[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.