[House Report 112-12]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     112-12
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                   Union Calendar No. 5


                              R E P O R T

                                 on the

                    REVISED SUBALLOCATION OF BUDGET

                    ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                   SUBMITTED BY MR. ROGERS, CHAIRMAN,

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                             together with

                     MINORITY AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS






 February 14, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida\1\         NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JERRY LEWIS, California\1\           MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia              PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia               NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey  JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
TOM LATHAM, Iowa                     ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama          JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri             JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
KAY GRANGER, Texas                   ED PASTOR, Arizona
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho            DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas          MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida              LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
DENNY REHBERG, Montana               SAM FARR, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana          CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California              STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
JO BONNER, Alabama                   SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           BARBARA LEE, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma                   ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
KEVIN YODER, Kansas
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi
  
----------
1}Chairman Emeritus

                William B. Inglee, Clerk and Staff Director
  
  
  
  

                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Appropriations,
                                 Washington, DC, February 14, 2011.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
The Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Mr. Speaker: By direction of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I submit herewith the Committee's report on the 
suballocation of budget allocations for fiscal year 2011.
    As required by section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, this report subdivides the allocation of fiscal 
year 2011 spending authority to the House Committee on 
Appropriations
established pursuant to section 3(b) of H. Res. 5 (112th 
Congress).
            Sincerely,
                                             Harold Rogers,
                                                          Chairman.
                                                   Union Calendar No. 5
112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     112-12

======================================================================



 
 REPORT ON THE REVISED SUBALLOCATION OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL 
                               YEAR 2011

                                _______
                                

 February 14, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Rogers, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

    REVISED SUBALLOCATION OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report on the suballocation of budget allocations for fiscal 
year 2011 pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974. This report is consistent with the ``Budget 
Allocations'' established pursuant to section 3(b) of H. Res. 5 
(112th Congress).

     REVISED SUBALLOCATIONS TO SUBCOMMITTEES FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET
                          AUTHORITY AND OUTLAYS
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subcommittee           Discretionary   Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, Rural Development,
 Food and Drug Administration:
    Budget authority...........        20,065       111,874      131,939
    Outlays....................        22,818       100,731      123,549
Commerce, Justice, Science:
    Budget authority...........        54,115           256       54,371
    Outlays....................        65,343           266       65,609
Defense:
    Budget authority...........       517,714           292      518,006
    Outlays....................       582,485           292      582,777
Energy and Water Development:
    Budget authority...........        29,984   ...........       29,984
    Outlays....................        43,779   ...........       43,779
Financial Services and General
 Government:
    Budget authority...........        21,151        21,153       42,304
    Outlays....................        24,373        21,149       45,522
Homeland Security:
    Budget authority...........        42,517         1,300       43,817
    Outlays....................        45,057         1,348       46,405
Interior, Environment:
    Budget authority...........        29,596           450       30,046
    Outlays....................        33,158           451       33,609
Labor, Health and Human
 Services, Education:
    Budget authority...........       157,020       560,777      717,797
    Outlays....................       200,613       561,975      762,588
Legislative Branch:
  All except Senate:
    Budget authority...........         3,562           107        3,669
    Outlays....................         3,579           106        3,685
  Senate items:
    Budget authority...........         1,000            26        1,026
    Outlays....................           981            25        1,006
  Total Legislative:
    Budget authority...........         4,562           133        4,695
    Outlays....................         4,560           131        4,691
Military Construction, Veterans
 Affairs:
    Budget authority...........        74,682        69,190      143,872
    Outlays....................        80,860        69,000      149,860
State, Foreign Operations:
    Budget authority...........        46,953           159       47,112
    Outlays....................        48,255           159       48,414
Transportation, HUD:
    Budget authority...........        56,325   ...........       56,325
    Outlays....................       132,560   ...........      132,560
      Grand total:
          Budget authority.....     1,054,684       765,584    1,820,268
          Outlays..............     1,283,861       755,502    2,039,363
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and those voting 
against, are printed below:

                            ROLL CALL NO. 1

    Date: February 8, 2011.
    Measure: Report on the Suballocation of Budget Allocations, 
FY 2011.
    Motion by: Mr. Rogers.
    Description of Motion: To approve the suballocation and 
order it reported, as amended.
    Results: Adopted 27 yeas to 22 nays.

Members Voting Yea                  Members Voting Nay

Mr. Aderholt                        Mr. Bishop
Mr. Alexander                       Ms. DeLauro
Mr. Austria                         Mr. Dicks
Mr. Bonner                          Mr. Farr
Mr. Calvert                         Mr. Fattah
Mr. Carter                          Mr. Flake
Mr. Cole                            Mr. Hinchey
Mr. Crenshaw                        Mr. Honda
Mr. Culberson                       Mr. Jackson
Mr. Dent                            Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Diaz-Balart                     Ms. Lee
Mrs. Emerson                        Ms. Lowey
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Mrs. Lummis
Ms. Granger                         Ms. McCollum
Mr. Graves                          Mr. Moran
Mr. Kingston                        Mr. Olver
Mr. Latham                          Mr. Price
Mr. LaTourette                      Mr. Rothman
Mr. Lewis                           Ms. Roybal-Allard
Mr. Nunnelee                        Mr. Schiff
Mr. Rehberg                         Mr. Serrano
Mr. Rogers                          Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Simpson
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Womack
Mr. Yoder
Mr. Young

              MINORITY VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE NORM DICKS

    The 302(b) funding allocation for Fiscal Year 2011 debated 
in Committee was regrettably a narrow, one-dimensional approach 
to the complex challenge of reducing our federal budget deficit 
at a time when our economy has not yet fully recovered. The 
approach focused the bulk of its budgetary restraint on non-
security discretionary spending--the smallest segment of 
spending in the budget--and thus the level of budget cuts 
required would undoubtedly have been detrimental to our task of 
creating jobs and assuring our economic recovery. You cannot 
``cut and grow,'' as this approach would assume, and if our 
economy doesn't grow, no amount of budget slashing will ever be 
enough to bring the budget back into the positive balance we 
last enjoyed at the end of the Clinton Administration. The 
Republican 302(b) allocation not only imposes precipitous cuts 
that most economists would consider unwise at a time when 
nationwide unemployment remains at 9 percent, but their 
approach ignores the need to make the strategic investments in 
our future that will also assist our economic recovery in the 
near term. There isn't much that the Chamber of Commerce and 
the AFL-CIO agree on, but their leaders issued a joint 
statement on Jan. 26th that correctly stated the approach we 
need at this critical time. They said: ``Whether it is building 
roads, bridges, high-speed broadband, energy systems and 
schools, these projects not only create jobs and demand for 
businesses, they are an investment in building the modern 
infrastructure our country needs to compete in a global 
economy.''
    Democratic Members of the Appropriations Committee have 
been concerned that the budget allocations proposed would 
disrupt even the meager job gains we have seen in recent 
months. We are convinced that jamming on the fiscal brakes so 
quickly would have the opposite effect of what the majority 
ostensibly is intending to accomplish: it would inhibit job 
growth by slowing down economic growth and increasing the 
deficit.
    Even worse, after the Republican leadership presented a 
draft bill based on this risky budget allocation, the most 
conservative members of the Republican caucus objected and 
demanded that their leaders impose an additional $26 billion in 
budget cuts simply in order to adhere to an arbitrary $100 
billion level that was pulled out of thin air and inserted into 
a campaign press release last fall. At this point there is no 
suggestion that the new bill introduced by the majority was 
prepared with any sensitivity to the need to avoid further job 
losses. The specific cuts are indiscriminate. They would cost 
jobs, delay economic recovery and hurt people all across 
America. They would terminate the program that helps homeless 
veterans get off the streets and out of shelters; reduce the 
number of meat and poultry inspectors that will result in 
processing plants shutting down and the cost of food 
increasing; remove more than 200,000 kids from the Head Start 
program; reduce the maximum Pell Grant award by $800 per 
college student; slash the program that puts more cops on the 
beat and helps local law enforcement keep citizens safe and put 
crooks in jail. And the list goes on and on. These are brutal 
cuts, hastily suggested during a budget exercise conducted 
solely for political purposes.
    As Democrats, we are willing to work with our colleagues on 
the other side to identify unnecessary and wasteful programs; 
however, we will not hesitate to promote and defend programs 
that create jobs and help us turn the corner on the economy. We 
can do better. We should reject this arbitrary and unwise 
budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2011. We should work together, 
bearing in mind the need to create jobs and keep our economy 
growing, to develop a reasonable and economically-defensible 
budget proposal that the Senate will accept and the President 
will sign. And then we should proceed to work on the Fiscal 
Year 2012 budget in a way that will give Americans confidence 
that Congress is doing the job we've been sent here to do.
                                                        Norm Dicks.

                ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE FLAKE

    The coming months will require every member of the House 
Appropriations Committee to face difficult decisions and make 
tough choices. Unfortunately, the proposed subcommittee 
allocations for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 failed to 
make good on past commitments or fully realize the new fiscal 
realities that members face in the 112th Congress. As such, I 
had little choice but to oppose the fiscal year 2011 302(b) 
allocations considered in the Committee's organizational 
meeting on February 9, 2011.
    In the run-up to the elections in November, the Pledge to 
America offered by House Republicans clearly stated that 
``[w]ith common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our 
troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, 
pre-bailout levels,'' a move that would save taxpayers ``at 
least $100 billion in the first year alone'' when compared with 
the President's fiscal year 2011 non-security request. Yet, in 
an apples-to-apples comparison of the President's fiscal year 
2011 non-security request to the fiscal year 2011 non-security 
subcommittee allocations, the math results in only a $58 
billion reduction. I recognize that the failure of the 
Democrat-controlled 111th Congress to produce a budget put us 
in a very difficult position. However, the fiscal year 2011 
committee allocation setting discretionary budget authority 
filed by the Budget Committee Chairman is a spending ceiling 
and not a floor. As such, there was nothing preventing the 
Appropriations Committee from making good on the pledge by 
considering subcommittee allocations below the filed limit on 
discretionary spending. The 302(b) report instead set committee 
allocations that fell $42 billion short of the $100 billion 
target, and very clearly and publicly missed that mark.
    Fiscal year 2008 spending levels bear no real significance. 
The national debt has passed the $14 trillion mark and 
continues to climb, and the $1.5 trillion dollar deficit 
expected this year will set yet another record. The $100 
billion goal is a veritable rounding error in terms of the debt 
and would have to be achieved 15 times over to wipe away the 
current deficit. We will have to take drastic steps if we are 
to get our fiscal house in order. When we asked taxpayers to 
give us the gavel, we told them we would deliver $100 billion 
in cuts to non-discretionary spending in the first year and we 
should deliver on that pledge.
    As the Committee set out to tackle the work of the 112th 
Congress, there was positive sentiment regarding ``returning to 
regular order.'' Whether real or perceived, the Appropriations 
Committee has in the past been associated with ``black box'' 
procedures and smoky backroom deals. Taxpayers sent a clear 
message in November that business as usual in Washington is 
over. I submit that the Committee will need to reach beyond a 
return to past practices. The House adopted rules for this 
Congress that increase transparency and I was pleased to see 
those changes integrated into the Committee's rules package. If 
the goal is a transparent process benefiting from fully 
informed members of the Committee having real opportunities for 
input, then we must do better.
                                                        Jeff Flake.

                                  
