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

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 27 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1308-H1357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

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

{time} 2213

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1) making appropriations for the Department of Defense
and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Hastings of Washington (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 8, printed in the Congressional Record, offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) had been disposed of and the bill
had been read through page 359, line 22.

Amendment No. 377 Offered by Mr. Flake

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the construction of an ethanol blender pump or an
ethanol storage facility.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each
will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers have subsidized ethanol for
far too long. This amendment will simply bring that slowly to a stop.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clearly limits consumer
choice, and is yet another attack on our Nation's progress to try and
achieve energy security. The technology that he is trying to prohibit
basically would allow individuals to have a choice as to whether, what
percentage plan they would want, whether E-10, E-30, E-50 or E-85,
whatever suits their best needs, their affordability and their
performance and gas mileage.
It would actually make us much more dependent long term on foreign
oil because you are going to limit the choices that are there. And
without the blender pumps that he wants to prohibit, most Americans are
left with just one option, and that's the E-10.
If we continue to limit the amount of U.S.-produced ethanol we can
use in our vehicles, we will be continuing to be beholden to foreign
sources of energy, and we will be importing more oil every year.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this is not a choice at all. It's a mandate.
That's why we've got to end it. It's been a boondoggle for 30 years. It
remains so. Let's vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. This is limiting
consumer choice; it's going to increase our dependence on foreign oil.
I would again ask my colleagues to vote against this ill-founded
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 367 Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 367.
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 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 any benefit 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 if the average adjusted gross income
of the person or legal entity exceeds $250,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control
3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. This amendment would be to save the taxpayers roughly
$30.5 million by preventing the funding of Radio and TV Marti.
I have decided to withdraw this amendment in the interest of time and
also to work on it in committee with the gentleman from Florida. So we
will enter into a colloquy for just 1 minute and go from there.
I happen to feel that we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars
on Radio and TV Marti over the past 20, 25 years. TV Marti is seen by
very few. The gentleman from Florida has a different view. We have
agreed to scuttle the debate here and take it up in committee.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
We do have a disagreement here, as I think most of us know. I
obviously will continue to work on this issue.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Did the gentleman from Arizona say he was going to
withdraw his amendment on Marti?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
Mr. DICKS. I was just curious to hear that. Thank you.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Again I will continue to work on this issue.
Obviously the issue of freedom is something that I think is cherished
by this House. There is a history of supporting freedom, and I know we
will continue to support freedom. But we will have ample opportunity to
debate this and discuss this and other opportunities.
Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 166 Offered by Mr. Guinta.

Mr. GUINTA. 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 for this Act may
be used to enter into, after the date of the enactment of
this Act, a Government contract that requires a project labor
agreement.

{time} 2220

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011,

[[Page H1309]]

the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta) and a Member opposed each
will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, a
proposed ban on Project Labor Agreements, also known as PLAs.
President Obama signed an Executive order nearly 2 years ago imposing
PLAs on Federal construction projects. A PLA mandates that whenever the
government pays for a project, union workers must be hired for the job.
This stifles competition and inflates the project's cost by steering
scarce tax dollars straight into directly union pockets. The previous
administration banned PLAs. And according to a study cited by the Cato
Institute, the ban saved taxpayers as much as $2.6 billion in 2008
alone.
Mr. Chairman, this is a spending reduction bill focused on saving
taxpayer dollars to the tune of $2.6 billion annually. My amendment
simply states no government money can be used to pay for any project
that requires a PLA. This solves a significant problem. This is not
against our unions. It is about providing equal footing between union
and nonunion contractors.
Considering the massive debt and deficit we are now struggling under,
I feel we can't afford at this point to waste more taxpayer dollars. My
goal here is to get more effective and efficient government. This
amendment creates a level playing field that encourages fair and open
competition for Federal construction contracts funded by this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
3 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 1 minute.
This amendment prohibits use of funds in this act for any government
contract that includes a Project Labor Agreement. The amendment is
nothing more than another example of a union-busting Republican agenda.
Project Labor Agreements contribute to the economy and efficiency of
Federal construction projects, help keep them on time and on budget.
They bring all the contractors and subcontractors to agree to a
standard set of conditions from the beginning of the project. And
despite all the rhetoric on the other side that PLAs increase the cost
of construction projects, there is no evidence for that.
Two years ago, the Economic Policy Institute reviewed a series of
studies for and against prevailing wage laws and concluded that there
was no adverse impact on government contract costs.
Mr. Chairman, this is nothing else but a distraction. PLAs are
nothing new. They have been used on some of the most famous
consequential construction projects in our history: the Hoover dam
bypass bridge and the projects under the Tennessee Valley Authority
just to name a few.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chair, I would add that currently in New Hampshire,
my home State, we have a Job Corps center that is slated to be built,
$35 million project, which is going to help up to 500 youth annually in
the State of New Hampshire. The PLA is exactly what is stopping this
project from occurring. We would like to not only expand the
opportunity here in New Hampshire but across the country to get these
projects moved forward, do them in a fair and equitable way.
And I also note that our friends from the Associated Builders and
Contractors support this amendment, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
National Federation of Independent Businesses, as well as the National
Black Chamber of Commerce.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Contrary to what the author of the amendment has said, there is no
requirement in a PLA that you have only union contractors at that. This
is a time when you come together pre-project to decide how this project
shall be developed, whether there will be a training project involved
in this, whether there will be local hires, whether there will be
participation by minority and women subcontractors and others on this.
In my area, some of the largest energy projects in the Nation are
being built by worldwide companies and being built with Project Labor
Agreements. In our cities Project Labor Agreements are used, and the
record continues over and over again, on time, done right the first
time, and it's a mix of contractors that get accepted.
There is nothing in the Executive order that requires union
contractors. There is nothing in the Executive order that requires a
PLA. I know, because I tried to get a few, and the administration
didn't go there.
So let's not overstate the case here. It encourages them. But the
fact is PLAs have worked both on public projects and on private
projects very, very well.
Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, I would simply reiterate that the study
pointing to 2008 shows the ban on PLAs saved taxpayers $2.6 billion.
Let's allow all small business owners throughout our country to go
after these types of projects. It's fair and it's equitable.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
because I believe it's based upon two false premises. The first is that
evidence shows that contracts performed under PLAs are not as
efficient. The data simply don't exist that show that. And second is
the implication that this is somehow a politically connected decision
by governments to reward building trades unions.
First of all, it doesn't have to be a union contractor. And second,
and I think most importantly, all kinds of nongovernmental users use
PLAs: the Disney Corporation, Inland Steel, ARCO, Boeing, Harvard
University. These are all institutions and companies that use PLAs
because they believe they are a good, sound business judgment.
Why should the Federal Government of the United States be precluded
from exercising a similar sound business judgment? This is a poorly
thought-out amendment, and the right vote is ``no.''
Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, I finally reiterate this proposal is a
spending reduction bill to the tune of approximately $2.6 billion
annually in savings. It allows our small business owners and
subcontractors to bid on projects across our Nation, get them back to
work. I would ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the Guinta
amendment.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Guinta
Amendment (#166), which prohibits the government from entering into any
contract that requires a project labor agreement (PLA). I oppose the
amendment because prohibiting the use of PLA's cannot assure savings to
the taxpayers.
Project labor agreements, also known as Community Workforce
Agreements are not new and contain several benefits: PLA's normally
include a local hire component; PLA's establish and set a fair wage;
PLA's avoid labor disputes and construction delays; under PLA's,
workers are trained to perform required work safely and correctly.
Mister Chair, a project labor agreement establishes the terms,
conditions, and safety standards for workers on construction projects.
One of the major advantages of a PLA is that because it is an agreement
negotiated prior to construction, there is minimal, if any, disruption
in the construction schedule arising from contract disputes. This saves
taxpayers money and at the same time providing jobs offering steady
employment at livable wages to local communities where the need is
greatest.
PLA's establish rigorous safety standards that save time and save
lives. There is absolutely no evidence that PLA's increase the cost of
construction projects; instead properly trained workers improve product
quality which saves taxpayers money.
Finally, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Guinta
amendment.
Mr. GUINTA. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

[[Page H1310]]

Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Hampshire will be postponed.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
I stand here today to discuss the Yellow Ribbon Program, which is
critical in my home State of Vermont, but it's critical in every State
that has returning soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq.
In Vermont, we have recently welcomed home 1,500 National Guard men
and women from a year-long deployment in Afghanistan. The Yellow Ribbon
Program, as you know, Mr. Ranking Member, helps deploying and
redeploying National Guard and Reserve members and their families when
they get home.
Prior to deployment, they educate members and their families in
affected communities on what to expect while their loved ones are gone.
After deployment, they focus on reconnecting members and their families
with service providers such as TRICARE, the Department of Veterans
Affairs and Judge Advocate Generals to ensure a clear understanding of
the benefits they are entitled to and they need. In addition, combat
stress and transition and how members and their families can address
these issues are integral to the post-deployment phase.
In Vermont, we have the fourth highest per capita participation rate
in the Nation in the National Guard. These are very valuable services
that get to the heart of supporting our troops and their families. I
hope to work with the subcommittee to ensure that any unmet needs of
this program are addressed as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman from Vermont.
I yield to the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, our good friend,
Mr. Young.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will
simply say we support this program. The former chairman, Mr. Dicks,
supports it. The present chairman, Mr. Young, supports it.
The committee added additional funding for the program. Florida
National Guard had an extremely large return home from the 53rd Combat
Brigade Team. We understand the importance of the program. We support
what the gentleman is asking and will continue to work with the
gentleman.

{time} 2230

Mr. DICKS. I thank the chairman.
I agree that the Yellow Ribbon Program has been a top priority of the
subcommittee. We have worked tirelessly to ensure our brave men and
women and their families are taken care of when they are serving the
Nation. I too will work with the gentleman from Vermont and the
gentleman from Florida to ensure the needs of our troops and their
families are met.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 495 Offered by Mr. Hall

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following new section:
Sec. 4002. ``None of the funds made available by this act
may be used to implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate
Service (NCS) as described in the `Draft NOAA Climate Service
Strategic Vision and Framework' published at 75 Fed. Reg.
57739 (September 22, 2010) and updated on 12/20/2010.''

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 3
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HALL. My amendment would prohibit the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, as we call them, from creating or
implementing a National Climate Service. The release of the President's
FY 2012 budget request this week included a significant reorganization
of NOAA, the largest since it became an agency in 1970. This is an
action that they took, ignoring congressional requests to cease and
desist. The new line office will take vital resources from the Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research Office, essentially gutting fundamental
research at NOAA and shifting the main focus of the agency to climate.
This shift threatens to harm important NOAA activities, such as helping
with the restoration of the Gulf of Mexico to pre-spill conditions.
These present day concerns require attention and focus. As it is,
this continuing resolution is going to force NOAA to make some official
and very difficult decisions with respect to priorities. As a matter of
policy, NOAA has not even requested funding for the Climate Service in
FY 2011. However, we are aware that implementation of the Climate
Service is already underway in the form of significant planning,
transitioning, and reorganization of resources. My amendment would
ensure that NOAA does not move forward with this reorganization without
congressional consideration and approval, specifically from the
authorizing as well as the appropriating committees.
My amendment does not cut NOAA's budget and is not an attempt to
hinder the agency from providing useful and authoritative information
but, rather, to communicate congressional priorities when it comes to
public safety and economic prosperity. And they're not above complying
with congressional requests. I urge Members to support the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. One, this is a budget-neutral reorganization of NOAA.
Two, a third of our gross domestic product requires accurate
information in terms of climate and weather conditions. And the third
and most important point, this reorganization, this Climate Service
would allow the private sector to get data that NOAA is already
collecting and use it to better forecast for their activities.
I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State
of California, the ranking member on the Agriculture Subcommittee, Mr.
Farr.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition.
If any of you live in coastal communities, you want to oppose this
bill. Ocean acidification is a real threat to this Nation. Climate
change is happening, and the ocean is where climate is born. The coast
of California is seriously considering all of what the rising oceans
will do to the economic value of the most valuable coastal property in
the United States.
So you don't want to take out the partner in working with State and
local governments on these issues. If tourism is in your community, if
fishing is in your community and, in fact, educational institutions.
Yesterday, hundreds of high school students from all over the United
States were here working, showing their science projects on ocean
acidification. They won awards from government entities and nonprofit
entities. Their future is about studying these issues. This is the kind
of program that we want to invest in. Smart technology, smart energy,
that is the way we are going to handle this problem in the future.
Those are jobs.
``No'' on this amendment.
Mr. HALL. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the chairman.
This is a half-baked idea. The chairman and I have written NOAA over
and over again trying to get information. It has not come before our
Science Committee. It has not been vetted. It may be a good idea; it
may not be.
I ask that Members of this body vote ``yes'' so that the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee can look at this issue, can talk to
NOAA, can find out all about it. It's not going to prevent people from
getting climate information or weather information. We should not
launch out into something when we don't know what the consequences, or
even what may be bad consequences, of this might be.
So we need to support this amendment. Please vote ``yes'' so that the

[[Page H1311]]

Science Committee can come and totally vet it, find out what NOAA's
doing, as we should. We have the jurisdiction in the Science, Space,
and Technology Committee, so it's absolutely important for us to do
this without NOAA just launching off on its own.
Mr. FATTAH. How much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FATTAH. Thank you.
This is a budget-neutral reorganization that will allow private
business to get data that NOAA has already collected. That's all it is.
It's critically important information for those businesses. And a third
of our gross domestic product is reliant on good information about
climate so that they can have it. It's transparency, it makes sense,
and it's budget neutral.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chair, I respect the gentleman's
interest in the issues before NOAA.
But I will have to oppose this effort.
Representative Hall's amendment sends the wrong message about the
need to meet the growing demands of our nation's businesses and
communities for reliable and relevant climate information.
Some of us might disagree on the extent climate change is taking
place.
But to discourage research is a big mistake.
Regardless of your opinion, timely and relevant climate information
benefits communities, local governments, and businesses.
A significant portion of the success of the U.S. economy depends on
accurate weather and climate information.
Local governments in my home region of San Diego are planning for
future trends or changes to sea levels--and NOAA' s research is
critical to their work.
This amendment also sets poor precedent and policy.
NOAA is implementing an internal, budget-neutral organizational
structure with the Climate Service office.
Using a budget CR to restructure an agency without input or
sufficient debate is questionable.
Major restructuring efforts should be well thought out and involve
study.
Let the scientists and the researchers decide what's worthy of their
attention.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. FATTAH. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 233 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. 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 may be used for the missile defense program of the
Department of Defense.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each
will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds
authorized in H.R. 1 to be used for the missile defense program at the
Department of Defense. The amendment does not cut overall defense
spending but merely places a limitation on spending on the hapless and
hopeless missile defense system.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. has spent
over $150 billion on ballistic missile defense since 1985, and there is
no working, reliable missile defense system to show for all that
investment. H.R. 1 dedicates approximately $10 billion more for
ballistic missile defense.
Some have argued that such systems are necessary for national
security. In fact, no missile defense system under development has ever
passed an unrigged test. According to experts at CRS, the performance
in wartime for our newest capabilities is unknown. In December of last
year, our ground-based interceptors known as GMDs failed the test
again, a test that cost $100 million.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the United States
``is no closer today to being able to effectively defend against long-
range ballistic missiles than it was 25 years ago.'' Missile defense
systems are unproven and unworkable. They are worthless as national
security.
But even though we have never in 25 years created a missile defense
system that worked, our misguided commitment to spending billions on
this failed program is having a counterproductive effort with other
countries. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration
have mistakenly argued and insisted that the ballistic missile defense
system is solely for deterrence and protection against potential future
threats. This argument contradicts logic. Missile defense concepts are
perceived by both our foes and allies as defensive threats. If we
increase our arsenal, we encourage other countries to increase theirs.
I want to conclude by saying that when will Congress act
appropriately in response to the record of failure in missile defense?
Shouldn't we apply the same standard to missile defense as we apply to
our schools and No Child Left Behind? If you can't pass the test, then
you lose your funding.

{time} 2240

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Kucinich amendment totally
ignores the reality of the real threat against our troops, our allies
and our deployed forces. It basically destroys our missile system. And
as we know, the enemies and the potential enemies have continued to
develop their offensive missiles. We just cannot do this. This is one
of those amendments you just can't do.
I would like to yield at this time 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. This amendment is so 1980s. It's when Ronald Reagan
proposed STAR Wars and the Democrats were opposed, and we're well past
that. Missile defense now has total bipartisan support. President
Clinton pursued it, President Obama pursued it and both of the
Presidents Bush pursued it. We know two things--the threat is real, and
the system works. The gentleman from Ohio said this hasn't passed 100
tests. Well, we haven't funded 100 tests. It is absolutely a system
that works and is needed.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Could I ask the Chair how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. KUCINICH. I would just like to say in response to my friends that
my amendment will correct a bipartisan error and, second, that you
can't destroy a missile system that doesn't work.
I will just conclude by saying that Philip Coyle, a former Assistant
Secretary of Defense, has said the national missile defense system has
become a theology in the United States, not a technology. We may have
faith that it works, but we are taught that we have to justify our
faith by good works. They don't have any good works connected to this.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we're talking about the Patriot
missile system, we're talking about the Aegis missile system, and we're
talking the Arrow system that we cooperate with Israel for their
protection. We're talking about basic defense of our troops in the
field who are in harm's way anyway. You just can't do this.
Mr. Kucinich is my friend. He is not always right. He is not always
wrong, but he is wrong tonight. And this is just not something that we
can tolerate. Our military would never stand for this. We're not going
to approve 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 Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

[[Page H1312]]

The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 141 Offered by Ms. Lee

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark) to 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. __. (a) None of the funds made available by division A
of this Act for any account of the Department of Defense
(other than accounts listed in subsection (b)) may be used in
excess of the amount made available for such account for
fiscal year 2008.
(b) The accounts exempted pursuant to this subsection are
the following accounts in division A:
(1) Military personnel, reserve personnel, and National
Guard personnel accounts of the Department of Defense.
(2) The Defense Health Program account.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed
each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today along with Mr.
Stark, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, Mr. Nadler and Mr. Polis.
Our amendment would reduce appropriations for the Department of
Defense in this bill to fiscal year 2008 levels. If you want to cut
domestic spending to 2008 levels, you can't exempt defense.
I want to thank Representative Stark for this amendment and for his
leadership in promoting an end to the era of unlimited spending and no
accountability at the Pentagon. Unfortunately, this week my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle are proposing an economic blueprint that
would slash Federal investment in our Nation's infrastructure,
education system, health care and programs to meet basic human needs
and to create jobs. These cuts, trumpeted as a means of long-term
deficit reduction, come at a time of severe economic distress for
American families.
Earlier this year, the House passed a resolution to reduce non-
security domestic spending to 2008 levels. This amendment gives us a
chance to put our money where our mouths are. It simply says that
defense spending should be reduced to 2008 levels. If we are serious
about getting our fiscal house in order, then we need to apply the same
rules, mind you, to defense as non-defense discretionary spending.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this year we have already done
something unusual. We have reduced the defense budget by $14.8 billion
already in this bill. To reduce the defense funding to 2008 levels
would cut over $50 billion from the DOD--severely impacting both our
troops on the ground and jeopardizing national security.
Now, if you want to reduce or cancel training for our troops that are
coming home from the war, then you would vote for this amendment. If
you want to cancel Navy training exercises, then you would vote for it.
If you want to reduce Air Force flight training hours, you would vote
for this. If you want to delay or cancel maintenance of aircraft, ships
and vehicles, then you would vote for this. If you want to delay
important safety and quality-of-life repairs to facilities and
barracks, then you would vote for this.
But I don't support any of that. And I don't think most of our
colleagues support any of that. And a time of war is not the time to be
withdrawing from our national defense capability, the readiness and
security of our Nation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have to express my absolute bafflement
at the debate we've been having all week in this Chamber.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle wax on and on about how
we have to restore fiscal discipline and cut all kinds of very
necessary programs to the bone. Yet they won't even bring to our debate
one of the most costly expenses we have in this country, and that's
Afghanistan. This war in Afghanistan has cost us nearly 1,500 American
lives and the taxpayers a staggering $379 billion and counting.
Yet during this debate, the majority, which is enthusiastic in its
support for more and more Afghanistan war spending, wants to eliminate
a homeless veterans initiative. That's their approach. Send our brave
men and women halfway around the world to be chewed up and traumatized,
then pull the plug on the support they need when they get home. That's
what they call supporting the troops.
We need to cut that expense.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time
I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the former chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First of all,
working together on a bipartisan basis for the first time, we cut
nearly $15 billion from the Obama budget request in 2011 for defense,
and we did it on a very careful basis.
This amendment would add another $56 billion to that cut. It would do
damage to all of our acquisition programs. It would threaten the people
in Iraq and Afghanistan and our efforts to conduct the global war on
terrorism. So, again, I hope that on a very strong bipartisan basis we
can reject this amendment.

{time} 2250

Ms. LEE. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds
remaining.
Ms. LEE. Let me just say in closing that the bipartisan sustainable
defense task force report released last year identified at least $1
trillion in cuts over the next 10 years without sacrificing our
strategic capabilities.
According to the GAO, major weapons programs have suffered from $300
billion in cost overruns, and in fact, it's time to end this war in
Afghanistan. These wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are costing the
taxpayers $1 trillion. We know al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan, and we
need to put our money where our mouth is. Cut the defense budget the
same way we're talking about cutting non-discretionary.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 109 Offered by Mr. Griffith of Virginia

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. 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 to
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Corps of Engineers,
or the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
may be used to carry out, implement, administer, or enforce
any policy or procedure set forth in--
(1) the memorandum issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency and Department of the Army entitled ``Enhanced Surface
Coal Mining Pending Permit Coordination Procedures'', dated
June 11, 2009; or
(2) the guidance (or any revised version thereof) issued by
the Environmental Protection Agency entitled ``Improving EPA
Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations under
the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and
the Environmental Justice Executive Order'', dated April 1,
2010.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and a Member opposed
each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

[[Page H1313]]

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, amendment 109 is a timeout on
the EPA. The EPA and its guidelines for the water quality coming out of
mines issued on April 1, 2010, came up with a conductivity test, a test
which did not go through the Administrative Procedures Act, a test
which is relying on science which is not yet fully accounted for or
reliable. In fact, in the document, in 31 pages, they use words like
``expect'' and ``anticipate'' what the science will be on 27 of those
31 pages.
Mr. Chairman, President Johnson had a war on poverty. There are some
in my district and in Appalachia who believe that President Obama and
his EPA have a war for poverty in the Appalachian region.
That conductivity test is so severe that the distilled water would
pass, the Deer Park would pass, the Fiji is just barely going to make
it outside of the zone of question, but Evian water that you purchase
to drink would not pass. Perrier water that you purchase to drink would
not pass. It's not good enough. And Pellegrino is not good enough
either.
There is a bumper sticker that is very popular now in my district. It
says if you think coal is ugly, wait until you see poverty. There are
some who believe--and I think that there are some in Washington who
think--that southwest Virginia and other parts of Appalachia should
just be a giant park for rich folks to visit, and that those of us who
live there, the folks in Washington think, ought to be happy to have
the jobs changing the sheets for the rich folks.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is not good enough and this amendment
should pass, and we should put a stop to this regulation.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to congratulate the gentleman. This
amendment is well-deserved, and it's exactly the right thing to do. I
appreciate the gentleman taking up the fight to save the jobs in
Appalachia--in Virginia and Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, and the
other States where coal is mined. This administration declared war on
coal when they took office and they're trying to carry it out. I
appreciate the gentleman carrying the fight.
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Thank you.
I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this is the second of three amendments
designed to kill regulation of mountaintop mining. The amendment would
prevent EPA from working with other Federal agencies and mining
companies to ensure that mountaintop mining is carried out in a manner
that protects public health, the environment, and the economy using the
best available science.
Mountaintop surface mining removes entire mountaintops to access the
coal underneath but then deposits toxic mining waste in nearby streams.
Practices not carried out carefully and responsibly can be devastating
to the environment and to local economies.
There's been longtime uncertainty regarding what laws applied,
uncertainty about which Federal agencies to work with, and uncertainty
about potential liability. This uncertainty was eliminated when
Interior, EPA, and the Corps of Engineers agreed to work with mining
companies and implement a common procedure for reviewing permits. And
it was with the goal of--and I quote--to strengthen the Appalachian
regional economy and to lay out common procedures on mountaintop
mining.
This memorandum of understanding brought clarity for all the
parties--States, mining companies, environmentalists, and Federal
agencies--so that mining could move forward. But what we have here is
an effort at good government punished by legislators with an ax to
grind. Agencies are punished for not working together. Then when they
do, we punish them for working together.
Permit reviews will just take longer and the process will be more
confusing to companies because this amendment won't change the law.
This amendment could extend the mining company's permit process for
years and cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in delays. That's
why this amendment should be defeated.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not bring
jobs. It will take our $60,000-a-year-plus jobs and give us either
unemployment or part-time jobs at minimum wage, and what's interesting
is, the data that we do have shows that there's a greater biodiversity
after mountaintop mining than there was before.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MORAN. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. MORAN. Well, the point is we have three agencies responsible for
this permitting function. They weren't necessarily working together.
Now, they're working together. We have a memorandum of understanding.
They know that their goal is to strengthen the Appalachian regional
economy, and to work with all the parties to bring them together.
That's what memorandum of understanding says.
This amendment eliminates all the progress that has been achieved.
They were attempting to promote good government and a good relationship
with the mining companies. It's not going to happen. If this amendment
goes through, this amendment kills that memorandum of understanding.
The law remains, but they can't cooperate now if this amendment was to
pass.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, again, this, if not passed,
will bring us unemployment, not a good economy. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
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.

Amendment No. 548 Offered by Mr. Jones

Mr. JONES. 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 develop or approve a new limited access privilege
program (as that term is used in section 303A the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1853a) for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the South
Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England, or Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and a Member
opposed each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the Federal
Government from spending millions of taxpayers dollars expanding job-
destroying catch shares programs in fisheries along the Atlantic
seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, I have two cosponsors of this legislation. I yield 1
minute to Mr. Pallone from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the fishing industry is a crucial part of
our Nation's economy, and catch shares pose a serious threat to the
vitality of the fishing industry. Catch shares is a system where
fishermen have to buy the right to fish, and only those who buy this
right are given the opportunity to catch a portion of fish. I don't
believe any fisherman should have to buy the right to go fishing.

{time} 2300

What is perhaps most concerning is NOAA's use of important
cooperative

[[Page H1314]]

research and monitoring funds in a carrot-and-stick operation that
pressures regional fisheries management councils to adopt catch share
programs.
Mr. Jones' amendment would simply prevent NOAA from spending funds to
push another restrictive management system before they get the current
system right. Despite our calls on NOAA to make programs that gather
scientific data and keep fisheries open their priority, NOAA has failed
to listen. And that is why I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment by Mr. Jones.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), also a cosponsor of
this amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in the Magnuson Act renewal
of 2006, we set up a procedure whereby there can be a referendum in
each fishery to do the equivalent of catch shares. NOAA's getting
around that. There are some places I'm told where people like that.
The procedure under the Magnuson Act whereby they can, by referendum,
impose that remains available but it would require the approval of the
men and women in the fishery. In much of the east coast, people don't
like that. And what NOAA is doing is going around that referendum
requirement by a new thing which they call catch shares. They can do
the equivalent in another way.
I am particularly puzzled to have in the Obama administration people
tell us, Well, it's okay. What it does, of course, is to lead to
consolidation. They say it's the same amount of income, but it goes to
a small number of larger entities, and the smaller individuals are
frozen out. And in the area that I represent, the fishing industry
doesn't want it.
So what I hope we would do is--and the gentleman's amendment does not
affect that part of the Magnuson Act that would allow referenda, so
that when the fishery, where the fishermen like it, they can get a
system of quotas, and they can get a system of the transferable quotas.
And that's what's in the Magnuson Act, transferable quotas with a
referendum because they couldn't--NOAA was insisting on imposing that
over the objection of fishermen. They've come up with a new system
called catch shares. That's what we're banning. We leave the referendum
process in place.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, these programs put together by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are designed to replenish
diminishing fish stocks. They assign shares to individuals,
cooperatives, other fishing communities, because what we have seen that
has resulted in depleted fish stocks and overfishing is a race to fish
where the concern is that the stock is being depleted. And so they run
out to get what's left.
NOAA is trying to intervene and equitably divide up what's left, what
we scientifically understand is left, and try to cooperate.
Now, I can understand there are many fishing communities that don't
want NOAA's intervention. But NOAA has been successful in ensuring
sustainable fisheries and preventing overfishing and creating more
stable and lucrative fishing jobs in communities from Alaska to
Florida. And they bring a lot of economic and biological benefits. They
eliminate what many think are dangerous races to fish, or what are
called ``derby'' conditions, and they improve safety for fishermen.
NOAA seems to know what they're doing. Where they've done it, it's
been successful. I think we should look to the experts and understand
that we've got to have greater sustainability of our fishing stock.
How much time do I have at this point, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr).
Mr. FARR. Thank you for yielding.
I represent a lot of fishermen in the west coast in California and up
the west coast all the way up to Alaska. The catch share program has
worked very well.
The reason you have it is, one, you only have two systems in
fishing--you have a season and you have a limit or quota. The pounding
of all of the boats going at the same time regardless of weather is a
very risky thing. Now we've given that up to share. We give shares to
boats.
So what happens if you're a small fisherman in a small boat, you've
got a share. You've got your right. You can go out when you want to.
Not just when the weather is really foul and may be dangerous. People
like this. It's sustainable. They can get loans on their boats. They
know they've got all kinds of certainty that they've never had before.
To wipe this out, it may be uncomfortable in some other communities,
but if you'd much rather direct it, if you want to get mad, do it to
those communities because wiping it out this way, you're going to
really hurt where it works. And where it works, it works really well.
So please oppose this amendment.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I must say this is an east coast
issue. That's why you have Mr. Pallone and Mr. Frank and myself
speaking.
And with that, the fishermen on the east coast need fairness from
their government, and this amendment will help give fairness to the
commercial and recreational fishermen on the east coast of America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can understand where my very good
friends are coming from. They represent a lot of professional and very
responsible fishermen. And I know they know what they're talking about.
On the other hand, NOAA does, too.
And NOAA has been successful. They have been successful from Alaska
to Florida in allocating assigned limits to various fishing entities
that were at serious risk of losing their fishing stock.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. When you get from Alaska to Florida,
don't you have to pass Massachusetts, New Jersey, and North Carolina?
Because the three of us think it's a terrible idea.
Mr. MORAN. Reclaiming my time, the point is, NOAA's objective is to
sustain the fish supply so that these fishermen will continue to have
jobs--not just now but in the future and for their children and
grandchildren. That's NOAA's objective. That's why I think we should
reject the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the study of the Missouri River Projects
authorized in section 108 of the Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (division C of
Public Law 111-8).

[[Page H1315]]

MRAPS comes on the heels of another comprehensive $35 million, 17-
year study completed in 2004 that showed that the current authorized
purposes are appropriate and do not need to be altered.
For river communities, few issues are as important as water supply,
power, and navigation. This study puts in jeopardy the flow of the
lower Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, which would have devastating
consequences for navigation and transportation along those rivers and
result in barriers for agriculture, waterways operations, and every
product that depends on the Missouri and the Mississippi Rivers to get
to market.
MRAPS is duplicative and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. We've already
spent $35 million to examine the Missouri River Master Manual. After 17
years, hundreds of public meetings, and countless lawsuits, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers concluded that the current uses of the river
are appropriate.
It is careless and irresponsible to conduct another multiyear,
multimillion dollar study at taxpayers' expense, particularly given the
dire state of our Nation's economy.

{time} 2310

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Hartzler).
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support this amendment,
which saves taxpayers from funding a duplicate study which is
unnecessary, wasteful, and ill-advised.
The Corps of Engineers just completed a 15-year study at a cost of
$35 million. The Missouri River Master Water Control Manual has been
published, and businesses, municipalities and utilities have been
planning accordingly. There is no need to restudy the issue of the
Missouri River again at an additional cost of $25 million.
Farmers, businesses and cities in Missouri's Fourth Congressional
District support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support
this commonsense proposal.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. To my colleague from Missouri, I would tell
him that the objective of this amendment has pretty much been
accomplished. The last funding that occurred for this study was in, I
think, 2009, which was an earmark. So now that earmarks have been
eliminated in the CR and eliminated for the future, you would not have
that funding as a possibility for this study. Also, the administration
has not put any money in its budget, so therefore there is no money in
the budget. So for all practical purposes, the funding for the study is
not going to continue. So therefore, it's very unlikely that the
funding level provided in the bill will receive anything more than the
amount to close the study.
And I would tell my friend that the reason I oppose it is that this
language I think may be unnecessary because it may impact the orderly
termination of the study. And that's why I rise in opposition, because
I believe since this study, at least in my opinion, has been
terminated, that we at least go through an orderly order with the
funding that's available so we can have an orderly termination.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. With all due respect to the gentleman, I would
appreciate some certainty, and I think that's what the purpose of this
amendment is all about.
You indicate that it's still in existence; it's still being funded.
We want it out. We don't want it funded any longer. The purpose of it
is duplicative. The study has been done before. And I think it's time
that we called a stop to it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Well, I think I heard the gentleman tell me
that the last time the study occurred was in 1944. And because earmarks
are no longer the practice and the administration is not providing any
funding, it's my belief and my opinion that this study will not go
further, and the few dollars that may be left from the former earmark
will be used to terminate the study in an orderly fashion.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, the last study was done, completed in
2004 at a cost of $35 million. It took 17 years, and now we want to do
it again. I don't believe it's appropriate for our taxpayer dollars to
be used in this manner.
And with that, I ask for the support of the body.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Again, I would ask my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this amendment because the objective of the amendment has
pretty much been met. There is no funding available to continue it. The
few dollars that remain will only be used to terminate the study in an
orderly manner. That's the proper way of doing it, and I would ask my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 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 Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. 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 Missouri
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 149 Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have another 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 contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) and a Member
opposed each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit U.S.
contributions to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, an entity that is fraught with waste and engaged in dubious
science. The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate
change, and supporters of cap-and-trade legislation have used the
questionable science, the findings of the IPCC, as reasons to support
onerous legislation.
Criticism of this science intensified over the last 2 years when
emails publicly released from a university in England showed that
leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and
suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers
were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of
climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.
Since then, more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have
challenged the claims made by the IPCC in this comprehensive,
independent 740-page report. These 700 dissenting scientists represent
some of the most respected scientific institutions at home and around
the world, including U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Air
Force and Navy, NASA, and even the Environmental Protection Agency.
Take, for example, famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert
Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a
member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Austin told a
Senate committee that ``unfortunately climate science has become
political science. It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but
politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up
a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable
at best.''
Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to
tighten their belts, then surely the Federal Government can do the same
and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse.
My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can

[[Page H1316]]

go toward the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this
year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President
has requested an additional $13 million for the IPCC in his fiscal year
2012 budget request. Our constituents should not have to continue to
foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings
that were used as justification to impose a massive new tax on every
American. They deserve better.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this amendment would
eliminate funding to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or
the IPCC.
The U.S. contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC, and our $2.3
million contribution leverages a global science assessment institution
with global outreach and global technical input, a process we could not
carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without U.S. support.
Their work on climate change is unparalleled. In its four assessment
reports to date, they have brought together thousands of scientists
around the world in disciplines ranging from atmospheric science, to
forest ecology, to economics to provide objective and policy neutral
information. The panel has attracted hundreds of the best U.S.
scientists. In fact, a majority of the research that's reviewed is
undertaken in U.S. institutions.
The IPCC's work has been lauded by the U.S. Academy of Sciences and
by the InterAcademy Council, a body comprised of the national academies
of the world. In fact, in 2007 that organization won the Nobel Prize
for its assessment work. This institution is a nonpartisan and
technically extraordinarily sound organization.
The Republican majority has already voted to prevent the EPA from
using funds to regulate greenhouse gases. Now we're being asked to
defund the work of international scientists to learn about the threat.
Now, the assumption, I assume, is that there is no threat and,
therefore, let's not study it. I think that is not a wise assumption.
This is a very shortsighted proposal to cut these funds. It's like
putting our heads in the sand, denying the science, and then stopping
the scientists from working because they might come to a different
conclusion than the Republican majority's ideology in believing that
there is no such problem and therefore we don't need to know about it
or do anything about it. If we're not going to do anything here at
home, let's at least work internationally to understand the threat and
to deal with other countries to combat it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2320

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. For the last year or two, the International Panel
has been funded at the rate of about $12.5 million per year. The
President has it in his FY12 budget at $13 million. This group has been
in the headlines for their activities with regard to how they are
trying to tinker with the data that they put out.
Why would we want to fund a group of folks who is nefarious and gives
us incorrect information? It's beyond me.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand how the gentleman from
Missouri can say that this is a nefarious group of people. After all,
these are people who are scientists, who've won the Nobel Prize for
their scientific activities.
I used to think that people from Missouri were from the Show-Me
State. Now I gather what this gentleman from Missouri is suggesting is
``I don't want to know about it.'' I don't think that is what the
position ought to be of the United States Congress. Let's learn the
facts and then decide what to do about it but not stop trying to know
what the science is behind the global threats.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. 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 Missouri
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 569 Offered by Mr. Issa

Mr. ISSA. 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 fund periodic step increases described in Section
5335 of Title V of the United States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and a Member opposed
each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, President Obama announced a pay freeze.
Within his Executive order, he froze all pay he could freeze. The one
he could not freeze was step increases. This simple amendment adds to
President Obama's 2-year freeze a 7-month freeze for the period he was
unable to cover of step increases. Step increases are simply pay
increases because you're on the job, period.
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 3
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. We all agree that we all need to be financially
responsible with regard to the Federal budget, but this continuing
resolution already substantially reduces funds for every single agency
of the government. A freeze in civilian pay for Federal employees is
already in effect for 2 years. It prevents cost of living and locality
pay increases for the entire Federal workforce, including civilian
employees of the Defense Department, although uniformed employees can
get raises. If you're a political appointee you can get an increase but
not if you're a civil service employee.
Mr. Chairman, a little over a majority of the Federal workforce is
eligible for retirement over the next 5 years. We are going to make
their lives far more difficult with the restraints on program funding
we're putting in this bill, and then we're going to say they're not
going to be able to get compensated when we tell them they have to do
more with less funding for their agencies? We are going to lose our
best and brightest people in the government, and as a result, the
American people are going to lose the quality of service they've come
to trust and expect.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MORAN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Timothy McCarthy, who was the Secret Service agent who stopped the
bullet that would have killed one of the greatest Presidents we've ever
had, Ronald Reagan, would have deserved a step increase.
Dr. Collins, who has mapped the human genome system to be able to
deal with pancreatic cancer and breast cancer and who could go outside
and get a job anywhere, would deserve a step increase.
The FBI agent who is tracking down and working to find al Qaeda and
terrorism and radicalization would deserve a step increase.
Lastly--lastly--some Members of this Congress have employees who have
done such a good job--many of them are perhaps on the Appropriations
Committee--they would deserve a step increase. If you vote for this,
you can never give any of your employees a step increase for the rest
of this year.
This is a bad amendment. I urge its defeat.
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H1317]]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear up some facts because I believe,
in the effort to try to make a point, people have failed to be quite as
accurate as they should be. First of all, as for political appointees,
the President has already frozen their pay. Second of all, awards,
raises, and bonuses are not limited by this freeze. The fact is, if
somebody is meritorious of a raise, award or bonus, he will still be
able to get it.
When they say that budgets have been cut, if budgets have been cut,
not having this $500 million in the first year and another $500 million
in the second year will, in fact, allow those budgets to go further.
When they say that these are effectively meritorious, from the Office
of Management and Budget of the Obama administration, we have received
the figure. It is 99.94 percent of all eligible Federal employees,
meaning only six out of every 10,000 employees, failed to get this
automatic increase.
This saves over $500 million in 7 months and over $700 million the
next year. It is consistent with President Obama's freeze, and the
freeze is exactly what we're trying to do--give the President what he
said in the spirit in which he said it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. With 30 seconds remaining, I think I should let the
gentleman from California conclude his remarks.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ISSA. Thank you. I won't use it all.
It has been a long night, and the American people are hopefully still
watching. As they watch what we are doing here and as they see people
coming and crying for the Federal worker, I hope what they realize is
that the Federal worker is not losing a day's pay. We are not
eliminating Federal workers, and Federal workers will be able to get
awards, bonuses, any meritorious increase or promotion. We are simply
saying that, for 99.94 percent of all non-uniformed Federal workers, to
simply get longevity increases after the President has ordered a pay
freeze is disingenuous to the process. We want to be genuine to the
President's Executive order and genuine to the process here. The House
of Representatives rolled back our funding by 5 percent, and that was a
good start; but if we don't do this, we're not even genuinely freezing
the pay of our own Federal workforce.
I strongly urge support for this amendment in keeping the promise of
the President and the promise to the American people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong support of the position of our committee
in opposition to this amendment, and I want to associate myself with
the remarks of Mr. Moran and Mr. Wolf.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, we are the world's superpower, and much of
the responsibility for maintaining the status of being that superpower
falls on the shoulders of our Federal civil service.
Already, they get about a third less than what they would be getting
in the private sector for the same responsibilities. We desperately
need the best and the brightest, from all over this country, to serve
the American people. If we punish them by limiting their salaries, by
making them scapegoats, we are doing a disservice to the American
people. Let's not do this. Defeat the amendment.

{time} 2330

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ISSA. 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. 94 Offered by Mr. Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN. 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.__. No funds made available by this Act may be used to
implement--
(1) the decision of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency entitled ``Partial Grant and Partial Denial
of Clean Air Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth
Energy To Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline
to 15 Percent'' published in the Federal Register on November
4, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 68093 et seq.); or
(2) the decision of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency entitled ``Partial Grant of Clean Air Act
Waiver Application Submitted by Growth Energy To Increase the
Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent''
published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2011 (76
Fed. Reg. 4662 et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) and a Member opposed
each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply delay the
implementation of the EPA's E15 waivers for the remainder of the fiscal
year, which would allow Congress time to address safety concerns
related to the higher blend of ethanol gasoline before the EPA puts it
in our general fuel supply.
Despite alarming consumer, environmental and economic concerns, the
Environmental Protection Agency has approved a 50 percent increase in
the amount of corn-based ethanol allowed in gasoline used by cars and
light trucks manufactured in the 2001 model year and newer.
This is simply another attempt by the EPA to engineer ethanol
mandates and drive ethanol subsidies forward. And, yes, this is a
mandate.
The EPA has mandated that we use 36 billion gallons of renewable
fuels, like ethanol, annually in our motor engines by 2022 and through
incremental steps and backhanded attempts just like this, the EPA is
mandating.
The EPA's move from E10 to E15 fuel over the next several months is
in effect a backhanded 50 percent increase in the corn ethanol mandate
putting consumers, engine makers and gasoline retailers at risk.
Gasoline station owners are terrified of how they will comply with this
E15 mandate because not all of the existing infrastructure is certified
for the fuel. Under the EPA waiver, they will have no liability
protections.
Quik Trip, a major gasoline retailer across the Midwest, which is
headquartered in my hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma, offers an
unconditional guarantee on every drop of gasoline they sell. Because of
the lack of liability protection, they will be left on the hook if
someone puts the wrong blend of gas in the wrong kind of car. That will
open up a litigation nightmare.
Why do we want to further mandate a fuel consumers don't want and
retailers are afraid to sell? This is a major consumer safety issue
that could adversely impact up to 60 percent of cars on the road today.
It is also important to point out the environmental impacts of this
as well. The higher a fuel blend like E15, the higher the toxic air
pollutant emissions. Since ethanol contains just 66 percent of the
energy that gasoline does, E15 will lead to an actual drop in gasoline
mileage. The EPA has even said you get 5 percent less fuel economy with
E15 than clear gasoline.
The EPA has completely ignored calls from lawmakers, industry,
environmental and consumer groups to address important safety issues
raised by the 50 percent increase in the ethanol mandate waivers.
Putting the brakes on E15 is the right thing to do for the people that
we represent.
I ask my colleagues to join me in passing this amendment.
I yield back 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 3
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to a
very thoughtful and informed expert on this issue, the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
I understand the gentleman from Oklahoma represents oil and the
reason that he is doing this, but current

[[Page H1318]]

government regulations restrict the ethanol blend to 10 percent by
volume. Meanwhile, ethanol producers have hit the 10 percent cap and
are producing more ethanol than can be used under current restrictions
that are in place.
I have to correct the gentleman when he said EPA mandates this. It's
Congress, us, that mandated the 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by
2022. And it's essential, with that mandate from Congress, this is not
EPA, that we increase E10 to E15 to continue our investment in
renewable fuel for the economy.
Raising the limit will accelerate the use of renewable fuels made in
the U.S. We are not importing this oil, Mr. Chairman. We are lessening
our dependence on foreign sources of oil and encouraging continued
investment and research for advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol.
As importantly, raising the limit will grow our economy here in the
U.S., create about 136,000 jobs in the United States. This is oil that
we are not importing from oversees and spending billions and billions
of dollars with our military to defend the oil coming into this
country.
These are good-paying jobs; they are very excellent as far as jobs in
rural America. They cannot be outsourced overseas. Science supports
E15. It's the most tested fuel in history, with the EPA and the
Department of Energy stating that the higher ethanol blend does not
harm engine durability nor emissions equipment for vehicles aged 2001
and newer, which represents more than 70 percent of the vehicles on the
road today in the United States.
It's clear that science supports the decision. There's no doubt that
the E15 blend limit is good for our economy, it's good for our energy
independence and everybody talks about all of the above.
This is part of all of the above of energy independence for the
United States. It's good for continuing investment in the renewable
fuels, energy and for the rural parts of this country that need an
awful lot of help these days.
I certainly oppose this amendment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. MORAN. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I want to thank my colleague from Virginia.
For 15 seconds, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my
colleague and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr.
Sullivan. I think we need to think how we are doing this with ethanol.
It costs more. I don't want to import oil either. That's why we need to
produce it in our own country.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SULLIVAN. 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. 216 Offered by Mr. McKinley

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to carry out section 404(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member
opposed each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, we all should be concerned about the
recent actions by the EPA and how it continues to destroy jobs by
exceeding its statutory authority as envisioned by Congress. In West
Virginia, our State's economy is highly dependent upon the coal and
natural gas industries.
On January 13, 2011, the EPA took an unprecedented action by
retroactively revoking a lawfully issued 4-year-old permit for the
Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This permit
had been issued by the Secretary of the Army under the Clean Water Act
and was approved by the Corps of Engineers in January 2007.
For nearly a decade, the Corps of Engineers worked with the EPA to
rigorously review this Spruce mine project before it was approved. The
permit was issued after this extensive environmental review, which
included a 1,600-page Environmental Impact Statement in which the EPA
fully participated and agreed to all terms and conditions included in
the authorized permit.

{time} 2340

Just to be clear, the EPA had every opportunity to address any
concerns and work together with the Corps of Engineers prior to the
permit being issued. By giving the EPA the funds to retroactively veto
this permit, a dangerous precedent is being set for future job-
producing ventures by businesses and industries throughout this
country.
These actions by the EPA continue to justify why so many Americans
worry about the EPA's relentless war on coal. If the EPA can be allowed
to retroactively revoke a permit in West Virginia, they can continue
this onslaught wherever water permits exist throughout America. Any
entity discharging water is vulnerable to having their permits pulled
and will put at risk city sewage treatment plans, farms, mines, steel
mills, and chemical plants.
EPA's veto at Spruce mine caused the loss of 253 mining jobs and 298
indirect jobs in West Virginia. In addition, it prevented the
investment of nearly $250 million. The EPA's action has had a chilling
effect on many types of companies, all of which rely on the certainty
of the permitting process in order to make crucial business planning
decisions. It's virtually impossible for companies to take the
necessary steps to obtain financing and create jobs if they must endure
the threat of retroactive revocation of the very permits that allow
them to do business.
Today, this injustice happened at Spruce mine in West Virginia.
Tomorrow, the EPA could very well pull an existing water permit at a
steel mill in Indiana, a chemical plant in Texas, a sewage plant in
Iowa.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia's amendment
tries to prohibit EPA from carrying out section 404(c) of the Clean
Water Act. It's one more effort to deregulate all aspects of
mountaintop mining. Section 404(c) authorizes EPA under especially
serious circumstances to pull back permits for dredging and filling
with toxic material if they would have a substantially adverse effect
upon the quality of water, wildlife, and fishery areas. EPA has only
used this 404(c) authority 13 times in the 39 years of the Clean Water
Act.
But this amendment and its backers don't want EPA using that
authority to prevent the coal industry from polluting the contiguous
waters to their mountaintop mining. We know that mountaintop surface
mining removes entire mountaintops so that they can get to the coal
underneath, but then in the process invariably deposits toxic mining
waste in the nearby streams. And then that gets into the public's water
supply. It costs substantial sums of money to subsequently clean it,
and toxically polluted can be not only devastating to the environment,
but devastating to local economies.
Only in the most egregious instances has EPA used this authority.
They should have the right to pull permits when companies carelessly
and seriously harm the environment. That's EPA's responsibility. It's
understandable that mining companies don't want any restriction on
their mining, but it's not excusable for this Congress to prevent the
EPA from carrying out its lawful responsibilities and not to heed the
long-term health impacts on the American people and of the quality of
the water in these regions. So I urge

[[Page H1319]]

the defeat of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the body knows where we stand, on the side
of responsible environmental preservation and clean water for our
children to drink.
At this point, in deference to the chairman of the full committee, I
yield what time remains to the gentleman from Kentucky, because I see
him standing, and I suspect he wants to be heard on this.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I appreciate the gentleman's kindness.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from West Virginia for
offering this amendment. This retroactive veto of the Spruce mine is
the poster child for EPA's regulatory overreach, but there are
thousands more permits like this throughout Appalachia that the EPA
could put on notice. But coal is not the only industry relying on these
404 permits.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The EPA's action at Spruce will have severe
implications for the agriculture, construction, and transportation
sectors because it sets a dangerous precedent that EPA can revoke any
permit at any time for any reason, or for no reason.
Mr. Chairman, we need these jobs. And our job-creating industries
need regulatory certainty, not more of the same regulatory roulette
from the EPA. The gentleman from West Virginia's amendment would inject
some certainty into the regulatory environment by stripping the EPA of
its authority to retroactively veto existing permits at their whim,
with no appeal.
We in Congress need to keep our hand on the reins of this EPA, which
is running roughshod over small businesses, family farms, even the
constitutional authority of this Congress. I want to thank again the
gentleman from West Virginia for offering this amendment, and I hope
that we can have the support of all Members of this body.
I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. I thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, for yielding, and I rise in support of my
colleague from West Virginia's amendment, Mr. McKinley. This particular
action in regard to the Spruce permit is an insult to the integrity of
the mine-permitting process.
The particular mine in question is located in my congressional
district. The permit was negotiated with the EPA in good faith by the
coal company over a space of 10 years. The permit was then granted 3
years ago and just recently was revoked by the EPA. It goes against the
grain of what I think should be good-faith efforts by coal companies to
negotiate with the EPA, recognizing that they can't get all they want
in a permit application and therefore some withdrawal, some compromise
is necessary. That was done in this particular case in a painstaking
process over 10 years, and the permit was granted. Now to have it
revoked is indeed an insult to the integrity of the mine permitting
process.
The EPA was given authority in the Clean Water Act to weigh in on
permitting decisions of the Corps of Engineers to help ensure a balance
between environmental protection and activities like energy
development.
In that regard, the EPA could and should be a positive, constructive
force. But its methods over the last two years have reformulated the
permitting process in ways never envisioned under the law.
It has used its limited legal role to wrest control of the process
from the Corps of Engineers where the chief responsibility for 404
permitting legally lies.
Nowhere is this more evident than in EPA's veto of the Mingo-Logan
Coal Company's Section 404 permit for its Spruce Fork No. 1 mine.
In 1998, the operator of that mine applied for a permit to construct
what was, at the time, the largest surface mine ever attempted. The
mine was immediately the target of a lawsuit, of legislative debate,
and federal regulatory action.
Over the course of the next several years, the company, the Corps,
and the EPA engaged in intensive negotiations. The mine became the
subject of an Environmental Impact Statement--the first ever written
for a surface mine.
In the end, in January of 2007, as a result of much compromise and
revision, an Individual 404 permit was awarded by the Army Corps. That
was nearly ten years from the date the company first made application.
But on September 3, 2009, the EPA reneged. It sent a letter to the
Corps of Engineers asking that the Corps suspend, revoke, or modify
that 2-year-old permit--a request the Corps flatly refused. Then the
EPA took the further, ground-breaking step of issuing its own veto.
So, under one EPA Administrator, the 404 permit for this mine was
approved. Under another Administrator, it was vetoed.
If the EPA can veto this permit--a permit 10 years in the making--not
a single, solitary thing stands in the way of this EPA, or some future
EPA, should it decide--for whatever reason--to reach back and veto a
previously granted permit for coal mining or any other activity.
Without some degree of finality, permitting is worthless.
I still believe that achieving balance between energy development and
environmental protection is a goal we can and must achieve.
But the EPA must not be allowed to dwell in the mindset that job
losses are an inevitable result of protecting the environment. The coal
miners of the Appalachian region deserve a fair, clear, and consistent
regulatory process.
Toward that end, Mr. Chairman, I join in urging my colleagues to
support this amendment to rein in an EPA gone too far.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for his comment.
Mr. Chairman, let us work. Give us the jobs. Give us the jobs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McKINLEY. 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 West
Virginia will be postponed.

Amendment No. 217 Offered by Mr. McKinley

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop,
propose, finalize, implement, administer, or enforce any
regulation that identifies or lists fossil fuel combustion
waste as hazardous waste subject to regulation under subtitle
C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) or
otherwise makes fossil fuel combustion waste subject to
regulation under such subtitle.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member
opposed each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank my colleague and
fellow committee member, Cliff Stearns from Florida, for offering a
similar amendment. This amendment will specifically bar the use of
funds to carry out the regulation of fossil fuel combustion wastes
under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. In 2010, the EPA
proposed this regulation, and here we are today standing against this
emotional reaction triggered by a structurally unstable dam in
Tennessee.
What happened there is tragic and should be dealt with by the proper
agency regarding the dam's integrity. It should not be used to advance
an ideologically motivated agenda regarding the environment.
Let me frame the issue. Fly ash is an unavoidable byproduct of
electric power generation using coal. It is captured before being
emitted into the atmosphere. The fine grain, dust-like particles are
then recycled into concrete mixtures for our roads, our bridges, and
buildings. It's an additive in masonry production of concrete blocks
and bricks. It's been widely used in drywall panels used in houses,
schools, and offices.

{time} 2350

The fly ash is even used in agricultural fertilizers and soil
amendments. If the EPA were allowed to continue

[[Page H1320]]

with their plan to designate fly ash as a hazardous material, all of
these time-tested energy-saving uses would come to a halt.
The expense of handling the product would increase logarithmically,
and so would our electric prices. By increasing the cost of power, it
understandably causes the cost of producing American-made products to
increase and put American businesses at another disadvantage against
our foreign competition. This EPA rule will be an unmitigated job-
killer.
Coal ash use and disposal has been studied by the EPA for over 20
years. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act directed the EPA to
study the ``adverse effects on human health and the environment, if
any,'' of current practices for disposal and utilization of fossil fuel
combustion wastes. The EPA's conclusion was that these wastes do not
warrant regulation under subtitle C. How many more reports need to be
conducted by the EPA to show that fly ash is nonhazardous? Enough is
enough.
According to various environmental groups, for every ton of cement
manufactured, about 6.5 million BTUs of energy are consumed and about 1
ton of carbon dioxide is replaced. If we can replace that 1 ton with
fly ash, we could save enough electricity to power an average American
home for 24 days and reduce carbon dioxide emissions equal to a 2-month
use of an automobile.
What's ironic to me is that even the EPA's headquarters right down
the street from us was built with a significant amount of fly ash mixed
into the concrete matrix.
The use of fly ash in concrete creates a stronger, lasting product by
using less water. In using less water, we further reduce our
environmental footprint.
I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would stop EPA from
identifying coal ash as hazardous waste and, therefore, prevent any
regulation of that waste. The fact is that coal ash contains dangerous
contaminants, such as mercury, cadmium, and arsenic, and we know those
can be dangerous to public health. Without further guidance by EPA,
this ash will continue to be stored onsite at many large power plants,
where it leaches into the groundwater and into nearby streams. EPA has
found a number of communities across the country where coal ash has
contaminated drinking water sources poisoning people and wildlife.
Through its public rulemaking process, it's been developing a rule.
In fact, it has received more than 450,000 public comments. It's had
Web-based seminars. It's done everything to get opinion on both sides
of this issue. It's currently conducting risk and economic analyses of
the options available.
Suspending work on a final regulation isn't going to satisfy anybody.
But it will ensure that you're going to continue to have the coal ash
at risk of contaminating drinking water, you are going to create
uncertainty for power companies that burn coal, and you are going to
eliminate potential markets for coal ash reuse. Potential users are not
going to buy it if they think some day it might cause liability. The
final EPA rule would eliminate that uncertainty, allow for coal ash to
be properly stored and used, and eliminate the risk for health and the
environment. That's why the amendment should be defeated.
At this point, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I want to tell you a story. On December 22, 2008, in Kingston,
Tennessee, a coal ash impoundment structurally failed, and they
released 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge. This sludge blanketed
the Emory River and 300 acres of surrounding land, creating a Superfund
site that could cost up to $825 million to remediate. If this coal ash
had been stored safely, this tragedy would never have happened. The
wastes are dangerous. What EPA has tried to do is to make sure that the
hazardous waste is disposed of safely to protect the health of
communities.
And I find it somewhat amazing to hear the author of this amendment
say that EPA is acting on an ideological agenda. How ideological do you
have to be to act when you have an example of a terrible amount of coal
ash poisoning areas and threatening drinking water? Is that ideological
when they want to make sure that it's safeguarded and disposed of in a
proper way? That's not ideological. That's the kind of thing we want
EPA to do. So I would urge opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McKINLEY. 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 West
Virginia will be postponed.

Amendment No. 545 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

Mr. POMPEO. 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 carry out any of the activities described in
section 6A of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
2055a).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) and a Member opposed each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
This amendment is actually pretty straightforward. It's pretty
simple. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 called for
the creation of a public consumer information database. And last year,
the agency adopted a database rule that fails to uphold the statute.
The statute required that the agency not allow materially inaccurate
information to be on the publicly available database, and yet the rule,
as promulgated, actually requires the agency to post materially
inaccurate information. Indeed, it requires the agency to post that
material and accurate information within 10 days. This will drive jobs
overseas. It will increase the cost for manufacturers and consumers.
The National Association of Manufacturers has announced its support for
this amendment. The Home Appliance Manufacturers, the American Home
Furnishings Alliance, the Consumer Specialty Products Associations all
have recognized that this regulation is terribly onerous.
The request of this amendment is very modest. It does not ask that
this go away. It just asks for a delay in implementation. It asks for
some time for the committee to review this regulation and come up with
a regulation that makes sense and is consistent with the statute. So I
would urge the support of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
This amendment would deny the Consumer Product Safety Commission the
implementation of a searchable public consumer safety information
database. Now this database was part of a bill that passed this House
by 424-1. We required a database, and CPSC is ready to release this
database. It's based on similar successful databases run at the present
time by the Food and Drug Administration and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. It would allow consumers to report harms
associated with consumer products and then to research risks associated
with these particular products.
This is exactly what the American people want. They want information.
They have a right to know. And, in fact, every opinion poll indicates
this.

[[Page H1321]]

This amendment is a ``keep the consumers in the dark'' amendment.
Parents want to know if a toy is dangerous. This amendment would take
away their right to go to a database that would give them this
information.
Now the claims against the database are pretty shocking. The
manufacturers say, Well, this is going to be a problem because they're
going to put things on the database that are trade secrets or
inaccurate.

{time} 0000

This is simply not the case. There is a safeguard. In fact, there are
safeguards after safeguards to protect manufacturers.
The statute provides more procedural safeguards than any other public
database at a Federal agency. Anonymous complaints are not allowed,
only safety-related information will be included. Businesses get to see
every report of harm before it is placed in the database. They have an
opportunity to correct inaccurate information and to provide their own
comments.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Having voted for the NHTSA Act, I want to say that the intent of this
database was to provide consumers with information on dangerous
products. Some people have compared the database to the one operated by
the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. However, the
two are very different because NHTSA's database requires much more
information about the actual product and is therefore much more
reliable.
From a government perspective, we should be concerned that there will
be inaccurate information on a ``.gov'' Web site. And at the end of the
day, the most important factor is this: If the database isn't accurate
or reliable, it is going to be totally useless for consumers looking to
avoid unreliable or dangerous products. It has already cost $29
million. And I say, if you're going to set up a database, do it right.
We, as a Congress, have a duty to fund things that are in the best
interests of the American people, and the CPSC database is not. It
should not go live next month with inaccurate information.
I strongly support this amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking
member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this issue, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
As part of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission was charged with creating a publicly
available, searchable database for complaints regarding consumer
products. The amendment offered by the gentleman aims to bar the
Commission from moving forward with this database.
The Food and Drug Administration and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration both have publicly available databases for
consumers to report harms or potential safety problems about cars and
medical products. Those databases don't provide any due process to
manufacturers to contest those claims. However, this database provides
exhaustive due process, including allowing manufacturers to refute
``materially inaccurate'' claims and, if found to be inaccurate, have
the complaint removed. The Commission database also allows
manufacturers to issue a response and have those responses appear along
with the consumer complaint.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to my colleague from
Texas (Mr. Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the Record
a letter dated November 23, 2010, on this issue that I sent to the
chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Honorable
Inez Tenenbaum.
I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Kansas' amendment. He
is exactly right on this, and we should support him.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, November 23, 2010.
Hon. Inez Tenenbaum,
Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda,
MD.
Dear Chairman Tenenbaum: I am pleased the Commission
delayed consideration of a proposed final rule on
implementing the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety
Information Database. Implementing this database properly is
very important and I write to clarify the intent of Congress
when we passed the relevant provisions of the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-314).
Several provisions of the staff-proposed final rule run
contrary to the intent of Congress and the clear and
unambiguous language of the Act.
By way of background, the House-passed version (H.R. 4040)
of the database provision reported by the Energy and Commerce
Committee by a 51-0 vote did not authorize implementation of
a database remotely similar to the one set forth in either
the Public Law or the proposed final rule. We had bipartisan
agreement to evaluate the efficacy of, and only then improve,
the Commission's legacy Injury Information Clearinghouse
database based on this evaluation. We provided first for an
evaluation of the Commission's current injury databases.
Following this evaluation, the bill directed the Commission
to submit a plan to Congress on the best way to maintain the
publicly available information in a searchable Internet
database. The bill also directed the Commission to provide
its views on whether the database should include additional
information, such as consumer complaints. The bill thus
provided for evaluation and another opportunity for Congress
to consider the best way of addressing the database. We
clearly could have gone further and drafted the bill to
require that the database include such information, but we
rejected that approach. In fact, the then Committee Chairman
and I both opposed--and the Committee rejected--amendments
during Committee consideration that would have mandated
specific reporting requirements. We shared serious concerns
that innocent companies should not suffer reputational harm
from slanderous or inaccurate information in the publicly
accessible database before the Commission verifies the
accuracy of the information. Due process is important and we
did not believe the amendment afforded adequate protection to
those who could suffer harm from the disclosure of slanderous
or inaccurate information.
Similarly, after the Senate passed its bill, the conferees
reached a compromise between narrow House and the broader
Senate database provisions to specifically balance the
interests of consumers and companies. The approach we agreed
upon carefully balanced the objectives of making reports of
harm available to the public, ensuring the accuracy of the
information, and preventing the disclosure of confidential
information. The Commission staff proposal does not properly
balance these interests and therefore does not comport with
the intent of Congress. The proposal provides that the
Commission would submit information where a specific product
and manufacturer is identified to that manufacturer for
review of potentially confidential information and to
ascertain the material accuracy of the information. If a
company provides evidence proving that either a breach of
trade secrets would result from disclosure of the information
or that the information is materially inaccurate, the
Commission staff would review the evidence. According to the
staff proposal, if the Commission cannot complete its review
within 10 days, it would publish the information and remove
it at a later date if warranted at the conclusion of its
investigation. This process would provide little or no
protection for confidential information and will encourage
the publication of inaccurate and misleading information.
Once the information is public, competitors can learn trade
secrets and media can disseminate materially inaccurate
information with little hope that the error could be
rectified in the future. Congress did not intend such a
result, and we went to great lengths to provide reasonable
protection to manufacturers from the harm that such
publication could entail. The Commission must follow the
intent of Congress and allow such information to be withheld
pending the completion of its investigation into
confidentiality and accuracy.
I am also troubled by the proposed final rule's expansion
of the list of entities that may submit reports of harm to
the database beyond those specifically enumerated in the law.
Congress included an exhaustive and exclusive list of those
who may submit reports for the database in section
6A(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Specifically, that section provides
that the database shall include ``Reports of harm relating to
the use of consumer products, and other products or
substances regulated by the Commission, that are received by
the Commission from (i) consumers; (ii) local, State, or
Federal government agencies; (iii) health care professionals;
(iv) child service providers; and (v) public safety
entities.''
In its first draft, the Commission staff sought to create a
new category of ``others'' not contemplated by Congress,
which included but was not limited to attorneys, professional
engineers, investigators, non-government organizations
(NGOs), consumer advocates, consumer advocacy organizations,
and trade associations. In its most recent draft, the staff
accepts that Congress enacted an exhaustive and exclusive
list of reporters and removed the category of ``others.''
However, the proposal now simply redefines the term
``consumers'' to include attorneys, investigators,
professional engineers,

[[Page H1322]]

agents of a user of a consumer product, and observers of the
consumer products being used. Congress did not anticipate
that the Commission would propose a definition of
``consumer'' that so radically departs from the common
definition of consumer. If Congress had intended to expand
the universe of reporters to include all of the entities
identified in the most recent proposal, we would have made it
explicit in the Act.
Finally, the proposal also expands the definition of
``public safety entity'' to extend beyond federal, state and
local law enforcement entities, police, fire, ambulance,
emergency medical services, and other public safety officials
to now include consumer advocates, NGOs, consumer advocacy
organizations and trade associations. Congress did not intend
to include these additional entities as is clear by the plain
meaning of the text. Accordingly, to comport with
Congressional intent, the Commission must strike the expanded
definitions of ``consumers'' and ``public safety entity''
before it finalizes the rule.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the intent of
Congress in these matters. I look forward to working with you
and the Commission on implementation of the CPSIA.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Ranking Member.

Mr. WAXMAN. May I inquire of the Chair how much time each side has
left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Kansas has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. POMPEO. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) who authored this particular provision in
the consumer product safety legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from California.
This language is going to destroy the early warning system that has
been put in place in order to give parents the information they need in
order to protect their children. If this amendment passes, it will
grant industry's wish to once again make the government its secret
partner in crime by keeping reports of serious injury or even death
hidden from public view.
In 2000 and again in 2003, the Consumer Product Safety Commission
documented cases of children suffering intestinal injuries after
swallowing small but powerful magnets that had fallen out of toys. The
public didn't know, and the CPSC did nothing. By mid-2005, after more
reports of safety concerns associated with the magnets and two reports
of serious, life-threatening injuries, the public still didn't know,
and the CPSC still did nothing.
On Thanksgiving Day 2005, 22-month-old Kenny Sweet of Redmond,
Washington, died after swallowing magnets that had fallen out of
Magnetix toys. It was only after Kenny's death and an additional four
hospitalizations that the CPSC finally gave the public an inkling of
what was going on. But it actually took until April of 2007--after 7
years of reports of risks, numerous serious injuries and a death--
before a full recall of all the products was undertaken. And that is
not the only example of deaths and injuries that could have been
avoided had parents known the risks to their children.
In all of these cases, we heard the same story. There simply aren't
enough resources for the CPSC to quickly and fully investigate every
complaint. In 2005, the CPSC investigated only 1 percent.
This is a ``no'' vote. Otherwise, we are going to see that choking
hazards and cribs that kill are once again hidden from public view.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I urge regulatory sensibility in the
support of this amendment, and with that, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, in my last 30 seconds, let me just say this
is an issue of the public's right to know. Let this database be
available to them so they don't go buy a toy that they could have
checked out on a Web site and found out that it was poisonous.
I urge the defeat of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 515 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the National Landscape Conservation System.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Utah and a Member opposed each will control 3
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the NLCS, which is a redundant
administrative system, was codified by legislation. In the 110th
session of Congress, the House passed an amended bill which went over
to the Senate and died. In the 111th session, the Senate picked up that
bill, stripped all the House amendments off and put it into the omnibus
lands bill where, without any hearing or debate, it was hidden in the
bowels and sent over to us where, once again, we had no hearings,
limited debate, none of which was on this particular system.
This redundant system, since I have introduced a resolution to try
and streamline the Department of the Interior by streamlining those
functions, I have heard some of the most amazing accusations of what
would happen if we were to indeed do that, everything from having the
sun come up in the west to the immediate beginning of the Mayan
calendar.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in the strongest possible opposition
to the Bishop amendment. As is the case with many of the cuts in this
bill, and with many of the amendments offered, the goal seems to be to
cut just for the sake of cutting. COPS funding? Cut it. Title Ten
services for low-income women? Cut it. Head Start? Cut it. The list
goes on and on.
I support efforts to reduce the deficit, and in that effort I have
voted for some of the amendments offered this week. But the Bishop
amendment goes too far, and in fact will have a devastating impact on
Southern Nevada and many other communities across the nation that will
cost us far more in the long run.
As an example, defunding the entire National Landscape Conservation
System will require shutting down the Red Rock Canyon National
Conservation Area, the stunningly beautiful natural wonder just outside
of Las Vegas. More than one million local families and tourists visit
this unique national treasure each year, taking advantage of the 13-
mile scenic drive, visitor center, hiking trails, rock climbing,
horseback riding, mountain biking and other recreational activities,
and bringing valuable tourist revenue to our community as we work to
recover from the economic downturn. Funding from the National Landscape
Conservation System allows BLM to maintain the roads, trails and
visitor center that make Red Rock accessible and that enable people of
all ages and abilities to enjoy its beauty year-round. Passage of this
amendment would eliminate this essential funding and force the shutdown
of this jewel in the Nevada desert.
I strongly encourage the defeat of this short-sighted amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With the time that we are at right now and with
the further indication that during this session our committee will
definitely review this particular administrative system for further
investigation, I would ask, with permission of the Chair, to withdraw
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

{time} 0010

Amendment No. 200 Offered by Mr. Burgess

Mr. BURGESS. 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:

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each
will control 3 minutes.

[[Page H1323]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. This amendment would allow that no funding made
available in this continuing resolution is to be used to pay for the
salary of any officer or employee at the Center for Consumer
Information and Insurance Oversight within the Department of Health and
Human Services.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act never mentions, never
authorizes, never appropriates money to the Center for Consumer
Information and Insurance Oversight, formerly known as the Office of
Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. So, without congressional
authorization, OCIIO, or now CCIIO, proceeded to hire staff, estimated
to be 200 people by the end of last year. They have rented office space
in Bethesda.
Tasked with implementing some of the largest and most expensive
sections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, this agency began issuing
regulations, including those related to State exchanges, medical loss
ratio, grandfathered plans, and the granting of waivers to businesses
on meeting the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.
Currently, this agency has granted 915 waivers accounting for 2.5
million Americans representing about 1 percent of Americans who have
private health insurance.
This agency's operation is outside any definitive boundaries, and
eventually drew some criticism, forcing them to be brought back under
the jurisdiction of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
effectively making CMS the most powerful health care agency in the
universe with jurisdiction over Medicare, Medicaid, the State
children's health plan, and now private insurance. This center has been
allowed, without congressional authorization, without congressional
oversight, to make the decisions that will affect all sectors of the
American population.
Without any due diligence or any congressional oversight, no agency
or center should be able to obtain funding, carry out their own agenda,
implement policy, write regulation, and remain largely unchecked.
Before any further funding is allowed to be provided by this body, we
need to know where the previous funds came from, how the money was
spent and fully review their operations.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
3 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Before we passed the Affordable Care Act, countless Americans would
buy coverage they thought was comprehensive only to realize that it had
huge gaps once they actually got sick. Even when the plans look similar
from the outside, with comparable deductibles, copays, and so-called
out-of-pocket limits, they can result in drastically different levels
of out-of-pocket medical expenses, which is probably why more than 50
percent of bankruptcies in this country are because of medical debt.
The Affordable Care Act created the Office of Consumer Information
and Insurance Oversight to provide better information to consumers, to
hold insurers accountable at the Federal level, and help States with
oversight responsibility. It requires insurance to provide clear
information to consumers on what is really in their policy, such as
standard definitions of medical and insurance terms, because
hospitalization should mean hospitalization. It requires insurance to
disclose data on claims payment policies and practices, claims denial
rates, medical loss ratio, and other information so that consumers can
make informed choices and so regulators can make sure the rules are
followed.
It's also responsible for confirming that the insurance companies get
approval to raise rates by more than medical inflation. In short, it
dramatically increases transparency and accountability in the health
insurance market.

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 30 seconds.
Why wouldn't we want consumers to know what they are buying so that
they don't go broke, that they get the health care that they need when
they are sick?
Quite frankly, what this does is to help keep the big insurers
honest, and that's probably why the majority has put the desires of the
insurance companies and the interests of the insurance companies before
the well-being of the American public.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, what the gentlelady asserts may or may not
be true. The fact is we don't know. We never authorized this agency. In
a 2,700 page bill, passed in the dead of night on March 23, no
authorization for this agency existed, but curiously enough, the head
of this agency was actually hired a year ago last Wednesday. The
administration knew what they were doing, they bowled right ahead and
did it, but they didn't want Congress to know. The authorization
language was left out of the bill, and then we forward funded it with
direct appropriation. That is why this amendment is necessary. Pull
that funding out. Keep those foot soldiers under wraps because in CMS,
they are under direct control of a man who has never been confirmed by
the United States Senate.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Pallone of New
Jersey.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I respect Dr. Burgess a great deal, but I
have no idea why he would be opposed to having an agency that is
essentially putting a check on the insurance companies. The problem is
that the insurance companies keep raising rates, they don't show the
consumer what the real benefits that they're receiving are, and what we
need is more transparency and some way to review these insurance
premium rates so that they don't get out of hand.
The fact of the matter is that this agency, working with States, has
already had great success. In Connecticut, regulators recently rejected
a proposed 20 percent rate increase by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue
Shield. In Maine, the State superintendent rejected WellPoint's Empire
Blue Cross request to raise rates by 23 percent. Colorado, also, and in
California, the review prompted Anthem Blue Cross to withdraw its
request for a 39 percent premium increase.
Why are you objecting to us trying to put a check on these insurance
companies that keep raising their rates at outrageous levels? That's
what this is all about. I oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
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 Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 482 Offered by Mr. Heller

Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment
No. 482.
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 designate monuments under the Act of June 8, 1906,
(commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906''; 16 U.S.C.
431, et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller) and a Member opposed each
will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment with my
friend from Idaho (Mr. Labrador) to prohibit funds from being used to
designate national monuments under the Antiquities Act. Roughly 85
percent of Nevada is federally controlled.

{time} 0020

So I am sensitive to any actions that could close access to public
lands. New

[[Page H1324]]

national monuments would limit access, threaten grazing rights, end
mineral exploration of mining, and even impact private property. And
this is the last thing we need in this dire economy.
A transparent public process that includes input from local
officials, communities, and stakeholders for any new Federal land
designation is in the best interest of the residents of our public
lands communities. That is why I support efforts to require any
Antiquities Act actions to have congressional approval. Government that
works in the best interest of the people ensures that all stakeholders
have a seat at the table.
Examples, such as the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument,
which in the waning days of the Clinton administration literally
obliterated massive economic development with a stroke of a pen, are
why I am standing here today. I don't want this to happen in Nevada or
anywhere else.
I urge my colleagues to join us to protect communities from the heavy
hand of the Federal Government and support our amendment.
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 3
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. Presidents of both
parties have used this act to increase protection to lands and waters
that are already U.S. Government controlled. The act has no impact on
private lands. It's a law that was passed by a Republican-led Congress
and signed by a Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt.
Since then, 15 U.S. Presidents have declared 131 national monuments
under the act--eight Republican Presidents, seven Democratic
Presidents.
It must be remembered that the lands withdrawn are Federal lands
owned by all Americans--not just the residents of certain States or
localities in which they happen to be located. The Nation, not just a
single State, has a vital interest in the future of these lands and
their unique qualities.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr).
Mr. FARR. Thank you for yielding.
This is a bad amendment, and I urge all of my friends to carefully
consider it.
Mr. Heller may have an issue in Nevada, and he says he wants to have
legislation to require Congress to make these designations, but that's
not what's here today. He's wiping out the money to give the President
the ability to make these monuments.
Look it. We just made one in California on the entire coast of
California for all the rocks and islands and is probably the largest
monument in the United States. It was overwhelmingly endorsed by all of
the communities along the coast. Let local governments be involved in
these things so they can petition the President.
More Republican Presidents have used this than Democratic Presidents.
It affects all of your States. The Grand Canyon was originally a
monument before Congress made it a national park.
Taking away this tool in the tool box would just leave these lands
fallow. They're BLM lands. They're already owned by the Federal
Government. They'd have no use. You can't get into the other activities
that the others have.
This is a great tool. Don't throw it away.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remaining 1 minute to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Thank you.
Monument designations do not take non-Federal land. The Antiquities
Act only allows monument designations on land the Federal Government
already owns.
There is nothing improper about these designations. This authority
has been upheld by every court which has reviewed it since 1906.
Monument designations do not lock up resources. Monument designations
under the Antiquities Act grandfather valid, existing rights so any
mining or other claim existing before the designation can still move
forward.
If Members object to the Antiquities Act of 1906, they should file
legislation amending the act and then come on over to the Natural
Resources Committee. Doc Hastings and I will be sitting there waiting
for you to testify to make your case to amend the Antiquities Act.
This amendment is based on an extreme ideology that the Federal
Government should divest itself of the stunning national treasures
managed by the Department of Interior and enjoyed by millions each
year.
Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nevada has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my friend, Mr. Heller,
to join in this great amendment.
Last year an internal document was leaked from the Department of
Interior. This document described the administration plans to lock up
more than 140 million acres of public lands and designate 14 new
national monuments.
It also proposed using its land management authority to sidestep
prohibitions on monument designations. When the secret plan was brought
to light, the administration backtracked and quickly claimed it had no
plans to lock up millions of acres of public lands.
The administration essentially wanted us to forget about how
President Clinton used his authority in the dark of the night to lock
up millions of acres of land. I can't say for sure that the
administration will follow through with that commitment, but I already
know that they have betrayed us, and they have betrayed our trust.
Once again, they acted to restrict public land use when Secretary
Salazar rolled out a new plan, cooked up in secret, to create a new
category of off-limit lands called ``Wild Lands.''
The actions of this administration have proven to me that it cannot
be trusted to possess the authority to designate monuments without
congressional oversight, which is why I have joined my friend,
Congressman Heller, in offering this amendment. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. HELLER. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 174 Offered by Mr. Heller

Mr. HELLER. 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, after the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. 4002. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller) and a Member opposed each
will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yucca Mountain as a storage location for the Nation's nuclear waste
is dead. Even the administration understands that transporting the
nuclear waste to a State with no nuclear activity jeopardizes the
security of our Nation and is a bad investment of precious taxpayer
dollars.
Unfortunately, this bill not only tries to keep the Yucca Mountain
project in regulatory limbo, it seeks to block information regarding
viable alternatives to Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste dump.
Yucca Mountain is in my district, and our State has been dealing with
this boondoggle project for literally decades. According to the
Government Accountability Office, over the past 20

[[Page H1325]]

years the proposed site has suffered from gross mismanagement, faulty
science and research, contract mismanagement, and, most alarmingly,
questions about safety and design of the site and its impacts on its
surrounding environment and people.
I am a strong supporter of the need to responsibly develop all of our
Nation's energy resources, including nuclear energy. However, the key
to my position is the need to be responsible, and continued investment
in the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain does not meet this
litmus test.
I continue to be disappointed at the House's insistence of reviving
the Yucca Mountain boondoggle. Most recent estimates place the cost of
the Yucca Mountain facility at nearly $100 billion.

{time} 0030

Not surprisingly, this estimate seems to increase with each passing
year.
Given our current economic climate and our serious debt problems, our
Nation cannot afford to continue with this poorly managed project.
Congress needs to have a serious discussion about studying reasonable
alternatives to Yucca Mountain. If you're concerned about the safety of
American citizens and the wise stewardship of tax dollars, then join
with me to keep this project out of limbo, acknowledge reality, and
move forward on a responsible solution to our Nation's nuclear waste
storage issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back 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 3
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would
forbid funds for Yucca Mountain, but its most damaging effect is to
stop the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from moving ahead with the Yucca
Mountain license, application and review process.
Mr. Chairman, the House has overwhelmingly voted multiple times over
the last several years to reject the administration's closure of Yucca.
The gentleman's amendment would do nothing but support the
administration's political manipulations and it will waste over $12
billion of ratepayers' money.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 15 seconds to my
ranking member, Mr. Pastor.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to my
good friend, Mr. Heller's, amendment. U.S. taxpayers and electric
ratepayers have spent billions of dollars on this project. It is my
assumption and my opinion that the Obama administration has acted
without authority to close it down. They've certainly acted outside the
confines of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
I support the opposition of my good friend from New Jersey and would
urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I understand why my good friend from Nevada is offering this; he's
representing what he thinks is right for his constituents, and I
commend him for that. But the fact of the matter is this is the law of
the country, this is the repository, period; yet the Department of
Energy, in my view, has been operating outside the law for the last
year.
Ratepayers have already spent $10 billion on this. If we terminate
this site, we will have other liabilities--in fact, there are already
contractual liabilities of $2 billion that have been let already--plus
the expense, if we have to find another repository, will cost taxpayers
further billions of dollars.
So I understand why the gentleman is doing this, I think he is
incorrect, and I urge that Members vote against his amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman.
My good friend from Nevada does a wonderful job of representing his
district and his State. I believe this, however, is a misguided
amendment, respectfully.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALTMIRE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this
amendment. The fact is there is an appeal taking place before the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A number of States have filed suit,
those suits are going to be in court this spring. This is not an issue
we should be deciding tonight. I am strongly opposed to the amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against Mr.
Heller's 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'm just going to take a minute here.
I want to say to my colleagues here, I completely agree with my
friend from Washington State, Mr. Hastings, the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, that this violates the law of the land. There is
no scientific basis for what is happening here. We have submarines and
nuclear power carriers that are offloading waste in Burlington,
Washington that go to Idaho that are supposed to go to Yucca Mountain.
We made a commitment to the people of Idaho that we would move that
waste out of here in the 2025 time frame.
Now this project is being stopped without Congress--I was here when
we passed the law, and this is being stopped without Congress changing
the law. I think it's a travesty, and we're wasting billions of
dollars. We should go ahead and finish this project.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to Mr. Heller's
amendment to divert federal funding from the Yucca Mountain Nuclear
Waste Repository.
Expanding America's nuclear energy industry is vital to strengthening
our energy independence and meeting the growing demand of electricity
across the country.
While I understand the intent behind the Congressman's amendment, and
I respect Mr. Heller's defense of his district's interests, I do think
it is misguided.
Despite your views on the nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain, it is
the law of the land and has been congressionally approved. It would be
a mistake to zero out the funding that has been authorized and
allocated by Congress for this project.
The Department of Energy is currently litigating Yucca Mountain's
license application. The funding in this bill is reserved to answer
questions about the merits of the project and will help both sides--
those who support the repository as well as those who oppose--make
their case.
I look forward to working with the gentleman to advance our mutual
interest of advancing new and innovative domestic energy production and
research and development on advanced energy technologies.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
The agreement was rejected.

Amendment No. 563 Offered by Mrs. Noem

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. No funds made available by this Act may be used
to modify the national primary ambient air quality standard
or the national secondary ambient air quality standard
applicable to coarse particulate matter under section 109 of
the Clean Air Act.

[[Page H1326]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem) and a Member
opposed each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Dakota.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because I'm concerned
about an EPA rule on the National Primary or Secondary Ambient Air
Quality Standards that would make the standard for the amount of coarse
particulate matter in the air more stringent.
Last summer, the EPA laid the groundwork to regulate dust at an
unprecedented level. We must stop the EPA from any regulation of farm
dust.
Anyone who has driven a combine through a field or a pickup down a
gravel road knows that dust is a part of rural living. Potentially
fining farmers and livestock producers who practice good management
with new dust regulations would be excessive and extremely detrimental
to our Nation's vital agriculture industry.
Mr. Chairman, it's hard to think of something more emblematic of
Washington's regulatory overreach than the potential punishment of
farmers and livestock producers for kicking up a little dust. Expanding
the coarse particulate matter standard on dust would be a burdensome
regulation for farmers and ranchers. My amendment would prohibit the
EPA from using any of the funds made available under this act to modify
the standard for coarse particulate matter under the Clean Air Act.
There is enough uncertainty in farming in rural America. We do not need
to add to that uncertainty with the threat of more strict EPA
regulations on farm dust.
Farmers are certainly looking for certainty about the future.
Burdening them with greater regulations on dust is excessive and
unreasonable. For this reason, my amendment is supported by the
American Farm Bureau and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
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 3
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the Noem amendment would prevent the EPA
from updating air pollution standards for dangerous soot pollution. The
Clean Air Act requires that EPA revise the limits on this type of
harmful pollution when new science tells us it's necessary to protect
human health. EPA hasn't changed this standard since 1987. The
amendment would tell EPA though--it would require EPA--to ignore the
science. If new science has emerged in the last 24 years that shows
that soot pollution is more dangerous than we knew 24 years ago, EPA
would have to ignore any new scientific findings.
This amendment applies to one dangerous pollutant, coarse materials.
They're so small that they get past the respiratory system's natural
defenses and they lodge in our lungs. Scientific studies have linked
these particles to a variety of serious health problems, including
increased respiratory symptoms in children and premature death in
people with heart and lung disease.
Why is the majority party so afraid of science? I don't know as much
about particulate matter as the scientists at EPA, but I don't really
think you do either. It seems to me we ought to defer to the scientists
and respect the public's health.
EPA is charged with protecting the public health. They're doing a
pretty good job and we ought to let them do it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

{time} 0040

Mr. CRAWFORD. Like many of my colleagues, I represent a largely rural
district. Agriculture is the number one industry in the First District
of Arkansas. Farmers there--and across the country, I might add--are
facing tough economic challenges like many other businesses today.
Regardless of the production they are engaged in--poultry, cattle,
cotton, rice, soybeans, whatever--the chief complaint of farmers in my
district is the continued pressure placed on them by the onerous
regulatory burdens of the Environmental Protection Agency. Now under
the auspices of ``clean air,'' the EPA wants to regulate dust.
American farmers produce the safest, cheapest, and most abundant food
supply on the planet. There are over 300 million mouths to feed in our
country, and less than a million farmers engaged in the process of
meeting that demand. Not to mention, global demand is growing
exponentially where by the year 2050 there will be a total population
of over 9 billion people.
Folks, for centuries, America has led the way in agricultural
production, and we will continue to be the leading producers of
commodities so long as farmers aren't being stifled by crippling
regulations and EPA overreach. Government should be aiding our efforts
to lead the way in agricultural production, not hindering them. The
regulatory regime must come to realize that our food is grown in the
dirt and that, in the process of the production of that food, farmers
are going to stir up a little dust.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MORAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 15
seconds.
Mr. SIMPSON. How much?
The Acting CHAIR. Thirteen seconds.
Mr. SIMPSON. This is a dang good amendment, and it should pass.
The EPA continually claims that they want certainty, but what they
are creating is uncertainty. I can tell you that every rancher and
every farmer in Idaho and across this Nation is concerned about what
the EPA is trying to do with dust regulations and the impact it is
going to have on food production.
Pass this amendment regardless of what they say.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 1\1/2\ minutes to the
very distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, you would think that EPA is about to
regulate these fine particulate matter for the very first time, but
that's not accurate.
PM10 is already regulated because EPA had to set a standard to
protect the public health. These small particulates can get into your
lungs, and they can cause increased respiratory symptoms in children,
and can cause premature death in people with heart and lung disease, so
EPA sets a standard to protect the public health.
What this amendment would do would be to stop EPA from setting a
standard that might be tighter if the science dictates it.
Once they set a standard, EPA does not regulate. EPA leaves it to the
States to decide how they will meet that standard. EPA is already
talking to the stakeholders in the agricultural communities.
In the past, the vast majority of States has not required farms to
take any action that would require reductions of this pollution.
Instead, States have typically reduced particles from industrial
processes. California and Arizona are addressing agricultural pollution
by incorporating USDA-approved conservation measures in some areas.
EPA does not target monitoring in rural areas. They are reaching out
to their stakeholders. EPA should not be stopped by this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. 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 South
Dakota will be postponed.

Amendment No. 430 Offered by Mr. Pitts

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H1327]]

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, the Department of
Labor, or the Department of the Treasury who takes any action
to specify or define, through regulations, guidelines, or
otherwise, essential benefits under section 1302 of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18022).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and a Member opposed
each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment.
This amendment prevents funds from being used by the Department of
Health and Human Services to implement rules regarding ObamaCare's
essential benefits package.
As if ObamaCare's mandate that everyone must purchase health
insurance wasn't enough, the law went one step further. The Federal
Government will now tell every single American and business what their
health plans must cover. To make matters worse, ObamaCare grants this
unprecedented power to a single person. ObamaCare gives this power to
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine which benefits
are essential for patients, affecting every man, woman and child in
America--not to mention that, the more benefits that HHS determines to
be essential, the higher the premiums will be for coverage, thus
increasing the overall cost for small businesses and families across
America.
Behind me is a chart of all the new powers granted to the Secretary
under ObamaCare. It was meant to be printed on a 5-foot-by-10-foot
chart. Even at this size it's difficult to read, but if you have a
magnifying glass, you can actually read this.
ObamaCare has nearly 2,000 of the Secretary's shell statements. The
new powers of the Secretary are symptomatic of the vast expansion of
Federal control that in many cases usurps State authority and limits
private sector autonomy, innovations and its ability to function.
This is bureaucracy at its finest, and it is most destructive. The
ability to define minimum benefits is just one of many of the new
powers, but it is one of the pivotal ones, and it is precisely why we
have pointed out that this is a government takeover of the health
industry. I believe patients are capable of deciding which health
insurance plans best fit their needs, not a government bureaucrat.
For example, the Federal Government shouldn't tell Mormons in Utah
that they need to buy coverage for alcohol counseling. Yet Secretary
Sebelius is now in a position to do just that--and there are many other
ridiculous examples like this.
Former HHS Secretary Leavitt's writing today in the Washington Post
perfectly describes the outcome of ObamaCare. He wrote: It puts more
power than is prudent into the hands of one person, and it is not an
answer to our national health care crisis.
There is too much power in one office.
I urge the House to adopt my amendment and to stop the Federal
takeover of personal health care decisions.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
3 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I must say that I think I'm in the movie ``Groundhog
Day.'' How many times do we have to vote to defund the Affordable Care
Act in one day?
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will stop the implementation of
essential health benefits. These rules will ensure that a minimum level
of quality health coverage will be covered by plans available on the
exchanges. We are talking about benefits related to things like
hospitalization, emergency services, maternity care, newborn care,
mental health care. This ensures that every plan on the exchange meets
minimum standards. It protects individuals and small businesses. It
allows them to pick out their plans with the confidence that they will
be able to get the adequate kinds of coverage that they need.
Why does the majority want to stand between consumers and the
information they need?
I urge my colleagues to please oppose this amendment.
I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. The problem for American consumers is that the insurance
company gouges them with high premiums and gives them lousy benefits.
So all we've been trying to do with health care reform is make it
possible for a consumer to get an affordable policy and to have a
decent benefits package.
I, for the life of me, don't understand why the Republicans don't
want that to happen. Why do they want the consumer not to be able to
get affordable insurance or to be able to get decent benefits?

{time} 0050

People are amazed because they expect that their insurance policy is
going to provide physician care, hospital care, emergency care,
prescription drugs, and oftentimes it doesn't even provide all these
things. So there should be an essential benefit package.
If you're a big corporation, you can go out and get a nice benefit
package for employees, and you can get an affordable policy. But if
you're a small business or you're an individual, you can't do it. So
all we're doing is trying to level the playing field so that the little
guy can get the good benefit package and get the affordable insurance
just like the big corporation.
Again, I don't understand why our Republican friends would not want
that to happen. And it's just practical. It's just a practical solution
here.
If you pass this amendment, then we're going to go back to the same
thing again where that average American can't get the good policy and
can't get affordable insurance. It's not fair. It's an issue of
fairness. So oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
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 Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 241 Offered by Mr. Carney

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Oil and Gas Research and Development Program
of the Department of Energy.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney) and a Member opposed
each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward.
It would eliminate funding for the $50 million oil and gas research and
development program funded through the Department of Energy's fossil
energy R&D account.
This cut, which the President also proposed in his FY12 budget, would
save the taxpayers money and end an unnecessary subsidy to the oil and
gas industry.
I am proposing elimination of this R&D program because the research
is being done and should be done by the industry itself.
Don't just take my word for it. The industry itself is doing the job
and says so. There is an ad in today's edition of The Hill newspaper on
the back which says, in part, this is placed here by the people of
America's oil and natural gas industry; that oil and natural gas
companies are leading innovators investing hundreds of billions of
dollars in innovative technology and capital projects over the past
decade.

[[Page H1328]]

We should be using our scarce Federal dollars on clean energy
innovation that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create
jobs, and to stay competitive globally.
This continuing resolution would cut over $2 billion in renewable
energy research and development. At a time when we are looking to cut
unnecessary spending, the oil and gas R&D program should be on the
chopping block as well.
The oil and gas industry has ample resources to develop these
technologies without this Federal subsidy. A recent GAO report found
that the industry spends over $2 billion of its own money annually on
R&D.
This $50 million cut to an R&D program for the oil and gas industry
is the right way to cut spending, and I urge my colleagues to join me
in supporting the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment uses a heavy-handed
approach in order to shut down important programs at the Department of
Energy.
Fossil energy sources supply more than 80 percent of our Nation's
total energy. Using these resources more efficiently and more cleanly
and developing technologies that can access new domestic sources are
extremely important when so much of our energy depends on fossil fuels.
This amendment would stop programs that do just that. For example, it
would prevent work like the development of ultra-clean fuels.
There may be some areas of research in which the private sector does
not need help, but there are other areas of research which are too
risky for industry to take on.
I oppose the amendment.
I am pleased to yield to my ranking, Mr. Pastor, for any comments he
may wish to make.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise to oppose the amendment.
The amendment prohibits funds from being used for oil and gas
research. Without this amendment, the Department of Energy would spend
$38 million during the year. As my chairman points out, fossil fuel
sources are and will continue to be a large part of our energy mix.
Given the importance of research and development in this area, it is
necessary to improve the efficiency in the environmental cost of fossil
fuels. Further, stopping programs mid year, which this would do,
results in costs associated with terminating ongoing work.
I am committed to working with the gentleman to review the balance of
funding as we move forward, but I cannot support the amendment at this
time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Delaware is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, my point is that the industry itself is
doing this research and development and should do it without a Federal
subsidy. I mentioned the full-page ad in today's edition of The Hill
newspaper, which says that they are doing this.
We shouldn't be subsidizing an industry that's mature and profitable.
We need to be spending money on renewable energy sources so that we can
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, in this continuing
resolution, we're cutting $2 billion out of research and development
for new energy sources.
I don't object to research and development going on for traditional
oil and gas industry, but the industry itself ought to be doing that
research.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARNEY. 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 Delaware
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 164 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act
for any account may be used in excess of the amount available
for such account during fiscal year 2006.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to funds made
available--
(1) by division A;
(2) by section 1101(a)(3) and title VI of division B;
(3) by section 1101(a)(6) (with respect to division E of
Public Law 111-117) and title X of division B; or
(4) for Israel, by section 1101(a)(6) (with respect to
division F of Public Law 111-117) and title XI of division B.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member
opposed each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. MULVANEY. I want to briefly begin by thanking the Appropriations
Committee. I understand the nature of what has been happening here, the
size of the taxpayer savings that we have seen over the last 3 days.
But I rise because the debt and the deficit problem facing our Nation
are greater than I think most people in this room understand, and
certainly most people back home understand. The circumstances demand
that we go just a little bit further than we have and that's what this
amendment does. It goes just a little bit further.
It takes non-defense discretionary spending back to 2006 levels
instead of 2008. That represents an additional 3 percent savings, which
on the one hand doesn't sound like that much, but on the other hand
actually saves $134 billion of the $900 billion worth of deficits that
we will incur between tomorrow and the rest of this year.
Folks have asked me why I have done this, why I have waited 3 years
to do it, why we are here at 1 o'clock in the morning to hear this
amendment. I am doing it because I feel that most of the folks don't
grasp the size of the difficulty. I know that most of the folks in my
district don't grasp it yet. And I have been struggling with how to
explain to people exactly what a $1,600 billion deficit means and a
$14,000 billion debt.
This chart, I think, does it better than anything else. This chart is
something that we put together using Congressional Budget Office
numbers from the base line. This number, very simply, ladies and
gentlemen, shows when we will use 100 percent of our revenues, 100
percent of our revenues, to pay our debt.
And that number, using the CBO estimates, is in 2055. This is the
equivalent of going back to your family and saying everything that we
make will go to pay down the minimum payment on our credit card. And
this number is probably too late. The CBO estimates on interest are
much lower than we are actually experiencing in the market these days.
The scary part is that if we don't do anything, if we continue
business as usual, this will happen. This will happen unless we make
dramatic changes to the way that we do business around here.
I heard the gentleman from Virginia earlier today, Mr. Moran, mention
that he thought that H.R. 1 represented an economic death spiral. This,
ladies and gentlemen, is an economic death spiral. There is no coming
back from a situation where you use all of your money just to pay your
debt.
We can and will begin work on this this year in the budget. We can
and will continue work on this as we go through the debt ceiling
debate. And we can and should keep this in mind with everything that we
do. But in my humble opinion, we can start tonight by approving this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 0100

Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. To make cuts back to the 2006 level for defense, homeland
security, and veterans affairs would do

[[Page H1329]]

enormous damage to the country. I mean we would be talking about $65,
$70 billion in defense, homeland security. And VA would be very
substantial as well. I just think of the VA health care benefits that
were increased by our Members of Congress working on a bipartisan
basis, our former colleague Chet Edwards. We increased health care to
take care of the problems associated with the veterans coming back and
needing post-traumatic disorder, traumatic brain injury, needing all
kinds of help.
We have thousands of veterans today who are homeless. So taking these
levels back to 2006, in my judgment, would do devastation to this part
of the budget. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve
my time.
Mr. MULVANEY. With all due respect to the ranking member, I was not
clear. This amendment does not take defense, homeland security, or VA
back to 2006 levels. Only non-defense, non-security discretionary
spending.
Mr. DICKS. I would yield to the gentleman just to say we had a
different description of your amendment. I regret that there were
inaccuracies.
But even for the rest of the government, I think the amendment going
back to 2006 is too severe. And as the chairman would say, it is an
across-the-board cut, give all the authority to OMB. I am with Hal
Rogers, it's not a good idea. Let's defeat the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MULVANEY. 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 South
Carolina 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. 377 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
Amendment No. 166 by Mr. Guinta of New Hampshire.
Amendment No. 495 by Mr. Hall of Texas.
Amendment No. 141 by Ms. Lee of California.
Amendment No. 109 by Mr. Griffith of Virginia.
Amendment No. 548 by Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 47 by Mr. Luetkemeyer of Missouri.
Amendment No. 149 by Mr. Luetkemeyer of Missouri.
Amendment No. 569 by Mr. Issa of California.
Amendment No. 94 by Mr. Sullivan of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 216 by Mr. McKinley of West Virginia.
Amendment No. 217 by Mr. McKinley of West Virginia.
Amendment No. 545 by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
Amendment No. 200 by Mr. Burgess of Texas.
Amendment No. 482 by Mr. Heller of Nevada.
Amendment No. 563 by Mrs. Noem of South Dakota.
Amendment No. 430 by Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 241 by Mr. Carney of Delaware.
Amendment No. 164 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 377 Offered by Mr. Flake

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

Recorded Vote

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 261,
noes 158, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 125]

AYES--261

Adams
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clay
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Doggett
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers
Eshoo
Farenthold
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hinchey
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Webster
Weiner
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--158

Ackerman
Aderholt
Austria
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (NH)
Berg
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crenshaw
Critz
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gonzalez
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Manzullo
Markey
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Neal
Noem
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Platts
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rehberg
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
Smith (NE)
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Visclosky

[[Page H1330]]

Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Whitfield

NOT VOTING--14

Giffords
Harman
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Meeks
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Shuster
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0127

Messrs. CICILLINE, FINCHER, FARR, REHBERG, and JOHNSON of Ohio
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. LEVIN, McDERMOTT, HIGGINS, FRANK of Massachusetts, ALTMIRE,
HUIZENGA of Michigan, BERMAN, TIERNEY, COURTNEY, HARRIS, SERRANO,
RAHALL, LARSON of Connecticut, GUTHRIE, HASTINGS of Florida, DEUTCH,
MURPHY of Connecticut, LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California,
Ms. WATERS, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. DeLAURO, and Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 166 Offered by Mr. Guinta

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Guinta) 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 210,
noes 210, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 126]

AYES--210

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
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
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
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
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--210

Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
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
Hultgren
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--13

Giffords
Harman
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Meeks
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Shuster
Stark
Wilson (FL)

{time} 0131

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

Amendment No. 495 Offered by Mr. Hall

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hall) 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. 127]

AYES--233

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
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
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly

[[Page H1331]]

King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
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
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--187

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
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
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
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)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
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 (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Harman
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Meeks
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Shuster
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0135

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

Amendment No. 141 Offered by Ms. Lee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) 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. 128]

AYES--76

Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capuano
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Doggett
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Rahall
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Royce
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Tierney
Towns
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey

NOES--344

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
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
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clarke (MI)
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
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)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
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
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
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
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster

[[Page H1332]]

West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--13

Giffords
Harman
Harper
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Meeks
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Shuster
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0138

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

Amendment No. 109 Offered by Mr. Griffith of Virginia

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Griffith) 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. 129]

AYES--235

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
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
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
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
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)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--185

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
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 (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
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
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
Welch
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
Larson (CT)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Meeks
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Shuster
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0141

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 129 I was
unfortunately detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 548 Offered by Mr. Jones

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 130]

AYES--259

Adams
Akin
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Boren
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clay
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam

[[Page H1333]]

Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--159

Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brooks
Capps
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flores
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Lance
Landry
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Nunnelee
Olver
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wittman
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--15

Conyers
Culberson
DeLauro
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Meeks
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Shuster
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0144

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

Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Luetkemeyer) 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. 131]

AYES--245

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
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
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
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
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
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 (IN)

NOES--176

Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
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
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
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
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman

[[Page H1334]]

Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Meeks
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Roybal-Allard
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0147

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

Amendment No. 149 Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

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

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244,
noes 179, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 132]

AYES--244

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
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
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
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
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 (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--179

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
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
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
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
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 (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0150

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

Amendment No. 569 Offered by Mr. Issa

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Issa) 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. 133]

AYES--191

Adams
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Culberson
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Hall
Hanna
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney

[[Page H1335]]

Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--230

Ackerman
Aderholt
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Burgess
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
Welch
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--12

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
Labrador
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Platts
Quayle
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0153

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 133, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 94 Offered by Mr. Sullivan

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Sullivan) 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. 134]

AYES--285

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clarke (MI)
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--136

Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Berg
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Camp
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Costello
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Donnelly (IN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fortenberry
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Latham
Lee (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Luetkemeyer
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McNerney
Meeks
Miller, George
Moore
Napolitano
Noem
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Polis
Price (NC)
Rehberg
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Shimkus
Sires
Smith (NE)
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Whitfield
Wu

[[Page H1336]]

NOT VOTING--12

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
Latta
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Rangel
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0156

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

Amendment No. 216 Offered by Mr. McKinley

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. McKinley) 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. 135]

AYES--240

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
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
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
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
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
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
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
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
Olver
Palazzo
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
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--182

Ackerman
Amash
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
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Cravaack
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
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
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stark
Sullivan
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0200

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

Amendment No. 217 offered by Mr. McKinley

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 136]

AYES--239

[[Page H1337]]

Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
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
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--183

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
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
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
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
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Sires
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0203

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

Amendment No. 545 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 137]

AYES--234

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
Cardoza
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
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
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
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
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
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
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)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--187

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
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
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
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
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--12

Costa
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
King (IA)
McCarthy (NY)

[[Page H1338]]

McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0206

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

Amendment No. 200 Offered by Mr. Burgess

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess) 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. 138]

AYES--239

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
Costa
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
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 (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
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--182

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
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
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
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
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--12

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
King (IA)
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0209

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

Amendment No. 482 Offered by Mr. Heller

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Heller) on which further proceedings were 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. 139]

AYES--209

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachus
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
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
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
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Pence
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 (AR)
Ross (FL)

[[Page H1339]]

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

NOES--213

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

NOT VOTING--11

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Pallone
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0212

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

Amendment No. 563 Offered by Mrs. Noem

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South
Dakota (Mrs. Noem) 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. 140]

AYES--255

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
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
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
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
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
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--168

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
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, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0215

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

[[Page H1340]]

Amendment No. 430 Offered by Mr. Pitts

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) 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. 141]

AYES--239

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
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
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
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
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--183

Ackerman
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
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)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
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
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stark
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0218

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

Amendment No. 241 Offered by Mr. Carney

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Carney) 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. 142]

AYES--121

Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baldwin
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cohen
Conyers
Crowley
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Edwards
Ellison
Farr
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett
Gerlach
Goodlatte
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hirono
Honda
Hurt
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, David
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Sutton
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (IN)

NOES--300

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clarke (MI)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry

[[Page H1341]]

Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
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
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Watt
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--12

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Myrick
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stark
Wilson (FL)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 0221

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Cantor was allowed to speak out of order.)

Legislative Program

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Members we have got one
more amendment in this series of votes, after which we are looking at a
debate time of about 1 hour. So I would advise the Members that it
would probably be best to stay close to the Chamber, because we would
expect the final series of votes on this bill and for the day to be
within 1 hour.

Amendment No. 164 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will resume.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) 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. 143]

AYES--93

Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Bartlett
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bono Mack
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Denham
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Harris
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Luetkemeyer
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Reed
Ribble
Rigell
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Southerland
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--328

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

NOT VOTING--12

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stark
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

[[Page H1342]]

{time} 0225

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

Amendment No. 255 Offered by Mr. Huelskamp

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the National Labor Relations Board to certify the
results of an election of a labor organization under section
9(c)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
159(c)(1)) that is not conducted by secret ballot.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp) and a Member opposed
each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about the importance of
protecting America's workers.
My home State of Kansas is one of 22 right-to-work States in which a
worker cannot be required to join a union as a condition of employment.
This ensures worker freedom, and Card Check poses a direct threat to
this freedom.
The last Congress knew that Card Check went against the will of the
American people, but the current administration still seems intent on
pushing it upon American workers.
To circumvent necessary congressional approval is to attack our
representative form of government. If enacted through backdoor
administrative paths and without congressional approval, Card Check
would eliminate the use of a secret ballot for union elections.
Mr. Chairman, we have to preserve the use of a secret ballot. It is a
fundamental institution of democracy. If the private ballot is
eliminated, it opens up a window of opportunity for labor unions to
strong-arm workers who are in the unions. Just this week in Wisconsin,
we have seen the tactics unions are willing to use when they don't get
their way; and we know the administration is encouraging this type of
behavior across the country.
After speaking with colleagues, I feel another vehicle would be
better for this issue, but I could not pass up the opportunity to
address this matter on the floor. So I will withdraw this amendment
today, and will look forward to working with my colleagues in the
coming days to preserve the rights of American workers.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 273 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to administer the wage-rate requirements of
subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code,
with respect to any project or program funded by this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.

{time} 0230

Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment that is before the House this evening is
an amendment that shuts off the funding within this continuing
resolution to what we know as the Davis-Bacon Act.
The Davis-Bacon Act is an old and archaic act that was generated
during the Depression era, the early years of the Depression era, in
about 1931. It was designed to keep the African American workers out of
the trade unions in New York. That's the source of it. I have dealt
underneath this law for my working life as a construction contractor,
so my hands-on experience with Davis-Bacon, I believe, is as strong as
anyone's in this Chamber.
The costs that are added to our construction projects are what we
should be thinking about here in this 112th Congress, in this Congress
of austerity, on this night that we've had of cutting spending and
cutting spending, and it's this:
According to Heritage Study, the extra wages that are paid out
unnecessarily total $10.9 billion. I have done this study within my own
construction company, and have looked at the difference in the cost of
the Davis-Bacon Federal wage scale. They will call it ``prevailing
wage.'' I will tell you we know it's union scale, mandated by Federal
law, and there is no reason for us to adhere to a union scale mandated
by Federal law. My numbers show this:
It increases the cost of a project between 8 and 35 percent depending
on how much is materials and how much is labor. Other data out there
show an increase of 9 to 37 percent. Our numbers match well. The costs
of compliance for contractors are over $190 million a year, and it
distorts the relationship between management and labor. We are, Mr.
Chairman, in an era where our question becomes this:
Do we want to create jobs or do we want to cost jobs? Do we want to
build 4 miles of road under Davis-Bacon or do we want to build five? Do
we want to build four schools or do we want to build five? Do we want
to have an inflation of wages by an average of 22 percent, which is
according to some of the wage and hour studies? Do we want to see the
price go up? Do we want to see a construction industry that reduces
workers by as much as 25,000 a year in minority workers?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
20 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to administer
the wage rate requirements under Davis-Bacon. It is yet another
illustration of how the majority is making this continuing resolution a
Trojan Horse, filled with ideology that irreparably harms working
families.
The Davis-Bacon Act ensures that workers on federally funded
government contracts are paid no less than the wages paid for similar
work in a community. A simple concept. Former President Bush understood
this concept when he reinstated the Davis-Bacon rules for
reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Despite the majority's argument, the Davis-Bacon Act has no effect on
total costs of construction. Study after study reveals that higher
productivity makes up for any additional labor cost, essentially
eliminating any cost savings if the law were repealed. If this
amendment is enacted into law, we will be cheating workers of a fair
wage with no cost savings to show for it.
This amendment is nothing more than an attempt to accelerate a race
to the bottom. It is that way of doing business which tells workers in
this country ``you do not matter; your right to a decent wage does not
matter; your dreams and your aspirations to do better and to provide
for your family do not matter.''
All that counts is the power to extract the cheapest possible cost,
the lowest labor cost, in return for the highest possible profit. This
does not reflect our values as a Nation and certainly not the values
that created America's middle class.
Today, as we face 9 percent unemployment, wages falling, the number
of families in poverty growing and increasing costs for just about
everything, gutting the law that ensures a decent job and a fair wage
for workers is the wrong direction. It is the very future of the middle
class that is in jeopardy if we pass amendments like the King amendment
and, with it, the idea that a society can act with a shared sense of
purpose and with a responsibility to each other.
Vote against this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself 30 seconds.
It's a little bit amazing to me that the gentlelady can get so
focused on

[[Page H1343]]

this. I'm the one that should be focused on it in that way and
animated. The taxpayers should be animated by this.
They should understand that, when the Federal Government sets union
scale and drives the price up and the taxpayers can't afford it, it's
not about a race to the bottom. The quality of work for my workers was
always there. We take care of our people 12 months out of the year with
a benefits package. We're not hiring them out of a union hall for a
day, but you make us pay the price as if we were. We uphold our
workers. We take care of them. We have the quality there. It's a matter
of fact and it's proven, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms.
Hirono).
Ms. HIRONO. I rise to speak against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally
funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the
community for similar work. It sounds fair. The Davis-Bacon Act
prevents the Federal Government, a large influential construction
owner, from using precious tax dollars to undercut local wage standards
through its investments in construction work.

Those against Davis-Bacon say it drives up costs. Not so. Why don't
we deal with facts for a change?
Davis-Bacon has no effect on total costs of construction. Study after
study reveals productivity makes up for any additional labor cost,
essentially eliminating any cost savings if the law is repealed. In
other words, projects using highly skilled workers often cost less than
those using low-wage, low-skilled workers.
Opponents who claim the government could save billions by eliminating
Davis-Bacon protections ignore productivity, safety and the act's
economic development benefits, which contribute to the real cost
effectiveness of Davis-Bacon.
In addition, the Davis-Bacon minimum wage must reflect the rate of
contribution to retirement, health insurance, apprenticeship training,
and disability insurance. By including fringe benefits and wage
calculations, Davis-Bacon delivers health care and pensions for workers
on these projects.
Without prevailing wages, investments in training fall; work related
injuries increase; pension coverage drops; fewer workers have health
care insurance; wages stagnate and even drop over time; and total
construction costs are still unchanged.
In fact, the real economic significance of Davis-Bacon wage
requirements for federally assisted construction projects is that it
maintains community standards by preventing bottom-feeding contractors
from driving down construction workers' wages and working conditions.
I urge my colleagues to vote down this amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself 15 seconds to announce to the Chair
that I have just been called a ``bottom-feeder''--a bottom-feeder for
providing 12-months-out-of-the-year work, health care benefits and
retirement benefits for my employees.
I take it as an insult, but I am not going to ask to take the lady's
words down.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Broun).
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. It has been said by many that, when one goes to
heaven or hell, you have to fly through the Atlanta Airport.
Just yesterday, I was talking to a contractor who is involved in
doing the expansion of the Atlanta Airport, of the Hartsfield-Jackson
Airport. We were talking about his business and what was going on, and
he was complaining to me about the construction costs and the increase
that is mandated by Davis-Bacon.
The previous speaker said that it doesn't raise the costs, but that's
totally false.
In fact, this contractor told me just yesterday that the increased
cost to the people of Atlanta, Georgia, and to the State of Georgia is
40 percent above what it would be if we did not have Davis-Bacon just
leering over their heads like a dagger, causing them to have to pay a
higher amount of money.
While we are here in tough economic times, we need to look at what
the Federal Government is doing to try to increase the costs for our
children and our grandchildren so that they have to pay it in the
future. Davis-Bacon is one of those laws, antiquated laws, that does
cost today's taxpayers a tremendous amount of money, but it's going to
cost our children and our grandchildren their future.
The reason it does that is we're spending money we don't have. Davis-
Bacon is a culprit in causing the debt of this country, the debt of
Atlanta, Georgia, and the debt of the State of Georgia to go higher.
It is time to put Davis-Bacon to rest. It has outlived its
usefulness, and we have to vote to stop the spending. Vote ``yes'' on
this amendment.

{time} 0240

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I tell this story every time we talk about Davis-Bacon.
Davis and Bacon were Republicans, and what was occurring was that you
had out-of-town workers coming into New York City to build a hospital,
undercutting the local labor market at a time when a lot of people were
out of work. That's what Davis-Bacon is.
Quite frankly, the last test we had on Davis-Bacon was during the
hurricanes down in the gulf coast when President Bush suspended it for
a period of time. We made the case to him that you weren't saving any
money. Not only weren't you saving any money, but you were having
workers come in because there weren't the anti-kickback provisions, so
the payrolls didn't have to be submitted; and you had a lot of illegal
workers coming down who still live in Louisiana, undercutting the local
labor market.
So I get that we don't like unions on this side of the aisle. But
I've got to tell you, if you look at the labor rates for operating
backhoes and everything else in the gentleman's, the author of the
amendment, a carpenter makes $14.45 under Davis-Bacon, and a backhoe
operator makes $14.53.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I don't want somebody who's operating a
backhoe near my house making less than that.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT. I don't think that anybody would object to paying
workers on these projects a real prevailing wage. The problem is that
what's called a ``prevailing wage'' is not the prevailing wage.
I have a friend who does a lot of ornamental ironwork. A lot of these
buildings around here he has done. He lives out in Hagerstown. The
contracts that he has to put that in require him to pay prevailing wage
when he puts it in down here. The same people that install it down here
do the work of preparing it out there. This is a good job in
Hagerstown, and that's only--what?--about 70 miles from here. When he
comes down here to put it in down here, he has to double their pay for
the time he's down here.
It's just not prevailing wage, and that's why it's wrong.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady for the time.
Mr. Chairman, when I look at this amendment by Representative King,
it's the closest thing to a jobs bill that I've seen since January
started--and it's disappointing. The reality is that I wish we weren't
debating this at nearly 3 o'clock in the morning, because I would love
the American people to see that this is what substitutes for a jobs
bill in this day and age.
The fact is that this is what the very fight is all about. Do we want
to build a robust middle class or do we want to pay people the least we
possibly can pay them to keep them desperate and drive wages down to
nothing so that we have a very small group of really wealthy people and
a vast group of really desperate people who would do anything to work
and who could have their unions busted because you've got people who've
got to do what they've got to do and cross that line?
This is at the heart of what it's all about.

[[Page H1344]]

This is the fight.
Shall we have a middle class and pay people decent wages or shall we
continue on this drive to separate and increase wage inequality in this
country so that the richest have so much and so that the rest of us
just don't have much at all?
Davis-Bacon is good legislation because it strengthens our middle
class so that people can actually have a decent quality of life, send
their kids to school, be able to send them to college, and have decent
retirements. It's about making a strong middle class based on a decent,
livable wage.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for bringing this
amendment forward.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to share with you a little story that we
experienced over the past couple of years with Davis-Bacon. I think
that the people we often forget about here when we get into these
debates are the taxpayers, themselves. The taxpayers are the ones who
have to foot the bill for the wages that Davis-Bacon drives up.
After the stimulus bill was passed a couple of years ago, even though
I opposed the idea of what the stimulus bill was going to do, we in our
community had been taking the initiative to put in sewer systems around
our lakes and our rivers to protect our soil and our resources. After a
couple of projects that had already been bid out without Davis-Bacon
wages, the company contacted our office and said, Hey, we would like to
apply for stimulus dollars to help drive our costs down on these
particular projects.
Well, after doing some research, because they did not bid the
projects with Davis-Bacon wages, they were ineligible, and therefore
were going to be paying higher rates. They were also going to be paying
the contractors, themselves, at a lower wage because they were not
eligible for the stimulus money, money which would have put
infrastructure into our communities, allowing for the building of long-
term assets in our communities. Instead, they were ineligible because
they had not bid Davis-Bacon wages.
I think it's very important that we remember the taxpayers, who have
to fund these projects because of the higher costs, and I think it's
important that we also remember that each community individually
recognizes that their labor costs are different and that they shouldn't
always be required to deal with Federal standards.
I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa for bringing his amendment
forward, and I ask that you support it.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Iowa has 12\1/4\ minutes
remaining if they choose to use it all.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. The gentleman from Minnesota really made the point.
Here we are at a quarter to 3 in the morning, going after the working
people of this country.
In 1932, we didn't have unemployment insurance.
Now, I'm sure your next amendment will be ``no money should be spent
for unemployment insurance in this country'' because that creates that
moral hazard where people sit at home and wait for that check to come
in, right? They won't go down and look for work. We also had no
workers' comp in this country before 1910. If a guy got hurt, they
threw him out in the street and got somebody new. We didn't care.
If that's the kind of country you want to go back to, I suppose the
next bill you bring out here will be ``let's repeal the minimum wage.''
Why the heck do we have minimum wage? Do you know what the prevailing
wage in this city was when this building was built? It was built by
slaves. Now, is that where you want to go? What are you after?
The Government of the United States should set a standard of what we
want for the working people in this country.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind all Members to direct their
comments to the Chair, not to others in the second person.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself 2 minutes.
I want to point out to the body also, Mr. Chairman, that I have lived
under the Davis-Bacon wage scale for years. I've met payroll for 28\1/
2\ years--over 1,400 consecutive weeks. I've worked for a wage
underneath Davis-Bacon wage scales, and I've worked in merit shop
operations. I've worked in shops in the wintertime and on construction
projects in the field before it froze up, from the spring to fall. I've
been on all sides of this. I've been a laborer on the pipeline. I've
been a heavy equipment operator. I've been an owner and I've managed
people, and I've watched what Davis-Bacon has done at every single
level along the way.
It distorts the relationship between management and labor. It takes
away from the individuals the ability or the willingness to contribute
to the decision-making process.

{time} 0250

When the government comes in and says, ``on one side of the road,
you're going to pay your laborers $14 an hour, but on the other side of
the road you're going to pay them $21 an hour, and if they climb in the
seat of a motor grader it's going to be $35 an hour, but if it happens
to be a finish machine then it's going to be $40 an hour,'' you watch
your crews jockeying for the highest paying job there is.
What happens if you sit back at a bird's-eye view?
They will be scrambling over to climb onto the machine that's the
least useful but that pays the most money. Then if you go away for a
few days, you'll come back and find out they've rolled all the clods,
that your wage price has gone up and that you're no longer competitive,
and you'll have to go back on the job and essentially get out--this is
figuratively speaking--the whip and make sure you crack it so you get
people pushing as hard as possible.
It raises the tension, and it takes away a lot of the pleasure of
taking pride in your work because now management is pitted against
labor, and labor is pitted against labor in jockeying for the highest
paying jobs.
This is no way to run a business. It's no way to run a company. It's
no way to run a country to think that we here in this Congress should
be one of the ones deciding what someone should get paid, or at least
writing the rules for it, knowing that it's not prevailing wage but
that it's union scale, and it takes 2\1/2\ years to get a ruling on
what's prevailing wage and what isn't, and so we just don't know what
it is for 2\1/2\ years.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 10\1/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I will point out that there has been a misunderstanding here with
regard to an agreement on the length of this amendment discussion. We'd
agreed to take it down to 10 minutes each, but when the announcement
was made, I think it was confusing to both sides.
So what I'd like to do is try to wrap up my side of this in 1 minute
and yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut for as much time as she
may think is appropriate to consume in order to close, if that would be
agreeable. I'm going to move ahead with my part by picking up where I
left off.
Mr. Chairman, the inefficiencies that are created by Davis-Bacon are
multiplied in the costs that are in the jobs that we do. It is an 8 to
35 percent increase in the overall costs of our construction projects.
We need to keep people at work. It means fewer people are working for
more money, and it means a more distorted economy and inefficiencies
that are built in that completely distort the cost of these wages.
So it is important for us to know that this isn't the first debate
before this Congress but that it is the first intense debate that has
taken place since the Republican majority took over here in 2011. Back
in 1995, some of the cosponsors of the original Davis-Bacon repeal, a
similar amendment, were Boehner, Bartlett, Coble, Dreier, Goodlatte,
Herger, McKeon, and Wolf.
I would urge adoption of this amendment and a strong vote to cut the
funding off to anything that would be enforcing Davis-Bacon wages under
this CR.

[[Page H1345]]

I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Members of both parties should oppose this amendment
because it rests on three misjudgments.
The first misjudgment is that the wages established by this Davis-
Bacon practice are union-imposed wages. The fact of the matter is they
are prevailing wages which are determined by a survey of the local
marketplace.
The second misjudgment is that it always raises the cost of a
construction project. The fact is quite the opposite. When the
productivity rises, the value rises; and if you have better performance
and fewer errors and the faster completion of a project, productivity
rises, and you get more value.
But I think the most important misjudgment is that it is, one more
time, the wrong issue at the wrong time. There are a lot of Americans
awake at this hour. Thankfully, for them, they're probably not watching
this debate, but they're awake at this hour because this has yet been
another day and another week and another month with no paycheck, no job
and no hope.
What they want us to do is to work together to put them back to work.
Yet what we have seen in the last 24 hours is a debate over whether to
defund Planned Parenthood, a debate over whether to repeal most of the
environmental protections that have taken 40 years to build up in this
country, a debate over whether people have the right to know if they're
buying safe toys, and now a debate over whether to repeal a successful
labor-management partnership.
It's the wrong amendment at the wrong time.
Vote ``no.''
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to Amendment No. 273,
offered by my colleague, Congressman King.
This amendment's intent is to defund wage law requirements as
established by the Davis-Bacon Act.
Davis-Bacon doesn't just help the workers who build our country
support their families; it also makes sure that taxpayers get their
money's worth.
The Davis-Bacon Act fosters competition based on quality, attracting
workers who are more productive, more experienced, and well-trained.
The Federal Government should not be the engine driving the ``race to
the bottom'', and Davis-Bacon helps ensure that public projects do not
facilitate low ball bids that undercut the American worker.
Reports show that projects constructed with Davis-Bacon wage
provisions are more likely to be completed on time, within budget, and
with fewer future repair costs.
Problems arise in projects when you have unskilled workers who are
working at the lowest of wages and do not have benefits to support
their families. Prevailing wage laws help ensure the best condition for
workers, and employees respond by putting their best work forward,
benefitting the community and the taxpayer.
Elimination of the Davis-Bacon Act--which stabilizes wages, provides
benefits to families, and promotes competition based on quality--would
only foster an environment of low bidding, low wages, and poorer
quality of work.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the King amendment.
This amendment would strip away Davis-Bacon wage protections in
Hawaii and nationwide.
Enacted in 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act ensures that workers on federal
construction contracts receive at least the prevailing wage for
construction jobs. The Davis-Bacon Act ensures projects are built by
skilled and experienced workers who know what they're doing. Prevailing
wages and higher-skilled work result in greater productivity and lower
cost.
In industries without Davis-Bacon protections, we have seen
unscrupulous contractors engage in a ``race to the bottom,'' trying to
undercut each other to perform shoddy work, with less-skilled workers,
at sub-par wages. These projects often end up costing more in the long
run due to repairs, revisions, and delays.
Some claim that Davis-Bacon costs the Federal Government more. On the
contrary, studies show that higher-wage workers are more productive,
saving hundreds of millions of dollars in the long run.
Construction workers who build highways, homes, or buildings should
be able to earn enough to feed their families, put a roof over their
heads, and send their kids to college. Beyond just helping workers and
their families, prevailing wages improve local economies. Workers spend
their income in local businesses and pay local taxes. Workers
participate in building trades training programs and health care
programs and are not dependent on benefits from other social programs.
One study found that local prevailing wage law generated 2.4 times the
economic benefit of the cost of the construction project.
Sadly, this amendment is another example of this bill's consistent
attacks on American workers, including the construction workers,
teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters who are committed
to build, educate, heal, and protect communities in Hawaii and
throughout our country. Rather than focus on providing good jobs with
fair pay, the Republicans are more interested in increasing corporate
profits on the backs of American workers.
I strongly support Davis-Bacon protections and oppose this misguided
amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. 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 Iowa will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 567 Offered by Ms. Hayworth

Ms. HAYWORTH. 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 section 1899A of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395kkk), as added by section 3403 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth) and a Member opposed
each will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, section 3404 of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act created the Independent Payment Advisory Board,
known by the acronym ``IPAB.'' Beginning in 2014, this 15-member board
will be charged with cutting the growth rate of Medicare spending. IPAB
is designed as a bureaucracy that will be looking not at how to improve
patient care but how to hit an expenditure target.
PPACA limits what IPAB would be able to do to restrict cost growth.
For example, IPAB cannot recommend higher cost sharing, or otherwise
restrict benefits or eligibility. The primary means of achieving
expenditure targets will be to reduce payments to physicians and
hospitals. This, in turn, will reduce access to providers--access that
Medicare patients need to have--as the providers will find that they
will not be able to afford to accept Medicare's reimbursement rates.
Furthermore, Congress ceded a tremendous amount of power to the IPAB.
If Members believe that the cuts proposed by IPAB won't work or are too
draconian, it will take an affirmative act by future Congresses to
overturn its recommendations. This represents an abdication of
responsibility by Congress, whose Members are expected to make these
decisions, not unelected, unaccountable Federal bureaucrats. Equally
troubling, the IPAB bears more than a passing resemblance to the
British National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which governs
payment for the National Health Service.
From my vantage point as an ophthalmologist, one example will
demonstrate why a similarity between IPAB and NICE, which is the ironic
acronym for this powerful British entity, should give all of us pause.
Up until a couple of years ago, NICE refused to pay for treatment for a
form of macular degeneration that led, in most cases, to legal
blindness if the sufferer had good vision in the other eye. This is
nearly impossible for an American to fathom that a government agency
would compel a doctor to, in effect, calmly watch a patient go blind in
one eye even though vision-saving treatment was available.
If an unelected board of advisers is compelled to make decisions
primarily

[[Page H1346]]

on the basis of cost, then this is the kind of awful choice our doctors
and patients may well be forced to accept; and this is one of many
reasons the Affordable Care Act was repealed by the House last month.
We honor the goals of this law to allow all Americans to have access to
good care with affordable, portable health insurance; but we need to go
about achieving those goals while preserving the choice, quality and
innovation that Americans expect and deserve.

{time} 0300

As we craft alternatives that will honor the best of American
medicine, we will best serve our citizens by prohibiting any funding
towards the implementation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
I strongly urge the support of all Members for the amendment I am
sponsoring, and I thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
3 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Just to make a point, it sounds from the gentlelady like
what you want to do is raise the Medicare rates and cut benefits--but
let me just get on with this here.
How many times, as I said earlier, do we have to vote on the
Affordable Care Act? This long series of ``defunding health reform''
amendments shows how far the House is straying from a serious
legislative process. So far today, the House has passed no fewer than
three separate, overlapping and duplicative amendments that prohibit
the use of funds to carry out the Affordable Care Act.
First, the House passed the Rehberg amendment: prohibiting the use of
funds for this purpose by any agency funded in the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill. A few minutes later, the House passed an amendment
by Mr. King: prohibiting the use of funds by any Federal agency for
this purpose. A few minutes after that vote, the House passed another
amendment by Mr. King: prohibiting funds to pay the salary of any
Federal employee to implement or administer the Affordable Care Act.
The majority party does not like the Affordable Care Act, and would
like to cut off all funding for the act's implementation--now that much
is clear--but how many times do we need to pass the same prohibition
yesterday and today? Will three times be enough or will the House just
keep passing more and more amendments, doing essentially the same thing
until everyone on the majority's side has satisfied their urge to make
clear just how opposed they are to expanding the availability of health
care in this country?--which is what the Affordable Care Act is all
about.
Instead of this pointless debate, we should be working on what the
American public wants. They want us to create jobs. They want us to get
this economy going again. They want to make sure that they have jobs,
that they're able to send their children to school--and yes, they would
like to have health care benefits so that, when they get sick, they
will be able to have the kinds of treatment that all of us in this body
have by virtue of being Members of the Congress.
We go to the head of the line. They can't get the same kind of care
that we get.
Yet, day in and day out over these last several days, we've watched
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do everything they can to
deny the American public the opportunity to have the same kind of
health care that Members of Congress have.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 154 Offered by Mr. Burgess

Mr. BURGESS. 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 carry out paragraph (11) of section 101 of Public
Law 111-226 (124 Stat. 2389).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 18,
2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each
will control 3 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Canseco).
Mr. CANSECO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Burgess
amendment.
Last August, as part of a $26 billion bailout bill for States, $10
billion was set aside to be distributed to the States for education.
The State of Texas was set to receive $830 million as part of this
education funding. As far as we are concerned, government spending does
not create jobs or economic prosperity. Nonetheless, the money was
appropriated for all States in the Union.
Yet tucked into this legislation was an amendment that was
deliberately and maliciously slipped into it that imposed a restriction
on the State of the Texas, and only Texas, so that for Texas to receive
the money would force Texas to violate its constitution. The
restrictive amendment required that Texas guarantee that spending
levels for elementary and secondary education not dip below 2010 levels
for 3 years.
This is troubling. To accept the funds, Texas would have to violate
its State constitution.
Neither the Governor nor the State government branches are able to
make budget decisions that bind future legislatures. This amendment is
not about whether or not taxpayers' money will be spent or saved since
the funds have already been appropriated. The amendment is about
fairness, equal treatment for American taxpayers in one State, and
malicious conduct in an arena involving Texas taxpayers and Texas
schoolchildren where such legislative conduct is unconscionable.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
3 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. When Texas received $3.25 billion in education stimulus
funds over the objection of every Texas Republican, Governor Perry
played a shell game that left Texas schools not a dime better off than
if no Federal aid had come in the first place. That is the only reason
that, last summer, all 12 Democratic Texas Members--from Chet Edwards
to Silvestre Reyes, from Henry Cuellar to Gene Green--united, joined
together, in offering our Save Our Schools amendment, which is today
Federal law.
Tonight's proposal seeks to nullify that protection so that Governor
Perry can reach out for another Federal bailout even if it means taking
$830 million away from Texas schoolchildren. Defectively written, this
amendment fails to repeal anything. The enforcement funds that it would
limit are not in this bill. They are already appropriated. Vote ``no''
on a very flawed amendment for a failed purpose.
Stop begging Washington for help, Governor. Just sign the
application.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Fort Worth, Texas (Ms. Granger).
Ms. GRANGER. I know it's late and people are tired, but it's not too
late to right a wrong--the wrong that was done was against the
schoolchildren of Texas to the tune of $830 million.
The Congress is asking the Governor of Texas to do something that he
is constitutionally unable to do. What is happening to our schools is
the same as in many States, but Texas has this extra burden of
scrambling to find ways to afford to keep those classrooms open and the
teachers there.
What we are asking you to do is to release Texas from this burden
that only Texas has which was put on Texas by this Congress, I think
unintentionally by most of the people in this Congress. So I would say
tonight this is an issue that deals with Texas but that it affects
every schoolchild and every teacher in our State.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. To my colleagues, what would you do if $3
billion for education were denied the

[[Page H1347]]

schoolchildren of Texas or of South Carolina or of California? You'd
come to their aid. Nine Democratic Members, lonely Members--all by
ourselves--decided to fight for the school districts of Texas. They
called us and asked us for help.

{time} 0310

What we did was just ask the Governor to certify that the dollars
that we would send them--that had no votes from the Republicans--would
be for the schoolchildren of Texas. I will do it tomorrow, yesterday
and forever.
Today, our school districts are being cut--six in my district.
Houston, Texas, HISD is being cut by $300 million. Our Governor is
going against the funding process of this country. You cannot take and
hoard money for children and expect us to sit idly by.
I am proud to be one of nine Democrats who stood up for the children.
I ask my colleagues to stand up for us. Let the moneys go to the
children and not in the pocket of the Governor of the State of Texas.
This amendment prevents the Department of Education from enforcing
language that would ensure Texas school districts receive $830 million
from the Education Jobs Fund that was passed last year. The Texas
Delegation fought hard for these funds so that they are distributed to
our neediest school districts and provides assurance that Texas will
not single out education for disproportionate budget cuts in the next
budget cycle.
Mr. Chair, I recently met with several superintendents of school
districts in my congressional district about this issue and this is not
unique to schools in Houston. In fact over 40 Texas superintendents
including: several Houston school districts, Texas Elementary
Principals and Supervisors Association, Texas AFT, Texas Association of
School Boards, Texas State Teachers Association, Association for Texas
Professional Educators, Texas Association of School Administrators,
Texas Classroom Teachers Association, requested that the Federal funds
sent to the State for education should be released immediately to those
districts. Our children deserve the best quality education so they can
grow up to obtain good jobs. The Governor simply needs to certify that
the 830 million Federal funds will only be used for education. What
does this mean in terms of jobs in Texas? This amendment would
essentially cut 14,500 teaching jobs in Texas. Republicans continue to
say we need to create jobs, and this amendment does the complete
opposite while placing our children at a disadvantage. We cannot turn
our backs on our children who need a quality education and certainly
not turn our backs on our teachers in a time when our economy is
fragile and when they need us the most. Let us support our Texas
children. Texas is estimated to have a projected deficit of up to $27
billion and there are plans to cut millions for key programs. It is
unacceptable to continue with politics as usual. The Federal dollars
will be released upon certification that its only use is for the
education of Texas school children.
I urge my colleagues to join me and the thousands of teachers in
Texas who are against this anti-Texas amendment and vote against the
Burgess amendment and look out for the best interest of our children.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 30 seconds remaining.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
We are hearing a lot about $3.25 billion that was sent to Texas under
the stimulus/ARRA funds in 2010-2011. This money was actually
appropriated by the Texas State legislature--Texas Senate: 29 ayes, 2
nays; the House: 142 ayes, 2 nays--in a bipartisan fashion. It was not
the Governor. It was the State legislature, appropriately, that dealt
with this money.
Texas has long prioritized public education funding. From 2000 to
2009, Texas public education spending increased $9 billion, or 82
percent.

Office of the Governor,

February 18, 2011.
Dear Texas Congressional Delegation: The current Education
Jobs statute directs me to violate the Texas Constitution by
requiring me to commit a certain level of spending on public
education in 2011, 2012 and 2013--prior to Texas even
adopting our 2012-13 budget. No other state has to make these
commitments beyond 2011.
Texas submitted its application to the U.S. Department of
Education on September 3, 2010, making every assurance
allowed under Texas law. The application was nonetheless
rejected. To date, 48 out of 50 states have received their
share of Education Jobs funding.
Texas has long prioritized public education funding; from
2000 to 2009 Texas public education spending increased $9
billion, or 82 percent.
By passing Congressman Burgess' amendment, Congress can
help right a wrong, apply equity to Texas, and quickly get
$830 million flowing to Texas schools, teachers and children.
Sincerely,
Rick Perry,
Governor.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I rise in opposition to Mr. Burgess' amendment because the State of
Texas today is facing a $27 billion deficit.
Last week, Governor Rick Perry came to Washington to ask our
Republican colleagues for an $830 million bailout--and voila--we have
Mr. Burgess' amendment. If this amendment passes, it will shortchange
our schools and give a huge bailout to Governor Rick Perry.
Last year, as you have heard, he accepted more than $3 billion in
Federal funds, but instead of going and putting that money towards
education in Texas, he used it to expand the State's tax surplus rainy
day fund.
Today, Mr. Burgess' amendment would absolutely give Governor Perry a
blank check--how good is that?--giving an $830 million bailout to the
same State leadership that robbed Texas children and Texas schools and
Texas teachers of that money before.
With that, I ask support to bring down this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I want to thank my colleague and ranking
member from Washington State.
I rise in opposition to this amendment. Representative Burgess'
amendment would endanger the $830 million already set aside for
classrooms and school districts in Texas through the Education Jobs
Fund that was passed last August. At a time when our State is facing an
almost $27 billion deficit, these are crucial moneys that can be used
immediately to help school districts throughout Texas.
Let me give you a little history.
During the Recovery Act of 2009, Texas received $12 billion. Of that,
$3.2 billion was supposed to be for public education. Our Governor and
the Texas legislature used $12 billion. Instead of supplementing the
current education funding, they used the $3.2 billion in place of the
current education funding. The Governor went all over the country,
getting books signed, saying how bad the Federal Government is, but
they didn't give back that $12 billion. They used it to plus-up the
rainy day fund that's over $9 billion right now, and they don't even
want to use it.
So, at that time, what the Democratic Members from Texas said was
that we want to make sure this $830 million goes to the schoolchildren
of Texas. That's what this would do, and that's what this law does. It
would make sure that that money would go to the schoolchildren. It
wouldn't get stuck in Austin. It would go down to my Houston school
district, the Galena Park School District, which is having to cut its
budget right now because it didn't get that $3.2 billion 2 years ago.
That's why the Burgess amendment should be defeated, Mr. Chairman,
and that's why we put this amendment into law. It's in the law now, and
I'm proud of it. Let the money go to the school districts instead of to
the folks who decided to keep it in the State capital.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I object.
Mr. DICKS. You can't object.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington controls the time for
striking the requisite number of words. He is entitled to 5 minutes. He
has 2 minutes 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 45 seconds.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. We bent over backwards to accommodate the
gentleman, but this has gone beyond what we agreed to.

[[Page H1348]]

Mr. DICKS. We will finish this up in 45 seconds.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Would the gentleman yield this gentleman, Mr.
Burgess, 1 minute?
Mr. DICKS. I would be delighted to do that.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington cannot yield blocks
of time under the five-minute rule.
Mr. DICKS. That's right. I can regain the time under the five-minute
rule.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of comity, I will yield
back any time that was yielded to me. The other side has had plenty of
time to talk. We need to vote on this amendment and move on.
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
I enter in the record the request of education organizations from all
over the State of Texas for this amendment and the statements of the
Texas delegation last year and again this year.
Governor Perry may have come up here on a book tour for his book
``Fed Up,'' but he's not afraid to ask for second and third helpings of
Federal aid even though it takes it away from our schoolchildren.
There is a clear path to getting this money. All the Governor needs
to do is to sign a three-page application, like the one he signed to
get that $3.25 billion of aid he used for purposes other than
education. Though this is presented as an attempt to repeal our
amendment, it does not repeal it. It is a meaningless gesture, though
it does cloud up the possibility that some Federal court may suggest
that Texas is not entitled to any money.
Let's not shut the door of opportunity to our children. Reject this
amendment.
June 22, 2010.
Hon. Arne Duncan,
Secretary, Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. David Obey,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Duncan, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader
Hoyer, and Chairman Obey: Last year, before the education
Stabilization funds were provided to Texas, many of us joined
together to urge you to ensure that these funds would
increase the funding for Texas schools instead of merely
replacing state education funding. Unfortunately, as the
legislation was written the State was able to reduce its own
obligations to fiscally support public education and supplant
those funds with $3.25 billion of federal stablization
monies. As the Administration considers additional emergency
education funding to save teachers' jobs, we urge you to
prevent history from repeating itself and ensure that any
funds Texas receives go to help Texas schools, teachers, and
students.
We support the legislative language that Members of the
Texas Delegation have proposed that would guarantee these
emergency federal education funds are actually spent on
education in Texas. As drafted, this Texas fix has no impact
on any other state and would ensure that the law is
implemented as Congress and the Administration intended: to
save and create teacher jobs. Specifically, this language
includes four provisions that we would like to see included
in any emergency education jobs bill:
Limits the additional requirements to states with Texas-
sized rainy day funds;
Requires the emergency education jobs funds be distributed
to Local Education Agencies within the state according to the
Title I-A formula;
Prohibits supplanting of state Title I-type funds with
these new emergency federal funds for education jobs; and
Requires maintenance of state primary and secondary
education support in FY11, FY12, and FY13 at the current
percentage of revenue provided for FY11.
This language does not prohibit cuts to education in
Texas's budget, but it does prevent the state from singling
out education for more cuts than other budget items due to
the influx of funds from the emergency federal monies for
education jobs. With Texas facing a serious budget shortfall
in the coming biennial budget, the last thing we need to
allow is these funds to be diverted to fill non-education
gaps in the budget. We hope that you will ensure that Texas
school districts do not fall through the legislative cracks
this time around.
The Texas superintendents and education organizations
listed below are in agreement with this letter and have given
permission to add their names in support.

Texas Superintendents

(Total of 38 From Across the State of Texas)

Wanda Bamberg, Aldine ISD; Meria Carstarphen, Austin ISD;
Jim T. Rumage, Banquete ISD; Jamey Harrision, Bridge City
ISD; Brett Springston, Brownsville ISD; Reece Blincoe,
Brownwood ISD; Jeff Turner, Coppell ISD; Scott Elliff, Corpus
Christi ISD; David Anthony, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD; Michael
Hinojosa, Dallas ISD.
Leland Williams, Dickinson ISD; Frances Rocha, Edcouch-Elsa
ISD; Bob Wells, Edna ISD; Lorenzo Garcia, El Paso ISD; Melody
Johnson, Fort Worth ISD; Paul Clore, Gregory-Portland ISD;
Jeremy Lyon, Hays CISD; Terry Grier, Houston ISD; Emilia
Castro, Kingsville ISD; A. Marcus Nelson, Laredo ISD.
Michelle Carroll Smith, Lytle ISD; James Ponce, McAllen
ISD; Richard A. Middleton, North East ISD; John M. Folks,
Northside ISD; John Kuhn, Perrin-Whitt CISD; Sharron L.
Doughty, Port Aransas ISD; Alfonso Obregon, Robstown ISD;
Robert J. Duron, San Antonio ISD; Mike Quatrini, San Elizario
ISD.
Patty Shafer, San Marcos CISD; Greg Gibson, Schertz-Cibolo-
Universal City ISD; Rock McNulty, Smithville ISD; Lloyd
Verstuyft, Southwest ISD; Robert Santos, United ISD; Joddie
W. Witte, Van ISD; Richard Rivera, Weslaco ISD; H. John
Fuller, Wylie ISD; Michael Zolkoski, Ysleta ISD.

Texas Education Organizations

(Teachers, Principals, School Boards, and Administrators)

Sandi Borden, Executive Director, Texas Elementary
Principals and Supervisors Association; Linda Bridges,
President, Texas AFT; James B. Crow, Executive Director,
Texas Association of School Boards; Rita Haecker, President,
Texas State Teachers Assocation; Doug Rogers, Executive
Director, Association of Texas Professional Educators; Johnny
L. Veselka, Executive Director, Texas Association of School
Administrators; Brad Willingham, President, Texas Classroom
Teachers Association.

Texas Democratic Delegation Statement on Protection for Schoolchildren

Last year, we voted for the Economic Recovery Act, which
included $3.25 billion to support local Texas school
districts. But instead of using these funds as Congress
intended, State Republican Leadership used them to replace
state education funding, thereby denying an increase in
support for our local school districts.
We want to ensure that any new emergency funds Congress
provides for education actually help our Texas schools. We
have requested additional protections be incorporated into
any Supplemental Appropriations legislation specifically for
Texas schoolchildren to ensure local districts actually
receive this federal help. These protections will ensure that
the $820 million in new emergency federal funds for education
go to preserve teacher jobs throughout the State and meet
other local education needs.
These funds would go to local schools as long as the
Governor certifies that (1) federal funds are not used merely
to replace state education support, and (2) education funding
will not be cut proportionally more than any other item in
the upcoming Texas General Appropriations Act. This prevents
any further shell games with federal education dollars at the
expense of local schools districts. This approach has been
endorsed by Texas statewide education organizations
representing teachers, principals, school boards, school
administrators, and nearly 40 superintendents.
A solid education is the foundation on which our economy
and our democracy rest. Our support for our local school
districts reflects a two-fold understanding: First, local
districts know best what the needs of their students,
teachers, and administrators are. Second, especially in times
of a difficult economy, we need to invest in our schools.
Our language helps ensure local school districts in Texas
have the support they need.
Lloyd Doggett; Gene Green; Ruben Hinojosa; Chet Edwards;
Henry Cuellar; Charlie Gonzalez; Al Green; Solomon
Ortiz; Silvestre Reyes; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Sheila
Jackson Lee; and Ciro Rodriguez.

(January, 2011)

Texas Democratic Delegation Statement on Funding for Texas Schools

Since the U.S. House of Representatives approved new
education legislation that became federal law last August,
all that has stood between Texas schools and $830 million of
aid is Governor Rick Perry's signature on a three-page
application. More than five months later, the Governor still
refuses to turn in even that little bit of homework. With
Texas public education continuing to lag in math and science
scores while facing a budget crisis, our State has remained
one of only two in the entire country, which have not
received their share of these new federal education dollars.
And these funds should be going where they are needed--to
local Texas schools.
Last year, Governor Perry raised previously unmentioned
constitutional limitations that allegedly prevented his
acting before the Texas Legislature had convened. We
disagreed with that excuse then, and we continue to disagree
with it now. But with the Texas Legislature already in
session, the

[[Page H1349]]

Governor has certainly lost his sole stated excuse.
In his own words, the Governor applied for previous
emergency federal education funds as part of the Economic
Recovery Act ``only in concert with State lawmakers while the
2010-2011 budget was being finalized.'' Now that the Texas
Legislature has consideration of the 2012-2013 budget
underway, we respectfully urge the Governor in 2011 to do
just what he did in 2009. After working ``in concert with
state lawmakers,'' he should simply sign on the dotted line
requesting the $830 million in federal education funds that
remain available a few months longer for local Texas schools.
In 2009, the State used $3.25 billion emergency education
funds only to replace State funding, thereby denying an
opportunity to support improvements in the quality of public
education. That is why last year, our Delegation acted to
prevent history from repeating itself. We worked with Texas
superintendents and education organizations representing tens
of thousands of Texas teachers, principals, school boards,
and school administrators to craft legislative language
ensuring this new emergency education funding actually helps
Texas schoolchildren.
The additional protections that our Delegation authored
simply ensure that federal funds are not once again used only
to replace State education support. This new federal law
offers Texas State officials the flexibility to cut,
maintain, or increase State education support, but prohibits
any further shell games with federal education dollars at the
expense of our local schools.
Last summer, the Governor Perry told the Department of
Education that Texas planned to eventually complete the
proper application for these funds, but no such application
has been forthcoming. After so long, with so much at stake,
Texas students deserve better. We again urge the Governor to
sign the three-page application so that our Texas schools
will receive the federal aid that Congress has provided to be
used solely for public education.
Lloyd Doggett; Gene Green; Ruben Hinojosa; Henry Cuellar;
Charlie Gonzalez; Al Green; Silvestre Reyes; Eddie
Bernice Johnson; Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) had an amendment
which she is going to withdraw. I want to enter into a very brief
colloquy in which she can explain what her amendment attempted to do,
and then we are not going to offer it.
Ms. HANABUSA. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I had offered and that I am
withdrawing has to do with the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant.
The reason it is so critical to the people in Hawaii is that it is
not like any other block grant. It really fulfills a trust obligation
which this Congress created in 1920 by way of the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act. That act recognized that it was necessary to return
native Hawaiians to the land for the preservation of their culture,
their traditions and their values. What the Native Hawaiian Housing
Block Grant did was actually facilitate that. It is a very successful
program, nonpartisan in Hawaii, one that our Republican Governor
considers to be her legacy and one that has done exactly--exactly--what
we want to see these grants do.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentlelady for withdrawing her amendment
so we may proceed with the next speaker.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 0320

Amendment No. 540 Offered by Mr. LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE. 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:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

DIVISION A--FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

The following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of
applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds,
for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and
other organizational units of Government for fiscal year
2011, and for other purposes, namely:
Section 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary, at the
level specified in subsection (c) and under the authority and
conditions provided in applicable appropriations Acts for
fiscal year 2010, for each account, program, project, or
activity (including the costs of direct loans and loan
guarantees) for which appropriations, funds, or other
authority were made available in the following appropriations
Acts:
(1) The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
(Public Law 111-80).
(2) The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-117).
(3) The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010
(Public Law 111-118).
(4) The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-85).
(5) The Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2010 (division C of Public Law 111-117).
(6) The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2010 (Public Law 111-83).
(7) The Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (division A of
Public Law 111-88).
(8) The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
(division D of Public Law 111-117).
(9) The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010
(division A of Public Law 111-68).
(10) The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (division A of
Public Law 111-117).
(11) The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (division E of
Public Law 111-117).
(12) The Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (division F of
Public Law 111-117).
(13) Section 102(c) (except the last proviso relating to
waiver of fees) of chapter 1 of title I of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-212) that addresses
guaranteed loans in the rural housing insurance fund.
(14) The appropriation under the heading ``Department of
Commerce--United States Patent and Trademark Office'' in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-224).
(b) For purposes of this division, the term ``level'' means
an amount.
(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the
level referred to in subsection (a) shall be, with respect to
the amounts appropriated in the appropriations Acts referred
to in the following paragraphs of such subsection, including
transfers and obligation limitations, equal to the following
percentage of such amounts:
(A) In paragraph (1), 69.18 percent.
(B) In paragraphs (2) and (14), 79.77 percent.
(C) In paragraph (3), 101.30 percent.
(D) In paragraph (4), 89 percent.
(E) In paragraph (5), 81.25 percent.
(F) In paragraph (6), 95.26 percent.
(G) In paragraph (7), 80.94 percent.
(H) In paragraph (8), 82.66 percent.
(I) In paragraph (9), 93.69 percent.
(J) In paragraphs (10) and (13), 71.4 percent.
(K) In paragraph (11)--
(i) 100 percent, with respect to amounts made available for
the Veterans Benefits Administration and the Veterans Health
Administration; and
(ii) 96.19 percent, with respect to all other amounts.
(L) In paragraph (12)--
(i) 100 percent, with respect to amounts made available for
Israel; and
(ii) 88.08 percent, with respect to all other amounts.
(2) Such level shall not include any amount previously
designated as an emergency requirement and necessary to meet
emergency needs pursuant to sections 403(a) and 423(b) of S.
Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2010.
(3) Such level shall be calculated without regard to any
rescission or cancellation of funds or contract authority.
Sec. 102. Appropriations made by section 101 shall be
available to the extent and in the manner that would be
provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
Sec. 103. Appropriations provided by this division that,
in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010,
carried a multiple-year or no-year period of availability
shall retain a comparable period of availability.
Sec. 104. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
division, the requirements, authorities, conditions,
limitations, and other provisions of the appropriations Acts
referred to in section 101(a) shall continue in effect
through the date specified in section 106.
Sec. 105. No appropriation or funds made available or
authority granted pursuant to section 101 shall be used to
initiate or resume any project or activity for which
appropriations, funds, or other authority were

[[Page H1350]]

specifically prohibited during fiscal year 2010.
Sec. 106. Unless otherwise provided for in this division
or in the applicable appropriations Act, appropriations and
funds made available and authority granted pursuant to this
division shall be available through September 30, 2011.
Sec. 107. Expenditures made pursuant to the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242), shall be
charged to the applicable appropriation, fund, or
authorization provided by this division.
Sec. 108. Funds appropriated by this division may be
obligated and expended notwithstanding section 10 of Public
Law 91-672 (22 U.S.C. 2412), section 15 of the State
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2680),
section 313 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 6212), and section
504(a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
414(a)(1)).
Sec. 109. (a) For entitlements and other mandatory payments
whose budget authority was provided in appropriations Acts
for fiscal year 2010, and for activities under the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008, the levels established by section 101
shall be the amounts necessary to maintain program levels
under current law and under the authority and conditions
provided in the applicable appropriations Acts for fiscal
year 2010.
(b) In addition to the amounts otherwise provided by
section 101, the following amounts shall be available for the
following accounts for advance payments for the first quarter
of fiscal year 2012:
(1) ``Department of Labor, Employment Standards
Administration, Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners'',
for benefit payments under title IV of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977, $41,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
(2) ``Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, Grants to States for
Medicaid'', for payments to States or in the case of section
1928 on behalf of States under title XIX of the Social
Security Act, $86,445,289,000, to remain available until
expended.
(3) ``Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Payments to States
for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs'',
for payments to States or other non-Federal entities under
titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security
Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9),
$1,200,000,000, to remain available until expended.
(4) ``Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Payments to States
for Foster Care and Permanency'', for payments to States or
other non-Federal entities under title IV-E of the Social
Security Act, $1,850,000,000.
(5) ``Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security
Income Program'', for benefit payments under title XVI of the
Social Security Act, $13,400,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
Sec. 110. Amounts incorporated by reference in this
division that were previously designated as available for
overseas deployments and other activities pursuant to S. Con.
Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2010, are designated as being for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism pursuant to section 3(c)(2) of H. Res. 5 (112th
Congress) and as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress).
Sec. 111. Any language specifying an earmark in an
appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, or in a committee
report or joint explanatory statement accompanying such an
Act, shall have no legal effect with respect to funds
appropriated by this division. For purposes of this section,
the term ``earmark'' means a congressional earmark or
congressionally directed spending item, as defined in clause
9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives
and paragraph 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate.
Sec. 112. Notwithstanding section 101, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available in this division or
any other Act (including division A of this Act) may be used
to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to
or within the United States, its territories, or possessions
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
(1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed
Forces of the United States; and
(2) is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department
of Defense.
Sec. 113. (a)(1) Notwithstanding section 101, except as
provided in paragraph (2), none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available in this division or any other Act
(including division A of this Act) may be used to transfer
any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or
effective control of the individual's country of origin, any
other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the
Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the certification
described in subsection (b) by not later than 30 days before
the transfer of the individual.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by
the Secretary of Defense to transfer any individual detained
at Guantanamo to effectuate an order affecting the
disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or
competent tribunal of the United States having lawful
jurisdiction. The Secretary of Defense shall notify Congress
promptly upon issuance of any such order.
(b) The certification described in this subsection is a
written certification made by the Secretary of Defense, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that the
government of the foreign country or the recognized
leadership of the foreign entity to which the individual
detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred--
(1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a
designated foreign terrorist organization;
(2) maintains effective control over each detention
facility in which an individual is to be detained if the
individual is to be housed in a detention facility;
(3) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a
threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to
exercise control over the individual;
(4) has agreed to take effective steps to ensure that the
individual cannot take action to threaten the United States,
its citizens, or its allies in the future;
(5) has taken such steps as the Secretary determines are
necessary to ensure that the individual cannot engage or re-
engage in any terrorist activity; and
(6) has agreed to share any information with the United
States that--
(A) is related to the individual or any associates of the
individual; and
(B) could affect the security of the United States, its
citizens, or its allies.
(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), none of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this
division or any other Act (including division A of this Act)
may be used to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo
to the custody or effective control of the individual's
country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other
foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual
who was detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, at any time after September 11, 2001, who was
transferred to the foreign country or entity and subsequently
engaged in any terrorist activity.
(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the prohibition in
paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that such a
transfer is in the national security interests of the United
States and includes, as part of the certification described
in subsection (b) relating to such transfer, the
determination of the Secretary under this paragraph.
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by
the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at
Guantanamo to effectuate an order affecting the disposition
of the individual that is issued by a court or competent
tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction. The
Secretary shall notify Congress promptly upon issuance of any
such order.
(d) For the purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``individual detained at Guantanamo'' means
any individual who is located at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--
(A) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of
the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(B) is--
(i) in the custody or under the effective control of the
Department of Defense; or
(ii) otherwise under detention at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(2) The term ``foreign terrorist organization'' means any
organization so designated by the Secretary of State under
section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1189).
Sec. 114. (a) Notwithstanding section 101, none of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this
division or any other Act (including division A of this Act)
may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United
States, its territories, or possessions to house any
individual described in subsection (c) for the purposes of
detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the
effective control of the Department of Defense.
(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to
any modification of facilities at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(c) An individual described in this subsection is any
individual who, as of June 24, 2009, is located at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of
the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is--
(A) in the custody or under the effective control of the
Department of Defense; or
(B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Sec. 115. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this division or any other Act (including
division A of this Act) may be obligated by any covered
executive agency in contravention of the certification
requirement of section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of
1996, as included in the revisions to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation pursuant to such section.
Sec. 116. Section 550(b) of Public Law 109-295, as amended
by section 550 of Public Law 111-83, shall be applied by
substituting the date specified in section 106 of this
division for ``October 4, 2010''.
Sec. 117. Section 1(b)(2) of the Passport Act of June 4,
1920 (22 U.S.C. 214(b)(2)) shall be

[[Page H1351]]

applied by substituting the date specified in section 106 of
this division for ``September 30, 2010''.
Sec. 118. (a) Section 1115(d) of Public Law 111-32 shall be
applied by substituting the date specified in section 106 of
this division for ``October 1, 2010''.
(b) Section 824(g) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 4064(g)) shall be applied by substituting the date
specified in section 106 of this division for ``October 1,
2010'' in paragraph (2).
(c) Section 61(a) of the State Department Basic Authorities
Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2733(a)) shall be applied by
substituting the date specified in section 106 of this
division for ``October 1, 2010'' in paragraph (2).
(d) Section 625(j)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2385(j)(1)) shall be applied by substituting the
date specified in section 106 of this division for ``October
1, 2010'' in subparagraph (B).
Sec. 119. The authority provided by section 1334 of the
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (22
U.S.C. 6553) shall remain in effect through the date
specified in section 106 of this division.
Sec. 120. The provisions of title II of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11311 et seq.) shall
continue in effect, notwithstanding section 209 of such Act,
through the earlier of: (1) the date specified in section 106
of this division; or (2) the date of the enactment into law
of an authorization Act relating to the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act.

DIVISION B--STIMULUS RESCISSIONS

Sec. 201. (a) There are hereby rescinded all unobligated
balances remaining available as of February 11, 2011, of the
discretionary appropriations provided by division A of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5).
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to funds appropriated or
otherwise made available to Offices of Inspector General and
the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board by
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5).
Sec. 202. Hereafter, no Federal agency administering funds
provided by division A of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) may provide
funding or reimbursement to any entity awarded funds from
such Act for the cost associated with physical signage or
other advertisement indicating that a project is funded by
such Act.

DIVISION C--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

spending reduction account

Sec. 4001. [Here insert the text of section 4001 in the
pending text, as perfected, such that the matter proposed to
be inserted under the heading spending reduction account is
identical to the matter proposed to be stricken under that
heading.]
This Act may be cited as the ``Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17,
2011, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and a Member opposed
each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the Chair very much.
We have agreed informally that we are going to reduce the time on
this to 20 minutes, 10 minutes per side, and I will move expeditiously
through it.
There was a little issue with the drafting that will be addressed
later in the debate, and I may have a motion at the end of my
discussion.
I am honored to be joined in this amendment by Mr. Gibson and Mr.
Dent.
I hate across-the-board cuts. I really don't support across-the-board
cuts; but I've got to tell you that this CR, as it currently stands, is
the byproduct of the fact that we didn't get any appropriations bills
done last year and that we have a deadline of March 4. I don't think
the chairman of the full committee likes very much the CR that we are
considering. If he did, he wouldn't have been required to write it
three times in order to get the bill to the floor.
As for the salient points, the substitute that we are presenting
tonight is a deeper cut than the base bill. The base bill is advertised
as saving, I believe, $106 billion. This amendment cuts $120 billion.
It adopts numbers on Defense, MILCON, Homeland, Israel, Gitmo; the
earmarks are gone; the stimulus money is back.
To my Republican friends, I would say that, if this debate is really
about the number, this is a bigger number, $120 billion, as opposed to
$100 billion. If it's about social engineering, then you'll vote ``no''
on this particular amendment.
To my Democratic friends, I say we just can't give speeches about,
well, we would like to cut stuff, but we just want to cut this stuff,
and we don't want to cut that stuff.
The President's vision of a freeze was a bold strategy in 1995 when I
got here. It's a failed strategy in 2011. This particular substitute
restores NEA, CPB, Food for Peace, CDBG, but with shared, across-the-
board sacrifice. I would ask our Members to consider it.
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 15
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it really pains me to not be able to help my
friend from Ohio, who is a valued member of the Appropriations
Committee, who was an outstanding member of the Interior Subcommittee
when I was chairman, and who I enjoy working with very much.
The LaTourette amendment would cut from the FY10 levels: 31 percent
from Agriculture; 20 percent from CJS; 11 percent from Energy and
Water; 19 percent from Financial Services; 5 percent from Homeland
Security; 19 percent from Interior; 17 percent from Labor-HHS; 6
percent from the Legislative Branch; 12 percent from State, Foreign
Operations; and 30 percent from Transportation.
Unfortunately, in addition, the amendment fails to incorporate for
Afghanistan and Iraq operations provided by section 101(8) of the first
continuing resolution. Omitting this provision effectively cuts
Department of Defense contingency funding by nearly $30 billion. As a
result, the amendment vastly underfunds DOD requirements for fiscal
year 2011. It would preclude effective conduct of operations and put
deployed troops at risk.
The amendment would also harm job growth.
For example, in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
Subcommittee, the LaTourette amendment would cut nearly 30 percent, or
more than $20 billion, from programs and activities under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction. This would lead to a part-time air traffic
control system by cutting over $2.8 billion from the FAA operations;
cause severe reductions in service and work layoffs for Amtrak; and
finally, this amendment would provide fewer resources for
transportation safety overnight.
The amendment also leads to the loss of 650,000 vouchers for low-
income families, and it cuts nearly $500 million from homeless
assistance programs. In addition, it would threaten the ongoing
recovery of the housing market by grossly underfunding the resource
needs of the Federal Housing Administration.
The LaTourette amendment would also affect our domestic security by
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to lay off crucial staff
we have hired over the past 2 years, which includes Border Patrol
agents, CBP officers at the ports of entry, ICE investigators along the
Southwest border, and Secret Service agents to respond to the
heightened threats against the President.
Finally, like other amendments that have already been rejected by
this body, the LaTourette amendment puts OMB in charge, concedes the
congressional authority on an across-the-board basis, and also takes
out all the money in the CR for anomalies.

[[Page H1352]]

I urge all Members to reject the LaTourette amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the distinguished ranking member for the kind
words. I think your speech has gotten me votes from progressives and
conservatives in the same speech, so I appreciate that very much.
I now yield 2 minutes to one of my partners in crime here, a new
Member of the House, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).
Mr. GIBSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is about jobs, fiscal responsibility and about doing what is
right. A $1.65 trillion deficit. An over $14 trillion debt. We are on
the path to bankruptcy, and we have got to change course.
Now, as someone who until last year was protecting our cherished way
of life by serving in the United States Army, I've got to tell you that
I don't see this as a partisan issue. Both parties got us into this
mess, and we're going to need leadership now to get out. This has
become the generational issue of our time, and we need to begin to move
towards a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, and everything
needs to be on the table.
My family took the first cut. To lead by example, we're giving back
to the U.S. Treasury my pension--that I earned.
This substitute amendment was intended to be a nonpartisan approach
to an American issue: cuts across the board; Democratic and Republican
priorities treated the same in this CR; rolling back to 2008 levels
rather than eliminating programs outright in the CR. There will be time
for those kinds of investigations later on in the budget process and in
committees where programs can be singled out for deeper potential cuts
and long-term structural changes.
As has been pointed out, in the process of writing this, there were
some technical issues with it that we regret; but the point of this
substitute amendment remains the same, that this is an American issue.
We both have to come together to solve this. We're going to have to get
our fiscal house in order, and to do that, many steps are going to be
necessary, and among them is rolling back spending.
Americans today are wondering whether or not we're going to do the
right thing and whether or not we're going to cut that spending and
whether or not our best days are in front of us. That choice is up to
us--and we will get it right.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the
House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It
really is a substitute amendment, and it's an across-the-board cut.
This body has spent many late nights all this week debating a yearlong
CR which makes targeted spending decisions and weighs the pros and cons
of each and every program in the Federal Government, and I think the
House has done itself proud this week in that work.
Under an open process, each Member has had the ability to weigh in
and make their imprints on the bill through the consideration of
literally hundreds of amendments--the embodiment of the democratic
ideal. Adoption of this substitute proposal, however, would wipe out
everything we've done this whole week. Every amendment adopted would be
gone. Every calculated decision would be forgotten. Rather, the
amendment would replace our hard-fought spending decisions by taking
the easy way out, by making no real decisions at all, by punting the
ball to OMB and the bureaucrats instead of making the decisions our
electorate elected us to make.

{time} 0330

The across-the-board nature of the amendment's cuts provides no
opportunity for discretion. It punishes or rewards without regard to
merit. For example, under this amendment, the FBI's operations would be
cut by $1.5 billion. A reduction of that magnitude would result in the
layoff of thousands of agents, undermining our ability to prevent
terrorist attacks and to investigate the most serious Federal crimes.
The amendment fails to include the $33 billion in DOD emergency
funding for troops overseas, which was passed separately last year. The
Department of Homeland Security would be cut an additional $1 billion
below H.R. 1, forcing the reduction of Border Patrol agents, ICE agents
and active duty Coast Guard personnel.
While activities important to our national security would be unduly
cut, other wasteful programs, as well as programs that put a regulatory
stranglehold on our economy, are rewarded simply because they exist:
The Census Bureau would continue to receive funding at the decennial
FY10 level even though its needs are significantly reduced in FY11,
giving the Census Bureau a $4.5 billion slush fund and no reason for
having it.
While H.R. 1 cuts $3 billion from the EPA and specifically targets
that agency's climate change program funds, this amendment would
provide the EPA with ample funding to continue in their anti-business
regulatory regime.
While some may feel that proportionately distributing cuts will
proportionately distribute the sacrifices, they couldn't be more wrong.
Instead, the amendment writes a check, and let's the administration
fund their priorities while the Congress sits on the sidelines, leaving
the American people saddled with the results.
Congress has a responsibility to make tough choices and to provide
the oversight of each department and of each program through the power
of the purse. The amendment before us abdicates that responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the distinguished chairman for his remarks,
and I congratulate him on his hard work this week.
However, I would note that this amendment was in order during the
reading of the table of contents, and as a courtesy to the committee,
we didn't offer it then. We all could have been home on Tuesday at
about 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. I want to commend Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Gibson on their
efforts in drafting this amendment.
Notwithstanding any technical drafting errors that may affect $30
billion, I think it is important that we have this discussion.
The intent of this amendment is to help restore funding to programs
that have been zeroed out and to then better balance these cuts.
Ordinarily, I would agree with the chairman and Mr. LaTourette that we
would not want to engage in across-the-board cuts; but given where we
are in this fiscal year 2011 process, I think we should embrace this
policy, better balance these cuts in a way that I think is a bit more
equitable, use the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process for
oversight to make further revisions, then discuss zeroing out or, in a
more discriminating manner, deal with those programs that should be cut
even more substantially.
This amendment will help restore programs like LIHEAP, CSBG, CDBG,
which are programs that have been substantially reduced, and others
that have been zeroed out. So that is why I believe it is important
that we adopt this amendment.
Again, I commend Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Gibson for their efforts.
Mr. DICKS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to a new
Member of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
Mr. DOLD. I want to thank Mr. LaTourette for his work. I also want to
thank the chairman in the appropriations process and also the
leadership for being able to come out and really have an open
discussion about what's going on.
The spirit of the amendment wasn't to necessarily pick winners and
losers or to zero out programs; and as much as I do not like the idea
of across-the-board cuts, I do think that the American public right now
is thinking, ``How can we tighten our belts?''
The American people have tightened their belts. American businesses
have tightened their belts. The Federal Government should be no
different. Everything has to be on the table. The Department of Defense
has to be on the table. We have to rein that in. We have

[[Page H1353]]

to rein in every single department, and we know we have to do it
without putting people in harm's way.
This technical problem that has just surfaced in the amendment is
certainly going to be problematic, but the spirit, the intent, of this
amendment was to make sure that we are preserving some of what, I
think, many on the other side would consider to be very important
programs and what many of the independents in our Nation would consider
to be appropriate programs--and important to them.
We want to let the 2012 appropriations process go through the
appropriate channels, and we want to make sure we make our cuts at that
point in time, so I would just urge my colleagues to keep that in mind
as we move forward.
Mr. DICKS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute
to another fine Member, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we are now 6 months into our fiscal year, and we have
not been able to pass a dozen or more individual appropriations bills
within that time. We inherited a spending regime, but we have a mandate
from the American people to cut spending. We must do it equitably,
fairly and quickly; and I think that Mr. LaTourette has come up with an
amendment which has a really fair way of doing this:
Don't zero out programs without hearings. Don't pick winners and
losers. Don't do this without having the proper hearings and oversight.
By reducing our discretionary programs at the same rate across the
board, we don't risk alienating future priorities or vulnerable
constituencies that may receive funding which is at risk of being
terminated.
The chairman of Appropriations and this whole body have done a great
job in looking at all of this, and I think we will come out with
something that we will all be very proud of. The LaTourette amendment
offers another way to do just that.
Mr. DICKS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. May I inquire as to how much time I have left, Mr.
Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. Both the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from
Washington have 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Which is really 3 minutes remaining. So, if it's all
right, I would like to yield 1 minute, and then I will notify the
distinguished ranking member that I will take the last 2 minutes and
close.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the
oldest returning freshman--a freshman in 1995 and again in 2011.
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank my colleague from Ohio for such a
wonderful introduction.
I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the
members of the committee for all their hard work.
Cutting programs to zero in the middle of a fiscal year may be good
legislative policy, but it isn't really all that practical. We need to
address the future size and scope of government in the normal, regular
order of the appropriations process. The LaTourette amendment makes us
meet our spending reduction goals, but does it in a way that is simple
and is fair and is effective and is practical.

I support the LaTourette amendment because I think it is ``the''
vehicle that will actually do what we want to do, which is to cut
spending now and then get on with the regular appropriations process,
in which we can give these agencies the kind of oversight they need so
that we will make the right decisions.
So I urge the support and adoption of the LaTourette amendment.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would notify the distinguished ranking member that
I'm the last speaker, and I'm going to consume our last 2 minutes--so
have at it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis).

{time} 0340

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my
colleague for yielding me this time.
It has been suggested by more than one person, not just today but
also a moment ago, that we are headed towards a cliff in terms of our
financial circumstances. It could take our country to bankruptcy and
create a circumstance from which we would, perhaps, never come back.
To suggest that this substitute makes sense really baffles me. I've
been told by the Speaker that the gentleman from Ohio is a very
thoughtful Member and will contribute a great deal to our committee,
which he has and is; but across-the-board cutting in an effort to make
sense out of our spending process makes no sense at all. We are elected
to look at the whole mix and to pick winners and losers, to decide what
programs should be cut significantly, and to decide which ones should
be eliminated. Indeed, that is part of our work.
In this substitute, essentially we are taking all the work we've done
these last several days and kicking it out the door. These efforts on
the amendments were not worth any time at all. We shouldn't have been
here these last several days. If this amendment is successful, there is
just one thing that it does that is bothersome to me but which
illustrates the point:
This amendment would provide $1 billion below our CR in terms of
Homeland Security. That is 2.6 percent lower in funding for those
people who are protecting the border. To suggest by way of this
substitute that we can eliminate 1,000 of those people who are on the
border is ludicrous in my judgment.
Indeed, it is our responsibility to select winners and losers, and
this substitute is a waste of our time if we are serious about changing
the direction of our country. So I would strongly oppose this
substitute.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have 2 minutes remaining; is that
right?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Well, I've got 2 minutes, so I'm going to yield
myself the balance of my time.
I certainly don't wish to waste anybody's time, but I've sat through
a lot of interesting debate over the last 3 or 4 days, and my time has
been wasted plenty with silly things like not wanting to pay for the
repairs at the White House, but we went through that exercise today.
This was a serious attempt to talk about shared sacrifice and the
belief that, in some parts of the country, some programs are more
popular than others. So our belief was, if we're going to have shared
sacrifice, everybody should be in the game. We shouldn't pick programs
the Republicans like and keep them and pick programs that Democrats
like and be done with them.
Now, I do want to take one second to talk about this defense number--
because I drafted this thing. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer,
but I've got to tell you that it was never our intent to not carry over
the emergency supplemental. The information that we had is that the
language included in the substitute did, in fact, by indicating that we
were not dealing with emergency spending and referencing section 423 of
the supplemental, accomplish that purpose. I'm told by much brighter
people than I that we didn't do that, so I apologize for that drafting
error.
Having said that, let me tell you, I'm not going to apologize for
taking 20 minutes out of 80 hours--or whatever we had here--to talk
about the vision of some people on our side who don't think this bill
represents shared sacrifice.
In Cleveland, Ohio, people listen to the radio, and some of them like
to listen to NPR. We don't think that that should be zeroed out. In
Cleveland, Ohio, some people value the arts, and we don't think that
there should be a tremendous cut to the National Endowment for the
Arts. In Cleveland, Ohio, we build our communities with the Community
Development Block Grant, and we don't think it should get a 66 percent
cut. As Americans, we happen to value the Food for Peace program, which
not only feeds hungry people all across the world, but is really the
last bastion, if we're going to talk about jobs around here, the
merchant mariner, it's one of that merchant mariner's lifelines for
employment.
So I don't make any apologies for taking 20 minutes out of your busy

[[Page H1354]]

lives to talk about this vision and why some of us wish that both sides
would get together, not have the sacred cows that keep us from reaching
a conclusion on this thing, and work this thing out.
I guess I'm apologizing for being the last person; but in light of
the defense number, I don't want to put my young lambs at risk of some
stupid political ad that says they sponsored something that cut $33
billion from the Defense Department of this great country.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chair, I support the amendment offered by my colleague
from Ohio, Representative LaTourette.
I do believe the time has come for Congress to address a federal
deficit that will exceed $1 trillion for the third consecutive year.
I do agree that the total dollar amount cut by the underlying bill is
appropriate and represents a move toward fiscal responsibility.
The amendment under consideration shows the same commitment to fiscal
responsibility; in fact, it cuts more spending than the underlying
bill.
Beyond that, the amendment spreads the spending cuts across all non-
security federal programs for the remainder of 2011.
No programs are eliminated, and with limited exceptions, no non-
security spending is left untouched.
Meeting our financial crisis will entail sacrifice from many
quarters, and this amendment shares that sacrifice broadly across our
entire discretionary spending budget.
Beyond this year, an across-the-board cut provides a better point of
departure for the 2012 appropriations process which will begin shortly.
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Amendment No. 273 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) 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 189,
noes 233, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 144]

AYES--189

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

NOES--233

Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hultgren
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
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)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--11

Costello
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Smith (TX)
Stark
Wilson (FL)

{time} 0406

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

Amendment No. 154 Offered by Mr. Burgess

Recorded Vote

[[Page H1355]]

[Roll No. 145]

AYES--235

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
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
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
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 (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
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--187

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Campbell
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
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)
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
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
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Costello
Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Smith (TX)
Stark
Wilson (FL)

{time} 0409

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

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 144 and 145, I was
unfortunately detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''
on both.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011''.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments,
with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the
bill, as amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Capito) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments
and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2011, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 92,
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. HEINRICH. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HEINRICH. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Heinrich moves to recommit H.R. 1 to the Committee on
Appropriations with instructions to report the same back to
the House forthwith with the following amendment:
At the end of title VIII of division B, insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``Department of Education, Departmental Management, Program
Administration'', and increasing the amount made available
for ``Department of Education, Student Financial Assistance''
(and the amount made available under such heading for subpart
1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965),
by $39,000,000.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HEINRICH. Madam Speaker, Americans need jobs.
Up until now, Republicans have ignored this problem, and now they're
making it worse. Our Nation's large and unsustainable budget deficit is
staring us in the face, but it is at critical moments like this when we
must approach our Nation's greatest challenges with responsibility and
prudence. The approach we take must focus on responsible cuts, which
will have a lasting impact on the deficit, not arbitrary short-term
cuts to programs that are needed to prepare the next generation of
American workers and taxpayers.
Consider the effects of the bill before us on Specialist John
Carabillo from my home State of New Mexico. Specialist Carabillo served
in the Army for 6 years, and he was deployed to Iraq twice during his
service. He then enlisted with the National Guard, and served an
additional tour in Iraq.

[[Page H1356]]

After returning to New Mexico, Specialist Carabillo decided he wanted
to go back to school and earn his degree in IT. The Pell Grant
scholarships and GI benefits Specialist Carabillo receives have allowed
him to enroll in an associate's program at a vocational school. When he
graduates, he hopes to find an IT job at Kirtland Air Force Base.
The Republican bill would cut Specialist Carabillo's Pell Grant
scholarship. This cut in his financial aid means that he will have to
take fewer courses this year and graduate later, try to take a loan he
can't afford or drop out of school.
Specialist Carabillo is not alone.
If students who rely on college aid from the Pell Grant program drop
out of school, America runs the risk of dropping out of first place in
the world economy.
This motion to recommit would be a downpayment to restore Specialist
Carabillo's future. Simply put, this motion to recommit would transfer
funds from the Department of Education administration to fund Pell
Grant scholarships at the current level.
My amendment to restore these scholarships won't add a penny to the
deficit. In fact, this MTR is paid for by cutting salaries and expenses
at the Department of Education, which takes it back to fiscal year 2008
levels.
So this motion to recommit calls on the House to make a choice. Do we
want responsible, measured spending cuts or reckless ones? Do we want
cuts to come at the expense of middle class America or corporate
special interests? Do we want a weaker America that cuts education or a
stronger America that competes and wins in the global economy? Whose
side are we on?
We say: We're on the side of American jobs. We're on the side of
American education. We're on the side of working families and their
sons and daughters.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, it is time to vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman withdraw his reservation
of the point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I withdraw my reservation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member rise in opposition to the
motion?
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HEINRICH. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186,
noes 238, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 146]

AYES--186

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
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
McIntyre
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
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--238

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
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
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 (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)

NOT VOTING--9

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stark
Wilson (FL)

{time} 0433

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to speak out of order.)

Recognizing John Blazey

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the entire
staff of the House Appropriations Committee for the fantastic work that
they have done.
No one better exemplifies those qualities than Mr. John Blazey. One
of the best moves we made was to steal him away from the Senate Budget
Committee.
Next week, Blazey will end his 20-year career with the committee,
where he worked on five different subcommittees, and holds the
distinction of having been named the Transportation subcommittee staff
director at the youngest age. His knowledge of process and substance is
matched only by his style and parties.
Blazey--and his elf costume--will be missed.

[[Page H1357]]

I yield to the distinguished chairman of the committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Let me associate myself with the remarks of
my friend in thanking John Blazey for his long tenure and service here
in this great body.
Best wishes for the future.
To all the rest of you, I think you've done yourselves proud this
week. I think the House distinguished itself, and I thank you,
especially this terrific staff that made all of this happen.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 189, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 147]

YEAS--235

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
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
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
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
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 (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)

NAYS--189

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Campbell
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
Flake
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.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
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
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Giffords
Harman
Hinojosa
McCollum
Paul
Peters
Quayle
Stark
Wilson (FL)

{time} 0440

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________