Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 27 (Friday, February 18, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 27 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1255-H1308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011--Continuing

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, in the United Nations over and
over again we see enemies of America, enemies of our freedom, voting
against us over and over again. We see an organization there that's
just rife with fraud, corruption, with a tremendous amount of problems.
We see the U.N. bring people over here who have diplomatic immunity who
have been caught in the business of spying against America, want to
harm us. We see in the U.N. an organization that in their Human Rights
Commission is populated by countries that are basically run by
terrorist organizations.
Mr. Chairman, it's time to take a solid stand against our supporting
this kind of organization by giving our taxpayers' hard earned money
and taxpayers' dollars to an organization that I believe is not in the
best interests of America.
Mr. Chairman, I personally would like to see us get out of the U.N.
and get the U.N. out of the U.S., but we cannot do that today. But what
we can do is in this continuing resolution we can deny taxpayer dollars
being wasted on this organization.
And so I have the amendment to stop the United States from paying
dues to the United Nations. I think it's in our best interests to do
so. I think it's in our best interests to the taxpayers of America to
prevent wasting their hard-earned taxpayer dollars on funding the U.N.
through our dues to the U.N. So I encourage my colleagues to support
this amendment to defund the U.N.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the Broun amendment would withhold U.S.-
assessed contributions to the U.N., directly contravening U.S. treaty
obligations and national security interests. It would isolate the U.S.,
cripple U.S. diplomatic efforts globally, weaken our leadership within
the U.N. to advance crucial foreign policy priorities.
The U.N. is critical to advancing U.S. national security interests,
and the Broun amendment would impede our ability to influence crucial
counterterrorism actions at the U.N. Security Council, including
concrete steps targeting al Qaeda and the Taliban, global action
addressing the conduct of regimes such as North Korea and Iran, on
which the Security Council has acted forcefully in recent years,
imposing the most comprehensive sanctions ever on these regimes, U.N.
missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which play crucial and growing roles
in both countries, supplementing U.S. efforts and reducing our burden.

{time} 1550

U.N. peacekeeping operations, which are an indispensable tool, have
saved untold lives, averted dozens of wars, and helped restore or
establish democratic rule in more than a dozen countries.
The Broun amendment would put the U.S. on a dangerous path to
isolationism. We learned on September 11, 2001, that we are not immune
from events that take place halfway around the world. There are
enormous challenges that we all must face together, and the United
States cannot close its borders and think that we can protect our own
security.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment to effectively
withdraw from the U.N. because it would endanger our national security.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I rise to oppose the amendment.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for her
outstanding stewardship of American dollars as it relates to our
standing in the world.
I understand the gentleman's concern, but the United Nations is where
you draw consensus. It is where we are able to sit at the table and ask
individual countries to join with us for what democracy means.
As you watch the rising crisis in the Mideast, it is the United
Nations that we can draw upon to be able to emphasize democracy. As you
watched the conflict in Egypt, where we celebrated what happened, many
of you are aware of the tragedy that happened to one of our American
reporters, Ms. Logan. The United Nations is where we can call upon the
Egyptian Government to explain themselves and to apologize and call
upon the U.N. Ambassador from Egypt to apologize to Ms. Logan and
apologize to the American people for the tragedy that happened to this
woman who was doing her job, the vicious sexual assault that occurred
to her. It is the United Nations that we can come and ask others to
accept that kind of responsibility.
We need to be part of the world family. The world family is a place
where we can get solutions.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentlelady.
This is the 21st century. We have to live with our neighbors. If the
United Nations didn't exist, we would have to create it. The fact is
that even the Government Accountability Office estimates that a U.N.
peacekeeping force is

[[Page H1256]]

eight times less expensive than funding a military force. We're going
to have to move to more smart power in the 21st century. We can't do it
all alone, whether it be establishing democracy, securing peace or
promoting human rights.
We can't keep putting our own troops at risk, trying to put out the
flames that erupt all over the world. The U.N. does that. They don't do
it perfectly, but they are largely an international reflection of our
American values.
We've got to find a way to secure peace in the world. And ever since
Woodrow Wilson came up with the League of Nations, the United Nations
continues to evolve, continues to reflect our values and promote our
most fundamental foreign policy. This is not the time to be pulling the
rug out from under such an important ally.
The U.N. represents every nation in the world. We don't agree with
all of them, but we have more influence in the United Nations than does
any other nation in the world.
This amendment is not in our national interest. It should be strongly
rejected.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. I'm sitting here hearing what a wonderful organization
the U.N. is, and I can't help but wonder: Where in the heck were they
during Rwanda? Where were they? I would love to yield the floor to
anybody out there.
You know, that was the most miserable failure and genocide that the
world has seen in modern times. Where was the U.N.? And we all know
they were absolutely nowhere. There were 800,000 people killed,
slaughtered, an absolute genocide; and it went from, I think, April
until July 6, 800,000 people killed with machetes on the street, and
the U.N. spent the whole 3, 4 months debating the definition of
genocide.
The U.N. is not there when you need them. The U.N. spends lots of
time condemning Israel, lots of time on anti-United States jabs. They
aren't being helpful so far that I can see on Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, or
anywhere else in the Middle East where the pot seems to be boiling
over. But I just remember so vividly genocide in Rwanda and the U.N.
not being there.
I would suggest to people, you know, we all want to read books. Read
the book ``Hotel Rwanda.'' Read the book, ``We Regret to Inform You,
But Tonight They Are Coming for Our Children,'' about the genocide in
Rwanda. There are lots of books, and it's well documented on how
absolutely worthless the U.N. was.
Mrs. LOWEY. May I ask the Chair how much time we have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 1 minute
remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very clear that none
of us are making a statement that the U.N. can solve all the problems
in the world. But I want to reiterate again a comment that my good
friend Mr. Moran made: If we are going to put a cocoon around our
country and operate in isolation, we will be less successful in dealing
with the extraordinary challenges that we are facing today.
And I would like to say to my good friend Mr. Kingston, I'm not quite
sure that we would be more successful in dealing with slaughters and
genocide without the U.N. We are working very hard with our colleagues
and our friends around the world to try and find solutions.
And I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I would ask my friend from Georgia: What's the
alternative? Should we have gone into Rwanda? The U.N. was an abysmal
failure, but where was the United States? And if we didn't have the
United Nations, the United States would be asked to carry that
themselves. We can't be the world's policeman.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am not an isolationist, but the
U.N. has been an abysmal failure. We need to stop throwing our money
down a rat hole. It's not dependent on us to keep the world safe. In
fact, we, with our allies all across this globe, can do what's
necessary far more efficiently without the wasting of American taxpayer
dollars in trying to foster democracy, to foster human rights, to
foster women's rights all across the world stage.
Continuing to pour money into the U.N. is not going to do anything
except for keep a group of people who are in power there, who go
against us as we try to stand firm for Israel, as we try to stand firm
for world peace and democracy. Our efforts are thwarted through the
U.N. And, in fact, they want to take the U.N. governance and apply it
to every American citizen.
This is not in our best interest. It's a waste of taxpayers' dollars.
It was totally ineffective, as my good friend from Georgia has said, in
Rwanda and many other cases. It's time for us to stop funding this
inefficient organization that is not in our best interest.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It
would prevent the U.S. from paying its annual dues to the UN and UN
agencies, and put our nation once again into arrears. Passage of it
would also end ongoing peacekeeping operations in nations critical to
America's national security interests, including Haiti and Sudan.
Today the United States is in good standing at the United Nations
after years of failing to meet our treaty obligations, and as a result,
the U.S. is better able to advance our interests. Great nations keep
their word, and by working with other countries in the UN, we can be
sure that our nation does not go it alone.
In making his argument for fiscal responsibility, Congressman Broun
has picked the wrong target. In 2006, a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) study concluded that UN peacekeeping is eight times less
expensive than funding a U.S. force. This point was backed up by former
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who said that ``[UN Peacekeeping]
is much more cost effective than using American forces. And of course,
America doesn't have the forces to do all of these peacekeeping
missions, but somebody has to do them.''
In the last ten years, the number of UN peacekeeping missions has
grown--with each and every one of them enjoying the active support of
both Democratic and Republican administrations. There are now over
100,000 peacekeepers--the second largest deployed military in the
world--serving in 14 missions in some of the most dangerous corners of
the world.
UN peacekeeping missions help end brutal conflicts, support
stability, the transition to democratization, and bring relief for
hundreds of millions of people. In 2005, The Human Security Report, a
major international study on peace and war, judged that the global
security climate improved dramatically since the 1980's, with genocides
plummeting by 80 percent. The study attributed that decline to the
explosion in conflict prevention, peacemaking, and increases in the
number and complexity of UN peacekeeping missions.
The UN force in Haiti has provided security and access for
humanitarian aid since the devastating earthquake and before that, the
UN kept the peace. In the 1990's, Florida faced wave after wave of
illegal Haitians trying to escape from the failed state. Why would we
abandon this mission?
The UN force in Sudan was critical in supporting last month's
referendum calling for independence and it continues to play a vital
role in supporting South Sudan transition to a functional democracy.
It's in our benefit to help South Sudan grant freedom to its people,
and the UN is doing that. Right now the total cost to the international
community for our peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts in Sudan is
about $4 billion a year. An article in Foreign Policy just last month
noted that a return to war in Sudan could cost the wider international
community $30 billion. The UN is our main hope in preventing that from
happening, so with passage of the amendment, we'd abandon the mission,
possibly threatening stability in Sudan and potentially increasing our
future costs.
In both the above cases, it is very likely that if the UN were not
there, U.S. troops would have to be and they would be the ones in
harm's way. Instead, by supporting UN peacekeeping, we lessen the
burden on our own forces and reduce our own expenditures. U.S.
Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice said last week, ``Those of us--
Democrat and Republican alike--who support the UN owe it to American
taxpayers to ensure that their dollars are well and cleanly spent. But,
equally, those who push to curtail U.S. support to the UN owe it to
U.S. soldiers to explain why they should perform missions now handled
by UN peacekeepers.''
I urge my colleagues to vote NO against the Broun amendment. It is
not fiscally responsible--considering we are here today to vote on a
bill to reduce costs, it makes little sense

[[Page H1257]]

to vote for an amendment that would likely entail greater U.S. military
expenditures.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the
Amendment (Amendment No. 263) to H.R. 1 ``Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011'', offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia providing
that none of the funds made available by this Act be used to pay any
dues to the United Nations.
I strongly oppose this amendment, because it is imperative that the
United States pay its dues to the United Nations. The United States not
only serves as the host country of the United Nations, it is also a
Permanent Member of the United Nations and a Member of the U.N.
Security Council. The United Nations serves the critical function of
providing a forum where countries from the global community can meet
and form a consensus for resolving the most important international
issues of our time.
We must remain steadfast in our support for the United Nations
especially during these times of rapid political, environmental and
economic change throughout the world. We have recently witnessed large
scale global events that require a multinational response. The crisis
in the Sudan, the Earthquake in Haiti, and the protests for political
change in Egypt and countries of the Middle East are just a few recent
examples. The magnitude of these events requires a unified
international response. The United Nations is the appropriate vehicle
for that coordinated response.
Our presence as one of the few Permanent Members and our position and
voice on the U.N. Security Council provide the United States with a
powerful platform to exercise the kind of leadership necessary to
promote peace, security of nations, international trade stability,
international monetary stability, international aid to struggling
countries and peoples worldwide, responsible monitoring of nuclear
weapons proliferation, international human rights observance and
adherence to the fair administration of justice.
So, in closing Mr. Chair, during this time when we are debating the
funding of our Federal Government, an act of paying dues, it is
hypocrisy to even suggest that the United States not pay its dues to
the United Nations.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

{time} 1600

Amendment No. 526 Offered by Mr. Wu

Mr. WU. 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 section 3(e) of
the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b(e)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prevents funds under the
continuing resolution from being used to provide the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, or FERC, with exclusive authority to site,
construct, expand, or operate an LNG terminal. Simply put, it ends
overbearing federal regulation and gives local government and private
property owners a say in LNG siting.
This is a States' rights issue. FERC's overbearing, overbroad Federal
regulatory structure is preventing States and local communities from
having any input, let alone decisionmaking authority, over use of local
property.
In Oregon, where there are proposals for construction of LNG
terminals, I have heard time and time again from my constituents that
they are confused and frustrated by FERC's intrusive projects and
unclear timelines. More importantly, their voices are not being heard
on decisions that affect their livelihoods and property rights.
FERC has demonstrated in Oregon that it is unwilling to responsibly
regulate LNG and is deaf to the needs and concerns of our citizens and
communities. Defunding FERC's exclusive approval authority over LNG
projects is a crucial first step towards reestablishing a local role in
the LNG siting process and ensuring that future energy decisions better
reflect local citizens' interests.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment attempts,
using the appropriations bill before us, to enact significant
legislative changes to a prior law. The law in question, enacted by
Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, establishes the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission as the issuer of licenses for liquefied
natural gas terminals.
Notwithstanding the merits of the gentleman's concerns, and we can
see the gentleman cares deeply about the issue and knows of the issue,
this is not the appropriate place to modify such a law, as this
amendment would attempt to do. Frankly, such a broad authorizing issue
warrants a suitably more broad discussion.
We would be happy to work with the gentleman to facilitate that wider
discussion at the appropriate time, on the appropriate bill, and
through the appropriate committees of jurisdiction.
In this regard, I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Pastor of Arizona,
for the time that he may wish to consume.
(Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I want to thank the chairman for recognizing
and providing time.
This amendment would prevent FERC from carrying out its statutory
authority. The term ``enforce'' would impact oversight of existing and
operating liquefied natural gas facilities. This amendment appears to
prohibit FERC from approving environmental or safety-related amendments
to existing liquefied natural gas facilities. This amendment will
impact both import and export proposals in addition to almost any new
facilities at preexisting plants.
While I understand the gentleman has concerns in his district, the
language would impact a much broader constituency, and for that reason
I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.
Mr. WU. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts such time as he
may consume.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
On September 11, 2001, when Richard Clarke, George Bush's terrorism
czar, was asked to sit in the control room to take over the response on
9/11, the first call he made was to the port of the city of Boston to
shut down the port because of the LNG facility in Everett,
Massachusetts, in my district. That was the first thought in his mind.
And why was that so? Because the al Qaeda had actually come in from
Algeria, jumping off those ships in Boston Harbor in Everett,
Massachusetts, in my district.
Now we've had a tremendous amount of development of natural gas in
the Marcellus shale formation and all across the country, an addition
of 30 percent to the natural gas reserves of our country over the last
4 years.
Now if a city, if a State determines that the terrorism threat is so
great that they do not want an LNG facility in the middle of their most
densely populated area, it should not be the right of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission to override the public safety decision
made by the State and local police that it is too great of a danger.
That is why the Wu amendment is correct.
We have a bonanza of natural gas domestically. If a State decides
they can get it from our own people rather than overseas, it is not up
to the FERC to make that decision if they are going to override the
national security, the safety consideration of that community, in
making that decision.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Wu amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I wish to express my strong support for
allowing states to have a say in the siting of liquefied natural gas
(LNG) facilities and Representative Wu's amendment #526 to H.R. 1.
Mr. Chair, for years, there's been an ill-conceived proposal to
permit an LNG facility in

[[Page H1258]]

Fall River, Massachusetts. This is a densely populated urban area with
more than 9,000 residents of southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode
Island living within a one mile radius of the proposed site.
Siting an LNG facility here comes with enormous security risks as 900
foot long tankers would need to be brought up the Taunton River and
pass under four bridges.
From day one, local residents have expressed their vehement
opposition to this misguided and dangerous proposal.
Current and previous Massachusetts and Rhode Island governors, local
leaders and public safety officials have also fought against this
irresponsible project.
Unfortunately, the Republican energy bill of 2005 gave the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the exclusive authority to site LNG
terminals, overriding the role of states and local communities in these
critical public health and safety decisions.
In Fall River, FERC has ignored legitimate local concerns, despite
Federal laws and regulations directing a preference for remote siting
of LNG facilities away from heavily populated areas and directing the
agency to consider local input.
Mr. Chair, my constituents in Somerset, Swansea and Fall River have
made their opposition to this project loud and clear. Fall River is not
the right place for an LNG facility.
Let me be clear--I am not opposed to LNG as an energy source but it
should not be sited in an urban area. Off-shore siting is preferable.
The Northeast is already in a good position for currently permitted LNG
off-shore terminals.
And, I firmly believe that states and local residents should have a
say in the decision to locate a dangerous energy facility in their
backyards.
Furthermore, Mr. Wu's amendment is important because the City of Fall
River deserves the right to plan its future and not have its economic
development held hostage to a FERC permitting process that does not
take local concerns into account.
At a time when so many of my Republican colleagues are fond of saying
that Washington has overreached its authority, Mr. Wu's commonsense
amendment would restore the public's role in the siting of LNG projects
and ensure that future energy decisions reflect community interests.
I want to thank my colleagues Mr. Wu, Mr. Frank and Mr. Markey for
their leadership on this issue.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on Mr. Wu's amendment.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I urge a ``no'' vote. This is a proposition that
ought to be discussed by the authorizers. It should not be considered
within the limits of this continuing resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WU. 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. 27 Offered by Mr. Markey

Mr. MARKEY. 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 issue any new lease that authorizes production of
oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et. seq.) to any lessee under an existing
lease issued by the Department of the Interior pursuant to
the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (43
U.S.C. 1337 note), where such existing lease is not subject
to limitations on royalty relief based on market price.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member
opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, we all agree that we have to do some serious work to
reduce the deficit. But we need to start by first eliminating
unnecessary taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies. I'm going to
finish the rest of this opening statement in the well.
As a result of a poorly drafted law passed by the Republican Congress
in 1995, oil companies are now drilling for free on public lands
offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. The Government Accountability Office
projects that the American people currently stand to lose as much as
$53 billion in royalty payments over the life of these leases. And
according to a brand new study, that's as much as $1.5 billion just
this year. And with oil prices at $90 a barrel, we do not have to be
allowing them to drill on public lands for free and take all of the
profit for themselves and giving nothing back to the American taxpayer.

{time} 1610

This amendment is very simple. It says to these companies we will
allow you to continue to drill and not even pay any royalties, but
we're not going to give you an opportunity to bid on any new leases on
public lands in our country.
So if you renegotiate so that you are paying your fair share back to
the American taxpayer, then fine, you can drill in the future. But we
need that $53 billion that they owe in royalties, in taxes to be put
towards reducing the Federal deficit.
That's what this debate should be all about: Where do we go to find
where the waste is in our Federal Government? The oil companies
drilling for free, paying nothing to the taxpayers while reaping
windfall profits is absolutely something that we should not tolerate.
This amendment passed in 2006 on the House floor. This amendment
passed as part of the BP response bill last year. This amendment passes
over and over again with significant Republican support, 60 votes just
5 years ago. In order to reclaim this money, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the gentleman from
Massachusetts just said, while this happened in 1995, it was not the
Republican Congress. It was the Clinton administration and a result of
the oil leases that were made under the Department of the Interior at
the time and the Clinton administration.
If this amendment passed, companies with existing Deepwater Royalty
Relief Act leases would be required to renegotiate lease terms with DOI
to include price thresholds before getting new leases. Companies with
Deepwater Royalty Relief Act leases have been successful multiple times
in court challenging Interior's authority to include price thresholds
in the lease agreements. DOI has lost at the district court, the
appellate court, and the Supreme Court. The Secretary does not have the
authority to include price thresholds on these leases.
The problem stems from language included in the Deepwater Royalty
Relief Act itself and the regulations promulgated to implement the act
that did not address or require Interior to include price thresholds in
the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act leases.
In addition, forcing companies to renegotiate the leases would be a
violation of contract law and would be challenged in court. This would
only cost us millions of dollars more. This would hinder our leasing
ability, reducing revenues to the Federal Government, not increasing
revenues to the government, as it limits the pool of potential leases.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, well, we voted to subsidize the cotton
industry, NASCAR, agribusiness. You name it, we vote to subsidize it.
But now we have an opportunity to correct the most egregious abuse of
the Federal taxpayer. $53 billion of oil that belongs to all American
taxpayers is basically being given away. It's their oil. It's being
drilled offshore. We own it, but we're not charging royalties to the
largest American corporations, and that's the real rub of it.
These are the most profitable corporations in America. BP is the
biggest beneficiary. Exxon, Shell, Conoco, you name it. Chevron.
They're all at the trough. Exxon, for example, last year $383 billion
in revenue, and yet we're

[[Page H1259]]

told they didn't pay any American corporate taxes. They paid it to
other countries, but not to the United States.
You know, at a time when we cut $1 billion out of Head Start and then
we're going to give $53 billion to the wealthiest corporations of
America, take American taxpayer-owned oil? This is insane.
Now, it may have made some sense when oil was at $20 a barrel, But
when oil is over $80 a barrel and the American consumer is having to
pay $3.50 a gallon for gas, is this really the time that we should be
giving away $53 billion in oil? No.
Let's stop this egregious abuse. We say we're in favor of eliminating
waste, fraud, and abuse? This is the worst abuse. Let's stop it.
Support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. I am tempted to ask the gentleman: What part of the
contract that was signed by the Clinton administration don't you
understand? But I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the gentleman
from Massachusetts' amendment. I wish he would understand that we are
not drilling right now. That is the problem.
Many on the other side of the aisle have been thrilled with the
administration's moratorium and praises the Department of the Interior
and BOEMRE's work or, in true reality, the lack thereof in the
deepwater drilling permit process since the BP oil spill.
This amendment is insane, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from
Massachusetts must be confiding with the likes of George Soros, who
happily watched and encouraged the most advanced deepwater drilling
rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico and travel to Brazil and Africa. If they
are not picking up and leaving the Gulf of Mexico for good, they are
filing for bankruptcy, like Seahawk Drilling in my district. This week,
Seahawk Drilling blamed its demise on an unprecedented decline in the
issuance of offshore drilling permits following the Macondo blowout.
The chief executive, Randy Stilley, said in a statement, ``The
decision by regulators to arbitrarily construct unnecessary barriers to
obtaining permits they had traditionally authorized has had an adverse
impact not only on Seahawk, but on the sector as a whole.''
Seahawk's clients were waiting on 11 projects that were in various
stages of the permitting process, none of which had been approved. This
just proves this administration and Interior are not serious when they
say they have lifted the deepwater drilling moratorium.
The minority is claiming this spending bill is a job-killing piece of
legislation, but they are just fine with increasing taxes on an
industry that is in limbo and employs hundreds of thousands in my
district.
Louisianans are very hardworking, tough folks. They rarely ask for
much. Mr. Chairman, they have been yelling loudly and beating down my
door to tell me they are fed up and ready to go back to work.
I guarantee you, Americans across the Nation will begin to yell as
well when they are paying more at the gas pump when prices should be
falling.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York,
the author of this amendment in 2006, Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. HINCHEY. At a time when our country is facing record deficits and
the oil industry can't count their money fast enough, oil drillers in
the Gulf of Mexico are getting away with highway robbery because of
mistakes that were made many years ago.
Oil and gas companies are extracting resources from public property
without paying royalties, regardless of the price of oil and gas. It's
time to fix the problem. The GAO has estimated that not doing so will
continue to cost American taxpayers up to $53 billion.
These hugely profitable companies are tapping oil and gas reserves
that belong to the American people, selling it back to us, and then
reaping a massive profit on the backs of the middle class. But they are
not paying one red cent to the public for the oil and gas they have
extracted. They get it for free, and we pay the price.
I don't know a single person who would allow an oil or gas company to
drill on their private property and not expect to be compensated for
the oil extracted from that land. So why should the Federal Government
continue to be taken advantage of by the most profitable industry in
United States history?
Congress has a chance to correct this injustice.
Last year, oil companies earned over $70 billion in profits when oil
prices were significantly lower than they are today. With the cost of
oil once again approaching $100 a barrel and prices at the pump also
rising, the idea that this industry is still getting royalty relief is
downright criminal.
If we're serious about reining in our deficits, then we should adopt
this amendment. It's an important amendment; it makes perfect sense,
and it is in the best interests of all of the people of this country.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. And what is not being
pointed out here is, while the gentleman from Massachusetts is talking
about companies and royalties, he fails to mention, first of all, that
the second largest source of Federal revenue next to income taxes is
royalties that are paid by oil companies. They are paying billions of
dollars in royalties. They are hiring tens of thousands and, in some
cases, probably in the millions of Americans to work in the energy
industry. But that, right now, is at jeopardy by this administration's
policies. In fact, as my other colleague from Louisiana just pointed
out, just last week another company filed for bankruptcy because of
this administration's policies shutting off the ability to issue
permits and allow people to go back to work.
And so what does this amendment do? Well, my colleague talks about
royalties. Let's actually read what his amendment does as opposed to
what he says about his amendment.
The amendment by Mr. Markey says: None of the funds made available by
this act may be used to issue any new lease that authorizes production
of oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
This is about closing off more domestic sources of energy production
at a time when the Middle East has never been more volatile. You might
as well just call this the OPEC protection amendment, because it
ensures that more of these companies, as they are already doing, will
be going out of the country.
And by the way, oh, is this hypothetical? Of course it's not. I have
got a list here of some of the rigs by some of the very companies my
colleague talks about that are already leaving. And one of the
countries that they have already left to bring their assets to to drill
because they can't do business in America is Egypt. Two of these
billion-dollar assets have actually said it's better to do business in
Egypt and drill for energy there than to drill in America because of
these radical policies.
So I guess my colleague is okay with shutting off more domestic
energy, allowing more American companies to go bankrupt. The White
House has acknowledged 12,000 Americans have already lost their jobs
because of these policies, and then my colleague wants to bring this
amendment to shut even more areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off.
OPEC might love this amendment, but I think Americans who are going
to be paying $4 and $5 a gallon for gas at the pump this summer don't
agree.
I oppose this amendment.

{time} 1620

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt).
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
This is really important. The country needs this money. The country
owns this land. The country deserves these royalties. And whether we
have not collected these royalties because of a mistake or because of a
cozy relationship with the oil companies and the other party, for
whatever reason these weren't collected, they should be collected.
Royalty relief? No, it's not relief. This is what is supposed to be
paid. And I think about all of the things that it should be going for.

[[Page H1260]]

Portions of the royalties are owed to the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. This is what we spoke about yesterday, our Nation's most
successful open space preservation program that is supposed to take
money from the depletion of resources--these oil resources--and apply
it to preservation of parks, recreation, and open space. That's just
one of the things that should be done with this money that is owed to
the American taxpayers.
Mr. SIMPSON. I would just remind the gentleman from New Jersey that
it was the Clinton administration that let these leases.
I would like to now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We hear about a cozy relationship, and that's interesting because
when you go back and look at the worst oil spill in American history
from British Petroleum, BP, and why it took this administration so long
to come down on them, we find out that BP was the one oil company that
was willing to support and endorse the administration's crap and trade
bill. They were ready to come out and make a big deal out of it.
And that's why--you talk about cozy relationships. Oh, yeah. That's
not enough. This administration hired to help oversee these leases the
person who was responsible under the Clinton administration for costing
this country billions by taking out language that would have gotten us
the royalties we should have had.
But one of the problems we should never lose sight of, no matter how
cozy the relationship was with the Clinton administration and BP and
this administration and BP and the 800 hazardous safety violations they
overlooked, was that this country's history has been one of integrity.
You go back to the War of 1812. Banks in England had loaned this
country's businesses money. And we had the War of 1812. It went on for
a couple of years. After that war, we were struggling, but people that
owed banks in England paid them anyway. The world took notice and said
this is a country that can be trusted. When they give you their word,
it means something.
Now this administration and this provision would say, Hey, if we make
a contract with you and maybe because of this administration's cozy
relationship is too good for you, we'll just come back, cancel the
deal, punish you because we were able to lure you into a deal.
There's been more damage done to the gulf States by this President's
moratorium. You want to help with jobs. Give them their jobs back. Open
up the provisions. Get alternative energy by using the proceeds from
the drilling that this group has cut off.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Mrs.
Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
I rise in strong support of this straightforward amendment to reduce
the deficit and protect taxpayers. It says the Nation's biggest oil
companies won't be able to buy new leases from the Federal Government
if they want to keep drilling on the public's land for free. That's
all.
Now, there's a consensus in this Congress that we need to address the
Federal deficit. With this amendment, we can.
GAO says we're giving $53 billion to the oil companies over the next
25 years if we do not fix the royalty relief law.
So let's fix it. Let's make the oil companies simply pay their fair
share. Let's stop pouring billions of dollars into their already
stuffed oil industry coffers. Isn't it time we give our constituents a
break instead of the oil companies?
This is about the people we represent. They're taking their savings
and they're putting it into their gas tanks and into heating their
homes. Big Oil doesn't need this profit.
Let's end the handouts, reduce the deficit, protect the taxpayer.
Support the Markey amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Could the Chair inform me as to how much time is
remaining on each side.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 2\1/2\ minutes and the
gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
This amendment encapsulates this entire week. This week's debate is
all about priorities: Will we stand with Big Oil or with Big Bird? With
the big corporations or with the little guy?
Shell Oil isn't curing our addiction to oil, but the millions of
Americans afflicted with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's need a cure for
those diseases; and they need these revenues from the oil companies.
Executives from BP won't be shivering in the cold any time soon, but
our Nation's poorest families and senior citizens will be.
ConocoPhillips doesn't need help feeding their profits; but millions
of America's poorest women, infants, and children who don't have enough
to eat need help staying fed.
Chevron doesn't need special treatment, but special education
programs for our neediest students are on the chopping block.
ExxonMobil doesn't need a head start on success, but our kids do need
the Head Start program to send them on the right educational path.
My amendment focuses on just the kind of special interest loophole
that should be closed before we open attacks on programs for the
poorest Americans most in need of help.
One of the several dozen companies receiving this windfall is BP.
Imagine that. BP spilled oil freely into the Gulf of Mexico for nearly
90 days, and yet they are now drilling for free in some of those same
waters at the expense of the American taxpayers.
Just last week the former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister,
was quoted in the National Journal as saying, ``In the face of
sustained high oil prices, it was not an issue for large companies of
needing the subsidies to entice them to looking for and producing more
oil.''
Well, I agree with Mr. Hofmeister. At nearly $90 a barrel,
subsidizing oil companies to drill is like subsidizing a bird to fly or
a fish to swim. You do not have to do it.
Unless this amendment is adopted, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell,
ConocoPhillips, and Chevron will continue to hold leases that let them
drill on public land without paying taxpayers a single dime. These
companies are already getting 100-year-old tax breaks to sell $100-a-
barrel oil to make $100 billion a year in profits. They don't need a
$53 billion windfall courtesy of the American taxpayer and our national
debt.

Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment. Cease paying big oil companies'
windfall profits for the American people.
Mr. SIMPSON. I would yield the remaining time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You remember Paul Harvey's ``The Rest of the Story''? You want to
hear what's really behind this debate?
In the mid-1990s, worried about how much oil we're importing from the
Middle East, the government encouraged companies to go out deeper into
the gulf to create American-made energy here in the United States. So
for 4 years they signed lease agreements. And companies here in
America, they paid millions of dollars for these leases with no
knowledge of whether there was oil there or not, or gas.

{time} 1630

They spent billions of dollars to drill in depths they hadn't
before--again, not knowing if they would hit anything or not. They used
American companies to do it on American platforms with American
workers. And guess what? It worked. They created American-made oil and
natural gas, and they kept it here for us. This outraged the Democrats:
How could this happen? And by the way, these companies paid billions of
dollars of royalty not on the price, but on how much they bring out of
the ground. It was a win-win situation--taxpayers win, our jobs win, we
get American-made energy.
Outraged, they took it to court. Four times the court said--they
wanted the American Government to break its own contract--the court,
four times, including the Supreme Court, said no. Now they've tried to
extort U.S. companies in saying, you must break your contract, or we
will deny you any chance

[[Page H1261]]

to do business in the Gulf of Mexico. That's what this amendment is
about. It's extortion. They want businesses to break the contract with
America that America can't break itself.
If the government has power to force you to break the agreement they
made with you, how much power will they have over you, over your
family, over your business? And by the way, what's wrong with creating
good old-fashioned American energy here in this country with our
workers, with our companies, with the revenues coming to us and to the
local communities, giving us affordable energy? Isn't that what America
is also about?
Our energy jobs aren't expendable. Stop sending our oil and gas
workers to the unemployment line. Let them explore right here in
America. Does Hugo Chavez really need a bigger incentive to sell more
oil in the United States of America?
This amendment needs to go down on this House floor.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to
Amendment No. 27 by Rep. Markey to H.R. 1, the Fiscal Year Continuing
Appropriations Act for FY2011. This amendment attempts to retroactively
reverse the express intent of Congress in passing the Royalty Relief
Act. In the case of Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas v. Allred, the Fifth Circuit
Court specifically held that the Department of the Interior does not
have authority to impose royalty relief price thresholds on deep water
leases issued from 1996-2000. In reaching this decision, the Fifth
Circuit held that Congress was unambiguous in guaranteeing royalty
relief, without price thresholds, to holders of these leases up to the
volumes specified in the statute. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
and other regulations allow our government to preclude a lessee from
obtaining new leases if it has failed to act with due diligence with
respect to its existing leases. This amendment would add a new
requirement that imposes that same penalty but for an entirely
different and unrelated reason. For these reasons, I strongly oppose
this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. 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
Massachusetts will be postponed.

Amendment No. 409 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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 division B
may be used by the Department of Health and Human Services to
implement or enforce section 2718 of the Public Health
Service Act, as added by section 1001(5) and replaced by
section 10101(f) of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (Public Law 111-148).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think that we've made some
significant progress in the area of improving health care in this
country, the laws related to health care in this country today in this
Chamber. This is another portion of an amendment that would address the
issue of health care.
As a physician and dad, I care greatly about the issue of health care
and came to Congress, frankly, as one of the major reasons was to try
to fix the health care system and to make it more patient-centered.
Over the last 2 years, we've seen a significant affront to our health
care system with costs increasing, destroying jobs, violating
principles to a significant degree as it relates to health care.
Last year, this Congress made a lot of decisions that gave Washington
control over our health care system. And a perfect example of that
control is that ObamaCare mandates to the companies that provide the
health coverage for individuals, helping individuals, how to run their
business. Essentially, the Federal Government is in the business of
dictating to private companies what they should do to run their
business, what kind of coverage they can provide, what kind of prices
they can charge, what kind of definition of quality care, and what
meets the definition of essential services for individuals. It really
is central planning at its finest, and it is certainly not the
government's role in a free market system.
The government has already proven that it's not well qualified for
mandating and defining what will be counted as quality improvement
activity for the purposes of calculating, in this instance, the medical
loss ratio. For instance, many of the fraud provisions that are
required are excluded from being included in the medical loss ratio.
The coding system that is required for health insurers to utilize is
not able to be included in the medical loss ratio.
So what it does is compromise the opportunity for brokers to provide
the best advice to citizens. It makes it so that these folks who are
actually--they're actually the exchanges, Mr. Chairman, if you think
about it, but these folks are going to be pinched and pushed out of
their jobs, the ones that are actually helping our citizens to weave
their way through the morass of health coverage in this country.
The President said famously during this whole debate, ``If you like
what you have, you can keep it.'' The fact of the matter is, as you
know, Mr. Chairman, and so many others know, that that simply is not
true. These medical loss ratio requirements will in fact break that
promise to a further degree.
So the amendment is very simple. It makes it so that no moneys in
this bill can be utilized for the provision of enforcing the medical
loss ratio, destructive provisions in the area of health care. I urge
my colleagues to back the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for some very good reasons on
that.
Let me explain what the medical loss ratio is. That is what the
people in these private insurance companies call providing health care
for the premium dollar you provide. For every time they give you a
health service for your premium dollar, they think of it as a medical
loss. The medical loss ratio is the amount of your dollar that they
actually spend on health care versus CEO salaries, bonuses, stock
dividends that are out of control, lobbyist costs that they might
incur, advertisements, and so on down the line. The purpose of the
medical loss ratio provision is in fact to make sure that they spend a
higher percentage of your premium dollar on actual health care.
In 1993, the average used to be about 95 cents of every dollar would
be spent by private health insurance companies on health services. Now,
however, recent studies indicate that some of these private insurance
companies are spending as little as 60 cents of every health care
dollar on actual health services and the rest on lobbyists--probably
some of whom are down here arguing to kill this provision--on high CEO
salaries and bonuses and advertisements, and so on down the line.
The MLR, the medical loss ratio provision in this bill, says an
insurance company for individuals or small company plans has to spend
at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on health care. And if you're
in a large company plan, it's 85 cents. What a novel idea; you get some
bang for your buck and the government would actually do something for
you for a change, protecting consumer rights and making sure that
companies do what they should be doing.
This isn't about profits. The companies are extremely profitable, and
this is not going to cramp their style. In fact, this is about greed.
The profits for the 10 largest for-profit insurance companies in this
country show a whopping $9.3 billion in profits for the first three
quarters of 2010. That's $2.1 billion

[[Page H1262]]

more than the first 9 months of 2009. So it's gone up 41 percent from
2009. What this is about is them avoiding having to pay premium dollars
for health care.
Another provision that I like in this is they're going to have to
tell the American public, they're going to have to be transparent in
identifying what it is they term as ``health services,'' so people
would know if they're trying to put lobbyists fees under health
services or excessive bonuses or CEO salaries or advertisements, things
of that nature. And I don't think they have any will at all to make
sure that people understand where their health care premium dollars are
going.
If you don't have a provision like this, we're going to return to
what we were; you take the power away from the consumer and you put it
with the insurance company. So how do they do it? They raise the
premiums or they cut your health care. They take away health care for
people that want to get on their parents' plan up to the age of 26 if
they're working at a company that doesn't have coverage, or they don't
have coverage otherwise. They put on caps annually or lifetime caps so
you can't get coverage. They rescind your policy exactly when you're in
the middle of your cancer or diabetes care. Or they make sure some
other way that you don't get the coverage you ought to have.
Wendell Potter, who was a whistleblower, used to be with CIGNA, one
of the larger insurance companies, made it real clear when he was
testifying before committees that in fact this is what companies want
to do, they want to keep that medical loss ratio in place where they
benefit and the consumer loses.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains on each side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 2\1/2\ minutes and
the gentlewoman from Connecticut has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to an excellent member of our conference, a new Member, a member of the
healing profession, a nurse from North Carolina, Renee Ellmers.
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Chairman, let's be reminded why we are here today.
We are here because the leadership of the 111th Congress couldn't even
pass a budget. However, my colleagues across the aisle did manage to
pass this monstrosity with a closed rule and no debate.

{time} 1640

This, my friends, is ObamaCare.
No one had time to read it, much less understand how it would
actually affect small businesses. As a nurse and small business owner,
I can tell you that this bill is devastating to health care and the
economy. Calling a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy
``reform'' over and over and over again does not make it so.
Not only should we pass this amendment; we should pass this CR so we
can save the American taxpayers from funding this outrageously bad
bill. Then we can get to work providing real health care reforms that
give the decision-making back to the doctors, nurses and patients, not
to Washington bureaucrats.
Ms. DeLAURO. I would just like to remind the gentlelady that I
understand she was not here, but we did debate health care in this body
for approximately 18 months, so there was a very healthy and robust
discussion about health care.
This amendment is a further demonstration of the majority's special
interest priorities as they have to do with insurance companies. It
really demonstrates the hypocrisy on job creation and deficit reduction
as well.
Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlelady from Connecticut has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. I want to follow up on what the gentlewoman from
Connecticut said.
This is about Whose side are you on?
If you're with the gentleman from Georgia, you are on the side of the
big insurance companies, and you'll want to make sure that they make
bigger profits, that they get bigger bonuses, that they pass out bigger
dividends and more money to their CEOs; or if you're against this
amendment and you want to go with the health care reform bill that we
have, you're with the little guy--with the consumer, with the average
American.
Right now, the law says that consumers have to receive more value for
their premium dollars. Insurance companies are required to spend 80 to
85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and health care quality
improvements rather than on the bonuses and the salaries and the
dividends for the CEOs and the stockholders.
That's what this is all about. You're going to hand back to the
insurance companies control over what happens with the money that you
paid in your premium so they can do whatever they want with it and make
whatever profit they want. I think it's wrong.
One of the major issues that we face this year is affordability and
what consumers are getting for their buck, so to speak. With health
care reform, we made health insurance more affordable, and it will
become more so as this kicks in further. At the same time, we wanted to
make sure that when you spend your premium you get something back: you
get good value, and you get good benefits. That's what we're doing with
health care reform. We're not worried about the insurance companies and
whether they get enough profit. They make enough profit. I'm going to
give you some examples.
Let's use Aetna. Between 2009 and 2010, their profits went up 40
percent. I can use that for every one of the insurance companies.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield myself the remaining time.
We've heard this is about ``whose side are you on?'' and that it's
about greed. It really is about who decides, Mr. Chairman. In health
care, who decides?
The folks on the other side of the aisle want the government to
decide. They want the government to decide what qualifies as health
care and what kind of health care you can get for yourself and for your
family and for everybody across this land. On this side of the aisle,
we want patients to decide, patients and families and doctors.
That's what this amendment is all about. Support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 296 Offered by Mr. McClintock

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

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 Klamath Dam Removal and
Sedimentation Study.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, the appropriations committee leadership
supported my amendment No. 297 to cancel $2 million that would be used
to consider destroying four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the
Klamath River that are generating 155 megawatts of the cleanest,
cheapest, and most reliable electricity on the planet--enough to power
over 150,000 homes.
Amendment No. 296 is the companion measure. It forbids the Bureau to
redirect its remaining funds for this purpose.

[[Page H1263]]

Let me emphasize: Congress never authorized this study. Congress
never authorized the Klamath settlement. The Bureau of Reclamation is
moving forward with it anyway. At a time when skyrocketing electricity
prices threaten our economy and when acute capacity shortages threaten
the reliability of our grid, destroying 155 megawatts of clean, cheap,
and reliable hydroelectricity is simply insane.
We're told this is to save the salmon, but the proposal also includes
destroying the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery, which is producing 5 million
salmon smolt each year, 17,000 of which return to the Klamath as fully
grown adults in order to spawn.
The Bureau is conducting this study without congressional
authorization, and the language in this amendment is essential in order
to implement the reduction that the House approved on Tuesday.
I thank the appropriations leadership for their support on Tuesday
and ask that the House adopt the implementing language.
I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger).
(Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, as a staunch supporter of dams, I
understand my colleague's position on this issue, and I support this
amendment.
The constituents I represent overwhelmingly oppose removing
functioning hydropower and its associated benefits. I fully share that
concern and the disturbing precedent it sets. I think it represents a
monumental failure that current Federal laws and regulations provide no
alternative that will allow these dams to be operated as cost
effectively as they were during the previous licensed term or that will
allow the Federal Government to fully meet the obligations it made to
the Klamath Basin agriculture with the development of the Klamath
Reclamation Project.
As such, this amendment by itself will, unfortunately, not address
the underlying issue, which is the environmental extortion that impacts
property owners across the West and that impacts the hardworking people
who depend on the land for their livelihoods.
Our laws are grossly out of balance, so I look forward to working
with Chairman Hastings and Chairman McClintock on the necessary reforms
to prevent this continued abuse and to bring greater certainty to the
Klamath Basin's agricultural community.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I just want to make a point.
The gentleman from California is correct. We did accept his amendment
several days ago, an amendment which dealt with the reduction of
funds--I think it was $1.9 million--but it was not specific to this
dam; it was specific to the account. So this is a very different
amendment, and that's why we rise in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
What we're hearing on this amendment and as to the amendment itself
is certainly a switch from what we've been hearing over the past couple
of days. I say that because this amendment is a Washington, D.C.,
solution to a very, very local issue.

{time} 1650

This amendment would stop a comprehensive local solution to a major
and very costly problem in the Klamath River Basin.
This effort at the local level, supported by farmers and ranchers,
fishermen, conservation groups, the privately owned power company in
question, tribes, as well as the States of California and Oregon, it
has a very bipartisan root. It was negotiated under both the Bush
administration and the Obama administration.
It's a study. It does not, nor is it an agreement to, remove any
dams.
All the local communities in the Klamath Basin, even those who were
opposed to dam removal, support the completion of the study and they
are at the table working on this specific issue.
Even the California Farm Bureau is in support of completing this
study. It needs to be noted that only Congress can authorize dam
removal.
This amendment is not wanted by any of the stakeholders: agriculture,
conservation, local government, the dam owners, sportsmen and -women,
nor the tribes. It will exacerbate the already serious problems we face
in the Klamath Basin watershed.
I ask my colleagues to please join me in voting against this bad
amendment.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
(Mr. WALDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, nearly a decade ago the farmers and
families in the Klamath Basin suffered irreparable harm when two
government agencies with conflicting demands and questionable data shut
off water for irrigated agriculture, threatening a way of life and the
economy of the region. Fertile farmlands turned to dust under the
summer sun. A wildlife refuge nearly dried up. Some farmers whose
families had tilled the soil and grown crops for generations lost
everything and filed for bankruptcy. The stress was too much for some.
One died of a heart attack and another took his own life.
Out of that aftermath, the House Resources Committee, then chaired by
Jim Hansen of Utah and Richard Pombo of California, went to work with
me trying to find short-term solutions and work on the long term.
Principals in the basin, as you have heard, found common ground where
they had been apart, and they reached agreement that they have brought
forth to KBRA and the KHSA.
However, it's clear to me that the agreements as written do not have
those in charge of the Resources Committee today. The gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings) have made that clear. There is little point, then, in
spending more of the taxpayers' money, especially during these dire
fiscal times, on an effort that is unlikely to move forward in its
present form.
Given that reality, I will support the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock). The House's decision today, however, will not lessen the
threat to irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Basin. It does not add
to water storage. It does not provide protection to the ratepayers. It
does not resolve the water rights disputes.
It does mean, however, the burden of finding a timely and effective
solution to conflicts in the Klamath Basin now resides in the Resources
Committee and those who rejected these plans, because there is no
escaping the fact that the problems remain, the conflicts grow and the
courts call all the shots absent legislative action.
Nearly a decade ago, the farmers and families in the Klamath Basin
suffered irreparable harm when two government agencies, with
conflicting demands and questionable data shut off the water for
irrigated agriculture, threatening a way of life and the economy of the
region. Fertile farmlands turned to dust under the summer sun. A
wildlife refuge nearly dried up. Some farmers whose families had tilled
the soil and grown crops for generations lost everything and filed for
bankruptcy. The stress was too much for some . . . one farmer died of a
heart attack and another took his own life.
Meanwhile, the nation's attention turned to the plight of the Klamath
Basin farm families and more than 15,000 members of the community
turned out in a symbolic bucket brigade that stretched from one end of
town to the other.
I was a member of the House Resources Committee then, and our
chairmen, first Jim Hansen of Utah and later Richard Pombo of
California, responded to my calls for help with hearings and
legislation. And the Bush Administration weighed in, too. We were
committed to finding lasting solutions to prevent another water cut
off. We put in place historic conservation efforts to improve water
management. We got funds to screen the A canal and to remove Chiloquin
dam. We created water banks and added to storage--although not by
enough.
And then the principals in the Basin who often were on opposing
sides, spent years trying to find common ground. They worked in good
faith, tirelessly in search of a long-term plan to prevent another
water cutoff. They should be commended for their work. And it is

[[Page H1264]]

the culmination of that effort--with all of the controversy that
surrounds it--that brings us here today.
It is clear to me, that the agreements as written do not have the
support of those in charge at the Resources Committee. The gentleman
from California Mr. McClintock and the gentleman from Washington, Mr.
Hastings, have made it abundantly clear that they will not move forward
on the KBRA or the KHSA.
There is little point in spending more of the taxpayers' money--
especially during these dire fiscal times--on an effort that is
unlikely to move forward in its present form. Given that reality, I
will join them today in voting for this limiting amendment.
The House's decision today will not lessen the threat to irrigated
agriculture in the Klamath Basin. It does not add to water storage. It
does not provide protection to ratepayers. It does not resolve water
rights disputes.
It does mean, however, that the burden of finding a timely and
effective solution to the conflicts in the Klamath Basin now resides
with the Resources Committee and those who rejected this plan, because
there is no escaping the fact that the problems remain. The conflicts
grow. And the courts call the shots, absent legislative action.
I pray that we never have to see a repeat of the disaster of 2001. I
look forward to working with the Chairman Mr. Hastings and the
Subcommittee Chairman Mr. McClintock on whatever plan they have in mind
to bring about a comprehensive, Basin-wide solution. And I know they
must understand, especially in this water year, how critical prompt
action is.
Doing nothing is not an option.

[From Klamath Falls Herald and News, May 27, 2010]

Commentary: Hukill, Switzer: Against Dam Removal, but for KBRA

(By Al Switzer and Cheryl Hukill)

There seems to be some confusion on where we, Commissioners
Al Switzer and Cheryl Hukill, stand on dam removal and the
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
From the very beginning of this process we have publicly
stated that we are against dam removal and lobbied for fish
ladders or trucking of fish instead. We are for jobs, jobs,
jobs, and a strong economy. That message has never changed
and will not change.
State Rep. Bill Garrard has stated publicly that his
position is against dam removal but for the KBRA, and this is
the same position that we have taken and continue to take.
We are not willing that outside entities make the decisions
for this Basin when it comes to the water and agricultural
issues that face us.
We know that whether we signed the agreement or not, the
dams are destined to come out. That was a private company
making a private business decision. Government has no
business interfering with private industry.
But the destiny of our farmers and ranchers is our
priority, and we must be participants of the committees that
will be formed as a result of the KBRA.
The agricultural community brings in over $600 million,
using a multiplier of 2. It has also created over 4,000 jobs.
Businesses with livable wage jobs will quit looking at
Klamath County as a viable place to relocate if we do not
have a stable economy, of which agricultural is a huge part.
Status quo is no longer an option. We must never forget
what happened in 2001. Every business was affected by the
government shutting our water off. At least with the KBRA, a
committee of stakeholders will help set the course for our
water issues.
If the KBRA had been in effect in 2008, we would have had
enough carryover to have 330,000 acre-feet of water instead
of the 150,000 acre feet. Why? Because the biological opinion
would have allowed the flow of water going down the Klamath
River between October and February to be far less than it was
this year.
Again, we stand against dam removal, but stand for jobs and
a strong economy.
The authors
Al Switzer and Cheryl Hukill are Klamath County
commissioners.

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Schrader).
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the
remarks of the gentlemen from California and Arizona.
This has been a hard-fought battle in my State. In a prior lifetime,
I was a legislator in charge of the appropriations process for my home
State of Oregon; and for the 10, 12 years I was in the State
legislature, this area, this internecine warfare in the Klamath Basin
over the use of the water resources was a really hot topic.
As a result, our State and the Federal Government were spending
millions of dollars in lawsuits. This agreement, this agreement to have
a study to bury that hatchet and come to an agreement is absolutely
critical. We have tribes, ranchers, farmers, local officials who have
all come together to say let's solve this problem at the regional
level.
We in Washington, D.C., should not be getting involved. This is a
long-fought battle that finally has come to some accord. We should let
it happen and stay out of Oregon and California's business.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentleman from Arizona
is disingenuous when he says that we didn't know this was about the
Klamath when we adopted the funding reduction on Tuesday. That was the
entire context of the debate. I mentioned it over and over again. It's
not true that this is somehow a surprise if the gentleman was
listening.
As to the claim that this is an agreement that has been agreed to by
all of the political insiders in the area, let me assure the gentleman
from California that it is opposed by the overwhelming majority of
voters as tested in several local elections, including the formal
opposition to the dam removal by the Siskiyou border supervisors
elected by the people of the region.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I was listening; I did
understand. Because even though I heard the words, the understanding I
had with the chairman of the subcommittee and the reason we supported
it was that the reduction of funds was to the account, not these
specific projects. So I did listen; I did understand.
But today we are talking about prohibiting money for the study. And I
have to tell you that this agreement is to study the potential removal
of four privately owned dams, not the agreement to remove dams. It is
designed to bring about significant improvements to both environmental
conditions and water supplies, certainly, which need to be confirmed
through the study.
The studies are scientific. They deal with engineering and economic
and environmental-based analysis to determine whether the promise of
the agreement will occur. And for that reason, we oppose this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I just want to say to the gentleman, the Oregon Public
Utility Commission has ruled that, from the standpoint of the rate-
paying public, the settlement agreement is preferable to relicensing
under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, as the
agreement caps ratepayer cost at $200 million; whereas, fish passage
costs, because these dams are old, could exceed $500 million, plus an
additional $200 million for O&M. The amendment would force these costs
on the rate-paying public without the benefit of accurate benefits and
costs.
Being from the Northwest, I want you to know that sometimes, and they
are just studying this dam removal, but sometimes by taking out dams
you can restore the original habitat and help the salmon recovery, as
we are doing on the Elwha Dam project up in Washington State.
The reason we did it: Because it was going to cost so much to fix up
the dam, that it was actually cheaper to take them out and restore, and
this became a major restoration project. So I wouldn't just assume that
this is not a positive thing.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. He is
absolutely correct.
What is being dealt with in the Klamath Basin is an unraveling of a
serious problem all because the Federal Government has promised more
than Mother Nature can deliver. And part of what is being considered--
is being supported broadly by Native Americans and business interests.
We have been working with utilities----
Mr. DICKS. By the local community.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. A broad range of people in the community. This is
something that needs to be seriously studied and done right.
There is a very strong likelihood that if it isn't done properly,
there may well be something that happens in the Klamath River Basin
where circumstances move ahead and it's not done in the way that I
think most people would like.
So I appreciate----
Mr. DICKS. And being from Oregon, you realize that it would do a lot
potentially for salmon restoration.

[[Page H1265]]

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is a tremendous opportunity for the Klamath River
Basin. It's a tremendous opportunity for the Native Americans, for
agriculture, for sportspeople and to avoid the litigation and the
political squirrel cage that we are in.
If you go down there and visit the Klamath Basin, you would find, as
I know my good friend from California has, it's a tremendous
opportunity. This amendment really would be a mistake.

{time} 1700

Mr. DICKS. I thank my friend.
Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman, and I want to
agree with you, Mr. Dicks, on the salmon implications of this, and also
Mr. Walden, who talked about the agricultural implications of not
having a solution. This has been an absolute mess for decades, and
we've seen the fruits of that disaster bear out in the salmon industry
crashing and agricultural problems that we have.
And for the first time in decades, first time ever, we have had all
the stakeholders come together. These are people who you couldn't get
in the same town with before who are sitting around the same table.
They are working out solutions. They have come to some agreements. And
this study has to be made, and, Mr. Dicks, you are absolutely right.
Mr. DICKS. And you would think that the gentleman from California
would be interested in letting the local community come to a decision
on this rather than imposing it from Washington, D.C., and overturning
what this local group of people have been working on for years. I mean,
this is really a bit much.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I don't need anywhere close to 5
minutes. I simply want to emphasize that the gentleman is correct, that
the local people should decide that issue, and they have.
In one local election after another, when this has been the deciding
question, the voters themselves have said it is insanity, at a time
when we can't guarantee enough electricity to keep their air
conditioners running or the refrigerators running, to tear down the
generating capacity equivalent to enough for 150,000 residents and 155
megawatts of electricity.
The Siskiyou Board of Supervisors, elected by the people of the
region, has taken a very strong stand in opposition to the removal of
the dams.
And to the gentleman from California, I too am concerned about the
salmon. That's why the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery, which is producing 5
million salmon smolt a year, 17,000 of which return as fully grown
salmon to spawn, is so critical. And why they would want to tear that
out, along with the dams, is absolutely beyond me and beyond the people
of the region who have voted repeatedly on this issue.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think the idea is we wanted to wrap this up
without too much debate. I just felt in fairness that the gentleman
deserved some extra time. I don't think we need to prolong this.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I would just like to clarify one fact.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I just want to clarify one issue, and
that's the cost of energy as a result of this. If this isn't solved,
the dam owners, the private owners that are supporting this study will
have to make repairs to the dam that far exceed other costs and will
drive the ratepayers' utility rates up through the roof. That's why the
statement was made about those costs of utilities and the costs to the
ratepayers.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. That's the point. It would cost more to fix these dams up.
That's the problem we faced on the Elwha. Even though the dams were
there, the cost was so high to fix them up that it was better to take
them out.
Now, this study will just look at this and the local people will wind
up getting hurt if you force them to have to do this. So let the local
people decide this and let this study go forward. It is a very
inexpensive thing, and this community has worked hard and deserves a
chance to look at this.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman.
And I would simply say in response that the gentleman in opposition
forgets two important points. Number one, the additional costs are
being forced on those private dam operators by the government. It is
about time that we recognize that it is the government imposing these
regulations that's driving up these costs.
And I would remind him he also forgets the enormous replacement
costs. The power coming off those dams is the cheapest and cleanest on
the planet. To replace that power is going to cost many, many times the
costs currently borne by the ratepayers for the cheap hydroelectricity
those dams produce.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. 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 California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT. 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 plan for, begin, continue, finish, process, or
approve the relocation of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Marine Operations Center-Pacific
from Seattle, Washington, to Newport, Oregon.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am a big fan of NOAA. The scientists
and analysts at NOAA do extraordinary work for this country.
Unfortunately, NOAA's process for choosing a location for the Marine
Operations Center jeopardizes the operation of the Pacific Center and
is wasting tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
My amendment would save at least $5 million immediately, and beyond
that, probably $10 to $20 million in long-term costs. It would defund
the move of the Marine Operations Center from Seattle to Newport,
Oregon, for the rest of the year so that there is time for the broken
process to be looked into.
Now, this is not a case of sour grapes. If it was what was best for
the country, I wouldn't fight tooth and nail against some jobs moving
from one place to another. But the Commerce Department's inspector
general and the Government Accountability Office have written scathing
reports about this move and the decision process. They found it is
among the worst run, least transparent, and least competitive bidding
processes they have ever investigated. If you want to compare it to the
Bridge to Nowhere, this is exactly what it is.
I came from Chicago, and when we looked at something like this, we
would always say the fix was in. Spending tens of millions of taxpayer
dollars to dislocate hundreds of families to a site that's frequently
unavailable for navigation because of dangerous conditions, is not near
shipyards or maritime suppliers, is more than 120 miles from the
nearest airport, and will be hugely expensive to run every year makes
no common sense. And the reports of the inspector general report that
very clearly.
Now, Newport is an environmentally sensitive area, and NOAA's own,
their

[[Page H1266]]

own private consultants say the site is the least qualified destination
for the move. Despite all these issues, NOAA has charged ahead and been
completely unaccountable. NOAA officials are not willing to admit their
huge mistake and fix it. And this is just plain wrong. Taking a
breather for the next 7 months while we get a truly transparent process
is the right thing to do.
NOAA and Newport are saying that any delay, any examination, any
looking at this will have catastrophic consequences. That simply is not
true. We have studies from the CRS and others it won't put contracts at
risk, it will not increase costs.
So I rise today to stop the process for the remainder of the year, to
give NOAA and the Commerce Department time to get their ducks in a row,
hit the restart button, and stop wasting taxpayer money.

U.S. Department of Commerce,

The Inspector General,

Washington, DC, May 26, 2010.
Memorandum for: Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
From: Todd J. Zinser
Subject: NOAA's Acquisition of Facilities to House the Marine
Operations Center--Pacific

By letter dated March 5, 2010, Chairwoman Maria Cantwell
and Ranking Member Olympia Snowe of the Senate Subcommittee
on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, requested that the
Office of Inspector General review NOAA's decision to award a
lease to the Port of Newport, Oregon, to house NOAA's Marine
Operations Center-Pacific (MOC-P). Their letter raised
several specific questions regarding the decision-making
process that resulted in this lease.
NOAA began the lease acquisition process as early as
September 2007, when it initiated a market analysis. It
published a Solicitation for Offers for a new lease on
November 24, 2008. Four bidders submitted offers, and NOAA
awarded a lease to the Port of Newport on August 4, 2009. One
of the unsuccessful bidders, the Port of Bellingham,
Washington, filed a protest with the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) on August 27, 2009--10 days after
it received a post-award debriefing from NOAA. On December 2,
2009, GAO sustained Bellingham's protest against NOAA's lease
award and recommended that NOAA conduct an analysis of
practicable alternatives to the Newport offer. In its January
29, 2010, response to GAO, NOAA stated that it expected to
complete all corrective actions relating to the successful
bid protest by May 28, 2010.
Although the lease acquisition process began in 2007, the
decision-making process related to the acquisition can be
traced back approximately 10 years. Together, these processes
involved several separate offices within NOAA, the
Department, and other federal agencies. In addition, they
involved many statutory provisions, regulations, NOAA and
Department policies, other administrative directives, and
changes in personnel. Given the scope and complexity of these
processes, we continue to gather and evaluate information,
and in order to gain the best understanding of the facts and
circumstances surrounding NOAA's process, we will need to
continue our work beyond the time by which NOAA intends to
finalize its assessment of practicable alternatives.
Although our review is ongoing, we have identified one
issue that warrants higher-level review by NOAA before it
finalizes its examination of practicable alternatives.
Specifically, based on our review, we believe that NOAA
should examine whether it sufficiently complied with the
requirement to consider existing federal facilities before
pursuing a new lease acquisition. Such an examination will
help to ensure that the ultimate decision--whether it be to
affirm the original choice or select an alternative
approach--is grounded in a more thorough, well-substantiated,
and well-documented analysis.
According to 41 C.F.R. 102-73.10, before acquiring real
estate by lease, purchase, or construction, federal agencies
should first use space in government-owned and government-
leased facilities. Similarly, Department of Commerce policy
generally disapproves of long-term lease solutions
(Department of Commerce, Real Property Management Manual,
5.4.1(d) (2003)). These issues are separate, but both relate
to how NOAA assessed its options for MOC-P. We address each
issue separately here, detailing factors that may potentially
impact NOAA's own assessment of how well it followed these
directives.
While there is a lack of detailed criteria against which to
measure NOAA's efforts to consider other federal facilities,
the Department's Real Property Management Manual does require
the Department to make ``every reasonable effort to utilize
Government-controlled space'' before leasing space. Our
review uncovered some evidence that NOAA considered other
federal facilities; however, NOAA was not able to provide
evidence that other federal facilities were systematically
inventoried, analyzed, and rejected before initiating efforts
to acquire a follow-on lease from other sources for MOC-P,
nor was the decision to reject other federal facilities well-
documented.
For example, we were told by NOAA officials that NOAA had
considered collocating with select Coast Guard and Navy
facilities, but its consideration was not documented. In
preparation for the lease acquisition, NOAA received
proposals in mid-2007 for an alternative site analysis to (1)
investigate the most functional, efficient, and cost-
effective options for reconsolidating MOC-P and (2) provide
an indication of how each site might perform during the
subsequent lease solicitation process. That study, conducted
under contract, was completed in September 2008. Of the 32
ports, cities, and economic development councils contacted,
11 responded, offering a total of 22 potential site options
for further analysis. The 22 were further narrowed to a total
of 15, only 3 of which were federally-owned: GSA's Federal
Center South, the Department of Labor's Tongue Point, and
NOAA's Western Regional Center. In November 2008, in an
apparent rejection of those federal sites, NOAA issued the
Solicitation for Offers.
NOAA also considered and declined GSA's May 2008 offer to
fulfill the MOC-P requirements at the GSA-owned Federal
Center South (FCS) facility. NOAA's Western Regional Center
(WRC) was also rejected as a long-term solution because of
what NOAA characterizes as litigation risks in that area.
Having ultimately rejected the use of other federal
facilities, it is also unclear whether NOAA adequately
considered other required alternatives. Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circular A-94, which requires cost-benefit
analyses of decisions on whether to lease or purchase, is an
example of other potentially applicable requirements that may
apply to NOAA's decision-making.
Our review has thus far uncovered three key issues
regarding NOAA's consideration of other federal facilities.
First, at some time between 2000 and 2007, as detailed
below, NOAA may have changed from considering a dispersed
model for fulfilling the MOC-P requirement, which could have
affected the analysis of available federal facilities.
Although NOAA's 2008 Solicitation for Offers was limited to
the lease of a consolidated facility (which would collocate
all ships and staff), it commissioned a June 2000 Homeport
Alternatives Analysis, conducted by SRI International, in
which it contemplated operating from dispersed facilities as
a cost-saving measure. This study was commissioned to explore
alternative homeports, given the possibility of the Lake
Union lease not being extended beyond 2003.
The 2000 study indicated that NOAA was seeking to reduce
costs by moving MOC-P staff to the WRC. Noting that NOAA. was
evaluating split homeporting, the study also explored
homeporting two of four MOC-P vessels in Alaska to reduce
ship travel time.
To date, NOAA has not provided an explanation of what
factors led to the apparent shift from the 2000 study to the
current preference for a consolidated, leased solution. This
apparent change in the vision for meeting the MOC-P
requirement may have had a significant impact on how NOAA
approached its available alternatives.
Notably, since the July 2006 fire that destroyed the MOC-P
piers at Lake Union, MOC-P has operated under a dispersed
model, using piers at NOAA's WRC and GSA's FCS. Also, NOAA's
Marine Operations Center-Atlantic operates in dispersed
facilities. This suggests that a dispersed model may be
feasible and should have been assessed as part of NOAA's
requirements-planning process.
Second, NOAA's analysis of how well it considered other
federal facilities should include an examination of how
thoroughly it analyzed and weighed its potential long-term
options at the WRC and FCS, where it currently operates.
NOAA should consider whether it would have been feasible to
maintain its current dispersed configuration while relocating
staff to the WRC or other leased offices.
Specifically, we found that the WRC was dredged in the
1970s in anticipation of developing four long piers to
accommodate many more vessels, and utilities may already be
in place for two additional planned buildings that were not
developed.
Although NOAA has cited neighborhood opposition to expanded
use of the WRC and litigation against NOAA in that area in
the 1970s, MOC-P has been homeported there since 2006. We
have reviewed recent letters from some surrounding
neighborhood groups that support locating MOC-P at the WRC.
The potential cost savings of using these existing facilities
may outweigh the litigation risks.
Third, GSA's pre-solicitation offer to serve the MOC-P
requirements at FCS may have presented a viable federal
facility for NOAA's consideration. This is particularly
relevant because of the changed circumstances at this site.
GSA's May 2008 offer arrived well before NOAA issued its
Solicitation for Offers in November 2008. NOAA declined this
offer one month later, citing the narrowness of the waterway
adjacent to the existing FCS pier, the fact that the waterway
was a Superfund site, and NOAA's established goal of being
operational in a new lease by July 1, 2011.
Since then, GSA has obtained American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act funds to redevelop three FCS buildings and
plans to relocate a large tenant, leaving an existing
building potentially available for NOAA, with some
modification.
We have been advised that NOAA currently has access to a
pier that is sufficiently

[[Page H1267]]

equipped and sizable to accommodate three of its vessels.
Although NOAA has cited concerns regarding underwater
property lines, it has not provided an indication that this
situation has been a problem during its use of the pier since
2006.
Regarding FCS being a Superfund site, according to a senior
official at GSA with whom we spoke, this would be an issue
for GSA, not NOAA. While the potential issue exists and an
environmental impact statement would be required, Superfund
liability would lie with GSA or another FCS tenant.
NOAA cited its June 30, 2011, deadline for vacating the
Lake Union site in its June 2008 letter declining GSA's
offer. However, this deadline was driven by the expiration of
the Lake Union lease, and suitable workarounds--such as
short-term office leases through GSA--may potentially have
been available.
Pursuing such workarounds may have enabled NOAA to garner
the necessary time and funding to develop the WRC and FCS
individually or together for the MOC-P requirement.
In our view, NOAA's examination of these issues related to
its consideration of other federal facilities will ensure
that the final decision regarding practicable alternatives to
Newport is thorough and well-documented.
We noted above that Department policy generally disapproves
of long-term lease solutions, and it states that leased
facilities should not be considered a permanent solution. Yet
although the Newport lease award will commit NOAA to a leased
solution for another 20 years, our review of how NOAA
approached government-owned solutions found little documented
analysis. NOAA has told us that leasing was preferred because
acquiring funding for such an acquisition would have required
considerable lead time and because funding of facilities has
historically received lower priority than other funding
requirements.
NOAA officials also cited the fact that MOC-P has
historically used leased sites.
The relevant documents show that on at least two occasions,
NOAA briefly considered acquiring the Lake Union site, which
housed all MOC-P operations prior to the fire, but
documentation of those efforts was limited to what can be
characterized as passing comments. We have not been provided
with evidence of systematic efforts to assess the feasibility
of purchasing or constructing facilities elsewhere.
We understand that NOAA's consideration of the practicable
alternatives to the Newport site is in progress and scheduled
to be completed by May 28, 2010. Although NOAA had the
authority to define the scope of the practicable alternatives
as it saw fit, it limited its assessment to the four offers
that it received under the solicitation. However, considering
the range of options that were available to NOAA in
government-owned and government-leased space, a broader
examination may be warranted as part of this analysis.
According to NOAA, it is standard GSA practice for lease-
to-build leases not to include a termination clause in the
lease, and such a clause was not included in the Port of
Newport award. We understand that NOAA obtained a preliminary
estimate of potential lease termination costs from the
Department of Commerce Office of General Counsel. However, as
part of its decision-making process, NOAA should conduct a
rigorous analysis of the potential termination costs and
document the specific components of this estimate. As it
continues to evaluate its practicable alternatives, it would
be prudent for NOAA to minimize these potential costs to the
extent possible.
Whatever conclusion NOAA reaches, it should carefully
examine and document all pertinent factors, including those
that we have highlighted. In order for both of our offices to
be responsive to the Subcommittee, it is important to examine
these issues regarding NOAA's consideration of other federal
facilities. As we finalize our response to the Chairwoman and
Ranking Member, we will follow up with your office to
determine what additional information NOAA may have
identified.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.

{time} 1710

Mr. SCHRADER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHRADER. Frankly, I am not sure exactly where my friend from
Washington has gotten his facts. Let's be clear up front, if this
amendment was enacted, NOAA would face termination liabilities well in
excess of the $5 million or $10 million that my good colleague refers
to that would be in excess of $50 million, and their ability to conduct
the mission critical activities in the Pacific would be in serious
jeopardy.
NOAA would have neither the authority nor resources to contract for
alternate arrangements, putting in jeopardy the support of this fleet
of ships which gather critical data to produce navigational charts of
U.S. waters, survey fishery stocks, and maintain instruments which
support tsunami warnings, weather forecasts, and climate research. Let
me say again for the record very clearly here, after NOAA's current
lease is up in June, if this amendment were to pass, NOAA would have no
authority--zero, legal or otherwise--to mobilize its Pacific fleet. It
would be dead in the water.
There has been a lot of talk about process; but, frankly, this
process has been comprehensive, transparent, and legitimate. My friends
in Washington State have made sure that's the case. After a rigorous
competitive lease acquisition process that followed GAO guidelines,
NOAA was awarded a 20-year lease to Newport for the relocation of its
Pacific fleet in August of 2009, and it subsequently complied with the
IG report that was referred to and met the guidelines.
The facts are clear. NOAA made this decision based on merits, not
politics. Let's not have politics undo a good decision. Newport was a
superior choice for the taxpayers and the agency's mission in the
Pacific. It was the number one choice in cost, and it was the number
one choice in technical merit. In fact, the annual lease of the Newport
facilities will cost the Federal Government 50 percent less than the
three competing sites located in Washington State.
In fact, in 2006, the pier at NOAA's Lake Union, Seattle, facility
was destroyed by fire and was never even reconstructed by the host
city. On the other hand, the State of Oregon and the local community
have spent millions of dollars of their own dollars with no Federal
support to construct new facilities in Newport. Newport is actually
ahead of schedule and will be ready to hand over the keys to NOAA on
May 1 when NOAA's 20-year lease is set to commence. NOAA is
contractually obligated, Mr. Chair, to commence the 20-year lease in
May of this year.
The new facility in Newport brings costs, offsets, and advantages
that my good friend and colleague from Washington conveniently omits.
The closer proximity and transit time from the port to the ocean is
dramatic. Instead of 8 hours from Lake Union, they get to the ocean in
20 minutes. The new facility is right next to the Hatfield Center,
Oregon State University, for great research compatibility. And
importantly, the relocation of NOAA's Pacific fleet represents a huge
boost to a small rural Oregon coastal community with a great fishing
legend and tradition that will bring much-needed jobs and translate
into significant economic benefits. This is a David versus Goliath
opportunity.
Over the last 4 days, we've engaged in rigorous debate about the
fiscal health of our country. For my colleagues that are serious about
saving taxpayer dollars and reducing our deficit, you should join me in
opposing the McDermott amendment.
I yield the balance of my time to the good Representative from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I
appreciate his leadership. Because this is a process that he has been
stewarding, being a key congressional partner. I appreciate his
referencing what has happened here, dating back to August 2009.
This has been scrutinized. We are friendly rivals in the Pacific
Northwest. And it's a rare, rare, rare, rare occasion that any Federal
activity ever leaves the Evergreen State and ends up in Oregon, as my
good friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, can
attest because working with Senator Magnuson, he helped vacuum
functions into the State of Oregon.
So you can bet that this was flyspecked to the extreme, but the
advantages are overwhelming. The proximity, the technical effort, the
local investment has been amazing. So we've been pilloried on this.
It's been under a microscope, and we've reached the point now that it's
really past the point of no return. If this ill-advised--but I'm sure
well-intended--amendment would be adopted by my friend from Washington,
the Federal Government would be on the hook for more money; it would be
disruptive for NOAA; and, frankly, it would be a disservice to the
people who played fair, who went all along the way playing by the
rules, making the case.

[[Page H1268]]

I strongly urge rejection of this amendment.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chair, I have good friends, and I know they have
to defend their hometown as adequately as they want.
But let me read from the IG's report: ``In our view, the more
fundamental problems pertaining to NOAA's process prior to the
competitive lease process, a primary cause of these problems is
grounded in the fact that NOAA did not subject the MOC-P project to a
rigorous capital investment planning and oversight process. While the
Department has clear property policy, NOAA did not follow it. NOAA thus
proceeded with requirements for its desired option of consolidated
facility based on justification and consideration of alternatives that,
on the face and without additional documentation, are significantly
lacking. NOAA's financial analysis of the four offers submitted in
response to the solicitation did not assess the total cost to the
government, and NOAA provided no evidence that it had thoroughly
considered the operational and logistical implications of the
relocation.''
Now that's not two rivals from one State and another. This is the
Inspector General of the Commerce Department going down and looking at
the process. And the fact is that the CRS report, dated 30 September
2010, which I will submit for the Record, says that the Federal
Government is able to terminate its contracts for convenience. The
governmental interest is always higher than the commercial interest. So
the Federal Government can get out of this. They save $50 million. It's
not going to be $50 million because they still have the pier. They can
do whatever they want with it, but they do not have a contract with the
Federal Government for the next 20 years in a place that is very far
away.
NOAA has been in Seattle for 40 years. That's true. Whence it was
created, it was put there for a very good reason. I don't care if it
goes to Bellingham or it goes to Oregon or where it goes, but there
ought to be a transparent process.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McDERMOTT. 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 Washington
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 177 Offered by Mr. Herger

Mr. HERGER. 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 by the Secretary of Agriculture to implement or
enforce Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule (subpart B of
part 212 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations), relating
to the designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor
vehicle use, in any administrative unit of the National
Forest System.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

{time} 1720

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I'm offering this amendment after much
frustration and a lack of responsiveness from the Forest Service to
locally elected officials and the recreation community in northern
California and across the Nation. For a couple of years now, I and
northern California constituents I represent have tried many times to
work with the Forest Service on the 2005 Travel Management Rule. Yet we
have been completely ignored as the Forest Service presses ahead with
route designations that in some cases will eliminate more than 90
percent of the previous access.
Locally elected officials are now at the point of considering
litigation against the Forest Service to keep these federal lands open
to recreation. It is disgraceful that local counties would have to
spend valuable public funding to preserve access to our own national
forests. Not only are our counties forced to defend themselves against
well funded environmental activists trying to turn every acre of
federal land into some kind of sanctuary, but now also against the very
agency that is supposed to serve the public.
For these reasons, I believe it is necessary to impose a 7-month
timeout on designating these routes.
Chairman Simpson, ultimately, we want a workable solution, and I hope
to work with you and Chairman Hastings to ensure a more balanced
implementation of the Travel Management Rule.
I hope that my colleagues can support this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would stop a very careful
planning process that determines what routes off-road vehicles can use
through our national forests. Now over the past few decades, we know
that the availability and capability of off-road vehicles has increased
tremendously. That means more Americans are enjoying access to, and
recreational opportunities in, their national forests, but the
resulting proliferation of random routes results in severe impacts,
particularly on the quality of our water supply and the physical safety
of national forest visitors.
The national forests are spectacular lands. There are 193 million
national forest acres all over this Nation. Oftentimes, we take them
for granted and fail to realize that the national forests are the
headwaters for much of our Nation's surface waters. The clean, pure
water produced on a national forest is a national treasure and the
economic resource that supports industry and agriculture nationwide. In
fact, half of the American West gets their drinking water from national
forests, while in many rural communities, it is 100 percent.
The proliferation, though, of random trails created by off road
vehicles, increases erosion and pollution into water sources with no
possibility for mitigation by culverts or other measures that would be
available to land managers on designated routes.
This amendment is poorly considered. The amendment would stop a
reasonable, locally oriented planning process that has been going on
for 6 years to allow recreational access to our forests, but to do so
in a way that also protects the sustainable production of water,
timber, wildlife, and other natural resources.
The Forest Service has been called upon to designate which motorized
routes are appropriate in the eyes of inclusive groups of local
community leaders, with particular consideration to visitor safety and
the ability of the Forest Service to comply with its other mandates. It
is practically impossible to maintain trail conditions without
designated routes or to avoid accidents to hikers, damaged equipment,
or even visitors getting lost in the back country.
Route designation enables land managers to guide motorized users away
from sensitive wildlife habitats at appropriate times of the year,
helping to maintain quality herds.
In summary, the planning process that this amendment would repeal is
local, driven by longstanding productive partnerships among local,
State, and federal agencies; Indian tribes; and a diverse array of
commercial and noncommercial interests. Halting this planning process
would squander those investments and rebuke the sincere commitment it
reflects on the part of so many citizens to protect their public lands.
All who love and use our national forests should oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HERGER. I have to comment that really all we're doing is asking
for a 7-month timeout so that we--our local officials, our local
communities have not been counseled with, they have not been brought
into the process, and to have 90 percent in many areas declared off-
bounds is not reasonable.
I would like to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock).

[[Page H1269]]

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from California is absolutely right. These Travel
Management Rules are highly exclusionary. They severely limit the
public's access to the public's own land with devastating consequences
for the local economies of every mountain town that's affected.
As Butte County Supervisor Bill Connelly writes, ``the roads within
the National Forests are used by thousands of residents and visitors
for transportation and recreation. These activities generate revenue
for our rural communities which are critical for their survival.''
This is not a small matter. The Forest Service now controls 193
million acres within our Nation, a land area the size of Texas. In
recent years, the Forest Service has utterly reversed the vision of its
founder, Gifford Pinchot, ``to provide the greatest amount of good for
the greatest amount of people in the long run.'' Instead, we confront
an increasingly elitist and exclusionary attitude that is vividly
illustrated by the draconian restrictions in the forest travel
management plan. It bears far more resemblance to the public's
exclusion from the royal forests under King John than to an agency that
is supposed to encourage, welcome, facilitate, and maximize the
people's use of our national forests.
These amendments restore the inclusionary vision of Gifford Pinchot
by restoring the public's access to the public's land.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MORAN. I would yield those 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. And I rise in opposition to the
Herger amendment.
In 2001, the Forest Service finally admitted the obvious--the road
system through our national forests is far larger than it should be.
Though the Forest Service can't tell us for sure, the best estimate is
that the national forests are crisscrossed by more than 308,000 miles
of roads. That is eight times the length of the entire United States
interstate system. Forest roads could wrap around the Earth 15 times.
From 1975 to 1985, the Forest road system doubled. And that is just
the authorized roads. It is estimated that there are an additional
60,000 miles of user-created, illegal roads through the forests, cut
through sensitive areas just because it looked like fun.
The massive tangle of roads fragments the forest, destroying habitat,
increasing erosion, and decreasing water quality. And the problems get
worse each year as the Forest Service road maintenance budget falls
further and further behind. Real maintenance needs for this massive
road system just don't happen. The current backlog is estimated to be
$10 billion.
And do you want to know how we know it's really so bad? Because it
was the Bush administration that finally announced in 2001 that a
planning process for inventory of the road system to figure out how
many miles of roads it really needed, closing illegal roads, and
starting to work on a more efficient system, were needed.
The Herger amendment stops the Bush administration planning in its
tracks just as it is about to be completed. And I just believe that the
Members really should not take it upon themselves to end this 7-year
process that is going to finally bring some order to the Forest
Service. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Herger amendment.
Mr. HERGER. Again, we're not saying we shouldn't look at this, we
shouldn't examine it, we shouldn't have regulations. We should. Those
of us who live in these areas, we care about the environment more than
anyone does. That's not the question.
The question that is being presented and what we're asking for is,
since the Forest Service has not been consulting with local government,
they have not been consulting with the local communities, we are asking
for a 7-month timeout so that they can consult with us and then we can
continue to come up with a plan where we work together and not have,
again, an all-powerful government in Washington dictating and
preventing those that are local from being able to enjoy our own
recreation in our national forest.

{time} 1730

I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 323 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). 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 appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel of the Department of Agriculture to
provide benefits described in section 1001D(b)(1)(C) of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a(b)(1)(C)) to a
person or legal entity in excess of $250,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, no serious effort to reduce the Federal
Government is complete without addressing agricultural subsidies. Even
in time of record high farm prices and profits, we still gave $16
billion in subsidies last year.
There are no meaningful limits. They are easily evaded, doubled if
you are married. They don't cover loan deficiency payments or marketing
loans. This amendment would establish a hard limit of $250,000 per
entity.
In 2009, almost 1,500 entities got $250,000 or more. Something called
Fidelity National Insurance Titles, probably not a family farm, raked
in more than $4 million in 2009. For the past 15 years, Riceland Foods
in Arkansas has collected a half-billion dollars from the taxpayers.
I strongly urge that you join with me, Taxpayers for Common Sense,
the Environmental Working Group, Humane USA, a wide variety of groups
and organizations, to establish this limit, save $100 million this year
and more in the future, and start us on a path of reform that we can
realize in the upcoming farm bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to say about this and to my friend from
Oregon is, I believe we should put farm subsidies on the table. And
that's why in this bill we have included cuts to very popular
agriculture red state, if you will, programs, rural development, the
Farm Service Agencies, and the NRCS. All kinds of conservation programs
are cut in this. However, there are a number of traditional farm
programs that we are going to let the ag authorizing committee deal
with, because that's where they need to be dealt with.
So I want to say this. While I oppose the gentleman's amendment, I
don't oppose you seeking a reduction to the subsidies. But we believe
that this has to be dealt with in the farm bill. And I look forward to
working with you and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee on that
when it comes.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking
agriculture appropriations member, a champion of agriculture reform and
of agriculture, Congressman Farr.
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise reluctantly because Mr. Kingston and myself, I think, have a
great deal of respect for how we ought to be managing the future of
payments, and

[[Page H1270]]

I concur with his remarks. But I am rising in favor of the amendment
because I think we have to push the attention to how vital it is that
we reform this program, and I don't think you get that attention
without bringing this amendment to the floor and passing it.
It's going to be hard to implement in the next remaining months, as
so many of the amendments that we've adopted here in the last 3 days,
but I do think that it is worth the debate of how we focus on the rest
of the year. Because, frankly, we ought not to be just paying entities
in this country hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars because
they didn't get the price they wanted at the market.
I represent the biggest growing area, and we don't get any of these
payments. Not a single farmer. These are just a few entities, and it's
wrong. So we ought to adopt the amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It
is wrongheaded at this point in time, as my colleague from Georgia has
said.
The farm safety net is an integral series of compromises and changes
from 2002 to 2008 that the folks went through in order to come to that
agreement. To pull out one segment of that safety net, and in an ad hoc
manner without any testimony, without any references to what it might
do to the overall program, in my view, is wrongheaded. Next year is the
time to do this.
We will go through a rigorous debate across the section. The
conservation folks will be able to weigh in. All segments of the farm
safety net will be represented at the table during the farm bill debate
next year under the leadership of Chairman Lucas. That is the time in
order to do this.
We will have opportunities to do this work thoughtfully. There will
be trades and compromises that will have to be made because, in all
likelihood, we will have less money under the farm bill next year than
we had in 2008.
As an aside, if we could go back to 2008 levels, I'm sure most of our
agriculture guys would love to do that, since that is the mantra of the
Republican House this week, to go back to 2008 levels. We'll take that.
Throw us into the briar patch. But to do this today on an ad hoc,
pulling this element out and changing it in this manner, is wrongheaded
and I oppose it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and
colleague, Congressman Kind, who has been a tireless champion of
agricultural reform, coming as he does from farm country in the upper
Midwest.
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, and to my good friend from Texas, I hear what
you are saying. But I have been around here long enough to realize that
next year never comes. The next farm bill that addresses comprehensive
reform never happens.
I commend the gentleman from Oregon for offering this amendment and
trying to begin the process now, because I know how difficult it is.
In fact, earlier today I offered an amendment, a very straightforward
amendment, that would end a new American taxpayer subsidy program to
the tune of $150 million a year that is now going to Brazilian cotton
agribusinesses, and it was defeated on the floor. That just shows you
what we have gotten into with these outdated farm programs and the
institutional interests and the special interests that maintain the
status quo.
These large taxpayer subsidies going to a few very large
agribusinesses have got to end. They are not fiscally responsible, they
are not responsible to the American taxpayer, they are not helping
family farmers throughout the country, they are driving up land prices,
leading to greater consolidation of production in agriculture making it
very difficult for new beginning farmers to enter the occupation. From
the State of Wisconsin, where the average farmer's age today is 58
years old, that's a pretty serious topic for the new generation of
farmers taking over these farm operations.
This is difficult, I understand. There are built-in special interests
fighting reform and maintaining the status quo. But this also has to be
on the table when it comes to serious budget deficit reduction. It is
distorting the marketplace, and it's distorting trade policy. And there
will be more successful WTO challenges against our farm programs unless
we have the institutional will to change them.
I encourage support for my friend's amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to make
three points real quickly.
Number one, we have shown in this bill that we understand our mandate
is to reduce spending. We are going to take on ag subsidies.
Number two, we have already shown that in this bill with cuts to
rural development, Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
And, finally, we talk about next year? This is last year we are
debating. We are debating the year in which planting decisions have
already made.

{time} 1740

This is last year's budget we're still working on. That's why we
can't do this in the midseason.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close on this
amendment?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has the right to close.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I have one more speaker,
and we will close with him.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, I have listened to the language about damaging
the farm safety net. There is a massive farm safety net in place. We're
just reducing the safety net to a mere quarter million dollars a year.
My friend, Mr. Kind, is absolutely right. Tomorrow never comes here.
I've been on the floor of the House when the House instructed the
conferees to accept this exact limit. We were rolled by the Ag
Committee and ignored.
This is an opportunity for us to not deal with the savings that
you're taking away from nutrition and from the environmental titles.
Talk about the safety net. What about your cuts to WIC?
For heaven's sakes. A hundred million dollars savings to the
taxpayer. Get started on reform now and join in a bipartisan effort.
I've been pleased to work with Congressman Flake, Congressman Kind,
Congressman Ryan. Year after year we have brought these issues to the
floor and been rolled. Now is the time to start by adopting it and
changing the system.
Mr. KINGSTON. I just want to say that the ag section of this bill
cuts $5.2 billion. Three to four of those billions comes straight from
production agriculture, not from school nutrition and other socially
sensitive programs.
I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Why are we making policy decisions in an appropriations bill? This
amendment changes current law. This is a decision that needs to be made
in the context of the next new farm bill. We'll consider the farm bill
next year in an open and transparent manner. We have a committee
process that can review the merits of any proposal and all proposals.
And they'll be debated and they'll be considered and allowed for the
Members to offer their opinions and cast their votes.
In fact, if you look at the 2008 farm bill under Chairman Peterson's
leadership, we made significant reforms. Yes, cuts in the areas,
lowering the overall payment caps significantly. But I guess the
opponents of farm programs will not be satisfied with that until every
last marketing tool has been eliminated.
I know it is a popular parlor game in some circles to see how far you
can jerk farmers around, but making these changes midstream in a 5-year
farm bill is disruptive to market decisions that producers have made in
some cases years ago. All farmers and ranchers want certainty. They
plan to work under current law.
Plain and simple, the author of this amendment wants to change
agricultural policy, and this debate does not belong in this bill.
And I would remind my friends, we today, this week, are a part of a
bold,

[[Page H1271]]

new, open legislative process. Maybe that's not how you did it in the
past, but when we do this farm bill, it will be done in committee and
on the floor in the same open way we're doing this.
Let the process run its course. Let us work our way through this open
process when it should be done in the next farm bill next year. Is that
so much to ask?
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. 408 Offered by Mr. Clyburn

Mr. CLYBURN. 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) Of the funds made available by this Act for
each of the following accounts or activities, 10 percent
shall be allocated for assistance in persistent poverty
counties:
(1) ``Department of Agriculture, Rural Development
Programs''.
(2) ``Department of Commerce, Economic Development
Administration, Economic Development Assistance Programs''.
(3) ``Department of Commerce, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Construction''.
(4) ``Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of
Education''.
(5) ``Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education''.
(6) ``Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Training and Employment Services''.
(7) ``Department of Health and Human Services, Health
Resources and Services Administration''.
(8) ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Economic
Development Initiative''.
(9) ``Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs''.
(10) ``Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal
Assistance Grants, Water and Wastewater''.
(11) ``Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Transportation Community and System
Preservation''.
(12) ``Department of the Treasury, Community Development
Financial Institutions''.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``persistent
poverty counties'' means any county that has had 20 percent
or more of its population living in poverty over the past 30
years, as measured by the 1990, 2000, and 2010 decennial
censuses.
(c) Not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, each department or agency listed in
subsection (a) shall submit to Congress a progress report on
the implementation of this section.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey reserves a point of
order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment, and I
have called it the 10-20-30 amendment. It deals with what we call
``persistent poverty counties''--those places in America that have
experienced a poverty rate of at least 20 percent for the last 30
years.
My amendment requires that at least 10 percent of the funds in
certain accounts be directed to counties where 20 percent or more of
their citizens have languished below the Federal poverty level for the
last 30 years; hence, the 10-20-30 approach.
Mr. Chairman, approximately 15 percent of all counties in America
qualify as persistent poverty counties. These counties are diverse and
spread across the country, including Appalachian communities in
Kentucky and West Virginia, Native American communities in South Dakota
and Alaska, Latino communities in Arizona and New Mexico, African
American communities in North and South Carolina. They are urban
communities in Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, and St. Louis.
Democrats represent 149 of these counties, with a total population of
8.7 million. Republicans represent 311 of these counties, with a total
population of 8.3 million. Fourteen of these counties, with a total
population of 5.3 million, are split between Democrats and Republicans.
A total of 43 Democrats and 84 Republicans represent all or a part of
these counties, and 35 of our 50 States have at least one persistent
poverty county. Fifteen of South Carolina's 46 counties qualify for
this ignoble recognition, and I happen to represent seven of those
counties.
This is not a red State or a blue State issue. That's why on this map
beside me the persistent poverty counties are colored in purple. There
is no political affiliation for poverty. Poverty has never been limited
to race, region, or creed.
These counties do not have the resources to hire sophisticated, high-
powered grant writers and lobbyists to help compete for the finite
amount of dollars that should be available to them.
In today's New York Times, there is a front-page story which I would
ask everybody to read. It is entitled, ``For Much of Rural America,
Broadband is a Dividing Line.''
Mr. Chairman, I was particularly struck by the words of Mrs. Sharon
Jones, a small logging company owner in Coffeeville, Alabama. Listen to
her words. ``We are trying to pull ourselves into the 21st century.''
Mrs. Jones says, ``I don't think the rest of the world understands
there is a piece of the world here that is really challenged.''
Her business, her customers, and her neighbors are the reasons we
included the 10-20-30 amendment in the Recovery Act in the Rural
Development section of the Agriculture title, and it is working well.
The formula allowed many persistent poverty counties to benefit from
the Recovery Act, and they do not otherwise receive funds. Projects
like these are crucial to meeting the basic needs of the community and
laying the groundwork for future success.

{time} 1750

This amendment builds on that success, and I hope to work with my
Republican colleagues to have it included in the final version of H.R.
1.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make one comment. I wanted to
thank Mr. Clyburn for raising this issue, and I wanted to thank Mr.
Rehberg for agreeing to work with him.
Out of the 28 counties that I represent in southern Missouri, 14 of
those 28 are persistent poverty counties. And the gentleman is
absolutely correct when he says that for a lot of those communities it
is very, very difficult to find the means by which you can get people
to help write grants for you, for example, and other things. So I think
this is an important issue on which we can all work together. I am so
pleased Mr. Clyburn raised it, and I really just wanted to thank Mr.
Rehberg for his generosity in working with us.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, and therefore it
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rules states, in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment imposes additional duties.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair finds that this amendment includes
language imparting direction. The amendment therefore constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment No. 566 offered by Mr. Boren

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

[[Page H1272]]

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 require a person licensed under section 923 of title
18, United States Code, to report information to the
Department of Justice regarding the sale of multiple rifles
or shotguns to the same person.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this bipartisan
amendment with Congressman Rehberg of Montana, my colleague and a
fellow member of the House Second Amendment Task Force.
I am proud to report that two important groups have endorsed this
amendment, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting
Sports Foundation. Our amendment would prohibit the ATF from using any
funds in this act to collect information from federally licensed
firearms retailers about multiple rifle sales.
Last December, ATF published an emergency request in the Federal
Register. It asked the Office of Management and Budget for the power to
collect information from firearms retailers on all sales of two or more
semi-automatic rifles within five consecutive business days. This would
include many of today's most popular rifles used by millions of
Americans for self-defense, hunting, and other lawful purposes.
ATF officials have said this information collection would apply only
to licensed firearms retailers in certain States--Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona and California. However, ATF's request published in the Federal
Register does not mention a geographic limitation. This means we have
to take the ATF at its word. I have heard numerous concerns about this
ATF request from fellow Oklahomans, including sportsmen, gun owners,
and responsible firearms retailers alike.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose granting ATF this information-
collecting authority for three reasons: first, it would subject
responsible firearms sellers who are often small business owners to
burdensome reporting requirements. Second, ATF would catalog records on
Americans who purchase rifles, thereby compromising their privacy. And,
finally, ATF lacks legal authority to collect this information. The Gun
Control Act of 1968 requires Federal firearms dealers to report
multiple sales of handguns.
What I'd like to do at this time is yield to my colleague and friend
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) for any comments he might have.
Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Boren. And I thank the chairman for
allowing this opportunity.
It's one of those situations where you'd like to believe the
administration is not trying to creep into an area that is not
necessarily something they would try and slip by anyone. But when you
talk about gun control, we get very serious about the Constitution and
the creeping of various rules and regulations in areas that Congress
has specifically stayed out of, didn't want us to be involved in. And
so there is always that lingering thought in the back of your mind
like, what's going on here?
Now I don't tend to believe that I would be a scary individual, but
if I were living in one of those four States, I would be in this
category of having purchased two long rifles because I happened to buy
a hunting rifle for myself and my son, who was of age. For Christmas I
went out and bought two, and it throws me into that category. I would
like to think I'm not considered a gun runner for a Mexican cartel or
something like that, but that's the effect of a regulation like this.
And so I hope that we will seriously consider this not necessary.
We took the action that created regulation on handguns, we understand
that. But when it comes to a long rifle--we're talking hunting rifles,
we're talking about other types of rifles that are out there--this
doesn't really make sense. So I really thank Mr. Boren for taking the
lead on this amendment. It's really important to those of us who are
active firearm users.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 1\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma and his colleague and
my colleague from Montana.
Let me say first and foremost that this was a request having to do
with the four States on the southwest border. It would not have
involved our great friend from Montana in his purchase of rifles. This
was limited to long guns that would have detachable clips. Multiple
purchases would have been required to be notified. So if someone went
to buy 1,000 AK-47 assault weapons and semi-automatic clips that were
detachable, they would have to be reported.
Now, this reporting requirement already exists for pistols or for
handguns. There was a request made, OMB denied it, wanted to get a
series of public comments. So there was no rush on the administration's
behalf to rush this through under the cover of some emergency order.
It's been out for public comment. And I think that is a reasonable
thing to think about whether or not we would want to have a
notification to our government if someone was buying large quantities
of assault weapons, especially along the border, which many, many of
our colleagues have told us about being a place of significant danger
related to organized crime to the south of our sovereign Nation.
So this is a request that's been made. It's been met, however, with
this amendment. And I think we all know the result of what might happen
here in the House regarding this. I hope that we're prepared to live
with the consequences of whatever votes we might cast in this matter.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting rifles or guns used in
sporting activity. This has to do with long guns with detachable clips
used for only one purpose, and that is, shooting large numbers of
rounds and killing large numbers of people. So we should be clear about
it; it's a request that's been made. It's been noticed on the public
record for comment by the administration. It relates only to these four
States. It is modeled after a regulation that already exists now for
handguns. So I know that some may get paranoid about these issues, but
I think we should have at least some paranoia about what this could
portend if we don't take reasonable action in the protection of the
citizens that we've been elected to protect.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

{time} 1800

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania has the right to close.
Ms. CHU. Thirty thousand.
That's how many people were violently slaughtered by the Mexican drug
cartels in just 4 short years. One of them was Bobby Salcedo, an
American citizen and rising star from my district. He was kidnapped and
murdered last year with a semiautomatic rifle.
I oppose this amendment because it makes it harder to stop these
types of violent acts. This amendment will prevent the tracing of bulk
sales of the military-style rifles, popular with cartels, that have
resulted in tragic murders like Bobby's. Last year, the U.S. military
announced that, if the drug war continues, it could cause the Mexican
Government to collapse, and the cartel war could spread over the border
into the U.S. This amendment makes the drug war worse.
Every day, people are dying from this war, even American citizens. We
must stop it, and we can by opposing this amendment.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FATTAH. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. I don't know if anybody has noticed what has gone on

[[Page H1273]]

in Mexico recently. The previous speaker just spoke of the drug wars
that are going on. It's a known fact that much of the equipment that's
used to carry on those wars comes from the United States and is
smuggled into Mexico.
This is a very sane and necessary attempt to slow down the
availability of high-caliber, high-capacity automatic weapons that are
smuggled into Mexico. It makes no sense not to know what's going on,
because this is dramatically affecting the border States and American
citizens who happen to be in Mexico.
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this amendment is very
simple. It prevents the ATF from imposing burdensome reporting
requirements on responsible firearms retailers; it protects the privacy
and Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens; and it ensures
that the ATF will not circumvent the will of Congress.
Again, I remind my colleagues that this amendment carries the full
support of the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting
Sports Foundation.
I urge adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, 48 hours ago, two officials of the United
States Government, ICE agents, were attacked. They were in an armed
vehicle which was traveling south of the border. One of those agents
died. The assault weapons used in this incident, like tens of thousands
of them that have found their way into Mexico, have crossed the border
through these legal purchases.
This is about notification to the Department of Justice. It doesn't
stop the sale. It notifies the DOJ that large amounts of these guns
have been purchased. I think it's a reasonable thing. I leave it to my
colleagues to make a reasonable judgment about this amendment.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This amendment serves no legitimate purpose and would only compromise
our national security and put more Americans in harm's way.
By barring the use of Federal funds to mandate Federal firearms
dealers to report the sale of multiple long guns such as semiautomatic
assault rifles, this amendment would undermine the Obama
Administration's efforts to combat cross-border illegal gun
trafficking.
We must do everything we can to secure the border, strengthen our
anti-gun-trafficking efforts, and help the Mexican Government fight the
drug cartels.
The Mexican drug cartels are killing people at a staggering rate--
more than 30,000 since 2006. And long guns are widely known as the
cartels' weapon of choice.
Some may shrug their shoulders and conclude this is just another
problem beyond our reach. That would be a mistake.
The drug cartels are getting their guns from the United States.
Since 2006, the ATF has seized more than 10,000 firearms and nearly
one million rounds of ammunition destined for Mexico, where the public
is not allowed to purchase or possess guns.
Authorities in Mexico say most of the guns used in police
assassinations and cartel bloodshed originate in the United States and
have pressed the U.S. to reduce the flow of weapons south.
And this isn't just a border state problem. The impact of this
trafficking is felt in my hometown of Chicago.
According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug
trafficking organizations have infiltrated small and large cities in 48
U.S. States, affecting our national security.
For example, Mexican drug cartels have a significant presence in
Chicago, which Federal officials say is a key transfer point for drugs
heading to Minnesota and points north and east.
Last year, eleven alleged drug traffickers with connections to the
Sinaloa Cartel were indicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in
Chicago as part of ``Project Deliverance,''--a multi-state and agency
effort to disrupt the flow of drugs and guns across the border.
The drug cartel's violent war for control, which is fueled by illegal
trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico, seriously impacts our public
safety.
The ATF's proposal to compel federal firearms dealers to report the
sale of multiple long guns is not about gun control or compiling a
registry of long gun owners.
This is a law enforcement response to the evidence from successful
tracings of weapons recovered in Mexico.
Recent tracings show that a large number of these weapons were first
sold by a licensed gun dealer in California, Arizona, New Mexico, or
Texas.
This amendment would undermine law enforcement's capacity to combat
illegal gun trafficking and put Americans at even greater risk of gun
violence.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. FATTAH. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REHBERG. 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. 145 Offered by Mr. Forbes

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to take any action to effect or implement the
disestablishment, closure, or realignment of the United
States Joint Forces Command.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. FORBES. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me start off by saying that this is an amendment
that the Congressional Budget Office has said is cost neutral, so we
are not talking about revenue coming in or going out. The second thing
about this amendment is that it is not dispositive--it doesn't
ultimately make a decision. The third thing is that this is an
amendment that is supported, not only by the chairman of the House
Armed Services Committee, but by every single subcommittee chairman of
the House Armed Services Committee.
So what does it do?
It simply states that, before we turn out the lights on the men and
women who, without question, have the most expertise and experience and
who have had the legal authority to assemble the teams to fight our
wars and to respond to our national emergencies, we are going to know
who will replace them.
Any time this Nation faces a crisis, there are two observations that
always emerge. First, we realize how ineffective our government
agencies are in assembling cross-agency teams to respond to that
crisis. Second, we realize how good our military is at putting those
teams together.
One of the reasons for our military's success is that, for over a
decade, whether we go to war or defend our homeland, the military does
it as a team. They can bring together a Coast Guard cutter, Army
Special Ops units, a marine expeditionary unit, an Air Force squadron,
a Navy carrier group, Reserve units, and when needed, even allied
partners in a combined response that we call ``jointness.''
It is a competitive advantage for which no nation in the world can
rival us; yet, as hard as it is to believe, it is an advantage we did
not have just 20 years ago.
One of the reasons we have that advantage is that, for over a decade,
a single group has had the legal authority to bring those teams
together, and that was the Joint Forces Command. They have assembled
the majority of our forces in Iraq, a majority in Afghanistan; they've
had control of over 80 percent of our continental U.S.-based combat-
ready conventional forces; and they've assembled our military teams for
our national disasters.
On August 9, 2010, the Secretary of Defense announced he was closing
that command allegedly to save money; but the next day, when the
Pentagon briefers came, they were asked by the House Armed Services
staff one question: How much money will you save?
Their answer was, ``Not a clue.'' We don't have a clue.
For days, weeks, months, Members have been asking how much this is
going to save and who is going to be able to put teams together when
this

[[Page H1274]]

command is gone. The Pentagon's response has been deafeningly silent.
It is not because they are bad people; it's just because they don't
know the answer.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply says the answers to those
questions are too important for us not to wait until September 30,
which is all this amendment does, to give our committees and this body
the chance to get the answers and to make sure we do not go back 20
years.
If there is any Member in this room who can answer even the most
basic core question presented by this closure, which is who will
ultimately have the legal authority and expertise to put together the
teams we need to fight our wars and respond to our crises, then you can
vote with good conscience against this amendment; but you cannot,
because nobody at the Pentagon can answer that question either.
Mr. Chairman, this Nation deserves a better answer than ``we don't
have a clue,'' and this amendment gives them a chance to find that
answer.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. The amendment would prohibit the use of funds to take any
action to dis-establish the Joint Forces Command. In FY 2010, Secretary
of Defense Gates recommended dis-establishing the Joint Forces Command,
and included this as part of his efficiencies initiatives in the fiscal
year 2012 budget request.
On January 6, 2011, President Obama issued an official memorandum
accepting the recommendations of Secretary Gates and of chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, and approved dis-establishment of
Joint Forces Command.
The Department of Defense expects to save at least $240 million
annually by dis-establishing the command. The chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff retains responsibility for promoting joint operations
and essential functions. The resources needed to perform these
functions will be assigned to other organizations in Hampton Roads and
the Navy support activity in Norfolk, Virginia. All told, DOD estimates
that about 50 percent of the current level of effort will remain in the
Norfolk, Virginia area.
We've been through so many rounds of BRAC. I can sympathize with the
gentleman from Virginia, and I understand his concerns about this.

{time} 1810

But, you know, your side is taking the position that we have to
reduce spending on some of the most sensitive programs that we have in
our government.
I happen to have chaired the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee just
for a brief time but was a member of the committee for 32 years, and I
am now the ranking Democratic member. We went through this budget very,
very carefully this year, Mr. Young and I did, and we came up with $15
billion of cuts.
We have to give some respect to the Secretary of Defense, who, in
fact, was a Republican and serving in this administration. Some of
these things I know are painful and it affects your community. I have
had that problem over the years myself. But just like the alternate
engine, sometimes we have to make these hard decisions.
The Secretary of Defense, I think in this case, deserves the benefit
of the doubt. I think the Virginia delegation is totally correct in
asking for substantiation for what they are doing and why they are
doing it.
But, you know, Joint Forces Command is--I have been there and visited
there. The responsibility is to assign forces to various contingencies.
You know, we only have so many forces, so we do look at all the plans
there are. There is going to be this fleet or this division or this
going here, there and everywhere, depending on what the scenario is. So
I think the Chairman, Mike Mullen, and the Joint Chiefs can do that
just as well as having a separate command.
And, again, I say we have to make some hard decisions. We are cutting
the heart out of the domestic programs of this country and defense has
to give something up here. If you look at the various commands, this
one makes as much sense. And the Secretary of Defense has made the
decision. It is supported by the top members of the joint staff and,
for that reason, I regretfully have to object and oppose the amendment.
Mr. FORBES. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. FORBES. I would ask the gentleman if all this amendment does is
give us until September 30 to answer those questions. All the leases
are in effect. They can't be changed until that period of time, so we
are not talking about cost. But this is the question I would ask the
gentleman:
You mentioned that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had the authority to be
that joint provider and to allocate those troops. But I would ask the
gentlemen if, in fact, they do have that authority, because Goldwater-
Nichols and the reauthorization act expressly prohibited them from
being able to do that. And so I would ask the gentleman if it doesn't
make sense, at least before we cut out the lights, regardless of the
ultimate decision you make, to make absolutely sure we know who is
going to be able to have that authority before we make that final
decision.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's point.
As I have been told, there has been an effort to try and keep 50
percent of the people and the activities in your area in Virginia, and
that's one of the most important defense areas the country has.
So I think you guys are working hard, and I think that the Department
is responding as best they can, but, again, I think we should reject
the amendment and let this thing work out as the Department has
recommended.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FORBES. May I inquire how much time I have left, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FORBES. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my colleague from Virginia.
This amendment would give Congress time to conduct oversight over the
decision to close Joint Forces Command pure and simple, and
specifically it would allow us to determine how the closure could
impact national security.
In August, it was announced by the Pentagon that JFCOM would be
disestablished, but there was no transparency in that decision.
Congress was not informed, and Congress asked multiple times for the
analysis that was done that led to the decision to close JFCOM without
getting that information.
This leads me to believe that a thorough and detailed analysis into
the JFCOM decision was never conducted. It leads me also to believe
that in 5 years the Pentagon will be asking Congress to set up a
mechanism to ensure jointness among our services.
Capabilities exist under JFCOM that are vital to our national
security and paramount to our success in the current wars the military
is fighting. Without that analysis, we cannot know whether we are
casting away years of joint experience that will be crucial to the
future defense of this Nation.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
Congressman from the Second District of Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
Mr. RIGELL. I thank my good friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Forbes Joint Forces
Command Amendment. The establishment of a combatant command requires a
literal act of Congress. It follows, then, that the closure of a
combatant command should involve thoughtful analysis that is shared
with this body for comment. The closure of Joint Forces Command fails
on that important count. Either no such analysis has been conducted or
it is being withheld.
Mr. Chairman, the absence of data that supports the closure of a
combatant command is simply unacceptable. Accordingly, this cost
neutral amendment delays its closure.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of
the Forbes Joint Forces Command amendment.

[[Page H1275]]

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 146 Offered by Mr. Forbes

Mr. FORBES. 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 division A of
this Act for Department of Defense, Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide may be used for official
representation purposes, as defined by Department of Defense
Instruction 7250.13, dated June 30, 2009.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, since 2006 the taxpayers have entrusted the
Department of Defense with over $2.5 trillion, and the law has required
that the Department of Defense make sure that they allow the taxpayers
to know where that money is being spent by providing audited financial
statements. Yet in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee,
it was established recently that no such audited financial statements
were filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010, and that none would be filed
this year.
Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Defense testified that compliance with
the law was, in fact, a priority and that they had had a plan at the
Department of Defense. But when you put up the Web site just 2 days ago
from the Department of Defense, it showed very clearly that the plan
that they had 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 said that they would have
completely filed clean audited statements by 2010.
They were only 100 percent off, because according to the testimony
right now, the records at the Department of Defense are so bad that
less than 5 percent of all of the monies given to the Department of
Defense are in an audit-ready position.
So, Mr. Chairman, we have heard some draconian efforts to try to get
them into compliance. This is no such effort.
What this simply does is to recognize that we give $2 million in the
funds set forth in this amendment that are basically party funds. They
are funds for dinners. They are funds for entertainment. They are funds
that have no impact directly on our warfighter. And what this amendment
simply does is to take away those funds, Mr. Chairman.
And our thought is that if we take away those funds until we have
compliance with those audited financial statements that the taxpayers
deserve, we will give a strong incentive to make sure that we get that
compliance and we are not 100 percent off.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. This amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense
from spending any funds--any--for official representation due to a lack
of auditable financial statements.
Now, I completely agree with the gentleman on the point that we need
to get them to do this. I just think this approach is not the way to do
it.
If authorizers could set a timeframe in statute--and that's the way
to do it--without cutting out these funds when they are entertaining
people from other countries around the world. I just think it's one of
those things that sounds good, but it's going to have unintended
consequences.

{time} 1820

Auditable financial statements have long been a goal of the
Department of Defense. The committee has long pressed DOD to improve
the quality of its financial management, and will continue that effort
in the coming year. However, eliminating official representation funds
is not connected to that goal. And limiting these funds would have
damaging consequences.
The amendment would preclude activities associated with hosting
military to military contacts, both domestically and overseas. The
activity extends official courtesies to guests of the United States and
the Department of Defense, and upholds the prestige and standing of the
United States. The amendment would also harm the military services'
ability to conduct community relations activities.
The amendment hurts DOD's ability to represent itself to foreign
Nations and to the communities in which DOD activities are located. And
it does so with very little payback. The bill before the House cuts
over $15 billion on a bipartisan basis from the Defense Department
budget on careful analysis of DOD programs. The approach in this bill
yields both a higher payback and does not have the drawback of
unintended consequences.
Therefore, I urge rejection of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I rise
in support of efforts to highlight the need for the Department of
Defense to become audit ready.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense was instructed by Congress to
provide taxpayers with audited financial statements for the first time
in the 1990s. Now it's 2011, more than 20 years later, and we are still
talking about the same issue while our country faces a grave economic
downturn.
As a CPA, I understand the painfully difficult process that will go
into auditing the largest enterprise on the face of the Earth. But as
General Petraeus told us last year, hard is not impossible. The
American people made a very clear statement last November that they're
ready for their government to get its fiscal house in order. The
Department of Defense cannot continue to get a pass on this issue. We
cannot allow the status quo practices to hinder our ability to provide
for the finest military the world has ever known.
This challenging goal will require buy-in from the top down, and it
begins with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We call on him for
sound leadership to exercise fiscal responsibility. I will continue to
press Defense officials across the river to get their fiscal house in
order. We must not be having this conversation two decades from now.
Support this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, my good friend mentioned that we need to
put something in regulations or statutes to make the Department of
Defense comply. We have done that. They have had it in statute. The law
requires that they do it, and we have had it in there, and they have
just failed to do it 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and they won't do it this
year. And they admit that they are not a bit closer.
The second thing is, we mentioned unintended consequences. There are
no unintended consequences with this amendment. We intend the
consequences. You got to stop the partying until you do what the
taxpayers are entitled to have required by the law, and that is just
account for where the money is going. We can't determine how much we're
going to spend on defense if we don't know where those dollars are
going.
I hope we will adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. 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 Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 333 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise made available by this Act
for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program is hereby reduced by
75 percent.

[[Page H1276]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I just want to begin with a map of Arizona,
showing all of the colored areas of Arizona that are actually Federal
property, over half of the State. My amendment deals with PILT and
Federal payments to places like Arizona, which is on a continuing
welfare system of government spending and has been for many, many
decades.
Let me now show you the State of Ohio, where there are proposals that
the Community Development Block Grant funds in the base bill are being
cut. This is Ohio. We don't have much Federal property. We hardly have
anything at all related to federal government. Ohioans have to make it
in the free market. And yet what's happening in the bill is that more
money is going to pay out for PILT than for places like I represent in
the Midwest, where unemployment is so high. The bill actually cuts
Community Development Block Grant dollars for cities and towns across
this country to the tune of $2.95 billion. And yet, the base bill
continues these PILT payments, which are really welfare payments to the
West.
If this Congress is serious about cutting spending, we need to
address some of the fundamental challenges contained in what I call
megamarks. These aren't earmarks; these are big megamarks that benefit
certain regions of the country at the expense of others.
Just to give you a sense of this, these subsidies have existed for
generations. It's time that the West stood on its own two feet. These
subsidies cannot be afforded by the other parts of the country that
don't have that kind of Federal largesse. If we're going to have
sacrifice in this legislation, then it needs to be shared. We need to
reduce the payments in lieu of taxes called PILT by 75 percent. That's
just the administrative costs that we're reducing. What's good for the
cities of Toledo and Detroit, Boise, Dallas, Charlotte, Salt Lake City,
and Reno is really good for the Western subsidized communities as well.
PILT is mandatory spending just like farm subsidies, and outside our
annual appropriation bill's spending recommendations. My amendment
targets the administration of those funds. Let me just put a couple
figures on the record, and then I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
my dear friend, the ranking member, Mr. Moran.
For the PILT subsidy, the West has received over the last 10 years.
Let's look at Arizona. Arizona has gotten an increase from $10.3
million in 1999 to $31.6 million in fiscal year 2009. Idaho has gone up
three times, from $8.3 million to $26.4 million. Montana from $9.8
million to over $28 million. Nevada from $7.1 million to in excess of
$23 million. New Mexico more than tripled from $11 million to over $37
million. And Texas has leapt from $1.3 million to $4.3 million. Utah
from $9.7 million to over $33 million. And Wyoming, which has fewer
people than the District of Columbia, which is going to lose funds
under the Community Development Block Grant program, 10 years ago
received $8 million annually, and now Wyoming will receive over $25
million. Come now. For empty property where the Federal resource is
already located there and can serve as an economic engine?
To begin with, you can pivot so much development off of that federal
presence. You can do economic development off of tourism. You can use
those lands to attract investors who like to drill on those lands, and
improve those lands. You can attract economic development around what I
would call Federal encampments. My goodness, it's really amazing what
can be accomplished with some creativity and vision.
You know how much my district gets for our thousands of acres of
Federal wildlife refuges? Are you ready? $180. Yes. One hundred and
eighty dollars compared to billions and billions and billions going out
in these permanent PILT subsidies.
And you know what? PILT doesn't even begin to account for what the
West gets for oil and gas leasing subsidies, livestock grazing, timber
harvesting. I think one of the reasons our Midwestern taxpayers are
feeling the tax load so heavily is some other parts of the country are
really being lifted up by the federal government, and they don't even
appreciate what they have.
For my colleagues, if you want to send the American people a message
that you are serious about cutting spending, the place to begin is by
cutting the administrative fees of PILT.

TOTAL STATE PAYMENT RESULTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
State payment payment payment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................... $685,234 $605,410 $0
Alaska....................... 25,674,111 24,905,298 0
Arizona...................... 31,662,123 27,823,593 0
Arkansas..................... 3,917,683 4,463,032 0
California................... 34,397,858 36,766,468 0
Colorado..................... 28,660,622 24,267,593 0
Connecticut.................. 28,131 28,773 0
Delaware..................... 17,354 17,750 0
District of Columbia......... 24,631 25,087 0
Florida...................... 4,600,719 4,525,156 0
Georgia...................... 2,397,205 1,938,517 0
Guam......................... 2,185 2,235 0
Hawaii....................... 323,801 326,064 0
Idaho........................ 26,434,457 25,281,177 0
Illinois..................... 1,058,185 1,099,777 0
Indiana...................... 641,040 412,560 0
Iowa......................... 434,023 450,820 0
Kansas....................... 1,074,017 1,099,185 0
Kentucky..................... 2,245,050 1,480,359 0
Louisiana.................... 528,877 546,772 0
Maine........................ 326,618 295,510 0
Maryland..................... 99,913 103,643 0
Massachusetts................ 99,809 100,986 0
Michigan..................... 4,336,151 3,830,742 0
Minnesota.................... 2,736,684 2,538,098 0
Mississippi.................. 1,469,166 1,488,198 0
Missouri..................... 2,760,923 2,695,274 0
Montana...................... 28,060,662 23,513,338 0
Nebraska..................... 1,106,017 980,520 0
Nevada....................... 23,269,350 22,753,204 0
New Hampshire................ 1,686,757 1,726,820 0
New Jersey................... 94,439 96,597 0
New Mexico................... 37,013,334 32,205,935 0
New York..................... 139,400 122,706 0
North Carolina............... 4,047,121 3,858,283 0
North Dakota................. 1,392,092 1,367,945 0
Ohio......................... 730,179 485,605 0
Oklahoma..................... 2,539,173 2,582,013 0
Oregon....................... 14,963,789 12,651,531 0
Pennsylvania................. 514,117 527,493 0
Puerto Rico.................. 20,893 9,983 0
Rhode Island................. 0 0 0
South Carolina............... 382,647 388,740 0
South Dakota................. 4,263,660 4,778,507 0
Tennessee.................... 2,409,845 1,615,385 0
Texas........................ 4,348,915 4,501,553 0
Utah......................... 33,063,034 34,265,151 0
Vermont...................... 879,257 896,432 0
Virgin Islands............... 37,575 33,171 0
Virginia..................... 3,809,111 2,532,009 0
Washington................... 10,771,272 12,821,358 0
West Virginia................ 2,551,988 2,799,356 0
Wisconsin.................... 1,355,170 741,498 0
Wyoming...................... 25,561,575 22,705,431 0
------------------------------------------
Total.................... 381,647,942 358,078,641 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a message amendment. We love our
colleagues who represent the Western States, but many of them,
particularly on the other side, don't seem to show much love for the
Federal Government they represent. The payment in lieu of taxes program
was created to compensate counties for lost taxes, since Federal lands
don't pay taxes. That's fair. Western States with lots of Federal lands
get most of the payments. That's fair.

{time} 1830

But while the counties don't get any taxes from Federal lands, they
don't have to provide services on those lands either. In fact the
opposite occurs. The national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests
and BLM lands and the staffs of all these provide very valuable
services and substantial revenue and jobs to the western counties, and
the public lands provide ecosystems that are worth billions.
Without clean water and open space, imagine. You wouldn't have the
communities, the agriculture, that we seem to take for granted. In
fact, the States get fully half the mineral receipts that come from the
coal, oil and gas that is owned by the Federal taxpayer. The gentlelady
makes a very important point that is worthy of consideration.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this is such a bad amendment. It's one of
the few amendments I've ever seen that actually leaves me speechless,
so I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the map you see in front of you is
not the coverage area for Verizon. Everything that is red on this map
is land that is owned by the Federal Government. One in every 3 acres
in America is owned by the Federal Government and as you can clearly
see it is disproportionate here in the West.

[[Page H1277]]

This of course is the gentlewoman from Ohio's region. This is my
district. And until such time as my district resembles her district, in
the ability of us to control our future and our resources, payment in
lieu of taxes is not welfare to the West, it is simply rent on the land
that you control; until such time as the Secretary of the Interior's
decision--which the Inspector General said was capricious and
arbitrary--does not destroy 3,000 jobs in a county with only 31,000
inhabitants; until such time as $1.9 billion in investment leaves the
West to go to the East where there are fewer regulations; until such
time as somebody from the East who comes to frolic in the public lands
of the West and consumes the entire county's search and rescue budget
in 1 day, until that is changed, PILT is not welfare, it is rent on the
land you control.
I want you to look carefully at this map. See where the red is. Then
I also want you to look at this particular map. States in red are the
States that have the hardest time funding their education system. That
is the slowest growth in education. I hope you realize there is a
similarity between the two particular maps. Because the bottom line is,
individuals in the West pay more in State and Federal taxes than in the
East. There are more kids in the West. We have larger class sizes in
the West. Our education system has a harder time to fund itself in the
West because this map prohibits us from developing our property taxes,
developing our energy royalties, developing high-paying jobs with
income taxes, so kids are hurt in the West. This map and this situation
means that kids are underfunded.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Kids in the West, their education is underfunded,
their teacher salaries are depressed, and my retirement is threatened
because of this particular situation. When this changes, there will be
no more need for PILT. But until that time comes, this is not welfare;
this is rent on the land you control. To be honest, we'd rather have
the land back, but until that time, pay for what you control.
Mr. SIMPSON. Is the gentlewoman's time expired?
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio has expired.
Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady from Ohio may actually
have stumbled upon something, and if she's ready to actually help us,
so a State like Arizona, we can actually own our land, great. But until
that time, you've got to understand, only 18 percent of our State is
privately owned. Tribal lands, Federal lands, BLM lands, other
government lands. Are we ready to start paying the full property tax
load? I was the county treasurer in Maricopa County and huge portions
of our county, we can't even touch. If you want a sense of fairness,
then we step up and we give the land back to the State. Until that
time, this borders on silly.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. There are over 20 million
acres of Federal land in Colorado. I want to be clear with, of course,
great respect to my colleague from Ohio. This is not in any way, shape
or form a giveaway to our counties. This is land we cannot tax, we
cannot develop, we cannot benefit from. In fact, PILT payments are
insufficient. They're too low to compensate for the burden of having
all this land that's not part of our local tax base. It is a burden. In
fact many of our counties have to actually spend money maintaining this
land because some of the Federal infrastructure isn't sufficient as
well. There is nobody who's making out like a bandit from this and it's
all we can do to justify the fact that the Federal Government owns a
lot of land.
Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to yield--I think I just have 30
seconds left; is that correct?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 1 minute left.
Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I want to thank the chairman for yielding.
I have to remind my good friend from Ohio that as the West was
settled, it was people from Ohio and Virginia and the Midwest that were
making these laws that created most of the western States to be 80
percent, 70 percent, 90 percent Federal lands.
In order for us to be able to have somewhat of a tax base because of
the limited private property we have, we need to ask the Federal
Government to pay its share. You cannot in many cases develop
economically these lands because people from the East prohibit us from
developing these public lands. I just want to throw that out as a
reminder.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I just want to rise in very strong opposition. Being a
westerner, I have counties in my district that receive these payments.
I think it's justified. I appreciate the fact that the new majority has
tried to protect these payments. It's very important in the West.
Mr. SIMPSON. Let me just conclude by saying I have one county that's
96 percent Federally owned. Ninety-six percent. That means 4 percent of
the property is taxable in order to provide the services for all of you
that come out and enjoy the beauty in the county.
Do you think PILT payments are appropriate? I think they are and I
would hope that we overwhelmingly reject this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. 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 Ohio will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Polis

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to maintain an end strength level of members of the
Armed Forces of the United States assigned to permanent duty
in Europe in excess of 35,000 members and end strength levels
for active duty members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force of
565,275, 328,250, and 329,275, respectively, and the amounts
otherwise provided by this Act for ``Military Personnel,
Army'', ``Military Personnel, Navy'' and ``Military
Personnel, Air Force'' in title I of division A are hereby
reduced by $155,914,688, $18,047,700, and $118,488,825,
respectively.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, we all share the goal of reducing the
deficit. If we are serious about deficit reduction, we need to look at
defense as one of the line items. My amendment would save hundreds of
millions of dollars by reducing our troop count in Europe. Instead of
having over 80,000 troops in Europe where they are no longer needed, we
would reduce the amount of troops in Europe to 35,000. This would allow
the Department of Defense to save money by closing bases in Europe that
don't have any strategic rationale. Deploying our troops out of Europe
and closing these bases is an excellent way to help reduce expenditures
and save money.
My amendment would only cut 7,500 troops which would save $278
million. An additional 35,000 troops would be available for deployment
to actual theaters where we have a strategic interest. So it would
enhance our preparedness at the same time as saving money.

{time} 1840

This step would save $278 million and improve our national security.

[[Page H1278]]

Reducing our troop levels would save money, personnel costs, housing
expenses and the cost of stationing troops abroad. On top of these
savings, my amendment will allow us to close bases across Europe that,
quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, are relics of a bygone era. Rather than
fighting the demons of the past, we need to focus on the very real
threats of the present and the future. We are no longer in a battle
with the Nazis. We are no longer in a battle with the Soviets. The need
for these bases was understandable in a different geopolitical context.
But what is their justification now? The U.S. taxpayer did not sign
up to defend wealthy European democracies from imaginary threats
forever. These bases cost U.S. taxpayers millions and millions of
dollars. I fail to understand why we're wasting money to maintain bases
where they aren't needed. Our European Allies are some of the richest
countries in the world. Why are we subsidizing their defense spending?
Our European allies have enjoyed a free ride on the American dime for
years now. Today, they spend on average only 2 percent of GDP on
defense, while we spend between 4 and 5 percent.
There's no reason for us to subsidize European defense while every
other aspect of our government we are looking at for cuts.
I understand that many of the troops stationed in Europe have in the
past been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. My amendment is consistent
with that. Currently 13,000 troops stationed in Germany and Iraq are
deployed in our theaters of operation. My amendment would allow for
that to continue. It allows for 35,000 troops, well within the number
that are currently deployed in actual theaters where we have a
strategic interest.
Nor does my amendment signal any kind of weakening of our commitment
to NATO. With modern technology, we can move troops and weapons quickly
across the globe when needed. My amendment would still allow for 35,000
troops to remain in Europe so they can do joint exercises with NATO. It
is time for us to rethink our defense spending. We are not under threat
in Europe. Maintaining a network of bases in Europe is not a rational
or effective response to the terrorist threat, nor is it fiscally
responsible.
These cuts are not my idea. They are based on recommendations from
the Sustainable Defense Task Force, a bipartisan project organized by
Congressman Frank, Congressman Paul, Congressman Jones, and Senator
Wyden and backed by a number of credible organizations, CATO Institute,
Taxpayers for Common Sense, Center for American Progress, Center for
Defense Information, National Security Network and others.
Even Donald Rumsfeld believes it is time to change our policy. This
is his quote from his recent book: ``Of the quarter million troops
deployed abroad in 2011, more than 100,000 were in Europe, the vast
majority stationed in Germany to fend off an invasion by a Soviet Union
that no longer existed. I believed our troops had to do more than serve
as security blankets for wealthy allied nations.''
When even Donald Rumsfeld admits that this policy doesn't make sense
and isn't cost justified, we must seriously reconsider our policy
maintaining bases in regions that are clearly peaceful and pose no
threat.
Let's get serious about balancing the budget and find savings in
every agency, including DOD. Reducing our military presence in Europe
is low-hanging fruit. This will save money. The time is now. The time
was last year. The time was 3 years ago. After the fall of the Soviet
Union, there fails to be a strategic rationale to maintain our current
troop levels or expenditure levels in the European theater.
My amendment will save taxpayer money and improve military
preparedness for conflicts in zones where America has a strategic
imperative to fight the global war on terrorism. I urge a ``yes'' vote
on the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TURNER. The gentleman from Colorado says that there is no
strategic rationale for these troops; but, in fact, there is no
strategic rationale for this amendment. This amendment is completely
arbitrary in the cuts that are proposed, and there is no basis for
these levels of cuts that are proposed.
In fact, the strategic rationale is for the support of our troops
that are currently serving in Europe. Secretary Gates just Wednesday
appeared before the Armed Services Committee; and while he was there,
he testified that it is the presence of our military on the ground in
Europe and other places that assures our allies and provides a
deterrent effect to would-be aggressors.
These troops are not just staring down a past Soviet Union. They are,
in fact, providing wartime support currently. They are also providing
an effective deterrent both for our allies and for the United States.
This amendment would reduce the Army by more than 5,000, the Navy by
more than 500 and the Air Force by more than 5,000 from programmed end-
strength levels for fiscal year 2011. These are planned troop
deployments and presence. This is not something that was done 10 years
ago.
The limits on this end strength would damage wartime operational
capability. To reduce manpower halfway through the fiscal year would
likely require the abrupt involuntary separation of many
servicemembers, sending the message, thank you for your service, but
now please leave. These troops are actively providing protection both
to our allies and to the United States and play a vital role in what is
wartime operational capability.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I rise in opposition to this amendment. Secretary Gates has worked
out a reduction in the troop force that will occur later in the FYDP. I
think under the circumstances with the troops in Afghanistan, we are
bringing in troops out of Iraq. And one of the things that is very
important about our European bases is we train with the Europeans. We
work with the Europeans. When the flights come out of Iraq or
Afghanistan with wounded troops, they come back to Landstuhl in Germany
where the troops are taken care of in the hospital. There is a long-
term relationship with NATO that is very critically important.
And just to do this off the back of the hand, I understand the
gentleman has some other advisers on this amendment; I wouldn't exactly
be touting Donald Rumsfeld myself. But anyway, I hope that we can
defeat this amendment and let the Secretary of Defense and the joint
chiefs make the decision in bringing down our troop forces. And I
really do believe Europe is still important to the United States.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. TURNER. Thank you. Although the gentleman from Colorado
referenced I think what is an accurate quote to Donald Rumsfeld, I
think that he, too, would have serious concerns about this amendment
and its immediate effects.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned that the troops are an
effective deterrent. I would simply ask, who are we deterring from
attacking Germany and Italy?
Might I inquire as to how much time remains on either side.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 30 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. POLIS. Since he didn't want to answer on my time, I will be happy
to yield my 20 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio, and again, who are
we deterring from attacking Italy and Germany?
Mr. TURNER. I think it's important for us to understand who might
attack us. And this is not an issue of these troops being a relic.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, again, the gentleman cited that they
would be a deterrent, so I was just trying to clarify who we were
attempting to deter.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER. I think it's important for us to continue to honor our
obligations to our allies and also to protect our country. Secretary
Gates just as recently as this week on Wednesday reaffirmed the need
for these troops so that we can continue to support our allies and the
United States.

[[Page H1279]]

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

Amendment No. 498 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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 division B of
this Act may be used to develop, carry out, implement, or
otherwise enforce proposed regulations published June 18,
2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 34,667) by the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement of the Department of the
Interior.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would stop the
Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation
and Enforcement from going forward with a proposed revision to the
stream buffer rule that could, according to the Obama administration's
own analysis, eliminate up to 29,000 coal industry and industry-related
jobs, cut coal mining production by 50 percent, and increase the cost
of electricity for families and businesses.
In December 2008, OSM issued a clarification of the stream buffer
zone rules after a 5-year process that included 40,000 public comments,
two proposed rules, and 5,000 pages of environmental analysis from five
different agencies.
The final rule clarified and codified coal surface mining practices
that had been in effect for over 30 years, but an entry in the Federal
Registry from June 2009 shows that early in the first days of the Obama
administration, the decision was made to reopen the carefully crafted
and properly vetted stream buffer zone rule. The proposed sweeping
regulatory action would radically alter the definition of a stream as
well as how the agency measures material damage outside of the permit
area. To date, the agency has provided no studies, no data or support
to justify these radical changes.

{time} 1850

Given the complete lack of justification, analysis, or rationale for
these proposed changes, it can be said that this is a political
decision and not one based on science or fact, and this flies in the
face of the administration's pledge to base rulemaking decisions on
science and not on political factors.
Furthermore, several States have expressed serious concerns about the
need and justification for the proposal. Mr. Chairman, the unemployment
rate in my home State of Ohio is 9.6 percent. In parts of eastern and
southeastern Ohio that I represent, we have double-digit unemployment.
The average unemployment in the 12 counties I represent is 10.9
percent. There are entire communities that depend largely on the coal
industry, both for direct and indirect jobs, and these jobs would be
threatened by this proposed rules change.
To be clear, my amendment does not stop the issuance of permits nor
does it prevent OSM, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the EPA from
their regulatory responsibilities. My amendment would simply prohibit
any funding to be spent on developing, carrying out, or implementing
this ill-conceived proposed job-killing rule.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment to stop the
Obama administration from going forward with a regulation that will
result in thousands of hardworking Americans losing their jobs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment stops the Interior Department
from protecting nearby streams and rivers from the toxic disposal of
coal mine waste. So let me give you the top seven reasons why this
amendment should be defeated.
One, it will allow for the continued destruction of America's forests
and native vegetation contrary to the statutory requirement to protect
that vegetation.
Two, it will interfere with the new requirement for the Clean Water
Act and Surface Mining Act, preventing the updating of regulations
based upon the best science available.
Three, it will perpetuate the uncertainties that citizens and
industry and State regulators are currently experiencing under outdated
regulations.
Four, it will continue to allow the worst of the coal mine operators
to destroy and pollute America's streams and, by doing so, gain a
competitive advantage over the responsible operators.
Five, it will deny the State regulatory officials the ability to
issue permits that would withstand legal challenge.
Six, it will prevent the gathering of information needed to predict
adverse impacts to land and water resources.
And seven, it will prevent the completion of the National
Environmental Policy Act process which provides valuable information to
enable an informed decision to be made as to the best alternatives to
protect society and the environment while helping to meet America's
energy needs.
So that's why I would oppose the Johnson amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Thank you for yielding, and I appreciate the
gentleman offering this much-needed amendment.
Almost immediately after taking office, Mr. Chairman, the
administration put a bull's-eye on Appalachian coal from every angle,
including from the OSM. As a representative of Appalachian Kentucky,
like Ohio where the gentleman is from, we're losing thousands of jobs
because of these policies. And now, by its own admission, the OSM and
the U.S. Department of the Interior are placing 7,000 mining jobs
across the country on the chopping block, representing 9 percent of the
industry, by reopening the long-settled stream protection rule.
And so I congratulate the gentleman for bringing this to our
attention with this amendment. A report that was leaked by OSM
indicates amending this rule will cause coal production to drop
drastically or remain stagnant in 22 States. So it comes as no surprise
to me that officials from Kentucky, West Virginia, Utah, Wisconsin,
Texas, and others have blasted this proposal as nonsensical and
difficult to follow.
Mr. Johnson has the right idea with this amendment, which would
prohibit OSM from moving forward with this rule during this fiscal
year. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to take this opportunity to remind, the rule was
reclarified in a 5-year process that ended back in 2008, and now the
current administration wants to reopen that rule and redo it completely
in just a matter of months, with no science, no data to support it and
no justification. And I would remind my colleague that the only reason,
the number one reason for passing this amendment is for the up to
29,000 jobs that it is potentially going to save.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MORAN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi) who worked in the Interior Department on this very issue and
is quite expert on it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I'm from California so forgive me, but I
also was the Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior in the
mid-nineties, and we set up a program

[[Page H1280]]

called the Appalachia Clean Streams Program to deal precisely with the
issues that have risen over the years from the pollution and
contamination from the various coal mines, including mountaintop
removal. This effort underway by the Department is to deal with the
ongoing problem. The continuing problem, mountaintop removal in mining,
does contaminate and does destroy streams.
I could not believe the clarity of the water in the streams when I
visited West Virginia. They would make the swimming pools in Los
Angeles envious. Nothing was alive, nothing at all, because of the
contamination from the mines. I just ask for the opportunity to go
ahead.
Mr. MORAN. I very much appreciate the insight from the gentleman from
California.
At this point, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to Mr. Yarmuth of
Kentucky.
Mr. YARMUTH. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would essentially destroy efforts to put
an end to the damage that is wrought by mountaintop removal.
Now, many of my colleagues who are not familiar with mountaintop
removal, what happens is you take mountains that look like this, and
then you turn them into this. This is what happens. And the consequence
of doing that, you blow off the top of these beautiful mountains. You
push all of the stuff that you've blown up into the valleys that
surround it, poisoning streams, poisoning the people who live nearby,
poisoning the water supply that feeds much of Appalachia. This is
damage that is irreversible. It will never be like this again because
nothing grows here.
Now, I know a lot of people try to justify mountaintop removal by
saying this is an economic boon for the region. In fact, since
mountaintop removal became a prevalent practice, mining jobs have
actually declined by more than 50 percent. This is not good for the
people of Kentucky and Appalachia. It's not good for the economy, and
it's certainly not good for the environment.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have numerous efforts now in Federal
Government finally trying to put an end to this destructive, immoral
practice. Many in my State gathered in Frankfort just last week to
protest what's happening here, to our State, to our children, and to
our economy. We can do much better. The last thing we need to do right
now is to say to our country and to the people of Appalachia, we're not
going to try to preserve these beautiful mountains that God gave us.
This is a tipping point in our history.

{time} 1900

Generations from now our grandchildren will ask if we don't stop this
practice now, if we don't give the government the resources, they will
say: How could you let this become this?
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. 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 Ohio will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 583 Offered by Mr. Reed

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

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 change any rate of salary or basic pay pursuant to
section 1113 of Public Law 111-32.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that
addresses pay for foreign service officers. It will ensure that the
expected 24 percent pay raise does not go into effect in fiscal year
2011.
It is my understanding that we have an agreement between the majority
and minority on this issue.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Matheson

Mr. MATHESON. 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 appropriated by this Act may be
used for the Community Connect broadband grant program
administered by the Rural Utilities Service of the Department
of Agriculture.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment would eliminate funding for the community connect
broadband grant program which is administered by the Department of
Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service.
Now, eliminating this program would save over $13.4 million. This is
endorsed by Citizens Against Government Waste.
Look. We're all for broadband development, and we're all for rural
broadband development. It turns out there are a lot of different
Federal programs that try to do this. This is one in particular that
does not have a good history. In fact, in 2005 and in 2009, Inspector
General reports have raised questions about this specific grant
program. And that is why I have raised this issue today.
As I said, I think as a supporter of rural broadband development, I
want to see programs that work and are effective. This one has some
serious questions about it. And that is the substance of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 496 Offered by Mr. Matheson

Mr. MATHESON. 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 total amount of appropriations made available
by this Act (other than for the Departments of Defense and
Homeland Security) is hereby reduced by $600,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment addresses issues of nonessential travel by Federal
employees that are not involved in the Department of Defense or
Homeland Security.
Simply stated, the amendment says that appropriations made available
by this act are hereby reduced by $600 million for all departments
except for the Department of Homeland Security and Department of
Defense.
I originally was going to do an amendment that specifically talked
about reducing nonessential travel. I was concerned about a point of
order. So this amendment does not specifically mention nonessential
travel. However, based on advice of the fiscal commission, the travel
cuts could be proposed. And both Democrats and Republicans on the
fiscal commission thought that this was a productive area to look for
savings.
I decided to structure this amendment in a way that would not be
subject to a point of order. But its intent is to reduce nonessential
travel by Federal employees in departments outside of the Department of
Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
That is a description of my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H1281]]

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we in this bill made it a point
of being very careful about the cuts to the DOD and Homeland Security.
We think it's the reasonable approach that's in the base bill. We do
not need this type of a heavy, deep cut in the defense of the country
here and abroad.
So I oppose the amendment.
Mr. MATHESON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. MATHESON. My amendment affects departments other than Defense and
Homeland Security. It's only for nonessential employees in other
Federal departments outside of those two.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Is this an across-the-board cut of the other
agencies?
Mr. MATHESON. It's a goal across all of the other departments, all of
the other appropriations areas, except Defense and Homeland Security
are excluded.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. But it's across the board?
Mr. MATHESON. That is correct.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I'm in strong opposition to across-the-board
cuts. We were elected to make choices. And on this bill we've made our
choices, and we think we've done a fairly decent job of spreading the
pain across the board.
But to have an across-the-board cut would mean putting our
decisionmaking on automatic pilot, refusing to make decisions. And
that's what we were elected to do.
So I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATHESON. I don't want to prolong this debate. I just want to
point out, absent concerns of a point of order I would have
prescriptively said this is specific to do with nonessential travel of
Federal employees.
Due to concerns about a point of order, we structured this amendment
where it says this is a cut of $600 million. However, the intent and
hopefully the report language when folks in these agencies look at the
debate that's taking place right here on the House floor is that it's
addressing nonessential travel.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 274 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers

Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay any employee, contractor, or grantee of the
Internal Revenue Service to implement or enforce the
provisions of, or amendments made by, Public Laws 111-148 and
111-152.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of
order.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.

{time} 1910

Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and
complements the amendments offered earlier by my friends, Congressman
Rehberg and Congresswoman Emerson. This amendment prevents the IRS from
using any funds in fiscal year 2011 to pay any employee, contractor, or
grantee to enforce the individual mandate, employer mandate, or any
other part of the Health Care Reform Act, including tax increases.
It didn't take long for the IRS to move in after passage of the
Health Care Reform Act to enforce all of these new tax provisions.
Indoor tanning services saw taxes rise by 10 percent within 5 months of
the bill's enactment. This year, brand name drug manufacturers will see
their taxes go up. Next year, it's medical devices. And the list goes
on. Yet, 2 weeks ago there was a glimmer of hope. Federal District
Judge Roger Vinson became the second Federal judge to declare the
health care law unconstitutional. But we know these rulings are not
enough to keep the administration from moving forward with its takeover
of our health care system. In fact, the headlines the day after Judge
Vinson's decision read: ``White House: We won't compromise on the
individual mandates.''
Just this week, the administration proposed to increase the IRS
budget by 9 percent and expects to hire more than 5,100 employees to
get the job done. In making its request, the IRS explained that the
``tax changes associated with the health care reform are huge.
Implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 presents a major
challenge to the IRS. ACA (The Health Care Reform Act) represents the
largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years, with more than 40
provisions that amend the tax laws.''
Mr. Chairman, we've been forced to enter into a new era in our health
care system, and it's one that is driven by the IRS. The Congressional
Budget Office predicted last year that the IRS will need to hire 15,000
new employees and will need at least $10 billion in order to meet its
responsibilities under the act. This is not what Americans expect or
deserve. The only way to keep the IRS from intruding into our health
care system is to take away its funding. This amendment is a step by
prohibiting any funds from being used to hire anyone to enact this bill
as we move forward.
I urge my colleagues to support individuals and families and our
Nation's small businesses by supporting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in
the budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under
section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5 of the 112th Congress which
states, ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a
general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget
authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment
or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget
authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI. The amendment proposes a
net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such
section.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Washington.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, my colleague alleges that my
amendment would create a net increase in budget authority in the bill,
thus giving rise to the point of order. I respectfully disagree for the
following reasons:
Number one, the challenged provision in this point of order relates
to the IRS's ability to ensure small business owners do not take
advantage of the limited tax credit that currently exists. This tax
credit is already in place. The IRS is already supposedly enforcing
this provision. So I do not agree with the conclusion that this
amendment, which simply limits the IRS from hiring more employees,
would allow abuse of the tax credit.
Number two, I would remind my colleagues that last session, during
our consideration of YouCut, CBO indicated that over the next 10 years
the IRS will require between----
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object. I don't think the gentlelady is
addressing the point of order. She is reiterating the argument.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would like to hear further remarks from
the gentlewoman from Washington on this point of order.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Number two, CBO has indicated that over the next 10 years the IRS
will require between $5 and $10 billion in funding to implement this
law.
Number three, just last week the IRS said it will need at least 1,054
new employees and new facilities at a cost of

[[Page H1282]]

more than $359 million in fiscal year 2012. Eighty-one workers will be
responsible for ensuring that tanning salons pay a new 10 percent
excise tax that went into effect in 2010 and is enforceable in 2011;
total cost, $11.5 million.
Mr. Chairman, with the points raised above and the established
savings, it is clear that the offsets are not needed and my amendment
is in order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York makes a point of order
that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington violates
section 3(j) (3) of House Resolution 5. Section 3(j)(3) establishes a
point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget
authority in the pending bill.
The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the Chair
of the Committee on Budget that the amendment proposes a net increase
in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order is
sustained and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment No. 467 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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 develop, promulgate, evaluate, implement, provide
oversight to, or backstop total maximum daily loads or
watershed implementation plans for the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
For the past 2 years, we've seen the administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency take overzealous action in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed, with the potential to dramatically affect
jobs, the economy, and local government budgets throughout the six-
State region.
The EPA has proposed arbitrary limits on the amounts of nutrients
that can enter the Chesapeake Bay and how these nutrients enter the
bay. At the same time, the EPA is seeking to expand their regulatory
authority by seizing authority granted to the States and converting the
bay's cleanup effort into a process that is a top-down approach with
mandatory regulations.
These overzealous regulations will affect everyone who lives, works,
and farms in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and the cost of complying
with these requirements will be devastating during our current economic
downturn, resulting in many billions of dollars in economic losses to
States, cities, towns, farms and other businesses, large and small.
The EPA's approach is far from the best approach to restore the
Chesapeake Bay. I believe that each individual State and the localities
in each State know better how to manage the State's water quality goals
than the bureaucrats at the EPA.
I'm sure that there are some who wonder why what is happening in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed is important to their district. While EPA's
unprecedented actions are starting in the Chesapeake Bay, they are
coming to a watershed in your region of the country in your State. The
EPA has stated in the document ``A Coming Together for Clean Water:
EPA's Strategy for Achieving Clean Water'' that ``The EPA will use the
Chesapeake Bay as a demonstration for strengthening total maximum daily
load pollution-reduction plans. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed will be a
model for watershed protection in other parts of the country.''
It is important that we in Congress tell the EPA to slow down. The
EPA does not have the authority to micromanage States' water quality
goals, and we must stop their power gap.
I want to be clear, we all agree more must be done to restore the
bay, and this is not meant to cut off the good work that is happening
in the bay watershed. We have made substantial investments to clean up
the bay. This amendment will not stop work that is going on in the
States or the voluntary programs managed by Federal agencies that work
with those on the ground to restore water quality. What this amendment
will do is stop the EPA's regulatory power grab. It will stop the EPA
from taking over responsibilities that have traditionally been left to
the States.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing
this amendment forward. I think it's very worthwhile and I support him,
and I appreciate him bringing the amendment forward.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, 6 weeks ago, the Environmental Protection
Agency, six States, including Mr. Goodlatte's own State of Virginia and
the District of Columbia, ended years of stalling and released detailed
plans to reduce Chesapeake Bay pollution to meet minimal water quality
standards over the next 15 years. Meeting those science-based and
legally required goals is going to require a significant and sometimes
costly effort from all the citizens, towns, cities and States that are
part of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
This year's Chesapeake Bay Foundation State of the Bay Report
suggests that recent pollution-cutting measures are in fact beginning
to show results.

{time} 1920

We've seen increased crab and oyster populations and an increase in
underwater grasses. The bay is coming back to life. The agreed-upon,
negotiated, detailed, multistate plans have the potential to finally
restore the Chesapeake Bay if everyone does his part.
The amendment, though, would block any Federal agency's ability to
work with the States in meeting pollution reduction targets for the
entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. If we don't meet this obligation, the
farmers, municipalities, and businesses in all the States will be
economically harmed.
If this amendment were to pass, it would not relieve the farms,
businesses, and municipalities from their requirements in the court
ordered settlement, but it would turn the pollution limits into an
unfunded mandate since it would also block any Federal agency from
providing technical and Federal assistance to bring farms, businesses,
and municipalities into compliance with pollution reduction goals.
Clearly, this amendment is designed to and will unravel the current
effort to finally put a limit on nutrient and sediment pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay. Agriculture accounts for 42 percent of today's
nitrogen, 46 percent of today's phosphorus, and 72 percent of the
sediment entering the Chesapeake Bay.
This amendment would break up the existing Federal, State, local, and
private partnership by prohibiting any Federal financial assistance to
farmers, municipalities, and businesses that are working to improve the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would set aside the tremendous progress
this Congress has made in restoring the bay.
The pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is also a jobs killer for the
citizens in its watershed. If this amendment passes, it will ultimately
result in a loss of thousands of fishing, crabbing and tourism jobs.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to retreat on our
commitment to restore this great estuary nor to kill the thousands of
jobs that their survival depends upon. So I urge my colleagues to
reject this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the chairman of the Conservation Subcommittee, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman from
Virginia's amendment.

[[Page H1283]]

The Total Maximum Daily Load is a mandatory diet to restrict nutrient
and sediment runoff from point and nonpoint sources in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. EPA's proposed regulations will have a devastating
economic impact on my constituents and throughout Pennsylvania.
Unquestionably, the bay is in need and is truly worthy of our support,
but this is just one more example of how EPA is trying to bypass
congressional authority through backdoor regulations and unfunded
mandates.
EPA has based the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs on its own model even though
it is inconsistent with the models prepared by the Department of
Agriculture. The head of USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service
has recently gone so far as to say EPA's data on conservation practice
is erroneous. Agriculture is not receiving the credit it deserves
towards reducing nutrient and sediment runoff; yet EPA is forcing the
bay States to move forward on unreasonable mandates, using the agency's
flawed bay model. EPA will not even perform an economic analysis of the
TMDL when the proposed unquestionability will have severe economic
impacts on our Nation's farmers and rural communities.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote in its
favor.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on
both sides?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MORAN. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my
colleague that would prohibit the use of funds made available by this
bill to ``develop, promulgate, evaluate, implement, provide oversight
to, or backstop total maximum daily loads or watershed implementation
plans for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.'' In essence, the amendment
would prohibit the EPA from spending any funds on the Chesapeake Bay
total maximum daily load initiative in order to monitor and oversee
pollution reduction into the Bay. It would result in rolling back the
progress we have made on pollution reduction and restoring the
Chesapeake over the decade. It would negatively impact not only the
physical landscape of the Bay, but also the economic import and success
of the Bay. And it would unfairly place the financial burden of
reducing pollution squarely on the Chesapeake Bay states.
The Chesapeake Bay is North America's largest and most productive
estuary, with thousands of tributaries and 64,000 square miles of
watershed that includes six states and the District of Columbia. The
Bay supports more than 3,600 species of plants, fish and animals, is
home to 29 species of waterfowl, and is a major resting ground along
the Atlantic Migratory Bird Flyway. In addition, the Chesapeake is a
commercial and recreational resource for the more than 15 million
people who live in its basin, as well as visitors and tourists. Taking
care of the Chesapeake Bay is vital to the environment and the economy,
for recreation and natural resources, and for wildlife and the way of
life in the Bay area. We use the Bay for recreation, agriculture,
industry and navigation.
Just to give you a sense of the economic importance of the Bay, the
2008 Fisheries Economics of the U.S. report by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration indicated that commercial seafood industry
in Maryland and Virginia contributed $2 billion in sales, $1 billion in
income, and more than 41,000 jobs to the local economy. The economic
benefits of saltwater recreational fishing contributed $1.6 billion in
sales which in turn contributed to more than $800 million of additional
economic activity and roughly 13,000 jobs. The majority of this is from
the Chesapeake Bay.
When we don't expend efforts to care for the Bay, that also has an
economic impact. For example, in the area of commercial and
recreational fisheries, the blue crab population continues to be
threatened by poor water quality. When the broader impact on
restaurants, crab processors, wholesalers, grocers, and watermen is
added up, the decline of crabs in the Bay meant a cumulative loss to
Maryland and Virginia of about $640 million between 1998 and 2006.
Similarly, Oyster populations are threatened due to a combination of
overharvesting, disease, and poor water quality. The decline of the Bay
oyster over the last 30 years has meant a loss of more than $4 billion
for Maryland and Virginia. In the area of public health, one study
estimated the cost associated with exposure to polluted recreational
marine waters to be $37 per gastrointestinal illness, $38 per ear
ailment, and $27 per eye ailment due to lost wages and medical care.
And with regard to clean water specifically, an EPA study indicated
that clean water can increase the value of single family homes up to
4,000 feet from the water's edge by up to 25%. Perhaps most important,
an EPA study of drinking water source protection efforts concluded that
for every $1 spent on source water protection, an average of $27 is
saved in water treatment costs.
Unfortunately, deterioration of the Bay and how to best address the
problem has been a concern for more than two decades. When I served in
the Virginia House of Delegates, I was part of a joint Virginia-
Maryland legislative task force that first recommended the creation of
a multi-state commission to address Bay issues. We filed a report in
1980 which recommended ``the need for improved coordination of Bay-wide
management to meet the long-term needs of the people of both Maryland
and Virginia.''
We have made great strides since then with the combined efforts of
the federal government, state and local governments in the watershed,
the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, EPA, and
all of their private partners over the last two decades. But we are far
from done.
One of the most significant challenges facing the Bay today is
pollution from wastewater treatment plants, development,
transportation, stormwater runoff and runoff from agricultural lands.
Prohibiting this funding would have a major impact on the water quality
throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed states. It would significantly
restrict efforts to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff as well as
monitoring and oversight of these efforts, all necessary to help
protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
The amendment is opposed by the Nature Conservancy, League of
Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, National Audubon
Society, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, National Wildlife Refuge
Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ocean Conservancy,
Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Alaska Wilderness
League, American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Center for
Biological Diversity, Center for Native Ecosystems, Center for Plant
Conservation, Clean Water Action, Conservation Lands Foundation,
Conservation Northwest, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice,
Earthworks, Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America,
Environmental Working Group, Geos Institute, Marine Conservation
Biology Institute, Marine Fish Conservation Network, Oceana, Oregon
Wild, Population Action International, Southwest Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, The Wilderness Society, Trust for Public
Land, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund, and Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
For the foregoing reasons, I oppose the amendment and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay is a natural and
national treasure. It is the largest estuary in the United States of
America.
The health of the Chesapeake Bay is under constant assault from all
sources of pollution: urban runoff, farm runoff, storm water runoff. We
have been working for years and years, in fact decades, to try and
clean up the bay, and it has been like running in place because, every
time we take action, more pollution flows into the bay.
That's why, under the Obama administration, they've taken important
action to try and finally get ahead of the curve and restore the health
of the bay. Will Baker, who is the President of the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, described the approach of the Obama administration as
something that may well represent the bay's best and last chance for
restoration. As Mr. Moran pointed out, if we don't do that, the
watermen, the sports fishermen, and the tourist industry will be badly
hurt.
I'm not sure that the gentleman from Virginia, who introduced this
amendment, recognizes the impact it might have on farmers, because none
of the funds in this act, including from EPA and the Department of
Agriculture, may be used for a number of purposes, including watershed
implementation plans for the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

[[Page H1284]]

Now, we spoke to USDA's general counsel. Their office told us that
this could well deprive farmers of some of their valuable agricultural
conservation funds. The last I checked, Maryland received in fiscal
year 2009 $28 million. In the State of Virginia, the farmers received
about $16 million to help them with their conservation efforts because,
as good stewards of the land, they have been part of the team effort to
protect the Chesapeake Bay.
As Mr. Moran said, if you take these funds away, you are denying them
some of the tools they have effectively used. So this won't only hurt
the watermen and the sports fishermen; it is also going to hurt the
farmers; and collectively it is going to hurt the largest estuary in
the United States.
Let's work to save the bay, not undermine its health.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to
make two points.
First of all, the gentleman from Virginia is quite correct. The
Chesapeake Bay is getting healthier, and that's a very, very good
thing, all of which is happening as a result of the voluntary,
incentivized, State-controlled regulation of this process. None of it
has occurred under this TMDL provision that the gentleman from Maryland
referred to, because of the fact that it is only now being imposed on
farmers. They are very concerned about it, as are small cities and
towns, as are homebuilders and others. This will have a devastating
economic impact on the entire bay region, small cities and large
included.
The second point is that we checked with the Department of
Agriculture, and we checked with counsel on the Agriculture Committee.
They agree that this restricts only those purposes described in the
legislation related to the implementation of this language related to
what the EPA is trying to do with their TMDL.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is very important. We talked to the general counsel at the
Department of Agriculture. Mr. Goodlatte is wrong on this.
He says--his amendment says none of the funds may be intended to fund
EPA. But his amendment actually doesn't mention EPA. It says no Federal
funds period. That means that the farmers, the agribusiness throughout
the Chesapeake Bay watershed, would lose about $100 million in
conservation efforts if this amendment were to be approved.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that miles of the Chesapeake Bay have
died, largely because of the fertilizer that washes into the bay. The
vegetation at the bottom feeds on that nitrogen, and it grows like it's
on steroids. When it decomposes, it sucks up all the oxygen in the
water, and as a result, nothing can live in large areas of the
Chesapeake Bay--no crabs, no oysters, no fish.
Nothing. It's dead, even the plant life can't survive when the oxygen
has been so depleted in the process of decomposition.
This amendment needs to be defeated.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
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 Virginia
will be postponed.

{time} 1930

Amendment No. 497 Offered by Mr. Matheson

Mr. MATHESON. 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 total amount of appropriations made available
by this Act (other than for Department of Defense and the
U.S. Postal Service) is hereby reduced by $280,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut funding in the
CR, other than the Department of Defense and the U.S. Postal Service,
other than those two, by $280 million. Now, $280 million is the amount
of money that would be saved if Federal civilian agencies, except DOD
and the Postal Service, were to reduce their vehicle fleet budgets by
20 percent.
If adopted, it is my intention that these Federal agencies determine
where to cut their portion of the $280 million in cuts specifically
towards finding savings in their vehicle fleet budgets.
This is a bipartisan idea supported by the chairs of the National
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. I encourage my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield to my colleague from California.
Mr. ROYCE. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
The bipartisan deficit reduction commission has looked at the work of
the GAO on this issue. The GAO has tried to get Federal agencies to
look at reducing their vehicle fleet. They have put out studies, and
one of the interesting examples was where the GAO found automobiles in
a parking lot that had not even been used for 3 years that had been
purchased.
Their point is this: With 650,000 vehicles that the government uses
now, there is a way to put in place, if you followed the
recommendations of the GAO, a way to reduce that fleet and save money.
And the Government Accountability Office has said that the government
agencies are badly managing their vehicles.
Now, we know that with one government agency, the Department of
Energy, that decided to put in place these recommendations, they
reduced their fleet. In their budget going forward, they can reduce
their fleet by 35 percent.
What we are saying with this amendment is we are following the
recommendation of the GAO. The Heritage Foundation endorses this. It
certainly was supported by the bipartisan deficit reduction commission.
We have got a deficit of $1.5 trillion and growing. This is a way to
shut it down and a way that has been recommended to us by the GAO to
move forward. We support this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. MATHESON. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, here the gentleman goes again.
He is attempting to cut without specifying where the cuts come from.
There's no tough choices identified in the amendment. All it says is
just to reduce the appropriations by $280 million, exempting DOD and
Postal Service. But across-the-board cuts is a way for us to escape
responsibility for making choices that people elected us to do, and
this amendment does not specify where the cuts come from or who is to
make the cuts.
I guess he would leave it up to the bureaucrats to decide where to
cut, but that's what we were elected to do, Mr. Chairman, and so I
oppose the amendment. I sympathize with the desire to cut more
spending, but I want it done in a judicious and specific way.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Kentucky
about the challenges of across-the-board cuts. I feel like I was
elected to come up with suggestions. If I could draft an amendment that
would be ruled in order, I would specifically say it should be about
the spending cuts, but I can't legislate on an appropriations bill.
So I would hope that as we look at this amendment, we understand that
people read the record of this conversation, it was the intent of
Congress when I looked at this amendment that agencies are supposed to
reduce their vehicle purchases by 20 percent as the best that Mr. Royce
and I can do under the rules of the House. We are trying to offer a
specific opportunity to cut spending. We think we have identified it
well during this discussion. I urge my colleagues to support it.

[[Page H1285]]

I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Gardner

Mr. GARDNER. 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 salary of any officer or employee of the
Department of Health and Human Services who develops or
promulgates regulations or guidance with regard to Exchanges
under subtitle D of title I of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18021 et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply prevents the
Department of Health and Human Services from implementing the exchange
as created under ObamaCare.
The exchange does not allow the American people to choose the
benefits in their health plans. Instead, it will force the American
people into a one-size-fits-all program where government bureaucrats
limit their health insurance options. The government will control which
plans are allowed to be offered in each State. It will control which
companies will be allowed to sell health insurance plans in each State
and will control the benefits contained in those health insurance
plans.
Exchanges, as they are being designed, will only serve to further
strain cash-strapped States by forcing them to use their employees or
hire new employees to create and run them.
Recently, several Republican Governors sent a letter to Secretary
Sebelius criticizing the exchange and asking her to provide States with
complete flexibility in operating the exchange--most importantly, the
freedom to decide which licensed insurers are permitted to offer their
products.
I urge adoption of amendment No. 79.

February 7, 2011.
Hon. Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Sebelius: Many of us believe the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be repealed
by Congress if the courts do not strike it down first. But,
with no assurance of either outcome, we face the decision of
whether to participate in the bill by operating state
exchanges, or to let the federal government take on that
task, if the bill remains in effect in 2014.
In addition to its constitutional infringements, we believe
the system proposed by the PPACA is seriously flawed, favors
dependency over personal responsibility, and will ultimately
destroy the private insurance market. Because of this, we do
not wish to be the federal government's agents in this policy
in its present form.
We wish states had been given more opportunity to provide
input when the PPACA was being drafted. We believe in its
current form the law will force our health care system down a
path sure to lead to higher costs and the disruption or
discontinuation of millions of Americans' insurance plans.
Though we still have grave concerns with other provisions of
the PPACA, we suggest the following improvements: provide
states with complete flexibility on operating the exchange,
most importantly the freedom to decide which licensed
insurers are permitted to offer their products; waive the
bill's costly mandates and grant states the authority to
choose benefit rules that meet the specific needs of their
citizens; waive the provisions that discriminate against
consumer-driven health plans, such as health savings accounts
(HSA's); provide blanket discretion to individual states if
they chose to move non-disabled Medicaid beneficiaries into
the exchanges for their insurance coverage without the need
of further HHS approval; deliver a comprehensive plan for
verifying incomes and subsidy amounts for exchange
participants that is not an unfunded mandate but rather fully
funded by the federal government and is certified as workable
by an independent auditor; commission a new and objective
assessment of how many people will end up in the exchanges
and on Medicaid in every state as a result of the legislation
(including those ``offloaded'' by employers), and at what
potential cost to state governments. The study must be
conducted by a neutral third-party research organization
agreed to by the states represented in this letter.
We hope the Administration will accommodate our states'
individual circumstances and needs, as we believe the PPACA
in its current form threatens to destroy our budgets and
perpetuate and magnify the most costly aspects of our health
care system. While we hope for your endorsement, if you do
not agree, we will move forward with our own efforts
regardless and HHS should begin making plans to run exchanges
under its own auspices.
Sincerely,
Governor Robert J. Bentley; Governor C.L. ``Butch''
Otter; Governor Nathan Deal; Governor Mitch Daniels;
Governor Terry E. Branstad; Governor Bobby Jindal;
Governor Haley Barbour; Governor Brian Sandoval;
Governor John R. Kasich; Governor Tom Corbett; Governor
Dennis Daugaard; Governor Sam Brownback; Governor Paul
R. LePage; Governor David Heineman; Governor Susana
Martinez; Governor Mary Fallin; Governor Nikki Haley;
Governor Bill Haslam; Governor Rick Perry; Governor
Scott Walker; Governor Gary R. Herbert.

I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gingrey of Georgia). The gentlewoman from
Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Defunding the health insurance exchanges that we created in the
Affordable Care Act will hurt small businesses, which are the driving
force of our economy. It destroys jobs, takes away consumer choice and
increases the deficit.
By gaining access to the exchanges, small businesses will prosper
from what large employers have enjoyed for years: large group rates,
lower administrative costs and greater transparency. The exchanges also
give small businesses and their employees access to a fuller range of
plans. They give families across America access to the information that
they need in order to be able to buy the best plan at a competitive
price that suits their needs.
The exchange has created a competitive marketplace for health
insurance so that small businesses and middle class families across
America can benefit from lower prices and more choices.
This is basic free market principles at work. One would think the
majority would support any attempt to bring competition to health care
but, instead, they are carrying the water for big insurance companies
who do not want competition. They want to preserve their monopoly. They
want a captive market, forced to pay whatever exorbitant rates they
feel like charging. That will not bring down health care costs or cut
the deficit. The health insurance exchanges help slow the surging cost
of health care by introducing competition into the marketplace.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which will threaten our
economy, harm our small businesses and will destroy jobs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's
leadership on this. If you notice the common theme, Mr. Chairman, it's
that these folks want the government to be in charge of our health
care, these folks over here want patients to be in charge of our health
care, and it kind of runs throughout all of the issues as they relate
to health care.
Now, the exchanges may seem like a great idea, but there's a big
problem with the way that they are set up. They don't work. You don't
have to believe us. Goodness gracious. Twenty-one Governors have sent a
letter to Secretary Sebelius, and what did they say? They need complete
flexibility on operating so that they have the freedom to decide which
insurers offer the products in their State. If that weren't true, it
would mean that the government, the Federal Government is offering it.
What they are asking for: waiving the costly mandates, which means,
Mr. Chairman, that the mandates are crushing the States across this
great land. They have asked for waiving the provisions that
discriminate against all sorts of plans.
Remember, Mr. Chairman, that you won't be able to keep what you like.
You won't be able to keep what you like.
So this is pretty simple. These folks want the government to be in
charge of our health care. These folks want patients to be in charge of
our health

[[Page H1286]]

care. We come down on the side of patients.
Support the amendment.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, again, I would simply urge adoption of the
amendment to defund the exchanges.
As a former State legislator, the legislators I have talked to in
Colorado and around the country all urged the same thing that I have
spoken to: Defund the exchanges; defund this bill.
Let's put real solutions in place that will actually decrease the
cost of care, increase the quality of care, and we can begin that
process tonight.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1940

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, the question here is whose side are
you on? The only people that I talk to who are against the exchanges
are the big insurance companies and their representatives, because they
are the only ones that stand to gain by keeping the status quo and not
having the exchanges. The little guy, the consumer wants the exchange.
Why? Because he can get affordable coverage, because he can get a good
benefit package, because there is transparency, because he can find out
what's being offered and how much it costs him. And the insurance
companies don't want any of that because they want to continue with
business as usual, keep raising rates.
Now, we all know how it works. The large employers, they can go out
and get group coverage, but if you are an individual or you are a small
business, it's very hard to do that. And that's why we set up the
exchanges, because basically it's like a larger insurance pool. And now
the small business, the individual can go on the exchange, they can
find out what's going on, they can see what the rates are, and there's
competition.
As the gentlewoman from Connecticut said, the Republicans always used
to be for competition. This is the marketplace. This is capitalism.
This is what we are providing here. It's a choice. More choices for the
little guy. That's what this is all about. And I for the life of me do
not understand again why the Republicans would not want to have the
exchanges except for the same reason, they are siding with the big
insurance companies. They are not worrying about the consumer and the
average American.
It's also the fact that we're talking about portability. Right now,
if you have a job and you're afraid to go to another job, and maybe a
better job, or something that you'd like to do because you are afraid
that you're going to lose your health insurance, well, now you don't do
that. You can change your jobs. You can do something better. You can
improve your life. You can live the American Dream because now you
don't have to worry about not being able to find a good, affordable
insurance policy. This is another aspect of the exchanges that are
really so important.
Really, the exchanges are the heart of what we're trying to do, which
is cover all Americans, provide access to good insurance coverage for
all Americans, and make it at a reasonable cost. That is not the case
now, and it will only be the case if these exchanges, as part of the
larger health care reform, become law and continue to become law.
Mr. GARDNER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. How much time is left on each side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
For 15 million Americans, this is another Friday night without a
paycheck. And instead of working together to create jobs, here we are
again relitigating the health care bill, the bill we talked about last
year, last month, last week, yesterday, this morning. Here we are. We
should be creating jobs, but here we are.
Now, the exchange does three things. It says that small businesses
and families and individuals can get the same purchasing power that big
corporations do when they buy their health insurance. It says you can
choose among private competitors, insurance companies, and see who
makes the best offer to you. And it says you make the choice that you
want.
This should sound very familiar to the Members on the other side
because it's exactly what they have as Members of Congress in the
Federal health insurance program. So I would think that the Members on
both sides would want their constituents to have the same health care
opportunities that they do. If you believe that's the case, then the
right vote on this amendment is ``no.''
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, do I have any time left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 13 seconds
remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. In my 13 remaining seconds, to quote Mr. Garamendi here,
What are the health insurance exchanges? It's called the Federal
Employees Health Benefit Program. We in the Congress have the benefit
of enjoying a health care exchange where we can have our choice, pick
the plan that suits our needs, get it at competitive rates. Why do we
not want to extend this for the rest of the country? It should not just
be the purview of those who serve in the United States Congress.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleagues of testimony
that was given before the House Budget Committee by Mr. Foster, the
chief actuary of Medicare, who blew a hole in the two primary promises
of ObamaCare. The first promise, that people get to keep the health
care that they have if they liked it, he said that's not going to
happen. The second promise, that it would lower the cost of health
care, he said that's not going to happen. This is the chief actuary of
Medicare.
I didn't have the opportunity to speak on this floor when this bill
came through the House of Representatives, but I do now, because the
people of Colorado spoke on November 2 when they said, enough is
enough, let's get Congress doing the people's business, creating jobs,
getting government out of the way.
Let's find real solutions for the health care bill, solutions that
will actually bring commonsense reforms to lower the cost of health
care, increase the quality of care, not result in 800,000 job losses,
not result in promises made to the people that can't be kept. We have
got to do something soon. And I hope it's voting. I urge the adoption
of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendments Nos. 329, 330 and 331 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that my amendments
329, 330 and 331 be considered en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendments will be
considered en bloc.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:

amendment no. 329

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise made available by this Act
for ``Department of Energy, Power Marketing Administrations,
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration'' is hereby reduced to $0.
____

amendment no. 330

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise made available by this Act
for ``Department of Energy, Power Marketing Administrations,
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration'' is hereby reduced to $0.

[[Page H1287]]

____
Amendment No. 331

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise made available by this Act
for ``Department of Energy, Power Marketing Administrations,
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance,
Western Area Power Administration'' is hereby reduced to $0.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendments.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 2011, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, these amendments eliminate as no longer
necessary the Federal administrative subsidy for the Southeastern Power
Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration and the Western
Area Power Administration. These massive energy subsidies amount to
what I call unauthorized megamarks. These energy subsidies, that began
three decades ago to develop only the West and South, now cost the rest
of America billions of dollars.
In fact, the Northeast, Florida, the Midwest, the Great Lakes States
are heavily subsidizing the power systems of the West and South. I have
a map here that kind of shows the parts of America that have a Federal
power umbrella and those that don't. And it's really shocking to look
at what the utility rates are. In Idaho, with federal energy subsidies,
it costs residential consumers $7.98 per kilowatt hour. But guess what,
in Ohio, that has no subsidy, it costs those residential consumers
$11.34. In Wyoming, with power subsidies, it costs $8.39. But in
Connecticut, with no subsidy, it costs those citizens $19.35 a kilowatt
hour.
To achieve real budget savings, we must address megamark spending,
not just district-targeted earmarks, but massive megamarks. These
regional Federal power subsidies illustrate the problem. In fact, those
subsidies, over only some regions, are privileges that the other
regions of our country can't afford anymore. These regions have
outlived their welcome in terms of subsidy. Those regions need to
compete in the free market just like the rest of our regions do. No
more free rides, because America can't afford it anymore.
My part of America can't afford the largesse given to the energy
power marketing authorities in the other regions. The Southeastern
Power Administration has never been operationally self-sufficient. It
has cost the taxpayers $545 million, over half a billion dollars, since
created in 1950.
Similarly, the Southwestern Power Administration has never been
operationally self-sufficient, costing the taxpayers over $707 million
since it was created in 1944. And WAPA, the Western Power Authority,
has never been operationally self-sufficient. It has cost the taxpayers
over $7 billion since being created in 1978.
Twenty-seven years of continued appropriations to only some regions
seems like plenty of time for those agencies to have business plans in
place to yield self-sufficiency and compete in the real marketplace
like the rest of us are expected to do.

{time} 1950

In my region of the Nation, we have no Federal power subsidy. Ohioans
pay 11.3 cents per kilowatt hour, but Utah only pays 8.7 cents.
Arkansas only pays 8.8 cents. But New York pays 18.6 cents. New York
has no Federal power marketing subsidy. Citizens where I live tax
themselves separately and locally through local tax levies for economic
development. The Federal Government has never helped us on our power
costs. Our energy is provided through investor-owned utilities, and we
have no Federal cushion to depend on. That's the reason recession
causes tremendous hardships in free market regions like our own. How
are Federal power subsidies to just some regions fair to all our
taxpayers? After three decades, it's time to let three unauthorized
power marketing administrations stand on their own two feet and compete
in the free market, just like our region does. Balance our budget, cut
the subsidies, cut the Mega-marks, cut regional favoritism that
benefits the few at the expense of the many.
I ask to include in the Record a full State-by-State power cost
analysis so all Americans can know who is being subsidized and who is
eking it out and trying to compete in the real marketplace, the free
marketplace. I ask Members here to support the Kaptur amendment to
eliminate the Federal administrative subsidies for power marketing
authorities.
Now let me point out that some of our power marketing authorities are
doing it right, paying their own way. Take Bonneville, they did it
right. There's a way to do it right and a way to do it wrong, and we
shouldn't reward inefficiency. We should allow these subsidized
institutions to compete in the free market and not make the other parts
of America that are burdened by high unemployment and high power costs,
to be giving favored treatment to other parts of the country that are
not carrying their own load forward. Again, take a look at the
privileged parts of America and then ask yourself who's paying for it.
It's pretty clear what's going on here.
The Southeastern Power Marketing Administration was budgeted to be
zero funded in the President's FY11 budget. The amendment would allow
this 2010 funding to go to zero. But under the continuing resolution,
they will continue to be funded at their 2010 levels in spite of being
eliminated in the budget. There is a lot of bookkeeping going on here
that doesn't treat all parts of America fairly. I ask my colleagues to
do what we've had to do in our region, compete in the real marketplace.
Support the Kaptur amendments.

AVERAGE RETAIL PRICE OF ELECTRICITY
[Cents per kWh]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rank (residential) State Residential Commercial Industrial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................ HI......................... 28 25.86 21.87
2........................................ CT......................... 19.35 16.49 14.41
3........................................ NY......................... 18.66 16.05 9.73
4........................................ NJ......................... 16.61 13.98 11.68
5........................................ AK......................... 16.44 14.12 13.99
6........................................ NH......................... 16.31 14.22 12.77
7........................................ VT......................... 15.96 13.42 9.46
8........................................ RI......................... 15.94 12.88 12.89
9........................................ ME......................... 15.73 12.41 8.72
10....................................... CA......................... 15.23 14.21 11.05
11....................................... MA......................... 15.18 15.28 13.19
12....................................... MA......................... 14.54 11.64 9.45
13....................................... DE......................... 13.84 11.38 9.61
14....................................... PA......................... 12.84 10.24 7.61
15....................................... WI......................... 12.57 9.96 6.81
16....................................... MI......................... 12.51 10.12 7.19
17....................................... NV......................... 12.42 9.94 7.5
18....................................... TX......................... 11.61 9.19 6.31
19....................................... IL......................... 11.6 8.84 6.72
20....................................... FL......................... 11.5 9.77 8.84
21....................................... OH......................... 11.34 9.78 6.32
22....................................... CO......................... 11.12 9.13 6.96
23....................................... AZ......................... 11.05 9.52 6.75
24....................................... AL......................... 10.87 10.28 6.04
25....................................... NM......................... 10.63 8.72 6.07
26....................................... SC......................... 10.56 8.88 5.67
27....................................... VA......................... 10.55 7.68 6.74
28....................................... IA......................... 10.46 7.91 5.38
29....................................... MN......................... 10.46 8.37 6.31
30....................................... NC......................... 10.28 8.19 6.15
31....................................... GA......................... 10.26 9.06 6.18
32....................................... MS......................... 9.98 9.33 6.36
33....................................... TN......................... 9.98 9.66 6.63
34....................................... KS......................... 9.97 8.15 6.15
35....................................... IN......................... 9.61 8.4 5.96
36....................................... MO......................... 9.22 7.54 5.56
37....................................... MT......................... 9.18 8.5 5.58
38....................................... OK......................... 9.17 7.42 5.2
39....................................... NE......................... 9.02 7.66 5.96
40....................................... LA......................... 8.97 8.53 5.9
41....................................... SD......................... 8.94 7.58 5.89
42....................................... OR......................... 8.86 7.66 5.47
43....................................... AR......................... 8.82 7.25 5.42
44....................................... WY......................... 8.79 7.48 4.98
45....................................... WV......................... 8.78 7.66 5.86
46....................................... UT......................... 8.77 7.23 4.99
47....................................... KT......................... 8.59 7.86 5.06
48....................................... ND......................... 8.15 7.19 5.67
49....................................... ID......................... 7.98 6.69 5.18
50....................................... WA......................... 7.97 7.31 3.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States in italic are located in Power Marketing Administrations (PMA) States.

Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the amendments propose a net
increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendments are not in
order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress which
states, ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a
general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget
authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment
or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease of such budget
authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
The amendments propose a net increase in budget authority in the bill
in violation of such section. I ask for a ruling.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky makes a point of order
that the amendments offered en bloc by the gentlewoman from Ohio
violate section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5.
Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, only in Washington would they say that if
you ask organizations to compete in the free market, it costs more
money to the Federal Government. Only in Washington would that kind of
bookkeeping exist. So I am troubled by the

[[Page H1288]]

point of order, but I would just say that I thank the gentleman for
expressing his point of view. This will not be the last time we hear
about power marketing authorities and their inability to compete in the
private marketplace this year.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of
order.
Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendments propose a net
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order
is sustained. The amendments are not in order.

Amendment No. 126 Offered by Mr. Weiner

Mr. WEINER. 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 provide assistance to Saudi Arabia.
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for
``International Military Education and Training'' may be used
for assistance to Saudi Arabia.
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for
``Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related
Programs'' may be used for assistance to Saudi Arabia.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, to the great relief, I'm sure, of all those
assembled, I don't intend to take the full 5 minutes.
The amendment I propose is one that I think that both sides of the
aisle will rally around. It's very simple. It limits any aid in this
bill going to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Why we would be providing
any aid to Saudi Arabia at all has been an eternal mystery to me, given
their propensity to exporting terrorists, given that they had exported
15 of the 19 homicide bombers on September 11, given that just in
December when the WikiLeaks came out, it was learned in a quote from
the Secretary of State, ``It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade
Saudi officials to treat terrorist funding as an important priority.''
Given that the Saudis have textbooks that say things like this in them.
This is what they teach to their children:
``The Prophet said, The hour of judgment will not come until Muslims
fight the Jews and kill them. O Muslim. O Servant of God. There is a
Jew behind me. Come and kill him.'' They have textbooks that also lash
out at Christians.
It is also important to note that in this House year after year,
we've eliminated aid to the Saudis, only to have it come back. As you
see on this chart, 2005--it was actually defeated that year--but every
subsequent year, this House voted to ban aid to Saudi Arabia, and it
comes rising back up like a Shakespearean specter. This language
strikes the Presidential waiver, and says no more aid to Saudi Arabia.
I reserve the balance of my time
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. GRANGER. The underlying FY10 bill already prohibits assistance to
Saudi Arabia, unless the Secretary of State determines that it is in
our U.S. national interest. Maintaining a relationship with Saudi
Arabia is critical to our national security, and I am concerned this
amendment could jeopardize that relationship.
Our two countries enjoy robust counterterrorism intelligence sharing.
Saudi-U.S. collaboration helped thwart the package bomb from Yemen.
Saudi Arabia is a critical strategic ally with whom we share mutual
enemies and mutual threats. I believe this amendment goes too far, and
I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEINER. I simply say, with the greatest respect to Madam Chair,
that we have spoken in this body repeatedly. The Saudis don't need our
money. They've got plenty of their own money. It's the money that they
use when they jack up gas prices and give us no help in trying to deal
with them. It's the money that they use to export terrorism. They don't
need any of our money.
I understand there is a Presidential waiver. This may come as a
surprise that my friends now want to give the President that authority
to override Congress. I think we should take it away and say no aid to
Saudi Arabia.
I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 2000

Amendment No. 101 Offered by Mr. Weiner

The Acting CHAIR. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York
rise?
Mr. WEINER. The gentleman from New York is on a roll, so he'll ask
for Weiner amendment 101.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the
Department of Agriculture to provide nonrecourse marketing
assistance loans for mohair under section 1201 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8731).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Thank you.
Once again, I have no intention of taking the full measure of my
time. This is an amendment that has been discussed on this floor many
times. Unfortunately, it keeps coming back. We provide subsidies
believe it or not----
Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman yield?
When the gentleman is ready to yield, I want to say we support the
amendment.
Mr. WEINER. Thank you. I appreciate it. I'm going to be very brief.
Just let me explain. This is an amendment that----
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield? What are the names?
Mr. WEINER. Now I would say to the ranking member, I'm from Queens.
I'm from New York City. So I thought mohair was a guy named Moe who had
long hair. But I now know that it is a subsidy that dates back to World
War I when our uniforms were made with mohair and there was a strategic
imperative to make sure we had enough. We provide a subsidy. This has
not been used in military uniforms now for about 55 years.
Congressman Chaffetz and I have been agitating to try to eliminate
this subsidy. There's still $1 million of funding going to about 12
farmers. No goats lost anything for the purpose of this picture. This
is what a mohair looks like.
I would urge my colleagues to end this wasteful subsidy.
I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I have to ask my friend from New York if sheep
are carnivorous. Do they bite human beings? That's my question. I
understand that they can be carnivorous.
Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, first of all, show some respect.
They're goats. Second of all, and if you are referring to a press
conference that went awry that I had where I perhaps might have been
bitten by a goat, I will say this: I believe that there is nothing
wrong with these animals. We want them to have as much hair as they
need. And if you want to give them a haircut, you should do it with
your own money. It shouldn't be on the taxpayers' dime.
So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Wiener amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. So there's not a feed subsidy for them. I just want to
make sure, Mr. Chairman, because I understand there was an incident. We
do support the amendment.
Mr. WEINER. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H1289]]

Amendment No. 151 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. 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 repair, alteration, or improvement of the
Executive Residence at the White House.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, this discussion we have been having for
the last 3 or 4 days is really about what the American people said on
November 2. They said that these huge deficits are unacceptable. The
fact is that we're going to run a $1.6 trillion deficit this year and
our debt is almost $14.1 trillion. Projections are that if we continue
on this pace, that will double in the next 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, the American people said this is unacceptable. And so
what are the American people doing in their own lives at home? Well,
they're addressing needs versus wants. And what they're saying is there
are some things that they need, and then there's some things that they
want. But what they understand in these tough economic times, where we
have a number of our American citizens unemployed, is that a lot of
people are having to prioritize how they spend. And maybe there's a
fence in the backyard that needs replacing, or maybe the deck in the
backyard needs new boards, but they're postponing those.
And so basically this is a very simple amendment. Basically, the
White House has two accounts: one for basically daily maintenance. That
account has $13 million, and this amendment does not address that
account. But as they do in Washington, do you know what happens if you
want to get more money? You add more accounts, and you just rename
them. And there is another account called renovations and upgrades. And
so what we're saying is that there's $2 million worth of upgrades that
the White House would like to do. It includes things like doing a
plumbing survey and some things like computer system upgrades. We think
that possibly those are items that can wait until our economy gets
rolling again, until we quit having these record deficits.
And so it is a very simple amendment, Mr. Chairman. We just think
that the White House can postpone those expenses, things that they
would like but not necessarily need. This will still allow the White
House to mow the yard, do the painting, do the maintenance at the White
House; but it says these capital expenditures of over $2 million should
be postponed for another year or two until we get our deficit spending
down.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
I would like to say that there is an account in our financial
services bill for repair and restoration at the White House, and the
funding for that is $495,000, or 20 percent less than the fiscal year
2010 levels. And these requested funds would provide for an alternate
electric feed, which we understand is because the power there fails
occasionally, computer system upgrades, a plumbing system survey to
begin addressing their leaky plumbing.
However, the language of Mr. Neugebauer's amendment doesn't just
strike funding in this account. This amendment actually states that
none of the funds made available by this act may be used for repair,
alteration or improvement of the executive residence at the White
House.
And this is really a sweeping prohibition because it prohibits all
repairs at the White House. So what happens if a pipe bursts? What
happens if there is a hole in the drywall or the plaster? What if
there's an electrical fire or a broken window? What if a safety or
security issue needs to be addressed? And I dare say that most people,
most everybody, even if they were tightening their belts, they would
still have to deal with those emergency issues.

And at the end of the day, the White House is the most visited
residence in the country. It's an office, it's a museum, and it's a
home. And regardless of who occupies the White House, the building
needs to be maintained.
We have already reduced the account that pays for repairs and
alterations by 20 percent. Do we really, really want to prohibit all
repairs and all alterations at the White House, which is our house?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, I would say to the gentlewoman that there is ample money for
maintenance involved in the White House. As I said, in section 1519,
there is $13 million available for electrical issues, for painting
issues, for maintenance issues.
I think what we are saying, and I would be glad to work with the
gentlewoman in the conference report if she wants to be more specific,
but the three projects that this administration requested actually
totaled $2 million: $1.5 million for an electrical system, computer
system upgrades of $255,000 and a plumbing system survey. This is a set
of drawings for $250,000.
I would submit to you that the American people are making some pretty
tough choices and that certainly the White House is a treasure of this
country; but, Mr. Chairman, so are our children and our grandchildren a
treasure. And if we don't start making some tough choices here, then we
are not going to have a future for our children, which should be one of
our more treasured assets.
I would be glad to work with the gentlewoman in a conference report.
But this amendment has merits because basically it says to the
President--and I think the President would agree--you know what, if
other American families are not making improvements to their house
right now that aren't necessarily necessary this year, I don't think
the President would want his either.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2010

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Texas has no other
speakers, let me say one thing--that this amendment doesn't specify the
account being reduced. It cuts all repairs and alterations.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano), my brother.
Mr. SERRANO. I thank you for the time. I recognize that you do not
support the amendment, but some folks still cannot help themselves.
This is not about the White House; it's about who lives in the White
House. First, there was an amendment to cut his staff. Then there was
an amendment that was taken away about not allowing him a teleprompter,
and now there's an amendment that says you can't fix the leaks in the
White House. You know, we have a plumbing system at the White House
that hasn't been repaired since Harry Truman. That's a long, long time.
So, yes, there are difficult times in this country, but when you have
a house visited by many, many tourists throughout the year, you should
be careful as to the wiring, about the kind of things that could happen
with water, about the kind of things that could happen with safety. And
after all, whether we like this President or not, this is the
residential place and the office space for our President, for the next
one, and the ones to follow.
I think this is a proper investment, and personally, I think it gets
pretty petty when we don't even allow this President to have leaks
fixed in the White House.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, do I have any time remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentlelady. I won't take but 30 seconds. Just
to mention the fact, I've been around long enough to recall when money
was requested for the Vice President's mansion when Dick Cheney was
living

[[Page H1290]]

there. That money was provided. This side didn't object when money was
put into the White House when George Bush was the resident. This is
kind of mean-spirited games. It's really beneath us. Let's not do this
kind of stuff.
Mrs. EMERSON. I urge opposition to this amendment, as well-
intentioned as it may be, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I kind of resent the insinuation that
my amendment is addressed to this President. It's not addressed to this
President. It's addressed to this country, and by the way, I was over
at the White House during the White House Christmas party. The White
House looked like it was in pretty good shape, and I can attest that
the plumbing was actually working as well.
But what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is there's a lot of people that
would want to come to this floor tonight and make excuses why we can't
begin to cut spending in this country. You know what--the American
people are tired of our excuses. This is a good amendment. There's been
a lot of good amendments. Yes, these are difficult choices, but these
are the kind of choices that we're going to have to make if we're going
to ensure that our American families have a future, that we get this
economy back going, that we create jobs, and we do not leave a legacy
of debt for our children and our grandchildren
With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. 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.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Rooney

Mr. ROONEY. 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 ``Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's
Lakes and Flowing Waters'' published in the Federal Register
by the Environmental Protection Agency on December 6, 2010
(75 Fed. Reg. 75762 et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits any funding in this
bill to be used to implement, administer, or enforce the rule entitled
Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's lakes and flowing
waters. Like all Floridians, I want clean and safe water, but this
debate is not over whether we want clean water for Florida; it is over
how we reach that goal and at what cost.
This EPA mandate, which singles out Florida, will drive up the cost
of doing business, double water bills for all Floridian families, and
destroy jobs. By some estimates, this will cost our States an estimated
approximately $2 billion. At a time when we should be attracting new
companies in Florida, we cannot afford new regulations which will drive
businesses out of our State and destroy jobs.
Our unemployment rate is over 12 percent and at 15 percent in some
parts of my district. New, costly regulations are not going to improve
those numbers. The EPA has repeatedly refused to allow third-party
review of the science behind the proposed mandate, and they have failed
to complete an economic analysis. This regulation is not grounded in
science, and all Florida should not have to serve as the guinea pig in
this radical experiment.
That's right, Mr. Chairman, Florida is the first State being required
to comply with this Washington, D.C., mandate, and according to a
recent New York Times article, an EPA official said they have no plans
to implement the regulation in any other State. So I ask you, how is
that fair?
But during the upcoming months I will be working with our agriculture
commissioner, a former colleague here, Adam Putnam, who says that this
will impact 14,000 jobs in Florida.
I'd also be willing to work with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and other concerned State and Federal agencies
to develop a plan that can be agreed upon by all parties. We cannot
allow an unaccountable EPA to act dictatorial in this issue that
affects every Floridian.
Until the EPA is willing to consider Florida's unique needs and
economy, this regulation must not go into effect. A recent poll shows
that 68 percent of Floridians do not want this Washington, D.C.,
mandate. Dozens of Florida job creators and associations, as well as 60
national companies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
American Farm Bureau, have sent letters to Congress to oppose this
mandate.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Florida Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services,

Tallahassee, FL, February 17, 2011.
Hon. Thomas J. Rooney,
House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Rooney: I am writing in strong support
of your amendment to H.R. 1, the 2011 Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act that will prevent the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing, administering, or
enforcing the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida.
For several years now, Florida has been working to improve
its water quality and, in many respects, our efforts have
been a model for other states. Until 2009, Florida was
working cooperatively with EPA to improve our water quality
standards. In 2009, in an attempt to settle a lawsuit brought
by environmental groups, EPA decided to abandon that
cooperative approach, federally pre-empt our state water
quality standards, and impose new criteria on the state. Many
are concerned that these new criteria are not based on sound
science, including EPA's own Science Advisory Board, which
has expressed serious concerns about the science used by EPA
to support the regulation.
This issue is particularly important given the economic
impacts of the proposed regulation. The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection estimates that this federal mandate
may force municipal wastewater and stormwater utilities to
spend as much as $26 billion in capital improvements to
upgrade their facilities. The Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services has estimated that the regulation will
impact over 14,000 jobs. Given the reality of Florida's
economic situation, these estimates are of great concern.
Given all of this, I was proud to join Florida's Attorney
General Pam Bondi in filing a lawsuit against EPA over these
rules. EPA's flawed regulation must be set aside so that we
can return to an effort to improve Florida's water quality
that is cooperative, economically feasible, and based on
sound science. I am deeply grateful for your leadership in
offering this amendment and strongly encourage your
colleagues to support it.
Sincerely,
Adam H. Putnam,
Commissioner of Agriculture.

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the equivalent of sticking
your head in the sand--I use that analogy because we're talking about
Florida--hoping that a growing problem somehow will miraculously go
away.
Back in 2009, a consent decree was reached in Federal court between
EPA and numerous Florida environmental groups to set numeric limits for
nutrients in the State's lakes, rivers, and streams. Such numeric
standards are the only way to make progress correcting ecological
problems. The need for the standards contained in this consent decree
was demonstrated repeatedly by Florida's Department of Environmental
Protection. They pointed out that 1,000 miles of the State's rivers and
streams, 350,000 acres of Florida's lakes, and 900 square miles of its
estuaries were contaminated by nutrient pollution from sewage
discharges and fertilizer or manure runoff.
But this amendment would block these standards from being used. I
fail to understand how the supporters of this amendment think that it's
okay for folks to dump manure, fertilizer,

[[Page H1291]]

and sewage into lakes and rivers without regard to the health of these
waters or to the health of the people who depend upon these waters.
This water quality rule was published last November, but the
regulations don't go into effect until March of next year. The major
activity by EPA that this amendment would prevent is an education
effort to help the communities, businesses, and the public meet these
new standards.
The amendment also would block EPA from improving the regulations to
meet the legitimate concerns of the public. That's what EPA is trying
to do, reach out, get their ideas. There's a good question as to how
much longer tourists will keep flocking to Florida if its lakes,
streams, and rivers are in a death spiral, flushed with the water
quality of cesspools.

{time} 2020

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.
Mr. MORAN. May I inquire how much time we have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 3 minutes. The
gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to finish on this
amendment?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to close.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield the remaining 3
minutes to the very distinguished lady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
amendment 13, which would defund Florida's new clean water rules. This
amendment will harm Florida's economy and threaten the natural
ecosystems on which we rely.
This past November, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved
a final regulation setting new water quality standards for Florida's
lakes and streams. This clean water rule is desperately needed to
address the nutrient pollution contaminating more than 1,000 miles of
State rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of lakes, and 900 square miles
of estuaries.
Potential tourists to Florida often envision images of pristine
beaches, beautiful waterways, and vibrant coastal ecosystems with great
fishing and recreational opportunities. That is why so many people
flock to our State. Florida's waterways, beaches, and coastal
ecosystems are critical parts of the economic engine that drive
Florida's $65 billion a year tourism industry.
But without the new clean water standards, this could all evaporate.
Already algae outbreaks plague many of our lakes and rivers, depleting
oxygen levels and suffocating living organisms. Nutrient pollution
results in massive fish kills, waterways clogged with toxic green
slime, beach closures, and reduced waterfront property values.
We need these new clean water standards because the current standards
for determining when someone is polluting is vague, and therefore
unenforceable. Waiting until the waterway is choked with sewage,
fertilizer, or manure is simply no way to manage our water.
For over 10 years the State of Florida labored to produce a clean
water rule but never quite got there. In the absence of State action,
EPA had to act to protect Florida's waters. EPA produced a rule built
on years of data collected by the State and based on the best science
available.
The clean water rule is also the product of tens of thousands of
public comments, numerous public meetings and workshops, and years of
consultations between the State of Florida's Department of
Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
While EPA took over finalizing new standards, they did not take a
``my way or highway'' approach. They listened to Florida's citizens and
regulated entities, made many adjustments, and included plenty of
flexibility.
To begin with, the final nutrient standards are comparable to the
State's own draft standards. In some areas they are more stringent, but
in other areas, they are less stringent. The major difference between
the State and Federal rule is that the EPA actually finalized it rather
than continuing the foot-dragging.
And as a practical matter, all this amendment will really do is hurt
the very stakeholders its proponents say they want to help.
EPA built in a 15-month delayed implementation to allow it to provide
technical assistance to stakeholders and ensure compliance is achieved
in the most efficient, cost-effective way possible. EPA is using this
time to hold workshops, seminars, and other meetings of regulated
entities to achieve this end. But with this amendment, that all goes
away. These regulated entities will still have to comply with the law,
but now they'll be on their own.
Perhaps even worse for the regulated entities, this amendment will
prevent State water managers from utilizing the flexibilities of the
rule. It would prevent the EPA from working with the State to develop
and implement a process to review and approve site-specific alternative
criteria proposed by regulated entities. This makes no sense.
This rule provides flexibility to regulated entities and to the
State. If the amendment passes, it would be devastating to Florida's
economy.
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROONEY. 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 Florida will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Stearns

Mr. STEARNS. 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 for the design, renovation, construction, or rental
of any headquarters for the United Nations in any location in
the United States.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
My amendment, my colleagues, is simply to say that the United Nations
is a very valuable building and the renovations that are occurring
right now are necessary, but--
Now, the renovations that are occurring on the U.N. ultimately are
necessary, but the cost that is occurring is not. There's a huge
overrun.
I want to be clear that the opposition I have with this amendment is
not to obstruct the U.N. from making a safe environment for the workers
and the visitors that come there but to encourage reform and use best
business practices considering that the taxpayers are funding about a
quarter of the amount of money they're spending for renovations.
You know, we had a hearing here in Congress looking at what it would
cost to build and renovate the United Nations. And they presented a
figure. Well, Donald Trump, who's built a lot of hotels, a lot of
apartment houses, came in and he said, ``I could do the same thing for
half the money.'' That was half the money back when he offered that. So
he said using better business practices, he could do it for a lot less
money.
So I believe my colleagues that the U.N. has had a history of wasting
money.
Let me give you one example.
In 2003, in the Secretary General's bulletin, he banned all smoking
in the U.N. Well, the U.N. spent $130,000 on a ventilation system to
accommodate smokers in the cafeteria. Well, I'm not clear why they did
that.
The architect was starting to get into so many problems, they
terminated him. By so doing, they paid him $44 million after the
termination.
So these are the kinds of things that I am worrying about, and I
think the

[[Page H1292]]

U.N. auditors have expressed the same concern that I have in the whole
process of procurement and contract management on the U.N. renovations
and building construction programs.
The GAO expressed their concern regarding the U.N.'s weakness in
existing internal oversight and procurement.
So all I'm asking simply is in this time of a weak economy, we should
hold off continuing to renovate the U.N. until we practice best
business practices and we make sure that they're not continuing to have
overruns.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Stearns amendment
because it would exacerbate security vulnerabilities at the United
Nations headquarters in New York City.
The United Nations Capital Master Plan addresses a number of serious
life safety and security concerns to staff, diplomats, and visitors.
The U.N. receives approximately 5,000 accredited delegates annually
from around the world and 300,000 tourists, about 40 percent of whom
are Americans. Almost 4,300 people work at the U.N. headquarters
complex, including 1,280 Americans.
The U.N. headquarters complex, the majority of which is 55 years old,
is not compliant with New York City building and life safety codes or
modern security requirements.

{time} 2030

The major building systems are inefficient, beyond their useful life,
increasingly difficult to maintain and repair. For example, the life
safety systems are a great concern, including inadequate sprinkler and
alarm systems and the lack of an automatic shutdown of ventilation
systems in the event of a fire. Hazardous materials, such as asbestos,
are still present in the facilities.
Providing the U.N. with safe and functional headquarter facilities
will enable the organization to operate more effectively is what we all
want.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. STEARNS. Let me just mention a little thing more about my
amendment.
Basically, as I've told my colleagues, this is a cost overrun on
renovations in the U.N., and more importantly, with this huge economic
downturn that we've had, I think we need to go back and look at the
procurement process at the U.N.
I want to say something that's different from the U.N. amendment. I
had an amendment, 429, dealing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This
amendment was ruled out of order, and it was because the amendment
basically did not specify the individuals whose defense by the United
States taxpayers has been supported, would be stopped payment by my
amendment 429.
To put it into perspective, the amendment I had was saying that
people like Franklin Raines, who was the CEO of Fannie Mae, and these
other executives, while they were hiding huge amounts of debt, were
collecting huge bonuses, including the board of directors of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac; and at the same time, the inspector general found that
these people were hiding this debt, and now taxpayers have to pay for
their defense and bail them out. But the ironic thing and the tragic
thing is that taxpayers have to pay the lawyers to defend all these
people that actually were hiding the debt and looting these companies.
So my amendment is basically saying that taxpayers should stop paying
the legal fees for these executives that were hiding the debt and acted
illegally. But understanding that this is out of order, I'm not going
to offer this amendment. I will look for another opportunity to make my
case.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
My amendment would prohibit funds from the United States from being
used for the design, renovation, or construction of any headquarters of
the United Nations located in the United States.
The U.N. headquarters will undergo renovations, as planned, with an
estimated cost of more than double the original amount expected. The
renovations are necessary, but the cost to do so is not. I want to be
clear that my opposition is not to obstruct the U.N. from making a safe
environment for their workers and visitors, but to encourage reform
through better business practices--considering taxpayers are
responsible for 22% of the U.N.'s budget.
Time after time, we have asked American families to tighten their
belts and exercise fiscal restraint. Why should they do with less and
not the U.N.? It is time that this Congress lead by example. Our
constituents deserve more than the perceived normal rhetoric of ``Do as
we say, not as we do.''
Congress held a full-scale hearing to determine if the U.N. estimates
in fact reflected the lowest cost option. According to Donald Trump's
testimony at the U.S. Senate hearing, the costs associated with the
renovations would be overwhelmingly more than the U.N.'s estimate.
Trump who has experience in these matters, testified he could complete
the project for $700 million. That's nearly half the amount than the
U.N. projected they needed. The U.N. has a proven history of wasting
hard-earned taxpayer's dollars and I am certainly not surprised to
expect anything less from the U.N. when discussing the expenditures
spent for their headquarters. The architect, that was later terminated,
was given $44 million. To me, this does not reflect the lowest cost
option. Furthermore, the U.N. spent $130,000 on a ventilation system to
accommodate smokers in the cafeteria. Why would you spend so much to
ventilate smoke in a cafeteria despite a 2003 Secretary General's
Bulletin banning smoking in the U.N.? What's even more alarming is that
even the U.N.'s own auditors had concerns regarding the possible
inaccuracy of the project's estimated calculations and weaknesses in
procurement and contract management. Moreover, in 2006 the GAO
expressed their concerns regarding the U.N.'s weaknesses in existing
internal oversight and procurement. It seems to me that this issue
deserves more attention than the hearing conducted 5 years ago.
Without proper planning and oversight, I fear that these funds would
just be wasted. More hearings and further investigations need to be
conducted before irresponsibly spending funds from this bill. With my
amendment, the U.N. will be prohibited from continuing this gross
disregard of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Due to these reasons, I urge
my colleagues to support my amendment.
It is my understanding that the Appropriations Committee never
intended for any of the funds included in the continuing resolution be
used for legal expenses defending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's former
senior executives. My amendment is a certainty in an uncertain world.
An assurance to our constituents that this gross abuse of taxpayer
funds ends today.
The amendment I offer would prohibit funds made available by this act
to be used for the payment of attorneys' fees or other legal expenses
of any former senior executive officer of the Federal National Mortgage
Corporation or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
In response to the greatest financial crisis since the Great
Depression, America hastily engaged, with my strong opposition, in a
strategy of multiple bailouts to avoid the complete collapse of our
financial system. We now know, as I believed then, that this strategy
was no cure to our financial crisis and would leave taxpayers exposed
to vast financial risk.
When the Government took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in September
2008, taxpayers unknowingly inherited $160 million in defending the
failed firms. Of the $160 million in taxpayer dollars spent, $24.2
million was spent in defense of Fannie Mae's top senior executives.
According to an in-depth report from the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight, these Fannie Mae executives were accused of
taking action to manipulate profits, generating $115 million in
improper bonuses. Two years before this report was published, Fannie
was found to have overstated its preceding six years of past earnings
by $6.3 billion.
Currently, employment contracts protect executives when sued and the
company pays for legal defense. Some believe there should be no
government liability to these legal fees because of the executives'
breach of responsibility to the company and its stockholders. I agree
responsible Americans should not have to pay for the irresponsibility
of others and that is why I offered this amendment.
As you may recall, the 1,900 page legislation placing these GSEs
under conservatorship failed to address a resolution to these entities,
allowing the Federal Housing and Finance Agency (FHFA) to continue
paying the legal fees of their executives. Poor crafted legislation is
the reason this injustice has been allowed to carry on. When asked why
funding

[[Page H1293]]

of legal defense has not been cut off, the acting director of the FHFA,
said: ``I understand the frustration regarding the advancement of
certain legal fees associated with ongoing litigation involving Fannie
Mae and certain former employees. It is my responsibility to follow
applicable Federal and State law.''
I am outraged that billions of dollars have gone to benefit an
indiscriminate number of private financial institutions that utilized
reckless investment strategies. American's deserve more than for us to
just ``understand'' their frustration; our responsibility to the
taxpayers is much more than that. We must be diligent in ensuring the
investigation of these issue's are a top priority for the 112th
Congress. The time has come to make sure that we are doing everything
we can to minimize any further taxpayer exposure to the irresponsible
behavior of these companies.
The nationalization of private assets was clearly un-American and, as
free-enterprising Americans, we needed to let our markets determine the
winners and the losers. Unfortunately, the winners were not the
American taxpayers of this country and, after billions spent and much
debate, we are left with unanswered questions and unpaid legal fees
showing no sign of ending.
This financial crisis affects every hardworking, taxpaying American.
We should not be paying for the legal defense of the people whose
reckless actions forced this economic crisis on us. I hope that members
of this 112th Congress recognize the dire importance of this issue and
vote in favor for the American taxpayer.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. 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 Florida 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 further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 414 by Mr. Bishop of New York.
Amendment No. 519 by Mr. Campbell of California.
Amendment No. 246 by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Amendment No. 263 by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Amendment No. 526 by Mr. Wu of Oregon.
Amendment No. 27 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 409 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
Amendment No. 296 by Mr. McClintock of California.
Amendment No. 99 by Mr. McDermott of Washington.
Amendment No. 177 by Mr. Herger of California.
Amendment No. 323 by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
Amendment No. 566 by Mr. Boren of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 146 by Mr. Forbes of Virginia.
Amendment No. 333 by Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.
Amendment No. 46 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
Amendment No. 498 by Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
Amendment No. 467 by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia.
Amendment No. 79 by Mr. Gardner of Colorado.
Amendment No. 151 by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas.
Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Rooney of Florida.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Stearns of Florida.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

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

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

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156,
noes 269, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 104]

AYES--156

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Canseco
Capps
Capuano
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wilson (FL)
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--269

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clarke (MI)
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
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 (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton

[[Page H1294]]

Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--8

Culberson
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

{time} 2056

Messrs. ROYCE, AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, ALTMIRE, CAMPBELL, McINTYRE,
BECERRA and MACK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. WU, INSLEE, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Messrs.
SCHIFF, GUTIERREZ, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Messrs. WATT and COSTELLO
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 519 Offered by Mr. Campbell

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

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 68,
noes 357, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 105]

AYES--68

Amash
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Blumenauer
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capuano
Chabot
Clay
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Duncan (TN)
Eshoo
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Graves (GA)
Gutierrez
Heller
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Kaptur
Kucinich
Labrador
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lummis
Lynch
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Miller, George
Moore
Neal
Olver
Payne
Peterson
Petri
Polis
Quigley
Rahall
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Royce
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Stearns
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Welch
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--357

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
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
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--8

Culberson
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2100

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

Amendment No. 246 Offered by Mr. Broun 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. Broun) 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. 106]

AYES--74

Alexander
Amash
Berg
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Canseco
Carnahan
Cassidy
Chabot
Cohen
Cooper
DeFazio
Doggett
Duncan (SC)
Fincher
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Hall
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Inslee
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Kind
King (IA)
Labrador
Lamborn
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Manzullo
McClintock
McHenry
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Olver
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Rehberg
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Smith (NE)
Stutzman
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walsh (IL)
Woodall
Young (IN)

NOES--348

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Bonner
Boren
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor

[[Page H1295]]

Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Courtney
Ellmers
Giffords
Graves (MO)
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Schock

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2103

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 106, in the fury of 2-minute
votes, I mistakenly missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 263 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 107]

AYES--177

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berkley
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boren
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Critz
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Rehberg
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--243

Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nunnelee
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Roby
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko

[[Page H1296]]

Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--13

Bilirakis
Dicks
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
Hirono
Lewis (CA)
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Rogers (KY)
Schock

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2106

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, during the rollcall vote on the Broun
Amendment No. 263 to H.R. 1, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
able to vote, I would have voted in favor of prohibiting funds in H.R.
1 from being used to pay dues to the United Nations.

Amendment No. 526 Offered by Mr. Wu

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Wu) 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. 108]

AYES--87

Ackerman
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Cicilline
Clay
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutch
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Garrett
Gohmert
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Honda
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meeks
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schrader
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--338

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

NOT VOTING--8

Coble
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2109

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

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Markey

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 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. 109]

AYES--174

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud

[[Page H1297]]

Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--251

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
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
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
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
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)
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 (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--8

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stearns

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2113

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 109, I was unavoidably
detained. I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 409 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. 110]

AYES--241

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
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
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
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)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
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
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
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
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--185

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)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
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
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
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)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
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
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)

[[Page H1298]]

Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--7

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2116

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

Amendment No. 296 Offered by Mr. McClintock

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock) 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. 111]

AYES--215

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

NOES--210

Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
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
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunnelee
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Olver
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2119

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

Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. McDermott

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. McDermott) 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. 112]

AYES--91

Adams
Bachus
Bass (CA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Brady (PA)
Burgess
Butterfield
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conyers
Critz
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Ellison
Ellmers
Filner
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Herrera Beutler
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Honda
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meeks
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Smith (WA)
Stark
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Webster
Weiner
West
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--333

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek

[[Page H1299]]

Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
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
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
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)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Pelosi
Peters
Quayle
Richardson

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains on this vote.

{time} 2122

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

Amendment No. 177 Offered by Mr. Herger

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Herger) 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. 113]

AYES--227

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
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)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
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
Schock
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 (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--197

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
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
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
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
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
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

[[Page H1300]]

Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Garrett
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Sanchez, Linda T.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains on this vote.

{time} 2126

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

Amendment No. 323 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer) 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. 114]

AYES--185

Amash
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Campbell
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Cravaack
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (IN)

NOES--241

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herger
Hirono
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains on this vote.

{time} 2129

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

Amendment No. 566 Offered by Mr. Boren

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Boren) 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. 115]

AYES--277

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
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
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
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
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
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline

[[Page H1301]]

Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
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
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
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
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--149

Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
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
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--7

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2132

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

Amendment No. 146 Offered by Mr. Forbes

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Forbes) 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. 116]

AYES--241

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Clay
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cravaack
Critz
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Doggett
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kissell
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--184

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peterson
Platts
Poe (TX)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Sullivan

[[Page H1302]]

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2135

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 116, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 333 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) 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. 117]

AYES--32

Brady (PA)
Clay
Cleaver
Cooper
Critz
Davis (IL)
Dingell
Fattah
Fudge
Gutierrez
Himes
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Kaptur
Kucinich
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Long
McDermott
Moran
Mulvaney
Petri
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sutton
Tonko
Upton
Velazquez

NOES--394

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
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)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--7

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2138

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

Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Polis

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Polis) 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. 118]

AYES--74

Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Deutch
Doggett
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jones
Keating
Kind
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Pallone
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Richardson
Rohrabacher
Royce
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--351

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais

[[Page H1303]]

Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
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
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
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
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--8

Giffords
Hanna
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2141

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 118 I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 498 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Ohio

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Johnson) 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. 119]

AYES--239

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
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
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
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)
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
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
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
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
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 (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--186

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
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)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
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
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
Schrader
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

NOT VOTING--8

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
LaTourette
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

[[Page H1304]]

{time} 2144

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

Amendment No. 467 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) 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. 120]

AYES--230

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
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)
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
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)
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
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)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--195

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
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)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
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
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
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
Webster
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Bachus
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2147

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

Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Gardner

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Gardner) 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. 121]

AYES--241

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
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
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
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
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
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
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

[[Page H1305]]

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--184

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)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
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
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
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
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
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
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--8

Franks (AZ)
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

{time} 2150

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

Amendment No. 151 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Neugebauer) 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. 122]

AYES--63

Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Canseco
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Conaway
Culberson
Ellmers
Farenthold
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Granger
Hall
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Herger
Huelskamp
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kingston
Lamborn
Landry
Long
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
McCaul
McKinley
Mica
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson
Pearce
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Renacci
Sessions
Smith (TX)
Thornberry
Walberg
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--362

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Camp
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2153

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

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Rooney

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

[[Page H1306]]

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 237,
noes 189, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 123]

AYES--237

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
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 (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
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
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--189

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
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
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
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
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--7

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2156

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

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Stearns

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Stearns) 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. 124]

AYES--231

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
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
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
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)
Kingston
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
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
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
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
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--191

Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)

[[Page H1307]]

Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
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
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
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--11

Castor (FL)
Cleaver
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
Landry
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Roby

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 2159

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 124, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)

Legislative Program

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend, the majority leader, to inform us of
the planned schedule for the evening.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Maryland,
as he and I have discussed throughout the day, we have asked Members to
continue to be judicious in their remarks if we want to get out of here
at a reasonable hour, that we have been at this for at least 90 hours,
and we continue to debate these amendments. We will anticipate votes
again within 2 hours, and we will continue the votes throughout the
evening.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. As I
understand what the gentleman just said, we will probably have the next
series of votes at approximately midnight.
Would the gentleman have in mind when the next series of votes would
be after that?
Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, again, it depends on how
Members feel, on the other side of the aisle as well as ours, as to how
expeditious they want their remarks to be. We've been at this, again,
for 90 hours. We intend to have votes again probably within a couple of
hours after midnight, and we will proceed along those lines.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information.
I will tell him that I believe, on my side, we have three, perhaps,
four amendments--one we think is subject to a point of order. So we
have three amendments left on this side. I'm not sure how many you will
have on your side.
Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, the gentleman understands
and knows that we have throughout the day offered to reduce debate
time; and the gentleman also knows that the majority of the amendments
on his side have been debated. If the gentleman is prepared at this
point to accept our offer to reduce the amount of time from 10 minutes
per amendment down to 6 or 5, I think we could get that done as well.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I gather unanimous consent may be
propounded to reduce debate time. I just want to stress we were told
yesterday we were debating the whole government. We were then going to
debate important public policy questions for 10 minutes. We're now
going to get the privilege of debating important public policy
questions for 6 minutes.
If this is open government, I think I'm going to have to look for
something else because, I think it is, as I said yesterday, a travesty.
I do think we ought to make clear what we are talking about. Important
public policy questions being debated for 3 minutes on each side. That,
as I said, is a travesty.
Mr. CANTOR. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. HOYER. I don't hear objection on this side of the aisle.
Mr. CANTOR. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman
from Massachusetts may have somewhat of a short memory given that, in
December, we had a vote on a CR for 1 hour under a closed rule. So,
with that, just a little reminder.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I didn't know how long it was going
to take my Republican friends to going from talking about their
superior virtue to saying they were just like us. It took less time
than I thought.
But I would also say that, in the bills that came out of the
committee that I chaired, we always had debate, and we always had open
rules. But if the gentleman is saying that he now understands why the
people on our side did what we did--and I often disagreed, as I said--
he got there more quickly than I thought he would, and that may be the
only thing about the way they're running the House that has happened
more quickly than we thought it would.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I will tell my friend, the majority
leader, I still do not hear objection on our side.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
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. Let me ask: Do we know how many amendments are left on
your side, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Less than 50, 18 of which, I think, are
subject to a point of order.
Mr. DICKS. We understand that you have 50 amendments left, 18 of
which are subject to a point of order. One of ours is. We have three
and we have one colloquy. You asked us for a colloquy; we got you a
colloquy, okay?
Now, just in the spirit of cooperation, I hope some of you might
think about doing what a lot of our Members have done and decide not to
offer your amendments so we can get the hell out of here.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Before the gentleman yields back, Mr.
Chairman, I think all of us understands how important it is that we
finish this bill tonight. Therefore, the shorter we can make our
speeches, the better off we all are.
So we hope to ask each one of you, as you offer your amendments and
the rebuttals, to be brief, understanding that the rest of us would
like to leave here just as quickly as we can.
Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2210

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pitts) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under

[[Page H1308]]

consideration the bill (H.R. 1) making appropriations for the
Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the
Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________