[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3958-3972]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         ADDITIONAL CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS AMENDMENTS, 2011

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

                              H.J. Res. 48

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242) is 
     further amended--
       (1) by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and 
     inserting ``April 8, 2011''; and
       (2) by adding after section 226, as added by the Further 
     Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011 (Public Law 112-
     4), the following new sections:
       ``Sec. 227.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Agricultural Programs--Agricultural Research 
     Service--Salaries and Expenses' at a rate for operations of 
     $1,135,501,000.
       ``Sec. 228.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Agricultural Programs--Agricultural Research 
     Service--Buildings and Facilities' at a rate for operations 
     of $0.
       ``Sec. 229.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Agricultural Programs--National Institute of 
     Food and Agriculture--Research and Education Activities' at a 
     rate for operations of $665,345,000: Provided, That the 
     amounts included under such heading in Public Law 111-80 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by 
     substituting `$0' for `$89,029,000' and `$11,253,000' for 
     `$45,122,000'.
       ``Sec. 230.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Agricultural Programs--National Institute of 
     Food and Agriculture--Extension Activities' at a rate for 
     operations of $483,092,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     included under such heading in Public Law 111-80 shall be 
     applied to funds appropriated by this Act by substituting 
     `$8,565,000' for `$20,396,000'.
       ``Sec. 231.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Agricultural Programs--Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service--Salaries and Expenses' at a rate for 
     operations of $880,543,000.
       ``Sec. 232.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Conservation Programs--Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service--Conservation Operations' at a rate for 
     operations of $850,247,000.
       ``Sec. 233.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Conservation Programs--Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service--Watershed and Flood Prevention 
     Operations' at a rate for operations of $0: Provided, That 
     the amounts included under such heading in Public Law 111-80 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by 
     substituting `$0' for `$12,000,000'.
       ``Sec. 234.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Rural Development Programs--Rural Housing 
     Service--Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account' for 
     the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the cost 
     of modifying loans, at a rate for operations of $70,200,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     Public Law 111-80 shall be applied to funds appropriated by 
     this Act by substituting `$70,200,000' for `$40,710,000' in 
     the case of direct loans and `$0' for `$172,800,000' in the 
     case of unsubsidized guaranteed loans.
       ``Sec. 235.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Rural Development Programs--Rural Business-
     Cooperative Service--Rural Cooperative Development Grants' at 
     a rate for operations of $31,754,000: Provided, That the 
     amounts included under such heading in Public Law 111-80 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by 
     substituting `$0' for `$300,000' and `$0' for `$2,800,000'.
       ``Sec. 236.  Sections 718, 723, 727, 728, and 738 of Public 
     Law 111-80 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act 
     by substituting `$0' for each of the dollar amounts specified 
     in those sections.
       ``Sec. 237.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Commerce--International Trade 
     Administration--Operations and Administration' at a rate for 
     operations of $450,989,000: Provided, That the sixth proviso 
     under such heading in division B of Public Law 111-117 shall 
     not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 238.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Commerce--Minority Business 
     Development Agency--Minority Business Development' at a rate 
     for operations of $30,400,000: Provided, That the first 
     proviso under such heading in division B of Public Law 111-
     117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 239.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Commerce--National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology--Scientific and Technical Research 
     and Services' at a rate for operations of $504,500,000: 
     Provided, That the second proviso under such heading in 
     division B of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 240.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Commerce--National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology--Construction of Research 
     Facilities' at a rate for operations of $100,000,000: 
     Provided, That the first proviso under such heading in 
     division B of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 241.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration--Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities' at a rate for operations of $3,205,883,000: 
     Provided, That the sixth proviso under such heading in 
     division B of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 242.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration--Procurement, Acquisition and 
     Construction' at a rate for operations of $1,340,353,000: 
     Provided, That the sixth proviso under such heading in 
     division B of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 243.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Justice--Office of Justice 
     Programs--State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance' at a 
     rate for operations of $1,349,500,000: Provided, That the 
     amount included in paragraph (4) under such heading in 
     division B of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this Act by substituting `$0' for 
     `$185,268,000'.
       ``Sec. 244.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Justice--Office of Justice 
     Programs--Juvenile Justice Programs' at a rate for operations 
     of $332,500,000: Provided, That the amount included in 
     paragraph (2) under such heading in division B of Public Law 
     111-117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by 
     substituting `$0' for `$91,095,000'.
       ``Sec. 245.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Justice--Community Oriented 
     Policing Services' at a rate for operations of $597,500,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     division B of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this Act as follows: in paragraph (2), by 
     substituting `$15,000,000' for `$40,385,000' and by 
     substituting `$0' for `$25,385,000'; and in paragraph (3), by 
     substituting `$1,500,000' for `$170,223,000' and by 
     substituting `$0' for `$168,723,000'.
       ``Sec. 246.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `National Aeronautics and Space Administration--
     Cross Agency Support' at a rate for operations of 
     $3,131,000,000: Provided, That the third proviso under such 
     heading in division B of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply 
     to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 247.  Of the funds made available for `Department of 
     Commerce--Bureau of the Census--Periodic Censuses and 
     Programs' in division B of Public Law 111-117, $1,740,000,000 
     is rescinded.
       ``Sec. 248.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Commerce--National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration--Public 
     Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction' at 
     a rate for operations of $0.
       ``Sec. 249.  Of the unobligated balances available for 
     `Emergency Steel, Oil, and Gas Guaranteed Loan Program 
     Account', $48,000,000 is rescinded.
       ``Sec. 250.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Treasury--Community 
     Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account' at a 
     rate for operations of $243,600,000, and the funding 
     designation of $3,150,000 for an additional pilot project 
     grant under such heading in division C of Public Law 111-117 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 251.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Executive Office of the President and Funds 
     Appropriated to the President--Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy--Other Federal Drug Control Programs' at a 
     rate for operations of $152,150,000, and the matter under 
     such heading in division C of Public Law 111-117 relating to 
     the National Drug Court Institute and the National Alliance 
     for Model State Drug Laws

[[Page 3959]]

     shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 252.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `District of Columbia--Federal Funds--Federal 
     Payment to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer for the 
     District of Columbia' at a rate for operations of $0.
       ``Sec. 253.  Notwithstanding section 101, the aggregate 
     amount of new obligational authority provided under the 
     heading `General Services Administration--Real Property 
     Activities--Federal Buildings Fund--Limitations on 
     Availability of Revenue' for Federal buildings and 
     courthouses and other purposes of the Fund shall be available 
     at a rate for operations of $7,519,772,000, of which: (1) $0 
     is for `Construction and Acquisition'; and (2) $284,000,000 
     is for `Repairs and Alterations' for Special Emphasis 
     Programs and Basic Repairs and Alterations.
       ``Sec. 254.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `General Services Administration--General 
     Activities--Operating Expenses' at a rate for operations of 
     $71,881,000, and the matter relating to the amount of 
     $1,000,000 under such heading in division C of Public Law 
     111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 255.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `National Archives and Records Administration--
     Repairs and Restoration' at a rate for operations of 
     $11,848,000.
       ``Sec. 256.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for section 523 of division C of Public Law 111-117 
     at a rate for operations of $0.
       ``Sec. 257.  Of the unobligated balances available for 
     `Department of Homeland Security--U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection--Construction and Facilities Management' for 
     construction projects, $106,556,000 is rescinded: Provided, 
     That the amounts rescinded under this section shall be 
     limited to amounts available for Border Patrol projects and 
     facilities: Provided further, That no amounts in this section 
     may be rescinded from amounts that were designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       ``Sec. 258.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land 
     Management--Management of Lands and Resources' at a rate for 
     operations of $957,971,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     included under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-
     88 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by 
     substituting ``$957,951,000'' for ``$959,571,000'' the second 
     place it appears.
       ``Sec. 259.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land 
     Management--Construction' at a rate for operations of 
     $6,626,000.
       ``Sec. 260.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land 
     Management--Land Acquisition' at a rate for operations of 
     $26,650,000: Provided, That the proviso under such heading in 
     division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 261.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service--Resource Management' at a rate for 
     operations of $1,257,356,000.
       ``Sec. 262.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service--Construction' at a rate for operations 
     of $27,139,000.
       ``Sec. 263.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service--Land Acquisition' at a rate for 
     operations of $63,890,000.
       ``Sec. 264.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--National Park 
     Service--National Recreation and Preservation' at a rate for 
     operations of $57,986,000, of which $0 shall be for projects 
     authorized by section 7302 of Public Law 111-11.
       ``Sec. 265.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--National Park 
     Service--Historic Preservation Fund' at a rate for operations 
     of $54,500,000: Provided, That the amounts included under 
     such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be 
     applied to funds appropriated by this Act by substituting 
     ``$0'' for ``$25,000,000'': Provided further, That the 
     proviso under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 266.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--National Park 
     Service--Construction' at a rate for operations of 
     $185,066,000: Provided, That the last proviso under such 
     heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to 
     funds appropriated by this Act: Provided further, That of the 
     unobligated balances available under such heading in division 
     A of Public Law 111-88 and prior appropriation Acts, 
     $25,000,000 is rescinded, including $1,000,000 from amounts 
     made available for the (now completed) project at Cape 
     Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, and $1,000,000 
     from amounts made available for the (now completed) project 
     at Blue Ridge Parkway, North Carolina.
       ``Sec. 267.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--National Park 
     Service--Land Acquisition and State Assistance' at a rate for 
     operations of $108,846,000.
       ``Sec. 268.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--United States 
     Geological Survey--Surveys, Investigations, and Research' at 
     a rate for operations of $1,094,344,000.
       ``Sec. 269.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs--Operation of Indian Programs' at a rate for 
     operations of $2,334,515,000.
       ``Sec. 270.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--Departmental 
     Offices--Insular Affairs--Assistance to Territories' at a 
     rate for operations of $84,295,000.
       ``Sec. 271.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Environmental Protection Agency--Science and 
     Technology' at a rate for operations of $840,349,000, of 
     which $0 shall be for the purposes specified in `Research/
     National Priorities' under the heading `Science and 
     Technology' in the joint explanatory statement of the 
     managers accompanying Public Law 111-88.
       ``Sec. 272.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Environmental Protection Agency--Environmental 
     Programs and Management' at a rate for operations of 
     $2,963,263,000: Provided, That of the amounts provided by 
     this Act for such account, amounts are provided for the 
     Geographic Programs specified in the joint explanatory 
     statement of the managers accompanying Public Law 111-88 at a 
     rate for operations of $599,875,000: Provided further, That 
     of the amounts provided by this Act for such account, $0 
     shall be for cap and trade technical assistance and $0 shall 
     be for the program specified in `Environmental Protection/
     National Priorities' under the heading `Environmental 
     Programs and Management' in the joint explanatory statement 
     of the managers accompanying Public Law 111-88.
       ``Sec. 273.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Environmental Protection Agency--Buildings and 
     Facilities' at a rate for operations of $36,501,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this Act by substituting `$0' for `$500,000'.
       ``Sec. 274.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Environmental Protection Agency--State and 
     Tribal Assistance Grants' at a rate for operations of 
     $4,777,946,000: Provided, That the amounts included under 
     such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall be 
     applied to funds appropriated by this Act as follows: by 
     substituting `$14,500,000' for `$17,000,000'; by substituting 
     `$10,000,000' for `$13,000,000'; by substituting `$0' for 
     `$156,777,000'; by substituting `$0' for `$20,000,000'; and 
     by substituting `$1,106,446,000' for `$1,116,446,000'.
       ``Sec. 275.  The matter pertaining to competitive grants to 
     communities to develop plans and demonstrate and implement 
     projects which reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the 
     heading `Environmental Protection Agency--State and Tribal 
     Assistance Grants' in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall 
     not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 276.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--
     Forest and Rangeland Research' at a rate for operations of 
     $311,612,000.
       ``Sec. 277.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--
     State and Private Forestry' at a rate for operations of 
     $301,611,000.
       ``Sec. 278.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--
     National Forest System' at a rate for operations of 
     $1,550,089,000.
       ``Sec. 279.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--
     Capital Improvement and Maintenance' at a rate for operations 
     of $548,962,000.
       ``Sec. 280.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--Land 
     Acquisition' at a rate for operations of $33,184,000.
       ``Sec. 281.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--
     Wildland Fire Management' at a rate for operations of 
     $2,097,387,000: Provided, That of the unobligated balances 
     available under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-
     88 and prior appropriation Acts, $200,000,000 is rescinded.
       ``Sec. 282.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for section 415 of division A of Public Law 111-88 
     at a rate for operations of $0.
       ``Sec. 283.  Notwithstanding section 101 and section 200, 
     amounts are provided for `Department of Labor--Employment and 
     Training Administration--Training and Employment Services' at 
     a rate for operations of $3,654,641,000: Provided, That the 
     amounts included in paragraph (3)(E) under such heading in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this Act by substituting `$0' for 
     `$125,000,000' and by substituting `$0' for `$65,000,000'.

[[Page 3960]]

       ``Sec. 284.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Labor--Employment and Training 
     Administration--Community Service Employment for Older 
     Americans' at a rate for operations of $600,425,000: 
     Provided, That for purposes of funds appropriated by this 
     Act, the amounts included under such heading in division D of 
     Public Law 111-117 shall be applied by substituting `$0' for 
     `$225,000,000' in the first place it appears, and the first 
     and second provisos under such heading in such division shall 
     not apply.
       ``Sec. 285.  Notwithstanding sections 101 and 203, amounts 
     are provided for `Department of Health and Human Services--
     Health Resources and Services Administration--Health 
     Resources and Services' at a rate for operations of 
     $7,001,520,000: Provided, That the eighteenth, nineteenth, 
     twenty-second, and twenty-fifth provisos under such heading 
     in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 286.  Notwithstanding section 101, in addition to 
     amounts otherwise made available by section 130, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Health and Human Services--Office 
     of the Secretary--Public Health and Social Services Emergency 
     Fund' at a rate for operations of $731,109,000, of which 
     $65,578,000 shall be for expenses necessary to prepare for 
     and respond to an influenza pandemic (none of which shall be 
     available past September 30, 2011) and $35,000,000 shall be 
     for expenses necessary for fit-out and other costs related to 
     a competitive lease procurement to renovate or replace the 
     existing headquarters building for Public Health Service 
     agencies and other components of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services.
       ``Sec. 287.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Corporation for Public Broadcasting' at a rate 
     for operations of $36,000,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     included under such heading in division D of Public Law 111-
     117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by 
     substituting `$0' for `$25,000,000' each place it appears.
       ``Sec. 288.  Of the funds appropriated for `Social Security 
     Administration--Limitation on Administrative Expenses' for 
     fiscal years 2010 and prior years (other than funds 
     appropriated in Public Law 111-5) for investment in 
     information technology and telecommunications hardware and 
     software infrastructure, $200,000,000 is rescinded.
       ``Sec. 289.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `House of Representatives--Salaries and 
     Expenses' at a rate for operations of $1,367,525,000.
       ``Sec. 290.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `House of Representatives--Salaries, Officers 
     and Employees' at a rate for operations of $196,801,000, of 
     which $129,282,000 shall be for the operations of the Office 
     of the Chief Administrative Officer.
       ``Sec. 291.  Notwithstanding section 101 and section 221, 
     amounts are provided for `Library of Congress--Salaries and 
     Expenses' at a rate for operations of $445,201,000, of which 
     $0 shall be for the operations described in the fifth and 
     seventh provisos under such heading in Public Law 111-68.
       ``Sec. 292.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Bilateral Economic Assistance--Funds 
     Appropriated to the President--International Fund for 
     Ireland' at a rate for operations of $0.
       ``Sec. 293.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Housing and Urban Development--
     Community Planning and Development--Brownfields 
     Redevelopment' at a rate for operations of $0.
       ``Sec. 294.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Transportation--Federal Railroad 
     Administration--Railroad Safety Technology Program' at a rate 
     for operations of $0.''.
        This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Additional 
     Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011''.

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

                              {time}  1330


                             general leave

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 48, and that I may 
include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to support H.J. Res. 48, the fiscal year 2011 further 
continuing appropriations resolution. This temporary CR will allow us 
to avoid a government shutdown that could otherwise occur on March 18, 
while cutting spending by $6 billion to control our Nation's staggering 
deficits and to facilitate the continued recovery of our Nation's 
economy.
  We've made it clear that a government shutdown is not an option, 
period. We will not allow this to happen on our watch.
  This bill funds the government for an additional 3 weeks, until April 
8, maintaining the critical support the government provides to the 
American people and allowing for the necessary time to complete 
negotiations on a final long-term agreement for the remainder of this 
year.
  While funding the essential government agencies and programs, this CR 
makes $6 billion in spending cuts, trimming $2 billion for every week, 
to continue our efforts to rein in spending and put a dent in our 
massive and unsustainable deficit. Together with the $4 billion that we 
cut 2 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, along with the $6 billion we cut in this 
bill, we will have cut $10 billion from current year spending. That 
makes it the largest rescission in American history, and so it is 
working.
  H.J. Res. 48 reduces or terminates a total of 25 programs for a 
savings of $3.5 billion. These cuts include funding rescissions, 
reductions, and program terminations. It also eliminates earmark 
accounts within the Agriculture; Commerce, Justice and Science; 
Financial Services; General Government; and Interior subcommittee 
jurisdictions, saving the American taxpayers $2.6 billion in earmark 
spending, which the President and both Houses of Congress have agreed 
they do not support.
  These cuts are the tough, but necessary, legwork required to help 
balance our budgets and halt the dangerous downward spiral of 
skyrocketing deficits. While short-term funding measures such as this 
are not the preferable way to fund the government, at this point, it's 
vital.
  The budget for fiscal 2011, which was punted to us by the previous 
Congress, is long, long overdue. I agree with many of my colleagues 
that we must get down to business and come to a final agreement as 
quickly as possible. Our economy must not be threatened by perpetual 
government shutdowns, which create uncertainty and a loss of confidence 
for job creators across the country.
  This continuing resolution provides us with an appropriate length of 
time for negotiations, makes good on our promise to the American people 
to cut spending, provides certainty and stability, and allows essential 
Federal programs to continue while these negotiations ensue.
  I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this continuing resolution can be 
passed swiftly so we can turn our attention to the realities of our 
debt and deficit crisis and begin to put the Nation on the right path 
for the next fiscal year, 2012.
  Our constituents have asked us to whip our spending into shape, to 
provide solutions that help our economy grow, and to help our citizens 
get jobs. This CR addresses their expectations responsibly over the 
short term and is just one of the set of bills that we intend to 
produce over the next year that will continue to put the Nation's 
budget back into balance and help our economy continue on the road to 
recovery.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the House is considering the fifth continuing 
resolution for FY 2011 to keep the Federal Government running. Here we 
are, in the middle of March, considering yet another short-term bill 
that is supposed to buy us time to negotiate funding for the remainder 
of the fiscal year, and I hope that proves to be true. We need to bring 
this to a conclusion.
  The extension reduces spending in FY 2011 by $45 billion below the 
President's request. It adds another $6 billion in ``common ground'' 
spending reductions. In total, the measure cuts $51 billion below the 
President's request.
  The idea behind the 3-week extension is to provide an opportunity for 
the House, Senate, and White House to settle all outstanding issues on 
fiscal year

[[Page 3961]]

2011 appropriations. I remain hopeful that negotiations will succeed 
and we will be able to give our agencies some amount of certainty for 
what little remains of fiscal year 2011.
  Today, in The New York Times, there was a long article showing what 
kind of disruption occurs in Federal agencies, including Defense and 
Social Security and others, Head Start for example, because we haven't 
gotten these bills enacted, but I must remind my colleagues that if 
this CR is extended for the remainder of the year, we would be cutting 
spending at historic levels, $51 billion below the President's request. 
I am worried that cutting deeper will threaten a fragile economic 
recovery. Most economists see cuts in H.R. 1 as a drag on economic 
growth leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, as Fed 
Chairman Bernanke projects. Moody's Mark Zandi estimates 400,000 jobs 
lost for the remainder of this year and 700,000 more next year if H.R. 
1 is enacted. Goldman Sachs think it would be as high as 2.4 million 
jobs lost. In yesterday's ABC News-Washington Post poll, the American 
people believe that the Republican proposed cuts in H.R. 1 will hurt 
the economic recovery.
  I am relieved that Chairman Rogers crafted a bill that relies on 
previously identified reductions, a significant portion of which were 
old earmarks. And while I know my colleagues will not agree with, and 
may not be able to support, some of the specific program cuts included 
in this package, I appreciate that there was a genuine attempt to 
engage the Senate and White House before they were chosen.
  Most importantly, I am tremendously relieved the chairman has stayed 
away from controversial riders in this stopgap measure. He knows, as I 
do, that these riders would almost guarantee a veto by the 
administration, which would almost guarantee a government shutdown. An 
appropriations bill is not the place to decide enormously complex and 
controversial policy issues.
  I am not pleased to be here today with yet another short-term bill. I 
sincerely hope that we will use this 3-week period of time judiciously 
so the next time we consider a bill for fiscal year 2011 it will be the 
last and for the remaining 6 months of this year.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida, a new member of our committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that are really not 
debatable. I think the American people understand, and I think 
everybody understands, that we are on an unsustainable path. We're on 
an unsustainable path as far as unemployment. The unemployment numbers 
are still frighteningly high. We are on an unsustainable path as far as 
borrowing and as far as spending.
  So, frankly, we have a couple of options here. We can continue that 
unsustainable path, which is borrowing more and spending more, or we 
could change the way we're doing and try to get our fiscal act and our 
fiscal house in order.

                              {time}  1340

  I commend the chairman, Chairman Rogers, for bringing forward a CR, 
an extension, that does just that, that brings some sanity to this 
process, that reduces the size, the scope, and the amount of spending, 
that does so responsibly after reviewing programs and reviewing funding 
and reviewing what the Federal Government is doing. And that's exactly 
what we have in front of us today.
  Yes, we wish that we could have not just an extension but that we 
could go through the entire year. The reason, by the way, that we are 
even talking about this right now is because the Democrats failed to 
pass it. So now we are forced to do so. We already passed a CR for the 
remaining part of the year; but, unfortunately, the Senate has not been 
able or has not been willing to do their part. So we are forced, once 
again, to do an extension. This is a real extension that reduces cost, 
that reduces expenses, that does so responsibly, and takes us off this 
unsustainable path. This does so by borrowing less, by spending less. 
And, yes, it will have the effect, Mr. Speaker, of getting our fiscal 
house in order and once again allowing this country to start creating 
jobs in a real way, not just in a piecemeal way.
  So I urge our colleagues to support this responsible CR.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California, Barbara Lee, a member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to oppose this continuing resolution. Once again, the majority 
is reading from a very familiar script that imposes budgetary pain on 
vulnerable communities that can least endure these budget cuts. For a 
third consecutive time now, the majority is presenting a temporary 
spending bill totaling $6 billion in spending cuts and $2.6 billion in 
earmark cuts to very meaningful programs. And once again, this CR does 
nothing to promote job creation. The majority pledged to develop jobs 
when they regained control of the House, but they continue to renege on 
their promise.
  It is important to emphasize that the proposed cuts will hit 
communities that can least afford these hits. The loss of $185 million 
in State and local law enforcement assistance provided by Byrne grants 
will further squeeze tight police budgets. With these cuts, communities 
will be struggling to find funding to support vital police functions. 
At a time when methamphetamine drug use and drug trafficking is on the 
rise, this CR includes cuts to COPS to combat the spread of meth use 
and distribution.
  Rather than continue to fund vital programs at the community level 
that work, we are witnessing budgeting through biweekly CRs. And these 
cuts will further harm highly vulnerable communities that rely greatly 
on COPS policing services and technology grants.
  Now, also, my constituents regularly call my office asking what 
source of funding is going to replace the earmarks that historically 
have supported jobs, small businesses, schools, nonprofits. Also, I 
continue to press administration witnesses in budget justification 
hearings regarding the impact of the elimination of earmarks and what 
alternative resources will replace them.
  I hope we vote ``no'' on the CR.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the chairman of the Transportation, 
HUD, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this joint resolution. It's not 
because I want to, but because it is necessary to support it today. It 
is necessary because we are stuck in a situation that results from the 
previous majority's lack of completing its work last year. I think we 
need to step back and just look at the situation that we were handed 
this year.
  For the first time since the Budget Act of 1974, Mr. Speaker, the 
House failed to pass a budget last year. The House also failed--except 
for two occasions--to pass appropriation bills. The Senate did nothing. 
So what we are left with today is this mess that we are in with no 
fiscal year 2011 budget, no appropriation bills passed last year, 
nothing done. So we are given this mess today to clean up. And what we 
need is a little more time.
  But in the meantime, we are going to cut spending, $6 billion of 
cuts, $2 billion a week for the 3 weeks that this bill will be in 
place. It's not enough. We have got to look at the overall problem that 
we have in this country: $14.3 trillion of debt, an annual 1-year 
deficit of $1.65 trillion.
  Now, while this just scratches the surface, we have got to address 
long-term spending here in Washington, DC. We have got to look at not 
just the discretionary side, which this bill does, but look at all the 
entitlements. We are only addressing about 15 percent of the whole 
budget in this bill. We have got to make sure that we look at the

[[Page 3962]]

other 85 percent which is mandatory, which is the other spending that 
is out there that has caused this explosion of debt that we have. This 
is a very good first step of going forward to really get a handle on 
the spending.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the White House finally get 
involved and show some leadership as far as trying to get our fiscal 
house in order.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is the ranking member on the Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and is 
also the former chairman of that committee.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the very distinguished Member from Washington and 
thank him for his leadership. But he knows, as well as I trust all of 
the Members do, that this is no way to run a government, lurching back 
and forth like a drunken sailor, the agencies not knowing when or 
whether they are going to get their money. Actually, I should take that 
back because the Navy would never conduct operations like this. And the 
distinguished chairman from Kentucky well knows that this is not the 
way we want to be doing business; yet here we are with another CR for 3 
short weeks this time.
  We just had a hearing this week with the Forest Service. As the 
Members know, they hire hundreds, sometimes thousands, of temporary 
seasonal workers to fight fires in our Nation's forests. They can't do 
that. They don't know how much money they are going to have. And the 
folks that they would hire seasonally as a result can't take those 
jobs, don't know what they are going to do. This unconscionable delay 
in funding disrupts people's lives, hundreds of thousands of people's 
lives, directly; millions of people's lives indirectly.
  As I say, this is no way to run a government. But why are we doing 
it? Because we can't agree on H.R. 1, and we shouldn't agree to H.R. 1, 
as passed by the House.
  So many riders that should have gone through legislative committees 
were put in the bill with 10 minutes of debate in the wee hours of the 
morning, stripping language from the authorizing legislation that had 
been subject to months, if not years, of careful deliberation. That's 
no way to run a government.
  And beyond those riders, there are thousands of programs that are 
being cut willy nilly. One such program, for example, is the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They provided the early warning 
to people on the west coast and Hawaii when they detected the recent 
tsunami.

                              {time}  1350

  And yet, we are told by NOAA, that the 30 percent cut in this bill, 
excuse me, 28 percent, cut in this bill for NOAA would dismantle our 
early warning system to save a few million dollars. That's just wrong.
  There was just an article in the Washington Post that people are 
beginning to realize other essential things that are cut in this 
program to save a few dollars. Now, $285 million is not a few dollars, 
but consider what happens when you cut $285 million out of the program 
integrity section of the Internal Revenue Service. They collect $10 for 
every dollar we spend. And so you cut out $285 million, and it costs 
you about $3 billion in revenue that should be collected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. MORAN. The point that I started by suggesting, and I'm sure it's 
not in contention, is that this is no way to run a government. We have 
a responsibility on the Appropriations Committee to fund these 
agencies, to determine our priorities, to reflect the interests and the 
will of the American people. This process does not do that. The bill, 
H.R. 1, does not do that.
  The American people deserve better. They deserve careful 
deliberation. We need to cut, but we need to cut responsibly, using a 
scalpel, not a sledgehammer.
  This bill will pass, but this should be the last CR. Let's get a 
full-year appropriations bill passed as soon as possible.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. There is an article today in the Washington Post how House 
GOP spending cuts would add up to more spending later. This is what we 
worry about here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield an additional minute.
  And one of the things that I'm most concerned about is the women and 
infant care program, WIC, which provides nutrition to an expectant 
mother, who's probably on Medicaid, and help her and the baby to be 
born in a more healthy way. And we find out that the hospitals in this 
country provide $26 billion of health care for these same babies who 
are born premature. So it's pay me now or pay me later. And in this 
case, it would be a lot more.
  The IRS is another example. NOAA weather satellites is another 
example. In the middle of this tsunami and earthquake, we need to be 
doing more in these areas. And the American people understand this. 
They want us to make reasonable judgments. And I hope we can make 
reasonable judgments.
  I happen to be the ranking on Defense. We can cut some money out of 
defense. We cut $15 billion. We can do a little bit more in that area. 
But I think we've got to be careful. And when this final package comes 
together, we've got to talk out the ones that would be revenue raisers.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman from Virginia says that the public deserves that we 
pass appropriations bills, and I could not agree with him more. His 
majority last year failed to enact a single bill out of the 12 that we 
were supposed to pass. That's why we're here. We're trying to clean up 
the mess that the gentleman from Virginia's party left us when we took 
office in January.
  Yes, it's a terrible way to do business. And this should be the last 
CR extension that we pass before we have an agreement with the other 
body and the White House on the rest of this year. However, Mr. 
Speaker, again, the gentleman's party in the Senate refuses to pass a 
bill and lay something on the table. We are going to the conference 
table to negotiate, and we're sitting there by ourselves. The other 
body will not come forward with a proposition. Until that time, I don't 
know what we do.
  I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is another 
necessary step in addressing the national imperative of reducing our 
debt while also keeping the government operating. Essential funds like 
homeland security are sustained under this bill and sustained in a 
fiscally responsible way.
  Within the more than $6 billion of spending reductions contained in 
this bill is a rescission of $107 million to Customs and Border 
Protection, a rescission of unobligated balances requested by the 
administration for FY11, supported by a minority, passed by this body 
as part of H.R. 1, and also included in the Senate Appropriations 
Committee's recently reported bill.
  But this bill also sends a very clear signal to the White House and 
to the Senate. As the Speaker and Chairman Rogers have clearly stated, 
no one wants a government shutdown. The only people that are talking 
about a shutdown of the government are those who are avoiding the tough 
decisions and seeking to shift blame from their own failure to act.
  Instead of excuses, the American people want results: less spending 
and a leaner, more effective government. And that's exactly what this 
temporary stopgap bill delivers.
  I couldn't agree more with what the chairman just stated just a 
couple of minutes ago. Congress didn't get its work done, and the 
Senate has yet to provide a viable alternative to the

[[Page 3963]]

House-passed H.R. 1, a bill that stands as the only year-long spending 
measure for FY11 passed by either Chamber of Congress. So complaints 
about a short-term stopgap bill like this CR ring hollow when the 
House-passed solution has been on the negotiating table for almost a 
month.
  The President's proposed spending level for FY11 is no longer a 
viable option, a fact acknowledged by not only the administration 
itself, but also by both parties in both Chambers of Congress. So the 
time to get to work and fulfill our duty to the American people is long 
overdue.
  Congress needs to deliver what the American people have so 
resoundingly demanded. I can only hope that the administration and the 
Senate will also acknowledge the reality of our Nation's fiscal crisis, 
demonstrate the resolve to reduce spending significantly below the 
current FY10 level, and come to the table with a viable budget for the 
remainder of this year.
  The American people demand no less.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. You know, it was stated a moment ago by a 
gentleman on the other side that this CR cuts NOAA and the tsunami 
prediction monies. That is not so. The only thing in this bill that 
cuts money from NOAA are the earmarks, and, yes, we cut the earmarks, 
but they had nothing to do with tsunami warning.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I want to correct the record. I was referring to H.R. 1, not to the 
CR.
  The gentleman from Kentucky is absolutely correct.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. H.R. 1 doesn't cut tsunami warning monies nor 
weather service monies.
  Mr. DICKS. There are some things that I think NOAA thinks would have 
an effect on their weather forecasting.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, NOAA's wrong.
  Mr. DICKS. Okay. Well, we'll check that out.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Delegate from the District of Columbia, 
Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. Look, the majority has chosen to run the government, the 
Federal Government, from CR to CR. But the majority has no right to 
inflict this operational outrage on the local funds of a local 
jurisdiction, the District of Columbia.
  The majority may want to incur for the Federal Government the 
operational difficulties. After all, the District of Columbia delivers 
services to Federal officials, including the President, Federal 
buildings, foreign embassies, and the like. But does the majority 
really want to risk, to put the District and its operations at risk or 
to place, what Wall Street almost surely will do, a risk premium on the 
District due to the uncertainty that we are at bay from CR to CR?
  This is a fragile economy for every big city, but D.C.'s local budget 
was approved a year ago in the city and last summer by the 
Appropriations Committees. Yet the District of Columbia is being held 
hostage to a Federal fight, although the District of Columbia can do 
nothing to free itself from this Federal fight.
  I have tried to get the District on successive CRs so that we could 
spend our own money all year. There is no disapproval of that here. I 
wager that very few Members even know that the District would close 
down if the Federal Government closed down; would be perplexed by it; 
would have no objection to our spending our own local money all year 
long.
  We raise and manage $8 billion. We have a right to spend our local 
funds without being dragged into a Federal fight.

                              {time}  1400

  You can't run a big city from CR to CR. I ask you to find a way 
between now and 3 weeks to free D.C. to run its own city for the rest 
of the fiscal year.
  Let my people go.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new 
member of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. I rise in support of H.J. Res. 48.
  As has been stated, this legislation cuts $6 billion in funding. They 
are responsible cuts. This is $2 billion per week. It should be noted, 
too, there is broad bipartisanship agreement to nearly all the cuts 
contained in this legislation. Basically everything that is in this 
legislation was also contained in H.R. 1.
  We should also note, too, that if this legislation is enacted, this 
legislation would represent the largest spending cut in domestic 
discretionary programs in history, when you combine this with what was 
cut 2 weeks ago, the $4 billion. Again, if enacted, this will represent 
the largest spending cut in domestic discretionary programs in American 
history, should we enact this legislation.
  Now, I know that some people around here think that this bill really 
doesn't go far enough, but it certainly does represent a very big step 
forward.
  The cuts that are contained in here, we are eliminating $2.6 billion 
in earmark funding from Agriculture, CJS, Financial Services, and 
Interior. The cuts include rescissions, reductions, and program 
terminations.
  I think we all understand, too, that if we pass this, this will 
prevent a government shutdown, and we need to prevent that while these 
negotiations can continue. We need to come to some type of agreement 
for the balance of this fiscal year. But in the meantime, this 
represents responsible cuts and broad bipartisan agreement.
  I say, let's cut spending, let's cut it now, and let's cut it today. 
Take yes for an answer. Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 
This is the right thing to do, and the American people will appreciate 
it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am not sure whether I rise for or against this, very frankly, 
because I think this process is not the process that we ought to be 
pursuing. I think in that context I speak for the chairman and for the 
ranking member and for most Members in this body.
  I was going to wait a while, but then I heard Mr. Dent of 
Pennsylvania speak and I want to reiterate this point that he made, 
because I made it last week in my colloquy with the majority leader.
  I made the point that we are about to make the largest single 
reduction in discretionary spending that we have made, the gentleman 
said in history; I was more modest and said in the 30 years that I have 
been here. But in any event, this is not an insubstantial cut.
  The problem those of us have on this side of the aisle is it is not 
enough for a large number of your folks, and they have said so, and the 
Heritage Foundation has said so, and the Family Research Council has 
said so, and some of your Members have said so.
  Now, the fact of the matter is this is a lousy way to run a railroad. 
We are trying to run the largest enterprise in the world in 2-week 
segments. It is costly to the private sector, it is extraordinarily 
inefficient for the public sector, and it is demoralizing for the 
private sector who deals with the government and for the public 
employees we have asked to perform the services that we have set forth 
as policy. And so I say at this juncture, this ought to be the last of 
this type. We need to reach agreement.
  Now I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, because it is the largest 
cut, we think we've come a long way. You said you wanted to cut $100 
billion. Now, you're not cutting the $41 billion that we cut. You were 
using the 2011 baseline. That's how you got your $100 billion. $41 
billion, we have all agreed, is gone. We're going to freeze at 2010 and 
go below that. So we have come $41 billion away, and we agree on that.
  Now, you used the 2011. That wasn't our figure first. You used it 
September; we used it in December. So my view is we have agreed on $41 
billion. You don't say that. You say we're between

[[Page 3964]]

zero and 60. I understand your rationale. But it's your figure, it's 
your baseline that you used in September in your Pledge to America.
  If we have gone 41 and we are now going to go another 10 or 15, what 
I ask of you is, in light of the fact, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania points out, we've already done the deepest cut under 
Republicans, under Democrats, under any of us, it is time to hear from 
you, what is your alternative to make a deal?
  Now, ``compromise'' is a prettier word, but we need to come to 
agreement. If we're going to serve our country, and those who serve our 
country, then we need to come to agreement, because they elected all of 
us. None of us has any greater superiority. We're all the same. And we 
need to come to agreement.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Would the gentleman talk to his colleagues 
over in the other body and tell them to pass something we can begin to 
negotiate on?
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, 435 of us have tried to talk to the 
people in the other body. But I will tell you, under the Constitution 
of the United States, we have the responsibility of initiating bills. 
Read the Constitution.
  We sent H.R. 1 over there, as my good friend, the former Speaker of 
Idaho, says to me, and they didn't pass it. It's not their 
responsibility to initiate. That didn't go anywhere.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. I will say to you, we can wring our hands and say that the 
Senate's not doing its job. We're not in the Senate. We're here. Let us 
come to agreement. And we know the agreement is going to be someplace 
in between where you are and where we are. We know that. But what we 
don't know is what you can pass. What you don't know is what you can 
pass. You don't know what your caucus will do. I understand that. You 
are deeply divided, in my opinion, and we need to know, because it is 
not just us here that are adversely affected.
  Let us come to agreement. Let us stop this process of funding 
government in very short cycles. It is not good for our country, it is 
not good for the people who work for our country, and it is not good 
for the people who are doing work around the world.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, could you tell the chairman and myself what 
our time remaining is?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 12\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has 16 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Of which I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriation, 
the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I can tell the gentleman that just spoke, the minority 
whip, a good friend of mine, what we can pass in this House and what 
our conference will agree to, and that is the $61 million in cuts or 
$100 million overall that we have already agreed to and already passed. 
We can pass that in this House.
  I have heard that this is no way to run a railroad. My good friend 
from Virginia said this is no way to run a government. I have heard 
this is operational outrage. I will tell you the outrage here is that 
we are having to do this because the former majority, when they had the 
majority in the House, the majority in the Senate and the White House, 
failed to pass an appropriation bill. They left the American people in 
this country with this pile of crap. They should not complain about how 
we try to clean this up.
  Mr. Speaker, by the end of this week, the appropriations subcommittee 
which I am privileged to chair, the Interior and Environment 
Subcommittee, will have had 12 budget oversight hearings over the past 
3 weeks. That is 12 hearings addressing the fiscal 2012 budget that we 
will soon be writing.
  It is worth noting that we are now 5\1/2\ months into the fiscal year 
2011, and we still don't have a budget to fund the government through 
the end of the current fiscal year. The CR we are considering today 
keeps the government operating for another 3 weeks. And you're right: 
We need to solve this within this next 3 weeks. The problem is you 
cannot negotiate with a body across the Rotunda that fails to act. We 
can't be the only ones at the table. We have to have something to 
negotiate with. We don't have that.
  This CR saves taxpayers $6 billion, including $650 million in 
spending cuts from the Interior Subcommittee accounts that Republicans, 
Democrats, and the administration agree are reasonable and supportable 
on a bipartisan basis. The overall savings achieved through this CR, at 
a rate of $2 billion per week, is the 3-week equivalent to the $100 
billion in cuts achieved in the long-term CR passed by House 
Republicans several weeks ago.

                              {time}  1410

  In the Interior budget alone, we have cut $380 million out of 
earmarks. We have cut the National Park Service Preserve America 
Program, eliminated it, and other programs, Save America's Treasures in 
the National Park Service, programs that the administration did not 
request funding for in their 2012 budget. So these are things that are 
agreed on by both Republicans and Democrats.
  Now that the Senate has voted down two versions of the year-long CR, 
the Republican version, H.R. 1, that cut spending by $100 billion and 
the Democratic version that cut substantially less, it is time for both 
sides to come together on a funding bill for the rest of this year. The 
truth is that we really need to get the fiscal year 2011 budget 
written, passed, and signed into law so that we can turn our attention 
to next year's budget.
  In the midst of the back and forth debate on spending, it is 
important to remember that these funding bills don't write themselves. 
Our Appropriations Committee staff have been working day and night, 7 
days a week, for months now writing one CR after another, even as they 
prepare for hearings and study budget proposals for next year.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this CR to keep the government 
open while both parties work to identify an acceptable level of 
spending cuts for the rest of the year. We can and should cut more from 
the spending budget, and I encourage my colleagues to support this CR.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from 
Hawaii, Mazie Hirono, who is going to correct the record on the NOAA 
issue.
  Ms. HIRONO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, the cuts to NOAA and our Weather Service are contained 
in H.R. 1, and we have not reached agreement on H.R. 1, which is why we 
are doing yet another CR. And, believe me, those kinds of cut to NOAA 
and our Weather Service will have an impact on our ability to implement 
early warning systems.
  Some of you may not know that Hawaii has already suffered millions 
and millions of dollars of damages as a result of the tsunami. And, 
yes, it does not compare at all to the tragedy that the Japanese people 
are facing, but nonetheless, thank goodness, our early warning systems 
were in place.
  Now, as to this CR, I rise in opposition to this CR, which continues 
the Republican strategy of cutting $2 billion every week from programs 
that support jobs and our families.
  I want to focus on just one program being cut, out of many, by the 
way, that affect real people in real ways that is particularly 
troubling to me in this CR. This is the elimination of all funding for 
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operation Program, popularly known 
as PL 566.
  This $30 million program means a lot to small rural communities 
nationwide. For Hawaii, the decline of the sugar and pineapple 
industries has forced us to transition from large scale plantation 
agriculture to small scale farming. PL 566 has been the only Federal 
program that has really worked to deal with our agricultural water 
issues,

[[Page 3965]]

and it is the single most important Federal agriculture program for 
Hawaii.
  Hawaii is the most food import-dependent State in the entire country, 
so agricultural self-sufficiency is a priority for us, which is one 
reason why continued funding for Hawaii's PL 566 project is so 
critical.
  In addition, PL 566 provides flood prevention for small communities 
that the Army Corps does not serve. Hawaii projects include the Lower 
Hamakua Ditch Watershed Project to rehabilitate a 26-mile-long 
irrigation ditch that provides water to hundreds, hundreds of small 
farmers on Hawaii Island.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds.
  Ms. HIRONO. Another project is the Upcountry Maui Watershed Project, 
providing water to 170 farmers and ranchers on Maui, and also the 
Wailuku-Alenaoi Watershed and Lahaina Watershed Projects that prevent 
flooding on Hawaii and Maui.
  These long-term projects help to build our local economies and create 
jobs, and stopping these projects in midstream is irresponsible, 
unsafe, and makes no economic sense at all. Most of these projects are 
well under way. We need to continue funding these programs to support 
our communities and support jobs.
  This program has long had bipartisan support. In fact, last year, I 
signed a joint letter, led by Agriculture Committee Chairman Lucas, 
urging funding for this program.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  In going back and looking, NOAA operations, research, and facilities 
in H.R. 1 is cut by $454.3 million. And one of the officials there said 
what would happen in the continuing resolution, there will be a 
dismantling of our Nation's early warning system, Dan Sobien, president 
of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, said in a 
telephone interview. It will result in a roughly 30 percent cut in the 
budget of the National Weather Service. Sobien said the current plan 
called for the Weather Service to close individual offices for about a 
month at a time on a rolling basis.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this continuing resolution, for two reasons.
  Number one, it keeps us on the path to put the brakes on this runaway 
spending that has gone around this place too long. It continues us to 
get to the place where we start a culture of savings instead of this 
culture of spending.
  The second reason to vote for this, of course, is to make sure that 
we don't shut down the government, to give us a little more time to try 
to have a final negotiation on the spending levels for next year.
  Somebody asked the question, is this the best way to fund the 
government? Of course it is not. There is no way. It would have been a 
whole lot better if last year under the Democratic leadership in this 
House we had a budget before this House that would pass. But that 
didn't happen.
  It would have been better last year during the session if the 
Democratic leadership had gone through regular order. We would have 
passed the appropriations bill, and then the government would be funded 
for 2011. But they didn't do that.
  It would have been a whole lot better after this House got together 
and made some tough choices, set some priorities, made difficult 
decisions, and passed a spending bill that cut $100 billion out of this 
year's spending and sent it down to the Senate. It would have been 
better if they would have taken that up and passed it, or at least done 
something. But they didn't do that.
  So here we are. We find ourselves with another CR, 3 more weeks. But 
let me tell you, these are difficult times, and in difficult times 
leaders have to lead. We have got to sit down together and establish 
the priorities we have for spending. We have to make tough choices. 
That is what every American family does, that is what every American 
business does. If we are going to get this economy moving again, we 
need to settle this once and for all.
  So I just hope that we will pass this continuing resolution and that 
this will indeed be the last time we do this; that in 3 weeks we sit 
down, have that other body sit down and negotiate with us. It takes two 
to tango, as they say.
  We sent the whole ball of wax down there and they didn't like it, so 
now we are sending them a little at a time. But we are honoring that 
pledge to cut $100 billion. When you cut $2 billion every week, that 
all adds up to $100 billion. So this is $6 billion more we are cutting 
on top of the $4 billion we cut. But, again, that is no way to settle 
the year.
  Let's settle it once and for all. Let's pass this, move ahead, and 
get this thing done.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from 
Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, who is a very senior member of the Appropriations 
Committee and, I think, the longest serving woman in the House of 
Representatives.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank my dear colleague for his great leadership and 
for yielding me this time.
  Let me just say that I urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
continuing resolution. It cuts money for jobs to people that give 
social services to our senior citizens at a time when gas prices are 
going up and food prices are going up; it cuts jobs to clean up our 
brownfield sites across this country, and if you don't know what those 
are, you are lucky; it cuts jobs that affect our public broadcasting, 
the only decent broadcasting left in this country with the garbage 
that's on the airwaves today; and it cuts jobs dealing with 
construction and repair of our Save America's Treasures Program, some 
of the oldest buildings in America that our children and grandchildren 
have a right to enjoy, as we have.
  So people say, where are you going to get the money? Let me tell you 
where the money is, and what is not on the table in trying to balance 
the Federal budget. How about the profits of the Wall Street ``Big 
Six'': Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, 
Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup. They scooped up just last year $51 
billion in profits; $51 billion at the expense of the American people 
hit hard in this great recession that we're enduring. Wall Street 
titans are happy as clams.

                              {time}  1420

  Their top executives alone took $26 million in compensation, not 
counting all their stock options. We didn't touch a penny of their 
bonuses. Oh, we can't do that! Wall Street banks are paying at an 
effective 11 percent tax rate when businesses in my district have to 
pay at 35 percent. What's fair about that? We could have $13 billion, 
$14 billion, $15 billion, $16 billion if Wall Street just paid at the 
same rate as other honest businesses do--just for last year.
  And oil prices? The American people are being gouged all across this 
country. But Exxon made $9 billion in the third quarter of last year--
the largest profit of a company in U.S. history. Guess how much they 
paid in taxes? A big goose egg. Zero. Zero. And British Petroleum, $5 
billion in one quarter. How much did oil companies pay in taxes? 
Where's that on the deficit cutting table?
  So, we say to the American people, you can't balance a trillion-
dollar deficit on 14 percent of the budget. All you do is hurt people. 
Wall Street and Big Oil have already hurt the American people.
  Let's pay the bills by expecting those who have much and give nothing 
to pay their fair share.That's how you seriously balance the budget--
everything has to be on the table.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a very 
hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole).
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page 3966]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the adoption of H.J. Res. 48 for the 
continuing appropriations for this fiscal year. It seems to me that 
we've got three questions we ought to address in the course of this 
debate. First, and very elementally, why are we here? Second, what does 
the bill do? And third, what are the consequences if the bill isn't 
passed?
  We're here for the simple reason that the last Congress, that my good 
friends on the other side ran, never passed a budget and never passed a 
single appropriations bill. We're here because the Democratic majority 
failed to do its work. We're also here because the current Democratic 
majority in the other body has so far failed to do its work.
  I remind my colleagues, we actually passed legislation and sent it 
over. I also remind my colleagues that the one proposal in the Senate 
that actually got the most votes was actually the Republican H.R. 1. 
But nevertheless, they failed to give us something to negotiate 
against. It's their obligation in the Senate at some point to have a 
common negotiating position. I don't know how we can sit down and 
negotiate otherwise.
  So we're here, I think, because of a Democratic failure both in the 
last Congress and this one.
  Second, what does this bill do? Well, it's pretty commonsensical. It 
cuts and reduces 25 programs, saving $3.5 billion. Most of those 
programs the President and the majority say they don't want to 
continue. It eliminates $2.6 billion in earmarks and, by itself, is one 
of the largest cuts any CR has ever administered. As has been pointed 
out earlier, if you combine it with the previous CR, it is a very 
substantial cut indeed. It buys time, but it also keeps the government 
running and it keeps us on course to reduce spending at $2 billion a 
week, something that my colleagues and I are committed to.
  Finally, what happens if we don't pass this bill? I know there's some 
that want to spend more, some that want to spend less. The first thing 
that happens is we shut down the government, something all of us know 
is not a wise thing to do. The second thing that happens is that we 
probably create financial panic in the country and harm a fragile 
economy. Finally, the last thing that happens, and I think actually the 
most important, is we raise fundamental doubts amongst the American 
people as to whether or not this institution and we, as elected 
officials, have the capacity to actually address and solve our 
problems.
  So I think we need to pass this bill. We need to give our friends on 
the other side of the aisle, particularly in the Senate, another 3 
weeks to see if they can possibly come up with a negotiating position. 
And I'm confident once those negotiations begin, our Speaker will keep 
the government running, will bargain in good faith, but will cut 
spending, as we're committed to do.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to congratulate and thank 
two long-time committee staff members who both are leaving us this 
month after many years of service.
  Beverly Pheto spent 10 years on the committee, serving as clerk on 
both the Transportation Subcommittee and the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee before becoming the first woman staff director of the full 
committee under former Chairman David Obey. Bev was the top Democratic 
staff person during 9/11, the creation of the Transportation Security 
Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security, and during 
Hurricane Katrina. And in the last Congress, as majority clerk, Beverly 
helped craft the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--the Recovery 
Act that saved tens of thousands of American jobs and kept this country 
from slipping into another Great Depression.
  We thank Bev for agreeing to stay on with us and help with the 
committee's transition and congratulate her on her many years of 
service, both in the executive branch as well as for us. She will be 
missed, but we wish her well in her new endeavors.
  I also want to extend my deep appreciation to Chris Topik, who has 
served on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee since 1995, most 
recently as the minority clerk. Chris began his career with the U.S. 
Forest Service before coming to the committee as a detailee. During his 
time on the Interior Subcommittee, Chris found himself in the middle of 
some of the most contentious environmental policy disputes but always 
remained the consummate professional. While I chaired the Interior 
Subcommittee, I relied heavily on his solid judgment and wise counsel. 
I wish Chris the very best as he leaves the committee and thank him 
again for his service.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Let me join, on behalf of us on this side, in 
thanking those two wonderful individuals for their dedicated public 
service. They have worked hard on behalf of the public, and they 
deserve our utmost thanks, which I offer at this time.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman.
  On behalf of the majority, I would like to echo the comments of my 
good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Chris Topik came to the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations as a 
detailee from the Forest Service in the mid-1990s and, since that time, 
has worked on a nonpartisan basis to address many of the most critical 
issues facing our land management agencies. Chris is one of the most 
professional and widely respected individuals on the Appropriations 
Committee staff. His dry wit and friendly disposition will be greatly 
missed, and his institutional knowledge of Forest Service issues will 
be impossible to replace.
  Chris, we appreciate your dedication and commitment over your many 
years of public service and wish you all the best in your future 
endeavors.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time 
remaining on our side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very 
hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Bonner).
  Mr. BONNER. I thank the chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this continuing resolution, as unpleasant as it is.
  Our Democrat colleagues, our Republican colleagues, we agree; we 
don't like being in the situation that we're in, but we're in the 
situation nevertheless. Our colleagues remember that for the first time 
since 1974, we didn't pass a budget last year. We didn't pass a single 
appropriation bill, as the chairman of the committee has noted. We 
don't like being in this situation, but we're in this situation. And 
yet I think there's a real disconnect between Washington and the 
American people.
  I was listening to the television news that Sunday when Senator Kyl 
put the budget debate in perspective. While rarely do House Members 
quote Senators, I think it's worth it. We talk about trillions and 
billions and millions, but if you had a $10,000 budget, which most 
Americans can more easily identify with, and 40 percent of that is 
actually borrowed money, then what we're talking about with H.R. 1, 
which is the basis upon which this CR is going forward, we'd be shaving 
off $28 from a $10,000 budget.
  Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, the reason that Congress has 
continued to draw such unpopular respect with the American people is 
that there is a disconnect. Last year, we had a $223 billion deficit; 
the largest in the history. We're talking about shaving $6 billion 
until we can get a resolution between the House and the Senate and 
encourage the White House to join the mix.

[[Page 3967]]

  I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak out, and I encourage 
our colleagues to support this CR.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished leader 
of the Democratic Party in the House, Nancy Pelosi of California.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
his hard work to help keep the government open.
  While many of us will not agree on the legislation before us today, 
we know it is necessary for us to proceed. So I don't rise to support 
or oppose the legislation but, instead, to comment on the situation 
that we are in.

                              {time}  1430

  Again, today, we are in a situation. We are debating a short-term 
bill to keep the government open on a week-by-week basis. This is not 
any way to run a government or a business. It certainly is not the way, 
as the military leadership has told us, to protect the national 
security of our country--on a week-to-week basis.
  Democrats will work with Republicans on legislation that will create 
jobs, that will strengthen the middle class, and that will reduce the 
deficit. On all three of these scores, this Republican spending bill 
fails.
  Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility as a top 
priority of this Congress. We won't go into the history right now, but 
it's well known that President Clinton took us out of a period of 
deficit--his last five budgets being in surplus, or in balance. 
President Bush turned that around immediately when he became President, 
and now we have to dig ourselves out of the deficit that he has taken 
us into. Last December, Democrats passed a $41 billion cut in the 
President's budget. We did so with only one Republican vote, $41 
billion. Democrats are in the lead on fiscal soundness.
  On the subject of jobs, we are in the 11th week of the Republican 
majority in the Congress, and we have not seen one bill that will 
create jobs. In fact, the only bill coming from the Republicans, the 
only legislation that has come to the floor to create jobs, would be 
the Democratic initiatives.
  One is Build America Bonds: to build the infrastructure of America to 
keep ahead of the game in terms of innovation. Build America Bonds. 
Republicans overwhelmingly rejected that. The other bill was a bill to 
keep our jobs from going overseas by rewarding businesses that sent 
jobs overseas. Democrats said ``no'' to that idea. Republicans said 
``no'' to our legislation. Zero jobs bills in 11 weeks.
  It is quite different from the record of President Obama, who came 
into office 2 years ago with a Democratic Congress. President Obama was 
a job creator from day one, one week and one day after the President's 
inaugural address, calling for swift bold action now to create jobs. 
The House of Representatives passed the recovery bill, which was then 
passed by the Senate and signed into law in a matter of weeks. That 
legislation created or saved 3.6 million jobs. This is important in 
terms of the deficit because it produced jobs. It produced revenue into 
the Treasury that helped reduce the deficit.
  Tax cuts for the wealthy, which has been the job creator that the 
Republicans put forth in the Bush administration and have put forth 
since, do not create jobs but increase the deficit.
  So we are at the place, again, of 11 weeks. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke 
said the Republican spending bill would cost not a trivial amount of 
jobs; Mark Zandi, the Republican economist, said the Republican 
spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs. Goldman Sachs said the 
Republican spending bill would reduce U.S. economic growth by 1.5 to 2 
percent; 320 economists sent a letter, calling Republican cuts a threat 
to our economy's long-term economic competitiveness and to the strength 
of our current economic recovery.
  They all agree, to one extent or another, that the Republican agenda 
is taking us in the wrong direction, and that agenda is manifested in 
the continuing resolution, H.R. 1, and in the budget approach that they 
are taking. In fact, in addition to not creating jobs, the Republican 
initiative is making matters worse.
  Many of us have come to the floor to talk about budgets year in and 
year out. We all say that our national budget should be a statement of 
our national values. What is important to our country should be 
reflected in the allocation of our resources. We want to have that 
debate on values rather than just on cuts.
  Again, we all agree we have to get rid of waste, fraud, abuse, 
duplication, obsolescence, and the rest. The GAO has given us a 
blueprint for that, and we subscribe to that. We all agree that we must 
reduce the deficit, and the fiscal commission has given us a road map 
for that. We can agree or disagree with some of it; but the fact is it 
gives us a blueprint for how to go forward, and we should take heed of 
that. That blueprint says that we should not be making cuts right now 
that will be harmful to our recovery. Yet that's exactly what the 
Republican initiatives do.
  So as to this statement of value, when we have this debate, it's not 
a debate about are we going to cut 6 million or 3 million seniors off 
of Meals on Wheels. It's about who we are as a country, how do we 
protect the American people both in our national security and our 
neighborhoods. It's how we educate our children to make them happy and 
also how to keep us competitive as innovators internationally. It's how 
we maintain a healthy America. It's not just about their health care 
but about their good health: the air they breathe, the water they 
drink, the safety of the food they eat.
  It is about the creation of jobs. I believe we have an obligation as 
a government to be job creators. Jobs give people the means to find 
their own happiness and also to bring revenue into the Treasury, if 
we're just speaking pragmatically and not in terms of values.
  I don't believe it's just about the dollars. It's because of the 
values that we have to have this debate. Unfortunately, the bills that 
we are being presented with, like H.R. 1, are like a balloon. You 
squeeze it here and it pops out there. It doesn't change anything for 
the better. In fact, as has been indicated, it makes matters worse.
  So as we consider our budgetary decisions as a discussion, as a 
statement of our national values, we have to remember that the 
greatness of our country depends on the strengthening of our middle 
class. We have to do that by creating jobs, and we certainly must 
reduce the deficit.
  Now we are waiting at the negotiating table for the Republicans to 
show that they are willing to work together--we cut $41 billion with 
one Republican vote--and that they are willing to work together to 
reach an agreement that is a statement of our values. I think we can do 
that. Many of us have worked together on the Appropriations Committee 
over the years.
  I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in our efforts to create 
jobs, to strengthen the middle class, and to reduce the deficit--and to 
do so in the interest of the American people.
  That's why I think, on this vote today, people will vote however they 
view their own statements about it. The big vote that is coming up is 
the vote on the continuing resolution, on the long-term basis to keep 
the government open and functioning for people--again, in a way that is 
a statement of values for our great country.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new 
member of our committee, a hardworking member, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership on 
the Appropriations Committee and for yielding me some time here this 
morning.
  Mr. Speaker, yes, it's true. I came here on January 5. Just a few 
weeks ago, I put my hand up and took the oath of office. As I did, I 
was reminded of the fact that, at that precise time in my life, I was 
taking the oath of office already 3 months into the fiscal year. Now, 
you show me what business or what governmental jurisdiction anywhere in 
America is effectively and efficiently managed when you're operating 
without a budget already 3 months into the budget year.

[[Page 3968]]

  I was a mayor of a very dynamic city in northwest Arkansas. We never 
did that. We couldn't survive by passing our budget sometime during the 
course of the ongoing year. So our conference, in particular, is 
leading by example. We are providing a leadership example for the 
spending cuts that so many people around America have said over and 
over again we have to achieve.
  Look, America gets it. We are at a $1.5 trillion deficit in this FY, 
and we are $14-plus trillion in debt. We have to do something about 
spending. It's all about the end game, which is where this side of the 
aisle and that side of the aisle can come to an agreement because we 
know that the end game is about the creation of jobs. The ideological 
difference about how we get there, I think, is what divides us; but I 
am a firm believer and will tell you--as will any businessman, any 
mayor, any county judge, any government official--that your balance 
sheet drives a lot of things.

                              {time}  1440

  I think fundamental to that balance sheet is how much you're in debt, 
because how much you are in debt in business is tied to your assets. In 
government, it's tied to your capacity to tax; and right now, one of 
the fundamental problems about growing jobs in this economy is the 
uncertainty that hangs over the job creators in America.
  Let me just finish by saying that I urge support of H.J. Res. 48.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of this temporary continuing 
resolution to urge my colleagues to do the same.
  As we debate this measure, let's remember why we are here. Let's 
remember that on November 2, the people of Virginia's Fifth District 
and the people across this country sent a message to Washington, a 
message to Republicans and to Democrats. The message was urgent, it was 
clear, and it was loud. The message sent was that now is the time to 
stop the government spending, stop the government borrowing, and stop 
the raid on our children's future.
  So what have we found since we got here? We find that our President 
and the last Congress, despite enjoying great majorities in each 
Chamber, completely and totally failed nearly 6 months ago to live up 
to its fundamental responsibility to adopt a budget for fiscal year 
2011. Because of their failure to lead, the American people still 6 
months later do not have a budget.
  After the House worked into the early morning hours nearly a month 
ago and sent H.R. 1 down the Hall to the opposite Chamber, what has the 
Senate done? They left town, and they failed to adopt any proposal to 
fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.
  And what has the President done? While continuing to fail to lead on 
the 2011 budget, he has now proposed a budget for fiscal year 2012 that 
does not decrease spending and borrowing but instead increases 
government spending and nearly doubles government borrowing in the next 
10 years. After it is all said and done, the Senate and the White House 
have not heard the message from the people in the last election and are 
continuing to fail to lead.
  Now is the time for this Congress to listen. Now is the time for this 
Congress to act. I believe that the majority in this House is listening 
and this temporary continuing resolution gets us one step closer to 
fulfilling the purpose given us by the American people: cut government 
spending and reduce government borrowing for the sake of future 
generations.
  Simply put, by voting in favor of this measure today, we are putting 
a $6 billion deposit on the account for our children and our 
grandchildren who for far too long have been forgotten here in 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to review the bidding here. We are down to the 
end of this debate on this continuing resolution, and I hope--and as I 
know Chairman Rogers hopes--that this will be the last continuing 
resolution and that working together we can come together on a solution 
to the FY11 budget.
  Now, I've heard repeatedly, repeatedly, and I've even mentioned this 
in my last statement, and the next thing I knew it was on Cantor's Web 
site, but back in 2007, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky will 
remember that when we took over power and won the election in 2006, 
most of the nine, I think, or 10 of the appropriations bills were not 
enacted, and the Democrats had to pass a bill in February enacting all 
of these things. So maybe we learned that lesson from you-all over 
there, and I hope you will remember it because you seem to act like 
this has never happened before. Well, that's number one.
  Number two, the American people in a Washington Post-ABC poll 
yesterday over the weekend said that they are worried that the cuts in 
H.R. 1 will hurt the economy. It was narrow. It was 45-41, but 71 
percent of the people said the problem was that your side isn't 
engaging and that they blame the Republicans for not getting this deal.
  Now, why would they think that? I think the reason for it is when the 
first Rogers amendment proposal came out, that was kind of a reasonable 
approach, but that was rejected; and then they doubled the amount of 
these cuts, and the cuts became very severe and very questionable.
  There was a story in The Washington Post today that lays out if you 
cut food inspectors, you're going to pay for it; if you cut WIC 
funding, you're going to pay for it, billions, in these children.
  So I just point these things out. Cutting Head Start, this was 
perceived by the American people as too extreme, and that is why the 
Senate rejected H.R. 1, the President rejected H.R. 1. We need to have 
reasonable people sit down and work out a compromise and not let the 
government be shut down.
  I believe that this should be the last CR and that we all should 
agree here today that this is going to be the last CR and that we are 
committed to getting this resolved. And that's what the American people 
also said in this ABC-Washington Post poll, not that I follow the polls 
much; but they also said they wanted us to come to an agreement.
  So, again, I pledge to our chairman that we're not going to let this 
happen again; that this year we will pass all 12 appropriation bills by 
August, and we've done that before; and that we will end this process 
that started back in 2007 and which got continued in 2011. It is not 
the way to do the government's business. So let's make a pledge today 
that after this CR, we're going to work together to solve this problem 
and move on to FY12.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time 
to a hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I listened with great interest to the distinguished minority leader 
and her remarks, and I always like listening to her. I never cast my 
ballot for her to become the Speaker of the House in the last two 
Congresses, but as an American we all celebrated the historic 
accomplishment when she became the first woman to preside over this 
Chamber since the founding of the Republic. And a lot of wonderful 
things will be said and written about her tenure as Speaker of the 
House.
  One thing that will not be said or written is that she presided over 
two Congresses that will be known for fiscal responsibility--that 
Congress passed a bank bailout bill costing $700 billion which may 
bankrupt the Nation; passed an $800 billion stimulus bill that created 
no jobs that may bankrupt the Nation; passed a cap-and-

[[Page 3969]]

tax piece of legislation that would gut jobs in Michigan, Ohio, 
Indiana, and would have bankrupted the Nation; and, finally, a health 
care bill that took over one-sixth of the Nation's economy, did not 
bend the cost curve and, if not checked, will, in fact, bankrupt the 
Nation.
  The distinguished minority leader's speech reminds me of that old 
adage that everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. We 
hear continuously we have to cut, we have to cut, we have to cut, but 
not these cuts, not those cuts, not this program, not my program. The 
time is now. The time is serious. We have laid an offer upon the table, 
and we wait with great expectation.
  Now, I know what all those people in St. Peters Square must feel like 
when they are waiting for the white smoke to come out of the top of the 
dome for the election of a Pope. We would like very much for the other 
side of this Capitol to give us a proposal to negotiate with. We would 
like very much for the Vice President of the United States to return to 
this Nation to talk to us. It's not happening. We need to pass the 
bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today's legislation is designed to 
allow the federal government to continue operating through April 8, 
2011. Additionally, this three-week CR does not contain the kind of 
truly reckless cuts and extreme policy riders contained in H.R. 1.
  While this measure is clearly preferable to a government shutdown, we 
simply can't continue running the government on a series of short term 
extensions. The time has come to negotiate a long term CR that makes 
responsible reductions in federal spending while keeping job creation 
and our ongoing economic recovery on track.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 48, 
another short-term Continuing Resolution.
  This is enabling bad Congressional behavior.
  Continuing to cut specific environmental programs that have meant so 
much to communities across the country without at least putting it in 
the context of the broader budget request is irresponsible. It does not 
make sense to chip away at the Environmental Protection Agency by 
cutting local climate change and targeted airshed grants or the 
Department of Interior by cutting the Save America's Treasures program 
without looking at the rest of the budget to ensure that community 
needs are still being met.
  This CR continues to target public broadcasting. It aims to eliminate 
all funding for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, PTFP. 
This program--started before the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967--is 
the only source of federal revenue for the replacement of aging or 
damaged equipment. Public broadcasting's programming can't be enjoyed 
if there's no way to maintain the infrastructure that delivers it to 
our homes.
  PTFP is needed because by statute, station funds from the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting, CPB, are to be used for the production or 
acquisition of programming, not upkeep. Unfortunately, infrastructure 
needs far outpace recent funding. In FY 2009, stations received nearly 
$38 million from the PTFP and the CPB Digital Program. However, in that 
same time period, stations spent nearly $191 million in equipment and 
infrastructure--reflecting the fact that both programs together have 
only been able to help stations address roughly 20% of their needs. We 
should be supporting these infrastructure investments and public 
broadcasting, not defunding them.
  On the first CR, I was willing to vote yes in hopes we'd get serious. 
The problem with multiple short term CRs is more short-term spending 
authority that cripples the ability of the federal government to manage 
important functions while it drives up costs. It is expensive to make 
decisions on a week-to-week basis.
  I am disappointed that this bill avoids the tough decisions that must 
be made, unsettles the business climate, and makes the job of our state 
and local partners harder.
  Mr. WEST. Madam Speaker, I rise today to take a stand, a stand that 
may not be popular with the Leadership of the House of Representatives, 
but a stand I must take because I believe we cannot kick the can down 
the road for even another 3 weeks. The American people recognize that 
we must no longer take these small calculated measures. Today I will 
vote against another short-term Continuing Resolution.
  In the shortest month of the year, February, the Federal Government 
had the largest deficit of $223 billion in our nation's entire history. 
The American people know that we are in a fiscal crisis and have sent 
me to address out-of-control spending.
  The majority in the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1 which 
reduced spending by $61 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year. 
Even though H.R. 1 only cut spending by approximately 1.5 percent of 
the entire requested budget for fiscal year 2011, H.R. 1 reversed the 
trend of the Democrat Majority which increased overall discretionary 
funding by 24% over the last 2 years. The United States Senate rejected 
this amount as too much. They believe that, after President Barack 
Obama and the Democrat Congress presented trillion dollar deficit 
budgets, a freeze is the only viable approach.
  I am not a supporter of big government. However, the Federal 
Government does perform certain important functions. Many essential 
Federal agencies cannot move forward with planning and using resources 
if every several weeks they are faced with the threat that they will 
need to close their doors until we resolve this impasse. Could any 
business in America function this way? Can a family household function 
this way?
  Madam Speaker, President Obama and the United States Congresses of 
the past have created the Nanny States of America. Vast segments of the 
American people are now dependent on our Federal Government and not 
dependent on their own ability, skills and entrepreneurial spirit to 
succeed in this Nation.
  We are in this position today because the Democrats in the last 
Congress failed to pass a budget. Further, the President appoints Vice 
President Biden as the Administration point person on the negotiations 
while he flies off to Europe. The Democrats failed to show leadership 
last year and the President is showing a lack of leadership today. I 
will show what I consider appropriate leadership now and vote against 
this Continuing Resolution.
  Madam Speaker, the American people are watching us closely. Today, 
with information so readily available on the Internet they know the 
truth of our desperate economic situation. The days of Washington, D.C. 
double-talk no longer works.
  The American people know that the Federal Government is collecting 
$2.2 trillion and spending $3.7 trillion this year. The American people 
know forty cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends is 
borrowed, much of it from China. The American people also know our 
nation is piling up new debt at the rate of $4 billion a day. So, what 
does $6 billion of spending cuts really buy the American people?
  Further, the General Accountability Office released a 345-page report 
detailing the redundancies of Federal programs and the $100 to $200 
billion of savings that could be achieved if these programs were 
consolidated or eliminated.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to argue that these 
cuts in spending will weaken an already slow economy and contribute to 
an increase in the loss of jobs. I believe this is a disingenuous 
argument. The truth is, the spending over the last 2 years has not 
reduced the loss of jobs, but instead has contributed to the largest 
debt in American history which will be passed on to my children and my 
grandchildren.
  In Wisconsin, we have seen what the unionized entitlement class can 
do and the pressure they can place on their elected officials. 
Wisconsin State Legislators running to a neighboring state to hide from 
making a hard vote and protestors storming the Wisconsin State Capitol 
are not in concert with the principles of a representative democracy.
  Madam Speaker, Madison, Wisconsin is only 700 miles from the United 
States Capitol.
  The Founders of our nation wrote in the Declaration of Independence 
``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created 
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of 
Happiness.'' The ``Pursuit'' of Happiness, not the Federal Government's 
``Guarantee'' of Happiness!
  Finally, Madam Speaker, we can continue to rehash the past of how we 
have gotten into this situation, but I would rather focus on the 
future. The future is now and the place is here for us to get our 
Nation back on track. I support the cuts in the Continuing Resolution. 
I support the elimination of these projects.
  However, my ``No'' vote should not be construed as my willingness for 
a ``government shutdown.'' My ``No'' vote is based on a simple 
principle that we need to complete the Federal budget for 2011. It is 
time to have this debate on Federal spending and get our nation back on 
track by cutting spending for the long term economic restoration of our 
Republic.
  Alexander the Great once stated, ``Fortune favors the bold.'' The 
American people are

[[Page 3970]]

looking for principled and bold leadership. I understand ``political 
maneuvering'' but the time has come to engage in the battle for the 
fiscal responsible future of America. I take my position on the 
frontlines.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, we all agree that we must get our fiscal 
house in order, which is why Democrats sought to cut more than $40 
billion from the President's 2011 budget request in December. We must 
evaluate every program and determine whether it merits taxpayer 
funding.
  I have significant reservations about some of the cuts included in 
H.J. Res. 48, particularly eliminating funding for the Public 
Telecommunications Facilities Program, which was created nearly 50 
years ago and is the only source of ongoing infrastructure assistance 
for public broadcasting stations. Its competitive grants require a 
local match, resulting in a successful public-private partnership, and 
it is the only source of emergency funding for stations with facilities 
devastated by disasters. Funding has already been cut by more than half 
since 2004, and it is a mistake to eliminate it.
  Instead of continuing their quest to dismantle public broadcasting, 
the authors of the bill should have found savings by ending taxpayer-
funded subsidies to large oil companies, which fleece taxpayers of tens 
of billions of dollars.
  However, while I may not support every cut, it is imperative that 
Congress do everything it can, and reach common ground whenever 
possible, to avoid a government shutdown. We cannot allow for the 
possibility of seniors going without Social Security checks or veterans 
losing access to the health benefits they have earned.
  The 7-month continuing resolution the House passed in February is a 
dangerous bill that would create not a single job, hurt federal 
programs essential to economic growth, and compromise our security. 
With no better options, we must adopt this short-term continuing 
resolution to keep the government operating while we negotiate spending 
for the remainder of the fiscal year that will continue economic 
growth.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 167, the joint resolution is considered 
read and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.

                              {time}  1450


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint 
resolution?
  Mr. CRITZ. Yes, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Critz moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J. Res. 
     48 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 20, line 2, strike the final period and the preceding 
     quotation marks.
       Page 20, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``Sec. 295. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to develop or implement a system that cuts Social 
     Security benefits, or that privatizes Social Security.
       ``Sec. 296. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to develop or implement a system that cuts 
     Medicare benefits, eliminates guaranteed health coverage for 
     seniors, or establishes a Medicare voucher plan that limits 
     payments to beneficiaries in order to purchase health care in 
     the private sector.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, as I listen to the debate on the current CR 
and where this debate has been taking us throughout this year, I have 
some reasons for alarm. I think the best way to start it off is to at 
least start to let you know a little bit about myself.
  For most of my life, I have worked in the private sector. I have 
worked all my life and paid into Social Security. And the folks that I 
live with and live around and the people of my district have come to 
rely on Social Security, as it provides for, actually, generations at 
this point.
  As I have been sitting here listening to this current CR, which I am 
opposed to, you know, all 435 of us are sent here to lead. 
Unfortunately, what we have heard time and time again is finger-
pointing as, ``It's your fault,'' ``It's our fault,'' ``It's their 
fault,'' instead of us sitting down, talking to one another and 
figuring out where we can compromise and how we can come to a final 
solution to what our problems are. And it's really very disheartening.
  I can understand that the folks who watch this at home are trying to 
figure out, well, whose side are we on? Are we on their side? Or are we 
on our particular party's side or on our particular stance's side? And 
I think it's very unfortunate because, at the end of the day, we all 
have very strong opinions on what the best way forward is in this 
country. Unfortunately, it's about compromise. Because even though we 
all have strong opinions, we all have differing opinions; and if we 
don't work it out, we are not going to get anywhere.
  As I stand in opposition to this CR, it is something that is 
disheartening.
  Now, I am on the Armed Services Committee and have been hearing from 
industry time and time again at how difficult it is for them in the 
long term. So as we talk about cutting, we are going to cut $2 billion 
a week for these next 3 weeks. Well, by doing these short-term CRs, we 
are actually costing our country money. And no one talks about that, of 
what the impact is going to be from this temporary solution. The 
Republicans have talked about, well, the Democrats didn't complete 
their work last year. That's true. But now the Republicans are in 
charge. You are in charge. You were given a charge to lead this 
country. And here we are going around again doing a 2-week, a 3-week. 
This isn't leading. This is playing games, and it's time to stand up 
and do the right thing for this country.
  But my MTR, motion to recommit, involves Social Security, because the 
debate that has been happening has been trying to frame Social Security 
as a problem and the reason for the deficits that this country is 
experiencing. I brought a chart with me, and I want to read to you the 
net increase in assets in the Social Security Trust Fund for the last 6 
years.
  In 2005, the Social Security Trust Fund increased $172 billion. In 
2006, it increased by $189.5 billion. These are increases. This means 
that the money that comes in to Social Security via your taxes and 
interest is more than what is going out, being paid in benefits. So 
when people start talking about, well, Social Security is causing our 
deficit problem and we have to address entitlement programs, they're 
not giving you the whole picture. They are trying to tell you that down 
the road we may have an issue. Well, no.
  In 2007, the Social Security Trust Fund increased $190.4 billion. In 
2008, it increased $180 billion. In 2009, it increased $122 billion. So 
the trust fund is going up. And it actually has $2.6 trillion in it 
right now. So the people that are receiving Social Security now 
shouldn't be worried about what it's doing to the deficit, because that 
increase in the trust fund is actually money that's coming in to the 
government in excess of what Social Security is spending.
  But I brought up a chart here because I want to show people that when 
you start talking about Social Security--now, if you look at the 12th 
District of Pennsylvania, I have an elderly population. I am one of the 
districts that has a lot of senior citizens in it. A lot of people are 
on Social Security. And if you look at this chart, 77 percent of people 
say, Leave Social Security alone. Don't touch the retirement age. Don't 
touch the benefits. They say, Come to a solution. Figure out a way to 
move forward.
  And there are compromises that can be had to help solve the Social 
Security issue because we do have an issue long term. Baby boomers are 
retiring. Less people are paying in. So there are some issues that we 
have to address. But don't be buying into this crisis legislation that, 
if we don't do something immediately, Social Security is going to be in 
trouble. You are hearing all kinds of scenarios.

[[Page 3971]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CRITZ. I urge support of this amendment. It does not recommit the 
bill. It is an amendment and will just be added to the bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, this provision doesn't do 
anything. Nothing in the CR would cut Social Security or Medicare 
benefits, nor would it privatize Social Security. We are totally 
committed in this bill to saving Social Security.
  Let me be honest. This is a procedural motion that is simply a fog 
screen, trying to hide us from our real task at hand, but I don't think 
we'll be fooled at that. The debate should not be about procedure or 
fog screens or things unrelated to the bill. It should be about doing 
our job.
  We are here this afternoon to provide the necessary resources to keep 
the government's doors open while we lock in important budget savings 
totaling $6 billion. That is $2 billion in spending reductions, or 
savings, to the taxpayer, $2 billion a week, the path this body has set 
with the passage of H.R. 1 a couple of weeks ago.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues that, with the passage of 
this CR today, we will have cut over $10 billion in the span of 2 
weeks. That sets a record. That has never been done before in this 
body. The closest was 1995 at $9 billion. This is more than double the 
$4.7 billion that Senator Reid and the Senate Democrats proposed in 
their CR last week to fund the government for the remaining 6 months. 
We do in 2 weeks what they would take 6 months to do.
  The American people sent us here with a clear message last November. 
They want us to end the partisan bickering and get our work done. 
Instead of picking political fights, they want us united in cutting the 
budget. This motion moves us further away from that goal. It would send 
us backwards, not forwards. It's a smokescreen, a procedural motion.
  Let's get on with it. Vote ``no,'' and then vote ``yes'' on final.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of H.J. Res. 48, if ordered; and adoption of 
H. Con. Res. 30, by the yeas and the nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190, 
nays 239, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 178]

                               YEAS--190

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

                               NAYS--239

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Giffords
     Moore
     Sanchez, Loretta

                              {time}  1523

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


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page 3972]]

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

                             [Roll No. 179]

                               AYES--271

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

                               NOES--158

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Conyers
     Giffords
     Sanchez, Loretta

                              {time}  1532

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

                          ____________________