Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 39 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1811-H1825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ADDITIONAL CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS AMENDMENTS, 2011

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 48) making further continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

H.J. Res. 48

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242) is
further amended--
(1) by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and
inserting ``April 8, 2011''; and
(2) by adding after section 226, as added by the Further
Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011 (Public Law 112-
4), the following new sections:
``Sec. 227. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Agricultural Programs--Agricultural Research
Service--Salaries and Expenses' at a rate for operations of
$1,135,501,000.
``Sec. 228. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Agricultural Programs--Agricultural Research
Service--Buildings and Facilities' at a rate for operations
of $0.
``Sec. 229. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Agricultural Programs--National Institute of
Food and Agriculture--Research and Education Activities' at a
rate for operations of $665,345,000: Provided, That the
amounts included under such

[[Page H1812]]

heading in Public Law 111-80 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this Act by substituting `$0' for
`$89,029,000' and `$11,253,000' for `$45,122,000'.
``Sec. 230. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Agricultural Programs--National Institute of
Food and Agriculture--Extension Activities' at a rate for
operations of $483,092,000: Provided, That the amounts
included under such heading in Public Law 111-80 shall be
applied to funds appropriated by this Act by substituting
`$8,565,000' for `$20,396,000'.
``Sec. 231. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Agricultural Programs--Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service--Salaries and Expenses' at a rate for
operations of $880,543,000.
``Sec. 232. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Conservation Programs--Natural Resources
Conservation Service--Conservation Operations' at a rate for
operations of $850,247,000.
``Sec. 233. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Conservation Programs--Natural Resources
Conservation Service--Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations' at a rate for operations of $0: Provided, That
the amounts included under such heading in Public Law 111-80
shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by
substituting `$0' for `$12,000,000'.
``Sec. 234. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Rural Development Programs--Rural Housing
Service--Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account' for
the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the cost
of modifying loans, at a rate for operations of $70,200,000:
Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in
Public Law 111-80 shall be applied to funds appropriated by
this Act by substituting `$70,200,000' for `$40,710,000' in
the case of direct loans and `$0' for `$172,800,000' in the
case of unsubsidized guaranteed loans.
``Sec. 235. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Rural Development Programs--Rural Business-
Cooperative Service--Rural Cooperative Development Grants' at
a rate for operations of $31,754,000: Provided, That the
amounts included under such heading in Public Law 111-80
shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by
substituting `$0' for `$300,000' and `$0' for `$2,800,000'.
``Sec. 236. Sections 718, 723, 727, 728, and 738 of Public
Law 111-80 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act
by substituting `$0' for each of the dollar amounts specified
in those sections.
``Sec. 237. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Commerce--International Trade
Administration--Operations and Administration' at a rate for
operations of $450,989,000: Provided, That the sixth proviso
under such heading in division B of Public Law 111-117 shall
not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 238. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Commerce--Minority Business
Development Agency--Minority Business Development' at a rate
for operations of $30,400,000: Provided, That the first
proviso under such heading in division B of Public Law 111-
117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 239. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Commerce--National Institute of
Standards and Technology--Scientific and Technical Research
and Services' at a rate for operations of $504,500,000:
Provided, That the second proviso under such heading in
division B of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 240. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Commerce--National Institute of
Standards and Technology--Construction of Research
Facilities' at a rate for operations of $100,000,000:
Provided, That the first proviso under such heading in
division B of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 241. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration--Operations, Research, and
Facilities' at a rate for operations of $3,205,883,000:
Provided, That the sixth proviso under such heading in
division B of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 242. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration--Procurement, Acquisition and
Construction' at a rate for operations of $1,340,353,000:
Provided, That the sixth proviso under such heading in
division B of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 243. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Justice--Office of Justice
Programs--State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance' at a
rate for operations of $1,349,500,000: Provided, That the
amount included in paragraph (4) under such heading in
division B of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this Act by substituting `$0' for
`$185,268,000'.
``Sec. 244. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Justice--Office of Justice
Programs--Juvenile Justice Programs' at a rate for operations
of $332,500,000: Provided, That the amount included in
paragraph (2) under such heading in division B of Public Law
111-117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by
substituting `$0' for `$91,095,000'.
``Sec. 245. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Justice--Community Oriented
Policing Services' at a rate for operations of $597,500,000:
Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in
division B of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this Act as follows: in paragraph (2), by
substituting `$15,000,000' for `$40,385,000' and by
substituting `$0' for `$25,385,000'; and in paragraph (3), by
substituting `$1,500,000' for `$170,223,000' and by
substituting `$0' for `$168,723,000'.
``Sec. 246. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `National Aeronautics and Space Administration--
Cross Agency Support' at a rate for operations of
$3,131,000,000: Provided, That the third proviso under such
heading in division B of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply
to funds appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 247. Of the funds made available for `Department of
Commerce--Bureau of the Census--Periodic Censuses and
Programs' in division B of Public Law 111-117, $1,740,000,000
is rescinded.
``Sec. 248. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Commerce--National
Telecommunications and Information Administration--Public
Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction' at
a rate for operations of $0.
``Sec. 249. Of the unobligated balances available for
`Emergency Steel, Oil, and Gas Guaranteed Loan Program
Account', $48,000,000 is rescinded.
``Sec. 250. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Treasury--Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account' at a
rate for operations of $243,600,000, and the funding
designation of $3,150,000 for an additional pilot project
grant under such heading in division C of Public Law 111-117
shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 251. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Executive Office of the President and Funds
Appropriated to the President--Office of National Drug
Control Policy--Other Federal Drug Control Programs' at a
rate for operations of $152,150,000, and the matter under
such heading in division C of Public Law 111-117 relating to
the National Drug Court Institute and the National Alliance
for Model State Drug Laws shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 252. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `District of Columbia--Federal Funds--Federal
Payment to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer for the
District of Columbia' at a rate for operations of $0.
``Sec. 253. Notwithstanding section 101, the aggregate
amount of new obligational authority provided under the
heading `General Services Administration--Real Property
Activities--Federal Buildings Fund--Limitations on
Availability of Revenue' for Federal buildings and
courthouses and other purposes of the Fund shall be available
at a rate for operations of $7,519,772,000, of which: (1) $0
is for `Construction and Acquisition'; and (2) $284,000,000
is for `Repairs and Alterations' for Special Emphasis
Programs and Basic Repairs and Alterations.
``Sec. 254. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `General Services Administration--General
Activities--Operating Expenses' at a rate for operations of
$71,881,000, and the matter relating to the amount of
$1,000,000 under such heading in division C of Public Law
111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 255. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `National Archives and Records Administration--
Repairs and Restoration' at a rate for operations of
$11,848,000.
``Sec. 256. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for section 523 of division C of Public Law 111-117
at a rate for operations of $0.
``Sec. 257. Of the unobligated balances available for
`Department of Homeland Security--U.S. Customs and Border
Protection--Construction and Facilities Management' for
construction projects, $106,556,000 is rescinded: Provided,
That the amounts rescinded under this section shall be
limited to amounts available for Border Patrol projects and
facilities: Provided further, That no amounts in this section
may be rescinded from amounts that were designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to a concurrent
resolution on the budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
``Sec. 258. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land
Management--Management of Lands and Resources' at a rate for
operations of $957,971,000: Provided, That the amounts
included under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-
88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by
substituting ``$957,951,000'' for ``$959,571,000'' the second
place it appears.
``Sec. 259. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land
Management--Construction' at a rate for operations of
$6,626,000.
``Sec. 260. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land
Management--Land Acquisition' at a rate for operations of
$26,650,000: Provided, That the proviso under such heading in
division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 261. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the

[[Page H1813]]

Interior--United States Fish and Wildlife Service--Resource
Management' at a rate for operations of $1,257,356,000.
``Sec. 262. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--United States Fish
and Wildlife Service--Construction' at a rate for operations
of $27,139,000.
``Sec. 263. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--United States Fish
and Wildlife Service--Land Acquisition' at a rate for
operations of $63,890,000.
``Sec. 264. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--National Park
Service--National Recreation and Preservation' at a rate for
operations of $57,986,000, of which $0 shall be for projects
authorized by section 7302 of Public Law 111-11.
``Sec. 265. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--National Park
Service--Historic Preservation Fund' at a rate for operations
of $54,500,000: Provided, That the amounts included under
such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be
applied to funds appropriated by this Act by substituting
``$0'' for ``$25,000,000'': Provided further, That the
proviso under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88
shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 266. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--National Park
Service--Construction' at a rate for operations of
$185,066,000: Provided, That the last proviso under such
heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to
funds appropriated by this Act: Provided further, That of the
unobligated balances available under such heading in division
A of Public Law 111-88 and prior appropriation Acts,
$25,000,000 is rescinded, including $1,000,000 from amounts
made available for the (now completed) project at Cape
Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, and $1,000,000
from amounts made available for the (now completed) project
at Blue Ridge Parkway, North Carolina.
``Sec. 267. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--National Park
Service--Land Acquisition and State Assistance' at a rate for
operations of $108,846,000.
``Sec. 268. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--United States
Geological Survey--Surveys, Investigations, and Research' at
a rate for operations of $1,094,344,000.
``Sec. 269. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--Bureau of Indian
Affairs--Operation of Indian Programs' at a rate for
operations of $2,334,515,000.
``Sec. 270. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of the Interior--Departmental
Offices--Insular Affairs--Assistance to Territories' at a
rate for operations of $84,295,000.
``Sec. 271. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Environmental Protection Agency--Science and
Technology' at a rate for operations of $840,349,000, of
which $0 shall be for the purposes specified in `Research/
National Priorities' under the heading `Science and
Technology' in the joint explanatory statement of the
managers accompanying Public Law 111-88.
``Sec. 272. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Environmental Protection Agency--Environmental
Programs and Management' at a rate for operations of
$2,963,263,000: Provided, That of the amounts provided by
this Act for such account, amounts are provided for the
Geographic Programs specified in the joint explanatory
statement of the managers accompanying Public Law 111-88 at a
rate for operations of $599,875,000: Provided further, That
of the amounts provided by this Act for such account, $0
shall be for cap and trade technical assistance and $0 shall
be for the program specified in `Environmental Protection/
National Priorities' under the heading `Environmental
Programs and Management' in the joint explanatory statement
of the managers accompanying Public Law 111-88.
``Sec. 273. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Environmental Protection Agency--Buildings and
Facilities' at a rate for operations of $36,501,000:
Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in
division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this Act by substituting `$0' for `$500,000'.
``Sec. 274. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Environmental Protection Agency--State and
Tribal Assistance Grants' at a rate for operations of
$4,777,946,000: Provided, That the amounts included under
such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be
applied to funds appropriated by this Act as follows: by
substituting `$14,500,000' for `$17,000,000'; by substituting
`$10,000,000' for `$13,000,000'; by substituting `$0' for
`$156,777,000'; by substituting `$0' for `$20,000,000'; and
by substituting `$1,106,446,000' for `$1,116,446,000'.
``Sec. 275. The matter pertaining to competitive grants to
communities to develop plans and demonstrate and implement
projects which reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the
heading `Environmental Protection Agency--State and Tribal
Assistance Grants' in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall
not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 276. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--
Forest and Rangeland Research' at a rate for operations of
$311,612,000.
``Sec. 277. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--
State and Private Forestry' at a rate for operations of
$301,611,000.
``Sec. 278. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--
National Forest System' at a rate for operations of
$1,550,089,000.
``Sec. 279. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--
Capital Improvement and Maintenance' at a rate for operations
of $548,962,000.
``Sec. 280. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--Land
Acquisition' at a rate for operations of $33,184,000.
``Sec. 281. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--
Wildland Fire Management' at a rate for operations of
$2,097,387,000: Provided, That of the unobligated balances
available under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-
88 and prior appropriation Acts, $200,000,000 is rescinded.
``Sec. 282. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for section 415 of division A of Public Law 111-88
at a rate for operations of $0.
``Sec. 283. Notwithstanding section 101 and section 200,
amounts are provided for `Department of Labor--Employment and
Training Administration--Training and Employment Services' at
a rate for operations of $3,654,641,000: Provided, That the
amounts included in paragraph (3)(E) under such heading in
division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds
appropriated by this Act by substituting `$0' for
`$125,000,000' and by substituting `$0' for `$65,000,000'.
``Sec. 284. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Labor--Employment and Training
Administration--Community Service Employment for Older
Americans' at a rate for operations of $600,425,000:
Provided, That for purposes of funds appropriated by this
Act, the amounts included under such heading in division D of
Public Law 111-117 shall be applied by substituting `$0' for
`$225,000,000' in the first place it appears, and the first
and second provisos under such heading in such division shall
not apply.
``Sec. 285. Notwithstanding sections 101 and 203, amounts
are provided for `Department of Health and Human Services--
Health Resources and Services Administration--Health
Resources and Services' at a rate for operations of
$7,001,520,000: Provided, That the eighteenth, nineteenth,
twenty-second, and twenty-fifth provisos under such heading
in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this Act.
``Sec. 286. Notwithstanding section 101, in addition to
amounts otherwise made available by section 130, amounts are
provided for `Department of Health and Human Services--Office
of the Secretary--Public Health and Social Services Emergency
Fund' at a rate for operations of $731,109,000, of which
$65,578,000 shall be for expenses necessary to prepare for
and respond to an influenza pandemic (none of which shall be
available past September 30, 2011) and $35,000,000 shall be
for expenses necessary for fit-out and other costs related to
a competitive lease procurement to renovate or replace the
existing headquarters building for Public Health Service
agencies and other components of the Department of Health and
Human Services.
``Sec. 287. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Corporation for Public Broadcasting' at a rate
for operations of $36,000,000: Provided, That the amounts
included under such heading in division D of Public Law 111-
117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by
substituting `$0' for `$25,000,000' each place it appears.
``Sec. 288. Of the funds appropriated for `Social Security
Administration--Limitation on Administrative Expenses' for
fiscal years 2010 and prior years (other than funds
appropriated in Public Law 111-5) for investment in
information technology and telecommunications hardware and
software infrastructure, $200,000,000 is rescinded.
``Sec. 289. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `House of Representatives--Salaries and
Expenses' at a rate for operations of $1,367,525,000.
``Sec. 290. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `House of Representatives--Salaries, Officers
and Employees' at a rate for operations of $196,801,000, of
which $129,282,000 shall be for the operations of the Office
of the Chief Administrative Officer.
``Sec. 291. Notwithstanding section 101 and section 221,
amounts are provided for `Library of Congress--Salaries and
Expenses' at a rate for operations of $445,201,000, of which
$0 shall be for the operations described in the fifth and
seventh provisos under such heading in Public Law 111-68.
``Sec. 292. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Bilateral Economic Assistance--Funds
Appropriated to the President--International Fund for
Ireland' at a rate for operations of $0.
``Sec. 293. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Housing and Urban Development--
Community Planning and Development--Brownfields
Redevelopment' at a rate for operations of $0.
``Sec. 294. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are
provided for `Department of Transportation--Federal Railroad
Administration--Railroad Safety Technology Program' at a rate
for operations of $0.''.

[[Page H1814]]

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Additional
Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). Pursuant to House
Resolution 167, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.

{time} 1330

general leave

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 48, and that I may
include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise today to support H.J. Res. 48, the fiscal year 2011 further
continuing appropriations resolution. This temporary CR will allow us
to avoid a government shutdown that could otherwise occur on March 18,
while cutting spending by $6 billion to control our Nation's staggering
deficits and to facilitate the continued recovery of our Nation's
economy.
We've made it clear that a government shutdown is not an option,
period. We will not allow this to happen on our watch.
This bill funds the government for an additional 3 weeks, until April
8, maintaining the critical support the government provides to the
American people and allowing for the necessary time to complete
negotiations on a final long-term agreement for the remainder of this
year.
While funding the essential government agencies and programs, this CR
makes $6 billion in spending cuts, trimming $2 billion for every week,
to continue our efforts to rein in spending and put a dent in our
massive and unsustainable deficit. Together with the $4 billion that we
cut 2 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, along with the $6 billion we cut in this
bill, we will have cut $10 billion from current year spending. That
makes it the largest rescission in American history, and so it is
working.
H.J. Res. 48 reduces or terminates a total of 25 programs for a
savings of $3.5 billion. These cuts include funding rescissions,
reductions, and program terminations. It also eliminates earmark
accounts within the Agriculture; Commerce, Justice and Science;
Financial Services; General Government; and Interior subcommittee
jurisdictions, saving the American taxpayers $2.6 billion in earmark
spending, which the President and both Houses of Congress have agreed
they do not support.
These cuts are the tough, but necessary, legwork required to help
balance our budgets and halt the dangerous downward spiral of
skyrocketing deficits. While short-term funding measures such as this
are not the preferable way to fund the government, at this point, it's
vital.
The budget for fiscal 2011, which was punted to us by the previous
Congress, is long, long overdue. I agree with many of my colleagues
that we must get down to business and come to a final agreement as
quickly as possible. Our economy must not be threatened by perpetual
government shutdowns, which create uncertainty and a loss of confidence
for job creators across the country.
This continuing resolution provides us with an appropriate length of
time for negotiations, makes good on our promise to the American people
to cut spending, provides certainty and stability, and allows essential
Federal programs to continue while these negotiations ensue.
I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this continuing resolution can be
passed swiftly so we can turn our attention to the realities of our
debt and deficit crisis and begin to put the Nation on the right path
for the next fiscal year, 2012.
Our constituents have asked us to whip our spending into shape, to
provide solutions that help our economy grow, and to help our citizens
get jobs. This CR addresses their expectations responsibly over the
short term and is just one of the set of bills that we intend to
produce over the next year that will continue to put the Nation's
budget back into balance and help our economy continue on the road to
recovery.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, the House is considering the fifth continuing
resolution for FY 2011 to keep the Federal Government running. Here we
are, in the middle of March, considering yet another short-term bill
that is supposed to buy us time to negotiate funding for the remainder
of the fiscal year, and I hope that proves to be true. We need to bring
this to a conclusion.
The extension reduces spending in FY 2011 by $45 billion below the
President's request. It adds another $6 billion in ``common ground''
spending reductions. In total, the measure cuts $51 billion below the
President's request.
The idea behind the 3-week extension is to provide an opportunity for
the House, Senate, and White House to settle all outstanding issues on
fiscal year 2011 appropriations. I remain hopeful that negotiations
will succeed and we will be able to give our agencies some amount of
certainty for what little remains of fiscal year 2011.
Today, in The New York Times, there was a long article showing what
kind of disruption occurs in Federal agencies, including Defense and
Social Security and others, Head Start for example, because we haven't
gotten these bills enacted, but I must remind my colleagues that if
this CR is extended for the remainder of the year, we would be cutting
spending at historic levels, $51 billion below the President's request.
I am worried that cutting deeper will threaten a fragile economic
recovery. Most economists see cuts in H.R. 1 as a drag on economic
growth leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, as Fed
Chairman Bernanke projects. Moody's Mark Zandi estimates 400,000 jobs
lost for the remainder of this year and 700,000 more next year if H.R.
1 is enacted. Goldman Sachs think it would be as high as 2.4 million
jobs lost. In yesterday's ABC News-Washington Post poll, the American
people believe that the Republican proposed cuts in H.R. 1 will hurt
the economic recovery.
I am relieved that Chairman Rogers crafted a bill that relies on
previously identified reductions, a significant portion of which were
old earmarks. And while I know my colleagues will not agree with, and
may not be able to support, some of the specific program cuts included
in this package, I appreciate that there was a genuine attempt to
engage the Senate and White House before they were chosen.
Most importantly, I am tremendously relieved the chairman has stayed
away from controversial riders in this stopgap measure. He knows, as I
do, that these riders would almost guarantee a veto by the
administration, which would almost guarantee a government shutdown. An
appropriations bill is not the place to decide enormously complex and
controversial policy issues.
I am not pleased to be here today with yet another short-term bill. I
sincerely hope that we will use this 3-week period of time judiciously
so the next time we consider a bill for fiscal year 2011 it will be the
last and for the remaining 6 months of this year.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida, a new member of our committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that are really not
debatable. I think the American people understand, and I think
everybody understands, that we are on an unsustainable path. We're on
an unsustainable path as far as unemployment. The unemployment numbers
are still frighteningly high. We are on an unsustainable path as far as
borrowing and as far as spending.
So, frankly, we have a couple of options here. We can continue that
unsustainable path, which is borrowing more and spending more, or we
could change the way we're doing and try to get our fiscal act and our
fiscal house in order.

{time} 1340

I commend the chairman, Chairman Rogers, for bringing forward a CR,
an

[[Page H1815]]

extension, that does just that, that brings some sanity to this
process, that reduces the size, the scope, and the amount of spending,
that does so responsibly after reviewing programs and reviewing funding
and reviewing what the Federal Government is doing. And that's exactly
what we have in front of us today.
Yes, we wish that we could have not just an extension but that we
could go through the entire year. The reason, by the way, that we are
even talking about this right now is because the Democrats failed to
pass it. So now we are forced to do so. We already passed a CR for the
remaining part of the year; but, unfortunately, the Senate has not been
able or has not been willing to do their part. So we are forced, once
again, to do an extension. This is a real extension that reduces cost,
that reduces expenses, that does so responsibly, and takes us off this
unsustainable path. This does so by borrowing less, by spending less.
And, yes, it will have the effect, Mr. Speaker, of getting our fiscal
house in order and once again allowing this country to start creating
jobs in a real way, not just in a piecemeal way.
So I urge our colleagues to support this responsible CR.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California, Barbara Lee, a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise to oppose this continuing resolution. Once again, the majority
is reading from a very familiar script that imposes budgetary pain on
vulnerable communities that can least endure these budget cuts. For a
third consecutive time now, the majority is presenting a temporary
spending bill totaling $6 billion in spending cuts and $2.6 billion in
earmark cuts to very meaningful programs. And once again, this CR does
nothing to promote job creation. The majority pledged to develop jobs
when they regained control of the House, but they continue to renege on
their promise.
It is important to emphasize that the proposed cuts will hit
communities that can least afford these hits. The loss of $185 million
in State and local law enforcement assistance provided by Byrne grants
will further squeeze tight police budgets. With these cuts, communities
will be struggling to find funding to support vital police functions.
At a time when methamphetamine drug use and drug trafficking is on the
rise, this CR includes cuts to COPS to combat the spread of meth use
and distribution.
Rather than continue to fund vital programs at the community level
that work, we are witnessing budgeting through biweekly CRs. And these
cuts will further harm highly vulnerable communities that rely greatly
on COPS policing services and technology grants.
Now, also, my constituents regularly call my office asking what
source of funding is going to replace the earmarks that historically
have supported jobs, small businesses, schools, nonprofits. Also, I
continue to press administration witnesses in budget justification
hearings regarding the impact of the elimination of earmarks and what
alternative resources will replace them.
I hope we vote ``no'' on the CR.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the chairman of the Transportation,
HUD, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this joint resolution. It's not
because I want to, but because it is necessary to support it today. It
is necessary because we are stuck in a situation that results from the
previous majority's lack of completing its work last year. I think we
need to step back and just look at the situation that we were handed
this year.
For the first time since the Budget Act of 1974, Mr. Speaker, the
House failed to pass a budget last year. The House also failed--except
for two occasions--to pass appropriation bills. The Senate did nothing.
So what we are left with today is this mess that we are in with no
fiscal year 2011 budget, no appropriation bills passed last year,
nothing done. So we are given this mess today to clean up. And what we
need is a little more time.
But in the meantime, we are going to cut spending, $6 billion of
cuts, $2 billion a week for the 3 weeks that this bill will be in
place. It's not enough. We have got to look at the overall problem that
we have in this country: $14.3 trillion of debt, an annual 1-year
deficit of $1.65 trillion.
Now, while this just scratches the surface, we have got to address
long-term spending here in Washington, DC. We have got to look at not
just the discretionary side, which this bill does, but look at all the
entitlements. We are only addressing about 15 percent of the whole
budget in this bill. We have got to make sure that we look at the other
85 percent which is mandatory, which is the other spending that is out
there that has caused this explosion of debt that we have. This is a
very good first step of going forward to really get a handle on the
spending.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the White House finally get
involved and show some leadership as far as trying to get our fiscal
house in order.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is the ranking member on the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and is
also the former chairman of that committee.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the very distinguished Member from Washington and
thank him for his leadership. But he knows, as well as I trust all of
the Members do, that this is no way to run a government, lurching back
and forth like a drunken sailor, the agencies not knowing when or
whether they are going to get their money. Actually, I should take that
back because the Navy would never conduct operations like this. And the
distinguished chairman from Kentucky well knows that this is not the
way we want to be doing business; yet here we are with another CR for 3
short weeks this time.
We just had a hearing this week with the Forest Service. As the
Members know, they hire hundreds, sometimes thousands, of temporary
seasonal workers to fight fires in our Nation's forests. They can't do
that. They don't know how much money they are going to have. And the
folks that they would hire seasonally as a result can't take those
jobs, don't know what they are going to do. This unconscionable delay
in funding disrupts people's lives, hundreds of thousands of people's
lives, directly; millions of people's lives indirectly.
As I say, this is no way to run a government. But why are we doing
it? Because we can't agree on H.R. 1, and we shouldn't agree to H.R. 1,
as passed by the House.
So many riders that should have gone through legislative committees
were put in the bill with 10 minutes of debate in the wee hours of the
morning, stripping language from the authorizing legislation that had
been subject to months, if not years, of careful deliberation. That's
no way to run a government.
And beyond those riders, there are thousands of programs that are
being cut willy nilly. One such program, for example, is the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They provided the early warning
to people on the west coast and Hawaii when they detected the recent
tsunami.

{time} 1350

And yet, we are told by NOAA, that the 30 percent cut in this bill,
excuse me, 28 percent, cut in this bill for NOAA would dismantle our
early warning system to save a few million dollars. That's just wrong.
There was just an article in the Washington Post that people are
beginning to realize other essential things that are cut in this
program to save a few dollars. Now, $285 million is not a few dollars,
but consider what happens when you cut $285 million out of the program
integrity section of the Internal Revenue Service. They collect $10 for
every dollar we spend. And so you cut out $285 million, and it costs
you about $3 billion in revenue that should be collected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. MORAN. The point that I started by suggesting, and I'm sure it's
not in contention, is that this is no way to

[[Page H1816]]

run a government. We have a responsibility on the Appropriations
Committee to fund these agencies, to determine our priorities, to
reflect the interests and the will of the American people. This process
does not do that. The bill, H.R. 1, does not do that.
The American people deserve better. They deserve careful
deliberation. We need to cut, but we need to cut responsibly, using a
scalpel, not a sledgehammer.
This bill will pass, but this should be the last CR. Let's get a
full-year appropriations bill passed as soon as possible.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. There is an article today in the Washington Post how House
GOP spending cuts would add up to more spending later. This is what we
worry about here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. DICKS. I yield an additional minute.
And one of the things that I'm most concerned about is the women and
infant care program, WIC, which provides nutrition to an expectant
mother, who's probably on Medicaid, and help her and the baby to be
born in a more healthy way. And we find out that the hospitals in this
country provide $26 billion of health care for these same babies who
are born premature. So it's pay me now or pay me later. And in this
case, it would be a lot more.
The IRS is another example. NOAA weather satellites is another
example. In the middle of this tsunami and earthquake, we need to be
doing more in these areas. And the American people understand this.
They want us to make reasonable judgments. And I hope we can make
reasonable judgments.
I happen to be the ranking on Defense. We can cut some money out of
defense. We cut $15 billion. We can do a little bit more in that area.
But I think we've got to be careful. And when this final package comes
together, we've got to talk out the ones that would be revenue raisers.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentleman from Virginia says that the public deserves that we
pass appropriations bills, and I could not agree with him more. His
majority last year failed to enact a single bill out of the 12 that we
were supposed to pass. That's why we're here. We're trying to clean up
the mess that the gentleman from Virginia's party left us when we took
office in January.
Yes, it's a terrible way to do business. And this should be the last
CR extension that we pass before we have an agreement with the other
body and the White House on the rest of this year. However, Mr.
Speaker, again, the gentleman's party in the Senate refuses to pass a
bill and lay something on the table. We are going to the conference
table to negotiate, and we're sitting there by ourselves. The other
body will not come forward with a proposition. Until that time, I don't
know what we do.
I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is another
necessary step in addressing the national imperative of reducing our
debt while also keeping the government operating. Essential funds like
homeland security are sustained under this bill and sustained in a
fiscally responsible way.
Within the more than $6 billion of spending reductions contained in
this bill is a rescission of $107 million to Customs and Border
Protection, a rescission of unobligated balances requested by the
administration for FY11, supported by a minority, passed by this body
as part of H.R. 1, and also included in the Senate Appropriations
Committee's recently reported bill.
But this bill also sends a very clear signal to the White House and
to the Senate. As the Speaker and Chairman Rogers have clearly stated,
no one wants a government shutdown. The only people that are talking
about a shutdown of the government are those who are avoiding the tough
decisions and seeking to shift blame from their own failure to act.
Instead of excuses, the American people want results: less spending
and a leaner, more effective government. And that's exactly what this
temporary stopgap bill delivers.
I couldn't agree more with what the chairman just stated just a
couple of minutes ago. Congress didn't get its work done, and the
Senate has yet to provide a viable alternative to the House-passed H.R.
1, a bill that stands as the only year-long spending measure for FY11
passed by either Chamber of Congress. So complaints about a short-term
stopgap bill like this CR ring hollow when the House-passed solution
has been on the negotiating table for almost a month.
The President's proposed spending level for FY11 is no longer a
viable option, a fact acknowledged by not only the administration
itself, but also by both parties in both Chambers of Congress. So the
time to get to work and fulfill our duty to the American people is long
overdue.
Congress needs to deliver what the American people have so
resoundingly demanded. I can only hope that the administration and the
Senate will also acknowledge the reality of our Nation's fiscal crisis,
demonstrate the resolve to reduce spending significantly below the
current FY10 level, and come to the table with a viable budget for the
remainder of this year.
The American people demand no less.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. You know, it was stated a moment ago by a
gentleman on the other side that this CR cuts NOAA and the tsunami
prediction monies. That is not so. The only thing in this bill that
cuts money from NOAA are the earmarks, and, yes, we cut the earmarks,
but they had nothing to do with tsunami warning.
Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 15 seconds.
I want to correct the record. I was referring to H.R. 1, not to the
CR.
The gentleman from Kentucky is absolutely correct.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. H.R. 1 doesn't cut tsunami warning monies nor
weather service monies.
Mr. DICKS. There are some things that I think NOAA thinks would have
an effect on their weather forecasting.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, NOAA's wrong.
Mr. DICKS. Okay. Well, we'll check that out.
I yield 2 minutes to the Delegate from the District of Columbia,
Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Ms. NORTON. Look, the majority has chosen to run the government, the
Federal Government, from CR to CR. But the majority has no right to
inflict this operational outrage on the local funds of a local
jurisdiction, the District of Columbia.
The majority may want to incur for the Federal Government the
operational difficulties. After all, the District of Columbia delivers
services to Federal officials, including the President, Federal
buildings, foreign embassies, and the like. But does the majority
really want to risk, to put the District and its operations at risk or
to place, what Wall Street almost surely will do, a risk premium on the
District due to the uncertainty that we are at bay from CR to CR?
This is a fragile economy for every big city, but D.C.'s local budget
was approved a year ago in the city and last summer by the
Appropriations Committees. Yet the District of Columbia is being held
hostage to a Federal fight, although the District of Columbia can do
nothing to free itself from this Federal fight.
I have tried to get the District on successive CRs so that we could
spend our own money all year. There is no disapproval of that here. I
wager that very few Members even know that the District would close
down if the Federal Government closed down; would be perplexed by it;
would have no objection to our spending our own local money all year
long.
We raise and manage $8 billion. We have a right to spend our local
funds without being dragged into a Federal fight.

{time} 1400

You can't run a big city from CR to CR. I ask you to find a way
between

[[Page H1817]]

now and 3 weeks to free D.C. to run its own city for the rest of the
fiscal year.
Let my people go.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new
member of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. I rise in support of H.J. Res. 48.
As has been stated, this legislation cuts $6 billion in funding. They
are responsible cuts. This is $2 billion per week. It should be noted,
too, there is broad bipartisanship agreement to nearly all the cuts
contained in this legislation. Basically everything that is in this
legislation was also contained in H.R. 1.
We should also note, too, that if this legislation is enacted, this
legislation would represent the largest spending cut in domestic
discretionary programs in history, when you combine this with what was
cut 2 weeks ago, the $4 billion. Again, if enacted, this will represent
the largest spending cut in domestic discretionary programs in American
history, should we enact this legislation.
Now, I know that some people around here think that this bill really
doesn't go far enough, but it certainly does represent a very big step
forward.
The cuts that are contained in here, we are eliminating $2.6 billion
in earmark funding from Agriculture, CJS, Financial Services, and
Interior. The cuts include rescissions, reductions, and program
terminations.
I think we all understand, too, that if we pass this, this will
prevent a government shutdown, and we need to prevent that while these
negotiations can continue. We need to come to some type of agreement
for the balance of this fiscal year. But in the meantime, this
represents responsible cuts and broad bipartisan agreement.
I say, let's cut spending, let's cut it now, and let's cut it today.
Take yes for an answer. Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
This is the right thing to do, and the American people will appreciate
it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am not sure whether I rise for or against this, very frankly,
because I think this process is not the process that we ought to be
pursuing. I think in that context I speak for the chairman and for the
ranking member and for most Members in this body.
I was going to wait a while, but then I heard Mr. Dent of
Pennsylvania speak and I want to reiterate this point that he made,
because I made it last week in my colloquy with the majority leader.
I made the point that we are about to make the largest single
reduction in discretionary spending that we have made, the gentleman
said in history; I was more modest and said in the 30 years that I have
been here. But in any event, this is not an insubstantial cut.
The problem those of us have on this side of the aisle is it is not
enough for a large number of your folks, and they have said so, and the
Heritage Foundation has said so, and the Family Research Council has
said so, and some of your Members have said so.
Now, the fact of the matter is this is a lousy way to run a railroad.
We are trying to run the largest enterprise in the world in 2-week
segments. It is costly to the private sector, it is extraordinarily
inefficient for the public sector, and it is demoralizing for the
private sector who deals with the government and for the public
employees we have asked to perform the services that we have set forth
as policy. And so I say at this juncture, this ought to be the last of
this type. We need to reach agreement.
Now I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, because it is the largest
cut, we think we've come a long way. You said you wanted to cut $100
billion. Now, you're not cutting the $41 billion that we cut. You were
using the 2011 baseline. That's how you got your $100 billion. $41
billion, we have all agreed, is gone. We're going to freeze at 2010 and
go below that. So we have come $41 billion away, and we agree on that.
Now, you used the 2011. That wasn't our figure first. You used it
September; we used it in December. So my view is we have agreed on $41
billion. You don't say that. You say we're between zero and 60. I
understand your rationale. But it's your figure, it's your baseline
that you used in September in your Pledge to America.
If we have gone 41 and we are now going to go another 10 or 15, what
I ask of you is, in light of the fact, as the gentleman from
Pennsylvania points out, we've already done the deepest cut under
Republicans, under Democrats, under any of us, it is time to hear from
you, what is your alternative to make a deal?
Now, ``compromise'' is a prettier word, but we need to come to
agreement. If we're going to serve our country, and those who serve our
country, then we need to come to agreement, because they elected all of
us. None of us has any greater superiority. We're all the same. And we
need to come to agreement.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Would the gentleman talk to his colleagues
over in the other body and tell them to pass something we can begin to
negotiate on?
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, 435 of us have tried to talk to the
people in the other body. But I will tell you, under the Constitution
of the United States, we have the responsibility of initiating bills.
Read the Constitution.
We sent H.R. 1 over there, as my good friend, the former Speaker of
Idaho, says to me, and they didn't pass it. It's not their
responsibility to initiate. That didn't go anywhere.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HOYER. I will say to you, we can wring our hands and say that the
Senate's not doing its job. We're not in the Senate. We're here. Let us
come to agreement. And we know the agreement is going to be someplace
in between where you are and where we are. We know that. But what we
don't know is what you can pass. What you don't know is what you can
pass. You don't know what your caucus will do. I understand that. You
are deeply divided, in my opinion, and we need to know, because it is
not just us here that are adversely affected.
Let us come to agreement. Let us stop this process of funding
government in very short cycles. It is not good for our country, it is
not good for the people who work for our country, and it is not good
for the people who are doing work around the world.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, could you tell the chairman and myself what
our time remaining is?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 12\3/4\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has 16 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Of which I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriation,
the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the gentleman that just spoke, the minority
whip, a good friend of mine, what we can pass in this House and what
our conference will agree to, and that is the $61 million in cuts or
$100 million overall that we have already agreed to and already passed.
We can pass that in this House.
I have heard that this is no way to run a railroad. My good friend
from Virginia said this is no way to run a government. I have heard
this is operational outrage. I will tell you the outrage here is that
we are having to do this because the former majority, when they had the
majority in the House, the majority in the Senate and the White House,
failed to pass an appropriation bill. They left the American people in
this country with this pile of crap. They should not complain about how
we try to clean this up.
Mr. Speaker, by the end of this week, the appropriations subcommittee
which I am privileged to chair, the Interior and Environment
Subcommittee, will have had 12 budget oversight hearings over the past
3 weeks. That is 12 hearings addressing the fiscal 2012 budget that we
will soon be writing.
It is worth noting that we are now 5\1/2\ months into the fiscal year
2011, and we still don't have a budget to fund the

[[Page H1818]]

government through the end of the current fiscal year. The CR we are
considering today keeps the government operating for another 3 weeks.
And you're right: We need to solve this within this next 3 weeks. The
problem is you cannot negotiate with a body across the Rotunda that
fails to act. We can't be the only ones at the table. We have to have
something to negotiate with. We don't have that.
This CR saves taxpayers $6 billion, including $650 million in
spending cuts from the Interior Subcommittee accounts that Republicans,
Democrats, and the administration agree are reasonable and supportable
on a bipartisan basis. The overall savings achieved through this CR, at
a rate of $2 billion per week, is the 3-week equivalent to the $100
billion in cuts achieved in the long-term CR passed by House
Republicans several weeks ago.

{time} 1410

In the Interior budget alone, we have cut $380 million out of
earmarks. We have cut the National Park Service Preserve America
Program, eliminated it, and other programs, Save America's Treasures in
the National Park Service, programs that the administration did not
request funding for in their 2012 budget. So these are things that are
agreed on by both Republicans and Democrats.
Now that the Senate has voted down two versions of the year-long CR,
the Republican version, H.R. 1, that cut spending by $100 billion and
the Democratic version that cut substantially less, it is time for both
sides to come together on a funding bill for the rest of this year. The
truth is that we really need to get the fiscal year 2011 budget
written, passed, and signed into law so that we can turn our attention
to next year's budget.
In the midst of the back and forth debate on spending, it is
important to remember that these funding bills don't write themselves.
Our Appropriations Committee staff have been working day and night, 7
days a week, for months now writing one CR after another, even as they
prepare for hearings and study budget proposals for next year.
I encourage my colleagues to support this CR to keep the government
open while both parties work to identify an acceptable level of
spending cuts for the rest of the year. We can and should cut more from
the spending budget, and I encourage my colleagues to support this CR.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from
Hawaii, Mazie Hirono, who is going to correct the record on the NOAA
issue.
Ms. HIRONO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, the cuts to NOAA and our Weather Service are contained
in H.R. 1, and we have not reached agreement on H.R. 1, which is why we
are doing yet another CR. And, believe me, those kinds of cut to NOAA
and our Weather Service will have an impact on our ability to implement
early warning systems.
Some of you may not know that Hawaii has already suffered millions
and millions of dollars of damages as a result of the tsunami. And,
yes, it does not compare at all to the tragedy that the Japanese people
are facing, but nonetheless, thank goodness, our early warning systems
were in place.
Now, as to this CR, I rise in opposition to this CR, which continues
the Republican strategy of cutting $2 billion every week from programs
that support jobs and our families.
I want to focus on just one program being cut, out of many, by the
way, that affect real people in real ways that is particularly
troubling to me in this CR. This is the elimination of all funding for
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operation Program, popularly known
as PL 566.
This $30 million program means a lot to small rural communities
nationwide. For Hawaii, the decline of the sugar and pineapple
industries has forced us to transition from large scale plantation
agriculture to small scale farming. PL 566 has been the only Federal
program that has really worked to deal with our agricultural water
issues, and it is the single most important Federal agriculture program
for Hawaii.
Hawaii is the most food import-dependent State in the entire country,
so agricultural self-sufficiency is a priority for us, which is one
reason why continued funding for Hawaii's PL 566 project is so
critical.
In addition, PL 566 provides flood prevention for small communities
that the Army Corps does not serve. Hawaii projects include the Lower
Hamakua Ditch Watershed Project to rehabilitate a 26-mile-long
irrigation ditch that provides water to hundreds, hundreds of small
farmers on Hawaii Island.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds.
Ms. HIRONO. Another project is the Upcountry Maui Watershed Project,
providing water to 170 farmers and ranchers on Maui, and also the
Wailuku-Alenaoi Watershed and Lahaina Watershed Projects that prevent
flooding on Hawaii and Maui.
These long-term projects help to build our local economies and create
jobs, and stopping these projects in midstream is irresponsible,
unsafe, and makes no economic sense at all. Most of these projects are
well under way. We need to continue funding these programs to support
our communities and support jobs.
This program has long had bipartisan support. In fact, last year, I
signed a joint letter, led by Agriculture Committee Chairman Lucas,
urging funding for this program.
Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 30 seconds.
In going back and looking, NOAA operations, research, and facilities
in H.R. 1 is cut by $454.3 million. And one of the officials there said
what would happen in the continuing resolution, there will be a
dismantling of our Nation's early warning system, Dan Sobien, president
of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, said in a
telephone interview. It will result in a roughly 30 percent cut in the
budget of the National Weather Service. Sobien said the current plan
called for the Weather Service to close individual offices for about a
month at a time on a rolling basis.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of
this continuing resolution, for two reasons.
Number one, it keeps us on the path to put the brakes on this runaway
spending that has gone around this place too long. It continues us to
get to the place where we start a culture of savings instead of this
culture of spending.
The second reason to vote for this, of course, is to make sure that
we don't shut down the government, to give us a little more time to try
to have a final negotiation on the spending levels for next year.
Somebody asked the question, is this the best way to fund the
government? Of course it is not. There is no way. It would have been a
whole lot better if last year under the Democratic leadership in this
House we had a budget before this House that would pass. But that
didn't happen.
It would have been better last year during the session if the
Democratic leadership had gone through regular order. We would have
passed the appropriations bill, and then the government would be funded
for 2011. But they didn't do that.
It would have been a whole lot better after this House got together
and made some tough choices, set some priorities, made difficult
decisions, and passed a spending bill that cut $100 billion out of this
year's spending and sent it down to the Senate. It would have been
better if they would have taken that up and passed it, or at least done
something. But they didn't do that.
So here we are. We find ourselves with another CR, 3 more weeks. But
let me tell you, these are difficult times, and in difficult times
leaders have to lead. We have got to sit down together and establish
the priorities we have for spending. We have to make tough choices.
That is what every American family does, that is what every American
business does. If we are going to get this economy moving again, we
need to settle this once and for all.
So I just hope that we will pass this continuing resolution and that
this

[[Page H1819]]

will indeed be the last time we do this; that in 3 weeks we sit down,
have that other body sit down and negotiate with us. It takes two to
tango, as they say.
We sent the whole ball of wax down there and they didn't like it, so
now we are sending them a little at a time. But we are honoring that
pledge to cut $100 billion. When you cut $2 billion every week, that
all adds up to $100 billion. So this is $6 billion more we are cutting
on top of the $4 billion we cut. But, again, that is no way to settle
the year.
Let's settle it once and for all. Let's pass this, move ahead, and
get this thing done.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from
Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, who is a very senior member of the Appropriations
Committee and, I think, the longest serving woman in the House of
Representatives.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank my dear colleague for his great leadership and
for yielding me this time.
Let me just say that I urge my colleagues to vote no on this
continuing resolution. It cuts money for jobs to people that give
social services to our senior citizens at a time when gas prices are
going up and food prices are going up; it cuts jobs to clean up our
brownfield sites across this country, and if you don't know what those
are, you are lucky; it cuts jobs that affect our public broadcasting,
the only decent broadcasting left in this country with the garbage
that's on the airwaves today; and it cuts jobs dealing with
construction and repair of our Save America's Treasures Program, some
of the oldest buildings in America that our children and grandchildren
have a right to enjoy, as we have.
So people say, where are you going to get the money? Let me tell you
where the money is, and what is not on the table in trying to balance
the Federal budget. How about the profits of the Wall Street ``Big
Six'': Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo,
Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup. They scooped up just last year $51
billion in profits; $51 billion at the expense of the American people
hit hard in this great recession that we're enduring. Wall Street
titans are happy as clams.

{time} 1420

Their top executives alone took $26 million in compensation, not
counting all their stock options. We didn't touch a penny of their
bonuses. Oh, we can't do that! Wall Street banks are paying at an
effective 11 percent tax rate when businesses in my district have to
pay at 35 percent. What's fair about that? We could have $13 billion,
$14 billion, $15 billion, $16 billion if Wall Street just paid at the
same rate as other honest businesses do--just for last year.
And oil prices? The American people are being gouged all across this
country. But Exxon made $9 billion in the third quarter of last year--
the largest profit of a company in U.S. history. Guess how much they
paid in taxes? A big goose egg. Zero. Zero. And British Petroleum, $5
billion in one quarter. How much did oil companies pay in taxes?
Where's that on the deficit cutting table?
So, we say to the American people, you can't balance a trillion-
dollar deficit on 14 percent of the budget. All you do is hurt people.
Wall Street and Big Oil have already hurt the American people.
Let's pay the bills by expecting those who have much and give nothing
to pay their fair share.That's how you seriously balance the budget--
everything has to be on the table.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a very
hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole).
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the adoption of H.J. Res. 48 for the
continuing appropriations for this fiscal year. It seems to me that
we've got three questions we ought to address in the course of this
debate. First, and very elementally, why are we here? Second, what does
the bill do? And third, what are the consequences if the bill isn't
passed?
We're here for the simple reason that the last Congress, that my good
friends on the other side ran, never passed a budget and never passed a
single appropriations bill. We're here because the Democratic majority
failed to do its work. We're also here because the current Democratic
majority in the other body has so far failed to do its work.
I remind my colleagues, we actually passed legislation and sent it
over. I also remind my colleagues that the one proposal in the Senate
that actually got the most votes was actually the Republican H.R. 1.
But nevertheless, they failed to give us something to negotiate
against. It's their obligation in the Senate at some point to have a
common negotiating position. I don't know how we can sit down and
negotiate otherwise.
So we're here, I think, because of a Democratic failure both in the
last Congress and this one.
Second, what does this bill do? Well, it's pretty commonsensical. It
cuts and reduces 25 programs, saving $3.5 billion. Most of those
programs the President and the majority say they don't want to
continue. It eliminates $2.6 billion in earmarks and, by itself, is one
of the largest cuts any CR has ever administered. As has been pointed
out earlier, if you combine it with the previous CR, it is a very
substantial cut indeed. It buys time, but it also keeps the government
running and it keeps us on course to reduce spending at $2 billion a
week, something that my colleagues and I are committed to.
Finally, what happens if we don't pass this bill? I know there's some
that want to spend more, some that want to spend less. The first thing
that happens is we shut down the government, something all of us know
is not a wise thing to do. The second thing that happens is that we
probably create financial panic in the country and harm a fragile
economy. Finally, the last thing that happens, and I think actually the
most important, is we raise fundamental doubts amongst the American
people as to whether or not this institution and we, as elected
officials, have the capacity to actually address and solve our
problems.
So I think we need to pass this bill. We need to give our friends on
the other side of the aisle, particularly in the Senate, another 3
weeks to see if they can possibly come up with a negotiating position.
And I'm confident once those negotiations begin, our Speaker will keep
the government running, will bargain in good faith, but will cut
spending, as we're committed to do.
Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to congratulate and thank
two long-time committee staff members who both are leaving us this
month after many years of service.
Beverly Pheto spent 10 years on the committee, serving as clerk on
both the Transportation Subcommittee and the Homeland Security
Subcommittee before becoming the first woman staff director of the full
committee under former Chairman David Obey. Bev was the top Democratic
staff person during 9/11, the creation of the Transportation Security
Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security, and during
Hurricane Katrina. And in the last Congress, as majority clerk, Beverly
helped craft the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--the Recovery
Act that saved tens of thousands of American jobs and kept this country
from slipping into another Great Depression.
We thank Bev for agreeing to stay on with us and help with the
committee's transition and congratulate her on her many years of
service, both in the executive branch as well as for us. She will be
missed, but we wish her well in her new endeavors.
I also want to extend my deep appreciation to Chris Topik, who has
served on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee since 1995, most
recently as the minority clerk. Chris began his career with the U.S.
Forest Service before coming to the committee as a detailee. During his
time on the Interior Subcommittee, Chris found himself in the middle of
some of the most contentious environmental policy disputes but always
remained the consummate professional. While I chaired the Interior
Subcommittee, I relied heavily on his solid judgment and wise counsel.
I wish Chris the very best as he leaves the committee and thank him
again for his service.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H1820]]

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Let me join, on behalf of us on this side, in
thanking those two wonderful individuals for their dedicated public
service. They have worked hard on behalf of the public, and they
deserve our utmost thanks, which I offer at this time.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman.
On behalf of the majority, I would like to echo the comments of my
good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Chris Topik came to the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations as a
detailee from the Forest Service in the mid-1990s and, since that time,
has worked on a nonpartisan basis to address many of the most critical
issues facing our land management agencies. Chris is one of the most
professional and widely respected individuals on the Appropriations
Committee staff. His dry wit and friendly disposition will be greatly
missed, and his institutional knowledge of Forest Service issues will
be impossible to replace.
Chris, we appreciate your dedication and commitment over your many
years of public service and wish you all the best in your future
endeavors.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time
remaining on our side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very
hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bonner).
Mr. BONNER. I thank the chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support
this continuing resolution, as unpleasant as it is.
Our Democrat colleagues, our Republican colleagues, we agree; we
don't like being in the situation that we're in, but we're in the
situation nevertheless. Our colleagues remember that for the first time
since 1974, we didn't pass a budget last year. We didn't pass a single
appropriation bill, as the chairman of the committee has noted. We
don't like being in this situation, but we're in this situation. And
yet I think there's a real disconnect between Washington and the
American people.
I was listening to the television news that Sunday when Senator Kyl
put the budget debate in perspective. While rarely do House Members
quote Senators, I think it's worth it. We talk about trillions and
billions and millions, but if you had a $10,000 budget, which most
Americans can more easily identify with, and 40 percent of that is
actually borrowed money, then what we're talking about with H.R. 1,
which is the basis upon which this CR is going forward, we'd be shaving
off $28 from a $10,000 budget.
Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, the reason that Congress has
continued to draw such unpopular respect with the American people is
that there is a disconnect. Last year, we had a $223 billion deficit;
the largest in the history. We're talking about shaving $6 billion
until we can get a resolution between the House and the Senate and
encourage the White House to join the mix.
I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak out, and I encourage
our colleagues to support this CR.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished leader
of the Democratic Party in the House, Nancy Pelosi of California.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for
his hard work to help keep the government open.
While many of us will not agree on the legislation before us today,
we know it is necessary for us to proceed. So I don't rise to support
or oppose the legislation but, instead, to comment on the situation
that we are in.

{time} 1430

Again, today, we are in a situation. We are debating a short-term
bill to keep the government open on a week-by-week basis. This is not
any way to run a government or a business. It certainly is not the way,
as the military leadership has told us, to protect the national
security of our country--on a week-to-week basis.
Democrats will work with Republicans on legislation that will create
jobs, that will strengthen the middle class, and that will reduce the
deficit. On all three of these scores, this Republican spending bill
fails.
Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility as a top
priority of this Congress. We won't go into the history right now, but
it's well known that President Clinton took us out of a period of
deficit--his last five budgets being in surplus, or in balance.
President Bush turned that around immediately when he became President,
and now we have to dig ourselves out of the deficit that he has taken
us into. Last December, Democrats passed a $41 billion cut in the
President's budget. We did so with only one Republican vote, $41
billion. Democrats are in the lead on fiscal soundness.
On the subject of jobs, we are in the 11th week of the Republican
majority in the Congress, and we have not seen one bill that will
create jobs. In fact, the only bill coming from the Republicans, the
only legislation that has come to the floor to create jobs, would be
the Democratic initiatives.
One is Build America Bonds: to build the infrastructure of America to
keep ahead of the game in terms of innovation. Build America Bonds.
Republicans overwhelmingly rejected that. The other bill was a bill to
keep our jobs from going overseas by rewarding businesses that sent
jobs overseas. Democrats said ``no'' to that idea. Republicans said
``no'' to our legislation. Zero jobs bills in 11 weeks.
It is quite different from the record of President Obama, who came
into office 2 years ago with a Democratic Congress. President Obama was
a job creator from day one, one week and one day after the President's
inaugural address, calling for swift bold action now to create jobs.
The House of Representatives passed the recovery bill, which was then
passed by the Senate and signed into law in a matter of weeks. That
legislation created or saved 3.6 million jobs. This is important in
terms of the deficit because it produced jobs. It produced revenue into
the Treasury that helped reduce the deficit.
Tax cuts for the wealthy, which has been the job creator that the
Republicans put forth in the Bush administration and have put forth
since, do not create jobs but increase the deficit.
So we are at the place, again, of 11 weeks. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke
said the Republican spending bill would cost not a trivial amount of
jobs; Mark Zandi, the Republican economist, said the Republican
spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs. Goldman Sachs said the
Republican spending bill would reduce U.S. economic growth by 1.5 to 2
percent; 320 economists sent a letter, calling Republican cuts a threat
to our economy's long-term economic competitiveness and to the strength
of our current economic recovery.
They all agree, to one extent or another, that the Republican agenda
is taking us in the wrong direction, and that agenda is manifested in
the continuing resolution, H.R. 1, and in the budget approach that they
are taking. In fact, in addition to not creating jobs, the Republican
initiative is making matters worse.
Many of us have come to the floor to talk about budgets year in and
year out. We all say that our national budget should be a statement of
our national values. What is important to our country should be
reflected in the allocation of our resources. We want to have that
debate on values rather than just on cuts.
Again, we all agree we have to get rid of waste, fraud, abuse,
duplication, obsolescence, and the rest. The GAO has given us a
blueprint for that, and we subscribe to that. We all agree that we must
reduce the deficit, and the fiscal commission has given us a road map
for that. We can agree or disagree with some of it; but the fact is it
gives us a blueprint for how to go forward, and we should take heed of
that. That blueprint says that we should not be making cuts right now
that will be harmful to our recovery. Yet that's exactly what the
Republican initiatives do.

[[Page H1821]]

So as to this statement of value, when we have this debate, it's not
a debate about are we going to cut 6 million or 3 million seniors off
of Meals on Wheels. It's about who we are as a country, how do we
protect the American people both in our national security and our
neighborhoods. It's how we educate our children to make them happy and
also how to keep us competitive as innovators internationally. It's how
we maintain a healthy America. It's not just about their health care
but about their good health: the air they breathe, the water they
drink, the safety of the food they eat.
It is about the creation of jobs. I believe we have an obligation as
a government to be job creators. Jobs give people the means to find
their own happiness and also to bring revenue into the Treasury, if
we're just speaking pragmatically and not in terms of values.
I don't believe it's just about the dollars. It's because of the
values that we have to have this debate. Unfortunately, the bills that
we are being presented with, like H.R. 1, are like a balloon. You
squeeze it here and it pops out there. It doesn't change anything for
the better. In fact, as has been indicated, it makes matters worse.
So as we consider our budgetary decisions as a discussion, as a
statement of our national values, we have to remember that the
greatness of our country depends on the strengthening of our middle
class. We have to do that by creating jobs, and we certainly must
reduce the deficit.
Now we are waiting at the negotiating table for the Republicans to
show that they are willing to work together--we cut $41 billion with
one Republican vote--and that they are willing to work together to
reach an agreement that is a statement of our values. I think we can do
that. Many of us have worked together on the Appropriations Committee
over the years.
I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in our efforts to create
jobs, to strengthen the middle class, and to reduce the deficit--and to
do so in the interest of the American people.
That's why I think, on this vote today, people will vote however they
view their own statements about it. The big vote that is coming up is
the vote on the continuing resolution, on the long-term basis to keep
the government open and functioning for people--again, in a way that is
a statement of values for our great country.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new
member of our committee, a hardworking member, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
Mr. WOMACK. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership on
the Appropriations Committee and for yielding me some time here this
morning.
Mr. Speaker, yes, it's true. I came here on January 5. Just a few
weeks ago, I put my hand up and took the oath of office. As I did, I
was reminded of the fact that, at that precise time in my life, I was
taking the oath of office already 3 months into the fiscal year. Now,
you show me what business or what governmental jurisdiction anywhere in
America is effectively and efficiently managed when you're operating
without a budget already 3 months into the budget year.
I was a mayor of a very dynamic city in northwest Arkansas. We never
did that. We couldn't survive by passing our budget sometime during the
course of the ongoing year. So our conference, in particular, is
leading by example. We are providing a leadership example for the
spending cuts that so many people around America have said over and
over again we have to achieve.
Look, America gets it. We are at a $1.5 trillion deficit in this FY,
and we are $14-plus trillion in debt. We have to do something about
spending. It's all about the end game, which is where this side of the
aisle and that side of the aisle can come to an agreement because we
know that the end game is about the creation of jobs. The ideological
difference about how we get there, I think, is what divides us; but I
am a firm believer and will tell you--as will any businessman, any
mayor, any county judge, any government official--that your balance
sheet drives a lot of things.

{time} 1440

I think fundamental to that balance sheet is how much you're in debt,
because how much you are in debt in business is tied to your assets. In
government, it's tied to your capacity to tax; and right now, one of
the fundamental problems about growing jobs in this economy is the
uncertainty that hangs over the job creators in America.
Let me just finish by saying that I urge support of H.J. Res. 48.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
Mr. HURT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of this temporary continuing
resolution to urge my colleagues to do the same.
As we debate this measure, let's remember why we are here. Let's
remember that on November 2, the people of Virginia's Fifth District
and the people across this country sent a message to Washington, a
message to Republicans and to Democrats. The message was urgent, it was
clear, and it was loud. The message sent was that now is the time to
stop the government spending, stop the government borrowing, and stop
the raid on our children's future.
So what have we found since we got here? We find that our President
and the last Congress, despite enjoying great majorities in each
Chamber, completely and totally failed nearly 6 months ago to live up
to its fundamental responsibility to adopt a budget for fiscal year
2011. Because of their failure to lead, the American people still 6
months later do not have a budget.
After the House worked into the early morning hours nearly a month
ago and sent H.R. 1 down the Hall to the opposite Chamber, what has the
Senate done? They left town, and they failed to adopt any proposal to
fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.
And what has the President done? While continuing to fail to lead on
the 2011 budget, he has now proposed a budget for fiscal year 2012 that
does not decrease spending and borrowing but instead increases
government spending and nearly doubles government borrowing in the next
10 years. After it is all said and done, the Senate and the White House
have not heard the message from the people in the last election and are
continuing to fail to lead.
Now is the time for this Congress to listen. Now is the time for this
Congress to act. I believe that the majority in this House is listening
and this temporary continuing resolution gets us one step closer to
fulfilling the purpose given us by the American people: cut government
spending and reduce government borrowing for the sake of future
generations.
Simply put, by voting in favor of this measure today, we are putting
a $6 billion deposit on the account for our children and our
grandchildren who for far too long have been forgotten here in
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I rise to review the bidding here. We are down to the
end of this debate on this continuing resolution, and I hope--and as I
know Chairman Rogers hopes--that this will be the last continuing
resolution and that working together we can come together on a solution
to the FY11 budget.
Now, I've heard repeatedly, repeatedly, and I've even mentioned this
in my last statement, and the next thing I knew it was on Cantor's Web
site, but back in 2007, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky will
remember that when we took over power and won the election in 2006,
most of the nine, I think, or 10 of the appropriations bills were not
enacted, and the Democrats had to pass a bill in February enacting all
of these things. So maybe we learned that lesson from you-all over
there, and I hope you will remember it because you seem to act like
this has never happened before. Well, that's number one.
Number two, the American people in a Washington Post-ABC poll
yesterday over the weekend said that they are

[[Page H1822]]

worried that the cuts in H.R. 1 will hurt the economy. It was narrow.
It was 45-41, but 71 percent of the people said the problem was that
your side isn't engaging and that they blame the Republicans for not
getting this deal.
Now, why would they think that? I think the reason for it is when the
first Rogers amendment proposal came out, that was kind of a reasonable
approach, but that was rejected; and then they doubled the amount of
these cuts, and the cuts became very severe and very questionable.
There was a story in The Washington Post today that lays out if you
cut food inspectors, you're going to pay for it; if you cut WIC
funding, you're going to pay for it, billions, in these children.
So I just point these things out. Cutting Head Start, this was
perceived by the American people as too extreme, and that is why the
Senate rejected H.R. 1, the President rejected H.R. 1. We need to have
reasonable people sit down and work out a compromise and not let the
government be shut down.
I believe that this should be the last CR and that we all should
agree here today that this is going to be the last CR and that we are
committed to getting this resolved. And that's what the American people
also said in this ABC-Washington Post poll, not that I follow the polls
much; but they also said they wanted us to come to an agreement.
So, again, I pledge to our chairman that we're not going to let this
happen again; that this year we will pass all 12 appropriation bills by
August, and we've done that before; and that we will end this process
that started back in 2007 and which got continued in 2011. It is not
the way to do the government's business. So let's make a pledge today
that after this CR, we're going to work together to solve this problem
and move on to FY12.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time
to a hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I listened with great interest to the distinguished minority leader
and her remarks, and I always like listening to her. I never cast my
ballot for her to become the Speaker of the House in the last two
Congresses, but as an American we all celebrated the historic
accomplishment when she became the first woman to preside over this
Chamber since the founding of the Republic. And a lot of wonderful
things will be said and written about her tenure as Speaker of the
House.
One thing that will not be said or written is that she presided over
two Congresses that will be known for fiscal responsibility--that
Congress passed a bank bailout bill costing $700 billion which may
bankrupt the Nation; passed an $800 billion stimulus bill that created
no jobs that may bankrupt the Nation; passed a cap-and-tax piece of
legislation that would gut jobs in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and would
have bankrupted the Nation; and, finally, a health care bill that took
over one-sixth of the Nation's economy, did not bend the cost curve
and, if not checked, will, in fact, bankrupt the Nation.
The distinguished minority leader's speech reminds me of that old
adage that everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. We
hear continuously we have to cut, we have to cut, we have to cut, but
not these cuts, not those cuts, not this program, not my program. The
time is now. The time is serious. We have laid an offer upon the table,
and we wait with great expectation.
Now, I know what all those people in St. Peters Square must feel like
when they are waiting for the white smoke to come out of the top of the
dome for the election of a Pope. We would like very much for the other
side of this Capitol to give us a proposal to negotiate with. We would
like very much for the Vice President of the United States to return to
this Nation to talk to us. It's not happening. We need to pass the
bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today's legislation is designed to
allow the federal government to continue operating through April 8,
2011. Additionally, this three-week CR does not contain the kind of
truly reckless cuts and extreme policy riders contained in H.R. 1.
While this measure is clearly preferable to a government shutdown, we
simply can't continue running the government on a series of short term
extensions. The time has come to negotiate a long term CR that makes
responsible reductions in federal spending while keeping job creation
and our ongoing economic recovery on track.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 48,
another short-term Continuing Resolution.
This is enabling bad Congressional behavior.
Continuing to cut specific environmental programs that have meant so
much to communities across the country without at least putting it in
the context of the broader budget request is irresponsible. It does not
make sense to chip away at the Environmental Protection Agency by
cutting local climate change and targeted airshed grants or the
Department of Interior by cutting the Save America's Treasures program
without looking at the rest of the budget to ensure that community
needs are still being met.
This CR continues to target public broadcasting. It aims to eliminate
all funding for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, PTFP.
This program--started before the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967--is
the only source of federal revenue for the replacement of aging or
damaged equipment. Public broadcasting's programming can't be enjoyed
if there's no way to maintain the infrastructure that delivers it to
our homes.
PTFP is needed because by statute, station funds from the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, CPB, are to be used for the production or
acquisition of programming, not upkeep. Unfortunately, infrastructure
needs far outpace recent funding. In FY 2009, stations received nearly
$38 million from the PTFP and the CPB Digital Program. However, in that
same time period, stations spent nearly $191 million in equipment and
infrastructure--reflecting the fact that both programs together have
only been able to help stations address roughly 20% of their needs. We
should be supporting these infrastructure investments and public
broadcasting, not defunding them.
On the first CR, I was willing to vote yes in hopes we'd get serious.
The problem with multiple short term CRs is more short-term spending
authority that cripples the ability of the federal government to manage
important functions while it drives up costs. It is expensive to make
decisions on a week-to-week basis.
I am disappointed that this bill avoids the tough decisions that must
be made, unsettles the business climate, and makes the job of our state
and local partners harder.
Mr. WEST. Madam Speaker, I rise today to take a stand, a stand that
may not be popular with the Leadership of the House of Representatives,
but a stand I must take because I believe we cannot kick the can down
the road for even another 3 weeks. The American people recognize that
we must no longer take these small calculated measures. Today I will
vote against another short-term Continuing Resolution.
In the shortest month of the year, February, the Federal Government
had the largest deficit of $223 billion in our nation's entire history.
The American people know that we are in a fiscal crisis and have sent
me to address out-of-control spending.
The majority in the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1 which
reduced spending by $61 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year.
Even though H.R. 1 only cut spending by approximately 1.5 percent of
the entire requested budget for fiscal year 2011, H.R. 1 reversed the
trend of the Democrat Majority which increased overall discretionary
funding by 24% over the last 2 years. The United States Senate rejected
this amount as too much. They believe that, after President Barack
Obama and the Democrat Congress presented trillion dollar deficit
budgets, a freeze is the only viable approach.
I am not a supporter of big government. However, the Federal
Government does perform certain important functions. Many essential
Federal agencies cannot move forward with planning and using resources
if every several weeks they are faced with the threat that they will
need to close their doors until we resolve this impasse. Could any
business in America function this way? Can a family household function
this way?
Madam Speaker, President Obama and the United States Congresses of
the past have created the Nanny States of America. Vast segments of the
American people are now dependent on our Federal Government and not
dependent on their own ability, skills and entrepreneurial spirit to
succeed in this Nation.
We are in this position today because the Democrats in the last
Congress failed to pass a budget. Further, the President appoints Vice
President Biden as the Administration point person on the negotiations
while he flies off to Europe. The Democrats failed to show leadership
last year and the President is showing a lack of leadership today. I
will show what I consider appropriate leadership now and vote against
this Continuing Resolution.

[[Page H1823]]

Madam Speaker, the American people are watching us closely. Today,
with information so readily available on the Internet they know the
truth of our desperate economic situation. The days of Washington, D.C.
double-talk no longer works.
The American people know that the Federal Government is collecting
$2.2 trillion and spending $3.7 trillion this year. The American people
know forty cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends is
borrowed, much of it from China. The American people also know our
nation is piling up new debt at the rate of $4 billion a day. So, what
does $6 billion of spending cuts really buy the American people?
Further, the General Accountability Office released a 345-page report
detailing the redundancies of Federal programs and the $100 to $200
billion of savings that could be achieved if these programs were
consolidated or eliminated.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to argue that these
cuts in spending will weaken an already slow economy and contribute to
an increase in the loss of jobs. I believe this is a disingenuous
argument. The truth is, the spending over the last 2 years has not
reduced the loss of jobs, but instead has contributed to the largest
debt in American history which will be passed on to my children and my
grandchildren.
In Wisconsin, we have seen what the unionized entitlement class can
do and the pressure they can place on their elected officials.
Wisconsin State Legislators running to a neighboring state to hide from
making a hard vote and protestors storming the Wisconsin State Capitol
are not in concert with the principles of a representative democracy.
Madam Speaker, Madison, Wisconsin is only 700 miles from the United
States Capitol.
The Founders of our nation wrote in the Declaration of Independence
``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.'' The ``Pursuit'' of Happiness, not the Federal Government's
``Guarantee'' of Happiness!
Finally, Madam Speaker, we can continue to rehash the past of how we
have gotten into this situation, but I would rather focus on the
future. The future is now and the place is here for us to get our
Nation back on track. I support the cuts in the Continuing Resolution.
I support the elimination of these projects.
However, my ``No'' vote should not be construed as my willingness for
a ``government shutdown.'' My ``No'' vote is based on a simple
principle that we need to complete the Federal budget for 2011. It is
time to have this debate on Federal spending and get our nation back on
track by cutting spending for the long term economic restoration of our
Republic.
Alexander the Great once stated, ``Fortune favors the bold.'' The
American people are looking for principled and bold leadership. I
understand ``political maneuvering'' but the time has come to engage in
the battle for the fiscal responsible future of America. I take my
position on the frontlines.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). All time for
debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 167, the joint resolution is considered
read and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.

{time} 1450

Motion to Recommit

Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint
resolution?
Mr. CRITZ. Yes, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Critz moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J. Res.
48 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Page 20, line 2, strike the final period and the preceding
quotation marks.
Page 20, after line 2, insert the following:
``Sec. 295. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to develop or implement a system that cuts Social
Security benefits, or that privatizes Social Security.
``Sec. 296. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to develop or implement a system that cuts
Medicare benefits, eliminates guaranteed health coverage for
seniors, or establishes a Medicare voucher plan that limits
payments to beneficiaries in order to purchase health care in
the private sector.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, as I listen to the debate on the current CR
and where this debate has been taking us throughout this year, I have
some reasons for alarm. I think the best way to start it off is to at
least start to let you know a little bit about myself.
For most of my life, I have worked in the private sector. I have
worked all my life and paid into Social Security. And the folks that I
live with and live around and the people of my district have come to
rely on Social Security, as it provides for, actually, generations at
this point.
As I have been sitting here listening to this current CR, which I am
opposed to, you know, all 435 of us are sent here to lead.
Unfortunately, what we have heard time and time again is finger-
pointing as, ``It's your fault,'' ``It's our fault,'' ``It's their
fault,'' instead of us sitting down, talking to one another and
figuring out where we can compromise and how we can come to a final
solution to what our problems are. And it's really very disheartening.
I can understand that the folks who watch this at home are trying to
figure out, well, whose side are we on? Are we on their side? Or are we
on our particular party's side or on our particular stance's side? And
I think it's very unfortunate because, at the end of the day, we all
have very strong opinions on what the best way forward is in this
country. Unfortunately, it's about compromise. Because even though we
all have strong opinions, we all have differing opinions; and if we
don't work it out, we are not going to get anywhere.
As I stand in opposition to this CR, it is something that is
disheartening.
Now, I am on the Armed Services Committee and have been hearing from
industry time and time again at how difficult it is for them in the
long term. So as we talk about cutting, we are going to cut $2 billion
a week for these next 3 weeks. Well, by doing these short-term CRs, we
are actually costing our country money. And no one talks about that, of
what the impact is going to be from this temporary solution. The
Republicans have talked about, well, the Democrats didn't complete
their work last year. That's true. But now the Republicans are in
charge. You are in charge. You were given a charge to lead this
country. And here we are going around again doing a 2-week, a 3-week.
This isn't leading. This is playing games, and it's time to stand up
and do the right thing for this country.
But my MTR, motion to recommit, involves Social Security, because the
debate that has been happening has been trying to frame Social Security
as a problem and the reason for the deficits that this country is
experiencing. I brought a chart with me, and I want to read to you the
net increase in assets in the Social Security Trust Fund for the last 6
years.
In 2005, the Social Security Trust Fund increased $172 billion. In
2006, it increased by $189.5 billion. These are increases. This means
that the money that comes in to Social Security via your taxes and
interest is more than what is going out, being paid in benefits. So
when people start talking about, well, Social Security is causing our
deficit problem and we have to address entitlement programs, they're
not giving you the whole picture. They are trying to tell you that down
the road we may have an issue. Well, no.
In 2007, the Social Security Trust Fund increased $190.4 billion. In
2008, it increased $180 billion. In 2009, it increased $122 billion. So
the trust fund is going up. And it actually has $2.6 trillion in it
right now. So the people that are receiving Social Security now
shouldn't be worried about what it's doing to the deficit, because that
increase in the trust fund is actually money that's coming in to the
government in excess of what Social Security is spending.
But I brought up a chart here because I want to show people that when
you start talking about Social Security--now, if you look at the 12th
District of Pennsylvania, I have an elderly population. I am one of the
districts that has a lot of senior citizens in it. A lot of people are
on Social Security. And if you look at this chart, 77 percent of people
say, Leave Social Security alone. Don't touch the retirement age. Don't
touch the benefits. They say,

[[Page H1824]]

Come to a solution. Figure out a way to move forward.
And there are compromises that can be had to help solve the Social
Security issue because we do have an issue long term. Baby boomers are
retiring. Less people are paying in. So there are some issues that we
have to address. But don't be buying into this crisis legislation that,
if we don't do something immediately, Social Security is going to be in
trouble. You are hearing all kinds of scenarios.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CRITZ. I urge support of this amendment. It does not recommit the
bill. It is an amendment and will just be added to the bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, this provision doesn't do
anything. Nothing in the CR would cut Social Security or Medicare
benefits, nor would it privatize Social Security. We are totally
committed in this bill to saving Social Security.
Let me be honest. This is a procedural motion that is simply a fog
screen, trying to hide us from our real task at hand, but I don't think
we'll be fooled at that. The debate should not be about procedure or
fog screens or things unrelated to the bill. It should be about doing
our job.
We are here this afternoon to provide the necessary resources to keep
the government's doors open while we lock in important budget savings
totaling $6 billion. That is $2 billion in spending reductions, or
savings, to the taxpayer, $2 billion a week, the path this body has set
with the passage of H.R. 1 a couple of weeks ago.
I would also like to remind my colleagues that, with the passage of
this CR today, we will have cut over $10 billion in the span of 2
weeks. That sets a record. That has never been done before in this
body. The closest was 1995 at $9 billion. This is more than double the
$4.7 billion that Senator Reid and the Senate Democrats proposed in
their CR last week to fund the government for the remaining 6 months.
We do in 2 weeks what they would take 6 months to do.
The American people sent us here with a clear message last November.
They want us to end the partisan bickering and get our work done.
Instead of picking political fights, they want us united in cutting the
budget. This motion moves us further away from that goal. It would send
us backwards, not forwards. It's a smokescreen, a procedural motion.
Let's get on with it. Vote ``no,'' and then vote ``yes'' on final.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.J. Res. 48, if ordered; and adoption of
H. Con. Res. 30, by the yeas and the nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190,
nays 239, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 178]

YEAS--190

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
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
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.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--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
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
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
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
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--3

Giffords
Moore
Sanchez, Loretta

{time} 1523

Messrs. WITTMAN and SULLIVAN and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.

[[Page H1825]]

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 271,
noes 158, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 179]

AYES--271

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Holden
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--158

Ackerman
Akin
Amash
Andrews
Bachmann
Baldwin
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Blumenauer
Brown (FL)
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Capuano
Carnahan
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heller
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
King (IA)
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schmidt
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
West
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--3

Conyers
Giffords
Sanchez, Loretta

{time} 1532

Mr. CICILLINE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. INSLEE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________