[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2534-2596]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

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

                              {time}  1510


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1) making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, with Mrs. 
Capito (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 336 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), 
had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 359, line 
22.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the chair or ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations may offer certain 
amendments en bloc, to be considered under the terms of that order.


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

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by division B of 
     this Act may be used for the National Bio and Agro-Defense 
     Facility in Manhattan, Kansas.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It would simply stipulate that 
none of the funds available in this act may be used to further the 
construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in 
Manhattan, Kansas, commonly referred to as NBAF.
  NBAF, in my view, is a government boondoggle that anyone concerned 
about fiscally responsible behavior should want to be stopped. Anyone 
who is concerned about fiscally responsible behavior should be 
supporting my amendment.
  Here are the facts:
  NBAF was originally estimated to cost $451 million. Current estimates 
are that the cost will be in excess of $915 million.
  The Department of Homeland Security has consistently stated that the 
sale of Plum Island in my district would cover the cost of NBAF. This 
is not even remotely accurate. Any reasonable estimate of the cost of 
Plum Island will be no better than $80 million.
  Why should the American taxpayer invest $1 billion in this project 
with hardly any offset for a project that is essentially redundant?
  Now my friends from Kansas--and I certainly understand their 
interest--have criticized this amendment as constituting parochial 
politics. And I would say, with respect to my friends, that I don't see 
anything parochial about trying to shield the American taxpayer from an 
investment of $1 billion in a facility that we do not need.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I would urge 
my colleagues who are concerned about spending--and every one of us in 
this Chamber is concerned about spending--here's an opportunity to cut 
spending that we simply do not need.
  Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman form 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I commend the gentleman 
from New York for raising this issue, and I thank him for the time.
  As he knows, I've had a longstanding concern about the decision to 
relocate the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility to the mainland 
without a comprehensive and validated strategy to prevent the release 
of harmful pathogens into the community.
  When I was chairman of the subcommittee overseeing appropriations for 
the Department of Homeland Security, I championed a requirement that 
prohibited the use of funds in fiscal 2010 for NBAF construction until 
a site-specific risk assessment was completed and the results were 
validated by the National Academy of Sciences. This work was completed 
last November and the results were somewhat disconcerting with respect 
to the possible release of foot and mouth disease.

[[Page 2535]]

  Now the Department of Homeland Security believes that this risk is 
exaggerated and does not take into account planned mitigation 
strategies. So I appreciate the language in the continuing resolution 
that requires a revised risk assessment once the facility is 50 percent 
designed and that this assessment be again reviewed by the National 
Academy of Sciences. This is good oversight, but this must be done 
before DHS can responsibly provide construction funding for NBAF.
  I would prefer to condition funds on completion of this additional 
oversight; however, I also recognize that there are no funds in the 
underlying CR for NBAF in fiscal 2011, making such a conditioning of 
funds unnecessary. Therefore, I have no objection to my friend from New 
York's approach.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chairman, there is broad consensus that 
construction and eventual operation of this facility is crucial to our 
national security. This language that we have included in the CR will 
help ensure that we get this project done while existing firm oversight 
and risk costs are being considered.
  We have included rigorous oversight language in the CR requiring the 
Science and Technology to revise its risk analysis once it has 
completed 50 percent of the design planning of the facility, at which 
time it will have fully incorporated the Department's planned biosafety 
security measures. The CR also provides for the National Academy of 
Sciences to review the revised analysis.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. 
Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In 2009, after an exhaustive 3-year review, the Department of 
Homeland Security chose Manhattan, Kansas, as the site for the new 
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility.
  NBAF will be a cutting-edge research facility, and it will accelerate 
our Nation's ability to protect ourselves, our food supply, and our 
economy from biological threats. It will become the world's premiere 
animal health research facility and further solidify our Nation's place 
as the international leader in animal health research.
  NBAF has the support of both the Bush and Obama administrations. In 
fact, this week, President Obama included $150 million in his budget to 
begin its construction. This inclusion shows a commitment from the 
President and Secretary Napolitano to see that this cutting-edge 
facility moves forward as planned so we can safely conduct critical 
research to develop vaccines and countermeasures in order to protect 
the public and our livestock from the threats of devastating disease.
  Simply put, this debate should be about our national security, not 
parochial politics. In this age of uncertainty and global threats, 
conducting vital research to protect our Nation could not be more 
crucial, and the truth of the matter is we are dangerously 
underprotected from the threat of a biological attack against our 
people and food. In fact, the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention 
of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism recently 
issued a report card that gave the Federal Government a failing grade 
for efforts to prevent a biological attack.
  We need to protect our food and our families from danger. We need to 
stay on the cutting edge of this research field. Our security is at 
risk, and delaying this project further because the gentleman from New 
York would prefer to preserve a stunningly outdated lab that just 
happens to be in his district is not an option. We need to move forward 
and we need NBAF.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this destructive amendment.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Yoder).
  Mr. YODER. I rise today in strong opposition to the Bishop amendment.
  Madam Chair, reports indicate that the most imminent, critical threat 
to our Nation's homeland security is a biological attack that could 
result in a serious food crisis brought on by disease spread by 
terrorists hoping to infect cattle and other livestock in the 
agriculture production in this country. Simply put, the results could 
be devastating.
  The National Bio and Agro Defense facility, a safe, secure 
agricultural and bio-containment lab, is the proper facility to 
research and protect American agriculture from the threats that exist, 
both foreign and abroad, from agriculture bioterrorism.
  I ask my colleagues today to join me in an effort to oppose the 
Bishop amendment, which would turn back the clock in our efforts to 
combat biological terrorism and which would save the country no money 
in the name of stopping this very worthy project.
  The facts on NBAF are clear.
  The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission's report, The Clock Is 
Ticking, indicates that the most imminent threat to our Nation's 
homeland security is a biological attack.
  The same Commission gives our Nation a failing grade in our ability 
to recognize, respond to and recover from a biological attack.
  Current and previous Administrations have affirmed these threats and 
the need to prepare and respond.
  Currently, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center is where much of the 
Biosafety Level-3 Agricultural research is performed. However, this 
facility was built in the 1950s, is nearing the end of its lifecycle, 
and does not contain the necessary biosafety level facilities to meet 
the NBAF research requirements.
  A rigorous, three-year site selection process for the NBAF was 
conducted by civil servants and independent experts in the Departments 
of Homeland Security and Agriculture.
  Nearly 30 potential locations were reviewed all around the country, 
including Plum Island. After thorough risk, environmental, and security 
assessments were completed, Manhattan, Kansas was unanimously selected 
as the best place on the merits to carry out the NBAF's essential 
research mission.
  NBAF in Manhattan, Kansas will be a state-of-the-art biocontainment 
facility for the study of foreign animal, emerging and zoonotic 
(transmitted from animals to humans) diseases that threaten the U.S. 
animal agriculture and public health.
  The selection process was affirmed by the DHS Inspector General, was 
conducted in accordance with Federal regulations and was fair.
  The funding for the NBAF was included in the budget and was not an 
earmark. The funding will be matched by more than $150 million from the 
State of Kansas and will also be offset by the sale of the antiquated 
Plum Island facility. The State of Kansas has already spent $18 million 
to prepare for the NBAF site.
  It is crucial that we do not turn this discussion on the spending 
reductions our government must take into a debate between states. 
Funding of NBAF is not a local issue, it is a national issue rooted in 
our national security.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, let me just say again that there is broad 
consensus that the construction and eventual operation of this facility 
are crucial to our national security.
  This amendment reflects a well-crafted, stringent oversight 
requirement that was developed on a bipartisan basis with the ranking 
member of this subcommittee, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 519 Offered by Mr. Campbell

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this Act (other 
     than an amount required to be made available by a provision 
     of law) for

[[Page 2536]]

     the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security is hereby 
     reduced by 3.5 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairwoman, Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton have said 
that our debt is a national security issue. Indeed, it is. They are 
correct. When you look at our debt, it is a function of multiple 
deficits. The largest spending item we have in the Federal Government 
are the entitlements, but number two is defense.
  We cannot reduce our deficit substantially and deal with our debt 
problem without reducing the costs of our number one and number two 
expenses. This amendment deals with number two, which are the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. In the 
bill before us, those Departments have a roughly 1 percent increase in 
spending. We are trying to reduce the deficit here, and we have 
increased Defense and Homeland Security.
  What this amendment would do is turn that 1 percent increase into a 
roughly 2\1/2\ percent decrease in spending. Now, it is across the 
board, although it does not affect overseas contingency operations. The 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be unaffected. However, the 
opposition will come up in a moment and decry how this is somehow going 
to devastate the country and make us unable to defend ourselves. I 
submit that that is not the case, and let me give you a few reasons.
  First of all, this funding is 98 percent of last year's funding. Any 
organization, including the Departments of Defense and Homeland 
Security, ought to be able to complete their missions and serve their 
constituencies for 98 percent of last year's costs.
  Second, there are 755,000 civilian employees in the Department of 
Defense. That is one civilian employee for every two uniformed 
personnel. Do we really need that many civilian employees in the 
Department of Defense?
  Third, there are many weapons systems funded in the Defense 
Department which the Defense Department does not want. They are there 
because of influential Members of Congress who have put them in. 
Defense has always been the most earmarked section of the entire 
budget.
  Fourth, there are many items in Defense that are unrelated to 
defense. Spenders in this House have figured out that if they put in 
unrelated spending--environmental spending, medical research, other 
things in the Department of Defense--it will be shielded from being 
reduced. That should not be the case.
  Fifth, since 2006, defense spending has increased by 32 percent, in a 
period of almost no inflation, while the war in Iraq was winding down.
  We must learn how to defend this country for less, and we can do 
that. There are plenty of things we can do. We need to defend our 
country against vulnerabilities; but our debt, which is now 47 percent 
held by foreigners--and that percentage is increasing--is a greater 
threat to the security of this country than any aircraft carrier. It is 
a greater threat than any military force out there. We have to deal 
with that, but we can't deal with this debt unless we include the large 
spending in the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security and defend 
this country for less.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. The CR that we are debating here, and have been for the 
last couple of days, strikes the right balance between sustaining 
programs that are crucial to our Nation's security and keeping our 
discretionary spending in check.
  This CR doesn't make a choice between fiscal discipline and security. 
It supports both, and it does so in a responsible manner. In fact, the 
CR significantly reduces the funding available to the Department of 
Homeland Security by more than $1 billion, and it fully pays for FEMA's 
$1.6 billion disaster relief shortfall.
  Madam Chair, this CR attempts to carefully cut the fat out of the 
Department of Homeland Security and does so in a way that does not harm 
vital security operations. The gentleman's amendment cuts everything 
across the Department, and that is both unnecessary and potentially 
harmful, especially at a time of heightened threats and terrorist 
activity.
  At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  The Department of Defense was not spared from cuts. The bill already 
slashes $15 billion from the President's request for FY11. This 
amendment would take it down another $18 billion, or $33 billion in 
total. I am concerned that the levels of cuts proposed by the gentleman 
from California go too far and will adversely affect many defense 
readiness programs. Just as I have said about cuts in other areas, this 
is not time to take a hatchet to these programs.
  The amendment would cause DOD to terminate contracts, which will, in 
turn, force companies to lay off employees. Defense spending cannot, of 
course, be justified simply by jobs; but at the same time, the prospect 
of adding to our unemployment just as we are emerging from the 
recession should be a consideration.
  In total, the Office of Secretary of Defense has identified 124 major 
acquisition programs that would be significantly disrupted by 
approaching the FY10 funding levels. Dropping funding by an additional 
$18 billion to reach the 3.5 percent reduction would seriously disrupt 
the readiness and safety of our forces.
  This is a very bad amendment; and on a bipartisan basis, we should 
defeat it.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I join with the ranking member in opposing this amendment. The 
current allocation for defense is already $14.8 billion below the 
fiscal year 2011 request, an almost 3 percent reduction; and of course 
our committee wants to help to address the Federal deficit, too, as do 
other committees. Further, arbitrary reductions, especially of this 
magnitude of over $23.5 billion, will basically bring the Department of 
Defense to a grinding halt, perhaps one beyond what is reasonable.
  Specifically, the amendment would require reducing and canceling 
training for returning troops; canceling Navy training exercises; 
reducing Air Force flight training; delaying or canceling the 
maintenance of aircraft, ships or vehicles; delaying important safety 
and quality-of-life repairs to facilities and military barracks.
  At a time of war, we should be showing support for our troops and not 
undercutting them, even though for good reasons, in order to lower the 
Federal deficit by making reductions of this amount.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of 
the subcommittee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which 
reduces funding for the Department of Homeland Security by 3\1/2\ 
percent. Under the CR, funding for Homeland Security is already 3 
percent below the 2010 enacted level.

                              {time}  1530

  The $1.56 billion in supplemental disaster needs funded in this bill 
already cuts deep into Homeland Security programs. An additional 3.5 
percent reduction would dangerously weaken our security. If this 
reduction were adopted, critical programs such as border security, 
disaster relief, immigration enforcement, and transportation security 
would no longer be shielded from ill-advised cuts.

[[Page 2537]]

  The Department would be required to lay off critical staff we have 
hired over the past 2 years, including Border Patrol agents, CBP 
officers at the ports of entry, ICE investigators along the southwest 
border, and the Secret Service agents that respond to heightened 
threats against the President.
  This reduction would mean the Department would need to abandon 
critical technology procurements that would better protect our aviation 
and transit system against possible attacks.
  In short, Madam Chair, this amendment is ill advised in the extreme. 
I urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Alabama has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  First I would like to commend Chairman Rogers and his staff, because 
I am sure they have tried to do as much as they thought they possibly 
could in what would get through the Senate.
  But I rise at this time to especially commend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) for making what I consider to be a very 
courageous amendment. He knows that this amendment is probably not 
going to get many votes, but I will tell you, this amendment makes a 
very important point and sends a very powerful message, and that is 
that nothing should be left off the table. There should be no sacred 
cows.
  As he has pointed out, as the gentleman from California has pointed 
out, the Pentagon actually receives an increase under this bill. But we 
can no longer afford to have higher military spending than all the 
other nations of the world combined.
  We are facing an astounding $1.6 trillion deficit, a $14 trillion 
debt, and there is no way we can come even anywhere close to doing what 
we should do if we leave any departments or agencies off or make them 
not look for savings.
  The President's commission on the debt said that very thing. They 
said that the Pentagon was going to have to look for savings. And as 
far as Homeland Security, The Wall Street Journal had an editorial that 
they noticed that we were voting for almost anything and everything if 
it had the word ``security'' attached, and they said from now on we 
should give four times the weight and twice the scrutiny to anything 
that had the word ``security'' in it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, let me just reiterate again that the 
gentleman's proposed cuts just go too far. They would undoubtedly cut 
and harm border security, transportation security, maritime security, 
cargo security, cybersecurity, immigration enforcement, and disaster 
preparedness. The list of crucial programs that would be adversely 
impacted by this across-the-board amendment goes on and on.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 246 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for beach replenishment projects by the Army Corps of 
     Engineers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, my amendment would prevent 
funding of the U.S. Army Corps' beach replenishment program and 
projects. Authorized at $91 million for 2011, up almost a billion 
dollars over the next decade, the Army Corps plans to replenish sand at 
certain beaches to slow the course of erosion.
  First and foremost, this is not a proper constitutional function for 
the Federal Government. Each beach community, along with their local 
government, should decide how they will best approach erosion. As the 
primary beneficiaries, they can best decide their needs and financial 
priorities.
  The top-down system currently employed comes from a flawed mindset, a 
mindset that we must address if we hope to escape our spending crisis, 
a mindset that the Federal Government does everything for everybody. 
This is simply Federal spending that we cannot afford and Federal 
control that we don't need.
  I ask that my colleagues support my amendment to defund this now and 
work with me to strip this and other similar projects from future 
budgets as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mack). The gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concern over 
responsible spending and the need to address the Nation's deficit 
problem. That's why our continuing resolution before us reduces 
spending by historic proportions.
  Where I differ from my colleague is whether there is a Federal 
interest in beach replenishment projects. Beach replenishment projects 
aren't just about dumping sand on shores so people can have fun. These 
projects provide States with protection from coastal storms for 
individuals and businesses, and these projects must meet the same 
standards of economic justification and cost benefit ratios as other 
levee projects and navigation projects.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), former chairman of the committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As much as I admire and respect the introducer of this amendment, I 
really have to oppose this amendment.
  The beaches are an important and a valued asset to the United States 
of America. Economically, they are a huge economic factor. For 
protection of properties on land, it is a huge protection device, 
beaches against the hurricane, the storm surge.
  You might get the idea that I represent a district that has a lot of 
beaches, and I would tell you that this is extremely important to our 
economy. When the BP oil spill was flowing through the Gulf of Mexico, 
we worried every day whether that was going to come to our beaches.
  In my part of the State it did not, thank God. But we were concerned 
what that might do to destroy a major part of our economy.
  Mr. Frelinghuysen makes a strong argument, and I thank him for 
letting me support him in his opposition.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield 1 minute to the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I understand there is a school of thought that we should just let 
nature

[[Page 2538]]

take its way. But on the west coast of Washington State, we have from 
time to time had to come out and put in replenishment projects to save 
cities and save housing. We have done this with the Corps of Engineers 
very effectively using the best science.
  In Mississippi, they have a big Army Corps center where they study 
how to do these things. And, it does cost a little bit of money, but we 
are saving assets, and billions and billions of dollars.
  I just think that this is a very unfortunate amendment, and we 
should, in a bipartisan basis, defeat it and let the Corps do what it 
has to do to save cities and coastal areas across America.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a fellow member of the committee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to say to my friend from Athens, Georgia, where you do not 
have beaches, you know that the local share, once the Corps of 
Engineers does a cost-benefit analysis, which it always does, there is 
a requirement the State and the local government kick in. The State 
gives a pretty good amount of money. But the reason why they may be 
more motivated from a economic basis is they directly benefit from the 
economic impact.
  I do agree with you the Federal Government should not be worried 
about the economic impact, but where the Federal Government is most 
concerned is in flood control. As you and I know, the more sand you 
have in between you and the high tide when the hurricane comes, the 
more protected you are going to be.
  And as long as we have FEMA that writes checks after disasters and a 
National Flood Insurance Program, there is a good reason that the 
Federal Government is involved with beach renourishment.

                              {time}  1540

  It has nothing to do with recreation, really less to do with 
economics, but a heck of a lot to do with flood protection. And that is 
why the Federal Government is involved in it. So to my friend from 
Athens, you are welcome to come down to Tybee Island anytime you want 
to despite this irresponsible amendment of yours. But I am going to 
oppose it, and welcome you to come. Bring your own suntan oil.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire about time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield the remaining minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. Beach replenishment is an economic engine for shore towns 
and for the tourism industry. It ultimately creates jobs. And also it's 
based on an Army Corps cost-benefit analysis that says for every dollar 
we spend on beach replenishment we save $2 or $3, depending on the 
cost-benefit analysis, that doesn't have to get paid by the Federal 
Government during a hurricane or northeaster or other disaster.
  So beach replenishment actually saves the Federal Government money. 
It has to, otherwise the projects are not authorized by the Army Corps 
of Engineers. In addition to that, there is no way that local 
municipalities would be able to afford to do this. Many of them are 
very small; they have a few thousand people. I use my own State of New 
Jersey as an example. So you would be cutting off any kind of beach 
replenishment, any kind of protection in the event of a storm. And 
ultimately having to pay out those dollars in FEMA down the road makes 
no sense.
  This is actually something that will cost the Federal Government 
money over the long run, and it is very ill-advised for that reason 
alone.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I love beaches at Tybee Island, 
and my friend from Florida's beaches, as well as my friend from 
Washington's beaches, as well as my friend from Oregon's beaches. In 
these hard economic times, I think it's just absolutely incredible that 
we are spending this kind of money, almost a billion dollars over the 
next 10 years, just for beach replenishment.
  I yield 1 minute to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this underappreciated subject. He is raising an issue 
that I think is sensitive and frankly deserves far more consideration 
than it has been given by Congress.
  There is great debate, frankly, about the science of artificial beach 
construction. Part of the concern about the cycle of the Federal 
Government routinely bailing people out is, in fact some locational 
decisions in the first place. The cost allocation can be quite 
variable. There have been real questions about some of the projects 
that have been dictated. In fact, in one instance actually a Corps of 
Engineers item on artificial beach replacement embedded in a 
reauthorization was one of the biggest public works projects over the 
course of 50 years, and really didn't get appropriate scrutiny.
  Now, whether you think extreme weather events are part of climate 
change caused by humans or whether it's part of a natural cycle of 
weather, the gentleman is spotlighting a very significant long-term 
area of Federal responsibility.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. And if we're not careful, the taxpayer could be on 
the hook for a great deal more money. There are some cases that the 
beaches in question aren't even available to the public. And the 
concern about some of the artificial beach construction techniques, of 
fortification and putting additional sand, actually deflects the 
problems further up along the coast. This can create more problems in 
other places and make them more severe.
  So I appreciate the gentleman putting the spotlight on this question. 
I think it is important that every Member of Congress look at the 
history of these projects, the long-term obligations, and look for ways 
that we might be able to do this in a way that's more fiscally 
responsible and environmentally sensitive. And I thank him for the 
time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for weighing in on this. 
Certainly the science is questionable, as a lot of science is 
questionable on the policy that we generate; but it's also fiscally 
irresponsible I think to spend this kind of money. And so I hope that 
my colleagues will support this commonsense, fiscally responsible 
amendment and vote for my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Broun 
amendment that would eliminate funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
coastal projects.
  Simply put--this is a ``penny wise/pound foolish'' effort.
  Representing a coastal district I can speak first hand to the 
importance of coastal projects.
  Beaches are of incredible economic importance to the local, state, 
regional, and national economy contributing nearly $35 billion in 
annual Federal revenues.
  There are over 2 billion visits made to our nation's beaches each 
year, with the Federal Government collecting $320 per beach tourists 
for every $1 spent on beach renourishment!
  And more people visit our nation's beaches each year than all of our 
national parks combined!
  North Carolina beaches create about 50,000 jobs, $1.6 billion in 
spending revenues, $78 million in state revenue and beach-related 
tourism provides a total payroll of $350 million!
  But the coast is also something much more important than numbers--it 
is a place where our batteries can be recharged, where family memories 
are built, and where many choose to live out the sunset of their lives.
  Let's reject this amendment and support the coastal communities which 
support and provide much-needed employment and enjoyment for our 
Nation!
  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Broun amendment 
No. 246. This amendment would prohibit the use of funds made available 
by this act to be used for beach replenishment projects by the Army 
Corps of Engineers.
  In understand the need for shared sacrifice, and applaud my 
colleagues for looking to further reduce spending wherever possible, 
however funding for the Army Corps of Engineers

[[Page 2539]]

and the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Fund have already taken a 
huge hit in the underlying legislation.
  New Jersey has 127 miles of coastline with a large portion of it 
lying within my Congressional District. This shore-line is the economic 
engine behind a multi-billion dollar coastal tourism industry. Tourism 
is New Jersey's second largest industry, and provides jobs for many of 
the 35 million people living within 100 miles of our beaches.
  Within my district lies Long Beach Island. Over 2 million people use 
the beaches of Long Beach Island every year. The island is key part of 
New Jersey's economy with over $15 billion in ratables.
  Long Beach Island is a barrier island and acts as a natural levy 
protecting long stretches of New Jersey's coastline from flooding. The 
New Jersey coast is frequently the victim of powerful hurricanes, and 
Nor'easters. We need beach replenishment projects to help repair these 
natural levies after natural disasters.
  These projects are vital to the homeowners Long Beach Island. Without 
beach replenishment projects they are in danger of losing their 
homeowners insurance, and seeing the value of their homes plummet. In 
an already deflated housing market we can't afford more foreclosures!
  Mr. Chair, I look forward to supporting the underlying legislation, 
which cuts the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Fund by $30 
million. However, I cannot support this amendment at this time.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 263 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay any dues to the United Nations.

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

                              {time}  1550

  U.N. peacekeeping operations, which are an indispensable tool, have 
saved untold lives, averted dozens of wars, and helped restore or 
establish democratic rule in more than a dozen countries.
  The Broun amendment would put the U.S. on a dangerous path to 
isolationism. We learned on September 11, 2001, that we are not immune 
from events that take place halfway around the world. There are 
enormous challenges that we all must face together, and the United 
States cannot close its borders and think that we can protect our own 
security.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment to effectively 
withdraw from the U.N. because it would endanger our national security.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I rise to oppose the amendment.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for her 
outstanding stewardship of American dollars as it relates to our 
standing in the world.
  I understand the gentleman's concern, but the United Nations is where 
you draw consensus. It is where we are able to sit at the table and ask 
individual countries to join with us for what democracy means.
  As you watch the rising crisis in the Mideast, it is the United 
Nations that we can draw upon to be able to emphasize democracy. As you 
watched the conflict in Egypt, where we celebrated what happened, many 
of you are aware of the tragedy that happened to one of our American 
reporters, Ms. Logan. The United Nations is where we can call upon the 
Egyptian Government to explain themselves and to apologize and call 
upon the U.N. Ambassador from Egypt to apologize to Ms. Logan and 
apologize to the American people for the tragedy that happened to this 
woman who was doing her job, the vicious sexual assault that occurred 
to her. It is the United Nations that we can come and ask others to 
accept that kind of responsibility.
  We need to be part of the world family. The world family is a place 
where we can get solutions.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Amendment (Amendment No. 263) 
to H.R. 1 ``Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011'', offered by 
Mr. Broun of Georgia providing that none of the funds made available by 
this Act be used to pay any dues to the United Nations.
  I strongly oppose this amendment, because it is imperative that the 
United States pay its dues to the United Nations. The United States not 
only serves as the host country of the United Nations, it is also a 
Permanent Member of the United Nations and a Member of the U.N. 
Security Council. The United Nations serves the critical function of 
providing a forum where countries from the global community

[[Page 2540]]

can meet and form a consensus for resolving the most important 
international issues of our time.
  We must remain steadfast in our support for the United Nations 
especially during these times of rapid political, environmental and 
economic change throughout the world. We have recently witnessed large 
scale global events that require a multinational response. The crisis 
in the Sudan, the Earthquake in Haiti, and the protests for political 
change in Egypt and countries of the Middle East are just a few recent 
examples. The magnitude of these events requires a unified 
international response. The United Nations is the appropriate vehicle 
for that coordinated response.
  Our presence as one of the few Permanent Members and our position and 
voice on the U.N. Security Council provide the United States with a 
powerful platform to exercise the kind of leadership necessary to 
promote peace, security of nations, international trade stability, 
international monetary stability, international aid to struggling 
countries and peoples worldwide, responsible monitoring of nuclear 
weapons proliferation, international human rights observance and 
adherence to the fair administration of justice.
  So, in closing Mr. Chair, during this time when we are debating the 
funding of our Federal Government, an act of paying dues, it is 
hypocrisy to even suggest that the United States not pay its dues to 
the United Nations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentlelady.
  This is the 21st century. We have to live with our neighbors. If the 
United Nations didn't exist, we would have to create it. The fact is 
that even the Government Accountability Office estimates that a U.N. 
peacekeeping force is eight times less expensive than funding a 
military force. We're going to have to move to more smart power in the 
21st century. We can't do it all alone, whether it be establishing 
democracy, securing peace or promoting human rights.
  We can't keep putting our own troops at risk, trying to put out the 
flames that erupt all over the world. The U.N. does that. They don't do 
it perfectly, but they are largely an international reflection of our 
American values.
  We've got to find a way to secure peace in the world. And ever since 
Woodrow Wilson came up with the League of Nations, the United Nations 
continues to evolve, continues to reflect our values and promote our 
most fundamental foreign policy. This is not the time to be pulling the 
rug out from under such an important ally.
  The U.N. represents every nation in the world. We don't agree with 
all of them, but we have more influence in the United Nations than does 
any other nation in the world.
  This amendment is not in our national interest. It should be strongly 
rejected.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I'm sitting here hearing what a wonderful organization 
the U.N. is, and I can't help but wonder: Where in the heck were they 
during Rwanda? Where were they? I would love to yield the floor to 
anybody out there.
  You know, that was the most miserable failure and genocide that the 
world has seen in modern times. Where was the U.N.? And we all know 
they were absolutely nowhere. There were 800,000 people killed, 
slaughtered, an absolute genocide; and it went from, I think, April 
until July 6, 800,000 people killed with machetes on the street, and 
the U.N. spent the whole 3, 4 months debating the definition of 
genocide.
  The U.N. is not there when you need them. The U.N. spends lots of 
time condemning Israel, lots of time on anti-United States jabs. They 
aren't being helpful so far that I can see on Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, or 
anywhere else in the Middle East where the pot seems to be boiling 
over. But I just remember so vividly genocide in Rwanda and the U.N. 
not being there.
  I would suggest to people, you know, we all want to read books. Read 
the book ``Hotel Rwanda.'' Read the book, ``We Regret to Inform You, 
But Tonight They Are Coming for Our Children,'' about the genocide in 
Rwanda. There are lots of books, and it's well documented on how 
absolutely worthless the U.N. was.
  Mrs. LOWEY. May I ask the Chair how much time we have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 1 minute 
remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very clear that none 
of us are making a statement that the U.N. can solve all the problems 
in the world. But I want to reiterate again a comment that my good 
friend Mr. Moran made: If we are going to put a cocoon around our 
country and operate in isolation, we will be less successful in dealing 
with the extraordinary challenges that we are facing today.
  And I would like to say to my good friend Mr. Kingston, I'm not quite 
sure that we would be more successful in dealing with slaughters and 
genocide without the U.N. We are working very hard with our colleagues 
and our friends around the world to try and find solutions.
  And I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I would ask my friend from Georgia: What's the 
alternative? Should we have gone into Rwanda? The U.N. was an abysmal 
failure, but where was the United States? And if we didn't have the 
United Nations, the United States would be asked to carry that 
themselves. We can't be the world's policeman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am not an isolationist, but the 
U.N. has been an abysmal failure. We need to stop throwing our money 
down a rat hole. It's not dependent on us to keep the world safe. In 
fact, we, with our allies all across this globe, can do what's 
necessary far more efficiently without the wasting of American taxpayer 
dollars in trying to foster democracy, to foster human rights, to 
foster women's rights all across the world stage.
  Continuing to pour money into the U.N. is not going to do anything 
except for keep a group of people who are in power there, who go 
against us as we try to stand firm for Israel, as we try to stand firm 
for world peace and democracy. Our efforts are thwarted through the 
U.N. And, in fact, they want to take the U.N. governance and apply it 
to every American citizen.
  This is not in our best interest. It's a waste of taxpayers' dollars. 
It was totally ineffective, as my good friend from Georgia has said, in 
Rwanda and many other cases. It's time for us to stop funding this 
inefficient organization that is not in our best interest.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
would prevent the U.S. from paying its annual dues to the UN and UN 
agencies, and put our nation once again into arrears. Passage of it 
would also end ongoing peacekeeping operations in nations critical to 
America's national security interests, including Haiti and Sudan.
  Today the United States is in good standing at the United Nations 
after years of failing to meet our treaty obligations, and as a result, 
the U.S. is better able to advance our interests. Great nations keep 
their word, and by working with other countries in the UN, we can be 
sure that our nation does not go it alone.
  In making his argument for fiscal responsibility, Congressman Broun 
has picked the wrong target. In 2006, a Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) study concluded that UN peacekeeping is eight times less 
expensive than funding a U.S. force. This point was backed up by former 
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who said that ``[UN Peacekeeping] 
is much more cost effective than using American forces. And of course, 
America doesn't have the forces to do all of these peacekeeping 
missions, but somebody has to do them.''
  In the last ten years, the number of UN peacekeeping missions has 
grown--with each and every one of them enjoying the active support of 
both Democratic and Republican administrations. There are now over 
100,000 peacekeepers--the second largest deployed military in the 
world--serving in 14 missions in some of the most dangerous corners of 
the world.
  UN peacekeeping missions help end brutal conflicts, support 
stability, the transition to democratization, and bring relief for 
hundreds of millions of people. In 2005, The Human Security Report, a 
major international study on peace and war, judged that the global 
security

[[Page 2541]]

climate improved dramatically since the 1980's, with genocides 
plummeting by 80 percent. The study attributed that decline to the 
explosion in conflict prevention, peacemaking, and increases in the 
number and complexity of UN peacekeeping missions.
  The UN force in Haiti has provided security and access for 
humanitarian aid since the devastating earthquake and before that, the 
UN kept the peace. In the 1990's, Florida faced wave after wave of 
illegal Haitians trying to escape from the failed state. Why would we 
abandon this why would we abandon this mission?
  The UN force in Sudan was critical in supporting last month's 
referendum calling for independence and it continues to play a vital 
role in supporting South Sudan transition to a functional democracy. 
It's in our benefit to help South Sudan grant freedom to its people, 
and the UN is doing that. Right now the total cost to the international 
community for our peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts in Sudan is 
about $4 billion a year. An article in Foreign Policy just last month 
noted that a return to war in Sudan could cost the wider international 
community $30 billion. The UN is our main hope in preventing that from 
happening, so with passage of the amendment, we'd abandon the mission, 
possibly threatening stability in Sudan and potentially increasing our 
future costs.
  In both the above cases, it is very likely that if the UN were not 
there, U.S. troops would have to be and they would be the ones in 
harm's way. Instead, by supporting UN peacekeeping, we lessen the 
burden on our own forces and reduce our own expenditures. U.S. 
Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice said last week, ``Those of us--
Democrat and Republican alike--who support the UN owe it to American 
taxpayers to ensure that their dollars are well and cleanly spent. But, 
equally, those who push to curtail U.S. support to the UN owe it to 
U.S. soldiers to explain why they should perform missions now handled 
by UN peacekeepers.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote NO against the Broun amendment. It is 
not fiscally responsible--considering we are here today to vote on a 
bill to reduce costs, it makes little sense to vote for an amendment 
that would likely entail greater U.S. military expenditures.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1600


                  Amendment No. 526 Offered by Mr. Wu

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce section 3(e) of 
     the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b(e)).

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

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prevents funds under the 
continuing resolution from being used to provide the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, or FERC, with exclusive authority to site, 
construct, expand, or operate an LNG terminal. Simply put, it ends 
overbearing federal regulation and gives local government and private 
property owners a say in LNG siting.

  This is a States' rights issue. FERC's overbearing, overbroad Federal 
regulatory structure is preventing States and local communities from 
having any input, let alone decisionmaking authority, over use of local 
property.

  In Oregon, where there are proposals for construction of LNG 
terminals, I have heard time and time again from my constituents that 
they are confused and frustrated by FERC's intrusive projects and 
unclear timelines. More importantly, their voices are not being heard 
on decisions that affect their livelihoods and property rights.

  FERC has demonstrated in Oregon that it is unwilling to responsibly 
regulate LNG and is deaf to the needs and concerns of our citizens and 
communities. Defunding FERC's exclusive approval authority over LNG 
projects is a crucial first step towards reestablishing a local role in 
the LNG siting process and ensuring that future energy decisions better 
reflect local citizens' interests.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment attempts, 
using the appropriations bill before us, to enact significant 
legislative changes to a prior law. The law in question, enacted by 
Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, establishes the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission as the issuer of licenses for liquefied 
natural gas terminals.

  Notwithstanding the merits of the gentleman's concerns, and we can 
see the gentleman cares deeply about the issue and knows of the issue, 
this is not the appropriate place to modify such a law, as this 
amendment would attempt to do. Frankly, such a broad authorizing issue 
warrants a suitably more broad discussion.

  We would be happy to work with the gentleman to facilitate that wider 
discussion at the appropriate time, on the appropriate bill, and 
through the appropriate committees of jurisdiction.
  In this regard, I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Pastor of Arizona, 
for the time that he may wish to consume.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I want to thank the chairman for recognizing 
and providing time.

  This amendment would prevent FERC from carrying out its statutory 
authority. The term ``enforce'' would impact oversight of existing and 
operating liquefied natural gas facilities. This amendment appears to 
prohibit FERC from approving environmental or safety-related amendments 
to existing liquefied natural gas facilities. This amendment will 
impact both import and export proposals in addition to almost any new 
facilities at preexisting plants.

  While I understand the gentleman has concerns in his district, the 
language would impact a much broader constituency, and for that reason 
I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.

  Mr. WU. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts such time as he 
may consume.

  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.

  On September 11, 2001, when Richard Clarke, George Bush's terrorism 
czar, was asked to sit in the control room to take over the response on 
9/11, the first call he made was to the port of the city of Boston to 
shut down the port because of the LNG facility in Everett, 
Massachusetts, in my district. That was the first thought in his mind. 
And why was that so? Because the al Qaeda had actually come in from 
Algeria, jumping off those ships in Boston Harbor in Everett, 
Massachusetts, in my district.

  Now we've had a tremendous amount of development of natural gas in 
the Marcellus shale formation and all across the country, an addition 
of 30 percent to the natural gas reserves of our country over the last 
4 years.

  Now if a city, if a State determines that the terrorism threat is so 
great that they do not want an LNG facility in the middle of their most 
densely populated area, it should not be the right of the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission to override the public safety decision 
made by the State and local police that it is too great of a danger. 
That is why the Wu amendment is correct.

  We have a bonanza of natural gas domestically. If a State decides 
they can get it from our own people rather than overseas, it is not up 
to the FERC to

[[Page 2542]]

make that decision if they are going to override the national security, 
the safety consideration of that community, in making that decision.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Wu amendment.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I wish to express my strong support for 
allowing states to have a say in the siting of liquefied natural gas 
(LNG) facilities and Representative Wu's amendment #526 to H.R. 1.

  Mr. Chair, for years, there's been an ill-conceived proposal to 
permit an LNG facility in Fall River, Massachusetts. This is a densely 
populated urban area with more than 9,000 residents of southeastern 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island living within a one mile radius of the 
proposed site.

  Siting an LNG facility here comes with enormous security risks as 900 
foot long tankers would need to be brought up the Taunton River and 
pass under four bridges.
  From day one, local residents have expressed their vehement 
opposition to this misguided and dangerous proposal.
  Current and previous Massachusetts and Rhode Island governors, local 
leaders and public safety officials have also fought against this 
irresponsible project.
  Unfortunately, the Republican energy bill of 2005 gave the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the exclusive authority to site LNG 
terminals, overriding the role of states and local communities in these 
critical public health and safety decisions.
  In Fall River, FERC has ignored legitimate local concerns, despite 
Federal laws and regulations directing a preference for remote siting 
of LNG facilities away from heavily populated areas and directing the 
agency to consider local input.
  Mr. Chair, my constituents in Somerset, Swansea and Fall River have 
made their opposition to this project loud and clear. Fall River is not 
the right place for an LNG facility.
  Let me be clear--I am not opposed to LNG as an energy source but it 
should not be sited in an urban area. Off-shore siting is preferable. 
The Northeast is already in a good position for currently permitted LNG 
off-shore terminals.
  And, I firmly believe that states and local residents should have a 
say in the decision to locate a dangerous energy facility in their 
backyards.
  Furthermore, Mr. Wu's amendment is important because the City of Fall 
River deserves the right to plan its future and not have its economic 
development held hostage to a FERC permitting process that does not 
take local concerns into account.
  At a time when so many of my Republican colleagues are fond of saying 
that Washington has overreached its authority, Mr. Wu's commonsense 
amendment would restore the public's role in the siting of LNG projects 
and ensure that future energy decisions reflect community interests.
  I want to thank my colleagues Mr. Wu, Mr. Frank and Mr. Markey for 
their leadership on this issue.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on Mr. Wu's amendment.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I urge a ``no'' vote. This is a proposition that 
ought to be discussed by the authorizers. It should not be considered 
within the limits of this continuing resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Markey

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

        At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to issue any new lease that authorizes production of 
     oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et. seq.) to any lessee under an existing 
     lease issued by the Department of the Interior pursuant to 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337 note), where such existing lease is not subject 
     to limitations on royalty relief based on market price.

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

                              {time}  1610

  This amendment is very simple. It says to these companies we will 
allow you to continue to drill and not even pay any royalties, but 
we're not going to give you an opportunity to bid on any new leases on 
public lands in our country.
  So if you renegotiate so that you are paying your fair share back to 
the American taxpayer, then fine, you can drill in the future. But we 
need that $53 billion that they owe in royalties, in taxes to be put 
towards reducing the Federal deficit.
  That's what this debate should be all about: Where do we go to find 
where the waste is in our Federal Government? The oil companies 
drilling for free, paying nothing to the taxpayers while reaping 
windfall profits is absolutely something that we should not tolerate.
  This amendment passed in 2006 on the House floor. This amendment 
passed as part of the BP response bill last year. This amendment passes 
over and over again with significant Republican support, 60 votes just 
5 years ago. In order to reclaim this money, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the gentleman from 
Massachusetts just said, while this happened in 1995, it was not the 
Republican Congress. It was the Clinton administration and a result of 
the oil leases that were made under the Department of the Interior at 
the time and the Clinton administration.
  If this amendment passed, companies with existing Deepwater Royalty 
Relief Act leases would be required to renegotiate lease terms with DOI 
to include price thresholds before getting new leases. Companies with 
Deepwater Royalty Relief Act leases have been successful multiple times 
in court challenging Interior's authority to include price thresholds 
in the lease agreements. DOI has lost at the district court, the 
appellate court, and the Supreme Court. The Secretary does not have the 
authority to include price thresholds on these leases.
  The problem stems from language included in the Deepwater Royalty 
Relief Act itself and the regulations promulgated to implement the act 
that did not address or require Interior to include price thresholds in 
the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act leases.
  In addition, forcing companies to renegotiate the leases would be a 
violation of contract law and would be challenged in court. This would 
only cost us millions of dollars more. This would hinder our leasing 
ability, reducing revenues to the Federal Government, not increasing 
revenues to the government, as it limits the pool of potential leases.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 2543]]


  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, well, we voted to subsidize the cotton 
industry, NASCAR, agribusiness. You name it, we vote to subsidize it. 
But now we have an opportunity to correct the most egregious abuse of 
the Federal taxpayer. $53 billion of oil that belongs to all American 
taxpayers is basically being given away. It's their oil. It's being 
drilled offshore. We own it, but we're not charging royalties to the 
largest American corporations, and that's the real rub of it.
  These are the most profitable corporations in America. BP is the 
biggest beneficiary. Exxon, Shell, Conoco, you name it. Chevron. 
They're all at the trough. Exxon, for example, last year $383 billion 
in revenue, and yet we're told they didn't pay any American corporate 
taxes. They paid it to other countries, but not to the United States.
  You know, at a time when we cut $1 billion out of Head Start and then 
we're going to give $53 billion to the wealthiest corporations of 
America, take American taxpayer-owned oil? This is insane.
  Now, it may have made some sense when oil was at $20 a barrel, But 
when oil is over $80 a barrel and the American consumer is having to 
pay $3.50 a gallon for gas, is this really the time that we should be 
giving away $53 billion in oil? No.
  Let's stop this egregious abuse. We say we're in favor of eliminating 
waste, fraud, and abuse? This is the worst abuse. Let's stop it. 
Support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I am tempted to ask the gentleman: What part of the 
contract that was signed by the Clinton administration don't you 
understand? But I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the gentleman 
from Massachusetts' amendment. I wish he would understand that we are 
not drilling right now. That is the problem.
  Many on the other side of the aisle have been thrilled with the 
administration's moratorium and praises the Department of the Interior 
and BOEMRE's work or, in true reality, the lack thereof in the 
deepwater drilling permit process since the BP oil spill.
  This amendment is insane, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts must be confiding with the likes of George Soros, who 
happily watched and encouraged the most advanced deepwater drilling 
rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico and travel to Brazil and Africa. If they 
are not picking up and leaving the Gulf of Mexico for good, they are 
filing for bankruptcy, like Seahawk Drilling in my district. This week, 
Seahawk Drilling blamed its demise on an unprecedented decline in the 
issuance of offshore drilling permits following the Macondo blowout.
  The chief executive, Randy Stilley, said in a statement, ``The 
decision by regulators to arbitrarily construct unnecessary barriers to 
obtaining permits they had traditionally authorized has had an adverse 
impact not only on Seahawk, but on the sector as a whole.''
  Seahawk's clients were waiting on 11 projects that were in various 
stages of the permitting process, none of which had been approved. This 
just proves this administration and Interior are not serious when they 
say they have lifted the deepwater drilling moratorium.
  The minority is claiming this spending bill is a job-killing piece of 
legislation, but they are just fine with increasing taxes on an 
industry that is in limbo and employs hundreds of thousands in my 
district.
  Louisianans are very hardworking, tough folks. They rarely ask for 
much. Mr. Chairman, they have been yelling loudly and beating down my 
door to tell me they are fed up and ready to go back to work.
  I guarantee you, Americans across the Nation will begin to yell as 
well when they are paying more at the gas pump when prices should be 
falling.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York, 
the author of this amendment in 2006, Mr. Hinchey.
  Mr. HINCHEY. At a time when our country is facing record deficits and 
the oil industry can't count their money fast enough, oil drillers in 
the Gulf of Mexico are getting away with highway robbery because of 
mistakes that were made many years ago.
  Oil and gas companies are extracting resources from public property 
without paying royalties, regardless of the price of oil and gas. It's 
time to fix the problem. The GAO has estimated that not doing so will 
continue to cost American taxpayers up to $53 billion.
  These hugely profitable companies are tapping oil and gas reserves 
that belong to the American people, selling it back to us, and then 
reaping a massive profit on the backs of the middle class. But they are 
not paying one red cent to the public for the oil and gas they have 
extracted. They get it for free, and we pay the price.
  I don't know a single person who would allow an oil or gas company to 
drill on their private property and not expect to be compensated for 
the oil extracted from that land. So why should the Federal Government 
continue to be taken advantage of by the most profitable industry in 
United States history?
  Congress has a chance to correct this injustice.
  Last year, oil companies earned over $70 billion in profits when oil 
prices were significantly lower than they are today. With the cost of 
oil once again approaching $100 a barrel and prices at the pump also 
rising, the idea that this industry is still getting royalty relief is 
downright criminal.
  If we're serious about reining in our deficits, then we should adopt 
this amendment. It's an important amendment; it makes perfect sense, 
and it is in the best interests of all of the people of this country.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. And what is not being 
pointed out here is, while the gentleman from Massachusetts is talking 
about companies and royalties, he fails to mention, first of all, that 
the second largest source of Federal revenue next to income taxes is 
royalties that are paid by oil companies. They are paying billions of 
dollars in royalties. They are hiring tens of thousands and, in some 
cases, probably in the millions of Americans to work in the energy 
industry. But that, right now, is at jeopardy by this administration's 
policies. In fact, as my other colleague from Louisiana just pointed 
out, just last week another company filed for bankruptcy because of 
this administration's policies shutting off the ability to issue 
permits and allow people to go back to work.
  And so what does this amendment do? Well, my colleague talks about 
royalties. Let's actually read what his amendment does as opposed to 
what he says about his amendment.
  The amendment by Mr. Markey says: None of the funds made available by 
this act may be used to issue any new lease that authorizes production 
of oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
  This is about closing off more domestic sources of energy production 
at a time when the Middle East has never been more volatile. You might 
as well just call this the OPEC protection amendment, because it 
ensures that more of these companies, as they are already doing, will 
be going out of the country.
  And by the way, oh, is this hypothetical? Of course it's not. I have 
got a list here of some of the rigs by some of the very companies my 
colleague talks about that are already leaving. And one of the 
countries that they have already left to bring their assets to to drill 
because they can't do business in America is Egypt. Two of these 
billion-dollar assets have actually said it's better to do business in 
Egypt and drill for energy there than to drill in America because of 
these radical policies.
  So I guess my colleague is okay with shutting off more domestic 
energy, allowing more American companies to go

[[Page 2544]]

bankrupt. The White House has acknowledged 12,000 Americans have 
already lost their jobs because of these policies, and then my 
colleague wants to bring this amendment to shut even more areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf off.
  OPEC might love this amendment, but I think Americans who are going 
to be paying $4 and $5 a gallon for gas at the pump this summer don't 
agree.
  I oppose this amendment.

                              {time}  1620

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

[[Page 2545]]


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

                              {time}  1630

  They spent billions of dollars to drill in depths they hadn't 
before--again, not knowing if they would hit anything or not. They used 
American companies to do it on American platforms with American 
workers. And guess what? It worked. They created American-made oil and 
natural gas, and they kept it here for us. This outraged the Democrats: 
How could this happen? And by the way, these companies paid billions of 
dollars of royalty not on the price, but on how much they bring out of 
the ground. It was a win-win situation--taxpayers win, our jobs win, we 
get American-made energy.
  Outraged, they took it to court. Four times the court said--they 
wanted the American Government to break its own contract--the court, 
four times, including the Supreme Court, said no. Now they've tried to 
extort U.S. companies in saying, you must break your contract, or we 
will deny you any chance to do business in the Gulf of Mexico. That's 
what this amendment is about. It's extortion. They want businesses to 
break the contract with America that America can't break itself.
  If the government has power to force you to break the agreement they 
made with you, how much power will they have over you, over your 
family, over your business? And by the way, what's wrong with creating 
good old-fashioned American energy here in this country with our 
workers, with our companies, with the revenues coming to us and to the 
local communities, giving us affordable energy? Isn't that what America 
is also about?
  Our energy jobs aren't expendable. Stop sending our oil and gas 
workers to the unemployment line. Let them explore right here in 
America. Does Hugo Chavez really need a bigger incentive to sell more 
oil in the United States of America?
  This amendment needs to go down on this House floor.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to 
Amendment No. 27 by Rep. Markey to H.R. 1, the Fiscal Year Continuing 
Appropriations Act for FY2011. This amendment attempts to retroactively 
reverse the express intent of Congress in passing the Royalty Relief 
Act. In the case of Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas v. Allred, the Fifth Circuit 
Court specifically held that the Department of the Interior does not 
have authority to impose royalty relief price thresholds on deep water 
leases issued from 1996-2000. In reaching this decision, the Fifth 
Circuit held that Congress was unambiguous in guaranteeing royalty 
relief, without price thresholds, to holders of these leases up to the 
volumes specified in the statute. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
and other regulations allow our government to preclude a lessee from 
obtaining new leases if it has failed to act with due diligence with 
respect to its existing leases. This amendment would add a new 
requirement that imposes that same penalty but for an entirely 
different and unrelated reason. For these reasons, I strongly oppose 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 409 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by division B 
     may be used by the Department of Health and Human Services to 
     implement or enforce section 2718 of the Public Health 
     Service Act, as added by section 1001(5) and replaced by 
     section 10101(f) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act (Public Law 111-148).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think that we've made some 
significant progress in the area of improving health care in this 
country, the laws related to health care in this country today in this 
Chamber. This is another portion of an amendment that would address the 
issue of health care.
  As a physician and dad, I care greatly about the issue of health care 
and came to Congress, frankly, as one of the major reasons was to try 
to fix the health care system and to make it more patient-centered.
  Over the last 2 years, we've seen a significant affront to our health 
care system with costs increasing, destroying jobs, violating 
principles to a significant degree as it relates to health care.
  Last year, this Congress made a lot of decisions that gave Washington 
control over our health care system. And a perfect example of that 
control is that ObamaCare mandates to the companies that provide the 
health coverage for individuals, helping individuals, how to run their 
business. Essentially, the Federal Government is in the business of 
dictating to private companies what they should do to run their 
business, what kind of coverage they can provide, what kind of prices 
they can charge, what kind of definition of quality care, and what 
meets the definition of essential services for individuals. It really 
is central planning at its finest, and it is certainly not the 
government's role in a free market system.
  The government has already proven that it's not well qualified for 
mandating and defining what will be counted as quality improvement 
activity for the purposes of calculating, in this instance, the medical 
loss ratio. For instance, many of the fraud provisions that are 
required are excluded from being included in the medical loss ratio. 
The coding system that is required for health insurers to utilize is 
not able to be included in the medical loss ratio.
  So what it does is compromise the opportunity for brokers to provide 
the best advice to citizens. It makes it so that these folks who are 
actually--they're actually the exchanges, Mr. Chairman, if you think 
about it, but these folks are going to be pinched and pushed out of 
their jobs, the ones that are actually helping our citizens to weave 
their way through the morass of health coverage in this country.
  The President said famously during this whole debate, ``If you like 
what you have, you can keep it.'' The fact of the matter is, as you 
know, Mr. Chairman, and so many others know, that that simply is not 
true. These medical loss ratio requirements will in fact break that 
promise to a further degree.
  So the amendment is very simple. It makes it so that no moneys in 
this bill can be utilized for the provision of enforcing the medical 
loss ratio, destructive provisions in the area of health care. I urge 
my colleagues to back the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for some very good reasons on 
that.
  Let me explain what the medical loss ratio is. That is what the 
people in these private insurance companies call

[[Page 2546]]

providing health care for the premium dollar you provide. For every 
time they give you a health service for your premium dollar, they think 
of it as a medical loss. The medical loss ratio is the amount of your 
dollar that they actually spend on health care versus CEO salaries, 
bonuses, stock dividends that are out of control, lobbyist costs that 
they might incur, advertisements, and so on down the line. The purpose 
of the medical loss ratio provision is in fact to make sure that they 
spend a higher percentage of your premium dollar on actual health care.
  In 1993, the average used to be about 95 cents of every dollar would 
be spent by private health insurance companies on health services. Now, 
however, recent studies indicate that some of these private insurance 
companies are spending as little as 60 cents of every health care 
dollar on actual health services and the rest on lobbyists--probably 
some of whom are down here arguing to kill this provision--on high CEO 
salaries and bonuses and advertisements, and so on down the line.
  The MLR, the medical loss ratio provision in this bill, says an 
insurance company for individuals or small company plans has to spend 
at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on health care. And if you're 
in a large company plan, it's 85 cents. What a novel idea; you get some 
bang for your buck and the government would actually do something for 
you for a change, protecting consumer rights and making sure that 
companies do what they should be doing.
  This isn't about profits. The companies are extremely profitable, and 
this is not going to cramp their style. In fact, this is about greed. 
The profits for the 10 largest for-profit insurance companies in this 
country show a whopping $9.3 billion in profits for the first three 
quarters of 2010. That's $2.1 billion more than the first 9 months of 
2009. So it's gone up 41 percent from 2009. What this is about is them 
avoiding having to pay premium dollars for health care.
  Another provision that I like in this is they're going to have to 
tell the American public, they're going to have to be transparent in 
identifying what it is they term as ``health services,'' so people 
would know if they're trying to put lobbyists fees under health 
services or excessive bonuses or CEO salaries or advertisements, things 
of that nature. And I don't think they have any will at all to make 
sure that people understand where their health care premium dollars are 
going.
  If you don't have a provision like this, we're going to return to 
what we were; you take the power away from the consumer and you put it 
with the insurance company. So how do they do it? They raise the 
premiums or they cut your health care. They take away health care for 
people that want to get on their parents' plan up to the age of 26 if 
they're working at a company that doesn't have coverage, or they don't 
have coverage otherwise. They put on caps annually or lifetime caps so 
you can't get coverage. They rescind your policy exactly when you're in 
the middle of your cancer or diabetes care. Or they make sure some 
other way that you don't get the coverage you ought to have.
  Wendell Potter, who was a whistleblower, used to be with CIGNA, one 
of the larger insurance companies, made it real clear when he was 
testifying before committees that in fact this is what companies want 
to do, they want to keep that medical loss ratio in place where they 
benefit and the consumer loses.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains on each side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 2\1/2\ minutes and 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to an excellent member of our conference, a new Member, a member of the 
healing profession, a nurse from North Carolina, Renee Ellmers.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Chairman, let's be reminded why we are here today. 
We are here because the leadership of the 111th Congress couldn't even 
pass a budget. However, my colleagues across the aisle did manage to 
pass this monstrosity with a closed rule and no debate.

                              {time}  1640

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

[[Page 2547]]

yourself and for your family and for everybody across this land. On 
this side of the aisle, we want patients to decide, patients and 
families and doctors.
  That's what this amendment is all about. Support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


              Amendment No. 296 Offered by Mr. McClintock

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement the Klamath Dam Removal and 
     Sedimentation Study.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, the appropriations committee leadership 
supported my amendment No. 297 to cancel $2 million that would be used 
to consider destroying four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the 
Klamath River that are generating 155 megawatts of the cleanest, 
cheapest, and most reliable electricity on the planet--enough to power 
over 150,000 homes.
  Amendment No. 296 is the companion measure. It forbids the Bureau to 
redirect its remaining funds for this purpose.
  Let me emphasize: Congress never authorized this study. Congress 
never authorized the Klamath settlement. The Bureau of Reclamation is 
moving forward with it anyway. At a time when skyrocketing electricity 
prices threaten our economy and when acute capacity shortages threaten 
the reliability of our grid, destroying 155 megawatts of clean, cheap, 
and reliable hydroelectricity is simply insane.
  We're told this is to save the salmon, but the proposal also includes 
destroying the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery, which is producing 5 million 
salmon smolt each year, 17,000 of which return to the Klamath as fully 
grown adults in order to spawn.
  The Bureau is conducting this study without congressional 
authorization, and the language in this amendment is essential in order 
to implement the reduction that the House approved on Tuesday.
  I thank the appropriations leadership for their support on Tuesday 
and ask that the House adopt the implementing language.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, as a staunch supporter of dams, I 
understand my colleague's position on this issue, and I support this 
amendment.
  The constituents I represent overwhelmingly oppose removing 
functioning hydropower and its associated benefits. I fully share that 
concern and the disturbing precedent it sets. I think it represents a 
monumental failure that current Federal laws and regulations provide no 
alternative that will allow these dams to be operated as cost 
effectively as they were during the previous licensed term or that will 
allow the Federal Government to fully meet the obligations it made to 
the Klamath Basin agriculture with the development of the Klamath 
Reclamation Project.
  As such, this amendment by itself will, unfortunately, not address 
the underlying issue, which is the environmental extortion that impacts 
property owners across the West and that impacts the hardworking people 
who depend on the land for their livelihoods.
  Our laws are grossly out of balance, so I look forward to working 
with Chairman Hastings and Chairman McClintock on the necessary reforms 
to prevent this continued abuse and to bring greater certainty to the 
Klamath Basin's agricultural community.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I just want to make a point.
  The gentleman from California is correct. We did accept his amendment 
several days ago, an amendment which dealt with the reduction of 
funds--I think it was $1.9 million--but it was not specific to this 
dam; it was specific to the account. So this is a very different 
amendment, and that's why we rise in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  What we're hearing on this amendment and as to the amendment itself 
is certainly a switch from what we've been hearing over the past couple 
of days. I say that because this amendment is a Washington, D.C., 
solution to a very, very local issue.

                              {time}  1650

  This amendment would stop a comprehensive local solution to a major 
and very costly problem in the Klamath River Basin.
  This effort at the local level, supported by farmers and ranchers, 
fishermen, conservation groups, the privately owned power company in 
question, tribes, as well as the States of California and Oregon, it 
has a very bipartisan root. It was negotiated under both the Bush 
administration and the Obama administration.
  It's a study. It does not, nor is it an agreement to, remove any 
dams.
  All the local communities in the Klamath Basin, even those who were 
opposed to dam removal, support the completion of the study and they 
are at the table working on this specific issue.
  Even the California Farm Bureau is in support of completing this 
study. It needs to be noted that only Congress can authorize dam 
removal.
  This amendment is not wanted by any of the stakeholders: agriculture, 
conservation, local government, the dam owners, sportsmen and -women, 
nor the tribes. It will exacerbate the already serious problems we face 
in the Klamath Basin watershed.
  I ask my colleagues to please join me in voting against this bad 
amendment.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, nearly a decade ago the farmers and 
families in the Klamath Basin suffered irreparable harm when two 
government agencies with conflicting demands and questionable data shut 
off water for irrigated agriculture, threatening a way of life and the 
economy of the region. Fertile farmlands turned to dust under the 
summer sun. A wildlife refuge nearly dried up. Some farmers whose 
families had tilled the soil and grown crops for generations lost 
everything and filed for bankruptcy. The stress was too much for some. 
One died of a heart attack and another took his own life.
  Out of that aftermath, the House Resources Committee, then chaired by 
Jim Hansen of Utah and Richard Pombo of California, went to work with 
me trying to find short-term solutions and work on the long term. 
Principals in the basin, as you have heard, found common ground where 
they had been apart, and they reached agreement that they have brought 
forth to KBRA and the KHSA.
  However, it's clear to me that the agreements as written do not have 
those in charge of the Resources Committee today. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) have made that clear. There is little point, then, in 
spending more of the taxpayers' money, especially during these dire 
fiscal times, on an effort

[[Page 2548]]

that is unlikely to move forward in its present form.
  Given that reality, I will support the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock). The House's decision today, however, will not lessen the 
threat to irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Basin. It does not add 
to water storage. It does not provide protection to the ratepayers. It 
does not resolve the water rights disputes.
  It does mean, however, the burden of finding a timely and effective 
solution to conflicts in the Klamath Basin now resides in the Resources 
Committee and those who rejected these plans, because there is no 
escaping the fact that the problems remain, the conflicts grow and the 
courts call all the shots absent legislative action.
  Nearly a decade ago, the farmers and families in the Klamath Basin 
suffered irreparable harm when two government agencies, with 
conflicting demands and questionable data shut off the water for 
irrigated agriculture, threatening a way of life and the economy of the 
region. Fertile farmlands turned to dust under the summer sun. A 
wildlife refuge nearly dried up. Some farmers whose families had tilled 
the soil and grown crops for generations lost everything and filed for 
bankruptcy. The stress was too much for some . . . one farmer died of a 
heart attack and another took his own life.
  Meanwhile, the nation's attention turned to the plight of the Klamath 
Basin farm families and more than 15,000 members of the community 
turned out in a symbolic bucket brigade that stretched from one end of 
town to the other.
  I was a member of the House Resources Committee then, and our 
chairmen, first Jim Hansen of Utah and later Richard Pombo of 
California, responded to my calls for help with hearings and 
legislation. And the Bush Administration weighed in, too. We were 
committed to finding lasting solutions to prevent another water cut 
off. We put in place historic conservation efforts to improve water 
management. We got funds to screen the A canal and to remove Chiloquin 
dam. We created water banks and added to storage--although not by 
enough.
  And then the principals in the Basin who often were on opposing 
sides, spent years trying to find common ground. They worked in good 
faith, tirelessly in search of a long-term plan to prevent another 
water cutoff. They should be commended for their work. And it is the 
culmination of that effort--with all of the controversy that surrounds 
it--that brings us here today.
  It is clear to me, that the agreements as written do not have the 
support of those in charge at the Resources Committee. The gentleman 
from California Mr. McClintock and the gentleman from Washington, Mr. 
Hastings, have made it abundantly clear that they will not move forward 
on the KBRA or the KHSA.
  There is little point in spending more of the taxpayers' money--
especially during these dire fiscal times--on an effort that is 
unlikely to move forward in its present form. Given that reality, I 
will join them today in voting for this limiting amendment.
  The House's decision today will not lessen the threat to irrigated 
agriculture in the Klamath Basin. It does not add to water storage. It 
does not provide protection to ratepayers. It does not resolve water 
rights disputes.
  It does mean, however, that the burden of finding a timely and 
effective solution to the conflicts in the Klamath Basin now resides 
with the Resources Committee and those who rejected this plan, because 
there is no escaping the fact that the problems remain. The conflicts 
grow. And the courts call the shots, absent legislative action.
  I pray that we never have to see a repeat of the disaster of 2001. I 
look forward to working with the Chairman Mr. Hastings and the 
Subcommittee Chairman Mr. McClintock on whatever plan they have in mind 
to bring about a comprehensive, Basin-wide solution. And I know they 
must understand, especially in this water year, how critical prompt 
action is.
  Doing nothing is not an option.

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

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

                   (By Al Switzer and Cheryl Hukill)

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

  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentlemen from California and Arizona.
  This has been a hard-fought battle in my State. In a prior lifetime, 
I was a legislator in charge of the appropriations process for my home 
State of Oregon; and for the 10, 12 years I was in the State 
legislature, this area, this internecine warfare in the Klamath Basin 
over the use of the water resources was a really hot topic.
  As a result, our State and the Federal Government were spending 
millions of dollars in lawsuits. This agreement, this agreement to have 
a study to bury that hatchet and come to an agreement is absolutely 
critical. We have tribes, ranchers, farmers, local officials who have 
all come together to say let's solve this problem at the regional 
level.
  We in Washington, D.C., should not be getting involved. This is a 
long-fought battle that finally has come to some accord. We should let 
it happen and stay out of Oregon and California's business.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentleman from Arizona 
is disingenuous when he says that we didn't know this was about the 
Klamath when we adopted the funding reduction on Tuesday. That was the 
entire context of the debate. I mentioned it over and over again. It's 
not true that this is somehow a surprise if the gentleman was 
listening.
  As to the claim that this is an agreement that has been agreed to by 
all of the political insiders in the area, let me assure the gentleman 
from California that it is opposed by the overwhelming majority of 
voters as tested in several local elections, including the formal 
opposition to the dam removal by the Siskiyou border supervisors 
elected by the people of the region.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I was listening; I did 
understand. Because even though I heard the words, the understanding I 
had with the chairman of the subcommittee and the reason we supported 
it was that the reduction of funds was to the account, not these 
specific projects. So I did listen; I did understand.
  But today we are talking about prohibiting money for the study. And I 
have to tell you that this agreement is to study the potential removal 
of four privately owned dams, not the agreement to remove dams. It is 
designed to bring about significant improvements to both environmental 
conditions and water supplies, certainly, which need to be confirmed 
through the study.

[[Page 2549]]

  The studies are scientific. They deal with engineering and economic 
and environmental-based analysis to determine whether the promise of 
the agreement will occur. And for that reason, we oppose this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I just want to say to the gentleman, the Oregon Public 
Utility Commission has ruled that, from the standpoint of the rate-
paying public, the settlement agreement is preferable to relicensing 
under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, as the 
agreement caps ratepayer cost at $200 million; whereas, fish passage 
costs, because these dams are old, could exceed $500 million, plus an 
additional $200 million for O&M. The amendment would force these costs 
on the rate-paying public without the benefit of accurate benefits and 
costs.
  Being from the Northwest, I want you to know that sometimes, and they 
are just studying this dam removal, but sometimes by taking out dams 
you can restore the original habitat and help the salmon recovery, as 
we are doing on the Elwha Dam project up in Washington State.
  The reason we did it: Because it was going to cost so much to fix up 
the dam, that it was actually cheaper to take them out and restore, and 
this became a major restoration project. So I wouldn't just assume that 
this is not a positive thing.
  I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. He is 
absolutely correct.
  What is being dealt with in the Klamath Basin is an unraveling of a 
serious problem all because the Federal Government has promised more 
than Mother Nature can deliver. And part of what is being considered--
is being supported broadly by Native Americans and business interests. 
We have been working with utilities----
  Mr. DICKS. By the local community.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. A broad range of people in the community. This is 
something that needs to be seriously studied and done right.
  There is a very strong likelihood that if it isn't done properly, 
there may well be something that happens in the Klamath River Basin 
where circumstances move ahead and it's not done in the way that I 
think most people would like.
  So I appreciate----
  Mr. DICKS. And being from Oregon, you realize that it would do a lot 
potentially for salmon restoration.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is a tremendous opportunity for the Klamath River 
Basin. It's a tremendous opportunity for the Native Americans, for 
agriculture, for sportspeople and to avoid the litigation and the 
political squirrel cage that we are in.
  If you go down there and visit the Klamath Basin, you would find, as 
I know my good friend from California has, it's a tremendous 
opportunity. This amendment really would be a mistake.

                              {time}  1700

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

[[Page 2550]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. McDermott

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to plan for, begin, continue, finish, process, or 
     approve the relocation of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration's Marine Operations Center-Pacific 
     from Seattle, Washington, to Newport, Oregon.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am a big fan of NOAA. The scientists 
and analysts at NOAA do extraordinary work for this country. 
Unfortunately, NOAA's process for choosing a location for the Marine 
Operations Center jeopardizes the operation of the Pacific Center and 
is wasting tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
  My amendment would save at least $5 million immediately, and beyond 
that, probably $10 to $20 million in long-term costs. It would defund 
the move of the Marine Operations Center from Seattle to Newport, 
Oregon, for the rest of the year so that there is time for the broken 
process to be looked into.
  Now, this is not a case of sour grapes. If it was what was best for 
the country, I wouldn't fight tooth and nail against some jobs moving 
from one place to another. But the Commerce Department's inspector 
general and the Government Accountability Office have written scathing 
reports about this move and the decision process. They found it is 
among the worst run, least transparent, and least competitive bidding 
processes they have ever investigated. If you want to compare it to the 
Bridge to Nowhere, this is exactly what it is.
  I came from Chicago, and when we looked at something like this, we 
would always say the fix was in. Spending tens of millions of taxpayer 
dollars to dislocate hundreds of families to a site that's frequently 
unavailable for navigation because of dangerous conditions, is not near 
shipyards or maritime suppliers, is more than 120 miles from the 
nearest airport, and will be hugely expensive to run every year makes 
no common sense. And the reports of the inspector general report that 
very clearly.
  Now, Newport is an environmentally sensitive area, and NOAA's own, 
their own private consultants say the site is the least qualified 
destination for the move. Despite all these issues, NOAA has charged 
ahead and been completely unaccountable. NOAA officials are not willing 
to admit their huge mistake and fix it. And this is just plain wrong. 
Taking a breather for the next 7 months while we get a truly 
transparent process is the right thing to do.
  NOAA and Newport are saying that any delay, any examination, any 
looking at this will have catastrophic consequences. That simply is not 
true. We have studies from the CRS and others it won't put contracts at 
risk, it will not increase costs.
  So I rise today to stop the process for the remainder of the year, to 
give NOAA and the Commerce Department time to get their ducks in a row, 
hit the restart button, and stop wasting taxpayer money.

                                      U.S. Department of Commerce,


                                        The Inspector General,

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

       By letter dated March 5, 2010, Chairwoman Maria Cantwell 
     and Ranking Member Olympia Snowe of the Senate Subcommittee 
     on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, requested that the 
     Office of Inspector General review NOAA's decision to award a 
     lease to the Port of Newport, Oregon, to house NOAA's Marine 
     Operations Center-Pacific (MOC-P). Their letter raised 
     several specific questions regarding the decision-making 
     process that resulted in this lease.
       NOAA began the lease acquisition process as early as 
     September 2007, when it initiated a market analysis. It 
     published a Solicitation for Offers for a new lease on 
     November 24, 2008. Four bidders submitted offers, and NOAA 
     awarded a lease to the Port of Newport on August 4, 2009. One 
     of the unsuccessful bidders, the Port of Bellingham, 
     Washington, filed a protest with the Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO) on August 27, 2009--10 days after 
     it received a post-award debriefing from NOAA. On December 2, 
     2009, GAO sustained Bellingham's protest against NOAA's lease 
     award and recommended that NOAA conduct an analysis of 
     practicable alternatives to the Newport offer. In its January 
     29, 2010, response to GAO, NOAA stated that it expected to 
     complete all corrective actions relating to the successful 
     bid protest by May 28, 2010.
       Although the lease acquisition process began in 2007, the 
     decision-making process related to the acquisition can be 
     traced back approximately 10 years. Together, these processes 
     involved several separate offices within NOAA, the 
     Department, and other federal agencies. In addition, they 
     involved many statutory provisions, regulations, NOAA and 
     Department policies, other administrative directives, and 
     changes in personnel. Given the scope and complexity of these 
     processes, we continue to gather and evaluate information, 
     and in order to gain the best understanding of the facts and 
     circumstances surrounding NOAA's process, we will need to 
     continue our work beyond the time by which NOAA intends to 
     finalize its assessment of practicable alternatives.
       Although our review is ongoing, we have identified one 
     issue that warrants higher-level review by NOAA before it 
     finalizes its examination of practicable alternatives. 
     Specifically, based on our review, we believe that NOAA 
     should examine whether it sufficiently complied with the 
     requirement to consider existing federal facilities before 
     pursuing a new lease acquisition. Such an examination will 
     help to ensure that the ultimate decision--whether it be to 
     affirm the original choice or select an alternative 
     approach--is grounded in a more thorough, well-substantiated, 
     and well-documented analysis.
       According to 41 C.F.R. 102-73.10, before acquiring real 
     estate by lease, purchase, or construction, federal agencies 
     should first use space in government-owned and government-
     leased facilities. Similarly, Department of Commerce policy 
     generally disapproves of long-term lease solutions 
     (Department of Commerce, Real Property Management Manual, 
     5.4.1(d) (2003)). These issues are separate, but both relate 
     to how NOAA assessed its options for MOC-P. We address each 
     issue separately here, detailing factors that may potentially 
     impact NOAA's own assessment of how well it followed these 
     directives.
       While there is a lack of detailed criteria against which to 
     measure NOAA's efforts to consider other federal facilities, 
     the Department's Real Property Management Manual does require 
     the Department to make ``every reasonable effort to utilize 
     Government-controlled space'' before leasing space. Our 
     review uncovered some evidence that NOAA considered other 
     federal facilities; however, NOAA was not able to provide 
     evidence that other federal facilities were systematically 
     inventoried, analyzed, and rejected before initiating efforts 
     to acquire a follow-on lease from other sources for MOC-P, 
     nor was the decision to reject other federal facilities well-
     documented.
       For example, we were told by NOAA officials that NOAA had 
     considered collocating with select Coast Guard and Navy 
     facilities, but its consideration was not documented. In 
     preparation for the lease acquisition, NOAA received 
     proposals in mid-2007 for an alternative site analysis to (1) 
     investigate the most functional, efficient, and cost-
     effective options for reconsolidating MOC-P and (2) provide 
     an indication of how each site might perform during the 
     subsequent lease solicitation process. That study, conducted 
     under contract, was completed in September 2008. Of the 32 
     ports, cities, and economic development councils contacted, 
     11 responded, offering a total of 22 potential site options 
     for further analysis. The 22 were further narrowed to a total 
     of 15, only 3 of which were federally-owned: GSA's Federal 
     Center South, the Department of Labor's Tongue Point, and 
     NOAA's Western Regional Center. In November 2008, in an 
     apparent rejection of those federal sites, NOAA issued the 
     Solicitation for Offers.
       NOAA also considered and declined GSA's May 2008 offer to 
     fulfill the MOC-P requirements at the GSA-owned Federal 
     Center South (FCS) facility. NOAA's Western Regional Center 
     (WRC) was also rejected as a

[[Page 2551]]

     long-term solution because of what NOAA characterizes as 
     litigation risks in that area. Having ultimately rejected the 
     use of other federal facilities, it is also unclear whether 
     NOAA adequately considered other required alternatives. 
     Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-94, which 
     requires cost-benefit analyses of decisions on whether to 
     lease or purchase, is an example of other potentially 
     applicable requirements that may apply to NOAA's decision-
     making.
       Our review has thus far uncovered three key issues 
     regarding NOAA's consideration of other federal facilities.
       First, at some time between 2000 and 2007, as detailed 
     below, NOAA may have changed from considering a dispersed 
     model for fulfilling the MOC-P requirement, which could have 
     affected the analysis of available federal facilities.
       Although NOAA's 2008 Solicitation for Offers was limited to 
     the lease of a consolidated facility (which would collocate 
     all ships and staff), it commissioned a June 2000 Homeport 
     Alternatives Analysis, conducted by SRI International, in 
     which it contemplated operating from dispersed facilities as 
     a cost-saving measure. This study was commissioned to explore 
     alternative homeports, given the possibility of the Lake 
     Union lease not being extended beyond 2003.
       The 2000 study indicated that NOAA was seeking to reduce 
     costs by moving MOC-P staff to the WRC. Noting that NOAA. was 
     evaluating split homeporting, the study also explored 
     homeporting two of four MOC-P vessels in Alaska to reduce 
     ship travel time.
       To date, NOAA has not provided an explanation of what 
     factors led to the apparent shift from the 2000 study to the 
     current preference for a consolidated, leased solution. This 
     apparent change in the vision for meeting the MOC-P 
     requirement may have had a significant impact on how NOAA 
     approached its available alternatives.
       Notably, since the July 2006 fire that destroyed the MOC-P 
     piers at Lake Union, MOC-P has operated under a dispersed 
     model, using piers at NOAA's WRC and GSA's FCS. Also, NOAA's 
     Marine Operations Center-Atlantic operates in dispersed 
     facilities. This suggests that a dispersed model may be 
     feasible and should have been assessed as part of NOAA's 
     requirements-planning process.
       Second, NOAA's analysis of how well it considered other 
     federal facilities should include an examination of how 
     thoroughly it analyzed and weighed its potential long-term 
     options at the WRC and FCS, where it currently operates.
       NOAA should consider whether it would have been feasible to 
     maintain its current dispersed configuration while relocating 
     staff to the WRC or other leased offices.
       Specifically, we found that the WRC was dredged in the 
     1970s in anticipation of developing four long piers to 
     accommodate many more vessels, and utilities may already be 
     in place for two additional planned buildings that were not 
     developed.
       Although NOAA has cited neighborhood opposition to expanded 
     use of the WRC and litigation against NOAA in that area in 
     the 1970s, MOC-P has been homeported there since 2006. We 
     have reviewed recent letters from some surrounding 
     neighborhood groups that support locating MOC-P at the WRC. 
     The potential cost savings of using these existing facilities 
     may outweigh the litigation risks.
       Third, GSA's pre-solicitation offer to serve the MOC-P 
     requirements at FCS may have presented a viable federal 
     facility for NOAA's consideration. This is particularly 
     relevant because of the changed circumstances at this site.
       GSA's May 2008 offer arrived well before NOAA issued its 
     Solicitation for Offers in November 2008. NOAA declined this 
     offer one month later, citing the narrowness of the waterway 
     adjacent to the existing FCS pier, the fact that the waterway 
     was a Superfund site, and NOAA's established goal of being 
     operational in a new lease by July 1, 2011.
       Since then, GSA has obtained American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act funds to redevelop three FCS buildings and 
     plans to relocate a large tenant, leaving an existing 
     building potentially available for NOAA, with some 
     modification.
       We have been advised that NOAA currently has access to a 
     pier that is sufficiently equipped and sizable to accommodate 
     three of its vessels.
       Although NOAA has cited concerns regarding underwater 
     property lines, it has not provided an indication that this 
     situation has been a problem during its use of the pier since 
     2006.
       Regarding FCS being a Superfund site, according to a senior 
     official at GSA with whom we spoke, this would be an issue 
     for GSA, not NOAA. While the potential issue exists and an 
     environmental impact statement would be required, Superfund 
     liability would lie with GSA or another FCS tenant.
       NOAA cited its June 30, 2011, deadline for vacating the 
     Lake Union site in its June 2008 letter declining GSA's 
     offer. However, this deadline was driven by the expiration of 
     the Lake Union lease, and suitable workarounds--such as 
     short-term office leases through GSA--may potentially have 
     been available.
       Pursuing such workarounds may have enabled NOAA to garner 
     the necessary time and funding to develop the WRC and FCS 
     individually or together for the MOC-P requirement.
       In our view, NOAA's examination of these issues related to 
     its consideration of other federal facilities will ensure 
     that the final decision regarding practicable alternatives to 
     Newport is thorough and well-documented.
       We noted above that Department policy generally disapproves 
     of long-term lease solutions, and it states that leased 
     facilities should not be considered a permanent solution. Yet 
     although the Newport lease award will commit NOAA to a leased 
     solution for another 20 years, our review of how NOAA 
     approached government-owned solutions found little documented 
     analysis. NOAA has told us that leasing was preferred because 
     acquiring funding for such an acquisition would have required 
     considerable lead time and because funding of facilities has 
     historically received lower priority than other funding 
     requirements.
       NOAA officials also cited the fact that MOC-P has 
     historically used leased sites.
       The relevant documents show that on at least two occasions, 
     NOAA briefly considered acquiring the Lake Union site, which 
     housed all MOC-P operations prior to the fire, but 
     documentation of those efforts was limited to what can be 
     characterized as passing comments. We have not been provided 
     with evidence of systematic efforts to assess the feasibility 
     of purchasing or constructing facilities elsewhere.
       We understand that NOAA's consideration of the practicable 
     alternatives to the Newport site is in progress and scheduled 
     to be completed by May 28, 2010. Although NOAA had the 
     authority to define the scope of the practicable alternatives 
     as it saw fit, it limited its assessment to the four offers 
     that it received under the solicitation. However, considering 
     the range of options that were available to NOAA in 
     government-owned and government-leased space, a broader 
     examination may be warranted as part of this analysis.
       According to NOAA, it is standard GSA practice for lease-
     to-build leases not to include a termination clause in the 
     lease, and such a clause was not included in the Port of 
     Newport award. We understand that NOAA obtained a preliminary 
     estimate of potential lease termination costs from the 
     Department of Commerce Office of General Counsel. However, as 
     part of its decision-making process, NOAA should conduct a 
     rigorous analysis of the potential termination costs and 
     document the specific components of this estimate. As it 
     continues to evaluate its practicable alternatives, it would 
     be prudent for NOAA to minimize these potential costs to the 
     extent possible.
       Whatever conclusion NOAA reaches, it should carefully 
     examine and document all pertinent factors, including those 
     that we have highlighted. In order for both of our offices to 
     be responsive to the Subcommittee, it is important to examine 
     these issues regarding NOAA's consideration of other federal 
     facilities. As we finalize our response to the Chairwoman and 
     Ranking Member, we will follow up with your office to 
     determine what additional information NOAA may have 
     identified.
       If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
                                  ____



                   gao document on port of bellingham

                                Decision

       Matter of: Port of Bellingham.
       File: B-401837.
       Date: December 2, 2009.
     Lee P. Curtis, Esq., Troy E. Hughes, Esq., and Maggie L 
         Croteau, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for the protester.
     James H. Roberts, III, Esq., Van Scoyoc Kelly PLLC, for Port 
         of Newport, an intervenor.
     Mark Langstein, Esq., Lynn W. Flanagan, Esq., and Diane M. 
         Canzano, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency.
     Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of 
         the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation 
         of the decision.


                                 DIGEST

       1. Agency had no reasonable basis to determine that 
     awardee's proposed pier was located outside a designated 
     floodplain area and therefore complied with the 
     solicitation's limitations regarding lease of property 
     located within a base floodplain.
       2. Where awardee's proposed pier construction was within a 
     designated floodplain area, agency failed to properly 
     consider whether there was any practicable alternative to 
     selecting awardee's proposal, as was required by the terms of 
     the solicitation.


                                DECISION

       Port of Bellingham, of Bellingham, Washington, protests the 
     award of a lease by the Department of Commerce, National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to Port of 
     Newport, of Newport, Oregon, pursuant to solicitation for 
     offers (SFO) No. 09WSA0200C to provide office, warehouse, and 
     related space for NOAA's Marine Operations Center-Pacific 
     (MOC-P).
       We sustain the protest.


                               BACKGROUND

       The SFO at issue here was published in November 2008, and 
     contemplated the award of

[[Page 2552]]

     a long-term operating lease to support the activities of 
     NOAA's MOC-P.\1\ Among other things, the solicitation sought 
     offers to provide 31,000 square feet of office, warehouse and 
     related space, 1,960 linear feet of pier space, and 20,000 
     square feet of equipment laydown space. Agency Report (AR), 
     Tab 7, SFO, at 5. The solicitation provided that the lease 
     award would be based on the offer determined to be most 
     advantageous to the government based on application of the 
     following evaluation factors: location of site; site 
     configuration and management; quality of building and pier, 
     availability; past performance and project financing; quality 
     of life; and price. AR, Tab 7, SFO amend. 3, at 2. The 
     solicitation also provided that: ``An award of contract will 
     not be made for a property located within a base flood plain 
     or wetland unless the Government has determined that there is 
     no practicable alternative.'' SFO at 7.
       In February 2009, five offers were submitted by four 
     offerors, including Newport and Bellingham.\2\ Upon review 
     and evaluation of the offers, the agency determined that four 
     of the five offers were in the competitive range.\3\ By 
     letters dated April 20, 2009, the agency advised each of the 
     offerors of their inclusion in the competitive range and 
     identified various issues for discussions.
       Concurrent with its ongoing evaluation of proposals, the 
     agency contracted with an engineering firm to perform an 
     environmental assessment (EA) of the various offers, as 
     required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (NEPA).\4\ In June 2009, the agency published a draft EA that 
     provided in-depth environmental analysis regarding each of 
     the four offered sites; the final EA was published in July 
     with no substantive changes. Among other things, both the 
     draft and final EA stated, under the heading ``Floodplains,'' 
     as follows:

       [Newport's] proposed dock would be within the 100-year 
     [base] flood plain[\5\] (Zone A2),[\6\] and is therefore 
     likely to be impacted by flooding, particularly if the 
     finished level of the dock is below an elevation of nine feet 
     NGVD [National Geodetic Vertical Datum].[\7\] Additionally, 
     there is some potential for the structure to affect the 
     characteristics of flooding in the area, by trapping debris 
     against the piles of the dock and/or altering the way in 
     which floodwaters circulate/flow within the bay.[\8\]

       AR, Tab 20, Final EA, at 5-96.
       During discussions with Newport, the agency brought the 
     floodplain matter to Newport's attention, stating:

       It appears that the offered site and pier are in the 100 
     year flood plain.[\9\] This would be all parts of the site 
     lower than 9 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD) . . 
     . are within the 100-year floodplain (Zone A2 on the FEMA 
     map, base flood elevation of 9 feet NVGD). Please confirm in 
     your Final Revised Proposals (FRP's) that the finished site 
     level and structures will be above the 100 year flood plain 
     (see SFO Section 1.7).

       AR, Tab 15, Letter from Contracting Officer to Newport, May 
     14, 2009, at 1.
       In response, Newport did not alter the location of its 
     proposed pier, nor did it provide any meaningful explanation 
     as to why the pier should be considered to be outside of the 
     floodplain area.\10\ Nonetheless, Newport concluded its 
     response to the agency by stating: ``all proposed facilities 
     and structures will be designed above the BFE.'' AR, Tab 15, 
     Engineer's Memorandum, May 22, 2009, at 3.
       Following submission of final proposals, the agency's 
     source evaluation board (SEB) evaluated the competing offers 
     and concluded: ``As all four offerors met the requirements of 
     the solicitation each offer was analyzed on both its 
     technical and financial merits to determine the awardee of 
     this procurement.'' AR, Tab 22, SEB Final Revised Proposal 
     Summary Report, at 54. With regard to evaluation under the 
     non-price evaluation factors, the SEB concluded that ``Port 
     of Newport's technical proposal was determined to be the most 
     technically sound'' and that ``Port of Bellingham's technical 
     proposal received the second highest ranking.'' Id. at 55. 
     With regard to total evaluated price, the agency determined 
     that Bellingham offered an annual lease price that was 
     significantly higher than Newport's annual lease price of 
     $2,533,439. Id. at 65. Based on this evaluation, the agency 
     concluded that ``Port of Newport has met all requirements 
     outlined in the solicitation, has been evaluated as the most 
     technically proficient offer, and offers the Government the 
     lowest price.'' Id. at 58-59.
       Newport's proposal was selected for award on August 4. This 
     protest followed.


                               DISCUSSION

       Bellingham protests that the agency failed to comply with 
     the SFO provision that stated: ``An award of contract will 
     not be made for a property located within a base flood plain 
     or wetland unless the Government has determined that there is 
     no practicable alternative.'' See SFO at 7. More 
     specifically, Bellingham protests that Newport's proposed 
     pier was clearly within a designated floodplain area; that 
     the agency had no reasonable basis to conclude otherwise; and 
     that the agency was, therefore, required to make a 
     determination as to whether there was a practicable 
     alternative to Newport's offer.
       The agency responds that it ``properly concluded that 
     Newport's offered property is not located within the base 
     floodplain,'' and that, having so concluded, that the agency 
     ``was not required to and properly did not conduct a 
     practicable alternative analysis.'' AR, Tab 2, at 15. In 
     maintaining that Newport did not propose property within the 
     designated floodplain area, the agency refers to the fact 
     that the ``finished level'' of Newport's proposed pier is 
     projected to be higher than 9 feet NGVD (the applicable BFE) 
     asserting: ``[I]f the finished level of the pier were built 
     below 9 NGVD it would be located within the base floodplain 
     and likely impacted by flooding; if it were built above 9 
     NGVD it would not be in the base floodplain.'' Agency 
     Response to Protester's Comments, Oct. 16, 2009, at 2. The 
     agency also references Newport's conclusory representation, 
     provided in response to the agency's discussion question, 
     quoted above, that ``all proposed facilities and structures 
     will be designed above the BFE.''\11\ On this basis, the 
     agency maintains that it reasonably concluded that Newport's 
     proposed pier was outside the designated floodplain area and, 
     accordingly, maintains the agency had no obligation to--and 
     did not--consider whether there was any practicable 
     alternative.
       Our Office has previously considered whether, in leasing 
     real property, an agency has properly considered the 
     particular floodplain requirements that are at issue here. 
     See, e.g., Ronald Brown, B-292646, Sept. 20, 2003, 2003 CPD 
     para.170; Vito J. Gautieri, B-261707, Sept. 12, 1995, 95-2 
     CPD para.131; Alnasco. Inc., B-249863, Dec. 22, 1992, 92-2 
     CPD para.1430; Wise Inv., Inc., B-247497, B-247497.2, 92-1 
     CPD 480; Oak Street Distribution Ctr., Inc., B-243197, July 
     2, 1991, 91-2 CPD para.14; Western Div. Inv.; Columbia Inv. 
     Group, B-213882, B-213882.2, Sept. 5, 1984, 84-2 CPD 
     para.258. In this regard, we have noted that the floodplain 
     requirements flow from Executive Order (EO) No. 11988, 42 
     Fed. Reg. 26,951 (1977), which precludes a federal agency 
     from providing direct or indirect support of flood plain 
     development when there is a practicable alternative. We have 
     further noted that the purpose of EO No. 11988 is to minimize 
     the impact of floods on human health and safety, as well as 
     to minimize the impact on the environment.\12\ See Vito J. 
     Gautieri, supra., at 2-3. In considering compliance with 
     these floodplain requirements, we have held that an agency 
     must, at a minimum, consider whether a proposed structure 
     will be located within a designated floodplain area. See, 
     e.g., Ronald W. Brown, supra., at 1-2 (agency reasonably 
     concluded that floodplain provisions did not bar award of 
     lease where proposed building was not located within the 
     floodplain area, even though the periphery of the site was 
     within the floodplain); see also Oak Street Distribution 
     Ctr., supra., at 3-4 (agency properly awarded lease where 
     proposed building was not within floodplain); cf. Wise Inv.. 
     Inc., supra., at 2-4 (award of lease not prohibited where 
     ground level of site had been elevated by filling).
       Here, based on the record discussed above, there can be no 
     reasonable doubt that Newport's offer proposed to build its 
     pier structure within the designated floodplain area. 
     Further, as noted above, Newport's construction of the pier 
     was a significant aspect of its offer in that the 
     solicitation required offerors to provide a minimum of 1,950 
     linear feet of pier space.\13\ AR, Tab 7, at 7. Finally, it 
     is clear that the pier structure may have an environmental 
     impact on the floodplain area within which it is to be 
     located.\14\
       As discussed above, Newport's proposed pier construction 
     within the designated floodplain area was expressly presented 
     to the agency by the very engineering firm the agency 
     retained to, among other things, inform the agency on 
     floodplain matters.\15\ Consistent with that notification, in 
     conducting discussions with Newport, the agency requested 
     that Newport address the floodplain issue in the context of 
     the location of its proposed pier, yet, Newport did not.\16\ 
     Finally, the fact that the ``finished level'' of the pier may 
     be above the BFE has no bearing on the clearly apparent fact 
     that the pier structure itself is to be constructed within 
     the designated floodplain area, which will, among other 
     things, require Newport to drive hundreds of concrete piles 
     ``approximately 15 feet below the mudline.''\17\ See AR, Tab 
     20 at 4-18. In this regard, neither Newport's proposal nor 
     the agency's contemporaneous evaluation documents, address 
     the specific environmental issues identified in the EA 
     report, including the potential for debris to be trapped 
     against the concrete pier piles or the pier's alteration of 
     the way floodwaters circulate and flow within the bay.
       On this record, there was no reasonable basis for the 
     agency to conclude that Newport's proposal did not fall 
     within the scope of either the solicitation's express 
     floodplain limitations or EO No. 11988's limitations 
     regarding potential environmental impacts. Accordingly, the 
     agency was required to consider the environmental impact of 
     Newport's proposed pier structure and to determine whether 
     there was a practicable alternative to Newport's offer, the 
     record is clear it did not.
       The protest is sustained.\18\


                             RECOMMENDATION

       Since the contract award to Newport failed to comply with 
     the solicitation requirements

[[Page 2553]]

     regarding lease of property within a base floodplain, we 
     recommend that the agency comply with those requirements. 
     Specifically, the agency should consider, and document, 
     whether there was a practicable alternative to Newport's 
     offer. In the event the agency's analysis identifies a 
     practicable alternative, as contemplated by the solicitation, 
     we recommend that the agency implement such alternative, if 
     otherwise feasible. In the event the agency's analysis 
     concludes there is no practicable alternative, it should 
     comply with the procedural requirements established in EO No. 
     11988, as set out above. Further, the agency should provide a 
     copy of its documentation regarding this matter to the 
     parties. Finally, we recommend that the protester be 
     reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing this protest, 
     including reasonable attorneys' fees. The protester should 
     submit its certified claim for costs, detailing the time 
     expended and costs incurred, directly to the contracting 
     agency within 60 days after the receipt of this decision. 4 
     C.F.R. Sec. 21.8(f)(1) (2009).
                                                   Lynn H. Gibson,
                                           Acting General Counsel.
       \1\The MOC-P, which has been located in Seattle, 
     Washington, for more than 60 years, provides centralized 
     management for 10 NOAA ships and is the permanent homeport 
     for 4 of those ships. In July 2006, a fire destroyed a 
     significant portion of MOC-P's facilities, forcing NOAA to 
     reduce the scope of its current lease and distribute some of 
     its ships to alternative locations; what remains of the 
     ongoing lease expires in June 2011.
       \2\Bellingham submitted two proposals.
       \3\Bellingham's second proposal was excluded from the 
     competitive range.
       \4\The agency states that the EA ``was performed by 
     personnel from various technical disciplines including, but 
     not limited to, those with background in port engineering, 
     environmental planning, water resources, wetlands, geology, 
     and marine species and habitats.'' AR, Tab 2, at 15.
       \5\The agency explains that a ``base floodplain'' is an 
     area that is likely to be flooded once every 100 years or, 
     described in the alternative, an area that has a 1 percent 
     chance of flooding during a given year. AR, Tab 2, at 16.
       \6\The agency further notes that base floodplains are 
     designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
     as ``Zone A2'' where FEMA has established a ``base flood 
     elevation'' (BFE)--that is, the level of water surface 
     elevation resulting from a 100-year flood. Id.
       \7\There is no dispute that the BFE applicable to Newport's 
     proposed site is 9 feet NGVD.
       \8\In addition to identifying the location of Newport's 
     proposed pier as being within the designated floodplain area, 
     the EA describes various aspects of Newport's proposed pier 
     structure, stating:

       A new pier for NOAA use is to be constructed to the west of 
     where the existing piers are currently situated. . . .
       Preliminary conceptual design undertaken by the offeror . . 
     . estimated that the new pier would require the following 
     piles:
       70 vertical pier piles (60 edge, 10 middle), which are 18 
     inch diameter, 0.375 inch ASTM 500, filled with concrete to 
     approximately 15 feet below the mudline.
       210 batter pier piles (60 edge, 150 middle), of same 
     construction as the vertical pier piles.
       240 fender piles, which are 12.75 inch diameter, 0.5 inch 
     wall
       22 vertical small boat mooring piles 16 or 18 inches in 
     diameter, 0.375 inch ASTM 500.

       It is anticipated that vibratory methods would be used to 
     drive the new piles, although jetting could used, if allowed 
     by the relevant agencies. . . .

       It is anticipated that approximately 42,000 cubic yards 
     would need to be dredged from the proposed pier site. . . .

       AR, Tab 20, at 4-18 to 4-19.
       \9\In addition to Newport's proposed pier, the EA noted 
     some potential that Newport's proposed buildings containing 
     office and warehouse space might be constructed below the 
     BFE.
       \10\In contrast to Newport's failure to provide any 
     meaningful information regarding the apparent location of 
     Newport's proposed pier within the designated floodplain 
     area, Newport's response did address the other structures on 
     its proposed site.
       \11\Despite the agency's purported reliance on Newport's 
     conclusory representation, the contracting officer expressly 
     acknowledges that Newport's response provided no meaningful 
     information regarding the location of its pier, summarizing 
     Newport's response as follows:

       The Port of Newport provided a response [to the floodplain 
     discussion question] with its FRP that included a statement 
     an[d] analysis dated May 22, 2009, by a professional engineer 
     with KPFF Engineering, that except for the pier, Newport's 
     proposed site was not in a 100-year or base floodplain. [Bold 
     added.]

       AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 10.
       \12\Specifically, EO No. 11988 states:

       [I]n order to avoid to the extent possible the long and 
     short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and 
     modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect 
     support of floodplain development whenever there is a 
     practicable alternative, it is hereby ordered as follows:
       (1) Before taking an action, each agency shall determine 
     whether the proposed action will occur in a floodplain. . .
       (2) If an agency has determined to, or proposes to, 
     conduct, support, or allow an action to be located in a 
     floodplain, the agency shall consider alternatives to avoid 
     adverse effects and incompatible development in the 
     floodplains. If the head of the agency finds that the only 
     practicable alternative consistent with the law and with the 
     policy set forth in this Order requiring siting in a 
     floodplain, the agency shall, prior to taking action, (i) 
     design or modify its action in order to minimize potential 
     harm to or within the floodplain, consistent with regulations 
     issued in accord with Section 2(d) of this Order, and (ii) 
     prepare and circulate a notice containing an explanation of 
     why the action is proposed to be located in the floodplain.

       Protesters Comments on Agency Report, exh. 1, at 1-2.
       \13\In this regard, in defending against this protest, the 
     contracting officer has stated: ``Pier structures are 
     essential to meet the operational requirements of the Marine 
     Operations Center-Pacific.'' AR, Tab 1, at 11.
       \14\As noted above, in addition to concluding that the pier 
     would ``likely be impacted by flooding,'' the EA stated that 
     the pier could potentially affect the area ``by trapping 
     debris against the piles of the dock and/or altering the way 
     in which floodwaters circulate/flow within the bay.'' AR, Tab 
     20, at 5-96.
       \15\As the agency points out, there can be no question as 
     to the qualifications of the personnel that prepared the EA. 
     Specifically, as described by the agency, the EA ``was 
     performed by personnel from various technical disciplines 
     including, but not limited to, those with background in port, 
     engineering, environmental planning, water resources, 
     wetlands, geology, and marine species and habitats.'' AR, Tab 
     2, at 15.
       \16\Indeed, as summarized by the contracting officer, 
     Newport's response to the agency's discussion question 
     regarding the floodplain matter addressed all of Newport's 
     proposed site ``except for the pier.'' AR, Tab 1, at 9.
       \17\Although not specifically addressed by the parties, we 
     note that FEMA has discussed this issue in connection with 
     the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In a booklet 
     titled ``Answer to Questions About the NFIP,'' FEMA has 
     stated:

       75. Does elevating a structure on posts or pilings remove a 
     building from the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?

       Elevating a structure on posts or pilings does not remove a 
     building from the SFHA. If the ground supporting posts or 
     pilings is within a floodplain, the building is still at 
     risk. The structure is considered to be within the 
     floodplain, and flood insurance will be required as a 
     condition of receipt of Federal or Federally related 
     financing for the structure. The reason for this, even in 
     cases where the flood velocity is minimal, is that the 
     hydrostatic effects of flooding can lead to the failure of 
     the structure's posts or pilings foundation. The effects of 
     ground saturation can lead to decreased load bearing capacity 
     of the soil supporting the posts or pilings, which can lead 
     to partial or full collapse of the structure. Even small 
     areas of ponding will be subject to the hydrodynamic effects 
     of flooding; no pond or lake is completely free of water 
     movement or wave action. This movement of water can erode the 
     ground around the posts or pilings and may eventually cause 
     collapse of the structure.

       FEMA Internet Website at wwvv.fema.gov/businesss/nfip/
     fidmanre.shtm.
       \18\In defending against this matter, the agency has 
     requested that we dismiss Bellingham's protest for various 
     reasons, including the agency's assertions that it was 
     legally precluded from awarding the lease to Bellingham due 
     to Bellingham's price and/or that Bellingham's proposal 
     should be similarly viewed as offering a structure within a 
     designated floodplain area. We have declined to dismiss the 
     protest based on the agency's post-protest assertions, since 
     it is not clear that, during the acquisition process, the 
     agency considered either of these matters as a mandate for 
     rejecting Bellingham's proposal. While these matters may be 
     proper considerations by the agency in determining if there 
     are practicable alternatives, in the context of the agency's 
     dismissal requests we view the agency's post-protest 
     assertions as being made ``in the heat of litigation,'' and 
     we will not rely on them as bases for dismissing the protest. 
     See Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, B-277263.2, B-277263.3, 
     Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 para.91 at 15.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. SCHRADER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Frankly, I am not sure exactly where my friend from 
Washington has gotten his facts. Let's be clear up front, if this 
amendment was enacted, NOAA would face termination liabilities well in 
excess of the

[[Page 2554]]

$5 million or $10 million that my good colleague refers to that would 
be in excess of $50 million, and their ability to conduct the mission 
critical activities in the Pacific would be in serious jeopardy.
  NOAA would have neither the authority nor resources to contract for 
alternate arrangements, putting in jeopardy the support of this fleet 
of ships which gather critical data to produce navigational charts of 
U.S. waters, survey fishery stocks, and maintain instruments which 
support tsunami warnings, weather forecasts, and climate research. Let 
me say again for the record very clearly here, after NOAA's current 
lease is up in June, if this amendment were to pass, NOAA would have no 
authority--zero, legal or otherwise--to mobilize its Pacific fleet. It 
would be dead in the water.
  There has been a lot of talk about process; but, frankly, this 
process has been comprehensive, transparent, and legitimate. My friends 
in Washington State have made sure that's the case. After a rigorous 
competitive lease acquisition process that followed GAO guidelines, 
NOAA was awarded a 20-year lease to Newport for the relocation of its 
Pacific fleet in August of 2009, and it subsequently complied with the 
IG report that was referred to and met the guidelines.
  The facts are clear. NOAA made this decision based on merits, not 
politics. Let's not have politics undo a good decision. Newport was a 
superior choice for the taxpayers and the agency's mission in the 
Pacific. It was the number one choice in cost, and it was the number 
one choice in technical merit. In fact, the annual lease of the Newport 
facilities will cost the Federal Government 50 percent less than the 
three competing sites located in Washington State.
  In fact, in 2006, the pier at NOAA's Lake Union, Seattle, facility 
was destroyed by fire and was never even reconstructed by the host 
city. On the other hand, the State of Oregon and the local community 
have spent millions of dollars of their own dollars with no Federal 
support to construct new facilities in Newport. Newport is actually 
ahead of schedule and will be ready to hand over the keys to NOAA on 
May 1 when NOAA's 20-year lease is set to commence. NOAA is 
contractually obligated, Mr. Chair, to commence the 20-year lease in 
May of this year.
  The new facility in Newport brings costs, offsets, and advantages 
that my good friend and colleague from Washington conveniently omits. 
The closer proximity and transit time from the port to the ocean is 
dramatic. Instead of 8 hours from Lake Union, they get to the ocean in 
20 minutes. The new facility is right next to the Hatfield Center, 
Oregon State University, for great research compatibility. And 
importantly, the relocation of NOAA's Pacific fleet represents a huge 
boost to a small rural Oregon coastal community with a great fishing 
legend and tradition that will bring much-needed jobs and translate 
into significant economic benefits. This is a David versus Goliath 
opportunity.
  Over the last 4 days, we've engaged in rigorous debate about the 
fiscal health of our country. For my colleagues that are serious about 
saving taxpayer dollars and reducing our deficit, you should join me in 
opposing the McDermott amendment.
  I yield the balance of my time to the good Representative from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I 
appreciate his leadership. Because this is a process that he has been 
stewarding, being a key congressional partner. I appreciate his 
referencing what has happened here, dating back to August 2009.
  This has been scrutinized. We are friendly rivals in the Pacific 
Northwest. And it's a rare, rare, rare, rare occasion that any Federal 
activity ever leaves the Evergreen State and ends up in Oregon, as my 
good friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, can 
attest because working with Senator Magnuson, he helped vacuum 
functions into the State of Oregon.
  So you can bet that this was flyspecked to the extreme, but the 
advantages are overwhelming. The proximity, the technical effort, the 
local investment has been amazing. So we've been pilloried on this. 
It's been under a microscope, and we've reached the point now that it's 
really past the point of no return. If this ill-advised--but I'm sure 
well-intended--amendment would be adopted by my friend from Washington, 
the Federal Government would be on the hook for more money; it would be 
disruptive for NOAA; and, frankly, it would be a disservice to the 
people who played fair, who went all along the way playing by the 
rules, making the case.
  I strongly urge rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chair, I have good friends, and I know they have 
to defend their hometown as adequately as they want.
  But let me read from the IG's report: ``In our view, the more 
fundamental problems pertaining to NOAA's process prior to the 
competitive lease process, a primary cause of these problems is 
grounded in the fact that NOAA did not subject the MOC-P project to a 
rigorous capital investment planning and oversight process. While the 
Department has clear property policy, NOAA did not follow it. NOAA thus 
proceeded with requirements for its desired option of consolidated 
facility based on justification and consideration of alternatives that, 
on the face and without additional documentation, are significantly 
lacking. NOAA's financial analysis of the four offers submitted in 
response to the solicitation did not assess the total cost to the 
government, and NOAA provided no evidence that it had thoroughly 
considered the operational and logistical implications of the 
relocation.''
  Now that's not two rivals from one State and another. This is the 
Inspector General of the Commerce Department going down and looking at 
the process. And the fact is that the CRS report, dated 30 September 
2010, which I will submit for the Record, says that the Federal 
Government is able to terminate its contracts for convenience. The 
governmental interest is always higher than the commercial interest. So 
the Federal Government can get out of this. They save $50 million. It's 
not going to be $50 million because they still have the pier. They can 
do whatever they want with it, but they do not have a contract with the 
Federal Government for the next 20 years in a place that is very far 
away.
  NOAA has been in Seattle for 40 years. That's true. Whence it was 
created, it was put there for a very good reason. I don't care if it 
goes to Bellingham or it goes to Oregon or where it goes, but there 
ought to be a transparent process.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 177 Offered by Mr. Herger

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to implement or 
     enforce Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule (subpart B of 
     part 212 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations), relating 
     to the designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor 
     vehicle use, in any administrative unit of the National 
     Forest System.

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

[[Page 2555]]



                              {time}  1720

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I'm offering this amendment after much 
frustration and a lack of responsiveness from the Forest Service to 
locally elected officials and the recreation community in northern 
California and across the Nation. For a couple of years now, I and 
northern California constituents I represent have tried many times to 
work with the Forest Service on the 2005 Travel Management Rule. Yet we 
have been completely ignored as the Forest Service presses ahead with 
route designations that in some cases will eliminate more than 90 
percent of the previous access.
  Locally elected officials are now at the point of considering 
litigation against the Forest Service to keep these federal lands open 
to recreation. It is disgraceful that local counties would have to 
spend valuable public funding to preserve access to our own national 
forests. Not only are our counties forced to defend themselves against 
well funded environmental activists trying to turn every acre of 
federal land into some kind of sanctuary, but now also against the very 
agency that is supposed to serve the public.
  For these reasons, I believe it is necessary to impose a 7-month 
timeout on designating these routes.
  Chairman Simpson, ultimately, we want a workable solution, and I hope 
to work with you and Chairman Hastings to ensure a more balanced 
implementation of the Travel Management Rule.
  I hope that my colleagues can support this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would stop a very careful 
planning process that determines what routes off-road vehicles can use 
through our national forests. Now over the past few decades, we know 
that the availability and capability of off-road vehicles has increased 
tremendously. That means more Americans are enjoying access to, and 
recreational opportunities in, their national forests, but the 
resulting proliferation of random routes results in severe impacts, 
particularly on the quality of our water supply and the physical safety 
of national forest visitors.
  The national forests are spectacular lands. There are 193 million 
national forest acres all over this Nation. Oftentimes, we take them 
for granted and fail to realize that the national forests are the 
headwaters for much of our Nation's surface waters. The clean, pure 
water produced on a national forest is a national treasure and the 
economic resource that supports industry and agriculture nationwide. In 
fact, half of the American West gets their drinking water from national 
forests, while in many rural communities, it is 100 percent.
  The proliferation, though, of random trails created by off road 
vehicles, increases erosion and pollution into water sources with no 
possibility for mitigation by culverts or other measures that would be 
available to land managers on designated routes.
  This amendment is poorly considered. The amendment would stop a 
reasonable, locally oriented planning process that has been going on 
for 6 years to allow recreational access to our forests, but to do so 
in a way that also protects the sustainable production of water, 
timber, wildlife, and other natural resources.
  The Forest Service has been called upon to designate which motorized 
routes are appropriate in the eyes of inclusive groups of local 
community leaders, with particular consideration to visitor safety and 
the ability of the Forest Service to comply with its other mandates. It 
is practically impossible to maintain trail conditions without 
designated routes or to avoid accidents to hikers, damaged equipment, 
or even visitors getting lost in the back country.
  Route designation enables land managers to guide motorized users away 
from sensitive wildlife habitats at appropriate times of the year, 
helping to maintain quality herds.
  In summary, the planning process that this amendment would repeal is 
local, driven by longstanding productive partnerships among local, 
State, and federal agencies; Indian tribes; and a diverse array of 
commercial and noncommercial interests. Halting this planning process 
would squander those investments and rebuke the sincere commitment it 
reflects on the part of so many citizens to protect their public lands. 
All who love and use our national forests should oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HERGER. I have to comment that really all we're doing is asking 
for a 7-month timeout so that we--our local officials, our local 
communities have not been counseled with, they have not been brought 
into the process, and to have 90 percent in many areas declared off-
bounds is not reasonable.
  I would like to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman from California is absolutely right. These Travel 
Management Rules are highly exclusionary. They severely limit the 
public's access to the public's own land with devastating consequences 
for the local economies of every mountain town that's affected.
  As Butte County Supervisor Bill Connelly writes, ``the roads within 
the National Forests are used by thousands of residents and visitors 
for transportation and recreation. These activities generate revenue 
for our rural communities which are critical for their survival.''
  This is not a small matter. The Forest Service now controls 193 
million acres within our Nation, a land area the size of Texas. In 
recent years, the Forest Service has utterly reversed the vision of its 
founder, Gifford Pinchot, ``to provide the greatest amount of good for 
the greatest amount of people in the long run.'' Instead, we confront 
an increasingly elitist and exclusionary attitude that is vividly 
illustrated by the draconian restrictions in the forest travel 
management plan. It bears far more resemblance to the public's 
exclusion from the royal forests under King John than to an agency that 
is supposed to encourage, welcome, facilitate, and maximize the 
people's use of our national forests.
  These amendments restore the inclusionary vision of Gifford Pinchot 
by restoring the public's access to the public's land.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MORAN. I would yield those 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. And I rise in opposition to the 
Herger amendment.
  In 2001, the Forest Service finally admitted the obvious--the road 
system through our national forests is far larger than it should be. 
Though the Forest Service can't tell us for sure, the best estimate is 
that the national forests are crisscrossed by more than 308,000 miles 
of roads. That is eight times the length of the entire United States 
interstate system. Forest roads could wrap around the Earth 15 times.
  From 1975 to 1985, the Forest road system doubled. And that is just 
the authorized roads. It is estimated that there are an additional 
60,000 miles of user-created, illegal roads through the forests, cut 
through sensitive areas just because it looked like fun.
  The massive tangle of roads fragments the forest, destroying habitat, 
increasing erosion, and decreasing water quality. And the problems get 
worse each year as the Forest Service road maintenance budget falls 
further and further behind. Real maintenance needs for this massive 
road system just don't happen. The current backlog is estimated to be 
$10 billion.
  And do you want to know how we know it's really so bad? Because it 
was the Bush administration that finally announced in 2001 that a 
planning process for inventory of the road system to

[[Page 2556]]

figure out how many miles of roads it really needed, closing illegal 
roads, and starting to work on a more efficient system, were needed.
  The Herger amendment stops the Bush administration planning in its 
tracks just as it is about to be completed. And I just believe that the 
Members really should not take it upon themselves to end this 7-year 
process that is going to finally bring some order to the Forest 
Service. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Herger amendment.
  Mr. HERGER. Again, we're not saying we shouldn't look at this, we 
shouldn't examine it, we shouldn't have regulations. We should. Those 
of us who live in these areas, we care about the environment more than 
anyone does. That's not the question.
  The question that is being presented and what we're asking for is, 
since the Forest Service has not been consulting with local government, 
they have not been consulting with the local communities, we are asking 
for a 7-month timeout so that they can consult with us and then we can 
continue to come up with a plan where we work together and not have, 
again, an all-powerful government in Washington dictating and 
preventing those that are local from being able to enjoy our own 
recreation in our national forest.

                              {time}  1730

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


              Amendment No. 323 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel of the Department of Agriculture to 
     provide benefits described in section 1001D(b)(1)(C) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a(b)(1)(C)) to a 
     person or legal entity in excess of $250,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, no serious effort to reduce the Federal 
Government is complete without addressing agricultural subsidies. Even 
in time of record high farm prices and profits, we still gave $16 
billion in subsidies last year.
  There are no meaningful limits. They are easily evaded, doubled if 
you are married. They don't cover loan deficiency payments or marketing 
loans. This amendment would establish a hard limit of $250,000 per 
entity.
  In 2009, almost 1,500 entities got $250,000 or more. Something called 
Fidelity National Insurance Titles, probably not a family farm, raked 
in more than $4 million in 2009. For the past 15 years, Riceland Foods 
in Arkansas has collected a half-billion dollars from the taxpayers.
  I strongly urge that you join with me, Taxpayers for Common Sense, 
the Environmental Working Group, Humane USA, a wide variety of groups 
and organizations, to establish this limit, save $100 million this year 
and more in the future, and start us on a path of reform that we can 
realize in the upcoming farm bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to say about this and to my friend from 
Oregon is, I believe we should put farm subsidies on the table. And 
that's why in this bill we have included cuts to very popular 
agriculture red state, if you will, programs, rural development, the 
Farm Service Agencies, and the NRCS. All kinds of conservation programs 
are cut in this. However, there are a number of traditional farm 
programs that we are going to let the ag authorizing committee deal 
with, because that's where they need to be dealt with.
  So I want to say this. While I oppose the gentleman's amendment, I 
don't oppose you seeking a reduction to the subsidies. But we believe 
that this has to be dealt with in the farm bill. And I look forward to 
working with you and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee on that 
when it comes.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking 
agriculture appropriations member, a champion of agriculture reform and 
of agriculture, Congressman Farr.
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise reluctantly because Mr. Kingston and myself, I think, have a 
great deal of respect for how we ought to be managing the future of 
payments, and I concur with his remarks. But I am rising in favor of 
the amendment because I think we have to push the attention to how 
vital it is that we reform this program, and I don't think you get that 
attention without bringing this amendment to the floor and passing it.
  It's going to be hard to implement in the next remaining months, as 
so many of the amendments that we've adopted here in the last 3 days, 
but I do think that it is worth the debate of how we focus on the rest 
of the year. Because, frankly, we ought not to be just paying entities 
in this country hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars because 
they didn't get the price they wanted at the market.
  I represent the biggest growing area, and we don't get any of these 
payments. Not a single farmer. These are just a few entities, and it's 
wrong. So we ought to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It 
is wrongheaded at this point in time, as my colleague from Georgia has 
said.
  The farm safety net is an integral series of compromises and changes 
from 2002 to 2008 that the folks went through in order to come to that 
agreement. To pull out one segment of that safety net, and in an ad hoc 
manner without any testimony, without any references to what it might 
do to the overall program, in my view, is wrongheaded. Next year is the 
time to do this.
  We will go through a rigorous debate across the section. The 
conservation folks will be able to weigh in. All segments of the farm 
safety net will be represented at the table during the farm bill debate 
next year under the leadership of Chairman Lucas. That is the time in 
order to do this.
  We will have opportunities to do this work thoughtfully. There will 
be trades and compromises that will have to be made because, in all 
likelihood, we will have less money under the farm bill next year than 
we had in 2008.
  As an aside, if we could go back to 2008 levels, I'm sure most of our 
agriculture guys would love to do that, since that is the mantra of the 
Republican House this week, to go back to 2008 levels. We'll take that. 
Throw us into the briar patch. But to do this today on an ad hoc, 
pulling this element out and changing it in this manner, is wrongheaded 
and I oppose it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and 
colleague, Congressman Kind, who has been a tireless champion of 
agricultural reform, coming as he does from farm country in the upper 
Midwest.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, and to my good friend from Texas, I hear what 
you are saying. But I have been around here long enough to realize that 
next

[[Page 2557]]

year never comes. The next farm bill that addresses comprehensive 
reform never happens.
  I commend the gentleman from Oregon for offering this amendment and 
trying to begin the process now, because I know how difficult it is.
  In fact, earlier today I offered an amendment, a very straightforward 
amendment, that would end a new American taxpayer subsidy program to 
the tune of $150 million a year that is now going to Brazilian cotton 
agribusinesses, and it was defeated on the floor. That just shows you 
what we have gotten into with these outdated farm programs and the 
institutional interests and the special interests that maintain the 
status quo.
  These large taxpayer subsidies going to a few very large 
agribusinesses have got to end. They are not fiscally responsible, they 
are not responsible to the American taxpayer, they are not helping 
family farmers throughout the country, they are driving up land prices, 
leading to greater consolidation of production in agriculture making it 
very difficult for new beginning farmers to enter the occupation. From 
the State of Wisconsin, where the average farmer's age today is 58 
years old, that's a pretty serious topic for the new generation of 
farmers taking over these farm operations.
  This is difficult, I understand. There are built-in special interests 
fighting reform and maintaining the status quo. But this also has to be 
on the table when it comes to serious budget deficit reduction. It is 
distorting the marketplace, and it's distorting trade policy. And there 
will be more successful WTO challenges against our farm programs unless 
we have the institutional will to change them.
  I encourage support for my friend's amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to make 
three points real quickly.
  Number one, we have shown in this bill that we understand our mandate 
is to reduce spending. We are going to take on ag subsidies.
  Number two, we have already shown that in this bill with cuts to 
rural development, Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service.
  And, finally, we talk about next year? This is last year we are 
debating. We are debating the year in which planting decisions have 
already made.

                              {time}  1740

  This is last year's budget we're still working on. That's why we 
can't do this in the midseason.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close on this 
amendment?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has the right to close.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I have one more speaker, 
and we will close with him.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, I have listened to the language about damaging 
the farm safety net. There is a massive farm safety net in place. We're 
just reducing the safety net to a mere quarter million dollars a year.
  My friend, Mr. Kind, is absolutely right. Tomorrow never comes here. 
I've been on the floor of the House when the House instructed the 
conferees to accept this exact limit. We were rolled by the Ag 
Committee and ignored.
  This is an opportunity for us to not deal with the savings that 
you're taking away from nutrition and from the environmental titles. 
Talk about the safety net. What about your cuts to WIC?
  For heaven's sakes. A hundred million dollars savings to the 
taxpayer. Get started on reform now and join in a bipartisan effort. 
I've been pleased to work with Congressman Flake, Congressman Kind, 
Congressman Ryan. Year after year we have brought these issues to the 
floor and been rolled. Now is the time to start by adopting it and 
changing the system.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I just want to say that the ag section of this bill 
cuts $5.2 billion. Three to four of those billions comes straight from 
production agriculture, not from school nutrition and other socially 
sensitive programs.
  I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Why are we making policy decisions in an appropriations bill? This 
amendment changes current law. This is a decision that needs to be made 
in the context of the next new farm bill. We'll consider the farm bill 
next year in an open and transparent manner. We have a committee 
process that can review the merits of any proposal and all proposals. 
And they'll be debated and they'll be considered and allowed for the 
Members to offer their opinions and cast their votes.
  In fact, if you look at the 2008 farm bill under Chairman Peterson's 
leadership, we made significant reforms. Yes, cuts in the areas, 
lowering the overall payment caps significantly. But I guess the 
opponents of farm programs will not be satisfied with that until every 
last marketing tool has been eliminated.
  I know it is a popular parlor game in some circles to see how far you 
can jerk farmers around, but making these changes midstream in a 5-year 
farm bill is disruptive to market decisions that producers have made in 
some cases years ago. All farmers and ranchers want certainty. They 
plan to work under current law.
  Plain and simple, the author of this amendment wants to change 
agricultural policy, and this debate does not belong in this bill.
  And I would remind my friends, we today, this week, are a part of a 
bold, new, open legislative process. Maybe that's not how you did it in 
the past, but when we do this farm bill, it will be done in committee 
and on the floor in the same open way we're doing this.
  Let the process run its course. Let us work our way through this open 
process when it should be done in the next farm bill next year. Is that 
so much to ask?
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 408 Offered by Mr. Clyburn

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Of the funds made available by this Act for 
     each of the following accounts or activities, 10 percent 
     shall be allocated for assistance in persistent poverty 
     counties:
       (1) ``Department of Agriculture, Rural Development 
     Programs''.
       (2) ``Department of Commerce, Economic Development 
     Administration, Economic Development Assistance Programs''.
       (3) ``Department of Commerce, National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, Construction''.
       (4) ``Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of 
     Education''.
       (5) ``Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of 
     Postsecondary Education''.
       (6) ``Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
     Administration, Training and Employment Services''.
       (7) ``Department of Health and Human Services, Health 
     Resources and Services Administration''.
       (8) ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Economic 
     Development Initiative''.
       (9) ``Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs''.
       (10) ``Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal 
     Assistance Grants, Water and Wastewater''.
       (11) ``Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 
     Administration, Transportation Community and System 
     Preservation''.
       (12) ``Department of the Treasury, Community Development 
     Financial Institutions''.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``persistent 
     poverty counties'' means any

[[Page 2558]]

     county that has had 20 percent or more of its population 
     living in poverty over the past 30 years, as measured by the 
     1990, 2000, and 2010 decennial censuses.
       (c) Not later than six months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, each department or agency listed in 
     subsection (a) shall submit to Congress a progress report on 
     the implementation of this section.

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

                              {time}  1750

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


                             Point of Order

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


                 Amendment No. 566 offered by Mr. Boren

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to require a person licensed under section 923 of title 
     18, United States Code, to report information to the 
     Department of Justice regarding the sale of multiple rifles 
     or shotguns to the same person.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this bipartisan 
amendment with Congressman Rehberg of Montana, my colleague and a 
fellow member of the House Second Amendment Task Force.
  I am proud to report that two important groups have endorsed this 
amendment, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting 
Sports Foundation. Our amendment would prohibit the ATF from using any 
funds in this act to collect information from federally licensed 
firearms retailers about multiple rifle sales.
  Last December, ATF published an emergency request in the Federal 
Register. It asked the Office of Management and Budget for the power to 
collect information from firearms retailers on all sales of two or more 
semi-automatic rifles within five consecutive business days. This would 
include many of today's most popular rifles used by millions of 
Americans for self-defense, hunting, and other lawful purposes.
  ATF officials have said this information collection would apply only 
to licensed firearms retailers in certain States--Texas, New Mexico, 
Arizona and California. However, ATF's request published in the Federal 
Register does not mention a geographic limitation. This means we have 
to take the ATF at its word. I have heard numerous concerns about this 
ATF request from fellow Oklahomans, including sportsmen, gun owners, 
and responsible firearms retailers alike.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose granting ATF this information-
collecting authority for three reasons:

[[Page 2559]]

first, it would subject responsible firearms sellers who are often 
small business owners to burdensome reporting requirements. Second, ATF 
would catalog records on Americans who purchase rifles, thereby 
compromising their privacy. And, finally, ATF lacks legal authority to 
collect this information. The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires Federal 
firearms dealers to report multiple sales of handguns.
  What I'd like to do at this time is yield to my colleague and friend 
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) for any comments he might have.
  Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Boren. And I thank the chairman for 
allowing this opportunity.
  It's one of those situations where you'd like to believe the 
administration is not trying to creep into an area that is not 
necessarily something they would try and slip by anyone. But when you 
talk about gun control, we get very serious about the Constitution and 
the creeping of various rules and regulations in areas that Congress 
has specifically stayed out of, didn't want us to be involved in. And 
so there is always that lingering thought in the back of your mind 
like, what's going on here?
  Now I don't tend to believe that I would be a scary individual, but 
if I were living in one of those four States, I would be in this 
category of having purchased two long rifles because I happened to buy 
a hunting rifle for myself and my son, who was of age. For Christmas I 
went out and bought two, and it throws me into that category. I would 
like to think I'm not considered a gun runner for a Mexican cartel or 
something like that, but that's the effect of a regulation like this. 
And so I hope that we will seriously consider this not necessary.
  We took the action that created regulation on handguns, we understand 
that. But when it comes to a long rifle--we're talking hunting rifles, 
we're talking about other types of rifles that are out there--this 
doesn't really make sense. So I really thank Mr. Boren for taking the 
lead on this amendment. It's really important to those of us who are 
active firearm users.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma and his colleague and 
my colleague from Montana.
  Let me say first and foremost that this was a request having to do 
with the four States on the southwest border. It would not have 
involved our great friend from Montana in his purchase of rifles. This 
was limited to long guns that would have detachable clips. Multiple 
purchases would have been required to be notified. So if someone went 
to buy 1,000 AK-47 assault weapons and semi-automatic clips that were 
detachable, they would have to be reported.
  Now, this reporting requirement already exists for pistols or for 
handguns. There was a request made, OMB denied it, wanted to get a 
series of public comments. So there was no rush on the administration's 
behalf to rush this through under the cover of some emergency order. 
It's been out for public comment. And I think that is a reasonable 
thing to think about whether or not we would want to have a 
notification to our government if someone was buying large quantities 
of assault weapons, especially along the border, which many, many of 
our colleagues have told us about being a place of significant danger 
related to organized crime to the south of our sovereign Nation.
  So this is a request that's been made. It's been met, however, with 
this amendment. And I think we all know the result of what might happen 
here in the House regarding this. I hope that we're prepared to live 
with the consequences of whatever votes we might cast in this matter.
  This has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting rifles or guns used in 
sporting activity. This has to do with long guns with detachable clips 
used for only one purpose, and that is, shooting large numbers of 
rounds and killing large numbers of people. So we should be clear about 
it; it's a request that's been made. It's been noticed on the public 
record for comment by the administration. It relates only to these four 
States. It is modeled after a regulation that already exists now for 
handguns. So I know that some may get paranoid about these issues, but 
I think we should have at least some paranoia about what this could 
portend if we don't take reasonable action in the protection of the 
citizens that we've been elected to protect.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

                              {time}  1800

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania has the right to close.
  Ms. CHU. Thirty thousand.
  That's how many people were violently slaughtered by the Mexican drug 
cartels in just 4 short years. One of them was Bobby Salcedo, an 
American citizen and rising star from my district. He was kidnapped and 
murdered last year with a semiautomatic rifle.
  I oppose this amendment because it makes it harder to stop these 
types of violent acts. This amendment will prevent the tracing of bulk 
sales of the military-style rifles, popular with cartels, that have 
resulted in tragic murders like Bobby's. Last year, the U.S. military 
announced that, if the drug war continues, it could cause the Mexican 
Government to collapse, and the cartel war could spread over the border 
into the U.S. This amendment makes the drug war worse.
  Every day, people are dying from this war, even American citizens. We 
must stop it, and we can by opposing this amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I don't know if anybody has noticed what has gone on 
in Mexico recently. The previous speaker just spoke of the drug wars 
that are going on. It's a known fact that much of the equipment that's 
used to carry on those wars comes from the United States and is 
smuggled into Mexico.
  This is a very sane and necessary attempt to slow down the 
availability of high-caliber, high-capacity automatic weapons that are 
smuggled into Mexico. It makes no sense not to know what's going on, 
because this is dramatically affecting the border States and American 
citizens who happen to be in Mexico.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this amendment is very 
simple. It prevents the ATF from imposing burdensome reporting 
requirements on responsible firearms retailers; it protects the privacy 
and Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens; and it ensures 
that the ATF will not circumvent the will of Congress.
  Again, I remind my colleagues that this amendment carries the full 
support of the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting 
Sports Foundation.
  I urge adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, 48 hours ago, two officials of the United 
States Government, ICE agents, were attacked. They were in an armed 
vehicle which was traveling south of the border. One of those agents 
died. The assault weapons used in this incident, like tens of thousands 
of them that have found their way into Mexico, have crossed the border 
through these legal purchases.
  This is about notification to the Department of Justice. It doesn't 
stop the sale. It notifies the DOJ that large amounts of these guns 
have been purchased. I think it's a reasonable thing. I leave it to my 
colleagues to make a

[[Page 2560]]

reasonable judgment about this amendment.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment serves no legitimate purpose and would only compromise 
our national security and put more Americans in harm's way.
  By barring the use of Federal funds to mandate Federal firearms 
dealers to report the sale of multiple long guns such as semiautomatic 
assault rifles, this amendment would undermine the Obama 
Administration's efforts to combat cross-border illegal gun 
trafficking.
  We must do everything we can to secure the border, strengthen our 
anti-gun-trafficking efforts, and help the Mexican Government fight the 
drug cartels.
  The Mexican drug cartels are killing people at a staggering rate--
more than 30,000 since 2006. And long guns are widely known as the 
cartels' weapon of choice.
  Some may shrug their shoulders and conclude this is just another 
problem beyond our reach. That would be a mistake.
  The drug cartels are getting their guns from the United States.
  Since 2006, the ATF has seized more than 10,000 firearms and nearly 
one million rounds of ammunition destined for Mexico, where the public 
is not allowed to purchase or possess guns.
  Authorities in Mexico say most of the guns used in police 
assassinations and cartel bloodshed originate in the United States and 
have pressed the U.S. to reduce the flow of weapons south.
  And this isn't just a border state problem. The impact of this 
trafficking is felt in my hometown of Chicago.
  According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug 
trafficking organizations have infiltrated small and large cities in 48 
U.S. States, affecting our national security.
  For example, Mexican drug cartels have a significant presence in 
Chicago, which Federal officials say is a key transfer point for drugs 
heading to Minnesota and points north and east.
  Last year, eleven alleged drug traffickers with connections to the 
Sinaloa Cartel were indicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in 
Chicago as part of ``Project Deliverance,''--a multi-state and agency 
effort to disrupt the flow of drugs and guns across the border.
  The drug cartel's violent war for control, which is fueled by illegal 
trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico, seriously impacts our public 
safety.
  The ATF's proposal to compel federal firearms dealers to report the 
sale of multiple long guns is not about gun control or compiling a 
registry of long gun owners.
  This is a law enforcement response to the evidence from successful 
tracings of weapons recovered in Mexico.
  Recent tracings show that a large number of these weapons were first 
sold by a licensed gun dealer in California, Arizona, New Mexico, or 
Texas.
  This amendment would undermine law enforcement's capacity to combat 
illegal gun trafficking and put Americans at even greater risk of gun 
violence.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 145 Offered by Mr. Forbes

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. FORBES. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start off by saying that this is an amendment 
that the Congressional Budget Office has said is cost neutral, so we 
are not talking about revenue coming in or going out. The second thing 
about this amendment is that it is not dispositive--it doesn't 
ultimately make a decision. The third thing is that this is an 
amendment that is supported, not only by the chairman of the House 
Armed Services Committee, but by every single subcommittee chairman of 
the House Armed Services Committee.
  So what does it do?
  It simply states that, before we turn out the lights on the men and 
women who, without question, have the most expertise and experience and 
who have had the legal authority to assemble the teams to fight our 
wars and to respond to our national emergencies, we are going to know 
who will replace them.
  Any time this Nation faces a crisis, there are two observations that 
always emerge. First, we realize how ineffective our government 
agencies are in assembling cross-agency teams to respond to that 
crisis. Second, we realize how good our military is at putting those 
teams together.
  One of the reasons for our military's success is that, for over a 
decade, whether we go to war or defend our homeland, the military does 
it as a team. They can bring together a Coast Guard cutter, Army 
Special Ops units, a marine expeditionary unit, an Air Force squadron, 
a Navy carrier group, Reserve units, and when needed, even allied 
partners in a combined response that we call ``jointness.''
  It is a competitive advantage for which no nation in the world can 
rival us; yet, as hard as it is to believe, it is an advantage we did 
not have just 20 years ago.
  One of the reasons we have that advantage is that, for over a decade, 
a single group has had the legal authority to bring those teams 
together, and that was the Joint Forces Command. They have assembled 
the majority of our forces in Iraq, a majority in Afghanistan; they've 
had control of over 80 percent of our continental U.S.-based combat-
ready conventional forces; and they've assembled our military teams for 
our national disasters.
  On August 9, 2010, the Secretary of Defense announced he was closing 
that command allegedly to save money; but the next day, when the 
Pentagon briefers came, they were asked by the House Armed Services 
staff one question: How much money will you save?
  Their answer was, ``Not a clue.'' We don't have a clue.
  For days, weeks, months, Members have been asking how much this is 
going to save and who is going to be able to put teams together when 
this command is gone. The Pentagon's response has been deafeningly 
silent. It is not because they are bad people; it's just because they 
don't know the answer.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply says the answers to those 
questions are too important for us not to wait until September 30, 
which is all this amendment does, to give our committees and this body 
the chance to get the answers and to make sure we do not go back 20 
years.
  If there is any Member in this room who can answer even the most 
basic core question presented by this closure, which is who will 
ultimately have the legal authority and expertise to put together the 
teams we need to fight our wars and respond to our crises, then you can 
vote with good conscience against this amendment; but you cannot, 
because nobody at the Pentagon can answer that question either.
  Mr. Chairman, this Nation deserves a better answer than ``we don't 
have a clue,'' and this amendment gives them a chance to find that 
answer.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. The amendment would prohibit the use of funds to take any 
action to dis-establish the Joint Forces Command. In FY 2010, Secretary 
of Defense Gates recommended dis-establishing the Joint Forces Command, 
and

[[Page 2561]]

included this as part of his efficiencies initiatives in the fiscal 
year 2012 budget request.
  On January 6, 2011, President Obama issued an official memorandum 
accepting the recommendations of Secretary Gates and of chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, and approved dis-establishment of 
Joint Forces Command.
  The Department of Defense expects to save at least $240 million 
annually by dis-establishing the command. The chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff retains responsibility for promoting joint operations 
and essential functions. The resources needed to perform these 
functions will be assigned to other organizations in Hampton Roads and 
the Navy support activity in Norfolk, Virginia. All told, DOD estimates 
that about 50 percent of the current level of effort will remain in the 
Norfolk, Virginia area.
  We've been through so many rounds of BRAC. I can sympathize with the 
gentleman from Virginia, and I understand his concerns about this.

                              {time}  1810

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


                Amendment No. 146 Offered by Mr. Forbes

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by division A of 
     this Act for Department of Defense, Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-wide may be used for official 
     representation purposes, as defined by Department of Defense 
     Instruction 7250.13, dated June 30, 2009.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, since 2006 the taxpayers have entrusted the 
Department of Defense with over $2.5 trillion, and the law has required 
that the Department of Defense make sure

[[Page 2562]]

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

                              {time}  1820

  Auditable financial statements have long been a goal of the 
Department of Defense. The committee has long pressed DOD to improve 
the quality of its financial management, and will continue that effort 
in the coming year. However, eliminating official representation funds 
is not connected to that goal. And limiting these funds would have 
damaging consequences.
  The amendment would preclude activities associated with hosting 
military to military contacts, both domestically and overseas. The 
activity extends official courtesies to guests of the United States and 
the Department of Defense, and upholds the prestige and standing of the 
United States. The amendment would also harm the military services' 
ability to conduct community relations activities.
  The amendment hurts DOD's ability to represent itself to foreign 
Nations and to the communities in which DOD activities are located. And 
it does so with very little payback. The bill before the House cuts 
over $15 billion on a bipartisan basis from the Defense Department 
budget on careful analysis of DOD programs. The approach in this bill 
yields both a higher payback and does not have the drawback of 
unintended consequences.
  Therefore, I urge rejection of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I rise 
in support of efforts to highlight the need for the Department of 
Defense to become audit ready.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense was instructed by Congress to 
provide taxpayers with audited financial statements for the first time 
in the 1990s. Now it's 2011, more than 20 years later, and we are still 
talking about the same issue while our country faces a grave economic 
downturn.
  As a CPA, I understand the painfully difficult process that will go 
into auditing the largest enterprise on the face of the Earth. But as 
General Petraeus told us last year, hard is not impossible. The 
American people made a very clear statement last November that they're 
ready for their government to get its fiscal house in order. The 
Department of Defense cannot continue to get a pass on this issue. We 
cannot allow the status quo practices to hinder our ability to provide 
for the finest military the world has ever known.
  This challenging goal will require buy-in from the top down, and it 
begins with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We call on him for 
sound leadership to exercise fiscal responsibility. I will continue to 
press Defense officials across the river to get their fiscal house in 
order. We must not be having this conversation two decades from now. 
Support this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, my good friend mentioned that we need to 
put something in regulations or statutes to make the Department of 
Defense comply. We have done that. They have had it in statute. The law 
requires that they do it, and we have had it in there, and they have 
just failed to do it 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and they won't do it this 
year. And they admit that they are not a bit closer.
  The second thing is, we mentioned unintended consequences. There are 
no unintended consequences with this amendment. We intend the 
consequences. You got to stop the partying until you do what the 
taxpayers are entitled to have required by the law, and that is just 
account for where the money is going. We can't determine how much we're 
going to spend on defense if we don't know where those dollars are 
going.
  I hope we will adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 333 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I just want to begin with a map of Arizona, 
showing all of the colored areas of Arizona that are actually Federal 
property, over half of the State. My amendment deals with PILT and 
Federal payments to places like Arizona, which is on a continuing 
welfare system of government spending and has been for many, many 
decades.
  Let me now show you the State of Ohio, where there are proposals that 
the Community Development Block Grant funds in the base bill are being

[[Page 2563]]

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

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

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

                              {time}  1830

  But while the counties don't get any taxes from Federal lands, they 
don't have to provide services on those lands either. In fact the 
opposite occurs. The national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests 
and BLM lands and the staffs of all these provide very valuable 
services and substantial revenue and jobs to the western counties, and 
the public lands provide ecosystems that are worth billions.
  Without clean water and open space, imagine. You wouldn't have the 
communities, the agriculture, that we seem to take for granted. In 
fact, the States get fully half the mineral receipts that come from the 
coal, oil and gas that is owned by the Federal taxpayer. The gentlelady 
makes a very important point that is worthy of consideration.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this is such a bad amendment. It's one of 
the few amendments I've ever seen that actually leaves me speechless, 
so I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the map you see in front of you is 
not the coverage area for Verizon. Everything that is red on this map 
is land that is owned by the Federal Government. One in every 3 acres 
in America is owned by the Federal Government and as you can clearly 
see it is disproportionate here in the West.
  This of course is the gentlewoman from Ohio's region. This is my 
district. And until such time as my district resembles her district, in 
the ability of us to control our future and our resources, payment in 
lieu of taxes is not welfare to the West, it is simply rent on the land 
that you control; until such time as the Secretary of the Interior's 
decision--which the Inspector General said was capricious and 
arbitrary--does not destroy 3,000 jobs in a county with only 31,000 
inhabitants; until such time as $1.9 billion in investment leaves the 
West to go to the East where there are fewer regulations;

[[Page 2564]]

until such time as somebody from the East who comes to frolic in the 
public lands of the West and consumes the entire county's search and 
rescue budget in 1 day, until that is changed, PILT is not welfare, it 
is rent on the land you control.
  I want you to look carefully at this map. See where the red is. Then 
I also want you to look at this particular map. States in red are the 
States that have the hardest time funding their education system. That 
is the slowest growth in education. I hope you realize there is a 
similarity between the two particular maps. Because the bottom line is, 
individuals in the West pay more in State and Federal taxes than in the 
East. There are more kids in the West. We have larger class sizes in 
the West. Our education system has a harder time to fund itself in the 
West because this map prohibits us from developing our property taxes, 
developing our energy royalties, developing high-paying jobs with 
income taxes, so kids are hurt in the West. This map and this situation 
means that kids are underfunded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Kids in the West, their education is underfunded, 
their teacher salaries are depressed, and my retirement is threatened 
because of this particular situation. When this changes, there will be 
no more need for PILT. But until that time comes, this is not welfare; 
this is rent on the land you control. To be honest, we'd rather have 
the land back, but until that time, pay for what you control.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Is the gentlewoman's time expired?
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio has expired.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady from Ohio may actually 
have stumbled upon something, and if she's ready to actually help us, 
so a State like Arizona, we can actually own our land, great. But until 
that time, you've got to understand, only 18 percent of our State is 
privately owned. Tribal lands, Federal lands, BLM lands, other 
government lands. Are we ready to start paying the full property tax 
load? I was the county treasurer in Maricopa County and huge portions 
of our county, we can't even touch. If you want a sense of fairness, 
then we step up and we give the land back to the State. Until that 
time, this borders on silly.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. There are over 20 million 
acres of Federal land in Colorado. I want to be clear with, of course, 
great respect to my colleague from Ohio. This is not in any way, shape 
or form a giveaway to our counties. This is land we cannot tax, we 
cannot develop, we cannot benefit from. In fact, PILT payments are 
insufficient. They're too low to compensate for the burden of having 
all this land that's not part of our local tax base. It is a burden. In 
fact many of our counties have to actually spend money maintaining this 
land because some of the Federal infrastructure isn't sufficient as 
well. There is nobody who's making out like a bandit from this and it's 
all we can do to justify the fact that the Federal Government owns a 
lot of land.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to yield--I think I just have 30 
seconds left; is that correct?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 1 minute left.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Arizona.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I want to thank the chairman for yielding.
  I have to remind my good friend from Ohio that as the West was 
settled, it was people from Ohio and Virginia and the Midwest that were 
making these laws that created most of the western States to be 80 
percent, 70 percent, 90 percent Federal lands.
  In order for us to be able to have somewhat of a tax base because of 
the limited private property we have, we need to ask the Federal 
Government to pay its share. You cannot in many cases develop 
economically these lands because people from the East prohibit us from 
developing these public lands. I just want to throw that out as a 
reminder.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I just want to rise in very strong opposition. Being a 
westerner, I have counties in my district that receive these payments. 
I think it's justified. I appreciate the fact that the new majority has 
tried to protect these payments. It's very important in the West.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Let me just conclude by saying I have one county that's 
96 percent Federally owned. Ninety-six percent. That means 4 percent of 
the property is taxable in order to provide the services for all of you 
that come out and enjoy the beauty in the county.
  Do you think PILT payments are appropriate? I think they are and I 
would hope that we overwhelmingly reject this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Polis

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

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

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

                              {time}  1840

  This step would save $278 million and improve our national security.
  Reducing our troop levels would save money, personnel costs, housing 
expenses and the cost of stationing troops abroad. On top of these 
savings, my amendment will allow us to close bases across Europe that, 
quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, are relics of a bygone era. Rather than 
fighting the demons of the past, we need to focus on

[[Page 2565]]

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

[[Page 2566]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 498 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Ohio

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by division B of 
     this Act may be used to develop, carry out, implement, or 
     otherwise enforce proposed regulations published June 18, 
     2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 34,667) by the Office of Surface Mining 
     Reclamation and Enforcement of the Department of the 
     Interior.

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

                              {time}  1850

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

[[Page 2567]]

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

                              {time}  1900

  Generations from now our grandchildren will ask if we don't stop this 
practice now, if we don't give the government the resources, they will 
say: How could you let this become this?
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 583 Offered by Mr. Reed

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to change any rate of salary or basic pay pursuant to 
     section 1113 of Public Law 111-32.

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


                Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Matheson

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used for the Community Connect broadband grant program 
     administered by the Rural Utilities Service of the Department 
     of Agriculture.

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


               Amendment No. 496 Offered by Mr. Matheson

  Mr. MATHESON. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The total amount of appropriations made available 
     by this Act (other than for the Departments of Defense and 
     Homeland Security) is hereby reduced by $600,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment addresses issues of nonessential travel by Federal 
employees that are not involved in the Department of Defense or 
Homeland Security.
  Simply stated, the amendment says that appropriations made available 
by this act are hereby reduced by $600 million for all departments 
except for the Department of Homeland Security and Department of 
Defense.
  I originally was going to do an amendment that specifically talked 
about reducing nonessential travel. I was concerned about a point of 
order. So this amendment does not specifically mention nonessential 
travel. However, based on advice of the fiscal

[[Page 2568]]

commission, the travel cuts could be proposed. And both Democrats and 
Republicans on the fiscal commission thought that this was a productive 
area to look for savings.
  I decided to structure this amendment in a way that would not be 
subject to a point of order. But its intent is to reduce nonessential 
travel by Federal employees in departments outside of the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
  That is a description of my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we in this bill made it a point 
of being very careful about the cuts to the DOD and Homeland Security. 
We think it's the reasonable approach that's in the base bill. We do 
not need this type of a heavy, deep cut in the defense of the country 
here and abroad.
  So I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. MATHESON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. MATHESON. My amendment affects departments other than Defense and 
Homeland Security. It's only for nonessential employees in other 
Federal departments outside of those two.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Is this an across-the-board cut of the other 
agencies?
  Mr. MATHESON. It's a goal across all of the other departments, all of 
the other appropriations areas, except Defense and Homeland Security 
are excluded.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. But it's across the board?
  Mr. MATHESON. That is correct.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I'm in strong opposition to across-the-board 
cuts. We were elected to make choices. And on this bill we've made our 
choices, and we think we've done a fairly decent job of spreading the 
pain across the board.
  But to have an across-the-board cut would mean putting our 
decisionmaking on automatic pilot, refusing to make decisions. And 
that's what we were elected to do.
  So I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATHESON. I don't want to prolong this debate. I just want to 
point out, absent concerns of a point of order I would have 
prescriptively said this is specific to do with nonessential travel of 
Federal employees.
  Due to concerns about a point of order, we structured this amendment 
where it says this is a cut of $600 million. However, the intent and 
hopefully the report language when folks in these agencies look at the 
debate that's taking place right here on the House floor is that it's 
addressing nonessential travel.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  The amendment was rejected.


           Amendment No. 274 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers

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

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

                              {time}  1910

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


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in 
the budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under 
section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5 of the 112th Congress which 
states, ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a 
general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget 
authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment 
or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget 
authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI. The amendment proposes a 
net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such 
section.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Washington.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, my colleague alleges that my 
amendment would create a net increase in budget authority in the bill, 
thus giving rise to the point of order. I respectfully disagree for the 
following reasons:
  Number one, the challenged provision in this point of order relates 
to the IRS's ability to ensure small business owners do not take 
advantage of the

[[Page 2569]]

limited tax credit that currently exists. This tax credit is already in 
place. The IRS is already supposedly enforcing this provision. So I do 
not agree with the conclusion that this amendment, which simply limits 
the IRS from hiring more employees, would allow abuse of the tax 
credit.
  Number two, I would remind my colleagues that last session, during 
our consideration of YouCut, CBO indicated that over the next 10 years 
the IRS will require between----
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object. I don't think the gentlelady is 
addressing the point of order. She is reiterating the argument.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would like to hear further remarks from 
the gentlewoman from Washington on this point of order.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Number two, CBO has indicated that over the next 10 years the IRS 
will require between $5 and $10 billion in funding to implement this 
law.
  Number three, just last week the IRS said it will need at least 1,054 
new employees and new facilities at a cost of more than $359 million in 
fiscal year 2012. Eighty-one workers will be responsible for ensuring 
that tanning salons pay a new 10 percent excise tax that went into 
effect in 2010 and is enforceable in 2011; total cost, $11.5 million.
  Mr. Chairman, with the points raised above and the established 
savings, it is clear that the offsets are not needed and my amendment 
is in order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York makes a point of order 
that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington violates 
section 3(j) (3) of House Resolution 5. Section 3(j)(3) establishes a 
point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget 
authority in the pending bill.
  The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the Chair 
of the Committee on Budget that the amendment proposes a net increase 
in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order is 
sustained and the amendment is not in order.


               Amendment No. 467 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to develop, promulgate, evaluate, implement, provide 
     oversight to, or backstop total maximum daily loads or 
     watershed implementation plans for the Chesapeake Bay 
     Watershed.

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

                              {time}  1920

  We've seen increased crab and oyster populations and an increase in 
underwater grasses. The bay is coming back to life. The agreed-upon, 
negotiated, detailed, multistate plans have the potential to finally 
restore the Chesapeake Bay if everyone does his part.
  The amendment, though, would block any Federal agency's ability to 
work with the States in meeting pollution reduction targets for the 
entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. If we don't meet this obligation, the 
farmers, municipalities, and businesses in all the States will be 
economically harmed.
  If this amendment were to pass, it would not relieve the farms, 
businesses, and municipalities from their requirements in the court 
ordered settlement, but it would turn the pollution limits into an 
unfunded mandate since it would also block any Federal agency from 
providing technical and Federal assistance to bring farms, businesses, 
and municipalities into compliance with pollution reduction goals.
  Clearly, this amendment is designed to and will unravel the current 
effort to finally put a limit on nutrient and

[[Page 2570]]

sediment pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. Agriculture accounts for 42 
percent of today's nitrogen, 46 percent of today's phosphorus, and 72 
percent of the sediment entering the Chesapeake Bay.
  This amendment would break up the existing Federal, State, local, and 
private partnership by prohibiting any Federal financial assistance to 
farmers, municipalities, and businesses that are working to improve the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would set aside the tremendous progress 
this Congress has made in restoring the bay.
  The pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is also a jobs killer for the 
citizens in its watershed. If this amendment passes, it will ultimately 
result in a loss of thousands of fishing, crabbing and tourism jobs.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to retreat on our 
commitment to restore this great estuary nor to kill the thousands of 
jobs that their survival depends upon. So I urge my colleagues to 
reject this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the chairman of the Conservation Subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman from 
Virginia's amendment.
  The Total Maximum Daily Load is a mandatory diet to restrict nutrient 
and sediment runoff from point and nonpoint sources in the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed. EPA's proposed regulations will have a devastating 
economic impact on my constituents and throughout Pennsylvania. 
Unquestionably, the bay is in need and is truly worthy of our support, 
but this is just one more example of how EPA is trying to bypass 
congressional authority through backdoor regulations and unfunded 
mandates.
  EPA has based the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs on its own model even though 
it is inconsistent with the models prepared by the Department of 
Agriculture. The head of USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service 
has recently gone so far as to say EPA's data on conservation practice 
is erroneous. Agriculture is not receiving the credit it deserves 
towards reducing nutrient and sediment runoff; yet EPA is forcing the 
bay States to move forward on unreasonable mandates, using the agency's 
flawed bay model. EPA will not even perform an economic analysis of the 
TMDL when the proposed unquestionability will have severe economic 
impacts on our Nation's farmers and rural communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote in its 
favor.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MORAN. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my 
colleague that would prohibit the use of funds made available by this 
bill to ``develop, promulgate, evaluate, implement, provide oversight 
to, or backstop total maximum daily loads or watershed implementation 
plans for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.'' In essence, the amendment 
would prohibit the EPA from spending any funds on the Chesapeake Bay 
total maximum daily load initiative in order to monitor and oversee 
pollution reduction into the Bay. It would result in rolling back the 
progress we have made on pollution reduction and restoring the 
Chesapeake over the decade. It would negatively impact not only the 
physical landscape of the Bay, but also the economic import and success 
of the Bay. And it would unfairly place the financial burden of 
reducing pollution squarely on the Chesapeake Bay states.
  The Chesapeake Bay is North America's largest and most productive 
estuary, with thousands of tributaries and 64,000 square miles of 
watershed that includes six states and the District of Columbia. The 
Bay supports more than 3,600 species of plants, fish and animals, is 
home to 29 species of waterfowl, and is a major resting ground along 
the Atlantic Migratory Bird Flyway. In addition, the Chesapeake is a 
commercial and recreational resource for the more than 15 million 
people who live in its basin, as well as visitors and tourists. Taking 
care of the Chesapeake Bay is vital to the environment and the economy, 
for recreation and natural resources, and for wildlife and the way of 
life in the Bay area. We use the Bay for recreation, agriculture, 
industry and navigation.
  Just to give you a sense of the economic importance of the Bay, the 
2008 Fisheries Economics of the U.S. report by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration indicated that commercial seafood industry 
in Maryland and Virginia contributed $2 billion in sales, $1 billion in 
income, and more than 41,000 jobs to the local economy. The economic 
benefits of saltwater recreational fishing contributed $1.6 billion in 
sales which in turn contributed to more than $800 million of additional 
economic activity and roughly 13,000 jobs. The majority of this is from 
the Chesapeake Bay.
  When we don't expend efforts to care for the Bay, that also has an 
economic impact. For example, in the area of commercial and 
recreational fisheries, the blue crab population continues to be 
threatened by poor water quality. When the broader impact on 
restaurants, crab processors, wholesalers, grocers, and watermen is 
added up, the decline of crabs in the Bay meant a cumulative loss to 
Maryland and Virginia of about $640 million between 1998 and 2006. 
Similarly, Oyster populations are threatened due to a combination of 
overharvesting, disease, and poor water quality. The decline of the Bay 
oyster over the last 30 years has meant a loss of more than $4 billion 
for Maryland and Virginia. In the area of public health, one study 
estimated the cost associated with exposure to polluted recreational 
marine waters to be $37 per gastrointestinal illness, $38 per ear 
ailment, and $27 per eye ailment due to lost wages and medical care. 
And with regard to clean water specifically, an EPA study indicated 
that clean water can increase the value of single family homes up to 
4,000 feet from the water's edge by up to 25%. Perhaps most important, 
an EPA study of drinking water source protection efforts concluded that 
for every $1 spent on source water protection, an average of $27 is 
saved in water treatment costs.
  Unfortunately, deterioration of the Bay and how to best address the 
problem has been a concern for more than two decades. When I served in 
the Virginia House of Delegates, I was part of a joint Virginia-
Maryland legislative task force that first recommended the creation of 
a multi-state commission to address Bay issues. We filed a report in 
1980 which recommended ``the need for improved coordination of Bay-wide 
management to meet the long-term needs of the people of both Maryland 
and Virginia.''
  We have made great strides since then with the combined efforts of 
the federal government, state and local governments in the watershed, 
the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, EPA, and 
all of their private partners over the last two decades. But we are far 
from done.
  One of the most significant challenges facing the Bay today is 
pollution from wastewater treatment plants, development, 
transportation, stormwater runoff and runoff from agricultural lands. 
Prohibiting this funding would have a major impact on the water quality 
throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed states. It would significantly 
restrict efforts to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff as well as 
monitoring and oversight of these efforts, all necessary to help 
protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
  The amendment is opposed by the Nature Conservancy, League of 
Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Chesapeake Bay 
Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, National Audubon 
Society, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, National Wildlife Refuge 
Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ocean Conservancy, 
Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Alaska Wilderness 
League, American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Center for 
Biological Diversity, Center for Native Ecosystems, Center for Plant 
Conservation, Clean Water Action, Conservation Lands Foundation, 
Conservation Northwest, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, 
Earthworks, Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America, 
Environmental Working Group, Geos Institute, Marine Conservation 
Biology Institute, Marine Fish Conservation Network, Oceana, Oregon 
Wild, Population Action International, Southwest Public Employees for 
Environmental Responsibility, The Wilderness Society, Trust for Public 
Land, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund, and Xerces 
Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

[[Page 2571]]

  For the foregoing reasons, I oppose the amendment and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay is a natural and 
national treasure. It is the largest estuary in the United States of 
America.
  The health of the Chesapeake Bay is under constant assault from all 
sources of pollution: urban runoff, farm runoff, storm water runoff. We 
have been working for years and years, in fact decades, to try and 
clean up the bay, and it has been like running in place because, every 
time we take action, more pollution flows into the bay.
  That's why, under the Obama administration, they've taken important 
action to try and finally get ahead of the curve and restore the health 
of the bay. Will Baker, who is the President of the Chesapeake Bay 
Foundation, described the approach of the Obama administration as 
something that may well represent the bay's best and last chance for 
restoration. As Mr. Moran pointed out, if we don't do that, the 
watermen, the sports fishermen, and the tourist industry will be badly 
hurt.
  I'm not sure that the gentleman from Virginia, who introduced this 
amendment, recognizes the impact it might have on farmers, because none 
of the funds in this act, including from EPA and the Department of 
Agriculture, may be used for a number of purposes, including watershed 
implementation plans for the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
  Now, we spoke to USDA's general counsel. Their office told us that 
this could well deprive farmers of some of their valuable agricultural 
conservation funds. The last I checked, Maryland received in fiscal 
year 2009 $28 million. In the State of Virginia, the farmers received 
about $16 million to help them with their conservation efforts because, 
as good stewards of the land, they have been part of the team effort to 
protect the Chesapeake Bay.
  As Mr. Moran said, if you take these funds away, you are denying them 
some of the tools they have effectively used. So this won't only hurt 
the watermen and the sports fishermen; it is also going to hurt the 
farmers; and collectively it is going to hurt the largest estuary in 
the United States.
  Let's work to save the bay, not undermine its health.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
make two points.
  First of all, the gentleman from Virginia is quite correct. The 
Chesapeake Bay is getting healthier, and that's a very, very good 
thing, all of which is happening as a result of the voluntary, 
incentivized, State-controlled regulation of this process. None of it 
has occurred under this TMDL provision that the gentleman from Maryland 
referred to, because of the fact that it is only now being imposed on 
farmers. They are very concerned about it, as are small cities and 
towns, as are homebuilders and others. This will have a devastating 
economic impact on the entire bay region, small cities and large 
included.
  The second point is that we checked with the Department of 
Agriculture, and we checked with counsel on the Agriculture Committee. 
They agree that this restricts only those purposes described in the 
legislation related to the implementation of this language related to 
what the EPA is trying to do with their TMDL.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This is very important. We talked to the general counsel at the 
Department of Agriculture. Mr. Goodlatte is wrong on this.
  He says--his amendment says none of the funds may be intended to fund 
EPA. But his amendment actually doesn't mention EPA. It says no Federal 
funds period. That means that the farmers, the agribusiness throughout 
the Chesapeake Bay watershed, would lose about $100 million in 
conservation efforts if this amendment were to be approved.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that miles of the Chesapeake Bay have 
died, largely because of the fertilizer that washes into the bay. The 
vegetation at the bottom feeds on that nitrogen, and it grows like it's 
on steroids. When it decomposes, it sucks up all the oxygen in the 
water, and as a result, nothing can live in large areas of the 
Chesapeake Bay--no crabs, no oysters, no fish.
  Nothing. It's dead, even the plant life can't survive when the oxygen 
has been so depleted in the process of decomposition.
  This amendment needs to be defeated.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by Mr. Goodlatte, which would prohibit the use of funds made 
available by this Act to develop, promulgate, evaluate, implement, 
provide oversight to, or backstop total maximum daily loads or 
watershed implementation of these TMDLs for the Chesapeake Bay 
Watershed.
  As the Representative of Maryland's 7th Congressional District, I was 
proud to have worked closely with Maryland Senator Ben Cardin during 
the last Congress to lead the effort to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay 
Program and to instill innovative new approaches into the program that 
will finally lead to the true restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.
  Unfortunately, we were unable to enact that legislation during the 
last Congress--but the effort to create a Chesapeake Bay program that 
supports effective clean-up of the Bay will continue.
  Fortunately, a number of other processes are already underway that 
will expand and strengthen the effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.
  President Obama issued an executive order to guide a renewed and 
reinvigorated federal clean-up effort shortly after taking office.
  And critically, on December 29, 2010, the long-awaited Total Maximum 
Daily Loads, TMDL, were issued for the Bay--and the watershed states 
are now developing their Watershed Implementation Plans, WIP.
  The TMDLs established for the Chesapeake Bay are specifically 
required under the federal Clean Water Act. Their development is also 
consistent with consent decrees in Virginia and the District of 
Columbia from the late 1990s.
  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the TMDLs set Bay 
watershed limits of 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million 
pounds of phosphorus and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment per year--
limits that would achieve a 25 percent reduction in nitrogen, 24 
percent reduction in phosphorus, and 20 percent reduction in sediment 
flowing into the Bay.
  The TMDLs are tough--but they are realistic about the reductions in 
pollution we need throughout the 64,000-square-mile watershed to 
restore the Bay's health.
  Over the past decades, the effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay has 
been largely based on voluntary agreements within and among the states.
  Recent assessments of the Bay show us that the pledging of earnest 
promises, the utterance of heart-felt slogans, and the signing of 
agreements enforced only by good will have achieved water quality in 
the Bay that is still rated ``very poor''--even though billions of 
dollars have been spent in support of these promises.
  If we are serious about cleaning up the Bay, we must implement the 
TMDLs--and the EPA must be fair but insistent in applying these 
requirements.
  It is therefore essential that the TMDL process get off to a fast, 
efficient, and effective start.
  Eliminating funding for the enforcement of the TMDLs is tantamount to 
arguing that we should continue to allow the Chesapeake Bay to be a 
sewer--where pollutants running out of storm drains and waste treatment 
plants, from overly fertilized front yards, and off farm fields collect 
and create ``dead zones'' where life cannot be sustained.
  The Virginia Institute of Marine Science has estimated that 40 
percent of the jobs in Maryland and Virginia associated with crabbing 
were eliminated between 1998 and 2006--an outcome resulting from the 
decimation of the crab population due to the pollution accumulating in 
the Bay.
  In the face of such losses, a vote against enforcement of the TMDL is 
a vote that says job losses are acceptable--and that though options are 
available to restore the Bay, a polluted Bay is good enough.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this position by voting against this 
amendment and in favor of a robust effort to clean the Chesapeake Bay.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

[[Page 2572]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1930


               Amendment No. 497 Offered by Mr. Matheson

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available 
     by this Act (other than for Department of Defense and the 
     U.S. Postal Service) is hereby reduced by $280,000,000.

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


                Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Gardner

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services who develops or 
     promulgates regulations or guidance with regard to Exchanges 
     under subtitle D of title I of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18021 et seq.).

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

                                                 February 7, 2011.
     Hon. Kathleen Sebelius,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Sebelius: Many of us believe the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be repealed 
     by Congress if the courts do not strike it down first. But, 
     with no assurance of either outcome, we face the decision of 
     whether to participate in the bill by operating state 
     exchanges, or to let the federal government take on that 
     task, if the bill remains in effect in 2014.
       In addition to its constitutional infringements, we believe 
     the system proposed by the PPACA is seriously flawed, favors 
     dependency over personal responsibility, and will ultimately 
     destroy the private insurance market. Because of this, we do 
     not wish to be

[[Page 2573]]

     the federal government's agents in this policy in its present 
     form.
       We wish states had been given more opportunity to provide 
     input when the PPACA was being drafted. We believe in its 
     current form the law will force our health care system down a 
     path sure to lead to higher costs and the disruption or 
     discontinuation of millions of Americans' insurance plans. 
     Though we still have grave concerns with other provisions of 
     the PPACA, we suggest the following improvements: provide 
     states with complete flexibility on operating the exchange, 
     most importantly the freedom to decide which licensed 
     insurers are permitted to offer their products; waive the 
     bill's costly mandates and grant states the authority to 
     choose benefit rules that meet the specific needs of their 
     citizens; waive the provisions that discriminate against 
     consumer-driven health plans, such as health savings accounts 
     (HSA's); provide blanket discretion to individual states if 
     they chose to move non-disabled Medicaid beneficiaries into 
     the exchanges for their insurance coverage without the need 
     of further HHS approval; deliver a comprehensive plan for 
     verifying incomes and subsidy amounts for exchange 
     participants that is not an unfunded mandate but rather fully 
     funded by the federal government and is certified as workable 
     by an independent auditor; commission a new and objective 
     assessment of how many people will end up in the exchanges 
     and on Medicaid in every state as a result of the legislation 
     (including those ``offloaded'' by employers), and at what 
     potential cost to state governments. The study must be 
     conducted by a neutral third-party research organization 
     agreed to by the states represented in this letter.
       We hope the Administration will accommodate our states' 
     individual circumstances and needs, as we believe the PPACA 
     in its current form threatens to destroy our budgets and 
     perpetuate and magnify the most costly aspects of our health 
     care system. While we hope for your endorsement, if you do 
     not agree, we will move forward with our own efforts 
     regardless and HHS should begin making plans to run exchanges 
     under its own auspices.
           Sincerely,
         Governor Robert J. Bentley; Governor C.L. ``Butch'' 
           Otter; Governor Nathan Deal; Governor Mitch Daniels; 
           Governor Terry E. Branstad; Governor Bobby Jindal; 
           Governor Haley Barbour; Governor Brian Sandoval; 
           Governor John R. Kasich; Governor Tom Corbett; Governor 
           Dennis Daugaard; Governor Sam Brownback; Governor Paul 
           R. LePage; Governor David Heineman; Governor Susana 
           Martinez; Governor Mary Fallin; Governor Nikki Haley; 
           Governor Bill Haslam; Governor Rick Perry; Governor 
           Scott Walker; Governor Gary R. Herbert.

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

                              {time}  1940

  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, the question here is whose side are 
you on? The only people that I talk to who are against the exchanges 
are the big insurance companies and their representatives, because they 
are the only ones that stand to gain by keeping the status quo and not 
having the exchanges. The little guy, the consumer wants the exchange. 
Why? Because he can get affordable coverage, because he can get a good 
benefit package, because there is transparency, because he can find out 
what's being offered and how much it costs him. And the insurance 
companies don't want any of that because they want to continue with 
business as usual, keep raising rates.
  Now, we all know how it works. The large employers, they can go out 
and get group coverage, but if you are an individual or you are a small 
business, it's very hard to do that. And that's why we set up the 
exchanges, because basically it's like a larger insurance pool. And now 
the small business, the individual can go on the exchange, they can 
find out what's going on, they can see what the rates are, and there's 
competition.
  As the gentlewoman from Connecticut said, the Republicans always used 
to be for competition. This is the marketplace. This is capitalism. 
This is what we are providing here. It's a choice. More choices for the 
little guy. That's what this is all about. And I for the life of me do 
not understand again why the Republicans would not want to have the 
exchanges except for the same reason, they are siding with the big 
insurance companies. They are not worrying about the consumer and the 
average American.
  It's also the fact that we're talking about portability. Right now, 
if you have a job and you're afraid to go to another job, and maybe a 
better job, or something that you'd like to do because you are afraid 
that you're going

[[Page 2574]]

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


         Amendments No. 329, 330 and 331 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

                           amendment no. 329

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



                           amendment no. 330

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



                           Amendment No. 331

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

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendments.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 2011, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, these amendments eliminate as no longer 
necessary the Federal administrative subsidy for the Southeastern Power 
Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration and the Western 
Area Power Administration. These massive energy subsidies amount to 
what I call unauthorized megamarks. These energy subsidies, that began 
three decades ago to develop only the West and South, now cost the rest 
of America billions of dollars.
  In fact, the Northeast, Florida, the Midwest, the Great Lakes States 
are heavily subsidizing the power systems of the West and South. I have 
a map here that kind of shows the parts of America that have a Federal 
power umbrella and those that don't. And it's really shocking to look 
at what the utility rates are. In Idaho, with federal energy subsidies, 
it costs residential consumers $7.98 per kilowatt hour. But guess what, 
in Ohio, that has no subsidy, it costs those residential consumers 
$11.34. In Wyoming, with power subsidies, it costs $8.39. But in 
Connecticut, with no subsidy, it costs those citizens $19.35 a kilowatt 
hour.
  To achieve real budget savings, we must address megamark spending, 
not just district-targeted earmarks, but massive megamarks. These 
regional Federal power subsidies illustrate the problem. In fact, those 
subsidies, over only some regions, are privileges that the other 
regions of our country can't afford anymore. These regions have 
outlived their welcome in terms of subsidy. Those regions need to 
compete in the free market just like the rest of our regions do. No 
more free rides, because America can't afford it anymore.
  My part of America can't afford the largesse given to the energy 
power

[[Page 2575]]

marketing authorities in the other regions. The Southeastern Power 
Administration has never been operationally self-sufficient. It has 
cost the taxpayers $545 million, over half a billion dollars, since 
created in 1950.
  Similarly, the Southwestern Power Administration has never been 
operationally self-sufficient, costing the taxpayers over $707 million 
since it was created in 1944. And WAPA, the Western Power Authority, 
has never been operationally self-sufficient. It has cost the taxpayers 
over $7 billion since being created in 1978.
  Twenty-seven years of continued appropriations to only some regions 
seems like plenty of time for those agencies to have business plans in 
place to yield self-sufficiency and compete in the real marketplace 
like the rest of us are expected to do.

                              {time}  1950

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

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

                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the amendments propose a net 
increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendments are not in 
order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress which 
states, ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a 
general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget 
authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment 
or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease of such budget 
authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
  The amendments propose a net increase in budget authority in the bill 
in violation of such section. I ask for a ruling.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky makes a point of order 
that the amendments offered en bloc by the gentlewoman from Ohio 
violate section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5.
  Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, only in Washington would they say that if 
you ask organizations to compete in the free market, it costs more 
money to the Federal Government. Only in Washington would that kind of 
bookkeeping exist. So I am troubled by the point of order, but I would 
just say that I thank the gentleman for expressing his point of view. 
This will not be the last time we hear about power marketing 
authorities and their inability to compete in the private marketplace 
this year.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
order.
  Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment 
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
  The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair 
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendments propose a net 
increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order 
is sustained. The amendments are not in order.


                Amendment No. 126 Offered by Mr. Weiner

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance to Saudi Arabia.
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for 
     ``International Military Education and Training'' may be used 
     for assistance to Saudi Arabia.
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for 
     ``Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related 
     Programs'' may be used for assistance to Saudi Arabia.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, to the great relief, I'm sure, of all those 
assembled, I don't intend to take the full 5 minutes.
  The amendment I propose is one that I think that both sides of the 
aisle will rally around. It's very simple. It limits any aid in this 
bill going to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Why we would be

[[Page 2576]]

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

                              {time}  2000


                Amendment No. 101 Offered by Mr. Weiner

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

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

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


              Amendment No. 151 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for repair, alteration, or improvement of the 
     Executive Residence at the White House.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, this discussion we have been having for 
the last 3 or 4 days is really about what the American people said on 
November 2. They said that these huge deficits are unacceptable. The 
fact is that we're going to run a $1.6 trillion deficit this year and 
our debt is almost $14.1 trillion. Projections are that if we continue 
on this pace, that will double in the next 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people said this is unacceptable. And so 
what are the American people doing in their own lives at home? Well, 
they're addressing needs versus wants. And what they're saying is there 
are some things that they need, and then there's some things that they 
want. But what they understand in these tough economic times, where we 
have a number of our American citizens unemployed, is that a lot of 
people are having to prioritize how they spend. And maybe there's a 
fence in the backyard that needs replacing, or maybe the deck in the

[[Page 2577]]

backyard needs new boards, but they're postponing those.
  And so basically this is a very simple amendment. Basically, the 
White House has two accounts: one for basically daily maintenance. That 
account has $13 million, and this amendment does not address that 
account. But as they do in Washington, do you know what happens if you 
want to get more money? You add more accounts, and you just rename 
them. And there is another account called renovations and upgrades. And 
so what we're saying is that there's $2 million worth of upgrades that 
the White House would like to do. It includes things like doing a 
plumbing survey and some things like computer system upgrades. We think 
that possibly those are items that can wait until our economy gets 
rolling again, until we quit having these record deficits.
  And so it is a very simple amendment, Mr. Chairman. We just think 
that the White House can postpone those expenses, things that they 
would like but not necessarily need. This will still allow the White 
House to mow the yard, do the painting, do the maintenance at the White 
House; but it says these capital expenditures of over $2 million should 
be postponed for another year or two until we get our deficit spending 
down.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I would like to say that there is an account in our financial 
services bill for repair and restoration at the White House, and the 
funding for that is $495,000, or 20 percent less than the fiscal year 
2010 levels. And these requested funds would provide for an alternate 
electric feed, which we understand is because the power there fails 
occasionally, computer system upgrades, a plumbing system survey to 
begin addressing their leaky plumbing.
  However, the language of Mr. Neugebauer's amendment doesn't just 
strike funding in this account. This amendment actually states that 
none of the funds made available by this act may be used for repair, 
alteration or improvement of the executive residence at the White 
House.
  And this is really a sweeping prohibition because it prohibits all 
repairs at the White House. So what happens if a pipe bursts? What 
happens if there is a hole in the drywall or the plaster? What if 
there's an electrical fire or a broken window? What if a safety or 
security issue needs to be addressed? And I dare say that most people, 
most everybody, even if they were tightening their belts, they would 
still have to deal with those emergency issues.
  And at the end of the day, the White House is the most visited 
residence in the country. It's an office, it's a museum, and it's a 
home. And regardless of who occupies the White House, the building 
needs to be maintained.
  We have already reduced the account that pays for repairs and 
alterations by 20 percent. Do we really, really want to prohibit all 
repairs and all alterations at the White House, which is our house?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, I would say to the gentlewoman that there is ample money for 
maintenance involved in the White House. As I said, in section 1519, 
there is $13 million available for electrical issues, for painting 
issues, for maintenance issues.
  I think what we are saying, and I would be glad to work with the 
gentlewoman in the conference report if she wants to be more specific, 
but the three projects that this administration requested actually 
totaled $2 million: $1.5 million for an electrical system, computer 
system upgrades of $255,000 and a plumbing system survey. This is a set 
of drawings for $250,000.
  I would submit to you that the American people are making some pretty 
tough choices and that certainly the White House is a treasure of this 
country; but, Mr. Chairman, so are our children and our grandchildren a 
treasure. And if we don't start making some tough choices here, then we 
are not going to have a future for our children, which should be one of 
our more treasured assets.
  I would be glad to work with the gentlewoman in a conference report. 
But this amendment has merits because basically it says to the 
President--and I think the President would agree--you know what, if 
other American families are not making improvements to their house 
right now that aren't necessarily necessary this year, I don't think 
the President would want his either.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2010

  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Texas has no other 
speakers, let me say one thing--that this amendment doesn't specify the 
account being reduced. It cuts all repairs and alterations.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano), my brother.
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank you for the time. I recognize that you do not 
support the amendment, but some folks still cannot help themselves.
  This is not about the White House; it's about who lives in the White 
House. First, there was an amendment to cut his staff. Then there was 
an amendment that was taken away about not allowing him a teleprompter, 
and now there's an amendment that says you can't fix the leaks in the 
White House. You know, we have a plumbing system at the White House 
that hasn't been repaired since Harry Truman. That's a long, long time.
  So, yes, there are difficult times in this country, but when you have 
a house visited by many, many tourists throughout the year, you should 
be careful as to the wiring, about the kind of things that could happen 
with water, about the kind of things that could happen with safety. And 
after all, whether we like this President or not, this is the 
residential place and the office space for our President, for the next 
one, and the ones to follow.
  I think this is a proper investment, and personally, I think it gets 
pretty petty when we don't even allow this President to have leaks 
fixed in the White House.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, do I have any time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentlelady. I won't take but 30 seconds. Just 
to mention the fact, I've been around long enough to recall when money 
was requested for the Vice President's mansion when Dick Cheney was 
living there. That money was provided. This side didn't object when 
money was put into the White House when George Bush was the resident. 
This is kind of mean-spirited games. It's really beneath us. Let's not 
do this kind of stuff.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I urge opposition to this amendment, as well-
intentioned as it may be, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I kind of resent the insinuation that 
my amendment is addressed to this President. It's not addressed to this 
President. It's addressed to this country, and by the way, I was over 
at the White House during the White House Christmas party. The White 
House looked like it was in pretty good shape, and I can attest that 
the plumbing was actually working as well.
  But what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is there's a lot of people that 
would want to come to this floor tonight and make excuses why we can't 
begin to cut spending in this country. You know what--the American 
people are tired of our excuses. This is a good amendment. There's been 
a lot of good amendments. Yes, these are difficult choices, but these 
are the kind of choices that we're going to have to make if we're going 
to ensure that our American families have a future, that we get this 
economy back going, that we create jobs,

[[Page 2578]]

and we do not leave a legacy of debt for our children and our 
grandchildren
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Rooney

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the rule 
     entitled ``Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's 
     Lakes and Flowing Waters'' published in the Federal Register 
     by the Environmental Protection Agency on December 6, 2010 
     (75 Fed. Reg. 75762 et seq.).

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

                                             Florida Department of


                            Agriculture and Consumer Services,

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

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the equivalent of sticking 
your head in the sand--I use that analogy because we're talking about 
Florida--hoping that a growing problem somehow will miraculously go 
away.
  Back in 2009, a consent decree was reached in Federal court between 
EPA and numerous Florida environmental groups to set numeric limits for 
nutrients in the State's lakes, rivers, and streams. Such numeric 
standards are the only way to make progress correcting ecological 
problems. The need for the standards contained in this consent decree 
was demonstrated repeatedly by Florida's Department of Environmental 
Protection. They pointed out that 1,000 miles of the State's rivers and 
streams, 350,000 acres of Florida's lakes, and 900 square miles of its 
estuaries were contaminated by nutrient pollution from sewage 
discharges and fertilizer or manure runoff.
  But this amendment would block these standards from being used. I 
fail to understand how the supporters of this amendment think that it's 
okay for folks to dump manure, fertilizer, and sewage into lakes and 
rivers without regard to the health of these waters or to the health of 
the people who depend upon these waters.
  This water quality rule was published last November, but the 
regulations don't go into effect until March of next year. The major 
activity by EPA that this amendment would prevent is an education 
effort to help the communities, businesses, and the public meet these 
new standards.
  The amendment also would block EPA from improving the regulations to 
meet the legitimate concerns of the public. That's what EPA is trying 
to do, reach out, get their ideas. There's a good question as to how 
much longer tourists will keep flocking to Florida if its lakes, 
streams, and rivers are in a death spiral, flushed with the water 
quality of cesspools.

                              {time}  2020

  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. MORAN. May I inquire how much time we have left?

[[Page 2579]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 3 minutes. The 
gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to finish on this 
amendment?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to close.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield the remaining 3 
minutes to the very distinguished lady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
amendment 13, which would defund Florida's new clean water rules. This 
amendment will harm Florida's economy and threaten the natural 
ecosystems on which we rely.
  This past November, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved 
a final regulation setting new water quality standards for Florida's 
lakes and streams. This clean water rule is desperately needed to 
address the nutrient pollution contaminating more than 1,000 miles of 
State rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of lakes, and 900 square miles 
of estuaries.
  Potential tourists to Florida often envision images of pristine 
beaches, beautiful waterways, and vibrant coastal ecosystems with great 
fishing and recreational opportunities. That is why so many people 
flock to our State. Florida's waterways, beaches, and coastal 
ecosystems are critical parts of the economic engine that drive 
Florida's $65 billion a year tourism industry.
  But without the new clean water standards, this could all evaporate. 
Already algae outbreaks plague many of our lakes and rivers, depleting 
oxygen levels and suffocating living organisms. Nutrient pollution 
results in massive fish kills, waterways clogged with toxic green 
slime, beach closures, and reduced waterfront property values.
  We need these new clean water standards because the current standards 
for determining when someone is polluting is vague, and therefore 
unenforceable. Waiting until the waterway is choked with sewage, 
fertilizer, or manure is simply no way to manage our water.
  For over 10 years the State of Florida labored to produce a clean 
water rule but never quite got there. In the absence of State action, 
EPA had to act to protect Florida's waters. EPA produced a rule built 
on years of data collected by the State and based on the best science 
available.
  The clean water rule is also the product of tens of thousands of 
public comments, numerous public meetings and workshops, and years of 
consultations between the State of Florida's Department of 
Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  While EPA took over finalizing new standards, they did not take a 
``my way or highway'' approach. They listened to Florida's citizens and 
regulated entities, made many adjustments, and included plenty of 
flexibility.
  To begin with, the final nutrient standards are comparable to the 
State's own draft standards. In some areas they are more stringent, but 
in other areas, they are less stringent. The major difference between 
the State and Federal rule is that the EPA actually finalized it rather 
than continuing the foot-dragging.
  And as a practical matter, all this amendment will really do is hurt 
the very stakeholders its proponents say they want to help.
  EPA built in a 15-month delayed implementation to allow it to provide 
technical assistance to stakeholders and ensure compliance is achieved 
in the most efficient, cost-effective way possible. EPA is using this 
time to hold workshops, seminars, and other meetings of regulated 
entities to achieve this end. But with this amendment, that all goes 
away. These regulated entities will still have to comply with the law, 
but now they'll be on their own.
  Perhaps even worse for the regulated entities, this amendment will 
prevent State water managers from utilizing the flexibilities of the 
rule. It would prevent the EPA from working with the State to develop 
and implement a process to review and approve site-specific alternative 
criteria proposed by regulated entities. This makes no sense.
  This rule provides flexibility to regulated entities and to the 
State. If the amendment passes, it would be devastating to Florida's 
economy.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the design, renovation, construction, or rental 
     of any headquarters for the United Nations in any location in 
     the United States.

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

[[Page 2580]]


  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Stearns amendment 
because it would exacerbate security vulnerabilities at the United 
Nations headquarters in New York City.
  The United Nations Capital Master Plan addresses a number of serious 
life safety and security concerns to staff, diplomats, and visitors. 
The U.N. receives approximately 5,000 accredited delegates annually 
from around the world and 300,000 tourists, about 40 percent of whom 
are Americans. Almost 4,300 people work at the U.N. headquarters 
complex, including 1,280 Americans.
  The U.N. headquarters complex, the majority of which is 55 years old, 
is not compliant with New York City building and life safety codes or 
modern security requirements.

                              {time}  2030

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

[[Page 2581]]

diligent in ensuring the investigation of these issue's are a top 
priority for the 112th Congress. The time has come to make sure that we 
are doing everything we can to minimize any further taxpayer exposure 
to the irresponsible behavior of these companies.
  The nationalization of private assets was clearly un-American and, as 
free-enterprising Americans, we needed to let our markets determine the 
winners and the losers. Unfortunately, the winners were not the 
American taxpayers of this country and, after billions spent and much 
debate, we are left with unanswered questions and unpaid legal fees 
showing no sign of ending.
  This financial crisis affects every hardworking, taxpaying American. 
We should not be paying for the legal defense of the people whose 
reckless actions forced this economic crisis on us. I hope that members 
of this 112th Congress recognize the dire importance of this issue and 
vote in favor for the American taxpayer.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 414 by Mr. Bishop of New York.
  Amendment No. 519 by Mr. Campbell of California.
  Amendment No. 246 by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 263 by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 526 by Mr. Wu of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 27 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 409 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 296 by Mr. McClintock of California.
  Amendment No. 99 by Mr. McDermott of Washington.
  Amendment No. 177 by Mr. Herger of California.
  Amendment No. 323 by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 566 by Mr. Boren of Oklahoma.
  Amendment No. 146 by Mr. Forbes of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 333 by Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 46 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 498 by Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 467 by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 79 by Mr. Gardner of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 151 by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas.
  Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Rooney of Florida.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Stearns of Florida.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


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

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 104]

                               AYES--156

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

                               NOES--269

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

[[Page 2582]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Culberson
     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle

                              {time}  2056

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


               Amendment No. 519 Offered by Mr. Campbell

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 105]

                                AYES--68

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

                               NOES--357

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Culberson
     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2100

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


           Amendment No. 246 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 74, 
noes 348, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 106]

                                AYES--74

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

                               NOES--348

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis

[[Page 2583]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--11

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2103

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


           Amendment No. 263 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 243, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 107]

                               AYES--177

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

                               NOES--243

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi

[[Page 2584]]


     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roby
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2106

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


                  Amendment No. 526 Offered by Mr. Wu

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87, 
noes 338, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 108]

                                AYES--87

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

                               NOES--338

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Coble
     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2109

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


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Markey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 251, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 109]

                               AYES--174

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)

[[Page 2585]]


     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--251

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle
     Stearns


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2113

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


           Amendment No. 409 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 185, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 110]

                               AYES--241

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

                               NOES--185

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu

[[Page 2586]]


     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2116

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


              Amendment No. 296 Offered by Mr. McClintock

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, 
noes 210, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 111]

                               AYES--215

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

                               NOES--210

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Olver
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2119

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


               Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. McDermott

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page 2587]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 91, 
noes 333, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 112]

                                AYES--91

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

                               NOES--333

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Quayle
     Richardson


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2122

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


                Amendment No. 177 Offered by Mr. Herger

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 197, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 113]

                               AYES--227

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

                               NOES--197

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boswell

[[Page 2588]]


     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2126

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


              Amendment No. 323 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 241, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 114]

                               AYES--185

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

                               NOES--241

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2129

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


                 Amendment No. 566 Offered by Mr. Boren

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Boren) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page 2589]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 277, 
noes 149, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 115]

                               AYES--277

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

                               NOES--149

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2132

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


                Amendment No. 146 Offered by Mr. Forbes

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 184, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 116]

                               AYES--241

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

[[Page 2590]]


     Sutton
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--184

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle
     Sullivan


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2135

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


                Amendment No. 333 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 32, 
noes 394, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 117]

                                AYES--32

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

                               NOES--394

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2138

  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page 2591]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Polis

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 74, 
noes 351, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 118]

                                AYES--74

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

                               NOES--351

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Giffords
     Hanna
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2141

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


            Amendment No. 498 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Ohio

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 186, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 119]

                               AYES--239

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)

[[Page 2592]]


     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--186

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     LaTourette
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2144

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


               Amendment No. 467 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 195, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 120]

                               AYES--230

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

                               NOES--195

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

[[Page 2593]]


     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bachus
     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2147

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


                Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Gardner

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 184, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 121]

                               AYES--241

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

                               NOES--184

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Franks (AZ)
     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle

                              {time}  2150

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


              Amendment No. 151 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 63, 
noes 362, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 122]

                                AYES--63

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

                               NOES--362

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole

[[Page 2594]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Camp
     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2153

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


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Rooney

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 189, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 123]

                               AYES--237

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

                               NOES--189

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

[[Page 2595]]


     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Giffords
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     McCollum
     Paul
     Peters
     Quayle


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2156

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


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 191, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 124]

                               AYES--231

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

                               NOES--191

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2159

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


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend, the majority leader, to inform us of 
the planned schedule for the evening.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Maryland, 
as he and I have discussed throughout the day, we have asked Members to 
continue to be judicious in their remarks if we want to get out of here 
at a reasonable hour, that we have been at this for at least 90 hours, 
and we continue to debate these amendments. We will anticipate votes 
again within 2 hours, and we will continue the votes throughout the 
evening.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that information. As I 
understand what the gentleman just said, we will probably have the next 
series of votes at approximately midnight.
  Would the gentleman have in mind when the next series of votes would 
be after that?
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, again, it depends on how 
Members feel, on the other side of the aisle as well as ours, as to how 
expeditious they want their remarks to be. We've been at this, again, 
for 90 hours. We intend to have votes again probably within a couple of 
hours after midnight, and we will proceed along those lines.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for the information.
  I will tell him that I believe, on my side, we have three, perhaps, 
four amendments--one we think is subject to a point of order. So we 
have three amendments left on this side. I'm not sure how many you will 
have on your side.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman, the gentleman understands 
and knows that we have throughout

[[Page 2596]]

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

                              {time}  2210

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pitts) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 1) making appropriations for the Department of Defense and the 
other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________