do is provide more cost to consumers.
With that, I urge defeat of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, I would like to inform the Chair and the
balance of the people here that it is our intent to finish this
amendment and Ms. McCollum's amendment, and then we'll be going to a
vote. I thought, for information purposes, I would let everybody know
our intent and what we would like to do.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, after 4 million foreclosures--and perhaps
we're going to reach 7 million foreclosures--$70 million in loss of
home value, after massive unemployment, after an enormous financial
bailout bill that we had to do to save this economy, it's impossible
for me to understand how it is anybody would not want to have a strong
consumer protection provision in our law.
How in the world, after the massive recession that we went through,
after all the damage that has gone through to hit this economy, which
started in the consumer sector, Madam Chair, which started because
consumers were taken advantage of with no doc, low doc loans packaged
into securities and then hedged by these credit default swaps which
Warren Buffet said caused millions in financial destruction, how would
we want to undermine consumer protection?
The fact is consumer protection helps to make sure that we have a
strong, sound, and safe system. And if it would have been in place, we
would not be in this situation now. We are in this situation now for
one reason and one reason only. It is the laissez-faire attitude that
pervades the opposition to this fair amendment, and it should be
passed. The Holt amendment is right.
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
I would just like to make this point: My colleague from Texas said,
well, because the old regulation wasn't working, we wanted just an
additional regulator. That's simply untrue.

[[Page H1134]]

What we said was this: Consumer regulation, before the passage of the
financial reform bill, was entrusted to the bank regulators, and their
primary mission and their primary focus was on bank protection.
We do not create new powers so much here as take the powers that were
vested in the Federal Reserve. Great defense of the Federal Reserve. I
am struck by my Republican colleagues trying to defend the integrity of
the Federal Reserve and the IRS. That's a new Republican Party. But we
took it from the control of the currency, from the FDIC, and put them
in a new agency whose only responsibility is consumers. It is not
additional money and it's not any new regulation.
Now, we do add a set of previously unregulated entities: payday
lenders and check cashers and others in the shadow banking system. So
there is some increase in consumer protection. But, fundamentally, we
didn't say we want one additional regulator. We have taken regulatory
authority from the pro-bank regulators who haven't exercised it well
and put it in the new agency.

{time} 1750

Mr. ELLISON. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, let's be clear about what is going
on here. I think it is crystal clear, frankly.
This side tends to believe in more government. This side tends to
believe in less government.
This side tends to believe in more control. This side tends to
believe in less control.
This side tends to believe in more spending. This side tends to
believe in less spending.
This side tends to believe in more regulation and more oppression.
This side tends to believe in less regulation and less oppression.
This side believes in Big Government solutions. We believe in people.
It is pretty simple. And if you believe in Big Government solutions,
you have to ask the question, how is it going? And the fact of the
matter is, it is not going real well. Another 410,000 new individuals
applying for unemployment today.
This is a chart here that shows, Madam Chair, back before the Big
Government folks got involved the amount of spending at the Federal
level, down here in 2006, about $2.6 trillion. Here is where we are
now, Madam Chair, way over on the other side. That is what Big
Government does for you. It spends money that you don't have. Deficits,
annual deficits, $1.4 trillion, $1.4 trillion, and $1.6 trillion in the
last three fiscal years. So it is Big Government, the government
picking winners and losers, and that is where we are right now.
Well, how is it going? The free market, frankly, can't function when
the government is picking winners and losers, and that is exactly what
the American people have gotten over the last 2 years and 4 years, and
certainly last year what it got last year when Congress passed the new
Dodd-Frank bill and formalized their new political economy.
Now, the administration's Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection,
what we are talking about right here right now, charges bureaucrats to
produce more red tape, regulations, none of which, none of which truly
helps the consumer. They make for bigger government, that is right. But
much like the new health care plan which prevents the American people
from picking a health care plan that works for them, the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection would simply tell American families which
financial product is right for them, which credit card is right for
them, which bank account is right for them, which mortgage is right for
them, directing people in very, very specific ways.
Now, there are real challenges within our financial system. There is
no doubt about it. Absolutely not. But the failure of the regulators to
do their job, as my friend from Texas said, doesn't mean that you need
more regulators. You need the regulators to do their job, and that is
not what the CFPB does. The CFPB has been given the authority to write
the rules, to enforce the rules, to conduct examinations, to approve
disclosures, and on and on and on and on. Is there anything that this
Federal agency is not allowed to do?
Now, the underlying bill appropriately limits the use of the funds to
carry out and implement the CFPB. This amendment, the amendment that we
are discussing right now, expands the mandates, expands regulation,
expands the economic tinkering that has been handed down from this
administration and from Democrats in Congress. So if you like this
track, if you like Big Government and you like more spending, if you
like a government that borrows more and spends more and taxes more and
destroys jobs, then side with the folks who are specialists in that
area.
If, however, you believe that we ought to spend less at the Federal
level, that we ought to spend within our means, that we ought to work
as diligently as we can to create jobs and that we ought to allow more
freedom for more Americans, more choices for more Americans, then I
would suggest and recommend that you vote down this amendment and
support the underlying bill.
I yield back.
Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, let me just first be clear that we are not
expanding anything in this amendment. The statute says exactly what the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is supposed to do. This amendment
just allows the funding to enable them to do it. This is an
appropriations bill. We are not supposed to be expanding or contracting
anything in appropriations bill. That is what I thought. The
Appropriations Committee is about money, not about authority, not about
expanding or contracting authority. So I don't know what my colleague
was talking about when he said we are expanding something if we pass
this amendment.
Second, there is some debate from some of my colleagues, and I could
understand the first-term Member who got up and says I don't know why
we have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. What I can't understand
is why the subsequent colleague who serves on Financial Services got up
and said the same thing, because he was on the Financial Services
Committee and served with me when we created the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. So let me just give a little history here about why
we have it.
We had theoretically consumer protection as one of the objectives of
the Federal Reserve and other Federal regulators. We had in that same
Federal Reserve the responsibility for the safety and soundness of our
financial institutions. Those two things obviously were in conflict
with each other because the Federal Reserve, instead of looking out for
the interests of consumers and protecting consumers, allowed consumers
to get into mortgages and financial transactions that ended up
destroying our financial system; and they did it saying, well, you
know, this is going to add to the safety and soundness of financial
institutions because our definition of safety and soundness is a
financial institution which can make more and more and more money.
So what is the solution to that? You don't do away with safety and
soundness. We didn't do away with safety and soundness. It is important
to protect the safety and soundness of our financial institutions. We
continued to give that responsibility to the Federal Reserve and the
regulators.
But if you are going to protect consumers, you don't give the
authority to the same entity that has disregarded the interests of
consumers and led us to a financial services meltdown. So we took those
consumer protection responsibilities and put them into a separate
entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Now, the gentleman who was a freshman here, I don't expect that he
would have been around to understand that. You know, he just got here.
But for my colleagues who served on the Financial Services Committee to
get up and say, well, I don't know why we have a separate Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, they must not have been paying attention.

[[Page H1135]]

Now, to go further over the objections of some of us, we didn't want
to necessarily put this in the Federal Reserve; but to get it funded
appropriately, the Federal Reserve set some fees and charged the
industry for this agency, not the taxpayer. This is not taxpayer money,
at least not tax dollar money. I guess at some point everything is
taxpayer money. But this is not appropriated money. So this would come
out of the Federal Reserve's budget, which I thought my colleagues,
they don't like the Federal Reserve anyway, at least that is what they
have been telling us all this time. They want to do away with the
Federal Reserve. You would think they would want to take some of their
money and put it into the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
All this amendment does is try to restore the funding to a level so
that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can do what it is charged
with doing.

{time} 1800

Let's not understate or overstate that. This is an important
amendment. Let's support the amendment and pass it.
Mr. HIMES. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HIMES. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Holt amendment.
I was moved to come to the floor because I was stunned that in their
deregulatory zeal, in their ideologically driven desire to shrink the
size of government, the Republican majority would choose to leave the
American consumer unprotected.
I represent a lot of American consumers and I know that they don't
really understand derivatives. I know that they don't really understand
the concept of systemic risk, of credit-default swaps, many of the
difficult things that we sought to regulate in Dodd-Frank. But they
sure do understand what it means to open up that credit card bill at
the end of the month and see hundreds of dollars of charges that they
didn't anticipate.
Millions of Americans now understand what it is to have a mortgage
blow up on them, a mortgage that if we were all honest with each other
we would recognize none of us really understands our own mortgages.
Millions of Americans now know what it is to see interest rates hop up
on a mortgage and to lose their homes. Of all the things that the
Republican majority could choose to gut, that they would choose to
leave the American consumer to be prey to predatory practices is
unconscionable.
Madam Chair, we don't allow toasters that will burn your house down.
We don't allow cars that will blow up. But evidently the Republican
majority would allow mortgages that would blow up your house or other
financial products that would bring an American family to its knees.
I've heard the counterarguments. I heard the gentleman from Georgia
stand down there and say that this is an expansion of government
spending. What the gentleman from Georgia didn't say is that probably
the most politically unpopular bit of spending we've seen in the last
several years was hundreds of billions of dollars requested by a
Republican President and a Republican Secretary of the Treasury to bail
out the financial industry. I'll say it again. Republicans requested
the bailout. That was a terribly expensive thing to do. The Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau will help prevent that in the future. It's
a good investment.
I've heard arguments about czars. I must say, I've talked to tens of
thousands of my constituents and nobody is saying that czars are a
problem in the United States of America today. I'm hearing a slightly
better argument, but one that I don't accept as a former banker, that
we are separating consumer protection from safety and soundness. As a
former banker, I will say that those are not separate concepts, that
when you have bank customers defaulting on their mortgages, when you
have bank customers running up credit card debt and being subject to
fees that they can't possibly repay, you stick a knife into the safety
and soundness of that bank or whatever institution that we are talking
about.
Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HIMES. I will yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT. So you see the importance of having both of those issues
and how there's not a hard dividing line between the two is what you're
saying?
Mr. HIMES. That is correct.
Mr. GARRETT. Under the current statute, Dodd-Frank, is the CFPB
charged with looking at something other than consumer protection? Are
they charged with looking at safety and soundness?
Mr. HIMES. Reclaiming my time, this country has long had a history of
the examination of the safety and soundness of our banks. And what we
are saying now is that we will assist and support the safety and
soundness of our banks by keeping the customers of those banks from
defaulting through good consumer protection.
So I support the Holt amendment and think this is terribly, terribly
important to American families and the safety and soundness of the
system.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I have heard Mr.
Price's arguments before. So I've talked to a lot of people about
whether they really valued the freedom to be cheated on credit cards,
to be cheated on mortgages, to be cheated on overdraft fees, and I
found that that was not really a freedom that they valued; and, in
fact, they didn't really believe that was the reason the financial
industry was opposing consumer protection legislation. They thought
that the reason the financial industry was opposing the legislation was
so they could make more money and keep up by cheating people, which was
not something they wanted any more than Americans a hundred years ago
really valued the right to buy rancid beef, as the meatpackers argued a
century ago. They were opposing pure food legislation so they could
protect the right of people to buy rancid beef. Americans don't believe
it.
I asked the president of the American Bankers Association in
committee if he could give me the names of some of the people who
qualified for prime mortgages but got a subprime mortgage, or someone
who really wanted to have a credit card contract that required them to
continue to pay interest on a balance even after they had paid off the
balance. He said that was a rhetorical question and he didn't have to
answer it; it was just a rhetorical question.
But I mean it. If somebody can tell me someone who qualified for a
prime mortgage and instead asked for, wanted, chose a subprime
mortgage, introduce them to me. If there's someone who actually wanted
a credit card contract that required them to pay interest on the
balance even after they paid off the balance, introduce them to me. I
want to understand that consumer choice, because I have been assuming
all along the reason they entered those contracts that were so hideous
to them is they got cheated.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlelady from New
York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the Holt
amendment and will place in the Record an eight-page document from the
Americans for Financial Reform. This has eight pages of State, local,
and city organizations in support of an independent Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
I must say that the Republicans are chipping away at the independence
of this very important bureau. We put it in the Fed to have financial
independence for regulation. They're putting it back under the
appropriations system and cutting it dramatically.
Dodd-Frank did a lot of good things, and one of them was to try to
level the playing field for the consumer with the creation of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. For far too long in our financial
system and its products, any concerns about consumer protection came in
a distant second, a third, or not at all. Now, any American who opens a
checking or savings account,

[[Page H1136]]

anyone who takes out a student loan or a mortgage, anyone who opens a
credit card or takes out a payday loan will have a Federal agency on
their side to protect them. For the first time, consumer protection
authority will be housed in one place, and the Democrats funded it. The
Republicans are taking away that funding and that independence.
This is a critically important amendment for the financial
independence, security, and well-being of the consumer in our country
and for the financial system. We are suffering through the Great
Recession because there was no oversight. The Democrats have put in
oversight, accountability. And the Republicans lose the vote on the
floor, we pass it, but they're trying to win by cutting away the
funding so they can't function, so they can't do their job, taking away
their independence. It is outrageous. It is wrong. It is an insult to
the American people.
And my friends on both sides of the aisle should join Congressman
Holt in support of his important amendment. It is important to the
financial independence and security of the American public, and I urge
everyone to support it.

House GOP Targets Consumer Protection Bureau With CR

(By Tim Fernholz)

When Democrats in Congress crafted last year's Dodd-Frank
financial regulatory overhaul, they went out of their way to
protect the fledgling Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
from the financial sector and Republicans who opposed it.
They did so by crafting a dedicated funding stream from the
Federal Reserve to protect the agency's independence from the
whims of appropriators--or so they thought.
A provision in the continuing resolution being debated on
the House floor this week would limit the CFPB's funding,
which could be as much as $700 million a year, to only $80
million for the rest of this fiscal year.
``They found a way around it,'' said Financial Services
Committee ranking member Barney Frank, D-Mass., the law's
namesake who managed its progress in the House. The measure
created several regulatory agencies and strengthened existing
ones while proposing restrictions on bank borrowing and
pernicious business practices.
House Republicans had promised to use the appropriations
process to limit funding for the agencies implementing the
new law, which they believe imposes burdensome costs on
consumers and the private sector while failing to prevent
future crises.
The CR includes no money for the Securities and Exchange
Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to
implement key provisions in the law; similar restrictions are
already in the bill being debated on the floor.
With the bulk of the funding for the CFPB under the Fed's
discretion--the agency can request a further $200 million
from Congress if the director so chooses--Democrats thought
the CFPB would be safe from the whims of appropriators, but
language in the CR would amend the Dodd-Frank law itself.
``We don't normally tinker around with the Federal Reserve;
however, the Dodd-Frank bill did, and it opened the door,'' a
GOP aide said. Frank doesn't disagree: ``In fairness to
[Republicans], the Fed didn't independently decide to fund
the CFPB; we told them to.''
Frank was skeptical about the provision's chances in the
Senate or in negotiations with the White House, which has
made the agency a priority, but worried that the issue might
get lost in the complex funding battle.
``I don't think the tea party's victory was a mandate for
the re-deregulation of the American financial system,'' Frank
said, arguing that voters are behind restrictions on the
financial sector. ``On all those issues, as they become
public, we win.''
Among the amendments that have been proposed to the CR, one
would eliminate the salary of the CFPB's interim head,
Elizabeth Warren, and another would defund the agency
entirely. Warren pushed back at the agency's critics in a
speech on Tuesday.
``Politicizing the funding of bank supervision would be a
dangerous precedent, and it would deprive the CFPB of the
predictable funding it will need to examine large and
powerful banks consistently and to provide a level playing
field with their nonbank competitors,'' she said, pointing
out that IndyMac, a bank that failed during the 2008 crisis,
cost the government nearly 20 times the maximum yearly
funding of the CFPB.
____

Americans for Financial Reform,

February 16th, 2011.
Re Opposition to proposed cuts to CFPB funding under the
proposed CR; the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is
a very good value.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of Americans for
Financial Reform, a coalition of more than 250 national,
state and local organizations and its other undersigned
member organizations, we write in strong opposition to the
funding cuts for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB), as proposed in a controversial provision (Section
1517) in the Continuing Resolution to be considered on the
House floor today. If amendments are offered to restore
funding to the CFPB we urge you to support them. Also, oppose
any amendments, such as #528 (Carter) or #577 (Price), that
would further weaken the CFPB.
The controversial provision included in the CR would
effectively cut the new CFPB's budget by 40 percent--from
$143 million to $80 million--before it even takes over its
job of protecting American consumers from unfair financial
practices.
These proposed cuts would not subtract a dime from the
deficit. They would take money designated to protect American
consumers from financial fraud and leave it instead with the
already well-funded Federal Reserve system.
That's because the CFPB's budget is a transfer from the
Federal Reserve Board, not an appropriation. The attempt at
cuts to the non-appropriated budget of a bank supervisory
agency is unacceptable; no other federal bank regulators have
their budgets manipulated in this way. In fact, while the
CFPB's proposed Federal Reserve transfer this year of $143
million is well under its proposed cap of approximately $500
million to be needed once it is fully staffed, it remains the
only bank supervisor with a capped budget. Not only is the
CFPB the first federal agency with only one job, protecting
consumers in the financial marketplace, its funding status as
enacted in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
of 2010 is a very good value and already a compromise since
it is capped.
Cutting its budget would prevent it from examining the
biggest banks for further violations of overdraft, credit
card and mortgage rules that they have become known for. This
would harm consumers. Cutting its budget would make it harder
for consumers who have been slammed by these same unfair
practices from participating in the economic recovery.
Cutting its budget would also harm small businesses, who have
not been served well by those big banks that would benefit
most from a CFPB budget cut.
And finally, cutting the CFPB's budget means a return to
the system of inadequate financial supervision that failed
taxpayers, depositors, investors, homeowners and other
consumers. Allowing continued predatory lending to consumers
will inject greater risk into the financial system. That will
raise the threat of a repeat of the Wall Street-caused
financial crisis that cost Americans millions of lost jobs,
billions of dollars in taxpayer funded bailouts and trillions
of dollars in lost home values and retirement savings.
It is absolutely essential that the House of
Representatives reject the politicization of bank supervision
as proposed in the CR. We encourage you to support any
amendments that may be offered on the House floor to restore
funding to the CFPB. With the economy still fragile, this is
no time to further undercut consumer confidence by defunding
a federal agency consumers will need to rely on to ensure
that their interests are protected. After the worst economic
crisis since the Great Crash of 1929, consumers need a full-
sized cop on the beat.
Sincerely,
Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Digital
Democracy, Consumer Action, Consumers Union, Greenlining
Institute, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its
low-income clients), National Council of La Raza, National
Fair Housing Alliance, National People's Action,
Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, Public
Citizen, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, U.S. PIRG.
Following are the partners of Americans for Financial
Reform.
All the organizations support the overall principles of AFR
and are working for an accountable, fair and secure financial
system. Not all of these organizations work on all of the
issues covered by the coalition or have signed on to every
statement.

National Organizations

A New Way Forward, AARP, Accountable America, Adler and
Colvin, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Alliance For Justice, American
Family Voices, American Income Life Insurance, Americans for
Democratic Action, Inc.
Americans for Fairness in Lending, American Sustainable
Business Council, Americans United for Change, Business for
Shared Prosperity, Calvert Asset Management Company, Inc.,
Campaign for America's Future, Campaign Money, Center for
Digital Democracy, Center for Economic and Policy Research,
Center for Economic Progress.
Center for Media and Democracy, Center for Responsible
Lending, Center for Justice and Democracy, Center of Concern,
Change to Win, Clean Yield Asset Management, Coastal
Enterprises Inc., Color of Change, Common Cause,
Communications Workers of America.
Community Development Transportation Lending Services,
Community Law Center, Consumer Action, Consumer Association
Council, Consumers for Auto Safety and Reliability, Consumer
Federation of America, Consumer Watchdog, Consumers Union,
Corporation for Enterprise Development, CREDO.
CTW Investment Group, Demos, Economic Policy Institute,
Essential Action, Green America, Greenlining Institute, Good
Business International, Help Is On the Way, Inc, HNMA
Funding, Home Actions.
Housing Counseling Services, Information Press, Institute
for Global Communications, Institute for Policy Studies:
Global Economy Project, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Institute of Women's Policy Research,

[[Page H1137]]

Keystone Research Center, Krull & Company, Laborers'
International Union of North America, Lake Research Partners,
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,
MoveOn.org Political Action, NAACP, NASCAT, National
Association of Consumer Advocates, National Association of
Investment Professionals, National Association of
Neighborhoods, National Coalition for Asian Pacific American
Community Development, National Community Reinvestment
Coalition, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its
low-income clients).
National Consumers League, National Council of La Raza,
National Fair Housing Alliance, National Federation of
Community Development Credit Unions, National Housing
Institute, National Housing Trust, National Housing Trust
Community Development Fund, National NeighborWorks
Association, National People's Action, National Council of
Womens Organizations.
National Worksright Institute, Next Step, OMB Watch,
Opportunity Finance Network, Partners for the Common Good,
PICO, Progress Now Action, Progressive States Network,
Poverty and Race Research Action Council, Public Citizen.
Responsible Endowments Coalition, Sargent Shriver Center on
Poverty Law, Scam Victims United, SEIU, Sojourners, State
Voices, Taxpayer's for Common Sense, The Association for
Housing and Neighborhood Development, The Carrots and Sticks
Project.
The Fuel Savers Club, The Seminal, UNET, Union Plus, United
for a Fair Economy, U.S. PIRG, Unitarian Universalist for a
Just Economic Community, United Food and Commercial Workers,
United States Student Association, USAction.
Veris Wealth Partners, Veterans Chamber of Commerce, We The
People Now, Western States Center, Woodstock Institute,
Working America, World Business Academy, World Privacy Forum.

State Organizations

207 CCAG, 9 to 5, the National Association of Working Women
(CO), AARP Rhode Island, Alaska PIRG, Arizona PIRG, Arizona
Advocacy Network, Arizonans for Responsible Lending, Arkansas
Community Organizations, Arkansas Public Policy Panel,
Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development (NY).
Audubon Partnership for Economic Development LDC (New York,
NY), Aurora NAACP, BAC Funding Consortium Inc. (Miami, FL),
Beech Capital Venture Corporation (Philadelphia, PA), Bell
Policy Center (CO), California PIRG, California Reinvestment
Coalition, Center for Media and Democracy, Center for NYC
Neighborhoods, Century Housing Corporation (Culver City, CA).
Changer (NY), Chautauqua Home Rehabilitation and
Improvement Corporation (NY), Chicago Community Loan Fund
(Chicago, IL), Chicago Community Ventures (Chicago, IL),
Chicago Consumer Coalition, Citizen Potawatomi CDC (Shawnee,
OK), Club Change of Martin County (Florida), Coalition on
Homeless Housing in Ohio, Coffee Party of Pensacola, Florida,
Coffee Party of Union Square, New York City.
Colorado AFL-CIO, Colorado Center on Law and Policy,
Colorado Immigrants Rights Coalition, Colorado PIRG, Colorado
Spring NAACP, Community Action of Nebraska, Community Capital
Development, Community Capital Fund (Bridgeport, CT),
Community Capital of Maryland (Baltimore, MD), Community
Development Financial Institution of the Tohono O'odham
Nation (Sells, AZ).
Community Redevelopment Loan and Investment Fund, (Atlanta,
GA), Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina,
Community Resource Group (Fayetteville, AR), Connecticut
Association for Human Services, Connecticut Citizen Action
Group, Connecticut PIRG, Consumer Assistance Council, Cooper
Square Committee (New York, NY), Cooperative Fund of New
England (Wilmington, NC), Corporacion de Desarrollo Economico
de Ceiba (Ceiba, PR).
CWA 7777 (CO), Delta Foundation, Inc. (Greenville, MS),
Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF) (Philadelphia, PA), Empire
Justice Center (NY), Enterprises, Inc., Berea KY, Fair
Housing Contact Service OH, Federation of Appalachian Housing
Enterprises, Inc. (Berea, KY), Fitness and Praise Youth
Development, Inc. (Baton Rouge, LA), Florida Consumer Action
Network.
Florida PIRG, Forward Community Investments (Madison, WI),
Funding Partners for Housing Solutions (Ft. Collins, CO),
Georgia PIRG, Grow Iowa Foundation (Greenfield, IA),
Homewise, Inc. (Santa Fe, NM), Humanitas Community
Development Corporation, Idaho Chapter, National Association
of Social Workers, Idaho Community Action Network, Idaho
Nevada CDFI (Pocatello, ID).
Illinois PIRG, Impact Capital (Seattle, WA), Indiana PIRG,
Indiana University PIRG, Information Press (CA), Iowa PIRG,
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, JobStart Chautauqua,
Inc. (Mayville, NY), Keystone Research Center, La Casa
Federal Credit Union (Newark, NJ).
Low Income Investment Fund (San Francisco, CA), Long Island
Housing Services NY, MaineStream Finance (Bangor, ME),
Maryland PIRG, Massachusetts Consumers' Coalition,
Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, MASSPIRG, Michigan PIRG,
Midland Community Development Corporation (Midland, TX).
Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation
(Detroit Lakes, MN), Mile High Community Loan Fund (Denver,
CO), Missouri PIRG, Montana Community Development Corporation
(Missoula, MT), Montana PIRG, Mortgage Recovery Service
Center of L.A., Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy
Project, New Hampshire PIRG, New Jersey Community Capital
(Trenton, NJ), New Jersey Citizen Action.
New Jersey PIRG, New Mexico PIRG, New York PIRG, New York
City AIDS Housing Network, Next Step (MN), NOAH Community
Development Fund, Inc. (Boston, MA), Nonprofit Finance Fund
(New York, NY), Nonprofits Assistance Fund (Minneapolis, MN),
North Carolina Association of Community Development
Corporations, North Carolina PIRG.
Northern Community Investment Corporation (St. Johnsbury,
VT), Northside Community Development Fund (Pittsburgh, PA),
Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing (Columbus, OH), Ohio
PIRG, Oregon State PIRG, Our Oregon, PennPIRG, Piedmont
Housing Alliance (Charlottesville, VA).
Rhode Island PIRG, Rights for All People, The Rocky
Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Rural Community Assistance
Corporation (West Sacramento, CA), Rural Organizing Project
OR, San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
Seattle Economic Development Fund dba Community Capital
Development, SEIU Local 105 (Colorado), SEIU Rhode Island,
Siouxland Economic Development Corporation (Sioux City, IA).
Southern Bancorp (Arkadelphia, AR), TexPIRG, The
Association for Housing and Neighborhood Development, The
Fair Housing Council of Central New York, The Help Network,
The Loan Fund (Albuquerque, NM), Third Reconstruction
Institute (NC), V-Family, Inc., Vermont PIRG, Village Capital
Corporation (Cleveland, OH).
Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Virginia Poverty Law
Center, War on Poverty--Florida, Washington Community Action
Network, WashPIRG, Westchester Residential Oppurtunities Inc.
NY, Wigamig Owners Loan Fund, Inc. (Lac du Flambeau, WI),
WISPIRG.

Businesses

Blu, Bowden-Gill Environmental, Community MedPAC,
Diversified Env. Planning, Hayden & Craig, PLLC, The
Holographic Repatteming Institute at Austin, Mid City Animal
Hospital (Phoenix, AZ), UNET.

{time} 1810

Mr. DICKS. Again, I strongly rise in support of the Holt amendment.
If you look at history, in the years around 2003 to 2005, this budget
was cut.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. Vote for the Holt amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOLT. 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 Jersey
will be postponed.

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 proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 189 by Ms. Woolsey of California.
Amendment No. 208 by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 514 by Mr. Price of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 404 by Mr. Walden of Oregon.
Amendment No. 516 by Mr. Camp of Michigan.
Amendment No. 195 by Mrs. Lummis of Wyoming.
Amendment No. 165 by Mr. Carter of Texas.
Amendment No. 204 by Mr. Scalise of Louisiana.
Amendment No. 458 by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 506 by Mr. Holt 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. 189 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) 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.

[[Page H1138]]

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 91,
noes 339, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 80]

AYES--91

Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Capuano
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clay
Cohen
Cooper
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Doggett
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kind
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Serrano
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--339

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--3

Costa
Crowley
Giffords

{time} 1835

Mr. LUJAN, Ms. HAYWORTH, Messrs. OWENS, MULVANEY, WALZ of Minnesota,
Ms. GRANGER, Messrs. QUAYLE, COFFMAN of Colorado, and SCALISE changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. FARR, HONDA, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. GUTIERREZ, and Ms. CHU changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. TURNER. Madam Chair, on rollcall vote No. 80 I inadvertently
voted ``aye'' when I intended to vote ``nay.''

Amendment No. 208 Offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole) 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. 81]

AYES--247

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
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
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
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf

[[Page H1139]]

Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--175

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Critz
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
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

NOT VOTING--11

Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Coffman (CO)
Crowley
Dold
Giffords
Graves (MO)
Higgins
Miller, George
Sullivan
Turner

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1838

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 81, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. TURNER. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 81, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 81, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 514 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) 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. 82]

AYES--267

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olson
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--159

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hirono
Huelskamp
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Quayle
Renacci
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Amash

NOT VOTING--6

Crowley
Giffords
LaTourette
Stivers
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1842

Messrs. DICKS and PALLONE 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. 404 Offered by Mr. Walden

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded

[[Page H1140]]

vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden)
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. 83]

AYES--244

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
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
Hinojosa
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
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
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
Scott, David
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 (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--181

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
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
Critz
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
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
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
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

NOT VOTING--8

Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Crowley
Giffords
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
Pearce
Sires

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1845

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chair, during voting on Walden
Amendment No. 404 to H.R. 1, I intended to vote ``yes'' in support of
the amendment, but accidentally voted ``no'' due to the confusion of
two-minute voting increments on a long series of amendments.

Amendment No. 516 Offered by Mr. Camp

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Camp) 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. 84]

AYES--137

Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Black
Blumenauer
Boren
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capps
Cardoza
Carter
Castor (FL)
Clarke (MI)
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Cravaack
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duffy
Engel
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Franks (AZ)
Garamendi
Garrett
Gerlach
Gohmert
Granger
Harris
Hayworth
Heinrich
Heller
Herger
Higgins
Huizenga (MI)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Maloney
Marchant
Matsui
McCaul
McCotter
McDermott
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Murphy (PA)
Nunes
Olson
Olver
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peters
Petri
Reichert
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schmidt
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Weiner
West
Woodall
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--292

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Canseco
Capito
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crawford

[[Page H1141]]

Critz
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Keating
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Owens
Pastor (AZ)
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (IN)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Rigell

NOT VOTING--3

Crowley
Farenthold
Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1851

Mr. LYNCH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. WU, Ms. MATSUI, and Mr. BUCHANAN changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 195 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

[Roll No. 85]

AYES--232

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
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
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
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
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
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
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
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
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)

NOES--197

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
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
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
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
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
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
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
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
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--4

Crowley
Farenthold
Giffords
Walz (MN)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1854

So the amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H1142]]

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 165 Offered by Mr. Carter

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Carter) 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. 86]

AYES--250

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
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
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
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 (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
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
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
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
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
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--177

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
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 (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
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
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
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
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
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)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Crowley
Farenthold
Giffords
Larson (CT)
McIntyre
Schock

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1857

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. McINTYRE. During rollcall vote number 86 on February 17, 2011, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''

Amendment No. 204 Offered by Mr. Scalise

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Scalise) 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. 87]

AYES--249

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
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
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)

[[Page H1143]]

Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
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
Shuler
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 (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--179

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
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
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

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Amash

NOT VOTING--4

Crowley
Farenthold
Giffords
Mulvaney

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1901

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

Amendment No. 458 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 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. 88]

AYES--160

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Renacci
Richardson
Richmond
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
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--270

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Filner
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
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
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--3

Crowley
Farenthold
Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1904

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

[[Page H1144]]

Amendment No. 506 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. 89]

AYES--163

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

NOES--265

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
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
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
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
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--5

Crowley
Duffy
Farenthold
Gallegly
Giffords

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1907

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 89, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

{time} 1910

Amendment No. 50 Offered by Ms. McCollum

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Defense for sponsorship of
NASCAR race cars.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the staff,
the committee staff on both the Republican and the Democratic side, and
I would like to thank the floor staff for their patience, their hard
work, their dedication and their help to me this evening.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment ends tens of millions of taxpayer dollars
being wasted on sponsorship for NASCAR race cars by the Department of
Defense.

{time} 1920

With trillion-dollar deficits, this amendment is where the rubber
meets the road for my Republican tea party colleagues who want to cut
wasteful spending.
Defense Department waste is nothing new. Many Americans remember in
the 1980s the Pentagon was spending $400 for a hammer and $600 for a
toilet seat. Now we have the Army spending $7 million for a decal on a
racing car. Talk about taxpayer sticker shock.
For $7 million the Army buys a decal on a race car and a few driver
appearances. But it's not only the Army spending millions of dollars.
The Air Force sponsors a NASCAR race car for millions. So does the
National Guard. Incredibly, over the past decade hundreds of millions
of taxpayer dollars have subsidized race car owners and millionaire
drivers in the name of military recruitment.
Now here's the $7 million question: Does slapping a sticker on a race
car convince a young man or a young woman to volunteer to serve our
country in the Armed Forces? Not according to the Marine Corps.
Fact. In 2006, the Marine Corps dropped its sponsorship of NASCAR. A
Marine Corps spokesman said, We don't have a tracking mechanism to
track how many people contracted because of seeing an advertisement on
the hood of a car.
Fact. The same year, the Coast Guard dropped a $5 million NASCAR
deal.
Fact. In 2008, the Navy dropped NASCAR sponsorship, saying, ``it's
not always easy to measure a return on investment.''
Unbelievably, that year the Navy also paid one driver, Dale
Earnhardt,

[[Page H1145]]

Jr., the outrageous sum of $800,000 in taxpayer funds--twice the salary
of the President of the United States--just to make public appearances.
For all the tough budget cutters in Congress, you should know that
the Citizens Against Government Waste has endorsed this amendment. So I
would urge my Republican colleagues who are cutting homeless veterans,
cutting law enforcement officers, cutting firefighters, why not cut
some real waste and at the same time free NASCAR from its dependency on
the American taxpayer?
This amendment gives Members a clear choice: a vote to end wasteful
spending or a vote to keep wasting the American people's money. I urge
a ``yes'' vote to end the funding to NASCAR.
I want to stress again, many parts of the military were using NASCAR
sponsorship as part of their driver recruitment. They found that they
could not track the success of this program, so they ended it, using
their resources towards something that they knew that they could track,
knew that they had something that was successful.
So, Members, I urge you to end the taxpayer funding to NASCAR. Let's
put the dollars to work in the Department of Defense for something they
know is trackable and accountable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we support the gentlewoman's efforts
to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely and effectively.
Our committee has always been focused on that.
Effective recruiting is critical to the military's ability to attract
new qualified military men and women and maintain our all-volunteer
force. The Department of Defense uses its sponsorship of NASCAR and
other sporting events to create awareness of the different military
services and the unique advantages and programs that come with serving
our Nation.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's a great public-private partnership.
NASCAR sponsorship has proven to be a very cost-effective recruiting
tool, with some estimates stating that for every dollar the military
puts in NASCAR sponsorship, it gets $4 in advertising through
television, merchandise, and other outlets. We believe the dollars are
well spent. Thus I oppose the amendment.
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for
yielding.
Let's be clear: This amendment will not save one single dime. My
colleague from Minnesota simply is misinformed. Every dime spent in
this sponsorship program is measurable. You can measure the number of
media impressions you have, which the U.S. Army's participation in
NASCAR sponsorship netted it 484 million media impressions, 34 million
of which were offered specific Army recruiting messages.
So let's be very clear. This sponsorship is about recruiting. This
amendment is about politics in certain districts for certain groups of
people. But the vast majority of NASCAR fans--one out of five--have
served or are currently serving in the U.S. military. It's a target-
rich environment for Army's recruiting message and a target-rich
environment for military and the military message.
So I would just urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible
amendment that is certainly politically charged, but at the end of the
day will not save the taxpayers one single dime.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 232 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Not more than $10,000,000,000 of the funds made
available by this Act may be used for United States military
operations in Afghanistan.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to offer this amendment along
with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentlewoman from
California (Mr. Stark).
The continuing resolution provides approximately $100 billion for
Department of Defense operations in Afghanistan. This amendment states
that not more than $10 billion of the funds made available by the bill
may be used for military operations in Afghanistan. The intent is
clear: It is time to bring U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan
to an end and to bring our troops home. The war effort in Afghanistan
is no longer serving its purpose of enhancing the security of the
United States, which should be our goal.
We were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in
Afghanistan. It made sense to go in and destroy those bases. And we
did. We have every right, we have every duty to destroy bases which are
being used to plot against the United States. But the CIA tells us that
there are now fewer than 100 al Qaeda personnel in all of the country
of Afghanistan. Congress and the American people helped greatly reduce
U.S. involvement in Iraq. Through the elections in 2006 and 2008 we
forced a new direction in Iraq and helped bring thousands of troops
home. We must now do the same in Afghanistan.
The intent of this amendment is to reduce the funding for Afghanistan
sufficiently to leave enough funds to provide for the safe and orderly
withdrawal of our troops but not funding for ongoing combat operations.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) earlier today said he would
propose an amendment to establish a blue ribbon commission to examine
our war effort and to ask the question of how best to fight the war.
With all due respect, that is the wrong question. The right question,
the first question is: Why do we need to fight this war at all?

{time} 1930

It is past time to admit that our legitimate purpose in Afghanistan--
to destroy al Qaeda bases--has long since been accomplished. But it is
a fool's errand to try to remake a country that nobody since Genghis
Khan has managed to conquer. What makes us think, what arrogance gives
us the right to assume that we can succeed where the Mongols, the
British, the Soviets failed? No government in Afghanistan, no
government in Kabul, has ever been able to make its writ run in the
entire country.
Why have we undertaken to invent a government that is not supported
by the majority of the people, a government that is corrupt, and try to
impose it on this country? Afghanistan is in the middle of what is at
this point a 35-year civil war. We have no business intervening in that
civil war, we have no ability to win it for one side or the other, and
we have no necessity to win it for one side or the other. This whole
idea of counterinsurgency, that we are going to persuade the people who
are left alive after our firepower is applied to love the government
that we like is absurd. It will take tens of years, hundreds and
hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of American lives,
if it can be done at all, and we don't need to do it. It's their
country. If they want to have a civil war, we can't stop them. We can't
choose the rulers that they have, we don't have to like the rulers that
they have, and we don't have to like their choices. It's not up to us.
At this point we must recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan is both
beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from
attacking the United States. And if it be said that there are
terrorists operating in Afghanistan, that may be, but it is also true
of Yemen, Somalia and many other countries. We do not need to invade
and conquer and occupy all those

[[Page H1146]]

countries, and Afghanistan provides no greater necessity or
justification for military operations.
We are debating on this floor hundreds of budget cuts--cuts that will
grievously hurt millions of Americans--in order to reduce our
expenditures by about $60 billion. Yet we are throwing $100 billion a
year--plus countless lives--down a drainpipe, for no useful purpose at
all--and with very little discussion of our purposes and of whether our
policy matches our purposes.
To continue so bad a policy at so high a cost is simply
unconscionable. It is unjustifiable to sacrifice more money and more
lives this way. I urge my colleagues to join me and Ms. Lee and Mr.
Stark in voting to bring the U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan
to a close. Vote for this amendment. Let's bring our troops home. Let's
stop wasting our lives and our money and our treasure and our forces.
Let's bring our troops home. Let's devote our resources to something
that helps the people of this country.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to debate the issue of the war in
Afghanistan. The fact is we're there, our soldiers are getting hurt
every day, and too many of them are dying. So we're not going to debate
that particular part of the war. What we're going to debate is this
amendment. I've said in the last 3 days, a number of times, we're not
going to do anything in this defense appropriations bill in the savings
that would have an adverse effect on the war fighter. This amendment
would affect the war fighter, especially those in Afghanistan.
This $10 billion that the gentleman would leave in the fund to
finance the operations in Afghanistan, that's already been spent. In
the first quarter of this fiscal year, the Afghanistan operation cost
$16 billion, and he would only leave 10, which means we're already in
deficit of $6 billion during the first quarter of the year. What kind
of confusion would there be in Afghanistan immediately? What would our
troops be thinking? Where would they have to go? What would they have
to do? What would the rules of engagement be? You can't do this to our
soldiers, our war fighters who are in Afghanistan. Don't look at this
amendment because of the political tone relative to feeling that we
should be in Afghanistan or we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. The fact is
we're there. Our soldiers are fighting. They're getting hurt. They're
dying. The fact is we can't let them hang out there without proper
funding.
Now if you want to bring the troops home from Afghanistan, the truth
is $10 billion won't even accomplish that. It will take more to bring
everybody out of Afghanistan that we have deployed there, with the
equipment, with the infrastructure, with the headquarters, would cost
them much more than the $10 billion the gentleman would leave just to
redeploy them back to the United States of America.
This amendment does affect the war fighter. I will not support any
part of an appropriations bill or an authorizing bill that has an
adverse effect on those who stand to fight for America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just thank
Congressman Nadler for his ongoing support, consistent support for
efforts to end the war and for offering this amendment, which is really
very straightforward.
Mr. NADLER. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. LEE of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Thank you.
The remarks of the gentleman from Florida were incorrect. This
amendment limits $10 billion from this CR, enough to bring the troops
home during the pendency of this CR. Funds that were already spent were
appropriated from the previous CRs. So it hasn't already been spent.
Ms. LEE of California. Reclaiming my time, let me just be clear up
front, that our service men and women have performed with incredible
courage and commitment in Afghanistan. They have done everything asked
of them. But the truth is that they have been put in an impossible
situation. In fact, this concern of ``war without end'' is why I
opposed the resolution. I know we disagreed with that, but many of us
agree now that we should not have this war without end continued. But I
opposed the use of military force on September 14 because it was a
blank check, I believed then, and it remains one now.
There are a few things we know with certainty regarding the situation
in Afghanistan. We know corruption persists unabated, and in many cases
has been fueled by the U.S. occupation and influx of foreign cash.
President Karzai has proven himself time and time again unwilling, or
at least unable, to meaningfully root out corruption within his own
administration. We know that the United States troop presence has
increased from somewhere around 5,000 troops in 2002 to more than
100,000 troops in 2011. At the same time, military and civilian
casualties have increased at record rates. 2010, unfortunately, was the
deadliest year in Afghanistan.
We also know that al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan has been all but
eliminated. The administration has been consistent in its assessment
that there are maybe between 50 and 100 members of al Qaeda remaining
in Afghanistan. The fact is the modern threat of terrorism can emanate
from the tribal regions of Yemen or, yes, a hotel room in Germany. It's
not feasible or in our national security interest to address this
threat through a military-first, boots on the ground strategy. And we
know, as military and foreign policy experts from across the political
spectrum have told us repeatedly, that the situation in Afghanistan
will not be resolved by a military solution. The United States has
squandered more than $1.1 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Economists estimate the total direct and indirect costs of these two
wars by their end may be a total of $6 trillion.
No one can deny that the increasing costs of the war in Afghanistan
are constraining our efforts to invest in job creation and jump-start
the economy. At the same time we are fighting here in Congress to
protect investments in education, health care, public health and
safety, transportation, the war in Afghanistan will cost more than $100
billion in 2011.
Regardless of the situation in Afghanistan, the Pentagon will come
back to us and ask for more time, more troops and more resources. If
we're not doing so well there, they'll ask for more time, more troops,
more resources. If we're doing well there, they will say we want more
time, more resources and more troops.
It's time to say enough is enough. It's time to begin the safe and
orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors from
Afghanistan. We should do so today. I speak today as a daughter of a
lieutenant colonel who fought in several wars, one who knows the trauma
and the devastation of wars on families.
I want to just thank Congressman Nadler for his leadership and I hope
that we all will support my legislation that I introduced today, the
Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan Act.

{time} 1940

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. I rise to support the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment.
I would like to thank them for bringing this amendment to the floor.
I would like to thank all of them and the other Progressives in this
House for the work that has been done in an attempt to make sense out
of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and for all of the traveling,
the speeches, and the organizing that has been done around this war
issue.
Mr. Chairman, we continue to fight to bring our troops home. I know
that there are those who would think that perhaps because they have not
heard a lot from us that somehow we had removed ourselves from the
struggle, but

[[Page H1147]]

that is certainly not true. We have been respectful. We have allowed
this administration to make some commitments. The American people
decided to give the administration the opportunity to work to bring our
troops home, and we are still committed to that.
This CR would provide $100 billion for military operations in
Afghanistan. That doesn't sound as if we are trying to wind down. That
doesn't sound as if we are ready to recognize that it is time to get
out of Afghanistan. Why are we there?
Unfortunately, this war has been very traumatic on our soldiers, on
their families, and on the American public. Yes, as has been said over
and over again, we salute our soldiers. We appreciate the sacrifices
that they have made--and have they made sacrifices. There have been
more suicides in this war and in the Iraq war than we have had in all
of the wars of the United States of America. It breaks my heart to hear
about the brain injuries and the loss of limbs that these soldiers have
suffered.
Why is this happening? What are we doing?
Leon Panetta, the head of the CIA, says there are fewer than 100 al
Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. That is more than $1 billion per al
Qaeda operative. Again, let me reiterate: the CIA tells us there are
fewer than 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. At the rate that
we're going with the CR providing $100 billion for military operations,
that is more than $1 billion per al Qaeda operative.
Our amendment would limit the funds for military operations in
Afghanistan to $10 billion to provide for the safe and orderly
withdrawal of forces.
As we stand here debating this $100 billion allocation in the CR, I
cannot help but contrast that with the fact that our domestic agenda is
being cut and cut and cut, not only by this CR but by the budgets, both
from the opposite side of the aisle and from the White House. The
homelessness is shameful in America. We have people who are wondering
how they're going to keep their homes warm. We are cutting heating oil
in America. The environment is taking a licking in this CR.
At the same time that we talk about innovation and creating jobs, I
don't see anything in this CR that will create any jobs. What I see are
unwise expenditures such as we are witnessing with the $100 billion.
What I see on the opposite side of the aisle is a dedicated commitment
to getting rid of regulations that can save us money and create jobs.
So, led by the Progressives, we stand strong in our commitment that
this war must end. We must bring our soldiers home. It is time for us
to concentrate on the domestic agenda. There are those who would tell
us we are training the military in Afghanistan, that we are going to
have Afghanistan soldiers who will be ready to take over. I don't see
that happening.
What is ``win''? What is ``success''? How do you define it? I haven't
found anybody on the opposite side of the aisle who can define that.
I would say it is time for us to have the courage to do what must be
done. Let's support the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members that the rules
provide that Members are not to walk between the Chair and the Member
under recognition.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, the ongoing war in Afghanistan is, quite
simply, the wrong war in the wrong time and in the wrong place.
Intelligence experts agree that a terrorist threat to our Nation does
not emanate from within the borders of the nation of Afghanistan.
There is a very real terrorist threat to the people of this country;
but by its very nature, it is a stateless menace. It is a menace that
is likely to use as its base of operation wherever anarchy prevails and
wherever the rule of law is lacking. We cannot effectively combat this
threat by occupying one country after another after another.
It is true that, when we occupy a country, al Qaeda and other
terrorist operations will likely flee for other areas; but there are
unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, plenty of areas of the world that provide
hospitable footholds for al Qaeda, which is why a more effective
strategy this Nation is currently also engaged in--but which to a
certain extent is not complementary to the heavy-handed occupation
strategy--is that of more light targeted operations and intelligence
gathering and operations against terrorist operatives wherever they
are. To be bogged down in one particular nation state, one that is host
to a negligible number of al Qaeda operatives--it has been estimated
that there are only 50 to 100 al Qaeda operatives--is simply
counterproductive to the goal of keeping the American people safe.
Beyond being counterproductive, Mr. Chairman, this is money that we
can't afford. This amendment, which I strongly support, will cut $90
billion from the occupation of Afghanistan, allowing $10 billion to be
used to safely bring the conflict to an end and to maintain a lighter
footprint of military operations to ensure that al Qaeda does not
regain a stronghold within the borders of Afghanistan.
It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that the current strategy is not working.
The expenditures in Afghanistan currently are $100 billion. That is
more than $1 billion per al Qaeda operative within the borders of
Afghanistan. Most of al Qaeda's operations have moved across the border
to Pakistan, and they have gained a foothold in Yemen. Meanwhile, we
remain bogged down in a costly war without any clear end game that can
be articulated by the people on the ground.
When we enter a military scenario, it is critical to define what
success looks like. The nation-building operation undertaken with
regard to the occupation of Afghanistan does not have a clear outcome
that is reachable. The situation there will not be better in 6 months
or in a year or in 2 years or in 3 years.
It is time to stop sending American taxpayer money that we don't have
to a war that does not further the security interests of the American
people. That is why I am a strong supporter of the Nadler-Lee-Stark
amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

{time} 1950

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for his remarks and for yielding.
I just want to make one comment on what was said a moment ago by the
gentleman from Florida. This amendment reduces funding in this CR to
$10 billion. It should be enough to withdraw the troops. But the
argument was made that to reduce the funding is not to support our
troops, to rob them of the implements of doing their job. But the fact
is that the only power that Congress has to effectuate the war-making
power, to control whether we should be at war somewhere or another, is
the power of the purse.
We are not saying, by adopting this amendment, we would not be saying
that we want our troops there with no weapons and so forth. We would be
saying use the funds to bring the troops home. It is more supportive of
the troops to bring them home from a war that they should not be
fighting, that is not vital to our national security, it is more
supportive to bring them home than it is to give them weapons to fight
an unnecessary war in which some of them, unfortunately, will lose
their lives.
So I say support our troops. Bring them home. Support the country.
Stop fighting where it doesn't make sense, and spend our military
resources where it helps the national security of the United States,
which is not in Afghanistan right now.
Mr. POLIS. I would simply like to conclude that with the passage of
the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment as part of an underlying continuing
resolution will allow America to focus on the real stateless terrorist
threats to our Nation by preventing us from being bogged down in one
particular occupation in a country that has no significant al Qaeda
presence.
I yield back.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.

[[Page H1148]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the authors of this amendment which
I rise to support, the Nadler and Stark and Lee amendment. I believe it
is a starting point, for those of us who have consistently raised
questions about where we are and making sure we follow and adhere to
long-standing commitments to our troops and to their families that have
served boldly and ably both in Iraq and now in Afghanistan, how we can
orderly bring them home.
Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago as we continued to feel
frustration in Iraq, I raised the question and filed legislation called
the Day of Honor in which we would bring our troops home from Iraq and
then, subsequently, Afghanistan and honor them throughout the Nation.
In fact, I remember arguing with the Bush administration and raising
the issue as to why our fallen soldiers, when they came in to Dover Air
Force Base, did not have the honor of public view if agreed to by their
families. I believe our troops are owed a debt of gratitude, respect
and honor. Those who are fighting now deserve that respect and honor.
This legislation in no way diminishes or dismisses their service or
the blood that they have shed. But what it says is that we are now in
the midst of a major budget crisis. And as we have seen over the last
24 hours, we are willing to cut children and substance abuse and mental
health and teachers and environmental protection, if you will,
oversight, literally gut the running of the government. These soldiers
want to come home to jobs. We have done nothing about creating jobs.
I frankly believe this is a starting point of astute analysis as to
what we are doing going forward. We already know that we are looking
forward to bringing troops home and to downsizing, redeploying. We
begin redeploying by redeploying money.
And let me give you an example. On the floor just a few hours ago,
there was an amendment discussed by the Transportation Committee to
almost gut the Transportation Security Administration. Now, I chaired
that subcommittee in the last Congress, and I serve as the ranking
member in this Congress.
If we had done that, it would have had a double detriment to the
security of the homeland. Mr. Chairman, 900 positions would have been
lost, impacting 450 airports, governing some 445,000 TSA officers.
Maybe some of those officer positions could go to returning soldiers
who are looking for work. In addition, it would impact the intelligence
gathering and disseminating. It would also impact covert testing that
goes on at passenger checkpoints, and also cargo where we have seen
that we are still in the eye of the storm. There is no doubt that
aviation travel is in the eye of the storm for homeland security and
protecting the homeland.
So while we have $100 billion set aside for a war of which we have
already been given the direction as downsizing, redeploying, bringing
troops home, and yet we have $100 billion.
So I would simply say this is a time when we should come together and
determine that we are moving to bring our troops home; that we are
going to use smart money and work on diplomacy, getting Afghanistan to
invest the moneys it has and building democracy and educating its
children. We support that.
I recall one of my early visits to Afghanistan, taking books to
schoolchildren and the excitement of the schools way beyond Kabul where
they were excited to receive these books, and the students were excited
to receive and to be able to be educated. Of course, in leaving
Afghanistan and going to Iraq, we have lost a certain momentum that had
gathered. School girls can't even go to school. That comes through
diplomacy and buying into a sovereign nation that believes in some
dignity for all people.
So I applaud the troops that are on the ground, and I applaud their
leadership. But if we have amendments that would gut the Transportation
Security Administration and keep us from protecting the homeland, then
we know that we are going in the wrong direction. Support an amendment
that reduces the amount of money to be spent for Afghanistan, to invest
in the homeland and the security of that homeland, and promote agencies
like the Transportation Security Administration agency that is fighting
every day to secure the American people.
I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) for a colloquy.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
chairwoman.
Without consulting with my office in any way, the General Services
Administration took advantage of the lack of specific congressional
direction in the stimulus bill and initiated renovation work on the
Richard H. Poff Federal Building, a Federal building in my district, in
Roanoke, Virginia. This renovation was funded at $51 million. However,
the total cost for the renovations are now in excess of $65 million
when you factor in the relocation costs for the agencies that were
located in the Poff building.
I have repeatedly demanded a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis from
the GSA showing that this project is financially worthwhile, as is
required by law. To date, I have not received such an analysis.
It is completely unacceptable for GSA to move forward any further
with this project until such an analysis is produced.
I would like to request that you and the committee commit to working
with me to demand that the GSA provide a comprehensive cost-benefit
analysis that shows these renovations are worthwhile before any further
funds are appropriated to renovate this Federal building.
Mrs. EMERSON. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, and please know
that not only am I very happy to work with the gentleman on trying to
conduct better oversight of the GSA and ensure that it does cost-
benefit analyses, but I have also had quite a similar experience in my
hometown in Missouri of cost overruns and no type of real cost-benefit
analysis or explanation for those cost overruns other than perhaps
inattention to detail.
So I am thrilled to be able to work with you and look forward to
doing that.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have another colloquy with the
gentleman.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
chairwoman.
I intended to offer an amendment that would have prevented funds from
being used in this bill to subsidize wireless phone service in the
underlying legislation. As you know, the Universal Service Fund
provides Federal money to subsidize landline and cell phone service for
low-income individuals.
I can understand the need to ensure that low-income individuals have
a basic telecommunications link of some sort for emergency calls.
However, the State and local governments are the appropriate levels of
government to provide this service.

{time} 2000

Especially in a time of fiscal distress like we are currently facing,
I do not believe it is the role of the Federal Government to be
subsidizing cell phone service.
Would the chairwoman commit to work with me on report language in the
fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill addressing this issue?
Mrs. EMERSON. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for bringing this
to our attention and commend you for

[[Page H1149]]

doing so. And we'll be happy to work with you to try to address this
issue, particularly in report language in the FY 2012 bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman.
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair.

Amendment No. 214 Offered by Mr. Kline

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to--
(1) implement, administer, or enforce the final regulations
on ``Program Integrity: Gainful Employment--New Programs''
published by the Department of Education in the Federal
Register on October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66665 et seq.);
(2) issue a final rule or otherwise implement the proposed
rule on ``Program Integrity: Gainful Employment'' published
by the Department of Education on July 26, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg.
43616 et seq.);
(3) implement, administer, or enforce section 668.6 of
title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, (relating to gainful
employment), as amended by the final regulations published by
the Department of Education in the Federal Register on
October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66832 et seq.); or
(4) promulgate or enforce any new regulation or rule with
respect to the definition or application of the term
``gainful employment'' under the Higher Education Act of 1965
on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, in an op-ed published in The Wall Street
Journal, President Obama laid out his plan to conduct a comprehensive
regulatory review to ``remove outdated regulations that stifle job
creation and make our economy less competitive.'' I have pledged to be
a partner in that effort. Job creation and American competitiveness are
our top priorities. That's why I am offering an amendment to deny funds
from being used to implement and enforce a job-destroying Department of
Education regulation.
More than 3 million students attend proprietary schools. These
schools, also known as for-profit schools or career colleges, provide
students with skills that can be applied immediately to specific jobs
in the workforce. With more than 6 million workers unemployed for more
than 26 weeks, proprietary schools address a critical need in today's
economy. These schools also help address the needs of local
communities. Proprietary institutions are nimble and easily adapt to
the demands of an ever-changing local economy. If a community lacks
trained nurses or qualified auto mechanics, proprietary school can
quickly develop programs to fill those needs.
For years, proprietary schools have served young adults, single
parents, first-generation college students, and low-income individuals.
They have opened doors to bright futures and strengthened our economy.
That's why recent efforts by this administration have been so
troubling.
Last year, the Department of Education put forward regulations that
will deny students access to many of these institutions. The regulation
includes a number of provisions, including unprecedented reporting
requirements placed solely on the backs of these proprietary schools.
The regulation also requires schools to seek preapproval from the
Department of Education before creating any new program, tying down in
bureaucratic redtape the flexibility that has benefited communities and
workers.
The public outcry to the regulation has been resounding. More than
90,000 public comments were sent in to the Department during the
rulemaking process. A strong bipartisan coalition of Members of
Congress has voiced their concerns to the administration, but those
concerns seem to be ignored. In 2008, Congress had an opportunity to
define ``gainful employment,'' yet it chose not to. It recognized such
a definition would limit student choice and stifle employment. Instead,
the administration is barreling ahead with bad policy.
We all support transparency and accountability. We should empower
students with good information about all institutions so they can make
the most informed choice about their education. We should do our part
to root out bad actors. We can do that while opposing an outright
attack on the private sector. That's what this is: an attack on the
private sector of education. Colleges that planned to expand their
campuses have put those plans on hold.
This effort will force schools to turn away students and close their
doors. Some have already laid off workers. Capella, based in my home
State of Minnesota, announced just yesterday they will lay off 125
staff members. The regulation is destroying jobs today and will
continue to do so.
Make no mistake, this isn't just another regulation that will destroy
jobs. This is an assault on students' ability to find an institution
that best meets their needs.
The President has laid out a goal to lead the world in college
graduates in less than 10 years. This goal represents the reality that
far too often our workers are unprepared to succeed in a highly
competitive global economy. But we cannot lead the world if we follow
the path this regulation would force us to take.
Let's support our students. Let's support their right to choose a
college that meets their needs. Let's support a strong and competitive
workforce. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the Kline amendment, which would
prevent the Department of Education from moving forward on a rule that
would deny Federal financial aid to career education programs that
leave students in too much debt and without gainful employment.
The new gainful employment rule will hold career education employment
programs responsible through a simple proposition: A career education
program should only receive Federal financial assistance if, upon
graduation, students can earn enough money to pay off the debt that
they accrue. In short, a program is worth the Federal investment only
if the price of the education is justified by its outcome. Isn't this
exactly what responsible budgeting is all about?
This rule would apply to both for-profit and nonprofit colleges, but
the for-profit sector has mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign in
opposition. Why? The average tuition in a for-profit college is several
times greater than at a community college. For-profit college students
account for only 10 to 12 percent of college students, but they receive
23 percent of all Federal student loans and grants. Graduation rates at
for-profit colleges are at or below 50 percent while their profit
margins are as high as 30 percent. Twenty-five percent of for-profit
school students default on their loans after 3 years.
If we are going to build the workforce of the future, we need to
increase the number of Americans with college degrees. But students
should not have to mortgage their futures to pay for college, and they
should be secure in knowing that when they graduate, they will have a
degree or a credential that will help them to secure a job and to repay
their student loans. Leaving college without a credential or with one
that is of little value in the job market can leave students unable to
climb out of debt. And that is what happens to far too many students
who have been taken in by the aggressive marketing tactics of for-
profit colleges.
Why would any college contest the idea that an education should be
worth its price tag? Colleges are in a business to educate students,
not simply to take their money.
This rule will protect both students and taxpayers. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
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. As chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Education, we have no objections to this amendment.
I have often said--jokingly, of course--that the reason the Internet
is

[[Page H1150]]

so successful in America is that the government hasn't figured out how
to screw it up yet. Well, they are doing everything they can to screw
up education. We can finally get an institution or a structure that is
able to move very quickly to meet the needs of students, and this
government is trying to create a bureaucracy to keep them from being
successful, and it's inappropriate.
The Department of Education is attempting to define, through a new
regulation, what it means for someone graduating from a proprietary
school to be gainfully employed. Wouldn't that be nice if we applied
that same standard to our public school system around the country, that
our students had to be gainfully employed before they received any
money? This is a prime example of Federal overreach.
Fear of this regulation is having a real economic impact now even
before it goes into effect. Schools are already scaling back program
offerings because of the threat of this ``gainful employment''
regulation. And if it goes final, approximately 5.4 million students
could be shut out of higher education by 2020.
Portions of the regulation are set to go into effect July 1, 2011, so
it is necessary to include this language in the continuing resolution.
Waiting for the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process will be too
late for these schools. Business groups ranging from the National
Restaurant Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support this as
well as various State Chamber of Commerces. They all support the
amendment and oppose the regulation. I hope you do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I move to strike the last word in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, in my district, after
it invented the Internet, it turned it over to the private sector to
grow it.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, this amendment should not be
adopted. It should not be adopted because this amendment is designed to
disrupt the regulatory process to determine whether or not students who
are enrolled in some--and I say ``some''; I say this as a supporter of
proprietary colleges and career colleges--some classes that only leave
them in debt, don't leave them better prepared for the workforce, don't
leave them better prepared for the career. There is substantial
evidence that that's the case. High default rates, students not
completing, students ending up in a lot of debt. They are doing this
with almost 90 percent of taxpayer dollars.
I think we have an obligation to the students and to the taxpayers.
That's what the administration is trying to do with this regulation.
It's been mentioned that there were 90,000 comments. 89,000 of them
were a form letter. You would have thought that they could have varied
them a little bit for the money they were paying to get it out, but
they didn't. But the point is this: The administration ought to be
allowed to complete this process because this really is about the
future of these students.

{time} 2010

Students from these schools in many instances graduate with much
higher debt. Some of these schools, they default. In excess of 40, 45
percent of them end up in default, and, as you know, that is not debt
that you can discharge in a bankruptcy. So these students start out in
big trouble if these schools are not providing the kind of educational
atmosphere and, hopefully, the success ratio that they should. That
should be a concern to every Member of this Congress. That should be a
concern to the taxpayers, and it is a concern to this administration.
If this regulation doesn't turn out, the Congress can tell them they
can't do it. That's our power. That's the way it works. But to come in
in the middle of the game when it's this serious with this money on the
table, with these kinds of default rates, and some of these
institutions and some of these classes, we're making a big mistake by
putting our thumb on one side of the scale at this point in the
process.
As I've said from the time I have been on this committee as these
schools started to grow and become more a part of our higher education,
I have supported them. I continue to support them. Somebody just said,
if you're going to meet the goal of college graduation, it's hard to
believe how you're going to do it without these schools. But as we all
know, you put 90 cents out of every dollar coming from the taxpayer on
the street, there's always a few people who show up to pick it up
without providing the services.
We went through this in the HMOs back in the nineties. There were
people who said they were becoming health care HMOs. No, they were
really real estate companies who were trying to get a lot of people to
enroll and hopefully they could sell them to somebody else. In this
one, it's a question of whether or not you're offering a curriculum
that truly benefits the students, gives them the opportunity.
But, you know, when we see the kinds of scandals that have erupted in
the past at some of these institutions--again, not all of them--you
have to ask the questions: What's going on? People have paid tens of
millions of dollars in fines because of how they have attracted
students. When you have a business plan that's based upon attracting
homeless people, you better make sure that there is some opportunity
for that homeless person to thrive in that educational class other than
just end up in debt and still homeless. That was a business plan.
So I'm just asking for caution. I know you want to run to justice. I
know the power of these institutions and I know the pressure that
you're saying you have to stop this, you have to stop this. We're
talking about a few classes within all of these institutions where
there is a history, there may very well be a history that all the
student got out of it was debt. This isn't about what you end up doing
in your career over time, but it's about whether or not you got what
you paid for and they delivered services that they promised.
I hope that Congress will reject this amendment. Let the Department
continue to work on the regulation, and again, if it doesn't work, if
it doesn't make sense and is threatening schools, I suspect that we
will all join in making sure that the regulation doesn't go into
effect.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment.
Over the past year, a number of us have met with Education Secretary
Duncan to express our serious concerns with any proposal that evaluates
education programs based on the level of debt students are
accumulating. Despite improvements that have been made to the rule, I
remain concerned about the direction this rule is taking our education
system.
I understand and agree with those who are concerned about the high
cost of education, but shouldn't we let students and their family
evaluate for themselves whether the risk of carrying a high debt load
is one they want to take on? It seems to me to be a far better use of
our resources to be encouraging informed decisions by putting out
accurate information to students about graduation rates, placement
rates, and even average student debt burdens.
The fact is career colleges are meeting a community need by educating
and training people in specific professions like nursing. In six short
years, we are a million nurses short in this country. If there are
problems with a specific program, and there are many--in fact, there
may be bad programs in this country. Let's come up with a criteria that
actually evaluates the programs' effectiveness.
Either way, I think it makes sense to put a halt to this rule and use
the additional time to urge the Department to go back and put out a
rule that will ensure students continue to have access to educational
choice.
I urge adoption of the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I move to strike the last word in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, which is a
broad, sweeping measure, not only

[[Page H1151]]

against important protections for students, which I'll elaborate on,
but it also leads to potential exposure for taxpayers and taxpayer
money.
This amendment would not only eliminate the ability to have the
critical gainful employment regulation, some element of quality control
to make sure that after receiving sometimes very expensive education
somebody's actually more employable, but it would also undo existing
transparency that's already approved and published, to disallow basic
information on student outcomes, including graduation rates as well as
loan default and payment rates.
Now, the reason this is such an important matter to Congress is that
this is a critical matter for taxpayers. Taxpayers have been paying the
cost for excessive loan default rates of poorly performing for-profit
colleges. Specifically, for-profit higher education institutions
received $24 billion in title IV loans and Pell Grants in 2009,
accounting for about a quarter of the Federal college loan dollars,
despite them comprising only about 10 percent of the higher education
institutions.
Meanwhile, students from the for-profit colleges have loan default
rates after 3 years about twice the rate of all college defaults and
rising to 25 percent. Now, these are averages. That doesn't matter.
What matters is: Does it work? Does it work for kids? Are they getting
their money's worth? Are taxpayers getting their money's worth by
helping people attend these institutions, or are we graduating students
with a mountain full of debt, no more employable than the day they
walked into that door.
To make the matter even worse, in 2009, the average tuition of the
for-profit institution is $14,000 per year, compared to $7,000 per year
for average 4-year universities and $2,500 for community colleges.
Now, again, what I would look at would be the return on investment.
Are they providing twice the value of a 4-year or community college?
The data says no. Are they providing six times the value of community
colleges and making somebody employable in the future? The answer, by
and large, again is no. That's why the Higher Education Act authorized
the Education Department regulations that this amendment would block.
I strongly support the process that the administration has gone
through, including the process on the rule on gainful employment.
The administration has not turned a deaf ear to the industry, to the
legitimate concerns of quality operators. The first rule that they put
out there was--I think they've acknowledged had some room for
improvement. They've been working daily in conjunction with the
responsible players in the for-profit education industry to establish a
real playing field to ensure that we are not doing these students and
taxpayers a disservice through this program. GAO has detailed the
issues in its report last summer, and the Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights wrote to the U.S. Education Department a couple
of weeks ago that the rule will benefit minority students, as they
disproportionately enroll at for-profit schools, overpaying for poorer
quality education, as compared to the public counterparts.
The proposed rule is a reasonable way to ensure gainful employment
for students, and I applaud the administration for taking on this
difficult battle for minority students, to ensure basic transparency
and to protect taxpayer funds.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kline amendment.
It is imperative that Congress put the brakes on what has become this
administration's culture of runaway regulation.
Specifically, the amendment under consideration will prohibit the use
of funds in the underlying bill for the implementation of a misguided
regulation commonly referred to as the gainful employment rule, which
has already led to job loss and uncertainty in the proprietary college
sector. Moving forward, I'm concerned that that rule will jeopardize
access to many educational and training programs that provide students
with skills to meet the demands of an ever-changing labor market.
In function, this rule would prohibit college programs from receiving
Federal student loans unless new complicated loan repayment criteria
are met. As such, the rule incentivizes institutions to pursue only
those repayment plans which satisfy arbitrary government goals rather
than the plans that best fit students' needs. This may be loan
repayment; also ignoring measures of seemingly equal importance such as
on-time graduation rates and clear placement.
Equally troubling, under the rule, proprietary institutions would,
sadly, be forced to navigate an additional restrictive layer of Federal
bureaucracy, requiring Federal approval in order to offer any new
programs. Unfortunately, this provision fails to realize what is the
agile nature of these proprietary institutions that uniquely position
them to help unite a properly equipped workforce with employers in
today's uncertain job market. By unlawfully restricting the
flexibility, we risk failure to capitalize on emergency economic
opportunities.

{time} 2020

Moreover the gainful employment rule applies almost exclusively to
one sector of higher education, the proprietary schools which tend to
teach job-specific skills, often to at-risk populations such as low-
income, minorities, single parents, high school dropouts with GEDs, and
first-generation college students who do not have financial help from
parents. Somehow there is the notion that the bad actors of the Federal
higher education loans world is exclusively within the proprietary
college sector. This is preposterous, but the fact is that the
administration has chosen to discriminate against these schools. The
fact remains, a student can graduate from any institution of higher
education with inadequate income to repay their debts, and students
should not suffer simply because the school that best suits their needs
operates under a for-profit model.
I have repeatedly asked the Department of Education to refrain from
implementing this rule until we have clear data on the state of our
Nation's overall higher education system. If the administration were
serious about addressing unscrupulous recruiting practices at the
college level, this data would be compiled and made available, and
particularly to Members of Congress. As it stands, we have little more
than this singular, last-minute vote to slow down the administration's
race to squeeze the for-profit college sector out of existence.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I would like to point out a few important
facts about the for-profit educational sector, and that is that the
low-income students make up about half of the enrollment for for-profit
colleges and minorities comprise about 37 percent. So this really is a
matter of low-income and minority students facing what are high-cost
loans for students, and often 90 percent of the money comes from the
Federal Government.
Now, as I listen to my friends in the Republican caucus, I would
think that they would want the best value for the public dollar. This
rule means that some money spent will result in the outcome that is
sought in the beginning, which is gainful employment.
Too many of the students who go to these schools are coming out with
nothing other than big debt, and no education, no gainful employment at
all. And this is a problem. And I'm surprised that we would not say
that, look, we are going to make sure that when the Federal dollar is
put forward, there will be value coming back for it.
Now, I am no opponent of for-profit colleges. I think ones that are
performing well are certainly welcomed in the market and serve a
valuable role. But there are bad actors. And I think it's important to
point out we have seen this movie before, Mr. Chairman. We have seen it
when people said, Look, poor people, low-income people

[[Page H1152]]

of color need to get mortgages. And, well, you know what? Well, they
can get subprime mortgages. Now, not all subprime mortgages were
predatory mortgages, but some were. And enough were to be able to take
advantage of people on a very severe scale.
This rule, if it goes into effect, if allowed to proceed forward,
would make sure that these students and the government get good value
for their money, and no for-profit college that is not relying on a
business model that bilks the consumer, the student, should object. No
college, no for-profit college that relies on a business model that
actually is designed to help the students they propose to help should
object to saying, Look, we're going to deliver what we say we're going
to deliver, which is gainful employment.
This is no friendly thing for the poor and low-income students of
color. This is an abuse. Not all for-profit colleges, but some. And the
Federal Government has a responsibility to make sure that these
students are not taken advantage of.
By the logic of some of the proponents of this amendment, we should
say that, look, any loan shark, pawn shop, payday lender, we ought to
just thank them because, you know what, they serve the poor. Well, they
had better serve the poor in a fair, scrupulous way and not take
advantage of people in a circumstance where they are at a disadvantage.
So I urge members to vote this amendment down and to allow the proper
rulemaking procedure to go forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. This so-
called ``gainful employment'' regulation is another example of this big
Federal Government run amok.
Today, Hoosiers in Indiana, and all Americans, are free to choose
from accredited colleges and pick the one that they believe fits their
needs. These are accredited colleges. No one has accused them of
unfairly serving the poor--no one rightfully has--or anyone else. They
are accredited. They are licensed.
The Federal Government gets involved in student loans and grants
already, more so, I would say, than I and others would like it to. But
at least, Mr. Chairman, we still let individuals make their own
decisions on where to go to school.
The new rule makes a mockery of our American tradition of free
choice, replacing it with a bizarre program where the Federal
Government decides what job you should seek and what school you can
attend. Let me walk you through it.
Under this rule, the Obama administration has proposed a plan that,
number one, creates a matrix that examines the student loan debt to
future income of a prospective student; then, it compares that ratio to
the student loan repayment rates of graduates of the same program; and,
number three, and finally, it decides if the student can have access to
the loans they would need to attend the school or program of their
choice.
So for those of us listening, watching at home, what this means is,
if you are contemplating going to school so that you can economically
better yourself, or because you otherwise want to enrich your life, you
just can't go to the college or school of your choosing if you need a
government loan.
Instead, a nameless, faceless bureaucracy using some bizarre
arbitrary formula gets to decide whether or not you have chosen a field
of study that will pay enough to justify the investment, in the mind of
that particular bureaucrat. Unbelievable.
The government and the Obama administration are now micromanaging
this part of our lives, too. Talk about central planning, Mr. Chairman.
To make matters worse, this new program will disproportionately hurt
Hoosiers and other Americans who are least able to do anything about
it: Working Americans who need new training and new skills to move
forward in the workforce. This was what this Congress should be about.
If this regulation becomes reality, it will immediately prevent
400,000 people from developing new skills to benefit the workforce. By
2020, nearly 5.4 million students will be denied the higher education
program of their choice.
In a global economy, we cannot compete without an educated and
flexible workforce. This amendment will allow Americans the choice they
deserve and the educational flexibility our Nation needs. I urge a
``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2030

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Kline-Foxx-Hastings-McCarthy amendment that would stop the Department
of Education's proposed gainful employment regulation. Proprietary
colleges account for only 7 percent of the higher education student
population; yet last year 44 percent of student loan borrowers who
defaulted within 2 years of beginning their repayment were students who
had attended for-profit schools.
Mr. Chairman, I know something about these private postsecondary
schools. One could make the argument, and you will hear, oh, not all of
the schools. Of course, not 100 percent of the schools are ripoff
schools, but a huge majority of them are. I have experienced some of
this firsthand.
While I was working with poor students in South Los Angeles, we were
trying to get them into GED classes. The recruiters would come along
and tell them that they could get them into their schools, they could
help them to get Pell Grants, and they could help them get a career,
and, lo and behold, they would sign up. You would see them a few days
later, some were going to be dental assistants and they had a little
green jacket on and they had a little box that they carried to make it
look as if they were carrying dental tools. But it was just a matter of
months later when you would find sometimes the school was out of
business. They had been going to school, there were no teachers, there
was no equipment.
They were ripoff schools. And I want to tell you, they make a lot of
money. Take a look at this one school, Capella. They earned $335
million in profits; 78 percent of that was government money.
Now, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle will have you
believe they want to save the government money. They want to make sure
that they do everything to protect the government from spending the
taxpayers' money unwisely. Something is wrong with this picture when
they take the floor and argue for the continued ripoff of our students
and our taxpayer money to these schools.
Let me tell you who some of them are. Corinthian, bad reputation;
Everest, ITT, Westwood. And, guess what? Kaplan University. Guess who
owns Kaplan? The Washington Post. Do you think The Washington Post
makes most of its money from the newspaper? You got another thought
coming. Their profits and their revenue for the most part is coming
from Kaplan University, which has been found to have done all kinds of
things to get these students in, charging them higher prices for these
classes. They are not getting jobs, they don't get a career, and they
end up not only owing the government money, but they are prevented from
having a decent quality of life because now they can't get a section 8,
they can't get another Pell Grant, and, you know what? In many States
they are going after Social Security money and retirement money.
This is the next big scandal in America. You think that the meltdown
that we just had and the foreclosures that we are experiencing across
this country are bad. You wait until the investigations are done and
the truth is told and the amount of money is counted from the ripoffs.
Now, I know that this is a powerful lobby that I am working against.
I understand that. They roam these Halls, and they have plenty of
resources, and they put out plenty of materials. They buy full-page
ads. They are up on television, the Joe Blow School of Computer
Learning that has no school. I want to tell you, I understand how tough
this is.
But what I don't understand is how they could be joined by people who

[[Page H1153]]

claim to care about the taxpayers' money and claim that they are
fighting to reduce government, when in fact they are supporting the
ripoff schools that are increasing the amount of Pell Grants that we
give to schools, who will not get any jobs or create any careers.
This is not right. We should not have to suffer this kind of
misrepresentation. Members of this House should be in support of
students who want to learn. The worst thing that can happen to students
who drop out of school, to students who haven't made it, to all of a
sudden think that somehow they are going to get a job and get into one
of these ripoff schools and get disappointed time and time again.
I know what populations they are targeting. I see them. They are
targeting the welfare mothers. They are targeting gang-bangers. They
are targeting all kinds of people that they know are going to have a
difficult time succeeding.
So you keep doing this, it is going to catch up with you. I ask that
this amendment not be supported.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the President has
promoted a policy to have 5 million new college graduates by 2020, and
I commend the President for that goal. However, I have to stop and
wonder, how are we going to achieve that mission if the Department of
Education is going to put up roadblocks such as the proposed rules for
gainful employment?
In reality, career college also serves many purposes for many
different people from all walks of life. This is not an issue of black
or white, rural or urban, young or old, or Republican or Democrat. This
is an issue of access to opportunity.
I represent a very rural district in Pennsylvania. Many of my
constituents don't have access to a community college, and they live a
significant distance from any university. Many proprietary schools have
sprung up out of necessity. Many students in Pennsylvania choose these
schools because of their convenience. They realize that career colleges
offer course work of all types and work to accommodate the busy
schedules that we all have. They realize that life does not just stop
for 4 years so that you can go to a school. And they realize these
institutions will give them the skills they need to enter the workforce
and earn a decent living.
Mr. Chairman, I have concerns that the Department of Education has
stepped way beyond its authority and begun determination of an
arbitrary ruling on gainful employment. I ask my colleagues to support
this bipartisan amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment that will prohibit the use of funds by the Department of
Education for its misguided gainful employment rule.
Perhaps it would be helpful for the body and the public to know what
this gainful employment is that we are talking about. Under the Higher
Education Act, proprietary colleges and universities and career
training programs are required to offer programs that lead to gainful
employment in a legally recognized occupation in order to participate
in the Federal student aid programs.
The term ``gainful employment'' has been in the statute for over 40
years; and during the most recent reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act, there was absolutely no debate or discussion on a need
to further define the term.
Now, when this originated, several of our colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, and I am deeply appreciative of the chairman and my
colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion we went about our business trying
to understand just what kind of proposed rule it is that the Department
is talking about and just how it is that it will impact the overall
public.
What this amendment would do is prohibit the use of funds for
implementation of the draft regulation that the Department issued on
October 29, 2010, and will prohibit the Department from promulgating or
enforcing new regulations regarding gainful employment.
Let me put a face on these schools, as my colleagues that are opposed
have done.
Perhaps some of them have never eaten at a restaurant where the
person that prepared the food went to a proprietary institution. I
have.
Perhaps none of them have had physical therapy where the person
administering it graduated from a proprietary school. I have.
And, most importantly, I want this body to understand that of the
eight people that had the last hands-on experiences with my mother for
2 years, all were nurses in two different hospitals and at home, and
all graduated from proprietary schools.

{time} 2040

We all agree that both taxpayer funds and students' best interests
should be protected in higher education. But I can tell you this:
rushing into a blanket approach that will limit student access to
higher education and fail to adequately address problem institutions is
not the way to go.
You know what we did here in this institution? What we did here for
the people that work with us, young people that graduate from Ivy
League schools, historically black schools, all over this place, we
created a program that will allow them to help pay off their student
loans. Some of us hire people at what I would not call gainful
employment that may have graduated from institutions that I attended or
that the President attended.
I don't understand why the Department refuses to recognize job
placement, professional certification, passing rates, employer
verification, or anything else related in determining an institution's
effectiveness. If it's unreasonable amounts of student debt that
they're trying to address, I agree that that is a concern. Let's have a
frank discussion on student debt. But it is not only the institutions
that are responsible. Students, lenders, policymakers, as well as
institutions must be part of this process and must be held accountable.
This proposed rule is very broad and its implementation so burdensome
that many schools will undoubtedly close. And I don't buy into that
fallacious argument that 50 percent of these people don't graduate or
don't go on to do this, that, or the other. In this economy in the
United States of America, a whole lot of students are graduating from a
whole lot of schools and are not getting jobs today. And many of these
schools that we're attacking, unreasonably, are places where I know, at
least in the congressional district that I'm privileged to serve, that
many of these people have received jobs--and many of them leave the
institutions, like the last two nurses that worked with my mom that had
a job when they left the institution.
This may please some of my friends in this body, and the Department
of Education, but what will happen to the single mother looking to
change careers who needs the flexibility of a private sector college?
What about the first-generation college student who needs the added
support.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that we support this amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. If the
Department wants to issue a rule, do a rule that actually targets the
abuses rather than takes on a segment of the industry that may or may
not be complicit in the kind of allegations that are there. This is
overly broad. Let's have them go back to the drawing board and actually
target abuses that occur, not a segment of the industry that's actually
providing services.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the Kline amendment. Although I know that career colleges play an
important role in higher education, I cannot support this amendment
because the scope of the prohibition is too broad and the timing

[[Page H1154]]

of this amendment prior to the release of any final regulation preempts
the traditional regulatory process.
Together, the amendment's comprehensive ban on the Department's
ability to ``implement, administer, or enforce'' any current, pending,
or future regulation of gainful employment inappropriately and
prematurely restricts the responsibility of the administration to
regulate institutions of higher education.
In the many meetings I've had with career college stakeholders, each
one of them has admitted that there are bad actors. Despite this
uniform recognition, this amendment would tie the hands of the
Department of Education from any effort to encourage these schools to
improve their practices and protect their students.
I support career colleges, yet I am resolute in my belief that the
Federal Government has the responsibility to protect students and hold
institutions of higher education accountable--especially those that
access public dollars. I stand with over 50 civil rights groups,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and student groups who
support strong gainful employment protections for students, including
key civil rights groups such as the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights, and the Children's Defense Fund; the three HBCU
advocacy groups--NAFEO, the United Negro College Fund, and the Thurgood
Marshall; and key education groups such as the American Federation of
Teachers, the NEA, and the Council for Opportunity in Education.
Let's be clear and make no mistake. The Kline-Foxx amendment is not
about protecting low-income minority students. If that was the case,
then those concerns would have been expressed by not cutting Pell
Grants for over a million students by approximately $845 per student.
If the goal was truly to support low-income minority students, the CR
would not have cut $200 million in institutional aid from nonprofit
HBCUs, predominantly black colleges and universities, and Hispanic-
Serving Institutions. If the goal was truly to help low-income minority
students, the CR would not have cut $44 million from GEAR UP and TRIO--
programs that are designed to help first-generation students prepare
and succeed in college.
The reality is that this amendment completely stops the Department of
Education from any form of oversight of career colleges that educate 10
percent of higher education students, receive approximately 24 percent
of Federal grants and loans, and account for 48 percent of loan
defaults.
I say let's slow down the process. Let's stop now. Let's give the
Department of Education an opportunity to review its work and come back
to us with some regulations that take care of the needs of students and
not protect just the institutions.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Kline-Foxx-McCarthy-
Hastings amendment, which would prohibit the use of funds by the
Department of Education for the implementation of the Gainful
Employment Act. I am concerned that if this rule is implemented, it
will apply an unnecessary broad-brush approach to a complicated
situation. This rule, if implemented in its proposed form, will
effectively close high-quality programs while leaving programs of
questionable value open. So this is not the way to deal with this
issue.
We all know that a college education, whenever possible, is one of
the best paths a student can take to secure employment in a time when
our Nation's unemployment rate is just under 10 percent. In some
communities, it's double that. Let's not close off any meaningful job
training programs. The Department should not forget that these programs
serve 2.8 million, and many of them are economically disadvantaged
minority students who will lose access to the educational opportunities
that they cannot get elsewhere. These students are nontraditional and
need the extra assistance offered by these flexible programs.
Supporting this amendment is supporting access and choice. Supporting
this amendment is supporting educational opportunities for minorities.
A ``yes'' vote is a vote for economically disadvantaged students. Many
of them are the first in their families to attend college. These
students wish to have the opportunity to attend a flexible program that
trains them to be the best they can be.

{time} 2050

I urge my colleagues to understand how important this is to be able
to provide an opportunity for these young people in many instances. One
incident; you cannot draw national conclusions because you know one
student that did not finish. You can pick the finest university and the
most prestigious university in this country and you can find examples.
Let us be serious. We need to provide opportunities for people to be
able to have a better quality of life.
On that note, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, 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, I join a strong coalition of Democrats and
Republicans in urging a ``yes'' vote on the Kline-Hastings amendment. I
do so because I believe that every student should be guaranteed the
right of knowing that he or she is going to get a high quality
education for every tuition dollar they spend and because every
taxpayer should be guaranteed that not one dime of Pell Grant or
student money goes to any school under any ownership or management that
does not properly spend the public's money. This is a goal that I
believe is shared universally by each speaker on each side who has
spoken here tonight. Our difference is not over whether we should
guarantee students and taxpayers high quality and gainful employment.
Our difference is over how to accomplish that.
Here is my concern about the rule that has been proposed thus far. It
is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. To understand that,
consider two schools. The first school successfully places 50 percent
of its graduates in the job for which it's training people. So let's
say it's a job in medical records technology and 50 percent of the
students from that school are placed successfully. That school has a
tuition that generates a rate so that 7 percent of the graduate's
income goes to pay back their student loan. The second school
successfully places 90 percent of its graduates in the medical records
technology field, but its tuition generates a repayment rate of 10
percent. So again the first school only places half of its graduates in
the job for which it's training people and the second school places 90
percent of its jobs for which it's training people. Under this rule,
the first school survives and the second school is thrown out of the
program. Let me say this again. The school with the 50 percent
placement rate continues to get taxpayer dollars, but the school with
the 90 percent placement rate doesn't. This doesn't make any sense and
it is the basis for our bipartisan objection.
What should we do? If we're going to measure gainful employment,
let's come up with a proposal that measures gainful employment. Let's
ask the question that when students graduate from a school, whether
it's for-profit, nonprofit or public, whether those students in fact
gain employment and whether that employment raises their income and,
therefore, is gainful. Let's measure what the law actually says.
Finally, I think there is the issue of whom should make this
decision. As Chairman Kline pointed out, as Mr. Hastings pointed out,
as others have, the statutory phrase ``gainful employment'' has been
with us for a very long time. But this Congress has never chosen to
define it. So the issue here is a separation of powers issue. Who
should determine what gainful employment means? Should it be an
administrative agency or should it be the duly elected representatives
of the people? I think it should clearly be the duly elected
representatives of the people.
So I would urge my friends, both Democrat and Republican, to vote yes

[[Page H1155]]

for a procedure that will correct this rule, let us join together,
Republicans and Democrats, and do a bill, work on legislation that will
give us the kind of outcome that we should really have here.
Now why are we doing this? We're doing it so the person with three
jobs gets fair treatment here. You all know her. She's the person who
works 35 or 40 hours a week on her feet, and that's a full-time job;
she's raising children, and that's a full-time job; and she's going to
school, and that's a full-time job. Let's not put the additional burden
of taking away or jeopardizing the quality school that she has chosen
for herself. Everyone in this Chamber, I believe, supports high quality
career education. Instead of a rule that subverts that principle, let's
write a bill that advances that principle. Let's vote ``yes'' for the
Kline-Hastings amendment.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chair, I rise against this amendment and to express my
strong support for the Department of Education's proposed federal
student aid funding rules for postsecondary education programs that
prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.
The program includes a loan repayment rate measure to assess how
effectively program attendees repay the student loans they borrow; debt
to earnings measures that assess the relationship between the student
loan debt of program completers and their earnings; and a stringent
performance threshold for each of the three measures.
I strongly support these ``Gainful Employment Rules'' because they
protect students from fraud, which has adversely impacted the minority
student population.
These rules were a response to the Department of Education's recent
investigation findings that some for-profit institutions were promising
students' job placement upon completion of their programs and not
following through on their commitment. Consequently, students who
enrolled in these schools were unable to pay off student loans because
they were never placed in the jobs they were promised and could not
find employment. According to the Institute for College Access and
Success, the student default rate at for-profit colleges is the highest
at 25 percent in comparison to private non-profit schools at 7.6
percent, and public schools at 10.8 percent respectively.
Not surprisingly, nearly one in five students who attend for-profits
default on their loans within 3 years. Students seeking an education
are completely unaware of the dire long term implications of loan
default including the inability to receive credit to rent an apartment;
buy a car or home; or receive future loans for postsecondary education.
Moreover, evidence has shown that some programs tend to overcharge
students for an education that can be acquired at a much lower cost at
a private non-profit or public institution.
Despite this increased federal assistance, tuition at for-profit
institutions continues to far outpace other schools. Attendance at a
two-year for-profit institution costs more than five times as much as a
community college, forcing students to take out more loans, including
risky private loans. The percent of bachelor's degree recipients from
for-profit institutions who carry debt in excess of $30,000 is more
than four times that of their peers at public institutions.
I am especially troubled by the fact that low-income and minority
students are increasingly concentrated in for-profit institutions.
Approximately one out of every four African-American, Latino, and low-
income students start their post-secondary education at a for-profit
institution. According to a study by the Education Trust, for-profit
institutions represent about 9 percent of all student enrollments, but
16 percent of black students and 24 percent of Pell Grant recipients
attend these schools. Four-year, for-profit institutions have an
average graduation rate of 22 percent, while public institutions have a
rate of 55 percent and private institutions 65 percent. For black and
Hispanic students, the graduation rates are similarly low at for-
profits--16 percent and 28 percent, respectively--far below the rates
for such students at public and non-profit colleges.
In the 2008-2009 school year, the federal government invested $4.31
billion in grant aid at for-profit institutions, quadruple what it had
invested just a decade earlier. With this level of public investment,
the Department of Education has a fiduciary responsibility to make sure
that its investment is being administered correctly and that the for-
profits are delivering on the commitment they make to their students.
The Department's ``Gainful Employment Rules'' will accomplish these
goals, and I support their adoption.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KLINE. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Pence

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be made available for any purpose to Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Inc. or any of the following
affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.:
(1) Planned Parenthood Southeast in Atlanta, Georgia.
(2) Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest in Seattle,
Washington.
(3) Planned Parenthood Arizona in Phoenix, Arizona.
(4) Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
(5) Planned Parenthood of Greater Memphis Region in
Memphis, Tennessee.
(6) Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in
Sacramento, California.
(7) Planned Parenthood Los Angeles in Los Angeles,
California.
(8) Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in San Jose, California.
(9) Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties,
Inc. in Orange, California.
(10) Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley,
Inc. in Pasadena, California.
(11) Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest in San
Diego, California.
(12) Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura & San
Luis Obispo Counties in Santa Barbara, California.
(13) Planned Parenthood: Shasta-Diablo in Concord,
California.
(14) Six Rivers Planned Parenthood in Eureka, California.
(15) Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains in Denver,
Colorado.
(16) Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, Inc. in
New Haven, Connecticut.
(17) Planned Parenthood of Delaware in Wilmington,
Delaware.
(18) Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C.,
Inc. in Washington, District of Columbia.
(19) Florida Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates
in Sarasota, Florida.
(20) Planned Parenthood of Collier County in Naples,
Florida.
(21) Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, Inc. in
Orlando, Florida.
(22) Planned Parenthood of North Florida in Jacksonville,
Florida.
(23) Planned Parenthood of South Florida and the Treasure
Coast, Inc. in West Palm Beach, Florida.
(24) Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida,
Inc. in Sarasota, Florida.
(25) Planned Parenthood of Hawaii in Honolulu, Hawaii.
(26) Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North
Idaho in Yakima, Washington.
(27) Planned Parenthood of Illinois in Chicago, Illinois.
(28) Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region in St.
Louis, Missouri.
(29) Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. in Indianapolis,
Indiana.
(30) Iowa Planned Parenthood Affiliate League in Des
Moines, Iowa.
(31) Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa.
(32) Planned Parenthood of the Heartland in Des Moines,
Iowa.
(33) Planned Parenthood of Southeast Iowa in Burlington,
Iowa.
(34) Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri in
Overland Park, Kansas.
(35) Planned Parenthood of Kentucky, Inc. in Louisville,
Kentucky.
(36) Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region in
Cincinnati, Ohio.
(37) Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Inc. in Houston, Texas.
(38) Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in
Williston, Vermont.
(39) Planned Parenthood of Maryland, Inc. in Baltimore,
Maryland.
(40) Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts in Boston,
Massachusetts.
(41) Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan in Lansing,
Michigan.
(42) Planned Parenthood of West and Northern Michigan in
Grand Rapids, Michigan.
(43) Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan in Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
(44) Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan in
Kalamazoo, Michigan.
(45) Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South
Dakota in St. Paul, Minnesota.
(46) Planned Parenthood of Southwest Missouri in St. Louis,
Missouri.
(47) Tri-Rivers Planned Parenthood in Rolla, Missouri.
(48) Planned Parenthood of Montana, Inc. in Billings,
Montana.
(49) Planned Parenthood of the Heartland in Omaha,
Nebraska.
(50) Planned Parenthood Affiliates of New Jersey in
Trenton, New Jersey.

[[Page H1156]]

(51) Planned Parenthood Association of the Mercer Area in
Trenton, New Jersey.
(52) Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey in
Shrewsbury, New Jersey.
(53) Planned Parenthood of Greater Northern New Jersey,
Inc. in Morristown, New Jersey.
(54) Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan New Jersey in
Newark, New Jersey.
(55) Planned Parenthood of Southern New Jersey in Camden,
New Jersey.
(56) Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, Inc. in Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
(57) Family Planning Advocates of New York State in Albany,
New York.
(58) Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic, Inc. in Hawthorne,
New York.
(59) Planned Parenthood Mohawk Hudson in Utica, New York.
(60) Planned Parenthood of Mid-Hudson Valley, Inc. in
Poughkeepsie, New York.
(61) Planned Parenthood of Nassau County, Inc. in
Hempstead, New York.
(62) Planned Parenthood of New York City, Inc. in New York,
New York.
(63) Planned Parenthood of the North Country New York, Inc.
in Watertown, New York.
(64) Planned Parenthood of South Central New York, Inc. in
Oneonta, New York.
(65) Planned Parenthood of the Rochester/Syracuse Region in
Rochester, New York.
(66) Planned Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes in
Ithaca, New York.
(67) Planned Parenthood of Western New York, Inc. in
Buffalo, New York.
(68) Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood, Inc. in Albany, New
York.
(69) Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Inc. in Raleigh,
North Carolina.
(70) Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina in Chapel
Hill, North Carolina.
(71) Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio in Columbus,
Ohio.
(72) Planned Parenthood of Central Ohio, Inc. in Columbus,
Ohio.
(73) Planned Parenthood of Northeast Ohio in Akron, Ohio.
(74) Planned Parenthood of Northwest Ohio in Toledo, Ohio.
(75) Planned Parenthood of Southeast Ohio in Athens, Ohio.
(76) Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, Inc. in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
(77) Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon in Eugene,
Oregon.
(78) Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon in Eugene,
Oregon.
(79) Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette in Portland,
Oregon.
(80) Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
(81) Planned Parenthood Association of Bucks County in
Warminster, Pennsylvania.
(82) Planned Parenthood of Central Pennsylvania, Inc. in
York, Pennsylvania.
(83) Planned Parenthood of Northeast and Mid-Penn in
Trexlertown, Pennsylvania.
(84) Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
(85) Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
(86) Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee, Inc.
in Nashville, Tennessee.
(87) Texas Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates in
Austin, Texas.
(88) Planned Parenthood Association of Cameron & Willacy
Counties, Inc. in Brownsville, Texas.
(89) Planned Parenthood Association of Hidalgo County, Inc.
in McAllen, Texas.
(90) Planned Parenthood Association of Lubbock, Inc. in
Lubbock, Texas.
(91) Planned Parenthood of Central Texas, Inc. in Waco,
Texas.
(92) Planned Parenthood of North Texas, Inc. in Dallas,
Texas.
(93) Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region in
Austin, Texas.
(94) Planned Parenthood of West Texas, Inc. in Odessa,
Texas.
(95) Planned Parenthood Trust of San Antonio and South
Central Texas in San Antonio, Texas.
(96) Planned Parenthood Association of Utah in Salt Lake
City, Utah.
(97) Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia in
Charlottesville, Virginia.
(98) Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia, Inc. in
Hampton, Virginia.
(99) Virginia League for Planned Parenthood in Richmond,
Virginia.
(100) Planned Parenthood Public Policy Network of
Washington in Seattle, Washington.
(101) Mt. Baker Planned Parenthood in Bellingham,
Washington.
(102) Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that ending an innocent human life
is morally wrong. But I rise tonight because I also believe it's
morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life
Americans and use it to fund organizations that provide and promote
abortion--like Planned Parenthood of America. The American people
deserve to know that Planned Parenthood is not only the largest
abortion provider in America, Planned Parenthood is also the largest
recipient of taxpayer funding under title X.
According to their latest annual report, Planned Parenthood received
more than $363 million in taxpayer money while boasting of having
performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions during the same period.
The amendment that I bring to the floor tonight would deny any and
all funding to Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its
affiliates for the rest of the fiscal year. But let me be clear. This
amendment would not cut funding for health services. It would simply
block those funds already in the bill from subsidizing America's
largest abortion provider.
Now I am aware that title X family planning funds are eliminated in
this bill. But eliminating title X funding has never been my goal. I
support the important work of title X clinics across the country. The
reality is that Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars from Federal funding sources other than title X, and
our effort tonight is specifically to focus on denying any and all
Federal funding to the largest abortion provider in America.
The reasons for doing so are many. The case for defunding Planned
Parenthood has made headlines for years. In 2002, Planned Parenthood
was found civilly liable in Arizona for failure to report statutory
rape. Since that time, Planned Parenthood affiliates have been found
violating reporting laws in Indiana and California, and found to have
violated statutory reporting laws in places like Ohio. Recently in
California, Washington, New Jersey and New York, Planned Parenthood
clinics have been accused of fraudulent accounting over billing
practices. And, of course, last week as the Nation watched in horror,
new undercover videos were released that showed Planned Parenthood
employees in multiple States apparently willing to aid human sex
traffickers by coaching them on how to falsify documents to secure
secret abortions for underage prostitutes. As the father of two teenage
daughters, there are not words strong enough to portray my contempt for
this pattern of fraud and abuse against young women by Planned
Parenthood, and that's what brings us here today.
Now I know that some consider this amendment to be something of a war
on Planned Parenthood. But this is not about Planned Parenthood's right
to be in the abortion business. Sadly, abortion on demand is legal in
America. This is about who pays for it. Nobody is saying that Planned
Parenthood can't be the leading advocate of abortion on demand in
America, but why do I have to pay for it? Nobody is saying that Planned
Parenthood can't continue to be the largest abortion provider in
America. But why do tens of millions of pro-life American taxpayers
have to pay for it?

{time} 2100

Let me be clear as I come to the floor.
I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the ash heap of
history, when we move past the broken hearts and the broken lives of
the past 38 years. But as this debate rages on, I call on my colleagues
in both parties:
Let's at least respect what has been the historic and overwhelming
consensus of the American people: that we ought not use their taxpayer
dollars to provide or promote abortion at home and abroad. Let's end
taxpayer support for abortion providers, specifically Planned
Parenthood, once and for all.
I urge my colleagues to take a stand for taxpayers and to take a
stand for life, to take a stand against a pattern of corruption, and to
take a stand for young women in crisis pregnancies, who deserve access
to unbiased and compassionate health care services.
Let's end the taxpayer support of Planned Parenthood. The Pence
amendment's purpose is to do simply that and, in so doing, to stand
with the American people, to stand with the American taxpayer, and to
stand without apology for the sanctity of human life.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. We were told by our Republican colleagues that they were
here to create jobs, to turn the economy around, and to reduce the
deficit,

[[Page H1157]]

but here they go again--spending time on an extreme, divisive social
agenda.
Mr. Chairman, in a breathtaking and radical step, the Republican
majority has already proposed to eliminate title X funding, which has
connected millions of American women to health care since 1970. Now
this amendment by the Congressman from Indiana continues the same
pattern of contempt for women's health and basic rights. With this
amendment, my colleague is trying to specifically exclude one provider
of legal health services, Planned Parenthood, from Federal funds. This
amendment has nothing to do with the deficit. It is an attack by one
Congressman on one organization, and it needlessly puts the lives of
American women in danger.
Planned Parenthood carries out millions of preventative and primary
care services every year. This includes immunizations and routine
gynecological exams. This includes nearly 1 million screenings for
cervical cancer, identifying more than 90,000 women who are at risk for
cervical cancer. Every year, cervical cancer kills 4,000 women. If you
can identify the risk early on, then you can save a woman's life.
Planned Parenthood cares for more than 3 million American men and women
every year.
In my State of Connecticut, more than 62,000 men and women benefit
from health care at Planned Parenthood clinics. Over 70 percent of
those patients have a family income of less than $16,245 a year. In
other words, this is the only way they can afford care. In fact, 6 of
every 10 women who seek care at a title X-funded center like Planned
Parenthood consider it their main source of medical care.
The vital preventative care and family planning services supported by
title X save money and save lives. For every dollar invested in title
X, taxpayers save just under $4. But under the guise of budget cutting,
the new majority is launching an assault on title X and endangering
women's health. Understand their purpose. Understand it clearly: to
impose their traditional view of a woman's role.
This legislation is not about the Federal funding of abortion.
Federal funds, including title X, are already banned from going towards
abortion services under the Hyde amendment. Rather, much like the
repeal of health care reform, this is part of a Republican agenda to
force women back into traditional roles with limited opportunities.
This amendment will cause more than 3 million people to lose access
to basic primary and preventative health care. I am a cancer survivor.
I am a cancer survivor who is only here because my cancer was found at
stage 1. I can tell you that losing access to screening will cost lives
and will kill women in this country.
It comes down to this: The proposals to eliminate title X and to
defund Planned Parenthood are bad policies that hurt women and do
nothing for our economy. In fact, it costs money.
This Republican Congress is trying to turn back the clock on women's
health and to 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. Instead of making it harder for women to get
health care, we should be standing up for these vital services. I
encourage and urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Capito). The gentlewoman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Every day, Americans sit at their kitchen tables, and
they do a number of things, including trying to figure out how to
stretch that dollar and how to stop unnecessary spending. And they are
asking us in Congress to do the same. I look at this room as our
kitchen table.
Over the last week, we have debated that issue: How do we stretch the
American tax-paying dollar?
Tonight, Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Pence amendment
because it ensures that our precious tax dollars will no longer go to a
group whose main purpose is to provide abortions.
Make no mistake: Planned Parenthood is our Nation's largest abortion
provider. It receives one-third of its $1.1 billion from tax-paying
Americans. For the sake of abortion, Planned Parenthood holds itself
above the law, ignoring mandatory reporting requirements, skirting
parental consent, and aiding and abetting child sex-trafficking.
Madam Chair, this hurts young girls in the process.
Four years of investigations show 17 Planned Parenthood clinics in 10
different States facilitating the sexual exploitation of women. In
2008, the Mona Lisa Project showed 10 Planned Parenthood clinics in
California, Indiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Alabama, and Wisconsin
ignoring mandatory reporting laws and finding ways to skirt parental
consent laws, covering up sexual abuse so girls can get secret
abortions.
I only wish this weren't true, but in my own hometown of Cincinnati,
Ohio, twice Cincinnati Planned Parenthood did just that. In one case,
it was a father who brought his daughter to the abortion clinic. When
she was taken into the room, she told the abortion provider it was he
who raped her.
They did nothing. He is now in jail.
We have an ongoing case right now of a coach who took a young girl to
the clinic, and said, I'm her guardian. When later the parents took her
to the doctor and the doctor asked--When did she have this abortion?--
the parents were shocked.
He is now on trial.
So this isn't something that is out there of ``a wish come maybe.''
This is something that actually happened in my own city.
In 2011, seven Planned Parenthood clinics in New Jersey, Virginia,
New York, and Washington, D.C., aided and abetted the sexual
trafficking of children, helping actors posing as a pimp and a
prostitute to ``manage'' an underage sex ring to get secret abortions,
contraceptives, and STD testing to keep their commercial child rape
business ``safe.''
Planned Parenthood called the behavior of a Richmond counselor, who
coached the pimp and the prostitute on how to use judicial bypass to
get secret abortions for their underage sex slaves, ``professional.''
Like former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson says, ``It's not
a training problem; it's an ideology problem.''
Now, Planned Parenthood will tell you they are trying to prevent
abortions, but last year alone, they performed 324,008 abortions and
prevented 283,000. One in 10 Planned Parenthood clients receives an
abortion. They are the largest provider of abortions in America.
America's taxpayers are asking us to be wise with their dollars. When
you ask the question--should we be paying for abortions?--American
taxpayers say ``no.''
Should we be providing America's largest abortion provider taxpayer
funding to help keep its lights on so that on one side it can provide
family planning services and on the other side provide abortions?
I believe the folks at the kitchen table in America are saying
``no.''

{time} 2110

Tonight in this Chamber, at America's kitchen table, I am asking our
Members to say no to this practice and support the Pence amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment. Our constituents sent us here to create jobs. Instead, the
majority is pushing an extreme right-wing agenda to limit women's
health.
In the course of considering the underlying bill that eliminates the
Federal family planning program, a Member of the majority--in fact,
another gentleman from Indiana--proposed providing birth control to
horses. And now we are considering an amendment attacking Planned
Parenthood, which has provided health services to one in five American
women. So it seems to me that Republicans believe that horses should
have family planning, but women should not.
I strongly urge those who support this affront to women's health to
clearly explain to their constituents that

[[Page H1158]]

they want to make it harder to access pap tests, breast exams, routine
gynecological examinations, flu vaccinations, smoking cessation
services, cholesterol screening, contraceptives, and all of the other
services that Planned Parenthood provides.
My friends, this is not about abortion. Federal law prohibits Federal
dollars from being spent on abortion. This amendment is about denying
women access to basic health services. I oppose this amendment because
we should be focusing on creating jobs and protecting women's health.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence) for bringing forth this tremendous amendment this evening for us
to consider. I am grateful for his willingness to bring this forward
because this is a concerning issue for so many Americans, concerning on
so many issues, and concerning for people as well who are concerned
about the use of tax funds.
There is an article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal in 2008
that was a fairly deep expose' of Planned Parenthood and what Planned
Parenthood was doing with their money. I would like to quote from that
article:
Flush with cash, Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide are
aggressively expanding their reach, seeking to woo more affluent
patients with a network of suburban clinics and huge new health centers
that project a decidedly upscale image.
Executives say they are rebranding their clinics to appeal to women
of means, a move that opens new avenues for boosting revenue, and they
hope new political clout. Two elegant new health centers have been
built, and at least five more are on the way; the Planned Parenthood
facility in Denver, Colorado, is 52,000 square feet. They feature
touches such as muted lighting, hardwood floors, and airy waiting rooms
in colors selected by marketing experts.
Planned Parenthood has also opened more than two dozen quick-service
``express centers,'' many in suburban shopping malls, including my home
State of Minnesota. Some Planned Parenthoods sell jewelry. Some sell
candles, books, and T-shirts right next to the contraception. It is ``a
new branding,'' says the president, Leslie Durgin, senior vice
president at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.
Planned Parenthood is the Nation's largest abortion provider. They
reported a record $1 billion in annual revenues. One-third of that
comes from the Federal and State grants that we are discussing this
evening.
And the nonprofit ended their year with a surplus of $115 million, or
a third of the grants that they received from government, and with net
assets of nearly $1 billion. In 2008, Planned Parenthood had 882
clinics nationwide. One of their competitors--and they do have
independent, for-profit competitors--said Planned Parenthood is ``not
unlike other big national chains. They put local, independent
businesses in a tough situation.''
Even as the total number of abortions in the United States has
dropped, the number performed by Planned Parenthood has grown to nearly
290,000 a year. In 2005, Planned Parenthood accounted for one in every
five abortions, and they are pushing to increase their market share.
The president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains also said
she has encouraged more Planned Parenthood clinics to offer abortions.
Sarah Stoesz, who heads the Planned Parenthood operation in my State of
Minnesota, said she recently opened ``three express centers in wealthy
Minnesota suburbs, in shopping centers and malls, places where women
are already doing their grocery shopping, picking up their Starbucks,
living their daily lives.''
And stopping off for an abortion.
``I like to think of it as the LensCrafters of family planning,''
Steve Trombley, the top executive in Illinois, said as he toured an
express center a few doors down from a hair salon and a Japanese
restaurant in the well-to-do suburb of Schaumburg, Illinois.
The strategy draws new patients and money. In Illinois, Planned
Parenthood officials say they take a loss of nearly $1 a packet on
birth-control pills that go to poor women under Title X. However, they
make nearly $22 on each month of pills sold to an adult who can afford
to pay full price out of pocket. And the majority of woman who stop by
the new Planned Parenthood in Schaumburg are in that group of affluent
women.
In 2008, Planned Parenthood's political action arm planned to raise
$10 million to influence the fall campaigns. Under Federal tax law, the
health care wing of Planned Parenthood can't support political
candidates, but they can mobilize voters and they can advocate on
issues like abortion rights and sex education in schools, all paid with
Federal grants.
To encourage the new wave of patients to join the cause, an express
center in Parker, Illinois, sells political buttons next to the condoms
and sets out invitations for political activism by the magazine rack.
The center opening in Denver in 2008 uses 20 percent of their space for
health care; 40 percent of their space they use for meetings, including
political work.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to my friend in the well, the gentlewoman from
Minnesota.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman.
In Portland, Oregon, a planned 40,000-square-foot headquarters will
include space for candidate forums and phone banks, as well as a
clinic. Again, all paid for with an additional subsidy from the Federal
and State taxpayer. Mr. Greenberg said donors were initially skeptical
about the size and the $16.5 million cost, but eventually they came
around because the building becomes ``a symbol for our outreach and a
symbol for our community activism.''
Madam Chair, it is clear after extensive study and review by this
Wall Street Journal what we are seeing today is that Planned Parenthood
is focused on political activity, and they are focused on becoming big
business. When you have the executive director of Planned Parenthood in
Illinois saying they want to become the LensCrafters of big abortion, I
think we should listen to them. If they want to become the
LensCrafters, then let them become the LensCrafters.
As my colleague, Mr. Pence, said, abortion is legal today in the
United States, but the taxpayers shouldn't have to support it. And if
they want to become the LensCrafters, Planned Parenthood, a billion-
dollar organization, should lose the $300 million they receive in
Federal grants, and they should also have their tax-exempt status
seriously studied by the Internal Revenue Service. If they are
competing with for-profit businesses and putting them out of business,
then Planned Parenthood has no business holding a nonprofit status that
benefits that organization.
On any number of levels, Madam Chair, this year, more than any other
year, we need to completely defund Planned Parenthood and begin a
process to end the tax-exempt status of this now profit-seeking,
political-seeking organization.
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield back the balance of my time.

{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. I rise in opposition to the Pence amendment and the war on
women throughout this bill. And to the gentleman from Indiana, just
take a look at what is being proposed and why I call it a war on women.
First, the elimination of funding for lifesaving family planning
programs funded by title X which help provide a range of critical
services, including testing for sexually transmitted infections,
contraceptives, and annual health exams which, by the way, do not
include abortions services, though I wish that law was overturned.

[[Page H1159]]

This war on women totally eliminates the President's teen pregnancy
prevention initiative which supports evidence-based sex education and
are specifically designed to reduce abortion. It imposes a funding
restriction on how the District of Columbia can use its own funds to
pay for health care and abortion services. It includes an amendment to
restrict State Medicaid funding for family planning, which are
predominantly women of color in many communities.
This is really a shame and a disgrace. This includes an amendment to
reinstate the Federal refusal rule issued in the waning days of the
Bush administration which would dramatically expand the current ability
of health providers to refuse to provide health care services that they
oppose ideologically while jeopardizing the ability of patients to get
health care. And that's just on the domestic front.
The bill eliminates funding for the United Nations Population Fund,
which provides critical reproductive health care, including family
planning services to the world's poorest women and which does not
provide abortion services, though they are much needed. This bill would
also reinstate the global gag rule and prevent family planning
organizations that provide abortions with their own private money from
receiving Federal funds. This bill cuts $100 million from USAID's
family planning programs.
But that's not enough for some people, as an amendment was filed to
completely, mind you, completely eliminate these programs which help
prevent more than 7.8 million unintended pregnancies around the world.
These decisions by the Republican majority will endanger women's
health, severely restrict women's rights, insert the government into
the private medical decisions of women and their families, and are
nothing short of an all-out war against women.
And we are fighting back. Instead of working together to get our
economy moving again, to help the unemployed, and to create jobs, the
Republicans are seeking to impose an ideological agenda on the country.
And now we have the Pence amendment, an amendment that would restrict
title X funding from going to Planned Parenthood, one of the oldest,
most important, most trusted, most utilized public health organizations
in the country.
Let's be clear, this is not about abortion. Existing restrictions
prevent Federal funding for abortion. This is about a direct attack on
an organization that provides critical health services aimed largely at
women in underserved communities throughout the country.
With over 85 local affiliates and more than 800 health centers across
the country, the services provided by Planned Parenthood are
invaluable. Every year, Planned Parenthood affiliates see nearly 3
million patients and provide contraception to nearly 2.5 million
patients and over 1.1 million pregnancy tests. They provide nearly 1
million Pap tests, identifying about 93,000 women at risk of cervical
cancer. They provide 830,000 breast exams, nearly 4 million tests for
sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. They provide health
education for nearly 1.2 million people.
How are any of these activities objectionable? Are you against women
getting breast exams? Do you object to women and girls getting tested
for HIV? Are you opposed to women controlling their own bodies and
determining if and when they want to get pregnant? Let's be clear,
government funding does not make up the whole sum of Planned
Parenthood's finances, but government funding does provide invaluable
support to help local health centers provide services for women to
avoid cancer, to protect their health, and to lead healthy and
fulfilling lives.
So let's stop this attack on a trusted health provider, and let's
stop this war on women. That's not what the American people want. They
want jobs. They want a chance to work hard and take care of their
families. They don't want to argue with their insurance provider or
with their employer or their government or their elected officials
about abortion. We should be working together to unite our country and
to tackle the challenges that Americans face each and every day, not
pursuing divisive, ideologically driven agendas.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on this CR and on all these amendments that
wage war on women.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PITTS. Madam Chair, we have seen in just the past couple of weeks
incidents that remind us of the horrors associated with the abortion
industry. We have seen in a women's health clinic in west Philadelphia
women and children brutally killed in late-term abortions. We have seen
a series of videos that have given us a behind-the-scenes look at the
standard operating procedures at Planned Parenthood clinics across the
countries. The videos depict investigative journalists receiving advice
on how to run their prostitution business and how to obtain illegal
abortions.
Some people have said, Character is who you are when no one is
watching. Or to put it another way, It is what you do when you think no
one is watching. Planned Parenthood, the number one abortion provider
in the country, has revealed its true character in these videos.
Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood staff exposed their true colors, and
they neglected to act with integrity when faced with a situation
dealing with sex trafficking. It was more important to them to promote
abortion than to help rescue underage girls enslaved in prostitution.
In this country, 95 percent of abortions occur in clinics, not
hospitals. These clinics don't need Federal tax dollars to support
their unethical practices. Planned Parenthood recently reported
providing 332,278 abortions in the year 2009. That's the last reported
year. Planned Parenthood, itself, has recently made plain the
centrality of abortion to its mission, mandating that every Planned
Parenthood affiliate have at least one clinic performing abortions
within the next 2 years.
Despite being a billion-dollar-a-year corporation, Planned Parenthood
receives $363.2 million, 33 percent of its income, from government
grants and contracts, that is, from taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately,
Planned Parenthood actively ignores statutory rape reporting laws and
campaigns against efforts to enforce or strengthen them, as illustrated
in the recent videos.
Planned Parenthood in Kansas claims to be ``a trusted source of
health care and education for thousands of women, men and children,''
yet was charged with 107 criminal counts, including failure to report
sexual abuse and falsifying documents in order to perform illegal late-
term abortions. Planned Parenthood in California has privately admitted
to overcharging the State and Federal Governments by at least $180
million for birth control pills, despite internal and external warnings
that its billing practices were improper. Planned Parenthood in Indiana
has been accused of endangering the safety and well-being of minor
girls by intentionally circumventing State parental involvement laws
and breaking State law by refusing to report statutory rape.
There are many other sources of family planning money to other
organizations and to State and local governments. Unfortunately,
Planned Parenthood is exploiting women and children. They have shown
themselves to be an extreme organization with unethical practices. Our
daughters and granddaughters deserve better.
I urge support of the Pence amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2130

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, House Republicans have made their
agenda really clear. What's obvious is that it's really not about
creating jobs. It's not about addressing the economy, but rather the
extreme agenda is to undermine women's access to reproductive health
care and attack women's health providers that women rely on in their
communities.
We've seen an all-out assault on Planned Parenthood. Instead of
attacking unemployment, Republicans are waging a war against women.
This is not about Federal funding of abortion, and it is not about
quality of care. This is about cutting off women's access to

[[Page H1160]]

affordable care in an effort to score political points. This amendment
does nothing to improve the economy. It will result in lost jobs, and
it will take away the only source of primary and preventive care from
millions of American women.
Planned Parenthood, a trusted organization by women, plays a critical
role in our Nation's health care system, and the Pence amendment would
have a devastating impact on communities across the country. Planned
Parenthood serves over 3 million Americans every year. More than 90
percent of the care Planned Parenthood health centers offer is
preventive care. Planned Parenthood provides lifesaving cancer
screenings, routine gynecological examinations, contraceptive services,
immunizations and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted
infections.
Planned Parenthood saves money. So this is not about saving Federal
dollars. It saves money. For every dollar spent on the services I
mentioned, and others, $3 are saved.
One in five American women has received care from a Planned
Parenthood health center at some point in her life, making it one of
the largest women's health care providers in the country. And now is
not the time to constrict women's access to and funding for Planned
Parenthood. And American women will suffer if the extreme Republican
agenda becomes law. Six in 10 women who access care from women's health
centers like Planned Parenthood's health centers consider it to be
their main source of health care. This amendment intends to literally
wipe Planned Parenthood off the map.
Planned Parenthood is an invaluable community-based provider, and it
is critical to achieving the goal of improving quality health care in
this country, including efforts to improve women's health, lowering the
rate of unintended pregnancies, and decreasing infant mortality.
I find it ironic, very disturbing, that the very same people that
want to take away family planning funding and access to safe and legal
abortions, which are not funded by public dollars, have also proposed a
nearly $750 million cut to the Women, Infant and Children program to
pregnant women and newborn children. This, like the repeal of health
care reform, is part of the Republicans' divisive social agenda that
goes too far.
Now is the time to be working on the issues that are most important
to Americans, creating jobs and improving the economy, rather than
legislation that takes health care away from women.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana
for bringing this amendment forward. It was said earlier in this
discussion that this is a war being waged by one Congressman on one
organization. I don't think that that's accurate. I think that this is
an effort by many Members of Congress, each of whom represents some
650,000 individuals, who do not want to see their tax dollars used to
fund abortion. I think it's as simple as that. And when you see the
videos that have been referenced earlier today about what went on in
these clinics, and the misrepresentation that was there, and the out
and out illegal behavior that was encouraged, that warrants some kind
of action. And I think that's what this effort is about.
So I think it behooves us to tone down the rhetoric and to actually
decide what is this effort about. And it's about ensuring that
individuals who do not want their tax dollars used to fund abortions
may have that right to say so here in the House of Representatives on
the floor here, and to vote to have their Members of Congress, their
Representatives here vote in the way that they feel they should vote.
That's what this effort's about. I commend the gentleman for bringing
it forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, sadly, our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle have no idea how to create jobs or turn the
economy around, so their true colors have come to the surface. And
Speaker Boehner made that clear when asked about the potential job
losses that will result from horrendous budget cuts that we have been
debating for the last couple of days, when he responded, so be it.
So I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment. This is a dangerously ideologically motivated stunt that
will imperil the lives and well-being of millions of women and their
families. This amendment is not just a war on Planned Parenthood, as
the gentleman from Indiana said. It's a war on women.
Planned Parenthood clinics are a crucial part of our national health
care fabric. Through Federal funds, including Medicaid reimbursements
and title X funding on an annual basis, Planned Parenthood health
centers are able to offer nearly one million lifesaving screenings for
cervical cancer, 830,000 breast examination, contraception to nearly
2.5 million patients, nearly 4 million tests and treatments for
sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, and education programs
for 1.2 million individuals. These are much needed services that we
could not afford to lose.
In addition to completely de-funding Planned Parenthood, this
amendment would also strike all Federal funding for title X programs.
This would be a colossal mistake and truly a matter of life and death
to millions of women nationwide.
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.
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 a
million HIV tests.
As a breast cancer survivor whose cancer was caught at the earliest
stage, like my friend from Connecticut, I know how critical these
screenings are in saving women's lives. And preventative care isn't
limited to cancer screenings and education on how to avoid STDs.
Supporters of this bill mistakenly argue that this cut is necessary
to prevent Federal funding for abortions. Let me be clear: Federal
funding for abortions is already prohibited by law. This has been the
case for decades. Yet this amendment attempts to take funding
prohibitions to an unconscionable new level and, if passed, will result
in millions of women not being able to obtain necessary preventive care
like birth control and cancer screenings.
If Republicans truly want to reduce abortions in this country, they
would vote against 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. Current statistics from the Gutmacher Institute
indicate that nearly half of pregnancies in the United States are
unintended. We should be providing women and their families with the
resources they need, not striking them.
Indeed, Planned Parenthood and the title X program provide vital
family planning services which help improve the life of the mother and
the child. It's a simple fact. Family planning keeps women and children
healthy. 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 the
declines in maternal and infant mortality rates. There should be no
shadow of a doubt that this amendment is anti-woman and anti-family.
While my colleague from Indiana may frame this amendment in the
context of fiscal responsibility, that is once again a mistaken
premise. This amendment would not cut the deficit. In fact, title X
actually saves taxpayer dollars. Since many of the patients

[[Page H1161]]

served by title X are on Medicaid, preventative 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's
savings to both Federal and State governments.
And one of the most detrimental and dangerous things we could do to
women and their families right now is to de-fund the leading title X
provider nationwide, Planned Parenthood. Every year, Planned Parenthood
works tirelessly to improve the health of communities across this
country. Six in 10 women who access care from centers like Planned
Parenthood say it is their main source of health care. We cannot cut
these women off from the health services that should be available to
all of them.
Efforts to undermine the title X program and this essential health
care provider are not only reckless; they are also anti-woman, anti-
child, and anti-taxpayer.

{time} 2140

Madam Chair, this is a horrendous amendment that would devastate
access to health care for millions of American women and should be
defeated.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. HARTZLER. I rise in support of this amendment.
Planned Parenthood has funded abortion from the taxpayer for too
long. It has been said that this is a threat to women's health. Well,
Planned Parenthood isn't about health. It's about profit.
They have a record of preferring abortion over the truth. I have seen
firsthand their view of truth.
Several years ago I was a teacher, and I taught child development. I
had a student who came to me who just found out that she was pregnant.
The night before, she had visited a Planned Parenthood clinic to
discuss her options. She was 4 weeks along.
She asked a simple question, What does it look like? The answer? Oh,
don't worry about it. It's just a blob of tissue. They encouraged her
to have an abortion; but, thankfully, she wanted more information.
She and a friend came to me for information. They wanted to know if I
had pictures of what a fetus looked like at 4 weeks old, since I taught
child development. I did. She looked at the pictures of the baby with
its developing fingers and eyes and a beating heart. Her response? She
was shocked.
That's not a blob of tissue. That's a baby. And then she asked this
question: Why would they tell me that, Mrs. Hartzler? Sadly, I didn't
have an answer. They didn't care about the truth. They didn't care
about the young woman before them. They cared about a profit.
This pattern continues with recent revelations that they were willing
to cover up child sexual trafficking and child sexual abuse and aid and
abet prostitution. Where was Planned Parenthood when they had a chance
to protect young women? They turned a blind eye. I'd call it a war
against young women.
And yet this organization received $363 million of revenue a year
from you and me, the taxpayer.
Hardworking men and women in this country should not have to write a
check on April 15 to fund these abominable practices. At a time when we
are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend and running a huge
deficit, we need to look for savings to the taxpayer wherever we can.
Certainly, saving $363 million from this abortion provider is a smart
and a right thing to do, so that all Americans, born and unborn, will
have the opportunity to enjoy the blessings and the rights of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So as a woman and a mother and a former teacher, I am proud to
support the Pence amendment, and I ask all my colleagues to stand on
the side of truth, life, and the young women of this country.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
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. I rise this evening to speak in strong opposition to the
Pence amendment. The Pence amendment is an attack on women's health.
This much is clear.
What isn't clear is what these women who today are cared for by
Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses would do for care if the Pence
amendment should pass.
Planned Parenthood serves 3 million Americans every year. These are
Americans who rely upon Planned Parenthood to receive their annual
wellness exams; Americans who rely upon Planned Parenthood to receive
contraceptive services to prevent unplanned pregnancies; Americans who
get tested and treated for sexually transmitted infections, improving
their health and protecting the health of their community; Americans
who rely on Planned Parenthood for their cancer screenings, tests that
can detect cervical cancer or breast cancer early, when it is easier
and less expensive to treat, saving our entire health care
infrastructure millions of health care dollars.
And these Americans cannot just go somewhere else, somewhere that my
colleague on the other side of the aisle would find more palatable.
Sixty percent of those who use Planned Parenthood services consider it
to be their main source of health care, their medical home.
A vote to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding is a vote to cut
these Americans off from their health care system. Surely we can't want
that.
In my own congressional district, Planned Parenthood of Santa
Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo Counties serve over 31,000
patients every year. I must ask the supporters of this mean-spirited
amendment, where should these 31,000 people go, especially now when
this reckless Republican omnibus spending package cuts community health
centers by $1 billion?
And what about your constituents? In the amendment's author's own
State of Indiana, 18,000 citizens rely upon Planned Parenthood services
each year, 18,000 Hoosiers whose elected Representatives are voting to
shut down their doctors' office.
Finally, Madam Chair, I know that the supporters of this amendment
are trying to characterize this as a vote about abortion. It's not
about abortion. It's a vote about whether or not you believe in
providing women and Americans comprehensive health care. Because,
despite all the misinformation being thrown around here, 95 percent of
Planned Parenthood services have nothing to do with abortion. And as
has been strongly and firmly stated, there are no Federal dollars used
for those receiving abortion services.
The last time I checked, 97 percent is an A-plus, which calls into
real question the motivation behind this amendment. Combined with the
mean-spirited bills moving through the Energy and Commerce and
Judiciary Committees, attacking women's health service access, with the
zeroing out of title X family planning funds in this bill, with a
reinstatement of the global gag rule, with a 50 percent slash in
international family planning money, and a completely devastating slash
to the Women, Infants and Children's nutrition program, along with
other cuts I have mentioned, it adds up to only one conclusion: House
Republican leadership is starting an all-out war on women's health
care. The targets? Women's insurance coverage, their providers, their
health care choices.
For more than 90 years, Planned Parenthood's doctors, nurses, and
other health professionals have been providing health care to millions
of women, and one in four American women voters has received care from
a Planned Parenthood health center at some point in her life.
So let's take a stand against this attack on women's health care. I
urge a ``no'' vote on the Pence amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the amendment.
The elimination of family planning dollars would deny access to
preventative care for millions of women each year.

[[Page H1162]]

From the numerous conversations I've had with doctors, including my
own sister who is an OB/GYN, I believe in the importance of encouraging
access to basic preventative care.
Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a component
of our Nation's health care infrastructure and has been an essential
element in providing contraception and education to millions of
Americans.
Today, title X family planning services over 5 million low-income
individuals each and every year. Through a recent study, we learned
that for every dollar invested in family planning approximately $3.74
is saved in Medicaid-related costs.
Title X funding provides critical preventative health care, including
annual exams, cancer screenings, HIV testing, and family planning.

{time} 2150

While we must always ensure that funds are applied properly,
completely prohibiting any funds from going to the main provider of
title X family planning services I believe would be shortsighted and
would negatively impact the lives of women who depend on these health
care services.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I am not going to repeat all of what has
been said about the Republican war on women, about the fact that the
Republican majority was elected pledging jobs and all we see is a war
on various social services and women and nothing about jobs, but I am
going to say this: I have been listening very carefully to the
supporters of this amendment, to Mr. Pence and others, and what do I
hear? I hear that we must punish Planned Parenthood by defunding them
because they have committed a number of sins.
Sin Number 1, they perform abortions. They are a very large abortion
provider, and even though none of those abortions are paid for with
Federal funds, that is prohibited under the Hyde amendment however you
read it, we don't like Planned Parenthood because they are a large
abortion provider.
Number two, we don't like Planned Parenthood because they have
committed allegedly various terrible things. Some provocateurs went
into their offices and said that they were representing sex workers and
they were offered services, and any organization that is willing to do
this should not get Federal funds.
We are going to punish Planned Parenthood, number one, because they
are a large abortion provider and we don't like abortion providers;
and, number two, because they do other things, which if in fact they
do, which I don't think they do, but if in fact they do, they are bad
things.
There is a major problem with this. There is a major problem with
this rhetoric and with this reasoning. And, by the way, the CR to which
this is an amendment eliminates title X family planning funding anyway,
so it will eliminate most of the funds that go to Planned Parenthood.
But whatever funds that are available, they can go to other people to
provide those services, not Planned Parenthood, because we don't like
Planned Parenthood for various reasons.
A bill that punishes someone, some person or organization who is
named or is identifiable, by legislative action is called a bill of
attainder. That is the definition of a bill of attainder: A legislative
punishment, penalty, a legislative penalty, a legislative-enacted
penalty--in this case, no funding--directed at some identifiable person
or organization to punish them for something.
Article I, Section 9 says, ``No bill of attainder or ex post facto
law shall be passed''; a fundamental foundation of constitutional law.
If Planned Parenthood or anybody else is doing terrible things and
ought to be punished, that is up to the courts. If, indeed, Planned
Parenthood is trafficking with sex traffickers, let them be prosecuted.
If, indeed, Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal, let them be
prosecuted. Let the organization be prosecuted. Let the individual
employees who are doing these things be prosecuted at law. That is our
system. But you don't punish an organization because they are doing
something of which you don't approve.
Now, if you want to say we don't think that there ought to be any
contraceptive services in the United States and therefore we are going
to have no title X funding, the CR does say that. I don't agree with
it, but it is constitutional. But to say that if we have title X
funding, if we have maternal services funding, none of it can go to
Planned Parenthood, it can go to somebody else, but not Planned
Parenthood, that is a legislatively enacted punishment because Planned
Parenthood is or is allegedly doing things of which you don't approve.
Now, I heard a lot at the beginning of this Congress about we have to
make sure that we adhere to the Constitution. This is a bill of
attainder, because it is a legislatively enacted punishment of a named
organization because that organization is doing things or is allegedly
doing things of which we don't approve.
So I submit that in addition to all the other reasons why this
shouldn't be done that have been enacted here, this is flatly
unconstitutional, and I challenge anyone to say how this is not a bill
of attainder. Again, the black letter definition of a bill of attainder
is a legislatively enacted penalty aimed at some person or organization
that is identifiable, named right here, for some reason, that they have
done various things, provided abortions, done illegal things or
otherwise.
So in addition to all the other problems, this amendment is
unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts if it should
pass.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Broun of Georgia) assumed the chair.

____________________