Amendment Text: H.Amdt.92 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (02/17/2011)

This Amendment appears on page H1144 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H1081-H1162]
 MOMENT OF SILENCE IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES AND THEIR 
                                FAMILIES

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas). We are one nation under 
God.
  The Chair would ask all present to rise for the purpose of a moment 
of silence.
  The Chair asks that the Committee now observe a moment of silence in 
remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their 
lives in the service of our Nation in Iraq and in Afghanistan and all 
over the world, and their families, and all who serve in our Armed 
Forces and their families.
  Haven't we got a great military.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehner was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                 Saluting the Hon. Sam Johnson of Texas

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, you should know that 38 
years ago today, Sam Johnson stepped off a plane in Texas after being 
held as a prisoner of war for 7 years in Vietnam.
  He's a great American.


                Amendment No. 196 Offered by Mr. Walberg

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). Without objection, 2-
minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Walberg) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 209, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 68]

                               AYES--217

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

                               NOES--209

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Diaz-Balart
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Matheson
     Sullivan
     Wittman
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1037

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 68, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''


                Amendment No. 249 Offered by Mr. Canseco

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Canseco)

[[Page H1082]]

on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248, 
noes 177, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 69]

                               AYES--248

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

                               NOES--177

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Biggert
     Coffman (CO)
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Keating
     Matheson
     McIntyre
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1041

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 69, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                 Amendment No. 381 Offered by Mr. Reed

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 70]

                               AYES--239

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

[[Page H1083]]


     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--186

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Simpson
     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)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Aderholt
     Giffords
     Marchant
     Matheson
     Scott, Austin
     Sullivan
     Wittman
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1044

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


         Amendment No. 565 Offered by Mr. Bass of New Hampshire

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104, 
noes 322, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 71]

                               AYES--104

     Aderholt
     Austria
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Camp
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Duffy
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Granger
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Hall
     Hanna
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marino
     McKinley
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Quigley
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Southerland
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Weiner
     West
     Whitfield
     Womack

                               NOES--322

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Amash
     Cicilline
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Gardner
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Shuster
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1047

  Messrs. GARAMENDI and VAN HOLLEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 71, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''

[[Page H1084]]

                 Amendment No. 457 Offered by Mr. Flake

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 115, 
noes 316, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 72]

                               AYES--115

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bartlett
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Culberson
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Long
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Roby
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (NE)
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--316

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Giffords
     Wittman
       


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1050

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


           Amendment No. 276 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The unfinished business 
is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249, 
noes 179, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 73]

                               AYES--249

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     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
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     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
     Shuler
     Simpson

[[Page H1085]]


     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--179

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     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
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Culberson
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Hall
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1054

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 73, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''


            Amendment No. 532 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 313, 
noes 117, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 74]

                               AYES--313

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--117

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coffman (CO)
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Davis (KY)
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hayworth
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Holden
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Israel
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Lee (CA)
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pence
     Peters
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Roby
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (WA)
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Giffords
     Jordan
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1057

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 74 on H.R. 1, I 
mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''
  I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record 
following rollcall vote No. 74.

[[Page H1086]]

           Amendment No. 410 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 250, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 75]

                               AYES--176

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--250

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capito
     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
     Cravaack
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Crowley
     Giffords
     Harman
     Schweikert
     Shuster
     Sullivan
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1100

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


                Amendment No. 100 Offered by Mr. Weiner

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 268, 
noes 163, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 76]

                               AYES--268

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)

[[Page H1087]]


     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster
     Weiner
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--163

     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Giffords
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1104

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


                Amendment No. 248 Offered by Mr. Canseco

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 274, 
noes 155, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 77]

                               AYES--274

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     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
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--155

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Giffords
     Herger
     Smith (NJ)
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1107

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Heller

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada 
(Mr. Heller) on which further proceedings were

[[Page H1088]]

postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 241, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 78]

                               AYES--190

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boswell
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Culberson
     DeFazio
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--241

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Giffords
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1111

  Mrs. ROBY and Mr. NUNNELEE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Sessions

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 250, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 79]

                               AYES--176

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--250

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz

[[Page H1089]]


     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     DeLauro
     Giffords
     Hall
     Herger
     Lewis (CA)
     Serrano
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1114

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. For the purpose of entering into a colloquy, I 
yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the goal of this colloquy is to clarify language 
associated with funds provided for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, 
or EFV, in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy section 
of the bill. It is my understanding that the accompanying table states 
that $145 million of the funds provided for the EFV termination 
liability may be released only for use in system development and 
demonstration activities upon certification by the Secretary.
  Mr. Chairman, is that the language included in the report 
accompanying this bill?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The 
language which is included in the explanatory tables provides $145 
million for termination liability, or for continued system development 
and demonstration if certified by the Secretary.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that the Department of Defense 
may interpret this language as direction from Congress to terminate EFV 
in this year, regardless of any recommendations made by Congress during 
debate on the fiscal year 2012 budget.
  No matter how this issue is resolved by Congress in fiscal year 2012, 
orderly conclusion of the fiscal year 2011 SDD activities that are 
already under contract and well underway is essential for the Nation to 
get a usable product for its $3 billion investment. My reading of this 
language is that it provides sufficient flexibility for the Department 
to continue through SDD, and we encourage the Department to do just 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, is it the intent of the committee to provide sufficient 
flexibility for the Department to continue SDD activities related to 
the EFV?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, 
that it is the intent of the committee to provide that flexibility. In 
fact, it is my hope that the Department exercises this flexibility to 
finish SDD activities and get something usable for the $3 billion 
investment that we have already made.
  Here is a unique opportunity for a win-win situation. The Marines 
want to cancel the program, and they would normally pay a $145 million 
termination fee. Here is an opportunity, and we believe the contractor 
is agreeable, to forego the payment of the $145 million to them, but 
use that money to continue the program so that we at least get 
something for the $3 billion that we have already appropriated.
  If I might expand on the colloquy, one of the problems that we have 
in our defense budgeting is that we too often start a program, spend a 
lot of money on it, and then decide to terminate it and get little or 
nothing for what we already did. So I believe it is important for the 
Department to have this flexibility as they negotiate the remaining 
activities for the fiscal year.
  It is my hope the Department would be able to reach an agreement 
which would provide for an orderly conclusion of the fiscal year 2011 
SDD activities and ensure the Marine Corps is able to harvest the 
advances in technology and beneficial equipment from the program, 
should the program not be continued.
  Mr. AKIN. Chairman Young, I would appreciate a commitment from you to 
work together on the issue, the Appropriations Committee and the Armed 
Services Committee, as we consider the fiscal 2012 defense budget. The 
Congress must ensure that marines have the equipment they need to 
successfully accomplish the missions they are asked to perform, and 
that includes amphibious assault.

                              {time}  1120

  I appreciate your willingness to work on this. I think that what 
we're doing is we've got $3 billion already invested. As you say, it 
doesn't make sense to waste that investment, especially when you're 
talking about a very small amount of money to finish up. It leaves the 
flexibility to take a really good look at how do we accomplish that 
critical mission of moving marines from the ocean to the shore.
  So I appreciate your working on this colloquy and agreeing to where 
we're going.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman knows that he and I are on the 
same page on this issue. We want to get something for the money we've 
already spent, and we think this is a way out.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, if we can add $34 
million to the funding, we can get all the testing completed and not 
have to pay termination costs under the contract. So it seems to me you 
can make a case that this is the most cost-effective thing to do. 
That's at least what I understood.
  Is that the gentleman's understanding, or should we get the Marine 
Corps up here to try to explain this, or somebody?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. My understanding is the $34 million would be to 
complete the research and the development of the program and to develop 
the new innovations to this particular vehicle.
  Mr. DICKS. I think that's a wise course. I look forward to working 
with the gentleman on this.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to engage in a colloquy with my 
colleague from Florida, the chairman of the House Defense 
Appropriations Committee. I stand today to support wounded warrior 
rehabilitation programs that support our brave military

[[Page H1090]]

men and women who have sacrificed parts of their body for our freedom; 
men and woman who have sacrificed so much that today we can stand here 
on this floor and offer our remarks. These programs provide life-
saving, life-changing rehabilitation services to thousands of injured 
servicemen and -women.
  We must keep our promise to our troops and veterans, consistent with 
the Pledge to America, which allows exceptions related to government 
funding so that we can honor our commitment to those who have served. 
We all know in this Chamber that we can never repay what our military 
men and women have sacrificed for us and for our freedom, witnessed 
today by Mr. Johnson's presence at the chair and our recognition of the 
troops who have served. These programs are a small way to support those 
who have sacrificed so much to keep us safe and free.
  Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Dicks, as you begin the difficult 
task of reviewing the fiscal year 2012 budget, I ask that you consider 
the needs and the well-being of our injured servicemen and -women. I 
hope that we can work together to ensure that these types of 
rehabilitation programs for wounded warriors are given fair 
consideration during that process.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to highlight the success of the 
wounded warrior rehabilitation program, specifically those which use 
community-based partnerships to provide injured U.S. military personnel 
with the opportunity to engage in sports activities as part of their 
rehabilitation at DOD medical centers in their home communities. These 
programs illustrate the power of sports activities to help wounded 
warriors return to a healthy and active lifestyle. Today, thousands of 
injured servicemembers from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have 
benefited from these programs, and some even participated in the 
Department's first Wounded Warrior Games competition held last May.
  Wounded warrior rehabilitation programs are located at major DOD 
medical treatment facilities, military installations, veterans 
facilities, and the communities around the country where our injured 
servicemembers live. Wounded warriors, as we all know, ladies and 
gentlemen, are heroes for serving our country and important role models 
to so many people in our communities. We greatly appreciate their 
service, their sacrifice, and their leadership.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue. 
Wounded warrior rehabilitation programs that have worked with national 
and community organizations have provided substantial support for 
injured members of our Armed Forces to participate in physical activity 
as an important aspect of their rehabilitation. Research shows that 
daily physical activity enhances wounded warriors' confidence, 
achievements, and quality of life. These programs are essential, and I 
would like to work with my colleague in the upcoming year to ensure 
that those programs will continue.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate and thank 
the gentleman from Washington for bringing this matter before the House 
today. It is something that Mr. Dicks and I have worked with ever since 
these wars began--something that we cannot overlook, something that is 
extremely, extremely serious--a major debt that we owe to the men and 
women who serve our country as warfighters. And so I would say again to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), thank you very much for 
bringing this matter before the House today.
  Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the ranking 
member. I look forward to working with you and Mr. Langevin in making 
sure that our wounded veterans returning home are rehabilitated, are 
counseled, and receive the medical care and encouragement they need to 
lead a fruitful life.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REICHERT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I really think we've got to solve this problem. This is 
very unfair, this one program. This is a national program in every 
sense of the word, and we have either got to get it authorized or do 
whatever we have to do to make this possible. I look forward to working 
with you to achieve that.
  Mr. REICHERT. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I look 
forward to working with you. I really appreciate your enthusiasm and 
passion. I know all of us in this body would support this issue once we 
can get it solved.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a 
colloquy with my friend and distinguished chairwoman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General 
Government. I would like to thank you, Madam Chairman, as well as 
Chairman Rogers and your respective staffs, for all your hard work. I 
appreciate your willingness to work with me and my staff on this issue.
  I planned on offering my amendment, No. 264, that would have 
prevented any funding in this act to be used for vacant Federal 
properties. However it's drafted, this language would have had serious 
unintended consequences. We see those sorts of things happen around 
here a lot.
  I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the intent behind my 
amendment and how it highlights an increasingly larger problem. 
According to a Senate report on questionable spending, roughly $25 
billion is spent annually to maintain vacant or unused Federal 
properties. My goal is to close off that spigot of Federal waste. 
Unfortunately, my amendment as drafted would have inadvertently 
prevented basic security or the ability to respond to an emergency 
situation such as a broken pipe or others.
  That being said, even with the current funds, we have numerous vacant 
Federal buildings crumbling all across our Nation. The Veterans 
Administration alone spends $170 million a year, often on buildings 
that they would rather sell, were Congress not standing in the way. In 
fact, a good example is those at the Charlie Norwood VA Center in 
Augusta, Georgia, that I represent.
  If we intend to tackle other difficult problems, we cannot continue 
to punt on the simple ones. It is outrageous that hundreds of billions 
of dollars have been wasted on unused buildings sitting for over a 
decade waiting for renovation funding. We need to sell what isn't 
absolutely necessary and in the meantime stop burning dollars on the 
maintenance of buildings going to waste.

                              {time}  1130

  The problem with these buildings is symbolic of the Federal 
Government as a whole; so large and bloated that some are lost in 
limbo, decaying and sapping valuable resources. We have redundant 
agencies and regulations lost in the bloat, just like these buildings. 
Again, if we hope to make headway on the critical budget issues that we 
face as a Nation, we must begin with these smaller commonsense changes.
  I hope that my colleagues will allow me to work on this issue with 
them during this process and the upcoming 2012 appropriations cycle. 
And I just request from the chairman, I hope that you will work with 
me. We've got many vacant unused Federal properties all over this 
country that we need to stop funding. We need to sell these and reduce 
the debt by the funds that we do.
  So I'd like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee if she'll be 
eager to work with me on this issue.
  Mrs. EMERSON. The gentleman raises an absolutely critical issue that 
there are examples of all over the country. We are more than willing to 
work with you on a continuing basis.

[[Page H1091]]

  You may be happy to note that we have cut $1.7 billion from the 
public buildings fund in this continuing resolution. But we've got a 
lot more work to do. And as we prepare the FY 2012 spending bill, I 
think that we'll find more examples. It's very critical to save every 
penny we can.
  I just want to thank you so much for your dedication to finding all 
the waste that we have in the Federal budget.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, chairman. I appreciate your 
willingness to work with me.


                Amendment No. 189 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by division A of 
     this Act may be used to research, develop, test, evaluate, or 
     procure any of the following:
       (1) Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
       (2) V-22 Osprey aircraft.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentlelady's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate the V-22 
Osprey aircraft and the expeditionary fighting vehicle. For years, the 
Pentagon has been throwing billions at weapons systems that don't work 
and don't keep us safe; weapons systems that are obsolete in the post-
Cold War era; weapons systems that are not giving us bang for the buck.
  The V-22 Osprey is essentially a lemon. It makes defense contractors 
rich but doesn't make our military strong. It has a notoriously bad 
safety record, having killed 30 of our own people in training 
exercises, and a deadly V-22 crash in Afghanistan last year was claimed 
as a victory by the Taliban. Billions over budget for a weapons system 
that's killing our own people--not a good deal for the taxpayer, to say 
the least.
  The GAO has noted that this plane has trouble flying over 8,000 feet 
or in extreme heat. It also has problems carrying troops, transporting 
cargo, and operating in high-threat environments.
  A combat plane that can't operate in high-threat environments? Is 
there anything the Osprey can do? Actually, can it deliver mail? The 
President's deficit commission recently recommended we stop writing 
blank checks for the Osprey. So did another top official who more than 
20 years ago said: ``Given the risk we face from a military standpoint, 
the V-22 is at the bottom of the list, and for that reason, I decided 
to terminate it.''
  That's not a prominent Democrat speaking, Mr. Chairman; that's a 
former Secretary of Defense named Dick Cheney.
  The Marine Corps' expeditionary fighting vehicle would provide almost 
as much savings, between $8 and $9 billion over the next decade. The 
President's proposed budget pulls the plug on this system, which is 
more than 14 years behind schedule and has also experienced major cost 
overruns.
  According to the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget, the EFV 
breaks down on average every 8 hours and has trouble steering in water. 
Shouldn't we be worried about an amphibious vehicle that doesn't steer 
well in water? Would you spend billions of dollars on a family car that 
breaks down every 8 hours and doesn't steer well?
  And besides, even if the EFV ran like a dream, when was the last time 
we needed to launch an attack by sea? Once again, we're developing 
weapons for enemies that no longer exist.
  With spending cut fever having hit Capitol Hill, you would think 
these wasteful systems would be among the very first on the chopping 
block. But naturally my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
rather scale back the very things keeping people safe and strong--
police on the streets, investments in innovation and infrastructure, 
NIH research, education assistance from Head Start to Pell Grants, and 
much, much more.
  I say we go in a different direction. If we're serious about 
restoring fiscal discipline, both the V-22 Osprey and the EFV must go.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the reservation on 
the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. We have already had a straight up-or-down vote on the 
Osprey and resoundingly supported it here in the committee.
  On the expeditionary fighting vehicle, there's a decision been made 
by the Secretary of the Navy to end this program. What we're trying to 
do is to do it in a way that finishes the research with an additional 
$34 million and avoids termination liability.
  I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We just had a 
very good colloquy on the issue of the EFV and we think we have a 
solution here that is good for the taxpayer, is good for the Marine 
Corps, and is good for the Marines. Here's an opportunity to get 
something for the $3 billion that we've already spent on this program. 
So I must be opposed to that.
  On the V-22, we've already voted on that once during the earlier 
procedures on this bill. The V-22 did have some developmental problems 
years ago. The V-22 is a most effective weapon being used in 
Afghanistan. Because of the high mountains, because of the high 
altitudes, because of the weather, the V-22 is the vehicle of choice to 
move our war fighters from where they are to where they have to be.
  I would hope that the vote would be the same on this amendment as it 
was earlier on the V-22, and that's to defeat it. Here is an airplane--
the Marines use this V-22 in Afghanistan on a regular basis because it 
has the capability that the CH-46 does not have. It has the ability for 
altitude, it has the ability for speed, and it is an outstanding 
aircraft today.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, although I support Secretary Gates' call 
to terminate the Expeditionary Force Vehicle (EFV), I must 
unfortunately oppose the Woolsey amendment because it also seeks to 
cancel the Osprey program, whose termination I do not support.
  The EFV is clearly not a wise use of American tax dollars. It is 14 
years behind schedule and estimated to cost 168 percent more than 
originally estimated. Because of these realities, along with the 
evolving nature of naval warfare, Secretary Gates, the Secretary of the 
Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have all recommended that 
it be terminated--and it was not included in President Obama's FY 12 
Budget. By contrast, after overcoming a number of operational and cost 
concerns, the Osprey has become a top priority for the Marine Corps and 
does enjoy command support.
  If I could split this amendment into two separate votes, I would do 
so. Since I cannot, I will oppose it and continue to pursue a 
deliberate, program by program approach to finding needed savings in 
our defense budget.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I would like to turn to my colleague, Chairman Mica of 
the Transportation Committee, with an amendment that he has.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Aderholt, first of all, I want to 
thank you for recognizing me and also giving me this opportunity to 
speak on my amendment which in consultation with you, Mr. Chairman, I 
will withdraw and not offer.
  That is amendment, I believe it's numbered 543 as printed. Mr. 
Aderholt, first I want to thank you for your pledge to continue to work

[[Page H1092]]

with your subcommittee and our full committee in your rigorous 
oversight of how the Transportation Security Administration is spending 
our scarce resources.

                              {time}  1140

  Unfortunately, the TSA bureaucracy has mushroomed since 9/11 from a 
workforce of 16,500 to 62,000 employees today.
  The purpose of my amendment is my concern about the growth and 
administrative overhead--a huge number of personnel. TSA has more 
employees than the Department of State, the Department of Education and 
Labor, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development combined.
  Now listen to this: TSA headquarters, which is within a few miles of 
where we're standing, has 3,776--latest count--administrative 
bureaucrats employed, and 27 percent are supervisors of them. The 
average pay of these 3,700-plus bureaucrats here is $105,000.
  Having helped create TSA in the aftermath of 9/11, I can tell you we 
never intended to support this kind of bureaucracy.
  Now listen to this: if you think the bureaucracy in Washington is 
bad, there are 9,233 non-screener employees at the airports across the 
country. There are only 400 airports in the program. That's 20 
bureaucrats per airport on average. This agency is totally out of 
control. In addition, in the 2012 budget, they have asked for 3,300 
more positions.
  In its nearly 10 years since creation, Mr. Chairman, TSA still lacks 
the institutional capacity to become a performance-driven organization.
  On January 28, TSA shut down the most successful screening program we 
had. We set up two models, both with Federal supervision and one using 
private contractors. Every positive initiative we have ever gotten from 
TSA came from those programs, and they shut it down. In addition, one 
week later, they granted collective bargaining rights to TSA workers.
  It is time that we dramatically reform TSA and cut its massive 
administrative bureaucracy. I will work with you. My cuts are not as 
surgical as maybe they need to be, but we will work with you to improve 
its mission. My goal is for less bureaucracy and to redirect TSA to its 
important security mission.
  Finally, the failure of TSA puts this Nation at risk--read the GAO 
reports--with the total failure of the SPOT program, the behavior 
recognition program. Get the classified briefings on the failure of the 
advanced technology. They went out and bought $500 million worth of 
equipment, and spent another $500 million to install it. The failure is 
dramatic. You can read that as Members of Congress.
  The failure of the pat-down program. Everyone is getting patted down. 
Do you think that's helpful? I implore Members to get a classified 
briefing and see, again, the results of that failure.
  The failure to have even a pilot identification. Six years ago, I 
asked for a pilot identification that's durable, not something that 
looks like it came out of a crackerjack box, with the pilot's 
photograph on it and a biometric measure. After spending millions of 
dollars, TSA gave a card, but the only pilots on it were Wilbur and 
Orville Wright. The biometric measure that they put in is a total 
failure. Any credit card you have in your wallet has a better 
capability than what they have produced.
  It is failure after failure, and they put us at risk. I thank you for 
offering to work with me to make the necessary changes.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Let me say, Mr. Mica, that I completely understand your interest in 
pushing TSA to meet its mission in a most cost-effective manner.
  Because of these concerns, we have placed a number of provisions 
within the CR, provisions which constrain TSA spending to include a 
firm cap on the number of airport screeners TSA may hire in FY11. 
Additionally, we have included a strong oversight provision requiring 
them to report on their efforts to incorporate more advanced integrated 
technology into the checkpoints.
  Let me add that our subcommittee fully intends to review all of TSA's 
security and management practices as we prepare for the FY12 Homeland 
bill. I plan to carry forward and expand within the FY12 bill the 
oversight that we began with the CR. I would like to work closely with 
you and your committee in an effort, as we move forward, to try to 
address these concerns that you shared with us this morning.
  Let me just say that we certainly in this country want to strike a 
balance between having security in this Nation and making sure that we 
have appropriate oversight.
  I appreciate you calling attention to these issues that you mentioned 
this morning. I can assure you our committee will work with you in 
trying to work toward doing a better job in oversight for TSA and in 
making sure we do have the security we need for this country.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, when we first stood up 
TSA, I chaired that subcommittee. We put a limit on the number of 
employees that TSA could have.
  They first wanted, I think it was, 30,000 people. We said no. Then 
they went up to 35,000; then they went to 40,000; then they went to 
43,000. I said time out. So we put a limit of 44,000 on the number of 
TSA employees that were allowed. That cap stayed in place until 2006, 
which is when the other party gained control of this body. The cap came 
off.
  Mr. Mica, I don't know the total number. I think it's in the 60s.
  Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. The number is 62,000, of which we have 3,770 administrative 
personnel in Washington, DC, and another over 9,000 administrative 
personnel in non-screening positions across the country.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. We've heard your statement. We're up to 
62,000 now and it's way too much.
  Let me ask the chairman: Is there a cap now reinstated in this bill 
for TSA employees?
  I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. We have a cap of 46,000 in this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. They can't go above 46,000?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. That is correct.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. There are 62,000.
  So there will be some reductions; am I correct?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. We are looking at absolutely doing that, yes, sir.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. All right. Thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Chairman Mica and Chairman 
Aderholt, who are working together to rein in this organization, which 
has almost gone beyond belief, so that we can get some discipline and 
some savings in this organization.
  I don't know about you, but at the airports I go through, there are 
way too many TSA employees just standing around, making conversation 
with each other. That's okay, but we are overstaffed at TSA. This bill 
gets us back to being within some degree of reason.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me just clarify that the number of screeners is 
capped at 46,000 right now.
  Let me assure you that we will continue to monitor that to make sure 
that your concerns from when you were chairman of this subcommittee--
and of course the chairman of the Transportation Committee's concerns--
will be addressed. I appreciate both of your input this morning, and we 
look forward to working with you both.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Thank you.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Really quickly, I support everything my 
colleagues just said, but I want to deviate

[[Page H1093]]

a little bit and talk about something real quickly that needs to be 
discussed.
  Mr. Chairman, we have sent two or three letters to the President--
Congressman Poe, Congressman Royce and I and others--regarding our 
southern border. We just had two ICE agents attacked. One was killed. 
Seventy, eighty miles into Arizona, there are signs telling the 
American people: Don't go south of here because of the danger.

                              {time}  1150

  This is in America. We have drug dealers sitting in spy sites in the 
United States monitoring the border from the U.S. side to make sure 
that they can bring their drugs across and bring people across in their 
vans and other ways. It is a real problem.
  Now, we sent 17,000 people down to the gulf when the oil spill took 
place. We haven't sent over 1,400 National Guard people down and not 
even near the border in many cases, and we've got a terrible problem. 
Farmers and people are scared to death to go along the 1,980-mile 
border between us and Mexico, and the President has ignored letter 
after letter after letter that would deal with this problem.
  And I would just say to the administration, if they were listening, 
let's get on with protecting that southern border. It's a war zone, and 
people are afraid, scared to death down there, and they're being killed 
and bullets are coming across the border. So I'd just like to say that 
I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage the administration to 
really get on with protecting our southern border.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I agree with the gentleman. I've been down there on that 
southern border. I would just point out, though, that yesterday we 
killed the National Drug Intelligence Center, which is used by the 
Justice Department to try and target the people coming across, I mean, 
this was a Justice Department program, but your side killed it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reclaiming my time, sending National Guard 
troops down there en masse to protect that border until it's completely 
secure, along with the border patrol agents, will do the job. The cut 
yesterday would not affect this kind of an approach to solving the 
problem.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Latham, in a colloquy.
  As the gentleman knows, I believe the implementation of the next 
generation of air traffic control is a very necessary and critical step 
in bringing our aviation system into the 21st century. The Nation's 
aviation transportation network is currently based on an outdated, 
outmoded, decades-old, land-based radar system. Our cell phones have 
better capability than our air traffic control system. The next 
generation of air traffic control reflects an approach to move forward 
while making our aviation system much safer, much more efficient, and 
much more cost-effective by moving it to a satellite-based system that 
will benefit all Americans.
  Once fully implemented, the next generation system will reduce flight 
delays, saving Americans billions of dollars in lost productivity. 
Aircraft will be able to operate more efficiently, resulting in less 
fuel consumption. Congestion at some of our Nation's busiest airports 
will be significantly reduced, freeing up much needed airspace to 
accommodate growth in the aviation sector.
  And I'm particularly proud that most of the work that is being done 
to validate the FAA's next generation of air traffic control is being 
done at the Federal Aviation Administration's Technical Center in my 
district in New Jersey that will help develop this and implement it.
  That is why I rise today, and while I strongly support the House's 
effort to reduce wasteful government spending, I am also very concerned 
about programs that could be affected unintendedly, and this measure 
includes a slight reduction in the FAA's facilities and equipment 
account, an account which could provide some of the funding for the 
work associated with NextGen. Can the gentleman assure me that this 
reduction will not negatively impact the critical work that is taking 
place on the next generation of air traffic control.
  Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I, too, share his commitment to NextGen, and I believe that this 
program is essential to achieving the much-needed improvements in our 
aviation system. The committee has consulted with the FAA. We believe 
that these modest savings will be beneficial to the taxpayers while 
providing the FAA with the funds necessary to continue to do the 
important work in bringing NextGen to fruition.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Latham, for sharing that information and 
for your commitment to the next generation of air traffic control, and 
I look forward to continuing to work with you and the committee and 
this body to see that accomplished.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I had an amendment, which has now been ruled out of order, 
to create an Afghanistan-Pakistan study group. The war in Afghanistan 
has been going on for 10 years. The first person killed in Afghanistan 
was from my congressional district, Michael Spann. I was the author of 
the Iraq Study Group, where we got Baker and Hamilton in a bipartisan 
way to come together to look at the war. I have asked the 
administration to do something, and quite frankly, when I read 
Woodward's book, ``Obama's War,'' it was depressing because it almost 
looks like they're approaching this on basically political ways, 
political means.
  The war has now been going on for 10 years, and quite frankly, I 
think not only has the administration failed, but Congress has failed. 
So what I hope to do is to, at an appropriate time, offer an amendment 
to create an Afghanistan-Pakistan study group, modeled after the Iraq 
Study Group, and put on people like Sam Nunn; former chairman of the 
House Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter; Ryan Crocker, who was our 
former ambassador to Iraq and who supports the concept; General Jack 
Keane, who was author of the surge; General Charles Krulak, who was the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps; General Zinni, who was Commandant of 
the Marine Corps; and Ike Skelton, former chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee, to see are we fighting this war the right way, are 
we doing the right thing.
  And I believe we need fresh eyes on the target, and when you look at 
and read ``Obama's War'' by Woodward, you can see there are no fresh 
eyes on the target, and we owe it, we owe it to the men and women that 
are fighting in Afghanistan and dealing with this issue to make sure 
that we are doing everything possible--and I don't know what the answer 
is--everything possible to make sure that we're doing what we should do 
as a Nation.
  And with that, I hope when there's an opportunity I can offer this 
amendment--because I don't think the administration is going to do this 
by Executive order--that we can adopt because we owe it to our fighting 
men.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Florida.
  I stand today to support our brave military men and women and their 
families who sacrifice in the service of freedom. Mr. Chairman, can you 
assure me that this bill will not in any way harm or put to risk our 
troops?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Mrs. HARTZLER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentlelady for raising the 
question. It's something we should discuss more and more, and in fact, 
we have an obligation to our troops and our warfighters and our 
veterans.

[[Page H1094]]

  I would say that Mr. Dicks and I worked long and hard to come up with 
the savings that we were instructed to come up with, and I can 
guarantee the gentlelady, we did not create anything that would have an 
adverse effect on our warfighters. It would not have an adverse effect 
on our Nation's readiness, would not have an adverse effect on their 
training and their preparation for war.
  So I say to the gentlelady, I share her very strong commitment, and I 
thank her for her strong commitment, and our subcommittee has the same 
strong commitment. So I can assure her.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, in our 
Constitution one of the few things that we're supposed to do here is to 
provide for the common defense, and I know I'm committed to doing that, 
and I know you're committed to doing that, and yet we have this 
continuing resolution, and so that certainly makes me feel more 
confident that in our efforts that our troops are being watched out for 
and their families.
  So I thank you for that commitment, and will you continue to promise 
to work with me through this coming year to move forward to ensure that 
our troops and their families are supplied with all that they need?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I can, and I would like to say that we look 
forward to working with you during this Congress as we do what it is 
that you want us to do.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you very much for your commitment. I look 
forward to it.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CULBERSON. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chair, in an effort to help my constituents 
understand, the country understand, and even almost understand the 
scale of the problem we face, it's important I think to think of the 
expenses, the obligations of the Federal Government in terms of our own 
budget, that if we in our own lives take our income, you've got to 
calculate your income and your expenses. And the things you have got to 
pay first are the mortgage; you have got to pay the light bill. You 
have to make sure that, above all, the expenses of your home are paid 
first. And in the same way, the Federal Government must pay the 
expenses of the mandatory programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security, the interest on the national debt, our obligation to our 
veterans. Those programs must be paid first.
  We bring in about $2.2 trillion in revenue every year from all 
sources. When you take into account what the Federal Government must 
pay to our veterans, to the mandatory spending programs, those programs 
cost about $2.3 trillion. Therefore, the way to think about the scale 
of the problem we face is to analyze it in terms of, when do we, as a 
Nation, run out of cash and have to start borrowing? When is national 
credit card day? And in analyzing that, I discovered that we actually 
don't have a national credit card day.
  At the stroke of midnight on the first day of the fiscal year, the 
United States Government has already borrowed $105 million. Now, tax 
freedom day occurs in May, far too late in the year when we begin to 
work for ourselves and no longer are working to pay taxes. But as a 
Nation, we begin to borrow money. We have already borrowed $105 million 
at the stroke of midnight that must be paid off by our kids. And the 
scale of the problem, therefore, is far larger than the appropriations 
bill we face here today.
  We, in this new majority, were elected by the Nation to begin to deal 
with the terrible burden of the debt, the terrible burden of these 
unfunded liabilities that our children and our grandchildren are going 
to pay. For the first time in history, our predecessors in this 
Congress, our predecessors in the White House, and this President have 
loaded our children up with an unparalleled, unprecedented level of 
debt that we today in this debate on this appropriations bill are 
beginning to deal with. The $100 billion cuts that we are making here 
today will allow us to stop borrowing for about 5 days. We'll get out 
to, say, Friday before we have to start borrowing money.
  The scale of the problem is so huge that if we think of it in terms 
of when, as a Nation, we have to start borrowing money, when is 
national credit card moment, then we, I think, can help explain to the 
public the urgency of getting spending under control, of cutting back 
everywhere we can, of focusing the Nation on its core functions under 
the Constitution.
  We, in this new majority, are committed to restoring the 
constitutional limits on our Federal Government, restoring the 10th 
Amendment, restoring individual liberty wherever we can. And in so 
doing, as Thomas Jefferson liked to say, if you apply the Constitution, 
the knot will untie itself. No matter what the problem is, Mr. 
Jefferson liked to point out, that if we simply apply the Constitution, 
the knot will untie itself.
  What lies ahead of us if we do not deal with this problem, not only 
of the spending year to year, but we've got to really dramatically deal 
with the fraud, the waste, and the abuse in our social welfare problems 
to begin to deal with them realistically--both parties, Republicans and 
Democrats--and controlling the explosive growth of the entitlement 
programs.
  In looking at the history of the Roman Empire, Mr. Chair, we see that 
at the end of the Roman Empire one writer of the period went so far as 
to suggest that those who lived off the Treasury in the Roman Empire 
were more numerous than those paying into it. At the end of the empire, 
under Diocletian and Constantine, when it really began to decline, the 
Roman Empire taxed its citizens more heavily, conscripted their labor, 
and regulated their lives and their occupations in every detail. The 
Roman Empire became a coercive, omnipresent, all-powerful organization 
that subdued individual interests and levied all resources towards one 
overarching goal, the survival of the state.
  We, as a Nation, have got to deal with the scale of the spending, the 
debt, these unfunded liabilities that are being passed on to our kids 
or, if we're not careful, the United States will follow the Roman 
Empire in devaluing our currency, in the level of debt at a scale that 
can't be repaid. And you saw it towards the end of the Roman Empire 
where taxation became so heavy that it consumed all the resources of 
the state.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I would point out that at the end of the 
Roman Empire, the one writer of the period pointed out that it was 
actually very common for Romans who were taxed so heavily, who were 
crushed and so overwhelmed with bureaucracy, that they actually 
welcomed the invaders who were taking over the Roman Empire.
  It's a decisive moment in American history, Mr. Chair. We in the new 
majority, this constitutional conservative majority, are bringing these 
amendments. I thank Mr. Rogers for bringing this bill to the floor, the 
largest cuts we've ever seen in annual spending. We as a nation are at 
a turning point, and I am convinced that we finally are beginning to 
deal with this problem and we'll get spending under control.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Amendment No. 208 Offered by Mr. Cole

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment, and it's on an 
issue we voted on as recently as 3 weeks ago. Very simply put, my 
amendment prohibits the use of funds under this act to administer or 
carry out any of the activities for the Presidential Election Campaign 
Fund or to transfer public dollars to political conventions under 
chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code.
  Just 3 weeks ago, this House passed H.R. 359, which eliminated 
taxpayer financing for Presidential election campaigns and political 
party conventions. This bill passed by a vote of 239-160

[[Page H1095]]

under a modified open rule. If signed into law, it will save $617 
million over 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, today's amendment is a down payment on that goal. CBO 
scored this amendment as saving $38 million in budgetary authority and 
$40 million in outlays for fiscal year 2011. We all know on this floor 
we need to cut spending. Mr. Chairman, we can start today by canceling 
political welfare for politicians and political party conventions. This 
is an easy amendment that I urge all Members to support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  It's interesting that the gentleman calls it political welfare for 
elected officials. We should remember why this was created and when it 
was created. This was created after Watergate, and it was created as an 
understanding that we needed to move more and more to a situation where 
folks with a lot of money would not go around controlling our 
elections. The gentleman calls it political welfare for Presidential 
candidates, but, in fact, without this, it is totally in the hands of 
people making donations; whereas, here, it is the average American 
citizen who gets a chance to donate to this campaign.
  We know that a lot of the amendments that will come up today are 
directed not necessarily at issues but, I believe, and many of us 
believe, are directed at who is the resident of the White House right 
now. We have an election coming up in 2012, and I think some would 
rather have an open-ended private contribution situation where a lot of 
very wealthy people in this country control the giving to elections. I 
really think that this is an amendment that sounds like a savings, but 
it isn't. It is part of many amendments we will see today to strike at 
this particular President and at the White House and at the expenses 
that have to do with the President of the United States.
  So I would hope that folks understand first of all why this was 
created, why it's been important, why Presidential candidates accept 
this kind of funding, but, most importantly, why it allows the American 
taxpayer the ability--the ability--to decide if he or she wants to 
participate in having something to do with how the election gets 
funded.

                              {time}  1210

  No one is forced to do this. This is just an opportunity for the 
average American to participate. So I really hope that, in a bipartisan 
fashion, people turn this down and reject this amendment.
  I yield back.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I rise in support of the Cole amendment because I think 
political candidates should rely on private donations rather than tax 
dollars for their political campaigns.
  And I might mention to my very dear friend, Mr. Serrano, that I think 
that the President of the United States today showed the best example 
of people all around the country of every financial means contributing 
to his campaign. Friends of my children did $5 a month or offered $10. 
I mean, that was the most incredible show of involvement that I've seen 
in my life. And so to say that it would be against this precedent, I 
think, is just not fair.
  I also think that this amendment adds to the good work done by Mr. 
Cole and our leader's office, with the YouCut bill, H.R. 359. And 
according to the CBO, this amendment will actually save $38 million. 
And $38 million is $38 million. And quite frankly, we're looking to 
save as many tax dollars as possible.
  So, Mr. Chair, I would strongly support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
will be postponed.


        Amendment No. 514 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce the requirements in--
       (1) section 34(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Fire Prevention and 
     Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229a(a)(1)(A));
       (2) section 34(a)(1)(B) of such Act;
       (3) section 34(c)(1) of such Act;
       (4) section 34(c)(2) of such Act; and
       (5) section 34(c)(4)(A) of such Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as Members are aware, H.R. 
1 provided no funding in 2011 for firefighter hiring grants, also known 
as SAFER grants, a reduction of $420 million. Fortunately, yesterday 
the House resoundingly overturned that ill-advised move and adopted an 
amendment by Mr. Pascrell to restore the funding.
  But my colleagues should be aware that funding is only part of the 
problem with this bill when it comes to the SAFER program. The 
underlying bill also neglects to maintain provisions enacted in fiscal 
years 2009 and 2010 that allowed fire departments to use these grants 
to rehire laid-off firefighters and to prevent others from being laid 
off in the first place.
  The law traditionally permits SAFER grants only to hire new staff. 
That provision makes sense when our economy is booming and local 
governments are in a position to hire new workers. But when the 
recovery is still fragile and local budgets are actually contracting 
and workers are being laid off, FEMA needs the flexibility to use these 
grants to keep firefighters from being cut off in the first place.
  After all, the purpose of the SAFER program is to help maintain a 
safe level of fire staffing across the country. According to the 
firefighter organizations, over 5,000 firefighter jobs have been lost 
since 2008, and another 5,200 are currently at risk. Right now, the 
safety of our communities is being jeopardized by potential and actual 
layoffs of public safety personnel, not mainly because of a reluctance 
to hire new personnel.
  This amendment also continues provisions from 2009 and 2010 that 
waived certain budgetary requirements local fire departments have to 
fulfill in order to receive a grant. These include not allowing our 
fire department's overall budget to drop below a certain level, not 
reducing staff over a number of years, even if budgets continue to 
suffer, and providing local matching funds. Again, these provisions are 
fine when local coffers are healthy, but we all know how strapped our 
cities and counties are right now, and these requirements, quite 
simply, are impossible for many of them to meet.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if we don't pass this amendment and waive these 
provisions, the fire organizations tell me that very few departments 
will be able to apply for funds. The burden of these requirements is 
simply too much right now. The result will be more firefighter layoffs, 
fewer rehires, and a less prepared country.
  Mr. Chairman, in weighing this amendment I encourage colleagues to 
consider the intent of the SAFER program: ensuring we have a safe level 
of staffing of our Nation's preeminent first responders, firefighters, 
and ensuring that our communities have workable options for keeping 
their firefighting staffs at full strength.
  We've already overwhelmingly supported funding for firefighter jobs 
by adding funding back to the SAFER program. If we really support these 
jobs, we should vote to allow these funds to be used flexibly, in the 
best way possible to keep the firefighters on staff.
  I yield back.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H1096]]

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to add 
$510 million to assistance to firefighter grants by devastating the 
Department of Homeland Security's developing science and technology 
programs.
  It's only prudent that we use this money in a very responsible 
manner, by forcing the local communities to comply with the original 
intent of the SAFER programs, by sharing in the cost of hiring their 
personnel, by creating new jobs, and by committing to retain newly 
hired firefighters.
  In today's lean economy, we cannot use precious taxpayer money to 
subsidize a local responsibility.
  At this time I would like to yield to the past chairman of this 
subcommittee on Homeland Security and the new chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations, Chairman Rogers.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding, and thank 
him for the great work he's doing chairing this subcommittee in the 
House.
  As Chairman Alderholt has said, SAFER was originally authorized for 
the purpose of increasing the number of new firefighters in local 
communities, a hand up, not a handout.
  SAFER was not intended to rehire or retain firefighters, and 
certainly was not intended to serve as an operating subsidy for what is 
unquestionably a municipal local responsibility.
  The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act contains very specific 
requirements that local communities have to meet in order to obtain 
funds. However, the Democrats waived many of these requirements in 
fiscal 2009 and then again in 2010.
  When initially proposed by the Democrats in 2009, then Chairman 
Price, my friend, acknowledged that these waivers were just a short-
term, temporary effort that would expire at the end of fiscal 2010. 
Yet, here we are today, debating the continuation of a subsidy that our 
country simply cannot afford.
  Under these costly waivers, there are no controls, no salary limits, 
no local commitments. These proposed waivers totally undermine the 
original purpose and intent of the SAFER program by forcing the 
taxpayers to subsidize the everyday operating expenses of local first 
responders, taking over, in essence, the funding of the local firemen.
  Given our Nation's dire fiscal situation, we must take a stand that 
it is not the Federal Government's job to bail out every municipal 
budget or to serve as the fire marshal for every city and town across 
the country.
  I want to thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding. And I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and vote 
``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.

                              {time}  1220


                Amendment No. 404 Offered by Mr. Walden

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement the Report and Order of the Federal 
     Communications Commission relating to the matter of 
     preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices 
     (FCC 10-201, adopted by the Commission on December 21, 2010).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of 
my Energy and Commerce Committee colleague, Mr. Stearns, as well as Mr. 
Terry and Chairman Upton, and my appropriations colleagues, Mrs. 
Emerson, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and Mr. Graves of Georgia.
  We all want an open and thriving Internet, and that Internet exists 
today. Consumers can access anything they want with the click of a 
mouse, thanks to our historical hands-off approach. Changing direction 
now will only harm innovation and the economy.
  I am bringing up this funds limitation today to prevent the Federal 
Communications Commission from spending funds to implement its network 
neutrality rules regarding the Internet. It is a stopgap measure while 
we work toward passing a more permanent solution, a Resolution of 
Disapproval, H.J. Res. 37, which would nullify the rules themselves. 
And I would encourage everyone who cares about keeping the government 
out of the business of running the Internet to cosponsor that 
resolution.
  Before we even get into the harm the network neutrality rules would 
cause, it is important to realize the FCC's underlying theory of 
authority would allow the Commission to regulate any interstate 
communication service on barely more than a whim and without any 
additional input from the Congress. In essence, the FCC argues it can 
regulate anything if, in its opinion, doing so would encourage 
broadband deployment.
  I am relieved, however, that the FCC declined under its newfound 
authority to regulate coffee shops and bookstores, airlines, and other 
entities. Now, this of course means that the FCC believes that if it 
had not so declined, it would have subjected WiFi and coffee shops and 
bookstores to government management.
  If left unchallenged, this claim of authority would allow the FCC to 
regulate any matter it discussed in the national broadband plan. Recall 
that the FCC concluded that consumers' concerns over privacy are 
deterring broadband. So does that mean the FCC can regulate Internet 
privacy?
  The national broadband plan also addresses health IT and distance 
learning, smart grids, smart homes, smart transportation. Can the FCC 
regulate all these matters, too, in the name of promoting broadband? 
Under the FCC's rationale, its authority is only bounded by its 
imagination.
  The Internet started as a Defense agency project to connect computers 
at research facilities. It did not become the explosive driver of 
communications and economic growth it is today until it was opened up 
to free enterprise to participate in. And the American entrepreneurs 
and innovators did what they did best: They grew jobs and they created 
new technology.
  As early as the 1970s, the FCC took a hands-off approach to data 
services. FCC Chairman William Kennard reaffirmed this approach during 
the Clinton administration. In rebuffing requests to regulate cable 
Internet access service, Chairman Kennard explained in a 1990 speech, 
and I quote, ``The fertile fields of innovation across the 
communications sector and around the country are blooming because, from 
the get-go, we have taken a deregulatory competitive approach to our 
communications structure, especially the Internet.''
  There is no crisis warranting departure from this approach. Most 
everything that the order discusses is either an unsubstantiated 
allegation or speculation of future harm. The FCC even confesses in its 
order that it has done no market analysis. It only selectively applied 
the rules to broadband providers, shielding Web companies.
  If the mere threat of Internet discrimination is such a concern, and 
if the FCC has done no analysis to demonstrate why one company has more 
market power than another, why would discrimination by companies like 
Google or Skype be any more acceptable than discrimination by companies 
like AT or Comcast?
  Instead of promoting competition, such picking of winners and losers 
will stifle the investment needed to perpetuate the Internet's 
phenomenal growth, hurting the economy.
  Section 230 of the Communications Act makes it the policy of the 
United States to ``preserve the vibrant and competitive free market 
that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer 
services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.''
  Statutory statements of policy are not grants of regulatory 
authority, but they can help delineate the contours of

[[Page H1097]]

that authority. In light of Congress' statutory pronouncement that 
Internet regulation is disfavored, the FCC's theory of regulation by 
``bank shot'' stretches too far.
  At bottom, this is little more than an end run around the D.C. 
circuit court's April 2010 ruling in the Comcast case that the FCC 
failed to show it had ancillary authority to regulate network 
management. Therefore, I urge your support of this amendment, as well 
as your support of H.J. Res. 37, our resolution of disapproval.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  It shouldn't surprise me by now, but it's amazing how folks will 
continue to get up during the day, during the year, during the next 2 
years in support of the big guys against the little guy. And so the FCC 
ruled, and ruled in a way that protects and keeps the Internet open for 
all of us, and we should remember that.
  It issued an order providing for a version of net neutrality that 
allows the FCC to regulate how Internet service providers manage access 
to content, requires certain transparency from the providers about 
their policies, and requires reasonable management of traffic on their 
networks. Now, all of a sudden there is such a reaction to simply 
setting some rules.
  While we all use the Internet, there are still many parts of this new 
service behavior that have not been looked at and where it allows some 
folks to just overrun other people. And if there was ever a decision 
made by the FCC that's in favor of the consumer, this is one of them. 
So, of course, we will try to scale it back.
  But there are other issues here. I am a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, and, as such, I think it's the greatest committee and the 
most important committee in the history of man- and womankind. But I 
know that there are times that even we should not take up an issue that 
belongs to people who are much more qualified and have the time to sit 
down and look at it carefully. And when I say ``qualified,'' I know 
that scares a lot of people. We're all qualified, but there are some 
people who pay a lot of attention to this issue on a daily basis. And 
we have the folks from the Commerce and Energy Committee who have done 
a lot of work, and my first feeling here is that this should be left to 
the authorizing committees to continue to work on. In fact, they have 
been holding hearings and doing that kind of work.
  One of the great virtues of the Internet: its openness. The ability 
of so many people to connect with so many other people without 
interference from companies providing the service. The FCC has been the 
guardian of that openness and needs authority to continue to do so.
  The Internet has become more and more important in our lives, and we 
need to allow the FCC to play an appropriate role in making sure that 
it continues to remain accessible to everyone as a level playing field.
  The FCC's ability to address other Internet policy concerns such as 
privacy and accommodation for people with disabilities is also at 
stake.
  Now, for Members who are on the floor who may be new to Congress, let 
me just alert you to something. You are going to see amendments today 
and during this Congress telling the FCC not to get involved. Then you 
are going to see some issues come back that haven't been around for a 
few years about certain personalities on radio and TV, and you are 
going to see the same folks who are telling the FCC to stay out of it 
telling them to get into it and control what those folks say on radio 
and TV. And that's going to create a big debate once again. So we have 
to be careful what we wish for. Do we want less involvement? More 
involvement? We should be consistent.
  Lastly, I really believe that this should be left to the authorizers 
to continue to work on, a ruling by the FCC to be respected at this 
point, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  1230

  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I rise in support of this amendment. As the chair of 
the subcommittee that has oversight over FCC from the appropriations 
standpoint, I feel very strongly that in spite of what my friend on the 
other side of the aisle said with regard to the authorizers doing their 
work because they are doing a good job, but the fact of the matter is, 
as usual, the regulators have swept in again and without authority, or 
at least moving well past authority that Congress provides to agencies, 
and particularly to this agency, they have run in with a sweeping 
regulation that if we don't do something today about it, they will put 
small businesses like Boycom in my district, which is a family-owned 
business, husband and wife who own a small company, who will be 
devastated by this regulation.
  The fact is that it is our responsibility to legislate, and the 
regulators should follow the legislation that we write and we pass and 
get signed into law, not create it on their own. Certainly this is 
very, very important for us as appropriators. As a result of the FCC 
overstepping its bounds, we have to get involved. So I would urge a 
``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman from New York has indicated that this is 
the big guys against the little guys. Actually, he has it wrong. But if 
the government steps in and regulates the Internet, then really the 
little guy, the upstart company, won't have a chance. So anytime the 
government comes in and stipulates through regulation, it really hurts 
the little guys. The big guys can handle the litigation. They can 
handle all the legal forms and filling them out and handle the politics 
of it, but the little guy has no chance. So this really is trying to 
help the little guy.
  The other point is, I think as the gentlelady pointed out from the 
Appropriations Committee, the FCC really doesn't have the jurisdiction. 
This belongs in Congress. So really this amendment in a larger sense is 
trying to prevent the FCC from regulating the Internet.
  I think all of us agree that one of the bright spots of this economy 
has been the technology sector; yet for some reason the FCC has decided 
to step in and overstep its bounds and apply perhaps 19th-century 
regulation.
  They would really like to put this into title II, which is the old 
rotary telephone service, instead of keeping it in title I, which is 
information service. So they tried to compromise and put something into 
title I. But they still have a process in place to put Internet 
regulation into title II. They have created a chill in the broadband 
economy because a lot of the manufacturers and a lot of the Internet 
providers and people who are putting down broadband see this open 
process and are concerned. So it creates a chill because they see the 
FCC still going about considering regulating the Internet under title 
II instead of the information services so again there is uncertainty 
created in the broadband marketplace.
  I think this amendment is simple. In a sense it says the FCC does not 
have the jurisdiction, and in a larger sense says we don't need the 
government to step in with new and cumbersome regulation.
  At this point let me yield time to the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Stearns.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friends Mr. 
Walden, Mr. Stearns and others on both the authorizing as well as the 
Appropriations Committee.
  There is an old adage, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Internet 
is not broken. It is working. It is creating jobs. Look at all the 
devices out there, whether it be iPods, iPhones, BlackBerrys, cell 
phones. Look at all the things that are working. We don't need 
regulations on the Internet.
  I think it was George Will that said that most Americans think the 
government doesn't work so well and the

[[Page H1098]]

Internet does. Why are we allowing the FCC then to regulate the 
Internet? It makes no sense.
  This amendment denies funds to the FCC to implement this order. It is 
a good amendment. I would like to think it would be bipartisan. I 
support the authors that are offering this.
  Mr. STEARNS. I would just close by saying it is not appropriate for 
the unelected FCC to regulate interstate communication services on 
barely more than a whim and without any additional input from the 
United States Congress. If left unchallenged, this claim of authority 
would allow the FCC to do anything, anything it could allege to promote 
broadband under their jurisdiction, which they don't have.
  So Congress must stop the FCC. This amendment will do that just by 
preventing any money from being spent to implement these rules. I urge 
its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you very much for recognizing me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the proposal.
  This amendment is bad policy. It would overturn a decision by the FCC 
enacted last December that would protect the Internet from those who 
might interfere with the ability of consumers to access whatever they 
want.
  Mr. Upton simply said a minute ago a lot of jobs are created by the 
Internet. Well, that is why we shouldn't stop the FCC. The most vibrant 
sector of our economy today is our Internet economy. U.S. companies 
like Google, Facebook, Amazon and E-Bay are leading the world in 
innovation; and they all urge the FCC to protect and open the Internet 
because commonsense baseline rules are critical to ensuring that the 
Internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation and global 
competitiveness. In fact, these high-tech and high-growth companies 
urged the FCC to adopt even stronger rules than it did.
  Contrary to the hyperventilated rhetoric from the majority, the FCC 
rules do not regulate the Internet. They do not grant the government 
the power to turn off the Internet. They do not determine what content 
is appropriate for users to access. Their goal is just the opposite. 
They prevent Internet gatekeepers, like Verizon, from deciding what 
content their subscribers can access.
  But the FCC rules were a very light touch regulation, and it is 
notable that AT, Comcast and Time Warner, three of the Nation's 
largest network operators, support these rules. As AT's CEO stated, 
``We didn't get everything we wanted. I wanted no regulation. But we 
ended at a place where we have a line of sight and we know we can 
commit to investments.''
  Major Wall Street investment analysts have concluded that the FCC's 
open Internet order removed any regulatory overhang for telecom and 
cable companies and reflected a light touch version of regulation that 
will not hinder innovation or growth.
  Now, what is at stake here is those who are offering this amendment 
to stop the FCC from doing what it has ordered want the people who 
carry the Internet able to restrict the access for consumers and 
creators who have used the Internet for such great success. That would 
be a serious mistake.
  We had a broad, diverse coalition of more than 120 organizations, 
including public interest groups, religious leaders, technology 
associations, labor unions, Internet companies and small businesses who 
wrote to us strongly opposing the Republican efforts to block the open 
Internet regulations. They argue that overturning the regulations would 
eliminate the FCC's ability to protect innovation, speech and commerce 
on broadband platforms.
  If we stop the FCC from regulating, well, then we leave the status 
quo, which means that those who deliver the Internet into our home can 
start regulating it themselves. The American people, I think, would be 
against this. They want us to stop this re-litigation of FCC's sensible 
open Internet rules. We should be working together on a bipartisan 
solution to expand broadband access and create tomorrow's economic 
opportunities.
  The FCC took landmark action to preserve the open Internet. Let us 
not roll back the clock and stop those regulations by the FCC to 
preserve the open Internet from being put into place.
  I urge opposition to this effort. And I want to say that this does 
not save any money. This proposal will not cut costs. This is only 
about policy, and the high-tech high-growth companies have urged the 
FCC to adopt these rules. We shouldn't use the appropriations process 
to make this effort to stop the FCC from doing its job.
  I yield back my time.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm here today in support of 
this amendment, and I want to thank those who have been working in this 
effort--Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Walden, Mr. Upton, and Mr. Diaz-Balart. I 
appreciate them letting me join in this debate.
  As we've heard a lot of the conversation, it gets complicated 
sometimes when you have elected officials get up and start talking 
about broadband and Internet and FCC. Well, let's make it simple. 
Government control means uniformity, regulations, fees, inspections, 
and yes, compliance. Just think if those words had existed since the 
1990s with the Internet. We wouldn't know one thing about 
``broadband,'' let alone a ``tweet.'' The Internet's marketplace is 
defined by fierce competition, and that competition has transformed 
this world with innovation, investment, and what we need most of all 
right now--jobs. It's possible that the most intelligent and bipartisan 
policy that Washington has had thus far has been to leave the Internet 
virtually untouched by the Federal Government and regulators. And the 
result? Internet-based industries have flourished and employed a 
generation of Americans. So let's be clear today: there is no net 
neutrality crisis.
  The speed and depth of the Internet as we know it today came from 
consumer choice and competition. Consumers have successfully picked 
those winners and losers, not government, and they've done it without 
the FCC's help. Imagine that. Consider the choices in rate plans, the 
various points of access, and demand for openness and accessibility. A 
service provider that restricts access would do so at their own peril 
and to the prosperity of their competitors.
  So after all the life-changing innovation, the accidental 
billionaires, President Obama's revolutionary e-campaign, after all the 
groundbreaking technology that has defined this age of the Internet, we 
must ask that question, Why? Why would unelected bureaucrats at the FCC 
want to take over and feel good about this Internet takeover right now 
with their new rules and policies, keeping things neutral being their 
claim. Well, three words come to mind to me today, and that is: Trojan 
Horse virus.
  So, Mr. Chairman, let's pass this amendment today and let's install 
some antivirus protection for Americans on the Internet.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I want to really just echo what the gentleman from Georgia just did 
here on the floor of the House. He actually brought some common sense 
to this debate. Everybody has their talking points and their little 
notes and they're reading them and they're trying to confuse the issue. 
Let's take a step back, if we might, Mr. Chairman. Let's just ask a 
very simple question, a very simple question. Can somebody name an area 
in this country or in this world that has had more innovation, that has 
blossomed more, that has opened up communications and connected people 
more in our country or anywhere in the world in the last decade than 
the Internet? Can anybody name it? Anything. No. It's impossible.
  Think about what's happened. The Internet was even recently credited 
for helping bring down the government of

[[Page H1099]]

Egypt. It's allowed the people to see the atrocities in Iran. It's 
allowed things like Facebook and Twitter and iPhones to blossom. It's 
given access to millions of people, and it has created millions of 
jobs.
  So what is the answer then for that incredible blossoming of 
something that has revolutionized the way we communicate, that the 
world communicates? What is now the answer of the Federal Government? 
We keep talking about letters. It's the Federal Government. What is the 
answer of the Federal Government to deal with that unprecedented 
blossoming, of innovation, imagination, of job creation? Oh, Mr. 
Chairman, the Federal Government now has to regulate. Why? Because it's 
too much innovation. The prices have dropped too much. It's too much 
imagination. It's too positive. And, therefore, the Federal Government 
must step in because the Federal Government can do it so much better. 
The Federal Government has all the answers.
  Mr. Chairman, a little bit of common sense. I'm talking to my 
colleagues here but also to the American people. If you believe--and 
think about 10 years ago--if you believe that the Federal Government, 
if it's in charge, if it would have been in charge, would have done a 
better job in blossoming this innovation, this job creation, then you 
have to be with our friends on the other side of the aisle. You then 
should support Federal Government intervening, taking care of, 
regulating the Internet. But if you believe that that miracle of 
innovation took place because of individuals, people with imagination, 
and because the government got out of its way, you would support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I think a little bit of telecommunications 
history would be appropriate at this juncture. First of all, just let 
me explain that AT and the regional Bell companies had nothing to do 
with the invention of the Internet. In fact, they were asked by the 
Federal Government in 1966 if they wanted the contract to build the 
packet switch network that would operate simultaneously with the Long 
Lines Network across the country, and AT and Bell South and Verizon 
all said, No, we don't want to build the packet switch network. Give it 
to someone else. And so they did. They gave it to a tiny company, Bolt, 
Baranek and Newman up in Massachusetts, which built the Internet across 
the country, designed it, without any of the Bell operating companies.
  Back in the 1960s and the 1970s, when people said to AT and said to 
Verizon and said to Pac Bell, How about allowing people to be able to 
go out and buy another phone other than a black rotary dial phone? 
Well, here's what AT and Bell South said. They said, If you allow 
someone to buy another phone other than a black rotary dial phone, it 
could destroy the entire phone system of our country.
  Back in the 1970s and early 1980s there were new companies called MCI 
and Sprint that wanted to provide competing long distance service. 
Remember, up until the mid-1980s, whenever grandma called from 
California, people would run to the phone saying, Run, it's long 
distance. It costs a dollar a minute. That was AT, that was the Bell 
system across our country. No competition, no incentive to introduce 
innovation, no incentive to lower prices, no incentive to make the 
consumer the king.
  And then along comes the 1990s and 2000s. We here on the floor of 
Congress said we must introduce competition. This system--this AT, 
this Bell South, Verizon, Pac Bell system--it does not innovate. Not 
one home in America had broadband in February of 1996 when we passed 
the Telecom Act here. We had to order it. There were no broadband users 
in America in any home as we passed the bill.
  So what we tried to do is to induce Darwinian, paranoia-inducing 
competition. What do the broadband barons seek to accomplish? They, as 
the private sector, want to quash competition. They don't ever and they 
never will invent a Hulu, an Amazon, an eBay. They will never invent 
any of these thousands of smaller companies which are the engine of 
economic growth in our country, which leads to our ability to export 
these products.
  Verizon is not going to invent anything to do. What they want to do 
is squeeze the competitors. Price them out of the market so that they 
can maintain a monopoly or an oligopoly across the country. That's what 
this debate is all about. That's what the FCC rules are saying. They're 
saying that the new Steve Jobs, the new Bill Gates, the new Sergey Brin 
or Larry Page in the garage somewhere--and there are thousands of them 
across the country--must be able to get into the marketplace to create 
these new jobs without having to be tipped upside down and having every 
last cent poured out of their pocket to pay these large companies. 
That's what this debate is all about. It's about whether or not we want 
vigorous competition in the marketplace. Those who are opposed to the 
open network, those who are opposed to giving every competitor equal 
access with the biggest broadband behemoth, that is what this debate is 
about.

                              {time}  1250

  They're covering it as though the government is really trying to 
control the Internet. Not so. They are siding with the broadband barons 
against those thousands of companies who are out there, who have 
reinvented telecommunications and information delivery in our country 
and across the planet just 14 years after the Bell system had 100 years 
to do so and had invented every single technology. They had invented 
them all, but they had no incentive to deploy those new technologies 
because they had a monopoly.
  That's what the debate is about. If you vote for this amendment to 
give control by the broadband barons over the Internet once again, then 
you will see an inexorable, inevitable decline in innovation, in 
investment, in the private sector in these new products, these new 
technologies, these new applications, these new devices which are 
basically invented by hundreds and thousands of smaller companies in 
our country. That's the choice you have. Vote ``no'' on this amendment 
that shuts down the Internet.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, this is such a fascinating debate that's 
taking place here on the floor today. I think that anyone that 
considers themselves connected in the country--and I'm not talking 
about being connected to wealth but connectivity in terms of 
communications--I hope you're tuned in, because this is a consideration 
about preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices.
  Now I don't know how many of you have spoken to your kids, but I have 
to tell you, if you've had a conversation with any young person in your 
family, and I don't remember what the average age is of Congress, but 
talk to young people in your district. And I want to tell you, they 
will say, over and over and over and over again, the way they spoke to 
the FCC, over 2 million people contacting the FCC, over 90 percent of 
them saying, Leave the Internet alone. Leave it alone. Leave it open. 
Leave it accessible to everyone.
  In just over 5 years, $250 billion has been invested by the venture 
capital community, which makes its home in my congressional district. 
And I have to tell you, I think if you took this amendment to Silicon 
Valley, when you go out there--and I know you travel out there--the 
next time, go there for an Internet 101 series, not for fund-raising, 
but go listen to people there. That's where the innovators are. And I 
have the privilege of representing them. They want an open, free, 
accessible Internet.
  I think that your disdain for government is spilling over onto the 
Internet, and I would caution you to pull up the emergency brake on it, 
because if in fact corporations get their way instead of consumers, and 
there is any blockage of content or where consumers have to pay more 
because corporations are in control instead of consumers, there's going 
to be a revolution in the country. I would not fool around with an 
open, accessible Internet. You are barking up the wrong tree. You 
really are. This is a big mistake.

[[Page H1100]]

  So you want to hate the government. You want to try and hurt agencies 
that carry out what the Congress does. That's where your party is. 
That's where your disdain lies. But I think this is a march to folly. I 
don't know if you really fully appreciated the Internet and what it 
represents and what it has done, not only for the people of our country 
but for people around the world. You wouldn't go near this.
  If you suggested to anyone in Tahrir Square in Cairo that you were 
doing this, I think they'd laugh a lot of people off the floor of the 
House of Representatives. This is so wrongheaded. And it says to me 
that you don't get it; that you simply don't get it. Without some clear 
rules of the road--and believe me, what the FCC did is so light. I 
thought that they could have done, and should have done, more. Large 
corporations carve up the Internet into fast and slow lanes charging a 
toll for content and blocking innovators from entering the information 
superhighway. You know what? I want to be at your town hall meeting 
when you have to explain that to your constituents. They will have your 
heads for that. They will. This will supersede any other issue.
  So, my friends, anyone that considers themselves in the know in the 
beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, let's not turn the 
hands of the clock back. Let's be on the side of innovators, who 
weighed in at the FCC, and I as the ranking member placed all of those 
letters of support representing hundreds of organizations in our 
country, all the way from the Catholic Conference of Bishops in our 
country to TechNet.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. ESHOO. Vote against this. This is a bad, ill-informed amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendments before us today 
that would prevent the FCC from moving forward in its efforts to 
preserve a free and open Internet. Over the past 15 years, the open 
Internet ecosystem has resulted in more than 3 million new U.S. jobs.
  In just over 5 years, $250 billion has been invested by the venture 
capital community in industries reliant on an open Internet. During 
this time, we've seen innovative companies like Netflix, Skype, Amazon 
and eBay flourish. These Internet companies have created tens of 
thousands of jobs and new competition in areas like phone service, 
video and online shopping, not just in my District, but across the 
nation.
  Without some clear rules of the road, large corporations can carve up 
the Internet into fast and slow lanes, charging a toll for content, and 
blocking innovators from entering the information superhighway.
  I believe consumers, not corporations, should be in the driver's seat 
to pick the content they view, listen and watch over the Internet.
  The FCC's actions to preserve an open Internet would ensure consumer 
choice, certainty and greater clarity in a debate that has gone on for 
almost a decade. The FCC's rules are important for Internet service 
providers as well as edge and content providers, so they may focus on 
investment, innovation, and job creation.
  We must ensure the Internet remains a vital resource to improve the 
lives of Americans and everyone around the world for generations to 
come.
  I stand united with my Democratic colleagues on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, that these amendments represent bad process, they 
reflect bad policy for our nation and should therefore be rejected.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments and protect a free 
and open Internet for generations to come.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DOYLE. I rise in opposition to the Walden amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the FCC's Open Internet Order brings certainty and 
clarity to a debate that has raged on for almost a decade, allowing 
Internet service providers as well as edge and content providers to 
fully focus on broadband investment, innovation, and other pressing 
business matters. In fact, broadband providers like AT, Time Warner 
and Comcast have all expressed support for the rules and have indicated 
that the FCC has achieved a balanced result. Wall Street investment 
analysts have also concluded that the FCC's Open Internet Order removed 
any regulatory overhang for telecom and cable companies and reflected a 
``light touch'' version of regulation that will not hinder growth and 
innovation.
  At the end of the day, the FCC's rules simply maintain the status quo 
principles that most broadband providers have already embraced. The 
rules preserve a number of existing business models for broadband 
providers to pursue as well as paving the way for new innovative 
offerings. Contrary to the claims by opponents of the FCC, these high 
level ``rules of the road'' do not allow the agency to micromanage 
broadband providers. They balance clarity with flexibility. And they 
don't require broadband providers to seek permission from the 
commission before deploying a network management practice. In fact, the 
rules specifically recognize the unique network management challenges 
across different platforms and afford broadband providers the latitude 
they need to manage their networks effectively.
  Some opponents of the FCC argue that we don't need any rules in this 
area because antitrust laws are sufficient. But antitrust remedies 
occur after harm occurs. These rules, in contrast, allow companies and 
innovators regulatory certainty, a key component that allows businesses 
to thrive.
  Mr. Chairman, the FCC's open Internet rules are just these three 
simple promises:
  One to consumers--that we can visit any Web site we want, using any 
service we want, on any device we want.
  Two for innovators--that they can create new tools without getting 
permission from the government or the company that the consumers use to 
get online.
  Three--that we provide a cop on the beat to make sure that both sides 
are doing what they're supposed to and to be a neutral arbitrator. 
That's all this does.

                              {time}  1300

  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It represents 
bad process and bad policy, and it should be rejected.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. As a general matter, the Chair must remind Members 
that remarks must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in the 
second person.
  The Chair is not referring to the remarks of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment because I 
believe in a free and open Internet.
  It was December 21, less than 2 months ago, that the Internet lost 
its freedom when the FCC, on its own, initiated an order, a rule, to 
start regulating the Internet.
  Now, who believes that by regulating it you are creating freedom?
  When the system was unregulated and when the FCC couldn't micromanage 
the Internet was during the time when innovation and investment 
occurred on the Internet and in the cyberworld. That's when we got the 
eBays, the Hulus, the Apple TVs, and all of the great applications that 
we use today. So, when I go back to my district and look my 
constituents in the eye, I can honestly say I am the one fighting to 
keep the Internet free and open.
  There are three points that we need to discuss here today: First of 
all, the regulation of the Internet by the FCC is not a congressional 
initiative. It was three votes on the FCC while Congress was away. Now 
they think they've got the power, but that's under dispute. There is 
already a lawsuit telling them they don't have that authority. I don't 
believe they have the authority. It was an incredible stretch by the 
FCC to take a sentence out of section 706 of the Telecom Act of 1996 
that actually used a phrase about data and that the FCC can't put up 
barriers. Somehow they assume, now that they have power from that 
phrase, they can start implementing and putting in barriers.
  I worry that these new rules and regulations controlling the Internet 
will stifle investment in innovation in the long run. Let's look at 
what this order does that will affect investment.
  On the investment side, the power that the FCC has sought to regulate

[[Page H1101]]

says that, in the cyberworld, there can't be discrimination. Who wants 
discrimination unless you find out that it's maybe a business model? 
For example, as a typical business model, you pay for what you use. If 
you're at 1 megabit, that may be $14; 7 megabits of speed is a higher 
price; 20 or 30 megabits is going to even be a higher price. The issue 
is that some people now say that that is unreasonable discrimination.
  In fact, I have an email newsletter from a friend of mine who runs a 
software company that can stop viruses. I am a client--or soon won't 
be. But listen to this. This is their interpretation of the FCC's net 
neutrality, ``What Net Neutrality Means for You.''
  Here is what it says: ``Deregulation,'' which is what we are being 
accused of doing, which is regulating the Internet, ``could mean higher 
Internet access prices as ISPs institute tiered models that offer 
speedier downloads to higher-paying customers.''
  That is the current business model. You will pay for what you use. If 
the business model is struck down by the FCC, you won't have the 
investment. You won't have an expansion of the Internet.
  I think it will stifle innovation. Frankly, the creator, the 
Godfather, the grandfather of the Internet, Dr. David Farber, agrees 
with this position. He has co-written an article that basically says, 
if you put regulators in charge of the Internet instead of engineers, 
it will reduce innovation. It makes sense, because now, if you're a big 
enough company--like a Google or an eBay--you just hire lawyers and 
lobbyists to go and lobby the FCC instead of hiring engineers to 
innovate.

       [From the Trend Micro Consumer Newsletter, February 2011]

                   What Net Neutrality Means for You

       Net neutrality has been in the news for some years now, but 
     the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just released 
     some important new rules on the topic. ``Net neutrality'' 
     refers to the principle that Internet service providers and 
     the government shouldn't restrict content or service levels 
     for different users. In other words, supporters of net 
     neutrality think that ISPs shouldn't favor one user over 
     another when it comes to Internet access.
       Net neutrality opponents argue that intentional content 
     blocking and performance degradation is more of a theoretical 
     problem than a real one. They also argue that less 
     regulation, not more, is what's required to create greater 
     competition among ISPs and better service levels for 
     everyone.
       For consumers, deregulation of the Internet could mean 
     higher Internet access prices as ISPs institute tiered models 
     that offer speedier downloads to higher-paying customers. 
     Some people also worry that allowing businesses to choose 
     what content or sites they'll offer to whom will result in 
     the commoditization of a formerly free and open environment, 
     akin to the evolution of television from an essentially free 
     service to a highly fragmented and fairly expensive one.
       The FCC's new rules appear to favor net neutrality 
     proponents. They require ISPs to be more transparent about 
     network performance and management; they prevent fixed (as 
     opposed to wireless) service providers from blocking content 
     (for example, sites owned by their competition), and they 
     don't allow ISPs to discriminate against specific 
     applications (such as Netflix, BitTorrent, or Hulu). In other 
     words, you can expect things to pretty much remain as they 
     have been--for now, anyway.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mack). The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the number of requisite 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. The gentleman from Nebraska has spoken twice on this 
issue. Was that by unanimous consent?
  Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I want an answer to my question first.
  Mr. TERRY. If you yield, it will solve the question.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair believes that the gentleman from Nebraska 
spoke only once.
  Mr. TERRY. Yield to me, please. Give me a little bit of respect.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. TERRY. I spoke one time, which is right now. I don't know who 
you're confusing me with or why you're standing up right now.
  Mr. DICKS. You're such a handsome guy, I thought you spoke twice. I'm 
sorry.
  I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
because, I think, if you look all across the country--and of course we 
had a watershed election in November--and if you listen to the voters 
all throughout this country, as so many of us do who hold town hall 
meetings--people are tired of all of these government regulations that 
are killing jobs and stifling innovation. In fact, most people will 
tell you they are scared to death about the concept of the Federal 
Government regulating the Internet.
  So there was this net neutrality ruling that came up by the FCC in a 
3-2 decision where all the Democrats voted for net neutrality, for this 
regulation, and where all the Republicans voted against. The FCC rarely 
ever has any kind of major ruling like this on a divided vote.
  I think it shows you that there is already controversy. The courts 
have already said that they don't necessarily have the authority to do 
this. That's why, as my colleague from Nebraska just pointed out, there 
is already litigation that is going on because we think the FCC 
overstepped its boundaries.
  You had a bipartisan group in Congress that came together and said, 
We don't want this kind of action going forward. This is something that 
should be done and solved in the halls of Congress.
  Of course, our colleagues on the other side, Mr. Chairman, haven't 
even identified a problem. If you actually want to look at it and if 
you look throughout our economy and at all of the troubles we have with 
it, one of the few segments that is growing is the technology segment 
of our economy because of the innovation that has been allowed to 
thrive, primarily due to the lack of government regulation.
  I think that goes to the heart of the real difference between our 
side and their side. They are the party of regulation, which stifles 
job growth, which stifles innovation. We are the party that says, let's 
allow a college student at Harvard University the opportunity to come 
up with an idea--and he dropped out of Harvard and is now a 
billionaire. In fact, maybe the largest percentage of billionaires in 
this country is that of Harvard dropouts, those who actually went out 
and came up with ideas to innovate, using the Internet, who are now 
billionaires who are creating thousands and millions of jobs--good, 
high-paying jobs. These are American jobs. Yet, through this net 
neutrality ruling, they want to stifle that innovation.
  So the first thing, I guess, we would have to ask is: Was net 
neutrality the reason that we were able to have that innovation that 
led to Facebook? Was net neutrality the reason that we were able to 
have such a proliferation of broadband that now over 95 percent of 
people in this country have access to broadband? By the way, they like 
it. They're not calling, saying, We want the government to come 
regulate the Internet now because there's a problem. In fact, they say 
just the opposite. They say look at this innovation that is happening.
  We had a hearing with the FCC yesterday about this issue. One of the 
FCC commissioners pointed out that, over the last 10 years, Mr. 
Chairman, over $500 billion--billion with a ``b''--of private 
investment has been made to develop broadband throughout the country. 
This is without any kind of taxpayer money.

                              {time}  1310

  This is private sector money being put into the marketplace to go and 
create jobs, to go and create the kinds of technologies that allow you 
to view and use all the kinds of apps that are available on these kinds 
of devices. That was done without net neutrality. They would tell you 
that they need net neutrality in order to have this innovation. Of 
course, they fail to point out that net neutrality was not in place 
when all this innovation happened. In fact, most people will tell you 
that net neutrality is one of the things that's in the way of this kind 
of innovation, and we're already starting to see a stifling of the 
growth, a stifling of the private investment because of these threats 
of new regulations coming in from the FCC.

[[Page H1102]]

  And that's why it's so important that this amendment actually 
addresses this problem and says, Federal Government, get your hands off 
the Internet, allow the innovation to continue, because it happened and 
it's continuing to happen without that kind of government intervention 
that they so strongly want through net neutrality.
  And so when you look and they talk about these companies that have 
said that this is a great thing, net neutrality is a great thing. Some 
of the companies they listed, they failed to mention in that same 
letter the company said, well, maybe we can live with it but they also 
have some concerns about it. I didn't hear them mentioning that when 
they're talking about these companies.
  And you look at all of the innovation that has happened, and we're 
talking about massive job growth. You know, here at a time when our 
main focus needs to be on jobs, you've got the government coming in 
with yet another threat of regulation that will stifle innovation and 
run more jobs out of this country to countries where they don't tell 
you how to operate your network, they don't tell you what to do with 
the billions of dollars that you are investing to build broadband.
  Maybe our friends on the other side want the Federal Government to be 
running the Internet because they only want the government to be the 
one that can tell you what you can and can't do. And, in fact, in our 
hearing yesterday with the FCC chairman, we pointed out that in this 
net neutrality ruling, it allows the Federal Government to pick winners 
and losers. That's not what we should be about. We should be about 
innovation. We should be about passing this amendment to allow that 
innovation to grow and get rid of net neutrality.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we look at 
what this process of net neutrality is. I rise in support of the 
resolution that we're bringing to block this funding at the FCC from 
being used to implement it.
  Bear in mind--and I think it's important that we realize this and 
remember it--after we adjourned from the last Congress and all headed 
home at Christmas, the FCC convened and the FCC decided that they were 
going to go where they had no authority to go. They were going to go in 
and implement net neutrality rules. Now, bear in mind that this body 
has stood in a bipartisan manner against the FCC taking this action. We 
have had over 300 Members stand and move forward with letters stating 
that they didn't think the FCC should move forward. This is an issue 
that should come back to Congress.
  But Christmas week they moved forward and the gentleman from 
Louisiana is exactly right in his comments. We heard from the FCC 
yesterday, and we heard about how they plan to move forward in this. 
Bear in mind, they have not done any analysis that would indicate that 
there has been a market failure. Indeed, by the actions taken in this 
body in 1996 in the Telecom Act, adopting a hands-off approach to the 
Internet and broadband, what we were able to do is see this country go 
from 8 million to over 200 million users; 95 percent of the country has 
access. Get this, according to the FCC, over 90 percent of those that 
have Internet access are satisfied with what they have. That has been 
done because we left it alone.
  Government created the environment. They made the spectrum available, 
companies came in, bid on that spectrum, secured that spectrum. They 
spend 60 billion private sector job-creating dollars every single year 
to build and maintain that spectrum.
  When we talk about the creative economy, when we talk about 21st-
century jobs growth, much of it is based off of technologies that are 
going to be attached to, developed, or applied to broadband, the 
Internet, and Web sites.
  It is in support of this resolution that we should all stand. We 
should vote ``yes.'' We should rein in some of these Federal Government 
agencies. We should stop the FCC from enacting the fairness doctrine 
for the Internet.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chair, I rise to express strong opposition to 
Amendment 404, offered by Mr. Walden, and urge my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  The FCC's Open Internet Order brings certainty and clarity to a 
debate that has raged for almost a decade, allowing Internet service 
providers as well as edge and content providers to fully focus on 
broadband investment, innovation, and other pressing business matters. 
In fact, many broadband providers have expressed support of the rules 
and have indicated the FCC's achieved a balanced result.
  At the end of the day, the FCC's rules simply maintain the status quo 
principles that most broadband providers have already embraced. The 
rules preserve a number of existing business models for broadband 
providers to pursue, as well as pave the way for new, innovative 
offerings.
  Contrary to claims by opponents of the FCC, these high-level ``rules 
of the road'' do not allow the agency to micro-manage broadband 
providers. They balance clarity with flexibility. And they do not 
require broadband providers to seek permission from the Commission 
before deploying a network management practice.
  In fact, the rules specifically recognize the unique network 
management challenges across different platforms, and afford broadband 
providers the latitude they need to manage their networks effectively.
  Some opponents of the FCC argue that we don't need any rules in this 
area because antitrust law is sufficient. But antitrust remedies occur 
after harm occurs. Prophylactic rules, in contrast, allow companies and 
innovators regulatory certainty--a key component to allow businesses to 
thrive.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on Amendment 404. It represents both 
bad process and bad policy, and should be rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 334 Offered by Mrs. Lowey

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for 
     Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency, State and Local Programs may be used to provide 
     grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative under section 
     2003 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604) to 
     more than 25 high-risk urban areas.

  Mr. ADERHOLT. We are prepared to accept the gentlelady's amendment, 
Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chair, while I have serious misgivings about the funding levels 
for FEMA first responder grants in the CR, my amendment ensures that 
one program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, is restored to its 
intended purpose.
  By limiting UASI recipients to the 25 highest-risk cities, we will 
restore its original purpose--addressing the unique planning, equipment 
and training needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas in order to 
prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from, acts of 
terrorism.
  Originally distributed to seven metropolitan areas, UASI has 
ballooned to 64 regions, many of which are neither high-threat, nor 
high-density.
  Rather than provide the highest possible funding to our most at-risk 
targets, FEMA made UASI a virtual earmark account. FEMA wastes 
resources, disregards Congressional prerogatives, and dilutes resources 
available to truly high-risk areas. For instance, despite a $50 million 
increase for UASI since Fiscal Year 2008, the New York City area 
receives less funding despite the grave and growing threats it faces.
  We need look no further to Faisal Shazad's failed plot to detonate a 
car bomb in Times Square in May 2010 or the 2009 arrest of Najubullah 
Zazi for his role in an attempted bombing of the New York City subway 
system to understand the disproportionate threat New Yorkers face.
  Just last week in fact, Secretary Napolitano testified before the 
Homeland Security Committee that we are at our most ``heightened 
state'' of terrorist threat since September 11th.

[[Page H1103]]

  Now is the time to provide the most targeted cities with the 
resources they need and deserve. If the CR is adopted and the same 
number of UASI recipients remains, the New York City region would stand 
to LOSE nearly $15 million in Fiscal Year 2011 alone--this is totally 
unacceptable.
  To my new colleagues who came to Congress pledging to make government 
more efficient, this is your chance. Don't let the CR pass with the 
same number of UASI recipients, shortchanging the top terror target in 
the country by a $15 million decrease in funds.
  While the horrific World Trade Center attacks in 1993 and 2001 were 
in New York, they were aimed at the United States and all Americans. We 
all have a responsibility to ensure our most targeted regions are 
adequately prepared.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment which 
would provide more funding to New York under the Urban Areas Security 
Initiative. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment with my colleague 
from New York.
  The Republican's funding bill that we are debating today is, in many 
ways, putting the future of our Nation at risk. But the cuts made to 
Homeland Security grants are literally putting our communities at risk 
and in harms way.
  Under current funding levels, the Urban Area Security Initiative 
provides grants to 64 metropolitan areas, including New York City. As 
we are all keenly aware, New York City is at the top of the target list 
for terrorists wanting to strike our country. It is clear that we must 
do what we can to rein in spending by the federal government, and this 
requires making difficult choices, but New Yorkers and the American 
people rely on homeland security measures to keep them safe on their 
way to work, home or while touring New York City.
  I believe that we have to make smart choices, and cutting $12 million 
that could help New York City prevent the next terrorist attack on this 
country is not a smart choice. But there is a way to protect our 
Nation's most-vulnerable targets without adding to the deficit and the 
amendment I have offered today with my good friend and colleague from 
New York accomplishes both goals.
  Our amendment limits the number of metropolitan areas that are 
eligible to receive Urban Area Security Initiative funds, increasing 
the share each eligible city receives. Currently, this Continuing 
Resolution that my colleagues on the other side of aisle have brought 
to the floor cuts funding for these critical grants by $87 million. New 
York City officials estimate this cut will result in a loss of $12 
million for the city. That means $12 million less for important 
technology investments; $12 million less for critical personnel; $12 
million less for training for police and firefighters; $12 million less 
for ongoing counter terrorism operations and overall emergency 
preparedness.
  Mr. Chair, less than ten months ago, Faisal Shahzad attempted to set 
off a car bomb in Times Square, putting at risk the lives of thousands 
of New Yorkers, along with visitors from across the country and around 
the world. The risk to New York City is real and we must remain 
vigilant.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and 
ensuring that the funds we are spending on the Urban Area Security 
Initiative are going to the cities that are the most at risk.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 413 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in Department of Defense overseas contingency 
     operations budget for military operations in Afghanistan 
     until the President to seeks to negotiate and enter into a 
     bilateral status of forces agreement with the Government of 
     the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, amendment 413 states that none of the 
funds made available by this act may be used in Department of Defense 
overseas contingency operations budget for military operations in 
Afghanistan until the President seeks to negotiate and enter into a 
bilateral status of forces agreement with Afghanistan.
  Mr. Chairman, we've had troops deployed in Afghanistan for nearly a 
decade now, making this the longest war in our Nation's history, 
costing more than $378 billion, with no real end in sight. Close to 
1,500 brave Americans have been killed, and they've been killed in the 
line of duty there. Roughly 10,000 have been wounded, and yet the 
United States does not have a status of forces agreement, or SOFA, with 
Afghanistan.
  The SOFA is a very basic tool which spells out the terms of U.S. 
military operations in a given country. The United States is party to 
more than 100 such agreements, for engagements great and engagements 
small, including Mali, Montenegro, and Micronesia.

                              {time}  1320

  We have a SOFA with Iraq, signed in the year 2008, which sets out a 
deadline for complete withdrawal of troops by the end of the year.
  SOFA agreements determine how the laws of the foreign jurisdiction 
should be applied to U.S. personnel while in that country. They lay the 
foundation in a number of areas, including economic, cultural, and law 
enforcement matters.
  So it's beyond irresponsible, Mr. Chairman, that in Afghanistan, the 
country where we are currently waging our longest and most expensive 
war, we have no such agreement. There is no formal structure to provide 
rules governing the presence of hundreds of thousands of Americans in 
that sovereign nation. This must end. It's both morally and fiscally 
irresponsible. And that's why I have submitted this amendment. It 
requires the President to negotiate and enter into a bilateral SOFA 
with the Government of Afghanistan.
  A SOFA would establish that the temporary presence of U.S. troops in 
Afghanistan is at the request and invitation of the host government. It 
would prohibit permanent military bases in Afghanistan, and it would 
provide a date no later than 1 year after the signing of the agreement 
for complete, safe, and orderly redeployment. That includes Armed 
Forces, civilian DOD employees, and military contractors.
  Without a SOFA with Afghanistan, Mr. Chairman, our leaders can 
continue to extend our occupation indefinitely while the cost surges, 
our deficit rises, and our economy falters. That is poor military 
strategy and poor fiscal planning.
  A SOFA provides certainty and clarity about what we're doing in 
Afghanistan and how much longer we need to be there. It would provide 
the framework and momentum for redeployment consistent with the terms 
of the Iraq SOFA.
  My amendment would move us a critical step closer to an end to this 
disastrous war, the safe return of our troops back home, and taxpayers' 
dollars invested in domestic needs right here in the United States.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order and I 
make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to 
change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations 
bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in 
pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall 
not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes 
additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? The Chair will rule.
  The amendment contains a legislative condition on the availability of 
funds in the bill. As such, the amendment violates clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.


                 Amendment No. 516 Offered by Mr. Camp

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used for the opening of the locks at the Thomas J. O'Brien 
     Lock and

[[Page H1104]]

     Dam or the Chicago River Controlling Works.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. Today I offer an amendment that is long overdue. Last June, 
a live bighead Asian carp was discovered 6 miles from Lake Michigan, 
north of the locks and well past the electric barrier. This discovery 
shows that Asian carp, one of the world's most rampant invasive 
species, are at the doorstep of the Great Lakes.
  Weighing up to 100 pounds, spanning over 6 feet, and eating half 
their body weight daily, Asian carp have the ability to decimate fish 
populations indigenous to the Great Lakes. These giant bottom feeders 
would destroy the region's $7.5 billion fishing industry as well as the 
800,000 jobs that are supported by it. To prevent this catastrophe, 
ecological experts have said that closing the locks that separate the 
Illinois River from Lake Michigan is the single most important step we 
can take to prevent these species from entering the Great Lakes.
  In 2009, the Michigan attorney general filed a petition in Federal 
court to direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to immediately close 
the locks. This petition was supported by Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, 
Indiana, New York, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, the court denied 
the petition. But after the court's decision, I introduced the Carp 
Act, along with Senator Stabenow of Michigan, that would immediately 
close the locks. And since then, despite the imminent threat of Asian 
carp, the administration has refused to close the locks and all we have 
received is promises of studies that will take years to complete.
  You will surely hear arguments from those opposed to closing the 
locks that doing so will disrupt the movement of cargo and cause 
serious economic harm to the region. Economists who have examined those 
claims have found them to be grossly exaggerated.
  An economic study conducted in 2010, found on the Michigan attorney 
general's website at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/1-
Appendix_Renewed_ Motion_310133_7.pdf, found that if cargo passing 
through the locks had to be transported by land, it would increase 
truck traffic in the surrounding area by only one-tenth of 1 percent, 
or the equivalent of adding two additional freight trains to the over 
500 leaving the region each day. Any supposed economic impact of 
closing the locks would pale in comparison to the multibillion dollar 
industries that would be wiped out by Asian carp.
  The State of Michigan's response to the administration's Asian carp 
framework pointed out, ``The Framework's statement that the Chicago 
lock is the Nation's second busiest ignores the fact that, in 2008, 
only 39 loaded barges carrying approximately 100,000 tons of cargo, 
mainly sand and gravel, moved through that lock. Moreover, according to 
the Corps' own data, the 2008 vessel traffic consisted of 34,000--not 
50,000--vessels, mainly recreational watercraft.'' The canal is now 
only 9 feet deep in some areas.
  You will also hear critics claim that this amendment will tie the 
hands of the Corps in assisting flood emergencies. Again, those claims 
are not accurate. The Corps has sufficient authority to protect human 
life and property in the event of flooding and other disasters under 
the authority granted to it by the Flood Control and Coastal 
Emergencies Act and other Corps regulations. Those authorities allow 
district commanders to issue a declaration of emergency and use Corps 
resources to help State and local authorities respond. Opening the 
locks to deal with flooding is the exact type of scenario this 
authority is intended for.
  Mr. Chairman, every day of inaction puts the Great Lakes ecosystem, 
the largest body of freshwater in the world, and the 800,000 jobs 
sustained at risk. Inaction is unacceptable, and I urge all Members to 
vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition and stand to oppose the 
gentleman's amendment, first of all, to make the observation, 
representing the northwest corner of the State of Indiana, that I 
believe the gentleman is mistaken in suggesting that the State of 
Indiana supports the closure of the locks. It is my understanding that 
the State of Indiana opposes the closing of the locks.
  I would agree with the gentleman's assertion that we face a very 
serious problem as far as the carp, and I and others have certainly 
joined in that concern. As a member of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee for over a decade, we have been working acidulously on 
this particular problem, not only with the Army Corps of Engineers, but 
with an assortment of State and Federal regulatory bodies, because no 
one wants carp in the Great Lakes. But I would emphasize to this body 
that it is a work in progress. And at this point, the closure of the 
locks is uncalled for.
  The second point--and the gentleman talks about the economy, there is 
an economic issue. Speaking for the State of Indiana, I would point 
out, if those locks were closed, the impact as far as the loss to 
economic activity in the State of Indiana is $1.9 billion, and 17,655 
jobs in Indiana would be affected.

                              {time}  1330

  We're trying to create jobs in this economy, not strike them from 
beneath us.
  And, finally, this issue is not without controversy. It has ended up 
in the courts. The gentleman's absolutely correct about that. Twice the 
United States Supreme Court has rejected arguments by the Michigan 
Attorney General that closing the locks is eminently needed at this 
point in time.
  Last year the State of Michigan brought the question of lock closure 
before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 
On December 2, Judge Robert Dow ruled against the State of Michigan on 
their request for a preliminary injunction, explaining that the lock 
closure could inflict certain harm on the economy, and that the State 
of Michigan had failed to demonstrate that the Asian carp presented an 
ecological threat to the Great Lakes that was imminent.
  So again, I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, particularly at the 
opening of your remarks when you spoke of your involvement in this 
issue for more than a decade. And the problem we have is we've run out 
of time. Really, since 2009 when EDNA was found north of the locks, and 
now we found live Asian carp north of the locks----
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. If I could reclaim my time, I understand the finding 
of DNA. That is not carp. And again, everyone is working on keeping the 
carps out of the lake. The locks are not impermeable either. And we 
have court intervention and court rulings on this matter. And again, 
would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that has grown and grown 
and grown. But let me say that I would agree with the gentleman from 
Michigan, that we do not want the Asian carp to be able to get into the 
Great Lakes and into Lake Michigan first.
  We have been working on this issue for 12 years and it really makes 
me upset to think that they seem to say, well, nothing has happened, 
and now it's an emergency, that the Asian carp are going to get into 
Lake Michigan. Let me tell you that we have set up two electronic 
dispersal barriers that are in my district to stop the Asian carp from 
getting through. This is the only path from the Gulf of Mexico to the 
Great Lakes and these two barriers are there.
  The Asian carp are 42 miles from the city of Chicago, and this is an 
emergency and they have 42 miles to go. They have moved very slowly. 
Most of the population of the Asian carp are in the Illinois River 
around Channahon and right now, Channahon, they have a

[[Page H1105]]

contract with China to send the Asian carp over to be used as food in 
China.
  The Army Corps of Engineers has been doing everything, and this is 
for the last 12 years, and the Congress has funded this, to make sure 
that those Asian carp never reach the Great Lakes. And if they do, it 
would be devastating. So things that have happened, the two dispersal 
barriers, the bubble barriers, electro-fishing, oxygenation, rotenone 
used to kill the fish, the bypass screening barriers to combat the 
Asian carp.
  The problem is, and it's not just that the carp will get in there--
and the gentleman from Michigan raised the question of whether this was 
the only way that the Army Corps has said to stop the carp. It is not. 
And, in fact, the Army Corps has said that even if the locks are 
closed, the Asian carp will be able to get through those locks. So this 
is not the answer. The answer is to find all of these ways to combat 
that.
  Invasive species are legally hard to deal with, but I think what Army 
Corps and all of the other agencies have been doing is something that 
we will be able to contain them and eventually--I've been on fish kills 
before. There were 22,000 fish that were killed to make sure that these 
Asian carp had not gotten beyond the barriers. Not one of these fish 
was an Asian carp.
  But the problems that we're really facing are economic, devastating 
to the State of Illinois, devastating to the States below Illinois, 
down to the Gulf of Mexico, devastating to anyone that is using the 
locks to send goods back and forth.
  And, in fact, we are facing 800,000 jobs lost with the barge traffic. 
People don't realize how much this is used because of the barge. You're 
not stopped by a barge when the gates go down. You're not stopped 
having a barge on the streets.
  What has been determined is that if we were to shut down the barge 
traffic, it would take--oh, well, we just put them on the rail and we 
put them on trucks. If we were to put these on trucks, if you were to 
take and line up the trucks from the east coast to the west coast, line 
them all up across the country and then put them all back going back to 
the east coast, that's how many trucks would be to be able to move the 
asphalt, the salt, the coal, all of these big, big items that are used 
and used in the economic thing of things. As well as the food and 
everything else that goes up and down.
  So I think that the Corps has testified that all the things are 
working. There is another study out that is going to be finished by 
2015. We have got to get this right and they worked. But having worked 
for 12 years on this, it really upsets me when the gentleman states a 
study from Wayne State saying that it would only cost $4.5 million in 
damages for economic. Oh, no. The barge people, all the people estimate 
it's at least $29 billion.
  This bill was to make sure that we can get the economy back, that we 
can create the jobs. This will destroy jobs.
  And I'm also talking about flooding. It will flood the city of 
Chicago, and it will flood 124 suburbs. I urge a negative vote on this.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I move to strike the last word, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Michigan, I 
appreciate his interest in this issue. I have to strongly stand up and 
oppose it, though.
  The 11th in Illinois, which is my district, is very, very focused and 
very reliant upon the ability to move commerce, the ability to have 
transportation, the ability for free flow of goods back and forth. 
That's a major, major industry in my district. A lot of jobs rely on 
that.
  One of the great assets we have is the ability to float goods. That's 
a great thing. The fact of the matter is, when we talk about closing 
the locks and dams, we talk about the entire Chicago region's water and 
sewer infrastructure system is built on the idea that water flows out 
of Lake Michigan via the lock system; and cutting those off would 
completely devastate the area.
  Possibly closing the locks permanently is totally not a solution to 
the problem. As most people have seen, the locks themselves are not 
even completely sealed. Even when closed, it still allows for some 
leakage.
  At a time when we are addressing a continuing resolution, we should 
give the Army Corps of Engineers time to finish their study. Let's 
continue to be cautious. We're talking about $30 billion in commerce 
that's going to be affected in my area because we want to quickly make 
a judgment on this. I understand the passion. I understand the concern, 
but let's be very cautious.
  At a time when the Chicago area, when my district has an economic 
downturn and people are waking up every day wondering if they're going 
to be able to feed their family or if they're going to have a job the 
next day, or people are driving on the interstates wondering if they 
can even get to work on time because there's already enough trucks, and 
now we want to add more and more trucks if we close these. That is the 
absolute wrong answer to this.
  And so I'm asking, let's defeat this in this continuing resolution. 
Let's give the Army Corps of Engineers the time they need.
  I ask my fellow colleagues to stand up and oppose this. It's too 
quick. We have to be cautious. We have to wait. We have to see.
  When we took the majority, one of the things we talked about is being 
cautious when we get involved in free market and commerce; and we've 
talked about that caution and what we want to do to create jobs and 
what we want to do to allow people to get back to work and to solve 
this deficit not just by cutting spending, but by cutting the 
unemployment rate.
  Well, I'm telling you, this would be terribly devastating for the 
people in Illinois, for the people in the 11th district and, frankly, 
for folks in the region.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  And I just want to comment, the gentlewoman from Illinois mentioned 
about her 12-year involvement in this issue. In fact, she and I worked 
very hard in 2006 to get the first funding for the electronic barrier, 
but that was 5 years ago. To wait for the study that I hear my 
colleagues call for is another 5 years. How much time is it going to 
take before we eliminate the threat to the entire Great Lakes 
ecosystem?
  Again, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. No problem.
  I understand, this takes time. When we talk about affecting $30 
billion in economic commerce, I would expect that to take some time.
  Now, again, I appreciate the concern. I appreciate everything we're 
dealing with. This is a very serious issue. But, my goodness, the 
people in my district are already waking up wondering if they are going 
to have a job tomorrow, begging the free market to work. And that's all 
we're asking.
  If we want to take this up at a later time, fine. But is it really 
appropriate, when we're debating hundreds of amendments to a continuing 
resolution, for this to be the area where we do something that's, 
frankly, been working or has been in study for 5 years and has a lot 
more to go?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. 
As a resident of the Chicagoland area and a lifelong resident of the 
State of Illinois, this amendment would have devastating implications 
for the economy. Right now we need jobs. Everybody on both sides of the 
aisle has been talking about how we need to jump-start the economy and 
put people back to work.
  I have a great amount of respect for the chairman and his work, but I 
think this is an amendment that is going to have devastating 
implications for people all across that region. It's going to look to 
cost approximately $29 billion.
  When we look at the amount of commerce that's going to be coming up 
from the Gulf of Mexico, through the Mississippi River, into the 
Chicagoland area and, yes, through the Great Lakes

[[Page H1106]]

and back and forth, this is something that we must, at this point in 
time, not rush to judgment.
  I recognize that we have been studying this problem for a period of 
time. I recognize that there are actually even interim studies. In 
fact, there is an interim study that's even out. Interim study number 3 
has been actually out allowing us to move forward and to try to address 
some of the problems.
  I would ask my colleagues that we do not rush to judgment. This is a 
decision that will have an enormous effect on thousands of jobs and on 
commerce across the Great Lakes going actually down to the Mississippi 
River and into the gulf. Today when we're talking about jobs and the 
economy, we have to look at how many things we can promote.
  I spent time in, actually, the locks. I have gone through the locks 
several times. I use them not only for recreational use, but I have 
also seen the barges come through. This is a very active lock, and it's 
one that we need to make sure is alive and well.
  I do want to recognize that we have a problem with Asian carp. It's 
not one that we want to ignore, and certainly please hear that I am not 
saying that we should ignore it. I think that we need to continue the 
studies. We need to be looking at alternative ways to try to prevent it 
from invading the Great Lakes.
  No one is going to be a greater proponent of the Great Lakes than I 
am, but this is an amendment that I ask my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to rise up and stand against.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to concur with the 
last group of speakers who have indicated that they were in opposition 
to this amendment.
  I have worked with individuals in the State of Illinois for the last 
several years. My congressional district runs right along Lake 
Michigan, and we have had a tremendous amount of effort to try and 
resolve this problem. It has not been resolved. And I would plead for 
more time, more study, more opportunity to come up with a resolution 
that works for all of the Great Lakes area, not just for some to the 
detriment of others. I strongly oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chair, I do rise today in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Camp, from Michigan. And let me 
say, I think I take a second chair to no one in my respect for the 
gentleman from Michigan. I respect his passion and his leadership on 
the Ways and Means Committee and his passion for the ecosystem known as 
the Great Lakes. I know it's sincere and it's real. And this problem is 
real.
  Anyone who has taken more than a passing glance at the issue of Asian 
carp recognizes that this is a serious but manageable threat to the 
Great Lakes region. It is one that deserves the continued attention of 
this Congress and this administration and the States within the Great 
Lakes region.
  But that being said, I rise in opposition to the Camp amendment for 
the following reasons:
  Principally, because I believe that this amendment would have a 
devastating effect on Hoosier jobs and the Ports of Indiana.
  The Camp amendment would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from 
operating the navigation locks located in the city of Chicago.
  It is the only waterway in the Great Lakes system with access to the 
Mississippi River Basin.
  The separation of the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River will 
cost thousands of jobs and will cause great harm to many Hoosiers who 
manufacture and grow our products. According to a study by the Ports of 
Indiana, commerce through the Chicago locks is responsible for $1.9 
billion in economic activity and nearly 18,000 jobs in my home State.
  In addition to the economic damage this action will inflict, I would 
submit respectfully that there is no evidence that actually closing the 
locks will definitely keep the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. The 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife found a year ago that there is no ``combination 
of lock operation scenarios that experts believe would lower the risk 
of Asian carp establishing self-sustaining populations in Lake 
Michigan.''
  In fact, according to the Asian Carp Working Group, there are dozens 
of alternative methods fully to be explored. And Indiana is fully 
participating in the Federal Government-led effort to stop the Asian 
carp migration. Electronic barriers have shown promise. We need to 
continue energetically to work in that area. The gentlewoman from 
Illinois also outlined different areas.
  Let me say, while I urge my colleagues to oppose the Camp amendment, 
allow me to use this moment to say that we will continue to lock arms 
with the gentleman from Michigan, with our neighbors in Michigan, our 
neighbors in Illinois to deal with what is a very, very real threat to 
the ecosystem, to commerce in the area, and to the enjoyment of the 
waterways in the area.
  Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. I appreciate the gentleman's words and also his commitment 
to try to work together to resolve this issue, and I appreciate the 
arguments he is making. But the concern on the economics argument is 
that the damage to the Great Lakes, if this problem is not addressed, 
is irreversible and cannot be calculated. I can cite the statistics on 
the jobs and economic impact, but the ecosystem, the damage to that 
cannot be remedied.
  The concern I have is this has really been a problem since 2006, when 
we worked to get the electronic barrier, which has not worked. And here 
and now we are, in 2011, saying let's wait another 5 years for the Army 
Corps to complete their study, and the problem is more imminent than 
that. And I cannot seem to get the administration to move on the 
immediacy of the threat to the system.
  I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. PENCE. I was pleased to yield to the gentleman.
  Let me just say that the demonstration projects of the electronic 
fence began slightly before 2006. The fence and the studies are 
ongoing.
  Let me say, on behalf of other Hoosiers in that delegation, we're not 
patient to wait 5 years for action. We will continue to work with the 
gentleman from Michigan to work, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of immediate 
action and continue to call on this administration. The economic 
impacts are devastating. The impact on the ecosystem broadly would be 
equally devastating, and so we join the gentleman from Michigan in 
calling for urgent action by this Congress and this administration.
  I just respectfully offer that both with regard to its economic 
impact and with regard to its questionable effectiveness, that dealing 
with this from the standpoint of the locks and this continuing 
resolution is not the best approach. So I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the Camp amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1350

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


                 Amendment No. 576 Offered by Ms. Eshoo

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into any contract with a corporation or 
     other business entity that does not disclose its political 
     contributions.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.

[[Page H1107]]

  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I admire the most about 
our country is our commitment and our love for democracy. We were 
founded on the ideal that it is the people who choose their government. 
We believe in the principle of one person, one vote; not $10,000 or 
$100,000 a vote. We believe in the free exchange of ideas to be able to 
decide which candidates deserve our votes.
  But money, and lots of money, heaps of money from undisclosed 
sources, are having a corrosive influence on our political campaigns. 
Money distorts the voice of a particular point of view, making that 
voice seem louder, making it seem more influential, or making it seem 
more persuasive than it actually is.
  We don't know who is saying what to whom. Is it Big Oil? Is it 
polluters? Is it the insurance industry? Is it the tobacco industry? 
All too often these distorted views come from corporate interests, and 
they try to undermine the public interest through campaign 
expenditures. These corporate interests can buy elections by throwing 
hundreds of thousands of dollars into a race for a particular candidate 
with attack ads against another.
  Last year, sadly, the Supreme Court overturned landmark law and other 
centuries-old precedents aimed at limiting the influence of 
corporations in our elections. Now, today, we have stealth 
organizations formed for the sole purpose of running attack ads, and 
the American people don't have a clue who is footing the bills. The 
American people have a right to know who is trying to influence them, 
and if corporations want to try to persuade voters about their point of 
view, then they should stand behind their words.
  Let voters judge the facts for themselves. Voters are smart. Let them 
make up their own minds on election day, as long as they have full and 
accurate information about the interests that are at stake.
  So my amendment is a commonsense solution to a difficult political 
problem. It requires that any company that does business with the 
Federal Government disclose their political contributions. Period. It 
is simple, it is clear, it is fair, and it is called disclosure.
  This amendment says if you are a Federal vendor receiving taxpayer 
dollars, you are required to disclose how much you spend to influence 
the political system. Why? Because with public funds come public 
responsibilities. My amendment honors the First Amendment and it places 
no limitation on political speech. It simply requires transparency.
  I yield back my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment 
presented by Congresswoman Eshoo on behalf of the public's interest, 
the people's interest, free elections, and a healthy, transparent, and 
open public discourse.
  More than one year ago, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to 
unlimited corporate spending, secret unlimited corporate spending and 
influence over our campaigns and our public policy debates. In doing so 
in the Citizens United decision, they dealt a harsh blow to a 
fundamental principle of our democracy: That voters determine the 
outcome of elections, not moneyed special interests.
  In response, with bipartisan support in this House of 
Representatives, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act to require 
corporations to stand by their ads, the same way candidates do, and to 
keep foreign-owned entities from playing any role in our elections. The 
measure included a provision to keep government contractors and TARP 
recipients, beneficiaries of taxpayer support, out of our elections, 
preventing them from using taxpayer dollars for their own agendas.
  In the Senate, the Republicans blocked the DISCLOSE Act. Yet the 
value it represented, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, must 
remain a call to action for both parties in both Houses.
  Many of the new Members who are here campaigned on the principle that 
special interests play too big a role in our democracy. The American 
people have constantly called upon Congress to act in the people's 
interest, not the special interest.
  Today, we have another opportunity, thanks to Congresswoman Eshoo, to 
answer the public's call to action for transparency, for openness, for 
true Democratic elections. Thanks to Congresswoman Eshoo, we are 
highlighting this critical challenge to our democracy through an 
amendment to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not directed to Federal 
contractors who refuse to disclose their political expenditures.
  No dollars in this act can be used to enter into a contract with any 
corporation or company which refuses to disclose its political 
expenditures. They could be using taxpayer dollars to weigh in in a 
secret unlimited way in campaigns.
  I know that some of you may not want to receive this message, but it 
is a message that the American people have delivered to us over and 
over again--that they do not want special interests with their secret 
unlimited expenditures dominating our elections, and therefore 
dominating public policy in this Congress.
  So I am grateful to Congresswoman Eshoo for highlighting this 
critical challenge to our democracy, again through an amendment to 
ensure that taxpayer dollars are not directed to Federal contractors 
who refuse to disclose their political expenditures. With this measure, 
we could take one step forward in the fight to restore fairness to our 
political process and preserve the integrity of our elections by 
disclosing the unlimited, secret, endless flow of corporate dollars 
into campaigns.
  This Republican majority, many of you voted for the DISCLOSE Act as 
presented by Mr. Van Hollen in the last session. I hope that you will 
choose again between putting the corporate interest ahead, or choosing 
the public interest. It should not be a hard choice, but we will find 
out soon enough where you stand.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join Congresswoman Eshoo in continuing 
the fight for meaningful reform and to advance the cause of 
accountability in our campaigns. We owe it to the American people, we 
owe it to our Founders who invested so heavily in this democracy, and 
we owe it to the future.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment by my 
distinguished colleague from California.
  This isn't that complicated. It all gets down to the lesson that we 
all learned in grammar school: Honesty is the best policy. Not more 
complicated or not more complex than that. Honesty is the best policy.
  There is not a Member of this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, who doesn't 
believe in the First Amendment. I believe in the First Amendment. I 
believe that in a democracy you can say almost anything you want about 
almost anybody. You have the right to say what you want. But people 
have the right to know who is funding your message.
  When people turn on their television sets and they see a political 
commercial making outlandish claims, they deserve to know whether that 
commercial is being funded by a foreign-owned corporation. They deserve 
to know whether that commercial is being supported by a special 
interest group. They deserve to know when they're watching a commercial 
about how evil a candidate is whether it is being funded by a special 
interest that is trying to defeat that particular candidate because 
that particular candidate supports the Environmental Protection Agency, 
supports clean air, supports clean water, and whether a special 
interest is trying to defeat that candidate because they want to 
dismantle the EPA. They have the right to know when one of those 
commercials permeates our airwaves whether those commercials are being 
funded by a special interest, for example, that wants to dismantle 
Federal inspections of meat because those Federal meat inspections are 
impinging on the bottom line of that particular special interest.

[[Page H1108]]

  And so this is simply about the right to know. This is simply about 
upholding our right to say what we want when we want about whom we want 
but making sure that the American people, no matter what side of the 
aisle you're on, understand who is behind that message. This says that 
the American people and the American taxpayers shouldn't be unwittingly 
subsidizing dirty campaigns and secret donations. And that is why this 
amendment is so important, because the American people and taxpayers 
have the right to know and because honesty is the best policy.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of 
order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the issue raised by this amendment is to 
whom does this Congress belong; in whose interests are the Members of 
Congress working.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, every one of our constituents will draw a 
conclusion about that question based upon how we vote, what we do, and 
what we say. And every one of us will face the consequences of that 
conclusion in the next election. One of the facts that I think every 
voter has a right to know is who is funding and supporting the 
campaigns of any one of us who seeks the honor of serving here.
  Whether you belong to the most progressive group on the Democratic 
side, the most libertarian group on the conservative side, whether 
you're a member of the tea party, whether you're a member of a union or 
the Chamber of Commerce, I think every voter deserves and believes that 
they deserve the right to know who is funding the campaigns that bring 
people here. This is a basic matter of transparency and full 
disclosure.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think if we're honest among ourselves, we 
know how much the American people despise the political ads that 
vandalize their television screens every fall. A lot of people I know 
turn the television off or turn the sound down because they're so 
exhausted of hearing ridiculous personal dirty attacks by one side 
against the other. I would hope that some day the level of civility 
could rise to where we all stop that, but I think until we get to that 
day, people, at the very least, have the right to know who's paying for 
it, from where is this money coming.
  Ms. Eshoo's amendment is very simple, very plain, and should be 
supported by people of all ideological stripes. It says the public has 
a right to know where the money is coming from. And if you think a 
special interest group that promotes traditional energy supplies--oil 
and gas--is a good thing, then you'll be happy that they're paying for 
commercials. And if you think like someone who's running on a platform 
promoting the woman's right to choose, then you'll be happy knowing 
that some of their money may have come from people who sympathize with 
that point of view. So irrespective of where you come out on substance, 
shouldn't we all come out to a place to say the public has a right to 
know who's funding these campaigns.
  So to whom does this Congress belong? Well, if we look at the 
legislation before us today, it certainly looks like it doesn't belong 
to oncological nurses, because money for cancer research is being cut 
in this bill. It certainly doesn't look like it belongs to police 
officers working the beats of America's towns, because upwards of 
15,000 police officers will be laid off as a result of this bill. It 
certainly doesn't belong to America's schoolteachers and guidance 
counselors, because under this bill upwards of 10,000 reading tutors 
and math coaches will lose their job under this bill. Seven thousand 
special education teachers under one version of this bill would lose 
their jobs.
  So if this Congress doesn't belong to nurses, police officers, 
teachers, to whom does it belong? One of the answers to that question 
would certainly come from answering the question: Who paid the bills to 
get the Members here? Who wrote the checks and who made the 
contributions?
  I hope that our friends would join us in supporting this amendment. I 
think it's clear and simple. But if they don't, maybe one of the 
reasons they don't want to join us in supporting this amendment or even 
hearing this amendment is they don't want the public to know who wrote 
the checks, who paid the bills, and who paid the freight.
  Everyone should have the right to know who funded the campaigns that 
brought people here. It's as simple as full disclosure. It makes great 
sense. And I urge a ``yes'' vote on Ms. Eshoo's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to this amendment.
  This is a continuation of the effort by the other side to undo the 
evenhanded approach that was utilized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 
their decision in Citizens United. In that case, the Supreme Court 
decided that the Fifth Amendment protections that you have for free 
speech are not in any way diminished by virtue of the fact that you say 
it not with a single voice but you join with others.
  Every response that we've heard from the other side has said, Well, 
we don't like what the court did, so what we're going to do is put 
certain requirements on those who are corporations but not the same 
requirements on those who are unions representing those who are 
employees of the Federal Government. And there is as much a conflict of 
interest in that regard as there is on those corporations that have 
contracts with the Federal Government.
  So, once again, they're trying to talk about how this action by the 
Supreme Court was unfair, it somehow requires that there is an 
unfairness involved, that our elections were taken over by 
corporations. Every study has shown that there were far more 
expressions of political thought in paid advertising by those on the 
left than those on the right in the last election, but we don't hear 
about that.
  If they would bring forward something that would have equal 
treatment, maybe then we could take a look at it. But the fact of the 
matter is we have seen effort after effort. We can recall last year 
when they brought it to the floor, one of the things they wanted to do 
is not only have uneven treatment with respect to corporations and 
unions, but they were engaged in an auctioning off of First Amendment 
rights according to whether you were a favored or disfavored group.
  We saw organizations that were given special exemptions. The National 
Rifle Association was one of them. And there were those on the left. 
And if you had enough political sway, you got exempted from the 
disclosure requirements. And that really is the definition of ``Capitol 
cronyism,'' where the government decides who is favored and who is 
disfavored, and that the essence of the decision by the Supreme Court 
was the acknowledgment that the First Amendment has its most essential 
protection in speech, which is political speech.

                              {time}  1410

  And if that be the case, we should tread very lightly where we 
require disparate treatment between different groups, those favored and 
those which are disfavored. If there's one thing the First Amendment 
stands for, it is that we treat everybody the same. And this again is 
in keeping with what we saw last year. Some people are more favored 
than the others, and when you're talking about First Amendment rights 
and expressions of political thought, we should be very wary of it. 
And, by the way, nothing with the Supreme Court decision changed the 
prohibition against direct contributions to campaigns by corporations. 
That has been, that continues to be, and will be a felony. And if 
people on the other side have evidence of that happening, they ought to 
give that information to the Justice Department and have people 
prosecuted.

[[Page H1109]]

  So let's at least talk about what the facts are and let's remember 
the history of this effort on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  We've heard a lot about the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, 
and we may agree with that decision or disagree with that decision. But 
the fact of the matter is that's the law of the land. This amendment 
does not try to overturn that decision. This amendment is perfectly 
consistent with that decision. It simply says that when you are 
spending the money, expending the money, you have to disclose to voters 
that you're trying to influence their vote. It's the right to know.
  Now because we are dealing with an appropriations bill, a government 
spending bill, we can't address all of the entities out there in the 
country that may be trying to spend money to influence elections.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Not at this moment. I've got my 5 minutes and I'm 
going to use them, but I thank you.
  What we're saying in this bill is that if we're really trying to save 
the taxpayers some money, which we should all be trying to do, we 
should try to curb the influence of the special interests who spend a 
lot of money hiring lobbyists to influence us and spend money in 
campaigns trying to influence the outcome of elections.
  Now just in the last couple of days, we've had a lot of votes on some 
issues that could affect Federal Government contractors in a very big 
way. Just yesterday, we had a vote on something dealing with a big 
military contract. So here's my question. That contractor, the 
contractor that got taxpayer money or the one that didn't, could say, 
Look, I want to reward the folks that supported me. I'm going to run a 
bunch of TV ads in their campaign supporting them; say thank you, I 
want to get you reelected. Or they may say to the folks who voted 
against that Federal Government contract, hey, I want to make sure that 
person doesn't come back here because they may vote against my contract 
again, they may want to save the taxpayer some money, but we're going 
to spend some of our money--a Federal contractor, contractor getting 
taxpayer dollars--we're going to spend some of our money to try and 
unelect that person who voted against our contract.
  This amendment is really simple and it would have a direct impact on 
all the conversations we're having. If you're a Federal Government 
contractor, if you're getting taxpayer money and you decide to run 
political advertisement in people's campaign to try and reward those 
who supported you or punish those that didn't, you at least have to 
disclose that information to the voters. You at least have to say who 
you are and how much you're going to be spending. And it seems to me if 
we're genuinely interested in saving taxpayers' dollars, which we all 
should be, we should give the taxpayer, whose dollars are going to 
those contractors, the right to know whether those contractors are 
turning around and spending money in these elections.
  So if we're ever going to really work to try and curb those 
interests, those special interests that work so hard to try and get 
special benefits out of the Federal Government, we should at the very 
least say, ``Come clean with the taxpayers.'' This is not an 
infringement in any way on free speech. They can still run an ad in 
anyone's district and they can say whatever they want to the voters; no 
restrictions whatsoever. All we're saying is when you do that, let the 
taxpayers know. After all, the taxpayers have helped provide the funds 
for your contract. At the very least, you should tell the taxpayer, the 
voter, who you are that's spending money to try and influence the 
outcome of an election. It seems to me that that's the very least we 
can do to try and provide more accountability and more transparency. We 
keep hearing from everybody, that's what we want--more transparency. 
Okay, let's let the voters know. Why wouldn't you want to let the 
voters know?
  Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying, this is a very simple 
amendment. If you're a Federal Government contractor, you're getting 
taxpayer dollars, you decide to get engaged in the political process as 
is your right; and after the Citizens United, you can get directly 
involved expending money in those campaigns. You can do that and say 
what you want. Just tell the taxpayer who you are and what you're 
spending to try and influence their vote. I hope that we will adopt 
this amendment, and I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Eshoo) 
for offering it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman continue to reserve the point of 
order?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, I do.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I would just say this: At the core of the Supreme Court decision was 
a protection of the First Amendment right of political speech, and that 
it would not be lost because you joined with others. As a corollary of 
that, the court in the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy 
talked about the fact that one of the real fears of the Founding 
Fathers was the government acting in disparate ways; that is, treating 
different groups differently for a political reason.
  And so I just say, in the scenario by the gentleman from Maryland, 
one would force an obligation of disclosure on one group and not 
another. So that the defense contractors, he said, would if he funded a 
statement on television, but the union members who work for the defense 
contractor would not; or those who are Federal employees represented by 
unions would not.
  I guess what we're saying here is we know that corporations influence 
elections, but it is absurd to assume that unions do. And if you 
believe that, then support this amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for reserving 
his point of order so that we can speak to this amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from California.
  I really believe that this is about transparency. I'm for widening 
that circle of transparency as much as we possibly can. This amendment 
speaks to a very important part of trying to gain transparency for the 
American people. You know, it's a rather remarkable process how we all 
get here. We engage in some form of politics that is straight out of 
the first Congress of the United States. It's out of the first people 
who ran for office here. We go to our neighbors and we go to our 
friends and we go to town councils and we talk to people and we ask 
them to support us. We go into their organizations and we ask them to 
support us. We tell them what we're going to do, we tell them what we 
think, we tell them what we like and don't like, maybe what we like 
about them and don't like about them. But it's a process of 
interchange. It's a transparency of ideas. You're held accountable for 
those ideas. And you raise money because you want to publicize your 
message further. You go to your friends, you go to organizations that 
support you, organizations you support, and you raise money to do this. 
And right now that's essentially all disclosed.
  But what we've seen now in the last few years, and especially after 
this Supreme Court decision, is there's two campaigns that are being 
run--you run one, the best you can under the rules we have; campaign 
contributions are all reported, and then an independent group comes in 
and they run a campaign either for you or against you in your district. 
Your constituents may never know what even hit them. They may never 
know where it came from. It may only be about an issue that's linked to 
you. It has nothing to do with disclosure.

                              {time}  1420

  That's their right now under the Supreme Court decision, but the 
question

[[Page H1110]]

really should be: Should those expenditures be disclosed? Because very 
often we all know that one of the unpleasant things that happens to you 
in this business, I guess unless you fund your campaign out of your own 
pocket, is that you'll cast a vote, and the newspaper will immediately 
go and say Congresswoman ``so and so'' got a contribution from this 
entity on this side or from this person on this side of the argument or 
a contribution from this person on the other side of the argument. It 
happens all the time. That's disclosure. That's the price you pay--
except for these expenditures. They may come from the very same side of 
that argument and will be completely invisible to the press, to your 
neighbors, to your constituents, and that should not be allowed. The 
disclosure should be full and complete on people who spend money on 
behalf of these campaigns.
  You can't have a situation where people move through the night, move 
with secret money--undisclosed money--and seek to influence the outcome 
of the elections in this country. This isn't Egypt where secret 
societies move through and create a party for the purpose of diverting 
votes from this party over here. This isn't Russia where the oligarchs 
and the billionaires move around and create parties to defer one 
another and where people never see where the expenditures are coming 
from or if they're speculated about.
  In this country, in a long, hard struggle, one campaign has full 
disclosure--be you a working person or be you a corporate chief. 
Whatever the source of money is in your campaign it is disclosed. But 
now we have a shadow campaign, and the shadow campaign threatens to 
dwarf what is taking place in the other campaigns.
  How many Members on both sides of the aisle know that they had a 
campaign run? We've all listened to our friends on both sides about the 
independent expenditures, about the undisclosed money that came into 
the campaign. Think how that turns the stomachs and the hearts and the 
minds of our constituents when they think that this was going on--an 
election where they in good faith maybe stood in line to vote and made 
sure they got in their absentee votes, and they might have asked the 
rest of the members of their families to vote. All of that was taken 
away by a tsunami of $6 million, $3 million, $9 million, $12 million 
that just showed up on the doorstep of your district, all of it 
undisclosed, now gathering the forces once again to get ready for the 
next cycle--people bragging about how much money they will have, people 
bragging about their involvement, their success ratios--all of that to 
intimidate Members of Congress, to make people think about the vote; 
but they will never be held accountable for those actions.
  That's what transparency is truly about. Transparency is as much for 
us as it is for our constituents, and it is important to our 
constituents because they do make judgments about us; they do make 
judgments about issues; they have expectations of us; they have hopes 
of us. It is only that information and that transparency that will let 
them act in a rational way on behalf of their votes--to protect their 
votes, the votes they just cast and the votes they anticipate casting 
in the future.
  We have an amendment here to rip away the $3 checkoff, which is a 
modest effort by constituents to say, I want to make sure the elections 
are clean and transparent. Now we see that the undisclosed far exceeds 
anything that they can possibly do.
  I thank the gentleman again for reserving the point of order.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PEARCE. It is, indeed, interesting to listen to the arguments 
that are coming on this particular amendment, Mr. Chairman, as I have 
been on the receiving end for a third cycle in a row of about $1.5 
million in ads that have been run against me by a group that is 
protected, by a group whose secrecy is protected under the DISCLOSE Act 
that was passed under the last Congress. So the people who are here, 
proclaiming that transparency is the ultimate aim of this legislation, 
themselves are protected through this legislation of the last Congress, 
certain organizations if they fall within their parameters, which these 
groups do.
  So I do find it amazing that we are sitting here talking about the 
transparency of some of the people who will enter into discussions of 
campaigns, but not all of them. We want some of those entire lists over 
there prohibited from disclosure. I find it refreshing to hear the 
comments about transparency and about the American system coming from 
the floor of the House, which decided it did not want that transparency 
for certain groups. I suspect those certain groups are still allowed to 
be fully clothed in secrecy even under the guise of this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from New Jersey continue to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this very 
modest amendment by Congresswoman Eshoo.
  In the words of the young people, ``This is a no-brainer.'' This 
should be an easy call for Members on both sides of the aisle--people 
who believe in fairness and democracy and transparency. It should be an 
easy call for us to say, You know what? We know that there may be 
Federal contractors out there who are getting billions of dollars in 
benefits from Federal contracts, but they should disclose the money 
that they are spending on campaigns. The American people expect that.
  I wasn't a supporter of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal 
Election Commission, but that's not what this is about, Mr. Chairman. 
This is not about a protected First Amendment right.
  I read the decision in Citizens United. What I took away from it is 
that, in fact, the one area in which the Congress does have some 
authority is in regulating the disclosure of expenditures in campaigns. 
The Court was very explicit about that. I know there have been a number 
of statements here on the floor that suggest otherwise, that suggest 
that this very fine and modest amendment would, in fact, impede our 
constitutional rights, but that's not what the Court said at all.
  What the Court said is that it's important and that Congress has the 
authority to regulate the disclosure of corporate expenditures on 
campaigns. This amendment does exactly that. It says, You know what? To 
play by the rules, these are the rules that we set. If you spend money 
on campaigns, the public has a right and interest in knowing what your 
interest is.
  So I am a strong supporter of this amendment. It is simple. Who funds 
campaigns? What is your special interest, Mr. Chairman?
  At a minimum, government contractors who really stand to gain 
billions of dollars should disclose their interests in our campaigns. 
This is a simple question of democracy. Members can declare here today 
that either they are on the side of the public interest and will 
support this amendment or that they are on the side of secrecy and 
collusion and will oppose the amendment.
  It is imperative that we really prevent secret donations in our 
elections. We have eliminated the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, 
so much more unfettered spending will take place in Presidential 
campaigns. We can't afford to continue to obstruct commonsense reforms 
that diminish the voices of the American people. I am not alone. Across 
this country, fully 80 percent of the American public actually believes 
that the Citizens United decision was decided wrongly, but that's not 
why we are here today. We will take that up at another time.
  We are here today, Mr. Chairman, to declare once and for all that 
there will be some of us--and I hope a majority of us--who will stand 
in support of the Eshoo amendment, which is on the side of fairness, on 
the side of democracy, on the side of transparency: on the side of the 
American people. We will declare here today with our vote that we stand 
for the public interest, and some will so shamefully declare that they 
stand for special interests.

[[Page H1111]]

  With that, I urge us to stand on the side of public interest and in 
support of the Eshoo amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires a new determination.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination of whether certain political contributions were 
disclosed, a determination not required by existing law.
  The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

                              {time}  1430


                Amendment No. 195 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the payment of fees and other expenses under 
     section 504 of title 5, United States Code, or section 
     2412(d) of title 28, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff of this House of 
Representatives. We adjourned this morning at 3:48 a.m. with a staff 
that diligently stayed and worked these amendments, the staff outside 
that provides security. It is an amazing effort by the people who serve 
this country as the staff members of the U.S. House of Representatives, 
and I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their outstanding 
service.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm here to propose an amendment and tell a story about 
laws, and it is ironic that these two proposals came up simultaneously.
  In 1980, a law was passed called the Equal Access to Justice Act, and 
it allows Americans who are being challenged by the Federal Government 
to recover their legal fees if they successfully sue the Federal 
Government when the Federal Government has wronged them. It is a very 
fair law.
  The problem is, in 1995, the Federal Government quit keeping records 
on who is receiving payouts and how much under the Equal Access to 
Justice Act. Consequently, this law has been hijacked by certain groups 
who use it to sue and recover judgments. For example, there are 14 
environmental groups that have recovered $37 million by filing 1,200 
lawsuits for which they've recovered judgments and even legal fees 
under settlements with the Federal Government, thereby fueling the fire 
of suing the Federal Government over sometimes procedural issues.
  There's a group at Virginia Tech University who, through the FOIA 
law, the Freedom of Information Act, has uncovered how many abuses 
there are of this law and how many unintended consequences there are of 
the use of this law by certain groups, and we need to have a 6-month 
moratorium on expenditures and payouts under EAJA so we can get 
information about who's receiving this money, what the lawyers are 
being paid per hour, and who it's going to, how many environmental 
groups are actually paying for their organization by routinely suing 
the Federal Government to stop certain activities on Federal lands.
  This is taxpayer money that's being used for this purpose; and in 
light of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle's enthusiasm 
for sunshine, for full disclosure, for knowing where taxpayer dollars 
are going, I strongly encourage you to support my amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, equal access to our Nation's courts for all 
Americans is a hallmark of our democracy and our system of justice. 
Providing attorneys' fees to successful plaintiffs, which is what the 
Equal Access to Justice Act does, ensures that the government is held 
accountable when it overreaches its power. These fees are only 
available when a party prevails on the merits of a lawsuit and only 
then after careful consideration by the presiding judge as to how 
deserving each plaintiff is.
  Attorneys' fees are available to individual citizens, local 
communities, small business, tribal entities, nonprofits, all 
regardless of where they stand on any particular issue. Providing 
attorneys' fees ensures that powerless, less wealthy individuals who 
wouldn't otherwise have a voice as a result of their not being wealthy 
or representing a corporate interest can nevertheless be heard by our 
government, by our court system; otherwise, they wouldn't have the 
means.
  We already suffer under a system where too often big money, as was 
discussed in the last amendment, crowds average people out of our 
political system, squeezing them out of this political process here on 
Capitol Hill. Now you want a system where big money squeezes average 
people out of the courthouse as well, out of our justice system?
  Awarding attorneys' fees makes it possible for environmental groups--
I acknowledge that--to bring court actions to protect our environment. 
I happen to think that's a good thing, but it also allows small 
business owners, farmers, ranchers, timber workers to ensure that their 
rights are protected as well when they believe that the Federal 
Government is in the wrong. It works both ways.
  This Republican zeal to target every program that protects natural 
resources is just difficult to comprehend. You're proposing an 
amendment that would slam the courthouse doors closed for any average 
citizen plaintiff, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.
  Instead of finding practical solutions that protect the environment 
and create jobs, this amendment would do nothing more than financially 
punish citizens who want and need, and deserve to have their voices 
heard.
  That's why this amendment should be defeated.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I rise in 
strong support of this legislation offered by my good friend from 
Wyoming.
  It would be one thing if what the gentleman from Virginia says were 
the case in reality. It's not the case in reality. I think that's the 
reason that this law was passed, so that those people, the powerless, 
less wealthy individuals that the gentleman referred to, would have 
access to the courts. And the last thing we want to do is deny citizens 
their right to have a say in how, in this case, our public lands are 
managed.
  But it has become, frankly, a cottage industry: suing the Federal 
Government, which is suing the people, and then asking the people to 
pay for your legal fees to do so. The Equal Access to Justice will 
allow those suing the Federal Government to be reimbursed for their 
legal costs even if they don't prevail on a majority of the counts. The 
implication that the gentleman just gave is that you have to win. They 
can be reimbursed even if they don't prevail on a majority of the 
counts.
  The law has been abused by several interest groups who have turned 
this into, as I said, a cottage industry and now sue the government on 
a regular basis. They fund their organization through this and that's a 
problem. If somehow we could get it back to what the gentleman said it 
was, that would be one thing. So far we haven't been able to do that. 
And, in fact, we had language in our last appropriations bill that 
didn't make it to the floor, along with the other appropriations bill, 
that would have at least said why don't we find out who's getting this 
money. If I'm a farmer out there and I get payments under the farm 
program, every

[[Page H1112]]

citizen in this country has the right and ability to look it up and see 
who's getting those farm payments. You know what, that doesn't happen 
with who's getting these fees, who's being reimbursed by the Federal 
Government.
  They're supposed to keep track of that, but they don't do that; but, 
in fact, when we asked the Secretary, does this come out of your budget 
or does it come out of the justice fund, who pays for this? Nobody 
really knew.

                              {time}  1440

  And if it doesn't come out of their own budget, what's their 
incentive to do things the right way?
  Quite frankly, many of these lawsuits prevent the management of 
Federal lands for the benefit of the people. For example, holding up 
important forest-thinning projects and wildfire prevention projects. 
This, as I said, has become a cottage industry and needs to be 
reformed. This would prevent these fees from being paid during the term 
of this CR the next 7 months or however long it takes.
  Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to my friend from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend from Idaho.
  Is it not the case that you only get fees on that part of the suit 
that you brought where you actually win? That you do have to prevail in 
order to get something in order to get reimbursed. And it's only on 
where you prevail that you get any fee reimbursement.
  Mr. SIMPSON. That's accurate. But you don't have to prevail in the 
overall case. You could actually lose the case for what you are trying 
to do. It is the problem that good intentions have gone awry. And I 
will tell you that there are groups all across this country who have 
seen this as a way to fund their organizations, and we need to put a 
halt to it. Because what we're doing is asking the people of this 
country to fund people to sue them. I don't know who else does that. 
But on the other hand, I agree with the gentleman that we want those 
people that don't have the ability or the resources to have a say in 
how public lands are managed, to have a say in that. But it has gone 
awry, and we need to put an end to it, and we need to reform the 
process.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I move to strike the last word.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. This amendment is overbroad, to use a euphemistic term, 
in order to describe what its impact will be upon those who are the 
least powerful, and most agreed in terms of the impact in which the 
Federal Government has upon their lives as individual citizens.
  Let me give you an idea of how broad the impact of this amendment is. 
If this amendment had been in place, would the citizens who had been 
unwittingly turned into nuclear guinea pigs in the 1940s and 1950s 
during Federal Government-sponsored radiation experiments using 
thousands of American citizens without their permission have been able 
to bring their lawsuits decades later in order to reclaim some small 
compensation for their families? Would they have been able to bring 
their suits against the Federal Government? Who do you want to empower, 
the people who were the guinea pigs or the Federal Government?
  Would a widow who sued the Social Security Administration for 
refusing to provide the survivor's benefits that she was still due, 
would she be able to sue? Or are the legal fees just so great that the 
widow just has to live without the benefits? Would those who live 
downwind from a nuclear test and suffered cancer or other health 
effects, would they be able to sue? They've only found out years later 
what the impact is on them. How can they possibly afford the legal fees 
to take on the Federal Government?
  Would the atomic veteran deployed at the test site during the 
atmospheric nuclear testing of the 1950s ever have been able to afford 
to bring their case to court? Would those people all across Nevada, 
Arizona, Utah, those States out West where these poor victims only 
found out later, how could they have ever afforded to have brought a 
lawsuit if they are not going to know that their legal fees would be 
covered when they win?
  Would government whistleblowers be able to bring a case in response 
to retaliation by their supervisors? How can they sue the government? 
It's this lone individual against the Federal Government. We should be 
empowering these individuals against the Federal Government when it 
acts in an imperious, arbitrary, capricious way that ruins people's 
lives. Would citizens harmed by a contamination at a Superfund site at 
a military base in their neighborhood be able to sue the Federal 
Government because of the harm that has now gone into their 
neighborhoods? Or should we just say, Sorry, you are out of luck. The 
Federal Government did it to you. They did it to you in your 
neighborhood. You don't have the capacity because you are just some 
poor citizen living accidentally near a military base.
  What would the black farmers who were discriminated against for 
decades by the Agriculture Department have been able to do in terms of 
bringing a lawsuit? They couldn't have done it. Those poor black 
farmers took a generation. Who funds that? How do they take on the 
Federal Government which had a policy of discrimination for 200 years 
against black farmers? How do they do it? You are defunding all of 
those lawsuits with this one amendment. What would have been the impact 
on Native Americans who trusted the government to protect their 
interests and natural resources and instead were ripped off? How do 
those Native Americans bring their case?
  All of these things are now basically undermined by the amendment 
that we are now considering. That is this impact that is being visited 
upon all of these victims and all future victims, all actions by the 
Federal Government of the United States of America. This is where you 
get to show what your attitude is towards the Federal Government when 
they are acting in a way which does direct harm to the health, the 
well-being, and the safety of ordinary Americans in our country.
  I will read the amendment. ``None of the funds made available by this 
Act may be used for the payment of fees and other expenses under 
section 504 of title 5'' of the U.S. Code. So this covers every suit 
that could be brought by any citizen against any Federal agency of the 
United States Government. I don't know how you can side with the 
Federal Government against ordinary citizens and their right to sue, 
especially those who have been harmed the most seriously.
  So I urge a very strong ``no'' by every Member of Congress who really 
does believe that the Federal Government has to be put in its place 
when they harm ordinary citizens.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I think Mr. Markey has it about 
right. You have to kind of decide where you're going to stand. Lawsuits 
are brought every day that infuriate us in one way or another, 
depending upon where you stand and what you think about that issue or 
what you know about that issue. But the idea that we would take this 
right away from the American people to go up against the government 
when the government every day makes a series of decisions--not all of 
them are perfect. Many of them are wrong-headed. Many of them had 
repercussions that they hadn't thought through when they made the 
decision. Those are the challenges that go on every day, whether it's 
in OSHA or the EPA or the Department of Labor, the Department of 
Interior. And many decisions that are made upstream have a lot of 
ramifications downstream.
  Let's not pretend that every Forest Service sale is perfectly 
configured and thought about the externalities, the impacts on grazers, 
the impacts on farmers downstream, the impacts on the streams, the 
sedimentation, the impact on the fisheries. We live with that in 
California all the time. The salmon don't have a lawyer. But the harm 
to the fisheries, the harm to the small fishermen, to the small boat 
owners, the people who go out and brave their lives in the Pacific 
Ocean. When the Federal Government makes decisions about water flows 
and the Federal Government makes decisions about timber sales and when 
the Federal Government makes decisions

[[Page H1113]]

about construction on the dam, they have a right to be heard. But this 
isn't true if they were Taxpayers For Justice who argue about whether 
or not the royalties are fair and returned to the taxpayers, whether or 
not the Federal Government issued the permits in the right way. You 
think it's a right that somebody else has that maybe you don't like 
until you think you might want to exercise it.
  This is a magnificent tool. I have no problem with the gentleman from 
Idaho who talked in terms of disclosure and accounting and 
transparency. That should all be there. I don't know why the Department 
stopped listing this, but they should have never done it. And I would 
assume in other agencies, they should disclose what the payouts are 
because it's a measure of the management, to some extent. This isn't 
just funding your organization to keep going to court; it's also a 
measure of the management. You know, it's like a business. If you keep 
paying out a lot, your insurance company says, Maybe we ought to change 
the operations. Maybe we ought to change the way you are thinking here. 
Something's wrong when you have these payouts.
  You can argue that this is one of the metrics of performance of a 
governmental agency. If they keep losing the lawsuits, you might want 
to think that you've got to have somebody else running the show.

                              {time}  1450

  So I would hope that we would reject this amendment and understand 
that it's a much broader dissipation of citizens' rights to confront 
the government when the government may very well be wrong. And again, 
the pay-out comes only when you--you have to prevail on those measures. 
And on those measures where the court found that the government was 
wrong, you're entitled to recover your costs and your expenditures.
  So I think this is very fair. It's worked for many, many years; and 
it's protected a lot of citizens of this country against arbitrary and 
capricious actions by the Federal Government.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Now, we have heard a lot about this particular 
fund and the difficulty it has and some exaggerations as to where it 
actually goes, what it actually does.
  The problem is severalfold, one of which is that since 1994 there has 
been no clearinghouse of information. We do not know what has been 
funded. We do not know what has been used. We do not know what has been 
abused. And repeated requests to try and find that information have 
fallen on deaf ears.
  In this CR, which is for a limited time, this particular provision 
would, once again, as I heard other people saying yesterday, raise 
attention to this issue and give someone a reason to actually give that 
information.
  It is estimated in the last 15 years there have been around 1,100 
lawsuits, and that doesn't even include administratively brought 
actions that go before Interior Land Boards, and within the Forest 
Service. So all of those are part of the situation.
  I heard some great speeches about how this would hurt poor people. 
And he's actually right, except you're not looking at who are the poor 
people who are hurt with the current situation.
  Under the way this is administered correctly, any nonprofit, 
regardless of the amount of money they have, is eligible for these 
funds. But a for-profit individual, these poor farmers you're talking 
about, if they have over $7 million in net worth, which means a farmer, 
a rancher who is land rich and cash poor, have several options. They 
can just sit out and hope something happens for them, or they can put 
money out of their own pocket to try and force their way into this 
particular situation.
  Let me tell you how this has been abused. I'll go with one case that 
took place in Federal courts in Idaho in which there was a settlement. 
No one was right. No one was wrong. They came to an agreement. And yet, 
even though that settlement which represented no admission of fault on 
behalf of the government or what it did, the environmental special 
interest lawyers were given $43,000 in attorney fees under this 
proposal, under this program. And we don't know if that's just the top, 
or the tip, of the iceberg or how far it particularly goes.
  This is simply an element that we have. We have an unfair balance of 
who is available to get these funds. We have an unfair balance of what 
happens if someone prevails, and we have an unfair balance if certain 
groups get paid with taxpayer money, even though they didn't win the 
case, even though the government did nothing wrong.
  This system is broken; and this is a good amendment to say, all 
right, for the rest of the termination of the CR, we're not going to 
spend any more funds in a system that does not work, and we're going to 
demand some transparency so we can make some changes. This halts 
spending only for a short period of time till we can find out who was 
given what and what was spent from whom and to whom. And that's the 
point of the amendment. I urge everyone to support it.
  I yield back.
  Mr. REHBERG. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I just want to real briefly say I was here 
when it was created. I was a congressional staffer. And talk about the 
law of unintended consequences. I might point out the people from the 
other side of the aisle fought us on the creation of the Equal Access 
to Justice law. It was never intended to be used for the purposes it is 
currently being used for.
  So I guess I'd better apologize to the people of America for having 
been a supporter of Equal Access to Justice. And, in fact, as a 
staffer, I helped talked my Congressman that I worked for into it. I 
was his small business aide; his name was Congressman Ron Marlenee of 
Montana. I helped talk him into it because it made sense. It was 
supposed to give an opportunity for small business to be able to 
counter the lawsuits that were going to occur against them by the 
government coming in oftentimes with frivolous regulations.
  The other side has figured how to turn it into a jobs bill for trial 
lawyers. They very effectively, in the Endangered Species Act and some 
of the other environmental acts, figured out how to use it to stop 
development within the United States.
  So, unfortunately, in about the early 90s, we, as small business 
advocates, were the ones that helped push this through. The only group 
at that time that was exempt was the IRS. We wanted everybody to be 
under this law, giving the small businesses an opportunity to protect 
themselves.
  It has been twisted. They have done everything they possibly can to 
turn an industry into suing on behalf of people and then making money 
off it. It never was intended for this purpose.
  We need to get back to its original purpose. It would be fun to go 
back and find out how some of the people that are talking about what a 
great law it is now, whether they were supporters at the time because, 
if I remember correctly as a young congressional staffer, a lot of the 
people that are supporting it today were our biggest opponents back in 
the early 80s when we wanted to create this on behalf of small 
business.
  So I hope you will support the Congresswoman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I rise just to make this very simple point so you all 
know what you're doing. The law that this amendment wants to prevent 
funding for was a Ronald Reagan law. This is a law Ronald Reagan signed 
and put on the books, just so you understand. And of course the reason 
he put it on the books was that he sided with the little guy against 
the Federal Government. This is a way to make the Federal Government 
accountable. And recovery of attorneys' fees and legal expenses is 
needed to ensure that the people can keep their own government 
accountable when they, the smallest of the

[[Page H1114]]

small, are having the Federal Government intrude itself into their 
lives and bringing tremendous harm to the health and well-being of the 
families in any particular community in our country.
  As of 2009, by the way, Social Security and veterans cases make up 
the majority of Equal Access to Justice awards. So you're going to be 
disempowering, for the most part, Social Security and veterans cases 
that otherwise would not be able to be brought against the Federal 
Government. And I just think that this is not well thought out.
  This is an across-the-board blunderbuss attack upon the rights of 
citizens all across the country who otherwise are just going to sit 
there in their home wondering what's going on in Washington. If ever 
there was a tea party amendment that has to be made to counter what 
you're doing, this is it. You guys are here representing Big Government 
against the essence, the heart, the soul of the tea party movement, 
wondering how the Federal Government can get away with intruding 
themselves. And all we're really providing here is minimal financial 
assistance if they win. If they lose it's a frivolous case. If they 
lose, the jury decided against them. This is only if they win, if they 
put up their life savings to try to take on the Federal Government and 
they win because the Federal Government had compromised the rights of 
their family.
  So, I just want to let you all know, environmental cases amount to a 
very, very, very tiny fraction of all the cases that we're talking 
about. We're talking about, for the most part, ordinary families. And I 
understand why some people might not want to give these people the 
right to sue, but you're making a big mistake. It's at the heart, it 
seems to me, of what the tea party movement was about, and voting for 
this will be a very difficult thing to explain.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Terry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1500


                  Amendment No. 222 Offered by Ms. Lee

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available by division A 
     of this Act may be used for any account of the Department of 
     Defense (other than accounts excluded by subsection (b)) in 
     excess of the amount made available for such account for 
     fiscal year 2010, unless the financial statements of the 
     Department for fiscal year 2010 are validated as ready for 
     audit within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) The following accounts are excluded from the 
     prohibition in subsection (a):
       (1) Military personnel, reserve personnel, and National 
     Guard personnel accounts of the Department of Defense.
       (2) The Defense Health Program account.
       (c) In this section, the term ``validation'', with respect 
     to the auditability of financial statements, means a 
     determination following an examination engagement that the 
     financial statements comply with generally accepted 
     accounting principles and applicable laws and regulations and 
     reflect reliable internal controls.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, this is unbelievable. But I rise today in 
support of my amendment.
  It really does hit at the heart of the issue of fiscal 
responsibility, discussed with such passion on the floor over the past 
few days. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why a point of 
order would be called on this amendment. It's short and to the point.
  If enacted, all it would do is freeze the Department of Defense 
programs at the fiscal 2010 level, unless the financial statements of 
the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010 are validated as ready 
for audit within 6 months of enactment of this act.
  This amendment would exempt military personnel, Reserve personnel, 
and National Guard personnel accounts, as well as the defense health 
program account from this potential funding freeze.
  Let me take a moment and clarify what is expected of the Department 
of Defense in this amendment.
  My amendment would simply require a determination that the 
Department's financial statements comply with generally accepted 
accounting principles, applicable laws, regulations, and that they 
reflect reliable internal controls. These are just basics if you are 
managing a budget.
  Sadly, the Department of Defense Inspector General and the GAO have 
documented time and time again the Department's inability to answer 
this basic question: Where are our defense dollars going?
  I would like to summarize just a few highlights from a 2009 Pentagon 
Inspector General's report on the subject of DOD audit activities and 
financial controls.
  The Department of Defense ``acknowledged that it does not meet 
accounting standards for the financial reporting of public accounts 
payable because it lacks standard procedures for recording, reporting, 
and reconciling the amounts of the financial accounting and reporting 
systems.''
  We're talking about a $700 billion budget. No standard procedures for 
recording, reporting, and reconciling these amounts.
  The Department of Defense ``continues to enter material amounts of 
unsupported accounting entries.'' In other words, they are balancing 
the books with figures not tied to specific programs or expenditures.
  The Department of Defense audit trails ``for estimated environmental 
liabilities are insufficient, and there is uncertainty regarding the 
accounting estimates used to calculate the reported environmental 
liability.''
  And, lastly, ``despite efforts and limited progress towards auditable 
financial statements, DOD still struggles with material control 
weaknesses that make the financial data unreliable.''
  Until these and any other weaknesses in this $700 billion budget are 
resolved, DOD will not be able to meet its goal of an unqualified 
audit.
  I anticipate that some of my colleagues may make the argument that 
DOD is making progress on this issue in response to congressional 
engagement. They might reference language in recent Defense 
authorization bills requiring the DOD to develop and implement plans to 
achieve auditability by September 2017.
  That is kind of hard to believe. We're talking about taxpayer 
dollars; we're talking about a huge deficit, a recession. We can't even 
audit the Department of Defense until 2017. It doesn't make any sense.
  It's unacceptable that we are still developing plans. Do you hear me? 
Developing plans for the Department of Defense? This is almost 
laughable. Developing plans for the Department of Defense to have its 
fiscal house in order until 6 years from now, 2017. It makes no sense.
  The problem is not newly discovered, and further delay is 
unacceptable given the enormous and increasing proportion of Federal 
dollars going toward the defense budget. Even if we do freeze base 
Defense Department appropriations at fiscal year 2010 levels, if we 
wait until 2017, Congress will watch more than $3 trillion--you hear me 
again?--three trillion taxpayer dollars will be allowed, once again, to 
go to a black hole at the Pentagon, with no oversight, no 
accountability, and no consequences.
  In the 1990s, Congress was promised these financial deficiencies 
would be solved by 1997. The timeline was delayed to 2007. That was in 
the early 2000s. Is there any expectation that the 2017 timeline will 
not be delayed without Congress demonstrating a willingness to hold the 
Defense Department accountable? Come on.
  I think that this should be a bipartisan vote. We should look at this 
amendment. It should not be subject to a point of order. We have to 
have some fiscal responsibility in our defense fund.

[[Page H1115]]

                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change the existing law and 
constitutes legislation in the appropriations bill. Therefore, it 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part: An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.
  The amendment imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling from the 
Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, when you talk about 
fiscal responsibility with the Defense Department, taxpayers' dollars, 
trillions and trillions of dollars that are unauditable, there should 
not be a point of order.
  These are our dollars, our constituents' dollars. They deserve a vote 
to see who wants to make sure that there is some fiscal responsibility 
at the Department of Defense.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment contains a legislative condition on the availability of 
funds in the bill. As such, the amendment violates clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.


           Amendment No. 211 Offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  For ``Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
     Programs, Justice Assistance'' for an additional amount to 
     amounts otherwise made available by this Act for carrying out 
     title I of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, as 
     authorized by section 107 of such Act (Public Law 110-401), 
     there is hereby appropriated, and the amount made available 
     by this Act for ``Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
     Programs, Justice Assistance'' is hereby reduced by, 
     $30,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for my colleagues' 
support of an amendment to protect our most vulnerable constituents, 
our children.
  This bipartisan amendment is a simple one. It says that child victims 
of sexual predators should not be forced to fight for funding scraps if 
deep cuts to the Department of Justice occur.
  This amendment fences off $30 million within the Department of 
Justice's Justice Assistance Account for child exploitation prevention 
and interdiction. It ensures that, even in this time of painful budget 
cuts, that we will protect the most precious and vulnerable among us.
  Over the last decade, child pornography trafficking has exploded into 
a multi-billion-dollar global industry. The majority of both demand and 
supply is based in the United States and, sadly, most often involves 
parents or adults that the victim knows and trusts.
  Tragically, the demand for images of young children being sexually 
exploited, raped, and even tortured can only be supplied through the 
continued sexual abuse of more children. Literally, every image of 
child pornography is a crime-scene photo.
  Several years ago, law enforcement informed Congress that it could 
identify hundreds of thousands of individuals perpetrating child 
exploitation offenses online, but admitted it was investigating fewer 
than 2 percent of these known individuals due to a lack of resources 
that left them outnumbered and overwhelmed.
  The vast majority of these identifiable sexual predators remained at 
large, and their young victims beyond rescue.
  Congress and the President responded by passing and signing into law 
the PROTECT Our Children Act, which provides desperately needed 
resources for the vital Internet Crimes Against Children task forces.
  These task forces are teams of local, State, and Federal law 
enforcement agencies and prosecutors that lift the digital 
fingerprints, rescue the children, and hold perpetrators accountable.
  The ICAC task forces rescue child victims in real time, victims like 
Alicia Kozakiewicz, who was sexually assaulted at age 13 by a man who 
befriended her online and abducted her from her Pittsburgh home. She 
was rescued by the FBI and the Virginia ICAC task force.
  Now is not the time to pull the funding rug out from under these ICAC 
task forces. Congress is already funding this effort at only half of 
its authorization. Yet the law is making a difference. The Department 
of Justice recently released its ``National Strategy'' to combat child 
exploitation, but it is only first getting up and running. Now is not 
the time to impose draconian funding cuts on the Department of Justice 
that could thwart this progress.
  I want to thank Congressman Shuler, Congressman Lamar Smith, and 
Congressman Dan Lungren for supporting me in this bipartisan effort. 
This important amendment will give State, local, and Federal law 
enforcement the resources they need to protect our most vulnerable.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. We accept the amendment on our side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 165 Offered by Mr. Carter

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the rule 
     entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 
     and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants'' 
     published by the Environmental Protection Agency on September 
     9, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 54970 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. cement industry is among the most 
regulated in the world and has long served not only as a responsible 
steward of the environment, but as a provider of high-wage family jobs 
in communities throughout this country. It competes against imported 
Asian cement, which has the advantage of low wages and nonexistent 
environmental regulations. Yet the EPA has plans to drop a bomb of job-
killing, ineffective regulations on this industry which, by the EPA's 
own admission, could result in an increase in global mercury pollution 
as production moves to those countries with no air quality standards. 
Specifically, in September of 2010, EPA finalized the Portland Cement 
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, NESHAP, a 
rule based on questionable science.
  The U.S. cement industry provides more than 15,000 high-wage jobs 
with an average compensation of $75,000 per year, and, along with 
allied industries, accounts for nearly $27.5 billion of the gross 
domestic product. Due to the recession, the cement industry has already 
lost over 4,000 jobs. This bad rule threatens to close another 18 of 
the 97 cement plants nationwide and throw another 1,800 Americans out 
of good-paying private sector jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, as bitter as this would be in the middle of a horrible 
recession, if it were to guarantee that it would reduce mercury 
pollution, at least this high human cost might be justified. But when 
the cement production from these plants is shifted to China and India 
with no air quality standards, we could face increased mercury 
pollution worldwide and in this country.
  Today, 75 percent of our annual mercury deposits are already coming 
to the United States from outside this country. That is indicated by 
this map prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute.
  If you look at this map very briefly, here is the regulation chart. 
Red is somewhere between a little under 80 percent and 100 percent of 
the mercury.

[[Page H1116]]

If you look west of the Mississippi, in fact it actually crosses the 
Mississippi, all this area of red, that means the Asian pollution, 
Asian pollution, pollutes the mercury in this part of the United States 
in a percentage between 80 and 100 percent.
  Now, as you move across into the Midwest and the South, it is only 
between 60 and 78 percent that is provided by the winds bringing 
pollutants from Asian pollution. Of course, Florida is down here. It is 
in the red, so it is between 80 and 100 percent.
  It is only on the east coast that you get down in this range here, 
which is 20 to a little over 55 percent, and the blue is below that, 
which is just a few dots over here on the east coast.
  So right now our mercury problem is not our problem; it is from 
outside the United States right now. And we are going to implement 
rules and regulations dropped on this industry by the EPA, which is 
going to drive at least 18 of these plants and possibly the vast 
majority of these plants offshore. Where are they going to go offshore? 
They are going to go to Asia.
  Right now we have ways to measure this and protect ourselves in our 
plants already in place, and most of the things that EPA is asking for 
are in place. But they changed the rules in the middle of the game. 
Therefore, we are asking that we do the right thing and force the EPA 
to sit back down at the table and draft a rule that actually reduces 
mercury pollution and saves U.S. jobs.
  This is important. This is a bad rule, and it is going to be bad for 
our environment. And the best thing we can do is say time out on this 
by basically saying no funds will be spent on the enforcement of this. 
And we would hope that EPA would go back to the table, sit down with 
industry, and come up with a real solution for what they are trying to 
do.
  This is the purpose of my amendment, and this is what this is all 
about.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Is this for 1 year, or what is the timeframe?
  Mr. CARTER. Basically, I don't have a timeframe in here.
  Mr. DICKS. So it is permanent law?
  Mr. CARTER. It is basically permanent.
  But what we are saying is the real issue is the mercury issue and the 
hydrochloric acid issue, and those things have not even been discussed.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. This amendment would attempt to put to an end a rule that, 
first of all, would increase revenues in the industry sectors that 
design, manufacture and install pollution control equipment by as much 
as $2.2 billion and increase employment in the cement industry by as 
much as 1,300 jobs. So, in effect, the amendment could be considered a 
job-killer amendment.
  But what it does is to prohibit EPA from implementing, administering 
or enforcing final rules to control air toxins from the Portland cement 
industry.
  The standards for Portland cement kilns have already been 
promulgated. The amendment would not relieve the industry of the 
obligation to meet these standards. Even though the agency would be 
precluded from spending funds to enforce the standards, citizens or 
States could bring enforcement actions against these sources of 
pollution that didn't comply with the standards.
  This amendment would also prevent EPA from providing technical 
assistance to such sources of pollution to assist them in understanding 
and complying with the rule or to the States to assist the States in 
enforcing the rule.
  The compliance date is 2013, so the regulated industry sources are 
now in the process of evaluating control equipment needs and preparing 
to order large amounts of equipment in order to be in compliance. Lack 
of EPA assistance and oversight at this critical time may ultimately 
result in a number of facilities not being prepared to comply on the 
compliance date. This in turn could result in numerous enforcement 
actions and citizen lawsuits, all of which would ultimately result in 
significant costs that would have to be borne by the States and 
regulated sources which this amendment would make avoidable.
  These funding limitations to stop EPA rules really have unintended 
consequences. They don't stop the legal requirements to regulate 
polluters. They really do, though, contribute to the pockets of lawyers 
that would litigate these issues out in the courtrooms.
  It seems to me that we should defeat what is really an unnecessarily 
costly amendment and an ill-advised and ill-timed one. So I would urge 
defeat of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, in advance of last fall, the 
election last fall, the Republican Conference presented a governing 
document called the Pledge to America, which put forward our ideas on 
how we intended to deal with the unsustainable level of deficit 
spending that has created a crippling debt being forced upon our 
children, our grandchildren and future generations.
  The American people agreed with us and entrusted the Republican Party 
with a new majority here in the House in order to carry out what we put 
forward. In that pledge we promised that we would cut $100 billion from 
the fiscal year 2011 budget, and with the passage of this legislation, 
the underlying legislation, which I support, we will have kept that 
promise.
  Unfortunately, President Obama did not seem to get that message, as 
he has threatened to veto this legislation.

                              {time}  1520

  The President remains committed to an agenda that calls for ever-
higher spending, higher taxes, trillion-dollar deficits, huge debt, and 
a government that is out of control. The President presented his budget 
to the Congress this past Monday and patted himself on the back by 
saying that his budget, Mr. Chairman, reduces the deficit over the next 
10 years by about a trillion dollars. But he said little of the fact 
that, according to his own math, more than $7 trillion would be added 
to our national debt. Today, our national debt is in excess of $14 
trillion. At the end of the President's 10-year budget window, it will 
be nearly $23 trillion. It's clear that the President's budget was not 
a governing document like the Pledge to America was. It was a political 
document in which he refused to take on the tough challenges that we 
face in our Nation.
  In the Illinois State Senate, President Obama, then-State Senator 
Obama, voted ``present'' 130 times, refusing to take a position on the 
various issues facing his State. In his irresponsible budget on Monday, 
President Obama once again voted ``present.''
  Mr. Chairman, President Obama needs to know with the many challenges 
facing our Nation, now is not the time to vote ``present.'' Now is the 
time to provide leadership.
  You don't have to believe me that the President's budget doesn't 
provide the serious leadership that our Nation needs now. Just read The 
Washington Post. One of the President's strongest supporters in the 
media said this about the Obama budget: ``The President punted. Having 
been given the chance, the cover, and the push by the fiscal commission 
that he created to take the bold steps to raise revenue and curb 
entitlement spending, President Obama in his fiscal 2012 budget 
proposal chose instead to duck. To duck and to mask some of the ducking 
with the sort of budgetary gimmicks that he once derided.''
  Well, Mr. Chairman, punting in football is the equivalent of voting 
``present'' in politics. By once again voting ``present,'' the 
President refused the mantle of leadership at a time of fiscal crisis 
in our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, we in the Republican Party will take that mantle and 
continue to put forward an agenda for America that gets our fiscal 
house in order and empowers the private sector to create new jobs. We 
listened to the American people, and they concede today our seriousness 
in dealing with the out-of-control spending problem that we have. In 
our budget we will show once again that we are serious about reducing 
these unsustainable deficits.

[[Page H1117]]

  We understand, Mr. Chairman, that out-of-control government spending, 
borrowing, and debt limits the opportunities available to our children 
and to our grandchildren to help them achieve the American Dream. We 
will continue to tackle these tough issues head on. If President Obama 
believes that his political supporters simply will attack all of our 
efforts to return this Nation to fiscal sanity, if he believes that by 
voting ``present'' and by taking a pass on the tough decisions that 
somehow he will gain political advantage, Mr. Chairman, I believe that 
the President has seriously underestimated the political will of the 
American people and seriously misread the message from the last 
election.
  The American people, Mr. Chairman, understand that the status quo is 
not sustainable. They understand that we cannot build our economy on 
top of a mountain of debt. And the American people understand that it 
is simply unacceptable for the leader of our Nation at this time in our 
history to be voting ``present.''
  This week, the Members of the House are making the difficult choices 
on this continuing resolution which we have been debating this week. 
The Republican majority will be presenting our budget in the near 
future--and we will not be voting ``present.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to say I rise in strong support 
of Judge Carter's amendment. It's absolutely necessary. Let me give you 
a few reasons why.
  First, I'm cochair of the Cement Caucus along with Congressman Mike 
Ross of Arkansas. My district is one, if not the top, cement-producing 
district in America. This is a critical industry to our infrastructure 
and certainly to the people of our country.
  Nationally, the cement industry employs about 17,000 Americans. We've 
lost more than 4,000 jobs in this industry since 2008. I am deeply 
concerned that EPA has failed to properly address the economic impact 
of this NESHAP rule. I'm extremely concerned about this for a variety 
of reasons. It seems to me in many respects this industry seems to be 
specifically under attack by the EPA. This rule is critically flawed. 
It cobbles together a range of different performance characteristics 
for different pollutants without determining if it is possible for any 
single cement plant to comply with all the standards simultaneously.
  Nobody has determined if anyone can comply with this rule. This means 
a lot to the people of my district. This rule is going to restrict our 
ability to remain competitive with foreign cement producers. Foreign 
imports currently make up about 20 percent of total U.S. cement sales. 
Most foreign operators basically are producers. They operate without 
anything close to the level of environmental standards currently in 
place in America. While the EPA is trying to limit cement production 
with this ill-advised, job-destroying regulation, the Obama 
administration stimulus is providing financing to build a cement 
importation terminal in New York City. Stimulus dollars are being used 
to fund a cement importation terminal in New York City. The cement 
that's produced in my region supplies the New York market. It's the 
equivalent of one full plant. Why are we subsidizing foreign producers 
of cement with our stimulus dollars? It makes no sense.
  So the Federal Government on the one hand is enabling foreign 
producers and on the other hand it's using the EPA to further cripple 
the domestic industry, which was flat on its back in 2010 and this year 
in 2011 is going to be even worse. We need a viable infrastructure, we 
need a viable cement in America. This amendment I think in an effective 
manner addresses this problem.
  Somebody at EPA is going to have to answer for this because I know my 
constituents were enormously offended that the Federal Government would 
be doing so much to undermine this industry on the one hand through a 
stimulus and then on the other hand using EPA to further limit their 
ability to operate.
  Again, this rule could force, we estimate, as many as 18 to 90 cement 
plants to end operations. Others will be forced to dramatically reduce 
those operations. So, again, I urge everybody in this Chamber, 
everybody who's listening, paying attention, please support Judge 
Carter's amendment. It's important for American jobs and American 
infrastructure.
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DENT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to address for a moment some of the things that were 
said by my friends on the other side of the aisle. It's true that there 
may be 1,300 new jobs, as he quoted. But 1,300 new inspectors are not 
jobs in the cement industry. The cost of doing the conversion, 
according to the industry spokesman, is about $3.5 billion 
industrywide, and even then they're not sure they're meeting all 
standards that are being required by EPA.
  One for-instance in this requirement of EPA is, hydrochloric acid has 
never been considered a problem by EPA, and all of a sudden there's a 
regulation on hydrochloric acid. This is an almost $4 billion cost to 
an industry whose total net worth is approximately $10 billion. That is 
a tremendous, tremendous burden to place on this industry.
  Quite honestly, what we're trying to accomplish by this before this 
regulation is actually implemented is to say, Time out. We're not 
funding this until you get back to the table and start working out a 
reasonable way to save American jobs and not encourage foreign jobs to 
take jobs away from America. That's what this does. And obviously with 
this thing that's going on in the port in New York, that's even more 
horrendous, that we are actually attacking American jobs by our own 
efforts.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to be recognized in opposition to 
this Carter amendment. This has nothing to do with saving costs. This 
has nothing to do with lowering the deficit. What this amendment would 
do is to stop EPA from going ahead and enforcing a rule that they put 
into place dealing with mercury toxic emissions.
  It took them 10 years to get that rule in place. And why did they 
finally adopt a rule? Because mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that 
causes learning disabilities and developmental damage, especially in 
young children.

                              {time}  1530

  Every year an estimated 60,000 American newborn babies are threatened 
with a diminished ability to think and learn due to exposure to mercury 
pollution.
  Now we have to balance things out. We want to protect the cement 
manufacturers. We want them to be profitable. But if we're going to let 
them continue with that mercury pollution, we're going to have 60,000 
kids that are going to be born with neurological problems. Are we a 
Congress that cares about life? Well, I think we want both--the 
industry to prosper and to stop the poisoning of our kids.
  So we asked the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt a rule. They 
met with the industry people. They put out a proposed rule. They got 
comments to their rule. They finally put it into place. And now we 
would be asked under this amendment to stop it. As the gentleman from 
Texas suggests, go back and renegotiate. Well, there's nothing to 
renegotiate. There's no rule in place. The National Association of 
Clean Air Agencies wrote a letter, which I'm going to make part of the 
record at the appropriate time, and they said, Please oppose this 
amendment. They said, While there will be costs associated with the 
implementation of the rules, the benefits will far outweigh them. EPA 
estimates that the regulations will yield $7 billion to $18 billion 
annually in benefits, which is enormous when compared to the estimated 
$350 million to $950 million in annual costs that EPA has calculated.
  If you want to do it by dollars and cents, this is a real good deal 
for the

[[Page H1118]]

American people. But if you want to do it for something even more 
important--life of babies and children. We're talking about keeping 
them from being poisoned.
  These standards that are being put in place will limit toxic mercury 
pollution from cement kilns, the third largest source of mercury 
pollution in America. These standards will reduce mercury pollution 
from cement kilns by 92 percent. They also reduce other hazardous air 
pollutants, such as lead, arsenic, dioxins and benzene which are known 
to cause cancer, birth defects and other catastrophic health 
consequences. Reducing these toxic chemicals also reduces the fine 
particulate pollution, or soot, which interferes with heart and lung 
function and triggers strokes, heart attacks and lung disease.
  The Carter amendment would stop all of these efforts to protect the 
public health. And the only reason we've heard is that they fear 
there's going to be a cost to the cement industry. Yes, there will be. 
But that cost can be handled. And we've always heard throughout the 
debate on environmental laws that the costs are going to outweigh the 
benefits. A rigorous economic analysis was conducted and the economic 
analysis shows that the benefits of this regulation far outweighed the 
costs to the industry. Let's not put corporate profits ahead of our 
children. I urge my colleagues not to agree to this amendment. They're 
common sense, they'll save money, they'll create jobs, and they'll save 
lives.
  Let me just tell you further what EPA estimated what these standards 
will prevent.
  Up to 2,500 premature deaths; 1,000 emergency room visits; 1,500 
heart attacks; 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma; 32,000 cases of upper 
and lower respiratory symptoms. We're talking about reducing health 
costs that could amount to $18 billion every year and I think that's a 
great savings for the American people. I urge opposition to the Carter 
amendment.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Thank you.
  I just wanted to address a couple of issues about the EPA. I've tried 
to point out, very thoughtfully, that the EPA has failed really to 
properly address the economic impact of this proposed rule. It is 
critically flawed.
  Let me restate once again why this rule is so flawed. Because it does 
bring together, cobbles together, a range of different performance 
characteristics for different pollutants without determining if it is 
possible for any single cement plant to comply with these standards 
simultaneously. That is the problem. My distinguished colleague from 
California is making a point that there will be less emissions. That is 
true. Because there will be fewer plants. They will not be emitting 
anything. We expect 18 plants that may be shuttered out of the 90 in 
this country; tremendous capital investment for an industry critical to 
our basic infrastructure.
  These are high-paying jobs that we're talking about. We can't afford 
to lose that many more. That industry has become much more efficient 
over the years. These plants today produce far more than numerous 
plants would have produced years ago. I just can't emphasize enough 
that as we are having this great debate about the nature of the economy 
and jobs, that we would be willfully using regulatory agencies that we 
know are going to cost thousands of jobs in America, high-paying jobs. 
When is enough enough? I won't get into the New York plant again, about 
how we're using stimulus dollars to bring cement from Peru to New York 
to serve the market. They're going to kill more jobs than they're going 
to create with this importation terminal.
  I just can't get over this. They're bringing this cement here because 
they would prefer to have fewer cement trucks from Pennsylvania, and 
even upstate New York and Maryland supplying New York, they would 
rather have fewer cement trucks on their roads. They would prefer to 
have huge ships coming in from Peru with cement rather than deal with 
the inconvenience of those cement trucks.
  My region takes a lot of garbage--trash, waste--from New York. We get 
garbage trucks every day in my district, with New York garbage. We 
landfill it. We're required to under the U.S. Constitution, under the 
interstate commerce clause. It's been to the Supreme Court. We do that. 
We're not shutting down our State line to them and that industry.
  The point is, it's about cement. It's about a basic industry. It's 
about American jobs. Judge Carter's amendment is the right thing. It's 
the right thing to do.
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank you for yielding.
  I just want to point out what my friend from California was pointing 
out. Under the plan that's before us from the EPA, we're pretty well 
sure that 18 of our 90 plants are going to move offshore. So we get to 
add 18 plants to the people who are polluting this area of the United 
States at an almost hundred percent pollutant, and good scientific 
evidence already tells us that 75 percent of the mercury pollution, 
which is the argument the gentleman made, is coming from outside the 
United States. Now we're adding 18 new plants to the 75 polluters and 
we're taking 18 plants away from the 25 percent side. To me, I wonder 
how that balances out to make good sense for those poor sick kids that 
he was talking about. We're adding more pollution to the unregulated, 
full-scale polluters, and we're harming and taking American jobs, the 
fathers and mothers of those very children he was talking about. 
They're no longer going to have a job and somebody in China or India is 
going to have that job. And I think the American people are pretty fed 
up with us trying to constantly ship good American jobs overseas.
  I hear my friends talk about, we are outsourcing. This is a form of 
outsourcing by regulating us out of business and sending those jobs 
over to where they open with open arms and no regulations and lower 
wages, come on in, make your cement, we'll ship it back to the United 
States and use that New York terminal to bring it into the United 
States.
  I think we need to rethink this. All we're asking is an 
implementation that doesn't drive us out of the country. It's that 
simple. It's not that tough.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. If some of the pollution is coming from offshore, from 
China, which is true, that's no excuse for us to allow more pollution 
to come from the sources here in the United States. And simply asking 
businesses to lower their emission levels does not mean we push them to 
do business overseas. American businesses have thrived even with 
environmental regulation.

                              {time}  1540

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. What we are hearing this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is a 
whole bunch of phony baloney numbers about how this is going to affect 
the cement industry, about how this is going to affect the concrete 
industry, when, in fact, industry after industry in the United States 
has been able to comply with rules which protect the public health and 
safety.
  First, let's just define what we're talking about and why American 
families are concerned about what the Portland cement industry is 
doing:
  It is airborne mercury which settles in lakes and rivers. It 
accumulates in fish and shellfish. In its most dangerous form, it is a 
neurotoxin that can lead to birth defects and stunted brain 
development.
  Since we are at the top of the food chain and doctors and dieticians 
across the country are urging families to eat more fish, we are 
simultaneously urging them, especially those with small children or who 
are women who may be pregnant, to consume these fish that

[[Page H1119]]

have the neurotoxins in them that we know lead directly to brain 
damage, that lead to harm in children in our country.
  So this is a concrete example of what the Republican majority is now 
trying to do. This is kind of a regulatory earmark for a single 
industry, aimed at giving it the right to pollute, to send mercury into 
our atmosphere, and ultimately into the bodies of the children of our 
country when we know that thousands of them are going to die from the 
consumption of that mercury and that thousands more will have an 
aggravation of asthma, which they already have. The same thing will be 
true for senior citizens. Yet they're over here and are almost ignoring 
the health care impacts on families in our country.
  We have people all across the country who are now going through food 
stores, looking to find what the mercury count is in the food which 
they're purchasing for their families. Instead, what the majority wants 
to do here today is to put a pair of Portland cement shoes on the EPA 
and then throw it into the river. And if the EPA doesn't die from 
drowning, the mercury is going to kill it. That's ultimately what the 
impact is going to be of this amendment.
  So I understand, if I were a trade association, that I would be 
arguing, You can't impose any kind of restrictions upon us to protect 
the children of our country. It's just too expensive. It's too hard for 
us to do. The Chinese will take advantage of our protecting children 
from having mercury put into their brains, into their systems.
  But do you want to know what? That's not a good enough excuse for our 
country. Our country is supposed to be the leader in ensuring that the 
public health of our citizens is protected. What has been constructed 
here is a very careful balance which ensures that the industry can 
survive and thrive at the same time that it is protecting the health 
and safety of the children in our country.
  There are, by the way, many other people in the cement manufacturing 
industry who have contacted me, including companies in my own district, 
who do not support this position. They say that it is actually quite 
within their power to be able to comply with these rules in terms of 
ensuring that mercury is reduced in the production of cement, of 
concrete in our country.
  So this is for the narrow number of small companies which are seeking 
to be exempted from having to participate in something that the vast 
majority of the industry can comply with. I do not believe that our 
country is going to sink to a level where the health and safety of the 
children in our country are going to be allowed to be compromised by 
amendments on this House floor on behalf of a single small industry, 
without any scientific justification except the bleatings that come 
from those who do not want to comply, and knowing that the consequences 
will be the loss of thousands of lives and brain damage done to 
thousands of more who are children right now but who will be affected 
by the vote that we cast here today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to very quickly rise in strong support of 
Congressman Carter's amendment.
  I have three cement plants in my district in Midlothian, Texas. It is 
the cement capital of Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, Republicans are not for no regulation of mercury. We 
think this particular mercury rule is flawed. My good friend, the 
former chairman Mr. Waxman of California, talked about the rigorous 
analysis that was done. His definition of ``rigorous'' and my 
definition of ``rigorous'' are not one and the same. We think that 
analysis was fairly flawed.
  I would point out that most pollutants--and we do agree that mercury 
is a pollutant--are measured in tons. Mercury emissions from these 
plants are measured in pounds per year, so mercury is a trace element 
of these pollutants. We think that we should go back and actually do a 
real economic analysis and also a health analysis.
  My good friend from Massachusetts was talking about the dangers of 
health. Those are real dangers. But again, given that the trace amounts 
of mercury that are emitted per year are in pounds, it is a very 
tenuous connection to say that the mercury from a cement plant has a 
direct correlation with some of the potential side effects that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts was talking about.
  So I think this is a good amendment, and I want to support it.
  I now yield to my good friend Mr. Akin. I believe he has an amendment 
to the amendment.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman offering a secondary amendment?
  Mr. AKIN. I was intending to offer amendment No. 181, Mr. Chairman, 
but I decided to withdraw the amendment, and was going to simply speak 
on the subject.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Carter amendment is pending, and the gentleman 
from Texas has yielded his time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to my good friend from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Just very briefly, look. Come on. Let's get real.
  Mr. Chairman, everybody supports protecting the environment. Every 
American supports protecting the environment. We also support 
protecting the jobs of the people who live within that environment. Yet 
some of us don't support arbitrary decisions that are made that are 
going to cost thousands of jobs and that are going to close plants.
  So, again, while there is a consensus in this body on protecting the 
environment, there does not seem to be, Mr. Chairman, a consensus on 
protecting the jobs of the American people, of those who are desperate 
for jobs. But without this amendment, we are going to lose more jobs. 
Let's have some common sense. Let's protect the environment and protect 
American jobs.
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. Having raised four children and being a person who cares 
about children, I was a little offended that I was being accused of 
wanting to harm children, which is not the purpose of this.
  In fact, I would argue that between 75 and 100 percent of the mercury 
pollutants on two-thirds of the American continent, of the country of 
America, is coming from foreign sources. Of those who cannot meet these 
onerous requirements, the only solution they have in order to stay in 
business is to move to foreign countries, where they do not regulate 
air quality. I would argue, with this amendment, we are taking it away 
from the polluters and are saying, Wait a minute. Let's look at this 
and talk it out.

                              {time}  1550

  That's really what we are trying to do, and so I would argue that I'm 
trying to save the lives of American children because the foreigners 
are polluting our air, and 75 percent of those pollutants were created 
by foreign companies where the only choice for these people to stay in 
business is to move there.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield back my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding.
  I just am astounded by some of the things that are said in the House, 
that there has not been a careful analysis of this proposal and the 
harm that comes with these mercury pollutants, because the National 
Association of Clean Air Agencies, the people in your State that 
enforce the clean air laws, talked about regulation yielding $7 billion 
to $18 billion annually in benefits, which is

[[Page H1120]]

enormous when compared to the estimated $350 million and $950 million 
in annual costs.
  Cement plants employ workers who also can get sick from all of this, 
but the American cement industry did us a report of their own on this; 
and in November of last year, analysis by the Portland Cement 
Association predicts that domestic cement production will increase more 
than 25 percent from today's levels by 2013 when these rules go into 
effect and more than 50 percent by 2015. So they don't think they're 
going to be losing jobs under this proposal.
  My friend from Texas (Mr. Barton) says, well, these are trace 
amounts. This is a very intense toxic substance. And he said there 
hasn't been a vigorous analysis. Well, we've got numbers with the 
analysis that we've had. I don't know what analysis the cement caucus 
has for us, but I think that Mr. Markey was correct when he stated this 
is an industry in certain areas that wants to avoid spending money to 
stop the pollution from their plants, and it is just not a good excuse 
to me to say that because some of the mercury comes from overseas and 
other places we should allow the mercury to continue right here in the 
United States.

                                           National Association of


                                           Clean Air Agencies,

                                Washington, DC, February 17, 2011.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), we are writing to express our 
     opposition to Amendment No. 165 to H.R. 1 (introduced by Rep. 
     John Carter and expected to be considered on February 17, 
     2011), which would prohibit FY 2011 funds from being used to 
     implement, administer or enforce the ``National Emission 
     Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland 
     Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance 
     for Portland Cement Plants.'' The standards affected by this 
     amendment were published on September 9, 2010 and are 
     designed to reduce emissions of air pollutants from Portland 
     Cement Manufacturing facilities. NACAA is the association of 
     air pollution control agencies in 51 states and territories 
     and over 165 major metropolitan areas across the United 
     States.
       The rules EPA adopted are not only consistent with the 
     provisions of the Clean Air Act, but are necessary to protect 
     public health. Portland Cement manufacturing facilities emit 
     mercury, hydrochloric acid, hydrocarbons, dioxins, sulfur 
     dioxide, particulate matter, and other harmful pollutants, 
     which are known or suspected to cause a host of significant 
     health problems, including cancer, and even death. These 
     facilities are the third largest source in the United States 
     of air emissions of mercury, which is a persistent, 
     bioaccumulative and toxic air pollutant. Even very low 
     emissions of this potent neurotoxicant can result in 
     unacceptable impacts to the nation's water bodies. To date, 
     all 50 states have issued health advisories for fish 
     consumption due to mercury contamination, with the primary 
     loadings being from atmospheric deposition.
       NACAA believes the controls contained in the regulations 
     are essential and should be implemented. The rules will 
     result in significant and much-needed reductions in emissions 
     from cement kilns, including decreases of 92 percent in 
     mercury, 83 percent in total hydrocarbons, 92 percent in 
     particulate matter, 97 percent reduction in acid gases (e.g., 
     hydrochloric acid), 78 percent in sulfur dioxide and 5 
     percent in nitrogen oxides, according to EPA data. The agency 
     also estimates that the cement kiln rules will prevent up to 
     2,500 premature deaths each year and will avert a host of 
     health problems, including cases of aggravated asthma, heart 
     attacks, chronic bronchitis, and upper and lower respiratory 
     symptoms. The reduced emissions from the rules will also 
     result in fewer emergency room visits, hospital admissions, 
     lost work days and lost productivity.
       While there will be costs associated with the 
     implementation of the rules, the benefits will far outweigh 
     them. EPA estimates that the regulations will yield $7 
     billion to $18 billion annually in benefits, which is 
     enormous when compared to the estimated $350 million to $950 
     million in annual costs that EPA has calculated.
       If the amendment is adopted, EPA will be unable to proceed 
     with the implementation of this rule during this fiscal year. 
     As it is, the rules for this source category are already 
     several years overdue, during which time public health has 
     suffered as a result of exposure to unnecessarily high 
     emissions. Further delaying the public health protection from 
     these rules would be detrimental to our nation's residents.
       NACAA urges you to allow the NESHAPs and NSPS for Portland 
     Cement plants to proceed as adopted and to provide the public 
     with the cleaner and more healthful air it deserves. Please 
     do not support Amendment No. 165 to H.R. 1.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                G. Vinson Hellwig,
                                                   Michigan Chair,
                                       NACAA Air Toxics Committee.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank my friend Congressman Serrano.
  Would Mr. Waxman agree with me that, if you get one of these new 
squiggly mercury bulbs and break it, you're going to be exposed to more 
mercury than the amount of mercury you're exposed to from a cement 
plant?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Absolutely not. I don't agree with that.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I think that's a factually correct statement.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I don't know enough to answer that question.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, you might check it out because some of the 
benefits and some of the costs you talk about are not borne out in the 
real world when you do a real analysis.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I should trust your analysis more than the Environmental 
Protection Agency, OMB, the people in the air pollution control 
business?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the 
Carter-Ross Amendment (#165) to H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution. This 
amendment would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from 
implementing and enforcing long-overdue safeguards that will protect 
our children from toxic air pollution generated by cement kilns.
  Cement kilns are the third-largest source of mercury pollution in 
America. Mercury is a dangerous chemical that impairs a child's ability 
to learn, write, walk, talk and read. Mercury especially is a concern 
for women of childbearing age, unborn babies and young children because 
studies have found that high levels of exposure damage the developing 
nervous system. Cement kilns also pump lead, arsenic and dioxins into 
the air, which can cause cancer, birth defects and other catastrophic 
health impacts.
  Last year, EPA finalized standards that will limit this toxic 
pollution from cement plants. These standards will prevent 2,500 
premature deaths, 1,000 emergency room visits, 1,500 heart attacks and 
17,000 cases of aggravated asthma every year. We'll achieve these 
health benefits while improving the economy because reduced pollution 
will allow people to do their jobs and go to work on 130,000 days they 
would have otherwise missed. We'll reduce health care costs by up to 
$18 billion every year. The benefits of reducing this dangerous 
pollution are between seven and nineteen times greater than the costs.
  In fact, despite hyperbolic claims of economic collapse, EPA 
estimates that as many as 1,300 net new jobs could be created as a 
result of these new protections. That is because cement plants will 
employ American workers in building, installing, operating and 
maintaining the equipment that will keep these dangerous toxins out of 
our children's fragile bodies.
  The Carter amendment would overturn affordable, commonsense 
protections that provide tremendous benefits at a reasonable cost. As a 
nurse, mother and grandmother, I urge my colleagues oppose this 
amendment and protect our children.
  Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I was thinking I was going 
to offer, and actually we can't, is on the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007. It's an interesting topic because we're going 
back again once more to the subject of mercury; but, really, we're 
going to a more basic subject than mercury, and that is the subject of 
freedom because this Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is a 
de facto ban on the plain old lightbulb that Americans have known a 
long time. It's the incandescent bulb.
  And this de facto ban essentially says that all the new lightbulbs 
have to be these mercury vapor fluorescent lightbulbs. And so the 
question that comes to my mind is, aside from the benefits of one type 
of lightbulb over another--and you could argue the benefits, the 
mercury vapor lightbulb is a little more expensive but it saves energy, 
but the incandescent lightbulb

[[Page H1121]]

burns more energy. But it doesn't have any mercury you're bringing into 
your living room.
  But the point, though, is don't we trust our constituents to pick the 
kind of lightbulb that they want? I'm just wondering if there's anybody 
in this Chamber who wants to stand up and vote and say, I'm going to 
tell my constituents what kind of lightbulb they ought to buy. I mean, 
lightbulbs are used in a lot of different contexts, a lot of different 
situations; and if people want one of those mercury vapor bulbs that's 
got good efficiency, fine, let them buy one. But don't tell them they 
can't buy another kind of bulb that may meet their circumstances.
  And I think that's the kind of arrogance that the public is really 
fed up with out of Congress is when we have this arrogant attitude that 
we're going to tell people even what kind of lightbulb to buy. And so 
what my amendment was going to do was, of course, to strike this piece 
of legislation. Technically, we can't do that on this appropriations 
bill so we have to wait for a different venue in order to do it.
  But I would conclude with the observation that for decade after 
decade in America the symbol of innovation and bright ideas was always 
the lightbulb, and unfortunately this bill is a bulb that just seems to 
barely get dim.


                Amendment No. 204 Offered by Mr. Scalise

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries and expenses for the following 
     positions and their offices:
       (1) Director, White House Office of Health Reform.
       (2) Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate 
     Change.
       (3) Special Envoy for Climate Change.
       (4) Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and 
     Innovation, Council on Environmental Quality.
       (5) Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury 
     assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry 
     and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy.
       (6) White House Director of Urban Affairs.
       (7) Special Envoy to oversee the closure of the Detention 
     Center at Guantanamo Bay.
       (8) Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation, 
     Department of the Treasury.
       (9) Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer, 
     Federal Communications Commission.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, we've seen over the last 2 years under 
President Obama a very disturbing proliferation of czars, these 
unappointed, unaccountable people who are literally running a shadow 
government, heading up these little fiefdoms that nobody can really 
seem to identify where they are, what they are doing.
  But we do know that they're wielding vast amounts of power, many of 
them making six-figure salaries, and yet you can't find out exactly 
what they're doing. Yet you have got the separate Cabinet that's 
actually appointed, goes through the scrutiny of Senate confirmation, 
which is the process that is supposed to be followed for the people who 
make these kinds of high-level decisions.
  In fact, I support the ability of the President to organize his 
administration; and, of course, if you look at article II, section 2 of 
the Constitution, it lays out the process for having these types of 
appointments, and it requires Senate confirmation. Yet you've got this 
shadow government that literally, completely avoided the transparency 
and the accountability of that Senate scrutiny.
  What we do in this amendment, which actually sacks these czars, we 
actually go through, and I'll start with the ObamaCare czar. Of course, 
we had a vote here on the House floor to repeal ObamaCare, which I'm 
proud to have supported, hope we continue to see move through the 
Senate. But in the meantime, we just had a hearing the other day, over 
900 companies have already gotten exemptions, went and I guess lined up 
at the White House and must have known somebody right over there and 
were able to get exempted from this law that the President says is so 
important, so great, going to solve all these problems, and yet 900 
companies have already been able to get secret exemptions.
  How have they done this? Who didn't get an exemption? Of course, our 
local businesses on Main Street would love to get that exemption. They 
didn't get that opportunity. We can't even find out who got these 
exemptions.

                              {time}  1600

  So we are getting rid of the ObamaCare czar.
  Let's go to the climate czar. Of course you've got a person in there 
right now that supposedly is going to be leaving. This is a person 
who's continued to do things behind closed doors. In fact, when the 
moratorium on drilling came out, it was found out that it was the 
climate czar that actually doctored the President's own scientific 
study to try to say that the scientists that the President appointed 
recommended a moratorium on drilling. It turned out the scientist 
didn't say that at all. The White House actually had to apologize for 
the actions of the climate czar, for what they did. Again, behind 
closed doors, nobody can find out exactly what they are doing. So she's 
leaving. Let her leave, and take the funding, too.
  The global warming czar. There's actually a czar out there trying to 
still impose the cap-and-trade regime. Of course Congress has rejected 
cap-and-trade. We've seen study after study. In fact, Spain came up 
with a study that showed what happened when they tried to implement a 
cap-and-trade regime. What they found out was that for every green job 
that they created, they lost over 20 full-time jobs in the private 
sector. And they detail that out very well in their study about what 
that policy does. The National Association of Manufacturers said cap-
and-trade would run over 3 million jobs out of this country. Yet we 
have got a global warming czar that's running around out there with 
taxpayer money, promoting a policy that would destroy jobs that this 
Congress doesn't even support.
  Again, you have got the green job czar. The green job czar, they 
haven't even filled the job of the green job czar since the last one 
resigned in disgrace. The last green job czar we had left in disgrace 
because he expressed comments embracing communism and actually tried to 
blame the American Government for the September 11 attacks. So of 
course that person left in disgrace. The job is still vacant. Let's get 
rid of it.
  The Guantanamo closure czar we get rid of in this amendment. 
Guantanamo Bay--in fact, if you look at it, it's estimated that we have 
to spend over $200 million to build another facility to hold them. 
Nobody wants them. New York said, We surely don't want to try these 
terrorists on American soil right down the street from where the World 
Trade Center was attacked. And yet you've got a Guantanamo Bay closure 
czar when the President, himself, now has even backed off of closing 
Guantanamo Bay. I support him in that. We shouldn't be closing 
Guantanamo Bay, but we surely shouldn't have a czar that's running 
around out there doing who knows what for closing down Guantanamo Bay.
  There is a fairness doctrine czar that we get rid of. A fairness 
doctrine czar that is trying to undermine the First Amendment right of 
talk radio hosts. You know, there may be some people on the other side 
that don't like some things said on talk radio. That's their 
prerogative. The beauty is you have got a First Amendment that dictates 
that, and you have a marketplace.
  So the bottom line is it's time that we reestablish our 
responsibility as a legislative branch. Let's get back to those 
constitutional principles, and let's get rid of these czars. We 
shouldn't have the government running car companies. We shouldn't have 
the government running the shadow government, and we shouldn't have all 
these czars.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  The so-called czars in the Obama administration are basically 
exercising a

[[Page H1122]]

traditional function of the White House staff, which is advising the 
President, coordinating policy on complex issues that cut across 
Cabinet departments and Federal agencies.
  Let's take a look at one example. One target of criticism has been 
the climate change czar. But what Cabinet Secretary or other agency 
head would otherwise have to lead on climate change issues? The 
administrator of EPA? The Secretary of Energy? The Secretary of the 
Interior? The Secretary of State, because climate change is 
fundamentally an international issue?
  The fact is that all of these officials, and many more, have a role, 
and that's why the President has designated a senior White House staff 
member to coordinate activity and policymaking on climate changes. They 
do not have legal authority to take action. Rather, that final 
decisionmaking authority can only be exercised by heads of agencies or 
other officials properly appointed and, in most cases, confirmed by the 
Senate. In modern times, there's nothing unusual about the White House 
and its staff playing a leading role in policymaking, especially on 
issues important to the President.
  But let me touch on a subject now that some people may not want to 
touch on. Look, let's be honest. This is not about czars. This is about 
the person that lives in the White House. Today we're going to see 
amendments that say we should not have repairs on the White House 
structure. Tonight we're going to see an amendment that says--listen to 
this--that the President should not have, paid for by the taxpayers, a 
teleprompter. Can you believe this? This may be the 6 o'clock national 
news. There's an amendment up there about the teleprompter.
  So I'm going to give some folks on the other side, with all due 
respect and love and affection, some advice. When you look at the White 
House, think of it as the monument it is. Think of it as the structure 
where the President of any party lives. Don't get hung up on the fact 
that he lives there. Notice I didn't mention the name because I don't 
want to upset you. Don't get upset at who uses the teleprompter. Don't 
get upset at whose plumbing needs repair in the White House for 50 
years. Make believe it's the last President. Please repair the White 
House. Please allow him to have staff. Please allow him to be 
President. But don't get hung up on the fact that ``he'' is the 
President, because I know that upsets you. You can't accept the fact 
that ``he'' is the President. So don't let that bother you. Just 
concentrate on the issue.
  Mr. Chair, I think we should concentrate on the fact that the White 
House structure itself is a building we should keep in good shape. It 
falls under my subcommittee's jurisdiction and Mrs. Emerson's 
chairmanship. We have a President who may at times use a teleprompter. 
Let him use it because if we get into that, then our staff may not be 
able to write notes for us in the future, because it's the same thing.
  So, yeah, sometimes it may not be this President. It may be another. 
I wish I could mention his name right now, but I know it upsets the 
heck out of many people on that side. So don't go after him, just do 
what needs to be done.
  This is a terrible amendment, and it should be defeated.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would love to allow my very close 
friend and colleague from New York to continue. However, I will say 
that I do agree with him--and we will discuss this later this evening--
that, in fact, the White House is the White House, and it's a historic 
building, and it should be cared for. But the issue at hand is the 
number of people not subject to Senate confirmation who work there.
  I want to rise in support of our colleague from Louisiana's amendment 
to address the issue of czars in this administration, and I will admit 
that there were too many in several of the past administrations as 
well. And I also hope that the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee will actually mark up the Scalise bill so that we can address 
this issue once and for all.
  I do know for a fact that, in spite of what my good friend from New 
York said, the health care czar who is no longer in that position--and 
that is why we have actually eliminated that position as well as the 
climate change position in the continuing resolution--I believe that 
several colleagues had set many, many meetings with the health care 
czar in the White House when that position was filled and that she was 
actually coordinating all of the work done on the current health care 
law. So the statement that these folks don't have any power is 
absolutely not true, based on personal experience with the person who 
actually held that position.
  I love the idea of getting rid of more of these czars. It will save 
us a lot of money. We have excellent people, even if we don't agree 
with them, who are the heads of agencies and departments in the 
government. They should be allowed to do their jobs themselves instead 
of having interference from even more people.
  So with that, I support the amendment from Mr. Scalise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, being of an optimistic 
nature, I look for silver linings. So I welcome the fact that my 
colleagues on the other side have decided to adopt gender-neutral 
language, because a lot of the czars would have been called czarinas in 
the old days.

                              {time}  1610

  So I appreciate the fact that we've gotten beyond sex stereotyping of 
people.
  Also, I guess they were in a little bit of a hurry. The gentlewoman 
from Missouri has spoken, the gentleman from Louisiana, and they listed 
the czars they didn't like. They overlooked one. Maybe it was hard to 
read. Here's one of the ones they want to eliminate. By the way, you 
notice that many of the ones they want to eliminate have already been 
eliminated. They're not there. So they are denying funding for 
nonexistent positions--climate change, healthcare.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. But the money and the funds still exist; so we're 
trying to save some money here.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Then rather than deal with it this way, I 
would have thought in the CR, you're telling me that the Republican 
Appropriations Committee majority funded some nonexistent positions.
  I would have some advice, Mr. Chairman, for the gentlewoman. Next 
time, don't do that and we won't have this problem.
  But there are some positions that they did fund that they would 
defund that still exist. And I understand they were in a hurry; so they 
forgot to mention all of them. They talked about climate change and 
they talked about health care.
  Here's the one they forgot to mention: The special master for TARP 
Executive Compensation, Department of the Treasury, that is the special 
master, whose job it is to monitor excessive compensation of those TARP 
recipients who got special assistance and still owe the Federal 
Government money.
  So what they want to do is knock out the person whose job it is to 
monitor compensation at AIG and at General Motors and at Chrysler and 
at Ally.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I'm pleased to tell my good friend that that position 
is removed from this legislation as well.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have an amendment which says special 
master for TARP Executive Compensation, Department of the Treasury. So 
the amendment I have defunds and says you can't pay--I want to make it 
clear. This is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana. 
The one I got says, lines 18 and 19, Special Master for TARP Executive 
Compensation, Department of the Treasury.
  Is the gentlewoman telling me I was given a defective copy?

[[Page H1123]]

  I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Yes. I must tell you, my good friend, that you must 
have received a copy that perhaps missed a page. Do you have the 
diversity czar or the pay czar?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reclaim my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. What's the text of the amendment? This is 
the one we were given. Could I get a reading of the text of the 
amendment, or could I get a copy of the amendment?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may ask unanimous consent for that.
  Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Excuse me. Does this have anything to do with cement? If you mention 
cement, I'm not yielding.
  Mr. CARTER. I promise not to mention cement.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Then I yield. Because where I come from, 
cement was not good news for the people who were put into it.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CARTER. I'm a little confused on your question and I may be able 
to clarify.
  If you're asking the question are we attempting to defund that czar, 
we are.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, then reclaiming my time, and I ask 
unanimous consent that special debate time be allotted so the gentleman 
from Texas can debate the gentlewoman from Missouri because they seem 
to be undecided between them about it.
  So the question I have is, this amendment, as it was presented, says 
you can't pay the person whose job it is to stop excessive compensation 
at TARP recipients. Now, the gentlewoman from Missouri says it's not in 
there, that I've got a bad copy.
  Okay, so it is in here.
  So this amendment would say to AIG and General Motors and Chrysler 
and Ally, the financial company, no one will now be supervising what 
you do. And even though you haven't yet paid back the Federal 
Government, there will be no enforcement of restrictions on your 
bonuses, no enforcement of restrictions on your compensation.
  I should note, by the way, in the condemnation of these czar 
positions, one of the ones that's now vacant that they'd bravely get 
rid of is the senior advisor on the auto industry. That's one of the 
great successes of the Bush-Obama administration and transition.
  I would tell the gentlewoman that she should work it out with the 
gentleman from Texas and then come up with a joint answer. But I want 
to make my other point.
  One of the czars they are complaining about presided over a Bush-
Obama transition policy that kept General Motors and Chrysler alive. We 
have auto industries flourishing in America and suppliers today. That 
was partly because of this position that's now vacant that they want to 
get rid of retroactively.
  Please explain to me what it means when you say you were going to 
deny the funds for the special master for TARP. I will yield to whoever 
wants me to yield. The gentleman from Kentucky. The gentlewoman from 
Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I would just like to tell my friend that the Office of 
Financial Stability in the Department of the Treasury, which does 
oversee all of this, still remains and it is mandatory funding.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, so now the third 
answer I get is, yes, they do get rid of the special master. There's an 
office there with nobody heading it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would ask for an additional 2 minutes, 
having yielded so much of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reserving the right to object, we have tons 
and tons of amendments to go, ladies and gentlemen. I hope we can 
expeditiously move.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I just asked for 2 minutes, having 
yielded so much of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate that.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield briefly?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. To the czars, I say, ``Nyet.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I will leave to the gentleman to 
work out his Lenin fantasy, but I want to reiterate what this amendment 
now does.
  There is a special master, a high visibility individual whose job it 
is to prevent excessive compensation from those TARP recipients that 
are still out there: AIG, General Motors and Chrysler and Ally. This 
amendment strikes it. This amendment leaves us without a person of 
great responsibility, and I think that--and, by the way, it's only the 
top hundred employees, and there are two levels, 25 and 75.
  I cannot understand why Members would want to send this signal, 
because many of these positions are already vacant, that one of the 
positions that is not vacant is our effort to put limits on 
compensation bonuses and other excessive compensation for those 
entities that still owe the Federal Government money. And why our 
colleagues decide that that position should be abolished and a high-
level individual charged with that responsibility should not be there 
is baffling to me. I cannot believe that that's what people think the 
American people want; namely, a restriction on the restriction, a 
relaxation on the restriction of bonuses and other compensation paid to 
large recipients who have not yet paid back their TARP money.
  And I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his consideration.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this amendment very similar to one I was going to offer as well. This 
amendment, as we know, would strike the climate change czar, the global 
warming czar, also known as the cement czar, as well.
  Mr. Chairman, all kidding aside, my question I would have is: What is 
the President afraid of? This is not an issue of what is covered here. 
The issue is that the President has overstepped his constitutional 
authority in naming these czars and disregards the separation of powers 
and refuses to resubmit these names for confirmation. And it's, of 
course, my opinion, one of many examples of executive excess from this 
administration. Czars are unaccountable, unelected, and they're given 
considerable authority, which undermines the rule of law.
  Again, why is the President afraid of submitting these names for 
consideration? I would argue, probably because they might not be 
confirmed. More than 30 czars have been appointed by the President. Not 
all of those are directed at in this amendment, but this amendment 
seeks to defund approximately nine of these czars, including the czars 
to oversee global warming policy as well as the closure of Gitmo.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that just yesterday the 
administration indicated that if they did catch Osama Bin Laden, they 
would send him to Gitmo. At the same time, they have a czar that 
continues to close Gitmo.
  Certainly, the President has the authority to appoint staff as 
necessary. But, at the same time, his advisers are not there to make 
laws, Mr. Chairman. That is our job. That is the job of the Senate. 
This is an issue of whether the legislative branch is going to write 
the laws, Mr. Chairman.
  Supporters of this type of style of government suggest in the past 
other Presidents have appointed czars. And, Mr. Chairman, czars might 
not have started with the Obama administration, but they should end 
with this budget.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H1124]]

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  1620

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me do as my good friend from New York 
did, Mr. Serrano, and not mention any President's name. And I just ask 
my colleagues, how do you--again, I explain to all of us and hopefully 
those who are listening, this CR stops work in the middle of its 
tracks. This is a cutoff of functioning work as we speak, and there is 
functioning work.
  Just as we have a prototype of a special master who is attempting to 
refund to the damaged, the worn and the torn of the BP oil spill, 
czars, or names that you would call, them are working.
  And I am reminded of the fact that czars also are an exploratory term 
that Presidents use to get tasks done that ultimately may be valuable 
enough that are actually placed in a position that responds to a 
particular agency.
  Now, we still call the drug czar the ``drug czar.'' And I am reminded 
of a number of drug czars who were enormously effective. And the reason 
for the czar term for the President is to emphasize how important the 
issue was or is to the American people.
  Why would my friends desire to tie the hands globally, if you will, 
in a broad-based amendment that eliminates funding for individuals who 
are in the course of their work impacting for the American people, 
whether it's the TARP, whether it's the BP oil spill? They are in fact 
helping get through a difficult problem. The very nature of the term, a 
difficult problem.
  So I would say to my friends, as I will be saying later about an 
amendment that has been offered, but I'm disturbed about denying 
funding to the Transportation Security Administration. What I would say 
in cutting their office not recognizing the value of their work, I 
would likewise say that it is crucial that we allow the Presidents, 
plural, to establish difficult tasks and to be able to select 
individuals to complete those tasks. I rise to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Scalise amendment. 
I actually also have an amendment which I filed which I am withdrawing 
to de-fund 24 czarships, instead of czar and czarina-ships to suit the 
other side. But I decided that comity would be better if I joined Mr. 
Scalise.
  I think he has a good amendment here. My chairman has asked that we 
move forward, and I agree.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on this amendment that's 
being offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), and I just 
want to say at the outset that I don't think any of this is a joke.
  First of all, czars and czarinas are from Russia. This is the United 
States of America. And I think that throwing this kind of terminology 
around is really not befitting of the House and what we do. If we 
disagree with policy, and we do, we debate that.
  If in fact there are people that work in the government that are 
policy advisers and have no legal weight to their position, so be it. 
Most frankly, every single one of us has them in our offices. Your 
chiefs of staff, your policy advisers on legislation, they don't carry 
any legal weight, but they are policy advisers to us.
  This particular target is to one individual. One individual. This is 
very unusual where you go after one individual in the middle of a 
bureaucracy who is the chief diversity officer at the FCC, the Federal 
Communications Commission. This individual is in charge of expanding 
opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to 
participate in the communications marketplace.
  Now, I think one of the things that absolutely goes to the core of 
democracy is how many voices speak to the many, whether there is media 
consolidation in this country or not.
  There's some right-wing radio people that seem to dislike this 
person. I don't really agree with these right-wing radio talk show 
hosts, nor do I care to jump into what they dislike about this 
individual. But to bring something like this to the floor of the House, 
where an individual is working to expand opportunities for women, 
minorities, and small businesses, an appropriate role, participating in 
the communications marketplace, I think, is an amendment that is not 
worthy of the support of Members.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I want to stress again, I have not heard a defense of the proposal 
that we remove from the Federal Government the highest profile 
individual charged with controlling compensation excesses at four 
companies which continue to be the recipients of special assistance. I 
do not understand this desire to free AIG from restrictions and General 
Motors and Chrysler. They have been successful, and I'm glad, but they 
owe the Federal Government money. Allied, the financial company, owes 
the Federal Government money.
  I do not understand, you can go one by one and I haven't heard a 
defense of it. Why would we say that the individual most responsible 
for limiting excessive compensation to TARP recipients should no longer 
be able to work for the Federal Government and no one should be able to 
fill that position?
  I thank the gentlewoman.
  Ms. ESHOO. Reclaiming my time, I think that we need to start 
rethinking some of this. I can't help but think that campaign ads 
should just be played on the floor, get it out of everybody's system on 
this czar issue, and move on. But these are individuals that are 
carrying out their duties in the executive branch.
  If you want to vote against expanding opportunities for women and 
minorities in the media, then do an amendment on that. Why saw this 
guy's head off? Because some talk show host says so?
  So I think that this is poorly devised, poorly thought out, and does 
no grace to the House of Representatives.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mr. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate it, and I associate myself with your remarks.
  Did you mention that the associate general counsel and chief 
diversity officer of the Federal Communications is cut out of this as 
well?
  Ms. ESHOO. Yes.
  Mr. DICKS. That's rather shocking.
  Ms. ESHOO. That's what's in the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry. Hasn't the 
gentleman already spoken?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. No, I have not spoken.
  Mr. DICKS. Did you offer the amendment?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in very strong support of the Scalise amendment, and let me 
explain why. One word: accountability.
  Americans across this country are tired of the lack of 
accountability. They want to know what is going on with their 
government, and they are tired of empty platitudes.
  We have seen this when we brought Cabinet Secretaries and others who 
are in official positions in front of our committees, and we can't get 
answers to simple questions on energy policy, tax policy, health care 
policy. No, we get empty platitudes, because the policy is being 
formulated in the White House with these so-called advisers, these 
czars, whatever you want to call them.
  I just want to point out something. When we had this situation with 
the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and a panel of experts, engineers, 
scientists, came forth and looked at this and gave their initial 
report, there was no recommendation for an industry-wide

[[Page H1125]]

moratorium on drilling. They issued a formal report. And what happened? 
This formal report was altered after the fact by somebody within the 
White House, the so-called Special Assistant to the President for 
Energy and Climate Change.

                              {time}  1630

  Now, this is not the kind of open and transparent policymaking that 
the American people deserve and demand. I think in the last election 
they spoke out because they did not like what was happening, the lack 
of oversight. And if this Congress is going to do oversight, we have to 
have access to those who make the policy and get answers. When we get 
railroaded and the runaround and just empty platitudes time and time 
again, whether it is on health care policy or energy policy or tax 
policy, trade policy, whatever it is, that is not what the American 
people want, and if this Congress is going to be able to legislate and 
do right by the American people, we have to be able to get the 
information from this White House.
  That is why I stand here with the American people and say it is time 
to put an end to this opaque atmosphere in Washington. Let's be open 
with the American people. Those who are making policy should come 
before our committees and testify so we know what the policy is the 
White House is advocating and we can legislate in a responsible way.
  So for those of you who didn't understand the Russian word ``no,'' 
which is ``nyet,'' I want to say it is ``no'' to the czars.
  I yield back.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. I think that this amendment is typical of many of the 
proposals from the other side of the aisle that paint with a broad 
brush the entire Federal Government.
  This is a complex world. A President needs an ability to govern. The 
President relies on many of these executive positions to effectively 
govern this country. It is not a Democratic or Republican thing. It is 
about having an effective executive and effective administrative 
branch.
  That doesn't mean that there is not common ground; and while I 
certainly oppose this amendment, I would love to work with the 
gentleman and others to look at these positions one by one. We have 
discussed a proposal to eliminate the drug czar, for instance. The drug 
czar's office spends $21 million a year, and yet drug use has gone up 
since its inception, illegal drug use.
  There are ways that we can work together, but a blatant removal of 
the ability of a President to effectively govern the country is not a 
wise measure, and one that I rise in opposition to. I encourage a more 
thoughtful discussion that could in fact lead to the elimination of 
some of these so-called czar positions.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
will be postponed.


        Amendment No. 458 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for the 
     ``Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 
     Enforcement'', by reducing the amount made available for the 
     ``Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 
     Operations Support'', by reducing the amount made available 
     for the ``General Services Administration, Real Property 
     Activities, Federal Building Fund'', by reducing the amount 
     made available for the ``General Services Administration, 
     General Activities, Government-Wide Policy'', and by 
     increasing the amount made available for the ``Independent 
     Agencies, Securities and Exchange Commission, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', by $77,000,000, $46,000,000, $7,000,000, 
     $1,000,000, and $131,000,000, respectively.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is a deficit-neutral 
amendment. It provides more money for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission than the resolution. It takes it from other agencies.
  I should say that I regret some of the choices I had to make here. 
Particularly I have spoken with the ranking member of the subcommittee. 
I was not happy to have to ask that the General Services Administration 
be diminished, although by small amounts; and I would hope that this 
could be amended later in the Senate when there was more flexibility.
  But the key issue here is therefore not a deficit issue, but a policy 
issue: Should the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was given 
increased responsibilities in the financial reform bill, be given less 
money in this fiscal year than it had in the previous one?
  The current budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission is 
$1.118 billion, or the last year's budget. Under the CR, that would be 
reduced by nearly $50 billion--$50 million. I shouldn't say 
``billion.'' This is a relatively small agency. The Republican 
resolution would reduce the amount given to the SEC for this fiscal 
year by $48 million from the last fiscal year.
  Now, one of the things we did in the financial reform bill was tell 
the SEC that we want hedge funds to register. We want them to begin to 
regulate derivatives, not by putting margins on end users as they just 
made clear they are not planning to do, but by requiring that the price 
be made public.
  There has been a lot of talk about the shadow banking system. Well, 
in the financial reform bill, with regard to a variety of these 
entities not regulated now by the bank regulators, we are asking them 
to show some information. Hedge funds aren't being told what to do; 
they are being asked to register. We have tried to, frankly, bring some 
light to the shadow banking system; but as a result of the CR, the 
shadows will remain unpierced.
  The SEC is given new responsibilities for investor protection. We 
have asked the SEC to enforce a new fiduciary responsibility for people 
who are telling other people how to invest their money in various ways. 
They won't be able to carry it out. Technologically, they are not yet 
up to the point where they can deal with things like the flash crash.
  Now, people will point to mistakes by the SEC in the past. Of course 
there were. They were partly ideological by people who didn't believe 
in regulation, but they were partly a matter of competence; but it was 
also partly inadequate resources.
  What we do in this amendment, frankly, is not even reach the proposal 
that the administration wanted. I would have liked to have done that, 
but there were constraints here because we had to take money from the 
IRS and the General Services Administration and from the Treasury 
Department. So what we have done is to give them part of what was 
asked. We do give them an increase over fiscal 2010. We do not reach 
the amount the administration says they need to carry out the new 
responsibilities given.
  So let's be very clear: this is not about the deficit. This is 
deficit neutral. The question is, Do you want to fund increased 
responsibilities for the SEC, or do you not? Do you want them to be 
able to hire the kind of people they need? Do you want them to improve 
their technology?
  The issue here is that in fiscal 2010 this agency spent $1.118 
billion. The administration asked for $1.258 billion. We would get them 
to $1.2 billion. We would undo the reduction and get them part of the 
way there. We don't get them all the way there because we are under 
constraints; but the notion that you should give the SEC less in the 
current fiscal year than they had last year and ask them to monitor 
hedge funds, to ask them to improve investor protection, to ask them to 
look at derivatives, makes no sense.
  Now, if you don't believe we should increase transparency of hedge 
funds and derivatives, then don't vote for this amendment. If you think 
we are at a perfect solution here, don't vote for this. But it is hard 
for me to believe

[[Page H1126]]

that people think the SEC is adequately funded.
  By the way, what the CR will do is to make the SEC not so much a 
regulator as a profit center, because the SEC brings in more money than 
this budget will give them. They bring in money with transaction fees, 
and then they distribute money to investors.
  So here we have, and I know there were many on the other side that 
didn't like the bill we passed, but I thought there were some parts 
they liked more than others. I didn't know we had a view that 
derivatives should remain totally unregulated.
  By the way, when I talk about derivative regulation at the SEC, we 
are not talking about imposing margin requirements. We are talking 
about making things transparent.
  So I hope the amendment is agreed to and we begin to get the SEC back 
into the position of being a responsible regulator.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Since 2001, in the wake of the Enron scandal, this 
committee has more than doubled the SEC's budget. In fact, the SEC's 
budget has increased 163 percent since 2001. I would like to remind my 
colleagues that in 2001 the SEC was funded specifically at $423 
million; and last year, with the fiscal year 2010 act, this committee 
provided the SEC with an appropriation of $1.1 billion.
  Yet even with all of the money that we have given them and the 
opportunity they have had to begin upgrading their computers so, yes, 
they could deal with flash crashes and the like and hire more people 
and tougher enforcers, in spite of that they missed two major Ponzi 
schemes. They have had difficulty every single year since 2004 
submitting clean budget statements for audit. They have had consistent 
trouble in their leasing practices, which has led to millions of 
taxpayer dollars wasted. And just even more specific to the Ponzi 
schemes, regarding them, the SEC has had multiple complaints filed 
against both entities over a decade before either individual was even 
charged.

                              {time}  1640

  So how is it also that the agency that's in charge, as my good friend 
said, and needs to be in charge of regulating our financial market, 
can't even produce an accurate financial statement of their own since 
2004, in spite of the fact that since 2001 we've increased their 
budget.
  In addition, the SEC's own inspector general has cited the agency for 
poor leasing practices, which has led to millions of taxpayer dollars 
being wasted on unused leased space. I'm sure my colleagues have read 
in the newspapers about the hundreds of thousands of square feet of 
leased space that they leased in anticipation of the work they might do 
on Dodd-Frank, but they leased it before the bill was even passed and 
money appropriated.
  So when my colleagues argue that the SEC doesn't have enough funding, 
I've got to argue perhaps they do but they're not using the funding in 
the appropriate ways. All of us have had to tighten our belts. And I 
understand the need for us to have strong regulation. I am not opposed 
to strong regulation of the financial industry--of banks and nonbanks 
and hedge funds and the like. But at a time when we're all trying to do 
more with less, I think that it's important for all of the agencies of 
the government to do more with less, too. And so even with the cuts in 
this bill, the SEC is still going to be funded at over a billion 
dollars.
  I believe very, very strongly that we must make this agency 
understand that they've got to try to revamp the systems they've got 
within and to use the moneys that we've given them, in addition to all 
the fees they've collected, more appropriately. And they need to try to 
do that. If they can't, then we can discuss this again. But we need to 
continue saving money.
  Plus, my colleague has taken too much money from the GSA in addition 
to the $1.7 billion we've taken. So you're cutting them or you're 
cutting the IRS by over $600 million. We are cutting the IRS. We are 
cutting the IRS by over $600 million. You want to cut on top of the 600 
that we're already cutting it. What you want to add to what we want to 
add perhaps cuts the legs out from them.
  So, consequently, we have to vote against my friend's amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In the first place, our additional cuts 
are a small percentage of your cuts to the IRS and the GSA, and I hope 
they are restored when we get a broader sets of things. But the basic 
point is, yes, there were problems with 2004 and before. I believe we 
have a better-run SEC now, better people who care about it. And to 
punish the investors, to punish the American public because of past 
mistakes by the SEC by reducing from one year to the next is a very 
grave error.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from Missouri has 
expired.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  First of all, she wants to punish the American public and the 
American economy because some people were not up to it in the past. As 
to Madoff, we have a new set of commissioners. It broke in the end of 
2008. We have a new Director of Enforcement.
  Yes, I want the SEC to get better, but the notion that they can take 
on complex new responsibilities regarding derivatives and hedge funds 
with less money this year than they had last year is laughable.
  For the gentlewoman's sake, she's for regulation, but she voted 
against the bill. It was her right to do that. And if we're going to 
relitigate that bill, let's do it.
  By the way, many in the financial industry do not want to see these 
cuts because, while some of them didn't want to see the rules, for them 
the worst situation is to have the rules and no capacity to have them 
promulgated and enforced.
  Yes, the SEC has made mistakes.
  By the way, if the standard was that if you'd wasted money in the 
past you would lose the budget, we would be saving hundreds of billions 
in the Pentagon budget. That logic never appears to apply to the 
Defense Department.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I, again, support the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, since 2008 we have faced the most serious financial crisis 
since the Great Depression, and we are just not emerging from this 
difficult period. As we have debated the Continuing Resolution in the 
House this week, I have urged my colleagues to consider the impact that 
our near term actions will have on unemployment and on our nation's 
economy, which remains fragile. In this regard I have deep concerns 
about the magnitude of the cuts contained in the version of the 
Continuing Resolution that has been drafted by the majority leadership, 
with little input from the minority.
  At this time I am particularly concerned about the impact of this 
bill on the Securities and Exchange Commission, which this bill would 
cut by $189 million from President Obama for Fiscal Year 2011. This 
level of spending will preclude the implementation of the Dodd-Frank 
Act, meaning that hedge funds, credit rating agencies, and broker-
dealers will continue to operate without regulation, therefore 
increasing the risk of another fiscal meltdown. It also takes a big 
step backwards toward the enforcement situation we had before the 
crisis, leaving the agency with fewer staff to investigate potential 
misconduct and police securities markets to prevent another financial 
crisis.
  Why is this important? Look at the history: In response to what was 
clearly an economic crisis in our country in 2007-2009, Congress 
established a bipartisan Commission on the Causes of the Financial and 
Economic Crisis in the United States. In its final report that was 
issued in January, the Commission concluded that the financial crisis 
was entirely avoidable. It wrote:

       The crisis was a result of human action and inaction . . . 
     the captains of finance and the public stewards of our 
     financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, 
     understand, and manage evolving risks within a system 
     essential to the well-being of the

[[Page H1127]]

     American public . . . Widespread failures in financial 
     regulation and supervision proved devastating to the 
     stability of the nation's financial markets. The sentries 
     were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely-
     accepted faith in the self-correcting nature of the markets 
     and the ability of financial institutions to effectively 
     police themselves.

  So what did we do about this ``combination of excessive borrowing, 
risky investments, and a lack of transparency'' that the Commission 
said put our financial system on a collision course with crisis? We 
passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 
which was intended to enable federal regulators to better understand 
and manage evolving risks; providing transparency in the financial and 
derivatives markets; and, maybe most importantly, putting the sentries 
back on duty and giving them the tools to do their jobs.
  This Dodd-Frank legislation charged the Securities and Exchange 
Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with new 
responsibility to oversee the financial industry and provide for 
regulation of the massive derivatives industry.
  Now I understand that some members of the Republican caucus who may 
have opposed Dodd-Frank did not believe that a failure on the part of 
Federal regulators to enforce the law played a significant role in the 
financial crisis. It seems that this misguided conclusion has led the 
new Majority to attempt--through the appropriations process--what it 
could not accomplish through the regular legislative process: to scale 
back federal regulation to the pre-crisis level. I cannot imagine a 
more risky thing to do at this time.
  Thus I support the amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
the Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee, has offered, 
restoring $131 million of the funding that will go to the SEC in this 
fiscal year to implement the oversight functions mandated by Dodd-
Frank. I believe this amount would allow the agency to carry out its 
basic functions and start the process implementation so that we will 
not be risking another calamity like the situation we faced in 2008.
  Like many of the amendments proposed to this Continuing Resolution 
during this debate under such unusual rules, the funding offset is 
problematic. The Internal Revenue Service's Enforcement division is 
already taking a massive and unwise cut in this bill and I regret that 
this amendment would add to that cut. It is difficult to talk seriously 
about deficit reduction while at the same time ignoring the tens of 
billions of dollars in taxes that go unpaid every year because of a 
lack of enforcement. So I believe we have some work to do, as we move 
forward, to ensure adequate funding for tax enforcement while at the 
same time we proceed to putting in place the important oversight 
functions of Dodd-Frank.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Frank amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  The majority's continuing resolution cuts funding to the SEC by $188 
billion. Such a cut would leave our financial markets, including the 
derivatives market, unpoliced and effectively unregulated. In effect, 
the continuing resolution would take the Wall Street cop--its only 
cop--off the beat.
  The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will 
prevent another financial crisis like the one that crippled credit 
markets in 2008 by authorizing the SEC to regulate derivatives, provide 
oversight of investment advisers and broker-dealers, and rein in credit 
rating agencies. In order to do this, the SEC needs additional funding.
  I am a little bit surprised that the gentlelady from Missouri talks 
about punishing the agency and making them understand. No, this is 
about accepting responsibility and helping to protect the average 
investor. We have people who lost all of their savings in their 401(k)s 
with the meltdown, and now we're talking about not funding the very 
agency that has the responsibility for protecting the investors? I 
don't think so.
  Unfortunately, House Republicans don't want the SEC to staff up or to 
even maintain their current staffing levels. If this cut becomes law, 
the SEC would have to lay off hundreds of staff and cut its information 
technology budget down to $86 million, it's lowest level of information 
technology spending since 2003. At this level, the SEC would not be 
able to implement the new system it needs to protect the Nation's 
security markets.
  From 2005 to 2007, during the period up to the crisis that imploded 
in 2008, the SEC lost 10 percent of its staff. In addition, from 2005 
to 2009, the SEC's investments in information technology declined 50 
percent. During this time period, trading volume doubled. The number of 
investment advisers has increased by 50 percent and the funds they 
manage have increased 55 percent to $33 trillion.
  Let's put these numbers into perspective. The SEC's 3,800 employees 
currently oversee approximately 35,000 entities, including 11,450 
investment advisers, 7,600 mutual funds, 5,000 broker-dealers, and more 
than 10,000 public companies. Furthermore, these staff police companies 
that trade, on average, 8.5 billion shares in the listed equity markets 
alone every day.
  What does this mean for the average investor? Without adequate 
funding, the SEC won't be able to do its job, as simple as that, of 
protecting the average investor. As financial markets and investors 
become more and more complex, the average investor has confidence in 
making an investment because he or she knows that there is a system in 
place to protect them. This continuing resolution will undermine that 
system.
  We've all heard of Bernie Madoff and the massive multiyear fraud he 
perpetrated on thousands of investors. Bernie Madoff was just one man. 
Imagine a world in which there are hundreds of Bernie Madoffs who prey 
unchecked on investors. That's the world we will be in if the 
majority's cut for the SEC becomes law.
  So, Mr. Chairman and Members, if we want to create jobs and spur 
investment in our economy, we must fully fund the SEC. I don't see how 
anyone can make a rational argument that the SEC should be level funded 
or underfunded when we know that that's the only police on the beat to 
protect our investors and ensure that people who have invested in their 
retirement won't have to go back to work at 65 and 70 and 75 years old. 
That's what happened when we had this meltdown.

                              {time}  1650

  And so now we know what happened. We have good management over there. 
We have people who understand what they need. They have come to people 
who have been elected and sent to Congress to do a job. That job is to 
look out for the average person, the average American. All of our 
constituents are not interested in punishing the SEC. They want to make 
it work. And I submit to you that this amendment is important to help 
make it work. Do not follow the lead of the people on the opposite side 
of the aisle who would endanger all of us and all of our investors.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT. I thank the Chair and I thank the gentlelady from 
California on her opening comment with regard to accepting 
responsibility. I think that's all that this side of the aisle has ever 
been asking for when it comes to the SEC, to accept the responsibility 
of their past poor performance in so many different ways.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield? Is the way to make them better 
by cutting money, for the SEC?
  Mr. GARRETT. I did not yield, but I appreciate the gentleman's 
comment.
  In any other realm of life, personal life, business life or whatever, 
when you have a failed business, what have you, when you have failed 
portions of that company and they fail in their performance, is the 
response, well, the solution to that problem is more people, more 
authority and more money? That seems to be only the case here in 
Washington, D.C., in our Nation's capital when you can have a failed 
entity like the SEC where they failed in so many areas; where they 
failed, as we've already discussed, with regard to Ponzi schemes like 
the Madoff situation, the Stanford Ponzi scheme; where they failed in 
the area of operating a failed investment bank supervising program as 
well; where there was a lack of supervision over in the money market 
fund which led to for the first time, I guess, in history the breaking 
of the buck with the reserve primary money market fund account. They 
failed in all

[[Page H1128]]

of these areas. And what is Washington's response or at least what is 
the response from the other side of the aisle? Let's give them more 
money.
  The irony here is that the gentleman from Massachusetts comes to the 
floor today to enhance their funding, but, if I remember correctly, the 
Democrats controlled this House from 2007 through 2010. They had all 
that time to go in and do a complete audit of these agencies. They had 
all those 4 years to look at them to see where they were making 
mistakes, how to fix them, improve them, and then increase their 
resources. But they failed to do that during the last 4 years. And now 
in this CR they say this is the time to do so.
  The gentlelady talked about punishing the agencies. Well, they are 
punishing people. They're punishing the enforcement folks over at the 
GSA. They're punishing the folks in enforcement over at the IRS. And I 
would question the gentleman from Massachusetts before he put in this 
language, did you contact any one of those agencies to see what the 
implications would be on those agencies for cutting to the extent that 
you are here?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Thank you.
  Yes, I think it is unfortunate. Of course our cuts are much smaller 
by multiples than the cuts inflicted by the subcommittee majority.
  Mr. GARRETT. Did you contact those agencies, was my question?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I spoke to the people at the subcommittee 
who worked at them and I think the cuts are too deep.
  Mr. GARRETT. I would like to reclaim my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize. I thought the gentleman 
wanted an answer.
  Mr. GARRETT. It is a simple question to ask, that when you come to 
the floor with an amendment to say that we're going to take money and 
yank money out of one agency that has a primary responsibility to the 
members of the public of this country, to first go to those agencies 
and ask, well, what impact will they have? It's not a matter whether 
other amendments are coming down that will have a larger or more de 
minimis impact. It's incumbent upon the gentleman from Massachusetts to 
do his research before he comes to the floor with his amendment. I'm 
sorry to see that he did not.
  Finally, as well, he comes to the floor with this amendment saying, 
well, we need to do this action now. Don't look back at their past poor 
performance. Let's take this action now. I remind the gentleman as the 
author of the Dodd-Frank reform legislation that his very own 
legislation mandated a study, it was in section 967, to reform the 
operation of the SEC and asked to do a study in that to see how their 
reform has occurred.
  Why don't we wait for the studies to come out, for the information to 
come out, to see whether or not the SEC has changed its performance. 
Even after they've lost their majority, we see the conduct of the SEC 
and it still continues to fail. Even now we see that they are under 
investigation by the Inspector General. Why? For allegedly leasing more 
space before receiving funds to do so. So they've had a poor track 
record in the past. Unfortunately in some areas today, I'm sorry to 
say, they still have a poor track record right now with regard to their 
finances. And who knows where they will be in the future.
  Now is not the time to say, let's just throw out more money to them. 
And when we talk about throwing out more money, I just harken back to a 
comment that the gentleman from Massachusetts made just earlier this 
week. We were looking at the actions of the SEC and we were looking at 
the actions of the CFTC in a hearing just the other day. And whereas 
our side of the aisle, Republicans, were looking at this issue and 
saying, what can we do to honestly reform and make the rule-making 
process and the rules that come out more consistent and proper and be 
able to perform better in the regulatory climate. Their side of the 
aisle was doing the same thing this week as they are on the floor right 
now, saying the answer to everything is, what? More money. He said it 
in committee. He's saying it on the floor right now. The answer to 
every single problem, I must tell the Chair--and the American people 
know as well--is not paying more money for programs. It's making sure 
that those agencies perform correctly, and that's what this side of the 
aisle is all about.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. During the campaign season, there was a meeting with the 
Wall Street barons by the leaders of the other side. They promised them 
exactly this: that they were going to essentially go back to an 
unregulated system. It almost bankrupted the entire country.
  I want to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts. And the American public should not be fooled again by 
people on the other side saying that somehow they're doing this to 
protect their interests on Wall Street.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman from New Jersey asked me a question. I foolishly 
thought he wanted an answer, and I apologize for my false assumption. 
The answer is that I know that the proposals we have made to reduce at 
the GSA and the IRS go too far. I will point out again that they are a 
small percentage of the very deep reductions made by the subcommittee.
  The problem we had is under the very restrictive rules, we had to 
choose among certain agencies. My hope is that the House will 
demonstrate its support for increased funding for the SEC and when it 
gets to the Senate, they will have more flexibility and can take it 
from elsewhere. And we will see fiscal discipline imposed in some other 
places.
  I did not call those agencies because I knew what their answer was. I 
knew it from the ranking member of the subcommittee, that the 
chairwoman in my judgment of the subcommittee had already cut them too 
deeply. We had no options. What we are doing here is simply trying to 
make the point that the SEC should be funded.
  I want to now respond to the notion that we always think it's more 
money. No. We have talked also about reforms. And, by the way, they 
talked about 2004. They talked about 2008. A prior administration. I 
believe that there has been a real change in this administration in the 
seriousness of the appointments to the SEC, in the understanding of 
what they should do. There is a new SEC director of enforcement, Mr. 
Khuzami. By the way, disciplinary proceedings, the new chair, Mary 
Schapiro, has announced are now under way over the people who didn't do 
what they should have done in the Madoff, which of course is from prior 
years.
  So, yes, the SEC has been less than perfect, but it has a very new 
set of responsibilities. And the notion that they can deal with that 
new set of responsibilities with less money than they had last year 
comes only from people who are not in favor of the new responsibility. 
I understand that. But becoming more efficient doesn't allow you to get 
into monitoring all the hedge funds that have to register and to 
monitoring derivatives.
  What we have here is an ideological opposition to reform of the 
financial system, a preference for keeping the shadow banking system in 
the shadows, masking as a fiscal argument. Because we can do this in a 
deficit neutral way and the SEC will continue to be a profit center.
  So this notion that we think the answer is always more money, no, we 
don't. And if the majority has some improvements to make to the SEC, 
let's see them. I don't remember any being offered by them as 
amendments when we were doing the financial reform bill. We have worked 
with Mary Schapiro. We do believe she's making significant improvements 
in a lot of ways. But the notion that you can give them significant new 
responsibilities and give them less money than they had in the year 
before when they're supposed to now be looking into derivatives and 
hedge funds makes no sense.

                              {time}  1700

  The gentlewoman from Missouri acknowledged she had misspoken when she 
said we had cut it by $600 million. She cut it by $600 million. I wish 
she

[[Page H1129]]

hadn't done that. I wish they hadn't done other things.
  Within those constraints, what we are trying to do is to send a 
message that we believe the SEC should get some of the funding, not all 
that it asked for and not all that the administration asked for. What 
we have here is a test about whether or not people want to support the 
re-deregulation of the financial system, whether they want to keep the 
shadow banking system in the shadows. I believe the answer is that we 
shouldn't.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentlewoman from New 
York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I rise in strong support of accountability and 
oversight, and I rise in strong support of the Frank amendment, which 
would help give tools to the SEC so that they could better enforce the 
laws of this country.
  Madam Chair, our Republican colleagues have proposed that the SEC's 
budget should be cut back to roughly 2008 levels; but I can hardly 
imagine that anyone in this body on either side of the aisle is pleased 
at the level of oversight that was performed by the SEC in 2008, the 
year the economy cratered under the Bush administration.
  According to the SEC Inspector General, the Republican proposal would 
force the agency to let go 600 staff right when we need more activity 
by the SEC in oversight. Just as our colleagues across the aisle are 
calling for more accountability, they would cripple one of the key 
agencies that holds people in a key sector accountable.
  The SEC's budget for all of 2010 is equal to just a small fraction of 
the bonus pool for just one major investment bank or hedge fund in the 
financial sector that they are charged with overseeing. It is a small 
fraction of what they are charged to oversee.
  The total loss of household wealth as a result of this Great 
Recession has been estimated at approximately $14 trillion. It was a 
financial disaster that did not have to happen. A lack of adequate 
oversight and regulation were major contributing factors. We heard that 
from the Angelides committee report yesterday. So the Republicans' new 
proposal to cut the badly needed oversight of our financial system 
brings to mind one of the oldest sayings in our country: ``They are 
being penny wise--and pound foolish.''
  The majority party is basically resisting any increase in the funding 
for the cops, the major cops on the financial beat. They apparently can 
look back on the carnage of the past years, look at the way the middle 
class has been brutalized, look at how people have had their dreams 
stolen in this recession, look at how their hopes were crushed, and 
declare that the status quo is ``just fine, thank you.'' We're not even 
going to fund it at the status quo at the time that we had the great 
debacle and crash of our financial system. They want to de-fund it even 
more.
  I really do not agree. I feel strongly about it. This is a huge 
mistake. They would deny the needed relatively modest funding that is 
required to begin supervising over-the-counter derivatives trading. 
Let's take a look at some of the numbers.
  The over-the-counter derivatives market is valued at about $600 
trillion. In 2010, the GDP of the entire world was just over $74 
trillion. The infamous ``flash crash'' on May 6 temporarily wiped out 
of our economy $1 trillion. In 2010, the budget for the entire CFTC was 
just $169 million.
  So the number of new staffers that the SEC is saying it would like to 
hire will understand this new type of trading--the algorithmic trading, 
the kind of high-frequency trading that tends to dominate today's 
marketplace. It is trying to hire five new oversight professionals; but 
the number of such specialists the opposing party seems willing to fund 
is absolutely zero so that there will be no one looking over this new 
type of trading. Zero is the level of effort that the Republicans seem 
willing to make to see to it that we don't suffer through another great 
recession and to make sure that a Bernie Madoff doesn't happen again.
  This is not the way to proceed. We should fund the SEC appropriately 
so that it can oversee the new Dodd-Frank bill, which requires many new 
studies and new rules, and so that it can give this country the 
protection it needs from risky trading. How can we know that the 
capital markets and the leverage rules that we are putting in place are 
enforced? We can't do that unless the SEC is properly funded.
  This is an important amendment. I think it is one of the most 
important before this Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support the Frank amendment so that we can oversee the 
financial markets, so that we can make sure that the rules are 
enforced, and so that we can make sure that the American investor, the 
American public, is protected.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I just wanted to put a few comments on the record 
with regard to the impassioned speech of the last speaker, the 
gentlewoman from New York.
  Madam Chair, I serve on the same committee as the gentlewoman, and I 
heard the same testimony yesterday. It is interesting that she is 
talking about trying to continue to fund an agency that was totally 
absent with regard to the crash back in 2008.
  Yesterday, we asked the question of the SEC representative as to 
whether there was anybody who had been put in jail, as to whether 
anybody had been fired, as to whether there had been any changes to the 
personnel who were there. The answer was ``no.'' There were some 
ongoing investigations; but at this point, nothing had been done. So we 
are going to try and give some more dollars to the group that was 
mismanaging the thing to begin with without its having any more 
accountability. I think that's the wrong way to go.
  With that, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I just want to point out a couple of things that I 
believe need some clarification.
  Number one, yes, we had the Inspector General in our committee 
earlier in the week. I want to say, when he was talking about the loss 
of 600 jobs, that would be if we were to go back to funding at 2008 
levels, which we have not done in this continuing resolution.
  Number two, this agency has probably received more money than any 
other government agency in the last decade, and it has hired over 1,000 
employees during that time period. Certainly, with that complement of 
excellent staff, they should have been able to see all of the problems 
with regard to Madoff, Stanford Financial, and other things.
  At the end of the day, they've got to prove their own ability to 
manage money. They have to do their financial reports correctly. They 
have to, perhaps, take the structure they have and make it work in 
order to comply with Dodd-Frank. In the new bureaus, there is a lot of 
overlap that Dodd-Frank asks them to do, but they've got offices that 
do those functions already, so they can use what they have and perhaps 
fix it by moving employees around within that office.
  At the end of the day, they still have to prove that they can do the 
job. They have not. They already receive too much money as far as I'm 
concerned; and if they can better manage personnel and do that job, 
then I'm more than happy to look at funding them at the levels that my 
colleague suggests, but not until they can prove they can manage what 
they have got already.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Let me first clarify something.
  Madam Chair, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) came to me 
and told me where he wanted to take the cuts to pay for this. We were 
both unhappy about it, but we felt that it was so important to do this 
that we would take it from where we had to

[[Page H1130]]

and then deal with it later. But let's understand something.

                              {time}  1710

  There are some new Members here who are either watching in their 
offices or here on the floor who need to know something. I've been in 
public office 36 years--this is my 37th year--in the State Assembly in 
New York and in Congress. I've never seen, except for once, a 
commissioner or a Secretary or a director of an agency come before me 
as chairman of a committee, and when I ask them, Do you want, do you 
need more money, they said to me, No, we don't want, we don't need any 
money. You know who that was? You guessed it. The SEC a few years ago 
told us that they didn't want any more money, they didn't need any more 
money. Why? Because that was during that era when there was the word 
out throughout an administration not to enforce, not to regulate, not 
to practice oversight, let it go, the water will clean itself, the air 
will clean itself, Wall Street can monitor itself. That was the 
attitude.
  Now, we're seeing another pattern, and I look at folks on the other 
side that--you know, we always say this but they know I mean it--who I 
have tremendous respect and admiration for, but we know, I'm not fooled 
what the game is. The game is we pass a health care bill some insurance 
companies don't like, so we're not going to fund it. We pass 
regulations on Wall Street that could go a long way to stopping the 
criminals from doing it again, we're not going to fund it. That's what 
this is all about. This is not about whether the SEC did a good job or 
will do a good job. It's simply about a law that now will make it very 
difficult to commit the crimes that were committed on Wall Street which 
tumbled down the whole economy, and now we're saying that we're not 
going to fund it.
  So as we move forward this year, this weekend, the next 2 years, and 
we propose not funding certain things, every so often at least let's do 
it and kind of wink at each other, because we know the truth. This is 
not about cutting a budget. This is about not enforcing some rules.
  And so we will open it up again and the same folks, because they're 
pretty smart, who pull all those crimes on this society will do it 
again, and my God, interestingly enough, the movement that brought you 
into the majority, those folks that I saw on TV at those town hall 
meetings did have one thing in common with the folks over here. They 
agreed that something had to be done to the folks on Wall Street; that 
they couldn't run amok and go crazy again. That was the one thing we 
agreed on. So it could be that this time you're running counter to your 
own base--not that I should advise you on that--but running counter to 
your own base because they want Wall Street police.
  So the SEC needs to enforce this bill, and if you really want to undo 
Dodd-Frank, then try what you're doing with health care, which is to 
change the law, but not to fund it is simply to find a very funny way 
of accomplishing the same thing.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Chair, just so we don't forget where we were, 
Colorado in August of 2008 had about a 4, 4\1/2\ percent unemployment 
rate. We had a crash the likes of which we haven't seen in decades in 
September, October, November of 2008 on the financial markets centered 
on Wall Street. Colorado then went to 8 percent unemployment. Thousands 
of people in Colorado lost their jobs because of the recklessness that 
we saw on Wall Street. There were no police on the beat, or if they 
were on the beat, they were told to look elsewhere.
  Since Barack Obama took office at the beginning of 2009, when we were 
losing 800,000 jobs a month, the stock market in the fall of 2008, 
under the last months of the Bush administration, lost thousands of 
points. Since March of 2009, the stock market has doubled, because 
people understand that there is some restraint and enforcement of the 
financial markets now. People are starting to get back to work. The 
middle class is realizing they have pensions that are growing again. We 
have to have confidence. We have to have certainty in the financial 
markets. And to underfund and take away the police that are trying to 
deal with these unbelievably complicated types of financial 
transactions is wrong for Middle America. Middle America got hit hard. 
It's just getting back on its feet, and my friends on the Republican 
side of the aisle just want to pull that rug out from underneath them 
again and let the bums start pillaging Wall Street again.
  No, we had Ponzi schemes. I look to my friend from Missouri because I 
was listening to her. Two of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever in the 
history of the United States, $65 billion with Mr. Madoff and I can't 
remember how much Mr. Stanford was, or the Stanford Investments, but 
billions of dollars, millions of transactions. We had testimony in our 
committee that the SEC during the period from about 2001 to 2007 was 
notified 21 times during that period about Mr. Madoff and they did 
nothing.
  So now we finally have certainty back in the marketplace. The market 
has doubled, and now we want to take those police back off the beat 
when Middle America is strengthening itself again?
  Mrs. EMERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I just want to add or perhaps comment to my good friend 
from Colorado that the IG said to our subcommittee that it wasn't for 
lack of resources--since we have increased that budget 163 percent over 
the last 10 years--it wasn't for lack of resources but, rather, the 
staff working within the SEC did not perform their duties properly.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Reclaiming my time, I would say resources have now 
been added, and they're performing their duties, and the stock market 
has doubled so that the people in Colorado, the moms and pops of Middle 
America, finally see their pensions growing again.
  So much wealth was lost because of what happened on Wall Street, 
whether it was out-and-out fraud like in Madoff or just recklessness. 
We can't have that anymore. That almost brought this country to its 
knees, and this cut to the SEC is just very misplaced. We can't forget 
what happened 2 years ago.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I think I now understand what 
Dr. King meant when he said that the truest measure of the person is 
not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience, but 
rather, where do you stand in times of great challenge and controversy.
  This is a time of challenge and controversy that will measure our 
truest measure as people of goodwill. I ask anyone to show me the 
empirical evidence connoting that we should reduce funds to get better 
service, to get better scrutiny, to get better cops on the beat with 
the SEC.
  Every police department in this country has some problem or has had 
some problem. No one would say let's eliminate the police department 
because it has not performed up to a standard of 100 percent. The SEC 
is not perfect but what it does is this: It oversees 38,000 entities, 
11,450 investment advisers, and these investment advisers are managing 
$33 trillion. Some things bear repeating. These investment advisers, 
11,450 of them, are managing $33 trillion. Do we really want to take 
the cops off the beat? Would we ever make such an announcement as it 
relates to any police department in this country?
  Let us stop for just a moment and take a deep breath and understand 
what is about to take place here. We are about to send a signal to 
those who would perform dastardly deeds that we are going to allow you 
to do this with impunity, not because we want you to do so, ostensibly, 
but because there will not be the deterrent in place that we know 
should exist to prevent them from doing these dastardly deeds.

                              {time}  1720

  So I'm going to ask all of my friends on both sides to stop, take a 
deep breath, and let us ask ourselves: In this time of challenging 
controversy, will we prevent the SEC from overseeing

[[Page H1131]]

the 7,600 mutual funds as they properly should, from overseeing the 
5,000 broker-dealers as they properly should, from overseeing more than 
10,000 companies as they properly should, 35,000 entities as they 
properly should?
  This is a time of challenge and controversy, and I am proud to say 
that I am going to stand for making sure that those who invest are 
properly protected. This is our time. This is a moment to stand up and 
be counted. And I hope that every investor out there will look to see 
who stood for making sure that investments are properly protected and 
that the integrity of the system is properly in place. I stand for 
doing the right thing, and the right thing is to make sure that this 
SEC has the right amount of capital in place to protect our investors 
and our investments.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 506 Offered by Mr. Holt

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise made available by this Act 
     are revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 
     Enforcement'', and increasing the amounts provided in section 
     1517(a) for transfer from the Federal Reserve to the Bureau 
     of Consumer Financial Protection for activities authorized to 
     be carried out by such Bureau under title X of the Dodd-Frank 
     Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and amounts 
     made available in section 1517(b) for obligation by such 
     Bureau during fiscal year 2011, by $63,000,000, respectively.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, the continuing resolution bill before us 
handcuffs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by setting a maximum 
level that the Federal Reserve can fund the CFPB for the fiscal year 
that we are in.
  This amendment would allow the CFPB to function as intended. As a 
result of an open process last year that included a rare House-Senate 
conference, the House passed historic reforms to the Nation's financial 
system. It included such things as providing for disassembly of large, 
failing financial institutions so taxpayers wouldn't be saddled with 
the bailout. And it did a number of other things. But I would argue 
that probably the most important thing it did was to create a Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau.
  Members of the House and the Senate, after much deliberation, 
concluded that in order for the CFPB to protect effectively American 
consumers, it must be independent. The Dodd-Frank legislation, which is 
the law of the land, is clear on this point. This new financial 
watchdog which would serve consumers in every kind of financial 
transaction where they had had no aid, no protection, no help before 
would be an independent organization, insulated from partisan fights on 
Capitol Hill, deriving its operating budget from the Federal Reserve. 
Section 1017 2(c) was very explicit on this.
  Some of the appropriators, being the appropriation animals that they 
are, may not like the fact that this is to be kept independent of 
appropriations, but it was to give this commission independence so that 
they could offer protection for the consumer.
  Now, I suppose we should applaud the ingenuity of the authors of this 
continuing resolution to get around the law of the land. Maybe we 
should applaud their sheer nerve in trying to de-fund this board.
  Less than 2 months into the 112th Congress, the majority, through 
this continuing resolution bill, is attempting to sneak through a 
provision in direct conflict with the spirit of the law, the intention 
of the law, and in direct contradiction to this intent to protect the 
consumer. It handcuffs the CFPB in order to preserve the status quo 
that benefits big banks at the expense of American consumers.
  If we've learned any lesson from the financial crisis of the last 
several years, it should be this: by protecting consumers, we can 
protect the rest of the financial system. This amendment simply would 
correct section 1517 by inserting the appropriate amount of money that 
the CFPB estimates that it will need to get the work done for the sake 
of American consumers. This amendment would ensure that the recently 
created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, when it assumes consumer 
protection authority this summer, will have the independence and will 
have the resources that it needs to begin its critical work of 
protecting consumers and, by extension, protecting the entire financial 
system of this country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The continuing resolution already cuts the IRS by over $600 million 
compared to FY10 and over $1 billion compared to the FY11 request; and 
I believe that the further cuts to the IRS enforcement division will 
ensure that the tax cheats win because there are going to be fewer 
audits, fewer investigations, fewer prosecutions, fewer convictions.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created by Dodd-Frank to 
promote fairness and transparence, but the bureau itself seems to be 
anything but transparent. The general powers, organization, and goals 
of the bureau are laid out very well in the law, but the specifics of 
how the bureau will use its powers and achieve its goals are not known. 
Moreover, the Dodd-Frank law provides $500 million a year from the 
Federal Reserve to the bureau without any input from the Congress at 
all.
  And without a doubt, I am not disagreeing that there is a strong need 
for consumer protection. I'm a mom. I believe in that very strongly. 
But just as commerce shouldn't run wild, neither should consumer 
protection. So the limitation in the bill, I believe, represents an 
adequate level. It represents the level of resources that are currently 
expended by regulatory agencies on consumer protection activities, for 
example the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which we all 
know parts of it will move into the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau.
  I believe that we should look at this a little later because, as the 
bureau-specific activities become known and the cost of those 
activities become known, then we're going to have an opportunity to 
revisit the limitation. Providing $500 million a year without any 
congressional oversight to the bureau is, I believe, a very 
irresponsible abdication of a constitutional check and balance and I 
would ask colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment and oppose 
unchecked and unbalanced bureaucracy.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I want to congratulate the 
gentlelady from Missouri for an acrobatic defense of the continuing 
resolution's treatment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 
This is not about whether government should be big or small. It's about 
which side government should be on.

                              {time}  1730

  The CR, the continuing resolution, does not save a penny from the 
deficit because the money for the CFPB, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, comes from a separate source of funding. This is 
really about hobbling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to keep 
it from getting up and running and doing its job.
  The CFPB is to put government on the side of Americans who are trying 
to make an honest living so they don't have to worry every time they 
sign a financial contract that they're going to

[[Page H1132]]

get gouged, they're going to get cheated out of their income and their 
life savings by some trick or trap, some dishonest little clause hidden 
in the fine print of the legalese written by the banks' lawyers.
  The CFPB will set rules to make sure those contracts are honest, and 
it will enforce those rules. And it has not started yet, so it's a 
little early to criticize them for not getting the job done.
  The CR, by cutting funding by half, or a little more than half, is 
really about putting government or continuing to have government, as it 
has been for most of the last decade, on the side of the financial 
predators who are not trying to make an honest living but who are 
trying to make a killing and succeeding in making a killing by cheating 
ordinary Americans with the fine print. And they cheated them on 
mortgages, on credit cards, on overdraft fees, and on and on, and every 
American knows it because just about every American has experienced it.
  Now, in talking about the FCC earlier, Ms. Waters and Mr. Green both 
used the term ``cop on Wall Street.'' They didn't attribute that 
phrase, but it's from Will Rogers.
  Back in the Great Depression, even after we learned of all the 
corruption and the fraud that had led to the collapse, the stock market 
crash, when Congress was considering legislation, a bill, a law that 
would have set rules for Wall Street and given the Securities and 
Exchange Commission the power to enforce it, the securities industry 
fought it fiercely because, as Will Rogers said, the boys on Wall 
Street don't want a cop on their block. Of course they don't want a cop 
on their block. They will make less money. They don't want a cop on 
their block now either. They don't want a CFPB now either, because if 
their contracts have to be honest, they will make less money.
  Vote to put government on the side of the Americans trying to make an 
honest living. Vote to put a cop on the Wall Street block. Vote for 
this amendment.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I just want to point out one thing. The text of the 
bill scores our limitation at $30 million for FY 2011.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. And when we saw that CBO did that, we 
decided to offset that, so we did, as the gentlewoman indicated, go to 
the IRS. And I do want to say the gentlewoman is, I guess, is being 
very responsible, the chair of the subcommittee, she is defending the 
Internal Revenue Service against the Consumer Bureau and the SEC. And 
the gentlewoman is entitled to due credit for her staunch support of 
the IRS as we try to divert funds to protect consumers and police Wall 
Street. And I am sure there are many in the Tea Party who will be very 
grateful for her staunch support for the IRS funding.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I yield back.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chairman, I rise this afternoon to oppose this 
amendment. Let me start my discussion by talking about two things: 
Number one, about the usefulness of the committee, and then about the 
funding of the committee as a whole.
  Number one, I have some grave, grave concerns with regards to the 
usefulness of the committee to begin with. As a former bank regulator 
in one of my previous careers, it's kind of astounding to me that, with 
all of the laws that are in place, we had all the problems that we did. 
We don't need more laws; we need to enforce the ones that are in place.
  And in testimony yesterday in our committee, in Financial Services, 
that was the general consensus of many, many of the folks that were 
there. And so what we're doing is trying to continue to over-regulate 
and again put in place another entity to confound and to promote some 
more regulation, exactly what we don't need in the private marketplace.
  But again, why are we having another committee to do more regulation 
when we could have the existing people do the job the right way?
  It's kind of like, to me, having a police department that doesn't do 
its job, and instead of firing everybody at the police department and 
starting over and finding some good folks who could do the job, you 
create another police department, so now we have two police departments 
to fund. And I think that's what's going on here. And this is why I'm 
very concerned about this model, this committee, this board.
  And from the standpoint of being a former examiner, this is exactly 
the wrong thing to do with regards to the mission of this committee. We 
are now putting consumer protections over the safety and soundness of 
our institutions, and that's wrong. That is absolutely the wrong model. 
We are flipping completely upside down. We are re-prioritizing the way 
our markets should work and regulatory systems should work. In my view, 
we're going in the wrong direction.
  But, with regards to the funding mechanism that's in place, this 
group, at this point, has a line of credit basically from us, and this 
CR cuts that off to a limited amount, which the chairman a minute ago 
addressed as $80 million, and we think that's adequate funding at this 
point. They are only going to use at the annual rate of about $65 
million, and this amendment intends to put $63 million back into it. I 
think that's unnecessary. It's wasteful. At a time like this when we 
need to be consolidating and finding ways to cut our dollars, we don't 
need to empower an agency that we don't need, number one, with powers 
that are not defined at this point. We don't need to be doing it. From 
the standpoint we don't even have a director in place yet, we need to 
be confining this thing so we can provide oversight over it, rather 
than giving it a blank check and unlimited powers.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman and Members, I have long been an advocate 
of consumer protections and consumer rights. And I'm proud of the work 
we accomplished in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act of 2010 to create a Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau.
  Madam Chairman, and Members, I didn't get elected to the Congress of 
the United States of America to protect big banks, banks too big to 
fail, or to protect their shoddy products, criminal schemes that are 
designed to rip off innocent citizens who go to work every day. I don't 
know how anybody can come to this floor and represent that the 
consumers, the workers, the people of this country, don't need any 
protection.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is needed because it is very 
clear that our current regulatory framework inadequately protects 
consumers. Just look at the wrongful foreclosures on our veterans which 
was exposed by reporters last month and was the subject of a Veterans 
Affairs hearing last week. You go tell those veterans that they didn't 
need that protection, that they shouldn't be protected.
  The proliferation of harmful financial products and practices went 
unchecked because our banking regulators were tasked with both consumer 
protection and bank safety and soundness responsibilities. And we've 
seen that the pro-bank, anti-consumer stance won every time. That's why 
we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to make sure that 
the consumer voices aren't shouted down by the industries, and that an 
independent agency is beholden to the consumers and not the CEOs of the 
big financial institutions.
  Opponents of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau claim we don't 
need this agency, they say, because the other banking regulators are 
already charged with consumer protection. This argument doesn't hold 
water because there are several types of consumer financial products 
which, because they were offered by nonbanks,

[[Page H1133]]

fall into what may be classified as the shadow banking industry. These 
products and institutions escape Federal regulation, yet often lead to 
Federal problems such as our current economic foreclosure crisis. The 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would bring nonbanks that offer 
financial services to and interact with consumers into our regulatory 
system.
  Another reason the CFPB is needed is to protect consumers from 
complicated products and hidden predatory fees. According to Elizabeth 
Warren, who is a special adviser to the Treasury on the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, the average credit card offer now comes 
bundled with more than 100 pages of fine print. Buried within this fine 
print are provisions about restrictions, teaser rates, and penalties. 
This fine print makes it nearly impossible for consumers to make 
informed decisions and pick the credit card or other lending product 
which is right for them. This leads some borrowers to be trapped in 
credit cards or loan products with hidden and abusive fees.

                              {time}  1740

  The CFPB would resolve this problem by working with the industry to 
reduce the fine print and hidden fees. We also need CFPB to provide 
stability to our financial markets, which is supported by consumer 
lending.
  Our current crisis began when collateralized debt obligations and 
mortgage-backed securities were packed with exotic products, which are 
known as no doc loans and liar loans. It was exacerbated as consumers 
were continually squeezed with excessive penalties and fees from bank 
products, reducing purchasing power, and leading families everywhere to 
make tough decisions.
  A strong regulator, one which focused solely on consumer safety and 
championed simpler disclosure and product, could have prevented all of 
this. We need CFPB. This kind of crisis should never occur again.
  Amendments to defund CFPB or to prevent it from doing its work will 
only hurt American consumers and, in turn, our economy. So I urge a 
``no'' vote on these amendments.
  Madam Chair and Members, I don't know how any elected any official 
could go home and talk to their constituents and tell them they want to 
limit the funding to the SEC, the cop on the Wall Street block to 
protect investors, and then add to it, ``and I don't want you to have 
any consumer protection.''
  We don't like what has been done. We're against these kinds of 
regulations. It is baffling. It is not to be understood, and I believe 
that in the final analysis this body will do the right thing.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Holt 
amendment.
  In listening to the banter that we've been hearing back and forth, 
you would think that we were trying to eliminate the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, but, in fact, what we're trying to do is limit it.
  One of the things, if you look at the history of this entity, is that 
it's the typical answer in Washington. When we have other regulators 
that aren't doing their job, the solution always is let's throw more 
regulation, more regulators, and more money at the problem.
  And so what did we do with this new bureau? Well, we said--guess 
what?--we're going to throw $700 million at this new agency. We're 
going to take $500 million out of the Fed and we're going to give them 
the ability to come and ask for another $200 million.
  Now, what is going on right now is that we don't even have a Director 
at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, yet they are standing up a 
new organization. So basically what we have from this administration is 
another czar. I don't know how many czars that they have over there, 
what the latest count is. But here we are, an agency that has the 
authority to spend millions of dollars, yet we can't even get one of 
the most egregious parts of this right.
  And it was very clever by the other side. They realized in the last 
days of the 111th Congress that there was possibly going to be a change 
in November. They tucked this entity over into the Fed, trying to be 
able to limit Congress' ability to have oversight over this 
organization. So I want to applaud the Appropriations Committee for 
figuring out a way to bring some accountability to this organization.
  Now, what is at play right now is that this entity in August received 
$18.4 million. In December they received $14.37 million. And if you 
annualize that rate, they are going to need less than $65 million, and 
yet what we're saying is Republicans want to limit that to $80 million. 
The Holt amendment wants to increase that another $63 million.
  Madam Chair, what is exactly wrong and the reason we've been having 
these hours and hours and hours of debate is the American people spoke 
very clearly last November. They are tired of Big Government. They are 
tired of government trying to make all of their decisions. And what 
this new entity is going to do is it is going to hurt consumers in that 
it is going to drive the cost of consumer credit up for many Americans. 
Some of the financial services that they have been able to enjoy, this 
new czar will have the ability to say that those new products cannot be 
offered anymore.
  So bringing this kind of accountability into this process is a very 
positive thing. It was a mistake to put this entity into the Fed to 
begin with. It's a mistake to let this administration continue to stand 
up this organization without going through the appropriate 
constitutional requirement that this person be confirmed by the United 
States Senate. It's an egregious use of the Executive power. And one of 
the things that we hope that the President will do very quickly is 
nominate someone to oversee this organization.
  Basically, we have people that haven't been nominated or confirmed by 
the Senate making very big decisions, spending millions of dollars over 
here, standing up an entity, quite honestly, that will not, in fact, do 
what a lot of the folks in this building think this entity is going to 
do, and that's provide consumer protection. What this entity is going 
to do is provide more cost to consumers.
  With that, I urge defeat of this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, I would like to inform the Chair and the 
balance of the people here that it is our intent to finish this 
amendment and Ms. McCollum's amendment, and then we'll be going to a 
vote. I thought, for information purposes, I would let everybody know 
our intent and what we would like to do.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, after 4 million foreclosures--and perhaps 
we're going to reach 7 million foreclosures--$70 million in loss of 
home value, after massive unemployment, after an enormous financial 
bailout bill that we had to do to save this economy, it's impossible 
for me to understand how it is anybody would not want to have a strong 
consumer protection provision in our law.
  How in the world, after the massive recession that we went through, 
after all the damage that has gone through to hit this economy, which 
started in the consumer sector, Madam Chair, which started because 
consumers were taken advantage of with no doc, low doc loans packaged 
into securities and then hedged by these credit default swaps which 
Warren Buffet said caused millions in financial destruction, how would 
we want to undermine consumer protection?
  The fact is consumer protection helps to make sure that we have a 
strong, sound, and safe system. And if it would have been in place, we 
would not be in this situation now. We are in this situation now for 
one reason and one reason only. It is the laissez-faire attitude that 
pervades the opposition to this fair amendment, and it should be 
passed. The Holt amendment is right.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  I would just like to make this point: My colleague from Texas said, 
well, because the old regulation wasn't working, we wanted just an 
additional regulator. That's simply untrue.

[[Page H1134]]

  What we said was this: Consumer regulation, before the passage of the 
financial reform bill, was entrusted to the bank regulators, and their 
primary mission and their primary focus was on bank protection.
  We do not create new powers so much here as take the powers that were 
vested in the Federal Reserve. Great defense of the Federal Reserve. I 
am struck by my Republican colleagues trying to defend the integrity of 
the Federal Reserve and the IRS. That's a new Republican Party. But we 
took it from the control of the currency, from the FDIC, and put them 
in a new agency whose only responsibility is consumers. It is not 
additional money and it's not any new regulation.
  Now, we do add a set of previously unregulated entities: payday 
lenders and check cashers and others in the shadow banking system. So 
there is some increase in consumer protection. But, fundamentally, we 
didn't say we want one additional regulator. We have taken regulatory 
authority from the pro-bank regulators who haven't exercised it well 
and put it in the new agency.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. ELLISON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, let's be clear about what is going 
on here. I think it is crystal clear, frankly.
  This side tends to believe in more government. This side tends to 
believe in less government.
  This side tends to believe in more control. This side tends to 
believe in less control.
  This side tends to believe in more spending. This side tends to 
believe in less spending.
  This side tends to believe in more regulation and more oppression. 
This side tends to believe in less regulation and less oppression.
  This side believes in Big Government solutions. We believe in people.
  It is pretty simple. And if you believe in Big Government solutions, 
you have to ask the question, how is it going? And the fact of the 
matter is, it is not going real well. Another 410,000 new individuals 
applying for unemployment today.
  This is a chart here that shows, Madam Chair, back before the Big 
Government folks got involved the amount of spending at the Federal 
level, down here in 2006, about $2.6 trillion. Here is where we are 
now, Madam Chair, way over on the other side. That is what Big 
Government does for you. It spends money that you don't have. Deficits, 
annual deficits, $1.4 trillion, $1.4 trillion, and $1.6 trillion in the 
last three fiscal years. So it is Big Government, the government 
picking winners and losers, and that is where we are right now.
  Well, how is it going? The free market, frankly, can't function when 
the government is picking winners and losers, and that is exactly what 
the American people have gotten over the last 2 years and 4 years, and 
certainly last year what it got last year when Congress passed the new 
Dodd-Frank bill and formalized their new political economy.
  Now, the administration's Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 
what we are talking about right here right now, charges bureaucrats to 
produce more red tape, regulations, none of which, none of which truly 
helps the consumer. They make for bigger government, that is right. But 
much like the new health care plan which prevents the American people 
from picking a health care plan that works for them, the Bureau of 
Consumer Financial Protection would simply tell American families which 
financial product is right for them, which credit card is right for 
them, which bank account is right for them, which mortgage is right for 
them, directing people in very, very specific ways.
  Now, there are real challenges within our financial system. There is 
no doubt about it. Absolutely not. But the failure of the regulators to 
do their job, as my friend from Texas said, doesn't mean that you need 
more regulators. You need the regulators to do their job, and that is 
not what the CFPB does. The CFPB has been given the authority to write 
the rules, to enforce the rules, to conduct examinations, to approve 
disclosures, and on and on and on and on. Is there anything that this 
Federal agency is not allowed to do?
  Now, the underlying bill appropriately limits the use of the funds to 
carry out and implement the CFPB. This amendment, the amendment that we 
are discussing right now, expands the mandates, expands regulation, 
expands the economic tinkering that has been handed down from this 
administration and from Democrats in Congress. So if you like this 
track, if you like Big Government and you like more spending, if you 
like a government that borrows more and spends more and taxes more and 
destroys jobs, then side with the folks who are specialists in that 
area.
  If, however, you believe that we ought to spend less at the Federal 
level, that we ought to spend within our means, that we ought to work 
as diligently as we can to create jobs and that we ought to allow more 
freedom for more Americans, more choices for more Americans, then I 
would suggest and recommend that you vote down this amendment and 
support the underlying bill.
  I yield back.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, let me just first be clear that we are not 
expanding anything in this amendment. The statute says exactly what the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is supposed to do. This amendment 
just allows the funding to enable them to do it. This is an 
appropriations bill. We are not supposed to be expanding or contracting 
anything in appropriations bill. That is what I thought. The 
Appropriations Committee is about money, not about authority, not about 
expanding or contracting authority. So I don't know what my colleague 
was talking about when he said we are expanding something if we pass 
this amendment.
  Second, there is some debate from some of my colleagues, and I could 
understand the first-term Member who got up and says I don't know why 
we have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. What I can't understand 
is why the subsequent colleague who serves on Financial Services got up 
and said the same thing, because he was on the Financial Services 
Committee and served with me when we created the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. So let me just give a little history here about why 
we have it.
  We had theoretically consumer protection as one of the objectives of 
the Federal Reserve and other Federal regulators. We had in that same 
Federal Reserve the responsibility for the safety and soundness of our 
financial institutions. Those two things obviously were in conflict 
with each other because the Federal Reserve, instead of looking out for 
the interests of consumers and protecting consumers, allowed consumers 
to get into mortgages and financial transactions that ended up 
destroying our financial system; and they did it saying, well, you 
know, this is going to add to the safety and soundness of financial 
institutions because our definition of safety and soundness is a 
financial institution which can make more and more and more money.
  So what is the solution to that? You don't do away with safety and 
soundness. We didn't do away with safety and soundness. It is important 
to protect the safety and soundness of our financial institutions. We 
continued to give that responsibility to the Federal Reserve and the 
regulators.
  But if you are going to protect consumers, you don't give the 
authority to the same entity that has disregarded the interests of 
consumers and led us to a financial services meltdown. So we took those 
consumer protection responsibilities and put them into a separate 
entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  Now, the gentleman who was a freshman here, I don't expect that he 
would have been around to understand that. You know, he just got here. 
But for my colleagues who served on the Financial Services Committee to 
get up and say, well, I don't know why we have a separate Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, they must not have been paying attention.

[[Page H1135]]

  Now, to go further over the objections of some of us, we didn't want 
to necessarily put this in the Federal Reserve; but to get it funded 
appropriately, the Federal Reserve set some fees and charged the 
industry for this agency, not the taxpayer. This is not taxpayer money, 
at least not tax dollar money. I guess at some point everything is 
taxpayer money. But this is not appropriated money. So this would come 
out of the Federal Reserve's budget, which I thought my colleagues, 
they don't like the Federal Reserve anyway, at least that is what they 
have been telling us all this time. They want to do away with the 
Federal Reserve. You would think they would want to take some of their 
money and put it into the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  All this amendment does is try to restore the funding to a level so 
that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can do what it is charged 
with doing.

                              {time}  1800

  Let's not understate or overstate that. This is an important 
amendment. Let's support the amendment and pass it.
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Holt amendment.
  I was moved to come to the floor because I was stunned that in their 
deregulatory zeal, in their ideologically driven desire to shrink the 
size of government, the Republican majority would choose to leave the 
American consumer unprotected.
  I represent a lot of American consumers and I know that they don't 
really understand derivatives. I know that they don't really understand 
the concept of systemic risk, of credit-default swaps, many of the 
difficult things that we sought to regulate in Dodd-Frank. But they 
sure do understand what it means to open up that credit card bill at 
the end of the month and see hundreds of dollars of charges that they 
didn't anticipate.
  Millions of Americans now understand what it is to have a mortgage 
blow up on them, a mortgage that if we were all honest with each other 
we would recognize none of us really understands our own mortgages. 
Millions of Americans now know what it is to see interest rates hop up 
on a mortgage and to lose their homes. Of all the things that the 
Republican majority could choose to gut, that they would choose to 
leave the American consumer to be prey to predatory practices is 
unconscionable.
  Madam Chair, we don't allow toasters that will burn your house down. 
We don't allow cars that will blow up. But evidently the Republican 
majority would allow mortgages that would blow up your house or other 
financial products that would bring an American family to its knees.
  I've heard the counterarguments. I heard the gentleman from Georgia 
stand down there and say that this is an expansion of government 
spending. What the gentleman from Georgia didn't say is that probably 
the most politically unpopular bit of spending we've seen in the last 
several years was hundreds of billions of dollars requested by a 
Republican President and a Republican Secretary of the Treasury to bail 
out the financial industry. I'll say it again. Republicans requested 
the bailout. That was a terribly expensive thing to do. The Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau will help prevent that in the future. It's 
a good investment.
  I've heard arguments about czars. I must say, I've talked to tens of 
thousands of my constituents and nobody is saying that czars are a 
problem in the United States of America today. I'm hearing a slightly 
better argument, but one that I don't accept as a former banker, that 
we are separating consumer protection from safety and soundness. As a 
former banker, I will say that those are not separate concepts, that 
when you have bank customers defaulting on their mortgages, when you 
have bank customers running up credit card debt and being subject to 
fees that they can't possibly repay, you stick a knife into the safety 
and soundness of that bank or whatever institution that we are talking 
about.
  Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HIMES. I will yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT. So you see the importance of having both of those issues 
and how there's not a hard dividing line between the two is what you're 
saying?
  Mr. HIMES. That is correct.
  Mr. GARRETT. Under the current statute, Dodd-Frank, is the CFPB 
charged with looking at something other than consumer protection? Are 
they charged with looking at safety and soundness?
  Mr. HIMES. Reclaiming my time, this country has long had a history of 
the examination of the safety and soundness of our banks. And what we 
are saying now is that we will assist and support the safety and 
soundness of our banks by keeping the customers of those banks from 
defaulting through good consumer protection.
  So I support the Holt amendment and think this is terribly, terribly 
important to American families and the safety and soundness of the 
system.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I have heard Mr. 
Price's arguments before. So I've talked to a lot of people about 
whether they really valued the freedom to be cheated on credit cards, 
to be cheated on mortgages, to be cheated on overdraft fees, and I 
found that that was not really a freedom that they valued; and, in 
fact, they didn't really believe that was the reason the financial 
industry was opposing consumer protection legislation. They thought 
that the reason the financial industry was opposing the legislation was 
so they could make more money and keep up by cheating people, which was 
not something they wanted any more than Americans a hundred years ago 
really valued the right to buy rancid beef, as the meatpackers argued a 
century ago. They were opposing pure food legislation so they could 
protect the right of people to buy rancid beef. Americans don't believe 
it.
  I asked the president of the American Bankers Association in 
committee if he could give me the names of some of the people who 
qualified for prime mortgages but got a subprime mortgage, or someone 
who really wanted to have a credit card contract that required them to 
continue to pay interest on a balance even after they had paid off the 
balance. He said that was a rhetorical question and he didn't have to 
answer it; it was just a rhetorical question.
  But I mean it. If somebody can tell me someone who qualified for a 
prime mortgage and instead asked for, wanted, chose a subprime 
mortgage, introduce them to me. If there's someone who actually wanted 
a credit card contract that required them to pay interest on the 
balance even after they paid off the balance, introduce them to me. I 
want to understand that consumer choice, because I have been assuming 
all along the reason they entered those contracts that were so hideous 
to them is they got cheated.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlelady from New 
York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the Holt 
amendment and will place in the Record an eight-page document from the 
Americans for Financial Reform. This has eight pages of State, local, 
and city organizations in support of an independent Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
  I must say that the Republicans are chipping away at the independence 
of this very important bureau. We put it in the Fed to have financial 
independence for regulation. They're putting it back under the 
appropriations system and cutting it dramatically.
  Dodd-Frank did a lot of good things, and one of them was to try to 
level the playing field for the consumer with the creation of the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. For far too long in our financial 
system and its products, any concerns about consumer protection came in 
a distant second, a third, or not at all. Now, any American who opens a 
checking or savings account,

[[Page H1136]]

anyone who takes out a student loan or a mortgage, anyone who opens a 
credit card or takes out a payday loan will have a Federal agency on 
their side to protect them. For the first time, consumer protection 
authority will be housed in one place, and the Democrats funded it. The 
Republicans are taking away that funding and that independence.
  This is a critically important amendment for the financial 
independence, security, and well-being of the consumer in our country 
and for the financial system. We are suffering through the Great 
Recession because there was no oversight. The Democrats have put in 
oversight, accountability. And the Republicans lose the vote on the 
floor, we pass it, but they're trying to win by cutting away the 
funding so they can't function, so they can't do their job, taking away 
their independence. It is outrageous. It is wrong. It is an insult to 
the American people.
  And my friends on both sides of the aisle should join Congressman 
Holt in support of his important amendment. It is important to the 
financial independence and security of the American public, and I urge 
everyone to support it.

          House GOP Targets Consumer Protection Bureau With CR

                           (By Tim Fernholz)

       When Democrats in Congress crafted last year's Dodd-Frank 
     financial regulatory overhaul, they went out of their way to 
     protect the fledgling Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
     from the financial sector and Republicans who opposed it. 
     They did so by crafting a dedicated funding stream from the 
     Federal Reserve to protect the agency's independence from the 
     whims of appropriators--or so they thought.
       A provision in the continuing resolution being debated on 
     the House floor this week would limit the CFPB's funding, 
     which could be as much as $700 million a year, to only $80 
     million for the rest of this fiscal year.
       ``They found a way around it,'' said Financial Services 
     Committee ranking member Barney Frank, D-Mass., the law's 
     namesake who managed its progress in the House. The measure 
     created several regulatory agencies and strengthened existing 
     ones while proposing restrictions on bank borrowing and 
     pernicious business practices.
       House Republicans had promised to use the appropriations 
     process to limit funding for the agencies implementing the 
     new law, which they believe imposes burdensome costs on 
     consumers and the private sector while failing to prevent 
     future crises.
       The CR includes no money for the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to 
     implement key provisions in the law; similar restrictions are 
     already in the bill being debated on the floor.
       With the bulk of the funding for the CFPB under the Fed's 
     discretion--the agency can request a further $200 million 
     from Congress if the director so chooses--Democrats thought 
     the CFPB would be safe from the whims of appropriators, but 
     language in the CR would amend the Dodd-Frank law itself.
       ``We don't normally tinker around with the Federal Reserve; 
     however, the Dodd-Frank bill did, and it opened the door,'' a 
     GOP aide said. Frank doesn't disagree: ``In fairness to 
     [Republicans], the Fed didn't independently decide to fund 
     the CFPB; we told them to.''
       Frank was skeptical about the provision's chances in the 
     Senate or in negotiations with the White House, which has 
     made the agency a priority, but worried that the issue might 
     get lost in the complex funding battle.
       ``I don't think the tea party's victory was a mandate for 
     the re-deregulation of the American financial system,'' Frank 
     said, arguing that voters are behind restrictions on the 
     financial sector. ``On all those issues, as they become 
     public, we win.''
       Among the amendments that have been proposed to the CR, one 
     would eliminate the salary of the CFPB's interim head, 
     Elizabeth Warren, and another would defund the agency 
     entirely. Warren pushed back at the agency's critics in a 
     speech on Tuesday.
       ``Politicizing the funding of bank supervision would be a 
     dangerous precedent, and it would deprive the CFPB of the 
     predictable funding it will need to examine large and 
     powerful banks consistently and to provide a level playing 
     field with their nonbank competitors,'' she said, pointing 
     out that IndyMac, a bank that failed during the 2008 crisis, 
     cost the government nearly 20 times the maximum yearly 
     funding of the CFPB.
                                  ____



                               Americans for Financial Reform,

                                              February 16th, 2011.
     Re Opposition to proposed cuts to CFPB funding under the 
         proposed CR; the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is 
         a very good value.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of Americans for 
     Financial Reform, a coalition of more than 250 national, 
     state and local organizations and its other undersigned 
     member organizations, we write in strong opposition to the 
     funding cuts for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
     (CFPB), as proposed in a controversial provision (Section 
     1517) in the Continuing Resolution to be considered on the 
     House floor today. If amendments are offered to restore 
     funding to the CFPB we urge you to support them. Also, oppose 
     any amendments, such as #528 (Carter) or #577 (Price), that 
     would further weaken the CFPB.
       The controversial provision included in the CR would 
     effectively cut the new CFPB's budget by 40 percent--from 
     $143 million to $80 million--before it even takes over its 
     job of protecting American consumers from unfair financial 
     practices.
       These proposed cuts would not subtract a dime from the 
     deficit. They would take money designated to protect American 
     consumers from financial fraud and leave it instead with the 
     already well-funded Federal Reserve system.
       That's because the CFPB's budget is a transfer from the 
     Federal Reserve Board, not an appropriation. The attempt at 
     cuts to the non-appropriated budget of a bank supervisory 
     agency is unacceptable; no other federal bank regulators have 
     their budgets manipulated in this way. In fact, while the 
     CFPB's proposed Federal Reserve transfer this year of $143 
     million is well under its proposed cap of approximately $500 
     million to be needed once it is fully staffed, it remains the 
     only bank supervisor with a capped budget. Not only is the 
     CFPB the first federal agency with only one job, protecting 
     consumers in the financial marketplace, its funding status as 
     enacted in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
     of 2010 is a very good value and already a compromise since 
     it is capped.
       Cutting its budget would prevent it from examining the 
     biggest banks for further violations of overdraft, credit 
     card and mortgage rules that they have become known for. This 
     would harm consumers. Cutting its budget would make it harder 
     for consumers who have been slammed by these same unfair 
     practices from participating in the economic recovery. 
     Cutting its budget would also harm small businesses, who have 
     not been served well by those big banks that would benefit 
     most from a CFPB budget cut.
       And finally, cutting the CFPB's budget means a return to 
     the system of inadequate financial supervision that failed 
     taxpayers, depositors, investors, homeowners and other 
     consumers. Allowing continued predatory lending to consumers 
     will inject greater risk into the financial system. That will 
     raise the threat of a repeat of the Wall Street-caused 
     financial crisis that cost Americans millions of lost jobs, 
     billions of dollars in taxpayer funded bailouts and trillions 
     of dollars in lost home values and retirement savings.
       It is absolutely essential that the House of 
     Representatives reject the politicization of bank supervision 
     as proposed in the CR. We encourage you to support any 
     amendments that may be offered on the House floor to restore 
     funding to the CFPB. With the economy still fragile, this is 
     no time to further undercut consumer confidence by defunding 
     a federal agency consumers will need to rely on to ensure 
     that their interests are protected. After the worst economic 
     crisis since the Great Crash of 1929, consumers need a full-
     sized cop on the beat.
           Sincerely,
       Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Digital 
     Democracy, Consumer Action, Consumers Union, Greenlining 
     Institute, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its 
     low-income clients), National Council of La Raza, National 
     Fair Housing Alliance, National People's Action, 
     Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, Public 
     Citizen, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
     Rights, U.S. PIRG.
       Following are the partners of Americans for Financial 
     Reform.
       All the organizations support the overall principles of AFR 
     and are working for an accountable, fair and secure financial 
     system. Not all of these organizations work on all of the 
     issues covered by the coalition or have signed on to every 
     statement.


                         National Organizations

       A New Way Forward, AARP, Accountable America, Adler and 
     Colvin, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Alliance For Justice, American 
     Family Voices, American Income Life Insurance, Americans for 
     Democratic Action, Inc.
       Americans for Fairness in Lending, American Sustainable 
     Business Council, Americans United for Change, Business for 
     Shared Prosperity, Calvert Asset Management Company, Inc., 
     Campaign for America's Future, Campaign Money, Center for 
     Digital Democracy, Center for Economic and Policy Research, 
     Center for Economic Progress.
       Center for Media and Democracy, Center for Responsible 
     Lending, Center for Justice and Democracy, Center of Concern, 
     Change to Win, Clean Yield Asset Management, Coastal 
     Enterprises Inc., Color of Change, Common Cause, 
     Communications Workers of America.
       Community Development Transportation Lending Services, 
     Community Law Center, Consumer Action, Consumer Association 
     Council, Consumers for Auto Safety and Reliability, Consumer 
     Federation of America, Consumer Watchdog, Consumers Union, 
     Corporation for Enterprise Development, CREDO.
       CTW Investment Group, Demos, Economic Policy Institute, 
     Essential Action, Green America, Greenlining Institute, Good 
     Business International, Help Is On the Way, Inc, HNMA 
     Funding, Home Actions.
       Housing Counseling Services, Information Press, Institute 
     for Global Communications, Institute for Policy Studies: 
     Global Economy Project, International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters, Institute of Women's Policy Research,

[[Page H1137]]

     Keystone Research Center, Krull & Company, Laborers' 
     International Union of North America, Lake Research Partners, 
     Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
       The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 
     MoveOn.org Political Action, NAACP, NASCAT, National 
     Association of Consumer Advocates, National Association of 
     Investment Professionals, National Association of 
     Neighborhoods, National Coalition for Asian Pacific American 
     Community Development, National Community Reinvestment 
     Coalition, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its 
     low-income clients).
       National Consumers League, National Council of La Raza, 
     National Fair Housing Alliance, National Federation of 
     Community Development Credit Unions, National Housing 
     Institute, National Housing Trust, National Housing Trust 
     Community Development Fund, National NeighborWorks 
     Association, National People's Action, National Council of 
     Womens Organizations.
       National Worksright Institute, Next Step, OMB Watch, 
     Opportunity Finance Network, Partners for the Common Good, 
     PICO, Progress Now Action, Progressive States Network, 
     Poverty and Race Research Action Council, Public Citizen.
       Responsible Endowments Coalition, Sargent Shriver Center on 
     Poverty Law, Scam Victims United, SEIU, Sojourners, State 
     Voices, Taxpayer's for Common Sense, The Association for 
     Housing and Neighborhood Development, The Carrots and Sticks 
     Project.
       The Fuel Savers Club, The Seminal, UNET, Union Plus, United 
     for a Fair Economy, U.S. PIRG, Unitarian Universalist for a 
     Just Economic Community, United Food and Commercial Workers, 
     United States Student Association, USAction.
       Veris Wealth Partners, Veterans Chamber of Commerce, We The 
     People Now, Western States Center, Woodstock Institute, 
     Working America, World Business Academy, World Privacy Forum.


                          State Organizations

       207 CCAG, 9 to 5, the National Association of Working Women 
     (CO), AARP Rhode Island, Alaska PIRG, Arizona PIRG, Arizona 
     Advocacy Network, Arizonans for Responsible Lending, Arkansas 
     Community Organizations, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, 
     Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development (NY).
       Audubon Partnership for Economic Development LDC (New York, 
     NY), Aurora NAACP, BAC Funding Consortium Inc. (Miami, FL), 
     Beech Capital Venture Corporation (Philadelphia, PA), Bell 
     Policy Center (CO), California PIRG, California Reinvestment 
     Coalition, Center for Media and Democracy, Center for NYC 
     Neighborhoods, Century Housing Corporation (Culver City, CA).
       Changer (NY), Chautauqua Home Rehabilitation and 
     Improvement Corporation (NY), Chicago Community Loan Fund 
     (Chicago, IL), Chicago Community Ventures (Chicago, IL), 
     Chicago Consumer Coalition, Citizen Potawatomi CDC (Shawnee, 
     OK), Club Change of Martin County (Florida), Coalition on 
     Homeless Housing in Ohio, Coffee Party of Pensacola, Florida, 
     Coffee Party of Union Square, New York City.
       Colorado AFL-CIO, Colorado Center on Law and Policy, 
     Colorado Immigrants Rights Coalition, Colorado PIRG, Colorado 
     Spring NAACP, Community Action of Nebraska, Community Capital 
     Development, Community Capital Fund (Bridgeport, CT), 
     Community Capital of Maryland (Baltimore, MD), Community 
     Development Financial Institution of the Tohono O'odham 
     Nation (Sells, AZ).
       Community Redevelopment Loan and Investment Fund, (Atlanta, 
     GA), Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina, 
     Community Resource Group (Fayetteville, AR), Connecticut 
     Association for Human Services, Connecticut Citizen Action 
     Group, Connecticut PIRG, Consumer Assistance Council, Cooper 
     Square Committee (New York, NY), Cooperative Fund of New 
     England (Wilmington, NC), Corporacion de Desarrollo Economico 
     de Ceiba (Ceiba, PR).
       CWA 7777 (CO), Delta Foundation, Inc. (Greenville, MS), 
     Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF) (Philadelphia, PA), Empire 
     Justice Center (NY), Enterprises, Inc., Berea KY, Fair 
     Housing Contact Service OH, Federation of Appalachian Housing 
     Enterprises, Inc. (Berea, KY), Fitness and Praise Youth 
     Development, Inc. (Baton Rouge, LA), Florida Consumer Action 
     Network.
       Florida PIRG, Forward Community Investments (Madison, WI), 
     Funding Partners for Housing Solutions (Ft. Collins, CO), 
     Georgia PIRG, Grow Iowa Foundation (Greenfield, IA), 
     Homewise, Inc. (Santa Fe, NM), Humanitas Community 
     Development Corporation, Idaho Chapter, National Association 
     of Social Workers, Idaho Community Action Network, Idaho 
     Nevada CDFI (Pocatello, ID).
       Illinois PIRG, Impact Capital (Seattle, WA), Indiana PIRG, 
     Indiana University PIRG, Information Press (CA), Iowa PIRG, 
     Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, JobStart Chautauqua, 
     Inc. (Mayville, NY), Keystone Research Center, La Casa 
     Federal Credit Union (Newark, NJ).
       Low Income Investment Fund (San Francisco, CA), Long Island 
     Housing Services NY, MaineStream Finance (Bangor, ME), 
     Maryland PIRG, Massachusetts Consumers' Coalition, 
     Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, MASSPIRG, Michigan PIRG, 
     Midland Community Development Corporation (Midland, TX).
       Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation 
     (Detroit Lakes, MN), Mile High Community Loan Fund (Denver, 
     CO), Missouri PIRG, Montana Community Development Corporation 
     (Missoula, MT), Montana PIRG, Mortgage Recovery Service 
     Center of L.A., Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy 
     Project, New Hampshire PIRG, New Jersey Community Capital 
     (Trenton, NJ), New Jersey Citizen Action.
       New Jersey PIRG, New Mexico PIRG, New York PIRG, New York 
     City AIDS Housing Network, Next Step (MN), NOAH Community 
     Development Fund, Inc. (Boston, MA), Nonprofit Finance Fund 
     (New York, NY), Nonprofits Assistance Fund (Minneapolis, MN), 
     North Carolina Association of Community Development 
     Corporations, North Carolina PIRG.
       Northern Community Investment Corporation (St. Johnsbury, 
     VT), Northside Community Development Fund (Pittsburgh, PA), 
     Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing (Columbus, OH), Ohio 
     PIRG, Oregon State PIRG, Our Oregon, PennPIRG, Piedmont 
     Housing Alliance (Charlottesville, VA).
       Rhode Island PIRG, Rights for All People, The Rocky 
     Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Rural Community Assistance 
     Corporation (West Sacramento, CA), Rural Organizing Project 
     OR, San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 
     Seattle Economic Development Fund dba Community Capital 
     Development, SEIU Local 105 (Colorado), SEIU Rhode Island, 
     Siouxland Economic Development Corporation (Sioux City, IA).
       Southern Bancorp (Arkadelphia, AR), TexPIRG, The 
     Association for Housing and Neighborhood Development, The 
     Fair Housing Council of Central New York, The Help Network, 
     The Loan Fund (Albuquerque, NM), Third Reconstruction 
     Institute (NC), V-Family, Inc., Vermont PIRG, Village Capital 
     Corporation (Cleveland, OH).
       Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Virginia Poverty Law 
     Center, War on Poverty--Florida, Washington Community Action 
     Network, WashPIRG, Westchester Residential Oppurtunities Inc. 
     NY, Wigamig Owners Loan Fund, Inc. (Lac du Flambeau, WI), 
     WISPIRG.


                               Businesses

       Blu, Bowden-Gill Environmental, Community MedPAC, 
     Diversified Env. Planning, Hayden & Craig, PLLC, The 
     Holographic Repatteming Institute at Austin, Mid City Animal 
     Hospital (Phoenix, AZ), UNET.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. DICKS. Again, I strongly rise in support of the Holt amendment. 
If you look at history, in the years around 2003 to 2005, this budget 
was cut.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. Vote for the Holt amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
on which proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 189 by Ms. Woolsey of California.
  Amendment No. 208 by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
  Amendment No. 514 by Mr. Price of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 404 by Mr. Walden of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 516 by Mr. Camp of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 195 by Mrs. Lummis of Wyoming.
  Amendment No. 165 by Mr. Carter of Texas.
  Amendment No. 204 by Mr. Scalise of Louisiana.
  Amendment No. 458 by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 506 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 189 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

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

[[Page H1138]]

                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 91, 
noes 339, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 80]

                                AYES--91

     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Capuano
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clay
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doggett
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Serrano
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--339

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Costa
     Crowley
     Giffords

                              {time}  1835

  Mr. LUJAN, Ms. HAYWORTH, Messrs. OWENS, MULVANEY, WALZ of Minnesota, 
Ms. GRANGER, Messrs. QUAYLE, COFFMAN of Colorado, and SCALISE changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. FARR, HONDA, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. GUTIERREZ, and Ms. CHU changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Chair, on rollcall vote No. 80 I inadvertently 
voted ``aye'' when I intended to vote ``nay.''


           Amendment No. 208 Offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, 
noes 175, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 81]

                               AYES--247

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     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
     Matheson
     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
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

[[Page H1139]]


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

                               NOES--175

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     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
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Coffman (CO)
     Crowley
     Dold
     Giffords
     Graves (MO)
     Higgins
     Miller, George
     Sullivan
     Turner


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1838

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 81, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 81, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 81, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


        Amendment No. 514 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 267, 
noes 159, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 82]

                               AYES--267

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--159

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hirono
     Huelskamp
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Quayle
     Renacci
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
       Amash
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Crowley
     Giffords
     LaTourette
     Stivers
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1842

  Messrs. DICKS and PALLONE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 404 Offered by Mr. Walden

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded

[[Page H1140]]

vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244, 
noes 181, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 83]

                               AYES--244

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     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
     Cuellar
     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
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     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
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--181

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     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
     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
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Crowley
     Giffords
     Kaptur
     Lewis (GA)
     Pearce
     Sires


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1845

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chair, during voting on Walden 
Amendment No. 404 to H.R. 1, I intended to vote ``yes'' in support of 
the amendment, but accidentally voted ``no'' due to the confusion of 
two-minute voting increments on a long series of amendments.


                 Amendment No. 516 Offered by Mr. Camp

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137, 
noes 292, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 84]

                               AYES--137

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Brady (TX)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Clarke (MI)
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Duffy
     Engel
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Franks (AZ)
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herger
     Higgins
     Huizenga (MI)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Matsui
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Murphy (PA)
     Nunes
     Olson
     Olver
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Petri
     Reichert
     Rivera
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Weiner
     West
     Woodall
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--292

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford

[[Page H1141]]


     Critz
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Keating
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Owens
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Rigell
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Crowley
     Farenthold
     Giffords


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1851

  Mr. LYNCH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WU, Ms. MATSUI, and Mr. BUCHANAN changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 195 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 197, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               AYES--232

     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
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--197

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Crowley
     Farenthold
     Giffords
     Walz (MN)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1854

  So the amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H1142]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 165 Offered by Mr. Carter

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250, 
noes 177, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               AYES--250

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     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
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--177

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Crowley
     Farenthold
     Giffords
     Larson (CT)
     McIntyre
     Schock


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1857

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. McINTYRE. During rollcall vote number 86 on February 17, 2011, I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''


                Amendment No. 204 Offered by Mr. Scalise

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249, 
noes 179, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 87]

                               AYES--249

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)

[[Page H1143]]


     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--179

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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Amash
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Crowley
     Farenthold
     Giffords
     Mulvaney


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1901

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


        Amendment No. 458 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 270, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 88]

                               AYES--160

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

                               NOES--270

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

     Crowley
     Farenthold
     Giffords


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1904

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

[[Page H1144]]

                 Amendment No. 506 Offered by Mr. Holt

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 265, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 89]

                               AYES--163

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

                               NOES--265

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Crowley
     Duffy
     Farenthold
     Gallegly
     Giffords


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1907

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 89, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                              {time}  1910


                Amendment No. 50 Offered by Ms. McCollum

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will 
designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Defense for sponsorship of 
     NASCAR race cars.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the staff, 
the committee staff on both the Republican and the Democratic side, and 
I would like to thank the floor staff for their patience, their hard 
work, their dedication and their help to me this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment ends tens of millions of taxpayer dollars 
being wasted on sponsorship for NASCAR race cars by the Department of 
Defense.

                              {time}  1920

  With trillion-dollar deficits, this amendment is where the rubber 
meets the road for my Republican tea party colleagues who want to cut 
wasteful spending.
  Defense Department waste is nothing new. Many Americans remember in 
the 1980s the Pentagon was spending $400 for a hammer and $600 for a 
toilet seat. Now we have the Army spending $7 million for a decal on a 
racing car. Talk about taxpayer sticker shock.
  For $7 million the Army buys a decal on a race car and a few driver 
appearances. But it's not only the Army spending millions of dollars. 
The Air Force sponsors a NASCAR race car for millions. So does the 
National Guard. Incredibly, over the past decade hundreds of millions 
of taxpayer dollars have subsidized race car owners and millionaire 
drivers in the name of military recruitment.
  Now here's the $7 million question: Does slapping a sticker on a race 
car convince a young man or a young woman to volunteer to serve our 
country in the Armed Forces? Not according to the Marine Corps.
  Fact. In 2006, the Marine Corps dropped its sponsorship of NASCAR. A 
Marine Corps spokesman said, We don't have a tracking mechanism to 
track how many people contracted because of seeing an advertisement on 
the hood of a car.
  Fact. The same year, the Coast Guard dropped a $5 million NASCAR 
deal.
  Fact. In 2008, the Navy dropped NASCAR sponsorship, saying, ``it's 
not always easy to measure a return on investment.''
  Unbelievably, that year the Navy also paid one driver, Dale 
Earnhardt,

[[Page H1145]]

Jr., the outrageous sum of $800,000 in taxpayer funds--twice the salary 
of the President of the United States--just to make public appearances.
  For all the tough budget cutters in Congress, you should know that 
the Citizens Against Government Waste has endorsed this amendment. So I 
would urge my Republican colleagues who are cutting homeless veterans, 
cutting law enforcement officers, cutting firefighters, why not cut 
some real waste and at the same time free NASCAR from its dependency on 
the American taxpayer?
  This amendment gives Members a clear choice: a vote to end wasteful 
spending or a vote to keep wasting the American people's money. I urge 
a ``yes'' vote to end the funding to NASCAR.
  I want to stress again, many parts of the military were using NASCAR 
sponsorship as part of their driver recruitment. They found that they 
could not track the success of this program, so they ended it, using 
their resources towards something that they knew that they could track, 
knew that they had something that was successful.
  So, Members, I urge you to end the taxpayer funding to NASCAR. Let's 
put the dollars to work in the Department of Defense for something they 
know is trackable and accountable.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we support the gentlewoman's efforts 
to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely and effectively. 
Our committee has always been focused on that.
  Effective recruiting is critical to the military's ability to attract 
new qualified military men and women and maintain our all-volunteer 
force. The Department of Defense uses its sponsorship of NASCAR and 
other sporting events to create awareness of the different military 
services and the unique advantages and programs that come with serving 
our Nation.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's a great public-private partnership. 
NASCAR sponsorship has proven to be a very cost-effective recruiting 
tool, with some estimates stating that for every dollar the military 
puts in NASCAR sponsorship, it gets $4 in advertising through 
television, merchandise, and other outlets. We believe the dollars are 
well spent. Thus I oppose the amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for 
yielding.
  Let's be clear: This amendment will not save one single dime. My 
colleague from Minnesota simply is misinformed. Every dime spent in 
this sponsorship program is measurable. You can measure the number of 
media impressions you have, which the U.S. Army's participation in 
NASCAR sponsorship netted it 484 million media impressions, 34 million 
of which were offered specific Army recruiting messages.
  So let's be very clear. This sponsorship is about recruiting. This 
amendment is about politics in certain districts for certain groups of 
people. But the vast majority of NASCAR fans--one out of five--have 
served or are currently serving in the U.S. military. It's a target-
rich environment for Army's recruiting message and a target-rich 
environment for military and the military message.
  So I would just urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible 
amendment that is certainly politically charged, but at the end of the 
day will not save the taxpayers one single dime.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 232 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Not more than $10,000,000,000 of the funds made 
     available by this Act may be used for United States military 
     operations in Afghanistan.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to offer this amendment along 
with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mr. Stark).
  The continuing resolution provides approximately $100 billion for 
Department of Defense operations in Afghanistan. This amendment states 
that not more than $10 billion of the funds made available by the bill 
may be used for military operations in Afghanistan. The intent is 
clear: It is time to bring U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan 
to an end and to bring our troops home. The war effort in Afghanistan 
is no longer serving its purpose of enhancing the security of the 
United States, which should be our goal.
  We were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in 
Afghanistan. It made sense to go in and destroy those bases. And we 
did. We have every right, we have every duty to destroy bases which are 
being used to plot against the United States. But the CIA tells us that 
there are now fewer than 100 al Qaeda personnel in all of the country 
of Afghanistan. Congress and the American people helped greatly reduce 
U.S. involvement in Iraq. Through the elections in 2006 and 2008 we 
forced a new direction in Iraq and helped bring thousands of troops 
home. We must now do the same in Afghanistan.
  The intent of this amendment is to reduce the funding for Afghanistan 
sufficiently to leave enough funds to provide for the safe and orderly 
withdrawal of our troops but not funding for ongoing combat operations.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) earlier today said he would 
propose an amendment to establish a blue ribbon commission to examine 
our war effort and to ask the question of how best to fight the war. 
With all due respect, that is the wrong question. The right question, 
the first question is: Why do we need to fight this war at all?

                              {time}  1930

  It is past time to admit that our legitimate purpose in Afghanistan--
to destroy al Qaeda bases--has long since been accomplished. But it is 
a fool's errand to try to remake a country that nobody since Genghis 
Khan has managed to conquer. What makes us think, what arrogance gives 
us the right to assume that we can succeed where the Mongols, the 
British, the Soviets failed? No government in Afghanistan, no 
government in Kabul, has ever been able to make its writ run in the 
entire country.
  Why have we undertaken to invent a government that is not supported 
by the majority of the people, a government that is corrupt, and try to 
impose it on this country? Afghanistan is in the middle of what is at 
this point a 35-year civil war. We have no business intervening in that 
civil war, we have no ability to win it for one side or the other, and 
we have no necessity to win it for one side or the other. This whole 
idea of counterinsurgency, that we are going to persuade the people who 
are left alive after our firepower is applied to love the government 
that we like is absurd. It will take tens of years, hundreds and 
hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of American lives, 
if it can be done at all, and we don't need to do it. It's their 
country. If they want to have a civil war, we can't stop them. We can't 
choose the rulers that they have, we don't have to like the rulers that 
they have, and we don't have to like their choices. It's not up to us.
  At this point we must recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan is both 
beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from 
attacking the United States. And if it be said that there are 
terrorists operating in Afghanistan, that may be, but it is also true 
of Yemen, Somalia and many other countries. We do not need to invade 
and conquer and occupy all those

[[Page H1146]]

countries, and Afghanistan provides no greater necessity or 
justification for military operations.
  We are debating on this floor hundreds of budget cuts--cuts that will 
grievously hurt millions of Americans--in order to reduce our 
expenditures by about $60 billion. Yet we are throwing $100 billion a 
year--plus countless lives--down a drainpipe, for no useful purpose at 
all--and with very little discussion of our purposes and of whether our 
policy matches our purposes.
  To continue so bad a policy at so high a cost is simply 
unconscionable. It is unjustifiable to sacrifice more money and more 
lives this way. I urge my colleagues to join me and Ms. Lee and Mr. 
Stark in voting to bring the U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan 
to a close. Vote for this amendment. Let's bring our troops home. Let's 
stop wasting our lives and our money and our treasure and our forces. 
Let's bring our troops home. Let's devote our resources to something 
that helps the people of this country.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to debate the issue of the war in 
Afghanistan. The fact is we're there, our soldiers are getting hurt 
every day, and too many of them are dying. So we're not going to debate 
that particular part of the war. What we're going to debate is this 
amendment. I've said in the last 3 days, a number of times, we're not 
going to do anything in this defense appropriations bill in the savings 
that would have an adverse effect on the war fighter. This amendment 
would affect the war fighter, especially those in Afghanistan.
  This $10 billion that the gentleman would leave in the fund to 
finance the operations in Afghanistan, that's already been spent. In 
the first quarter of this fiscal year, the Afghanistan operation cost 
$16 billion, and he would only leave 10, which means we're already in 
deficit of $6 billion during the first quarter of the year. What kind 
of confusion would there be in Afghanistan immediately? What would our 
troops be thinking? Where would they have to go? What would they have 
to do? What would the rules of engagement be? You can't do this to our 
soldiers, our war fighters who are in Afghanistan. Don't look at this 
amendment because of the political tone relative to feeling that we 
should be in Afghanistan or we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. The fact is 
we're there. Our soldiers are fighting. They're getting hurt. They're 
dying. The fact is we can't let them hang out there without proper 
funding.
  Now if you want to bring the troops home from Afghanistan, the truth 
is $10 billion won't even accomplish that. It will take more to bring 
everybody out of Afghanistan that we have deployed there, with the 
equipment, with the infrastructure, with the headquarters, would cost 
them much more than the $10 billion the gentleman would leave just to 
redeploy them back to the United States of America.
  This amendment does affect the war fighter. I will not support any 
part of an appropriations bill or an authorizing bill that has an 
adverse effect on those who stand to fight for America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just thank 
Congressman Nadler for his ongoing support, consistent support for 
efforts to end the war and for offering this amendment, which is really 
very straightforward.
  Mr. NADLER. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. LEE of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Thank you.
  The remarks of the gentleman from Florida were incorrect. This 
amendment limits $10 billion from this CR, enough to bring the troops 
home during the pendency of this CR. Funds that were already spent were 
appropriated from the previous CRs. So it hasn't already been spent.
  Ms. LEE of California. Reclaiming my time, let me just be clear up 
front, that our service men and women have performed with incredible 
courage and commitment in Afghanistan. They have done everything asked 
of them. But the truth is that they have been put in an impossible 
situation. In fact, this concern of ``war without end'' is why I 
opposed the resolution. I know we disagreed with that, but many of us 
agree now that we should not have this war without end continued. But I 
opposed the use of military force on September 14 because it was a 
blank check, I believed then, and it remains one now.
  There are a few things we know with certainty regarding the situation 
in Afghanistan. We know corruption persists unabated, and in many cases 
has been fueled by the U.S. occupation and influx of foreign cash. 
President Karzai has proven himself time and time again unwilling, or 
at least unable, to meaningfully root out corruption within his own 
administration. We know that the United States troop presence has 
increased from somewhere around 5,000 troops in 2002 to more than 
100,000 troops in 2011. At the same time, military and civilian 
casualties have increased at record rates. 2010, unfortunately, was the 
deadliest year in Afghanistan.
  We also know that al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan has been all but 
eliminated. The administration has been consistent in its assessment 
that there are maybe between 50 and 100 members of al Qaeda remaining 
in Afghanistan. The fact is the modern threat of terrorism can emanate 
from the tribal regions of Yemen or, yes, a hotel room in Germany. It's 
not feasible or in our national security interest to address this 
threat through a military-first, boots on the ground strategy. And we 
know, as military and foreign policy experts from across the political 
spectrum have told us repeatedly, that the situation in Afghanistan 
will not be resolved by a military solution. The United States has 
squandered more than $1.1 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Economists estimate the total direct and indirect costs of these two 
wars by their end may be a total of $6 trillion.
  No one can deny that the increasing costs of the war in Afghanistan 
are constraining our efforts to invest in job creation and jump-start 
the economy. At the same time we are fighting here in Congress to 
protect investments in education, health care, public health and 
safety, transportation, the war in Afghanistan will cost more than $100 
billion in 2011.
  Regardless of the situation in Afghanistan, the Pentagon will come 
back to us and ask for more time, more troops and more resources. If 
we're not doing so well there, they'll ask for more time, more troops, 
more resources. If we're doing well there, they will say we want more 
time, more resources and more troops.
  It's time to say enough is enough. It's time to begin the safe and 
orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors from 
Afghanistan. We should do so today. I speak today as a daughter of a 
lieutenant colonel who fought in several wars, one who knows the trauma 
and the devastation of wars on families.
  I want to just thank Congressman Nadler for his leadership and I hope 
that we all will support my legislation that I introduced today, the 
Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan Act.

                              {time}  1940

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. I rise to support the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment.
  I would like to thank them for bringing this amendment to the floor. 
I would like to thank all of them and the other Progressives in this 
House for the work that has been done in an attempt to make sense out 
of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and for all of the traveling, 
the speeches, and the organizing that has been done around this war 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, we continue to fight to bring our troops home. I know 
that there are those who would think that perhaps because they have not 
heard a lot from us that somehow we had removed ourselves from the 
struggle, but

[[Page H1147]]

that is certainly not true. We have been respectful. We have allowed 
this administration to make some commitments. The American people 
decided to give the administration the opportunity to work to bring our 
troops home, and we are still committed to that.
  This CR would provide $100 billion for military operations in 
Afghanistan. That doesn't sound as if we are trying to wind down. That 
doesn't sound as if we are ready to recognize that it is time to get 
out of Afghanistan. Why are we there?
  Unfortunately, this war has been very traumatic on our soldiers, on 
their families, and on the American public. Yes, as has been said over 
and over again, we salute our soldiers. We appreciate the sacrifices 
that they have made--and have they made sacrifices. There have been 
more suicides in this war and in the Iraq war than we have had in all 
of the wars of the United States of America. It breaks my heart to hear 
about the brain injuries and the loss of limbs that these soldiers have 
suffered.
  Why is this happening? What are we doing?
  Leon Panetta, the head of the CIA, says there are fewer than 100 al 
Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. That is more than $1 billion per al 
Qaeda operative. Again, let me reiterate: the CIA tells us there are 
fewer than 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. At the rate that 
we're going with the CR providing $100 billion for military operations, 
that is more than $1 billion per al Qaeda operative.
  Our amendment would limit the funds for military operations in 
Afghanistan to $10 billion to provide for the safe and orderly 
withdrawal of forces.
  As we stand here debating this $100 billion allocation in the CR, I 
cannot help but contrast that with the fact that our domestic agenda is 
being cut and cut and cut, not only by this CR but by the budgets, both 
from the opposite side of the aisle and from the White House. The 
homelessness is shameful in America. We have people who are wondering 
how they're going to keep their homes warm. We are cutting heating oil 
in America. The environment is taking a licking in this CR.
  At the same time that we talk about innovation and creating jobs, I 
don't see anything in this CR that will create any jobs. What I see are 
unwise expenditures such as we are witnessing with the $100 billion. 
What I see on the opposite side of the aisle is a dedicated commitment 
to getting rid of regulations that can save us money and create jobs.
  So, led by the Progressives, we stand strong in our commitment that 
this war must end. We must bring our soldiers home. It is time for us 
to concentrate on the domestic agenda. There are those who would tell 
us we are training the military in Afghanistan, that we are going to 
have Afghanistan soldiers who will be ready to take over. I don't see 
that happening.
  What is ``win''? What is ``success''? How do you define it? I haven't 
found anybody on the opposite side of the aisle who can define that.
  I would say it is time for us to have the courage to do what must be 
done. Let's support the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members that the rules 
provide that Members are not to walk between the Chair and the Member 
under recognition.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, the ongoing war in Afghanistan is, quite 
simply, the wrong war in the wrong time and in the wrong place. 
Intelligence experts agree that a terrorist threat to our Nation does 
not emanate from within the borders of the nation of Afghanistan.
  There is a very real terrorist threat to the people of this country; 
but by its very nature, it is a stateless menace. It is a menace that 
is likely to use as its base of operation wherever anarchy prevails and 
wherever the rule of law is lacking. We cannot effectively combat this 
threat by occupying one country after another after another.
  It is true that, when we occupy a country, al Qaeda and other 
terrorist operations will likely flee for other areas; but there are 
unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, plenty of areas of the world that provide 
hospitable footholds for al Qaeda, which is why a more effective 
strategy this Nation is currently also engaged in--but which to a 
certain extent is not complementary to the heavy-handed occupation 
strategy--is that of more light targeted operations and intelligence 
gathering and operations against terrorist operatives wherever they 
are. To be bogged down in one particular nation state, one that is host 
to a negligible number of al Qaeda operatives--it has been estimated 
that there are only 50 to 100 al Qaeda operatives--is simply 
counterproductive to the goal of keeping the American people safe.
  Beyond being counterproductive, Mr. Chairman, this is money that we 
can't afford. This amendment, which I strongly support, will cut $90 
billion from the occupation of Afghanistan, allowing $10 billion to be 
used to safely bring the conflict to an end and to maintain a lighter 
footprint of military operations to ensure that al Qaeda does not 
regain a stronghold within the borders of Afghanistan.
  It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that the current strategy is not working. 
The expenditures in Afghanistan currently are $100 billion. That is 
more than $1 billion per al Qaeda operative within the borders of 
Afghanistan. Most of al Qaeda's operations have moved across the border 
to Pakistan, and they have gained a foothold in Yemen. Meanwhile, we 
remain bogged down in a costly war without any clear end game that can 
be articulated by the people on the ground.
  When we enter a military scenario, it is critical to define what 
success looks like. The nation-building operation undertaken with 
regard to the occupation of Afghanistan does not have a clear outcome 
that is reachable. The situation there will not be better in 6 months 
or in a year or in 2 years or in 3 years.
  It is time to stop sending American taxpayer money that we don't have 
to a war that does not further the security interests of the American 
people. That is why I am a strong supporter of the Nadler-Lee-Stark 
amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for his remarks and for yielding.
  I just want to make one comment on what was said a moment ago by the 
gentleman from Florida. This amendment reduces funding in this CR to 
$10 billion. It should be enough to withdraw the troops. But the 
argument was made that to reduce the funding is not to support our 
troops, to rob them of the implements of doing their job. But the fact 
is that the only power that Congress has to effectuate the war-making 
power, to control whether we should be at war somewhere or another, is 
the power of the purse.
  We are not saying, by adopting this amendment, we would not be saying 
that we want our troops there with no weapons and so forth. We would be 
saying use the funds to bring the troops home. It is more supportive of 
the troops to bring them home from a war that they should not be 
fighting, that is not vital to our national security, it is more 
supportive to bring them home than it is to give them weapons to fight 
an unnecessary war in which some of them, unfortunately, will lose 
their lives.
  So I say support our troops. Bring them home. Support the country. 
Stop fighting where it doesn't make sense, and spend our military 
resources where it helps the national security of the United States, 
which is not in Afghanistan right now.
  Mr. POLIS. I would simply like to conclude that with the passage of 
the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment as part of an underlying continuing 
resolution will allow America to focus on the real stateless terrorist 
threats to our Nation by preventing us from being bogged down in one 
particular occupation in a country that has no significant al Qaeda 
presence.
  I yield back.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.

[[Page H1148]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the authors of this amendment which 
I rise to support, the Nadler and Stark and Lee amendment. I believe it 
is a starting point, for those of us who have consistently raised 
questions about where we are and making sure we follow and adhere to 
long-standing commitments to our troops and to their families that have 
served boldly and ably both in Iraq and now in Afghanistan, how we can 
orderly bring them home.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago as we continued to feel 
frustration in Iraq, I raised the question and filed legislation called 
the Day of Honor in which we would bring our troops home from Iraq and 
then, subsequently, Afghanistan and honor them throughout the Nation.
  In fact, I remember arguing with the Bush administration and raising 
the issue as to why our fallen soldiers, when they came in to Dover Air 
Force Base, did not have the honor of public view if agreed to by their 
families. I believe our troops are owed a debt of gratitude, respect 
and honor. Those who are fighting now deserve that respect and honor.
  This legislation in no way diminishes or dismisses their service or 
the blood that they have shed. But what it says is that we are now in 
the midst of a major budget crisis. And as we have seen over the last 
24 hours, we are willing to cut children and substance abuse and mental 
health and teachers and environmental protection, if you will, 
oversight, literally gut the running of the government. These soldiers 
want to come home to jobs. We have done nothing about creating jobs.
  I frankly believe this is a starting point of astute analysis as to 
what we are doing going forward. We already know that we are looking 
forward to bringing troops home and to downsizing, redeploying. We 
begin redeploying by redeploying money.
  And let me give you an example. On the floor just a few hours ago, 
there was an amendment discussed by the Transportation Committee to 
almost gut the Transportation Security Administration. Now, I chaired 
that subcommittee in the last Congress, and I serve as the ranking 
member in this Congress.
  If we had done that, it would have had a double detriment to the 
security of the homeland. Mr. Chairman, 900 positions would have been 
lost, impacting 450 airports, governing some 445,000 TSA officers. 
Maybe some of those officer positions could go to returning soldiers 
who are looking for work. In addition, it would impact the intelligence 
gathering and disseminating. It would also impact covert testing that 
goes on at passenger checkpoints, and also cargo where we have seen 
that we are still in the eye of the storm. There is no doubt that 
aviation travel is in the eye of the storm for homeland security and 
protecting the homeland.
  So while we have $100 billion set aside for a war of which we have 
already been given the direction as downsizing, redeploying, bringing 
troops home, and yet we have $100 billion.
  So I would simply say this is a time when we should come together and 
determine that we are moving to bring our troops home; that we are 
going to use smart money and work on diplomacy, getting Afghanistan to 
invest the moneys it has and building democracy and educating its 
children. We support that.
  I recall one of my early visits to Afghanistan, taking books to 
schoolchildren and the excitement of the schools way beyond Kabul where 
they were excited to receive these books, and the students were excited 
to receive and to be able to be educated. Of course, in leaving 
Afghanistan and going to Iraq, we have lost a certain momentum that had 
gathered. School girls can't even go to school. That comes through 
diplomacy and buying into a sovereign nation that believes in some 
dignity for all people.
  So I applaud the troops that are on the ground, and I applaud their 
leadership. But if we have amendments that would gut the Transportation 
Security Administration and keep us from protecting the homeland, then 
we know that we are going in the wrong direction. Support an amendment 
that reduces the amount of money to be spent for Afghanistan, to invest 
in the homeland and the security of that homeland, and promote agencies 
like the Transportation Security Administration agency that is fighting 
every day to secure the American people.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) for a colloquy.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
chairwoman.
  Without consulting with my office in any way, the General Services 
Administration took advantage of the lack of specific congressional 
direction in the stimulus bill and initiated renovation work on the 
Richard H. Poff Federal Building, a Federal building in my district, in 
Roanoke, Virginia. This renovation was funded at $51 million. However, 
the total cost for the renovations are now in excess of $65 million 
when you factor in the relocation costs for the agencies that were 
located in the Poff building.
  I have repeatedly demanded a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis from 
the GSA showing that this project is financially worthwhile, as is 
required by law. To date, I have not received such an analysis.
  It is completely unacceptable for GSA to move forward any further 
with this project until such an analysis is produced.
  I would like to request that you and the committee commit to working 
with me to demand that the GSA provide a comprehensive cost-benefit 
analysis that shows these renovations are worthwhile before any further 
funds are appropriated to renovate this Federal building.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, and please know 
that not only am I very happy to work with the gentleman on trying to 
conduct better oversight of the GSA and ensure that it does cost-
benefit analyses, but I have also had quite a similar experience in my 
hometown in Missouri of cost overruns and no type of real cost-benefit 
analysis or explanation for those cost overruns other than perhaps 
inattention to detail.
  So I am thrilled to be able to work with you and look forward to 
doing that.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have another colloquy with the 
gentleman.
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
chairwoman.
  I intended to offer an amendment that would have prevented funds from 
being used in this bill to subsidize wireless phone service in the 
underlying legislation. As you know, the Universal Service Fund 
provides Federal money to subsidize landline and cell phone service for 
low-income individuals.
  I can understand the need to ensure that low-income individuals have 
a basic telecommunications link of some sort for emergency calls. 
However, the State and local governments are the appropriate levels of 
government to provide this service.

                              {time}  2000

  Especially in a time of fiscal distress like we are currently facing, 
I do not believe it is the role of the Federal Government to be 
subsidizing cell phone service.
  Would the chairwoman commit to work with me on report language in the 
fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill addressing this issue?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for bringing this 
to our attention and commend you for

[[Page H1149]]

doing so. And we'll be happy to work with you to try to address this 
issue, particularly in report language in the FY 2012 bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair.


                 Amendment No. 214 Offered by Mr. Kline

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to--
       (1) implement, administer, or enforce the final regulations 
     on ``Program Integrity: Gainful Employment--New Programs'' 
     published by the Department of Education in the Federal 
     Register on October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66665 et seq.);
       (2) issue a final rule or otherwise implement the proposed 
     rule on ``Program Integrity: Gainful Employment'' published 
     by the Department of Education on July 26, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 
     43616 et seq.);
       (3) implement, administer, or enforce section 668.6 of 
     title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, (relating to gainful 
     employment), as amended by the final regulations published by 
     the Department of Education in the Federal Register on 
     October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66832 et seq.); or
       (4) promulgate or enforce any new regulation or rule with 
     respect to the definition or application of the term 
     ``gainful employment'' under the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, in an op-ed published in The Wall Street 
Journal, President Obama laid out his plan to conduct a comprehensive 
regulatory review to ``remove outdated regulations that stifle job 
creation and make our economy less competitive.'' I have pledged to be 
a partner in that effort. Job creation and American competitiveness are 
our top priorities. That's why I am offering an amendment to deny funds 
from being used to implement and enforce a job-destroying Department of 
Education regulation.
  More than 3 million students attend proprietary schools. These 
schools, also known as for-profit schools or career colleges, provide 
students with skills that can be applied immediately to specific jobs 
in the workforce. With more than 6 million workers unemployed for more 
than 26 weeks, proprietary schools address a critical need in today's 
economy. These schools also help address the needs of local 
communities. Proprietary institutions are nimble and easily adapt to 
the demands of an ever-changing local economy. If a community lacks 
trained nurses or qualified auto mechanics, proprietary school can 
quickly develop programs to fill those needs.
  For years, proprietary schools have served young adults, single 
parents, first-generation college students, and low-income individuals. 
They have opened doors to bright futures and strengthened our economy. 
That's why recent efforts by this administration have been so 
troubling.
  Last year, the Department of Education put forward regulations that 
will deny students access to many of these institutions. The regulation 
includes a number of provisions, including unprecedented reporting 
requirements placed solely on the backs of these proprietary schools. 
The regulation also requires schools to seek preapproval from the 
Department of Education before creating any new program, tying down in 
bureaucratic redtape the flexibility that has benefited communities and 
workers.
  The public outcry to the regulation has been resounding. More than 
90,000 public comments were sent in to the Department during the 
rulemaking process. A strong bipartisan coalition of Members of 
Congress has voiced their concerns to the administration, but those 
concerns seem to be ignored. In 2008, Congress had an opportunity to 
define ``gainful employment,'' yet it chose not to. It recognized such 
a definition would limit student choice and stifle employment. Instead, 
the administration is barreling ahead with bad policy.
  We all support transparency and accountability. We should empower 
students with good information about all institutions so they can make 
the most informed choice about their education. We should do our part 
to root out bad actors. We can do that while opposing an outright 
attack on the private sector. That's what this is: an attack on the 
private sector of education. Colleges that planned to expand their 
campuses have put those plans on hold.
  This effort will force schools to turn away students and close their 
doors. Some have already laid off workers. Capella, based in my home 
State of Minnesota, announced just yesterday they will lay off 125 
staff members. The regulation is destroying jobs today and will 
continue to do so.
  Make no mistake, this isn't just another regulation that will destroy 
jobs. This is an assault on students' ability to find an institution 
that best meets their needs.
  The President has laid out a goal to lead the world in college 
graduates in less than 10 years. This goal represents the reality that 
far too often our workers are unprepared to succeed in a highly 
competitive global economy. But we cannot lead the world if we follow 
the path this regulation would force us to take.
  Let's support our students. Let's support their right to choose a 
college that meets their needs. Let's support a strong and competitive 
workforce. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the Kline amendment, which would 
prevent the Department of Education from moving forward on a rule that 
would deny Federal financial aid to career education programs that 
leave students in too much debt and without gainful employment.
  The new gainful employment rule will hold career education employment 
programs responsible through a simple proposition: A career education 
program should only receive Federal financial assistance if, upon 
graduation, students can earn enough money to pay off the debt that 
they accrue. In short, a program is worth the Federal investment only 
if the price of the education is justified by its outcome. Isn't this 
exactly what responsible budgeting is all about?
  This rule would apply to both for-profit and nonprofit colleges, but 
the for-profit sector has mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign in 
opposition. Why? The average tuition in a for-profit college is several 
times greater than at a community college. For-profit college students 
account for only 10 to 12 percent of college students, but they receive 
23 percent of all Federal student loans and grants. Graduation rates at 
for-profit colleges are at or below 50 percent while their profit 
margins are as high as 30 percent. Twenty-five percent of for-profit 
school students default on their loans after 3 years.
  If we are going to build the workforce of the future, we need to 
increase the number of Americans with college degrees. But students 
should not have to mortgage their futures to pay for college, and they 
should be secure in knowing that when they graduate, they will have a 
degree or a credential that will help them to secure a job and to repay 
their student loans. Leaving college without a credential or with one 
that is of little value in the job market can leave students unable to 
climb out of debt. And that is what happens to far too many students 
who have been taken in by the aggressive marketing tactics of for-
profit colleges.
  Why would any college contest the idea that an education should be 
worth its price tag? Colleges are in a business to educate students, 
not simply to take their money.
  This rule will protect both students and taxpayers. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REHBERG. As chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Education, we have no objections to this amendment.
  I have often said--jokingly, of course--that the reason the Internet 
is

[[Page H1150]]

so successful in America is that the government hasn't figured out how 
to screw it up yet. Well, they are doing everything they can to screw 
up education. We can finally get an institution or a structure that is 
able to move very quickly to meet the needs of students, and this 
government is trying to create a bureaucracy to keep them from being 
successful, and it's inappropriate.
  The Department of Education is attempting to define, through a new 
regulation, what it means for someone graduating from a proprietary 
school to be gainfully employed. Wouldn't that be nice if we applied 
that same standard to our public school system around the country, that 
our students had to be gainfully employed before they received any 
money? This is a prime example of Federal overreach.
  Fear of this regulation is having a real economic impact now even 
before it goes into effect. Schools are already scaling back program 
offerings because of the threat of this ``gainful employment'' 
regulation. And if it goes final, approximately 5.4 million students 
could be shut out of higher education by 2020.
  Portions of the regulation are set to go into effect July 1, 2011, so 
it is necessary to include this language in the continuing resolution. 
Waiting for the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process will be too 
late for these schools. Business groups ranging from the National 
Restaurant Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support this as 
well as various State Chamber of Commerces. They all support the 
amendment and oppose the regulation. I hope you do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I move to strike the last word in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, in my district, after 
it invented the Internet, it turned it over to the private sector to 
grow it.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, this amendment should not be 
adopted. It should not be adopted because this amendment is designed to 
disrupt the regulatory process to determine whether or not students who 
are enrolled in some--and I say ``some''; I say this as a supporter of 
proprietary colleges and career colleges--some classes that only leave 
them in debt, don't leave them better prepared for the workforce, don't 
leave them better prepared for the career. There is substantial 
evidence that that's the case. High default rates, students not 
completing, students ending up in a lot of debt. They are doing this 
with almost 90 percent of taxpayer dollars.
  I think we have an obligation to the students and to the taxpayers. 
That's what the administration is trying to do with this regulation.
  It's been mentioned that there were 90,000 comments. 89,000 of them 
were a form letter. You would have thought that they could have varied 
them a little bit for the money they were paying to get it out, but 
they didn't. But the point is this: The administration ought to be 
allowed to complete this process because this really is about the 
future of these students.

                              {time}  2010

  Students from these schools in many instances graduate with much 
higher debt. Some of these schools, they default. In excess of 40, 45 
percent of them end up in default, and, as you know, that is not debt 
that you can discharge in a bankruptcy. So these students start out in 
big trouble if these schools are not providing the kind of educational 
atmosphere and, hopefully, the success ratio that they should. That 
should be a concern to every Member of this Congress. That should be a 
concern to the taxpayers, and it is a concern to this administration.
  If this regulation doesn't turn out, the Congress can tell them they 
can't do it. That's our power. That's the way it works. But to come in 
in the middle of the game when it's this serious with this money on the 
table, with these kinds of default rates, and some of these 
institutions and some of these classes, we're making a big mistake by 
putting our thumb on one side of the scale at this point in the 
process.
  As I've said from the time I have been on this committee as these 
schools started to grow and become more a part of our higher education, 
I have supported them. I continue to support them. Somebody just said, 
if you're going to meet the goal of college graduation, it's hard to 
believe how you're going to do it without these schools. But as we all 
know, you put 90 cents out of every dollar coming from the taxpayer on 
the street, there's always a few people who show up to pick it up 
without providing the services.
  We went through this in the HMOs back in the nineties. There were 
people who said they were becoming health care HMOs. No, they were 
really real estate companies who were trying to get a lot of people to 
enroll and hopefully they could sell them to somebody else. In this 
one, it's a question of whether or not you're offering a curriculum 
that truly benefits the students, gives them the opportunity.
  But, you know, when we see the kinds of scandals that have erupted in 
the past at some of these institutions--again, not all of them--you 
have to ask the questions: What's going on? People have paid tens of 
millions of dollars in fines because of how they have attracted 
students. When you have a business plan that's based upon attracting 
homeless people, you better make sure that there is some opportunity 
for that homeless person to thrive in that educational class other than 
just end up in debt and still homeless. That was a business plan.
  So I'm just asking for caution. I know you want to run to justice. I 
know the power of these institutions and I know the pressure that 
you're saying you have to stop this, you have to stop this. We're 
talking about a few classes within all of these institutions where 
there is a history, there may very well be a history that all the 
student got out of it was debt. This isn't about what you end up doing 
in your career over time, but it's about whether or not you got what 
you paid for and they delivered services that they promised.
  I hope that Congress will reject this amendment. Let the Department 
continue to work on the regulation, and again, if it doesn't work, if 
it doesn't make sense and is threatening schools, I suspect that we 
will all join in making sure that the regulation doesn't go into 
effect.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  Over the past year, a number of us have met with Education Secretary 
Duncan to express our serious concerns with any proposal that evaluates 
education programs based on the level of debt students are 
accumulating. Despite improvements that have been made to the rule, I 
remain concerned about the direction this rule is taking our education 
system.
  I understand and agree with those who are concerned about the high 
cost of education, but shouldn't we let students and their family 
evaluate for themselves whether the risk of carrying a high debt load 
is one they want to take on? It seems to me to be a far better use of 
our resources to be encouraging informed decisions by putting out 
accurate information to students about graduation rates, placement 
rates, and even average student debt burdens.
  The fact is career colleges are meeting a community need by educating 
and training people in specific professions like nursing. In six short 
years, we are a million nurses short in this country. If there are 
problems with a specific program, and there are many--in fact, there 
may be bad programs in this country. Let's come up with a criteria that 
actually evaluates the programs' effectiveness.
  Either way, I think it makes sense to put a halt to this rule and use 
the additional time to urge the Department to go back and put out a 
rule that will ensure students continue to have access to educational 
choice.
  I urge adoption of the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I move to strike the last word in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, which is a 
broad, sweeping measure, not only

[[Page H1151]]

against important protections for students, which I'll elaborate on, 
but it also leads to potential exposure for taxpayers and taxpayer 
money.
  This amendment would not only eliminate the ability to have the 
critical gainful employment regulation, some element of quality control 
to make sure that after receiving sometimes very expensive education 
somebody's actually more employable, but it would also undo existing 
transparency that's already approved and published, to disallow basic 
information on student outcomes, including graduation rates as well as 
loan default and payment rates.
  Now, the reason this is such an important matter to Congress is that 
this is a critical matter for taxpayers. Taxpayers have been paying the 
cost for excessive loan default rates of poorly performing for-profit 
colleges. Specifically, for-profit higher education institutions 
received $24 billion in title IV loans and Pell Grants in 2009, 
accounting for about a quarter of the Federal college loan dollars, 
despite them comprising only about 10 percent of the higher education 
institutions.
  Meanwhile, students from the for-profit colleges have loan default 
rates after 3 years about twice the rate of all college defaults and 
rising to 25 percent. Now, these are averages. That doesn't matter. 
What matters is: Does it work? Does it work for kids? Are they getting 
their money's worth? Are taxpayers getting their money's worth by 
helping people attend these institutions, or are we graduating students 
with a mountain full of debt, no more employable than the day they 
walked into that door.
  To make the matter even worse, in 2009, the average tuition of the 
for-profit institution is $14,000 per year, compared to $7,000 per year 
for average 4-year universities and $2,500 for community colleges.
  Now, again, what I would look at would be the return on investment. 
Are they providing twice the value of a 4-year or community college? 
The data says no. Are they providing six times the value of community 
colleges and making somebody employable in the future? The answer, by 
and large, again is no. That's why the Higher Education Act authorized 
the Education Department regulations that this amendment would block.
  I strongly support the process that the administration has gone 
through, including the process on the rule on gainful employment.
  The administration has not turned a deaf ear to the industry, to the 
legitimate concerns of quality operators. The first rule that they put 
out there was--I think they've acknowledged had some room for 
improvement. They've been working daily in conjunction with the 
responsible players in the for-profit education industry to establish a 
real playing field to ensure that we are not doing these students and 
taxpayers a disservice through this program. GAO has detailed the 
issues in its report last summer, and the Leadership Conference on 
Civil and Human Rights wrote to the U.S. Education Department a couple 
of weeks ago that the rule will benefit minority students, as they 
disproportionately enroll at for-profit schools, overpaying for poorer 
quality education, as compared to the public counterparts.
  The proposed rule is a reasonable way to ensure gainful employment 
for students, and I applaud the administration for taking on this 
difficult battle for minority students, to ensure basic transparency 
and to protect taxpayer funds.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kline amendment. 
It is imperative that Congress put the brakes on what has become this 
administration's culture of runaway regulation.
  Specifically, the amendment under consideration will prohibit the use 
of funds in the underlying bill for the implementation of a misguided 
regulation commonly referred to as the gainful employment rule, which 
has already led to job loss and uncertainty in the proprietary college 
sector. Moving forward, I'm concerned that that rule will jeopardize 
access to many educational and training programs that provide students 
with skills to meet the demands of an ever-changing labor market.
  In function, this rule would prohibit college programs from receiving 
Federal student loans unless new complicated loan repayment criteria 
are met. As such, the rule incentivizes institutions to pursue only 
those repayment plans which satisfy arbitrary government goals rather 
than the plans that best fit students' needs. This may be loan 
repayment; also ignoring measures of seemingly equal importance such as 
on-time graduation rates and clear placement.
  Equally troubling, under the rule, proprietary institutions would, 
sadly, be forced to navigate an additional restrictive layer of Federal 
bureaucracy, requiring Federal approval in order to offer any new 
programs. Unfortunately, this provision fails to realize what is the 
agile nature of these proprietary institutions that uniquely position 
them to help unite a properly equipped workforce with employers in 
today's uncertain job market. By unlawfully restricting the 
flexibility, we risk failure to capitalize on emergency economic 
opportunities.

                              {time}  2020

  Moreover the gainful employment rule applies almost exclusively to 
one sector of higher education, the proprietary schools which tend to 
teach job-specific skills, often to at-risk populations such as low-
income, minorities, single parents, high school dropouts with GEDs, and 
first-generation college students who do not have financial help from 
parents. Somehow there is the notion that the bad actors of the Federal 
higher education loans world is exclusively within the proprietary 
college sector. This is preposterous, but the fact is that the 
administration has chosen to discriminate against these schools. The 
fact remains, a student can graduate from any institution of higher 
education with inadequate income to repay their debts, and students 
should not suffer simply because the school that best suits their needs 
operates under a for-profit model.
  I have repeatedly asked the Department of Education to refrain from 
implementing this rule until we have clear data on the state of our 
Nation's overall higher education system. If the administration were 
serious about addressing unscrupulous recruiting practices at the 
college level, this data would be compiled and made available, and 
particularly to Members of Congress. As it stands, we have little more 
than this singular, last-minute vote to slow down the administration's 
race to squeeze the for-profit college sector out of existence.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I would like to point out a few important 
facts about the for-profit educational sector, and that is that the 
low-income students make up about half of the enrollment for for-profit 
colleges and minorities comprise about 37 percent. So this really is a 
matter of low-income and minority students facing what are high-cost 
loans for students, and often 90 percent of the money comes from the 
Federal Government.
  Now, as I listen to my friends in the Republican caucus, I would 
think that they would want the best value for the public dollar. This 
rule means that some money spent will result in the outcome that is 
sought in the beginning, which is gainful employment.
  Too many of the students who go to these schools are coming out with 
nothing other than big debt, and no education, no gainful employment at 
all. And this is a problem. And I'm surprised that we would not say 
that, look, we are going to make sure that when the Federal dollar is 
put forward, there will be value coming back for it.
  Now, I am no opponent of for-profit colleges. I think ones that are 
performing well are certainly welcomed in the market and serve a 
valuable role. But there are bad actors. And I think it's important to 
point out we have seen this movie before, Mr. Chairman. We have seen it 
when people said, Look, poor people, low-income people

[[Page H1152]]

of color need to get mortgages. And, well, you know what? Well, they 
can get subprime mortgages. Now, not all subprime mortgages were 
predatory mortgages, but some were. And enough were to be able to take 
advantage of people on a very severe scale.
  This rule, if it goes into effect, if allowed to proceed forward, 
would make sure that these students and the government get good value 
for their money, and no for-profit college that is not relying on a 
business model that bilks the consumer, the student, should object. No 
college, no for-profit college that relies on a business model that 
actually is designed to help the students they propose to help should 
object to saying, Look, we're going to deliver what we say we're going 
to deliver, which is gainful employment.
  This is no friendly thing for the poor and low-income students of 
color. This is an abuse. Not all for-profit colleges, but some. And the 
Federal Government has a responsibility to make sure that these 
students are not taken advantage of.
  By the logic of some of the proponents of this amendment, we should 
say that, look, any loan shark, pawn shop, payday lender, we ought to 
just thank them because, you know what, they serve the poor. Well, they 
had better serve the poor in a fair, scrupulous way and not take 
advantage of people in a circumstance where they are at a disadvantage.
  So I urge members to vote this amendment down and to allow the proper 
rulemaking procedure to go forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. This so-
called ``gainful employment'' regulation is another example of this big 
Federal Government run amok.
  Today, Hoosiers in Indiana, and all Americans, are free to choose 
from accredited colleges and pick the one that they believe fits their 
needs. These are accredited colleges. No one has accused them of 
unfairly serving the poor--no one rightfully has--or anyone else. They 
are accredited. They are licensed.
  The Federal Government gets involved in student loans and grants 
already, more so, I would say, than I and others would like it to. But 
at least, Mr. Chairman, we still let individuals make their own 
decisions on where to go to school.
  The new rule makes a mockery of our American tradition of free 
choice, replacing it with a bizarre program where the Federal 
Government decides what job you should seek and what school you can 
attend. Let me walk you through it.
  Under this rule, the Obama administration has proposed a plan that, 
number one, creates a matrix that examines the student loan debt to 
future income of a prospective student; then, it compares that ratio to 
the student loan repayment rates of graduates of the same program; and, 
number three, and finally, it decides if the student can have access to 
the loans they would need to attend the school or program of their 
choice.
  So for those of us listening, watching at home, what this means is, 
if you are contemplating going to school so that you can economically 
better yourself, or because you otherwise want to enrich your life, you 
just can't go to the college or school of your choosing if you need a 
government loan.
  Instead, a nameless, faceless bureaucracy using some bizarre 
arbitrary formula gets to decide whether or not you have chosen a field 
of study that will pay enough to justify the investment, in the mind of 
that particular bureaucrat. Unbelievable.
  The government and the Obama administration are now micromanaging 
this part of our lives, too. Talk about central planning, Mr. Chairman.
  To make matters worse, this new program will disproportionately hurt 
Hoosiers and other Americans who are least able to do anything about 
it: Working Americans who need new training and new skills to move 
forward in the workforce. This was what this Congress should be about.
  If this regulation becomes reality, it will immediately prevent 
400,000 people from developing new skills to benefit the workforce. By 
2020, nearly 5.4 million students will be denied the higher education 
program of their choice.
  In a global economy, we cannot compete without an educated and 
flexible workforce. This amendment will allow Americans the choice they 
deserve and the educational flexibility our Nation needs. I urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2030

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Kline-Foxx-Hastings-McCarthy amendment that would stop the Department 
of Education's proposed gainful employment regulation. Proprietary 
colleges account for only 7 percent of the higher education student 
population; yet last year 44 percent of student loan borrowers who 
defaulted within 2 years of beginning their repayment were students who 
had attended for-profit schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I know something about these private postsecondary 
schools. One could make the argument, and you will hear, oh, not all of 
the schools. Of course, not 100 percent of the schools are ripoff 
schools, but a huge majority of them are. I have experienced some of 
this firsthand.
  While I was working with poor students in South Los Angeles, we were 
trying to get them into GED classes. The recruiters would come along 
and tell them that they could get them into their schools, they could 
help them to get Pell Grants, and they could help them get a career, 
and, lo and behold, they would sign up. You would see them a few days 
later, some were going to be dental assistants and they had a little 
green jacket on and they had a little box that they carried to make it 
look as if they were carrying dental tools. But it was just a matter of 
months later when you would find sometimes the school was out of 
business. They had been going to school, there were no teachers, there 
was no equipment.
  They were ripoff schools. And I want to tell you, they make a lot of 
money. Take a look at this one school, Capella. They earned $335 
million in profits; 78 percent of that was government money.
  Now, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle will have you 
believe they want to save the government money. They want to make sure 
that they do everything to protect the government from spending the 
taxpayers' money unwisely. Something is wrong with this picture when 
they take the floor and argue for the continued ripoff of our students 
and our taxpayer money to these schools.
  Let me tell you who some of them are. Corinthian, bad reputation; 
Everest, ITT, Westwood. And, guess what? Kaplan University. Guess who 
owns Kaplan? The Washington Post. Do you think The Washington Post 
makes most of its money from the newspaper? You got another thought 
coming. Their profits and their revenue for the most part is coming 
from Kaplan University, which has been found to have done all kinds of 
things to get these students in, charging them higher prices for these 
classes. They are not getting jobs, they don't get a career, and they 
end up not only owing the government money, but they are prevented from 
having a decent quality of life because now they can't get a section 8, 
they can't get another Pell Grant, and, you know what? In many States 
they are going after Social Security money and retirement money.
  This is the next big scandal in America. You think that the meltdown 
that we just had and the foreclosures that we are experiencing across 
this country are bad. You wait until the investigations are done and 
the truth is told and the amount of money is counted from the ripoffs.
  Now, I know that this is a powerful lobby that I am working against. 
I understand that. They roam these Halls, and they have plenty of 
resources, and they put out plenty of materials. They buy full-page 
ads. They are up on television, the Joe Blow School of Computer 
Learning that has no school. I want to tell you, I understand how tough 
this is.
  But what I don't understand is how they could be joined by people who

[[Page H1153]]

claim to care about the taxpayers' money and claim that they are 
fighting to reduce government, when in fact they are supporting the 
ripoff schools that are increasing the amount of Pell Grants that we 
give to schools, who will not get any jobs or create any careers.
  This is not right. We should not have to suffer this kind of 
misrepresentation. Members of this House should be in support of 
students who want to learn. The worst thing that can happen to students 
who drop out of school, to students who haven't made it, to all of a 
sudden think that somehow they are going to get a job and get into one 
of these ripoff schools and get disappointed time and time again.
  I know what populations they are targeting. I see them. They are 
targeting the welfare mothers. They are targeting gang-bangers. They 
are targeting all kinds of people that they know are going to have a 
difficult time succeeding.
  So you keep doing this, it is going to catch up with you. I ask that 
this amendment not be supported.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the President has 
promoted a policy to have 5 million new college graduates by 2020, and 
I commend the President for that goal. However, I have to stop and 
wonder, how are we going to achieve that mission if the Department of 
Education is going to put up roadblocks such as the proposed rules for 
gainful employment?
  In reality, career college also serves many purposes for many 
different people from all walks of life. This is not an issue of black 
or white, rural or urban, young or old, or Republican or Democrat. This 
is an issue of access to opportunity.
  I represent a very rural district in Pennsylvania. Many of my 
constituents don't have access to a community college, and they live a 
significant distance from any university. Many proprietary schools have 
sprung up out of necessity. Many students in Pennsylvania choose these 
schools because of their convenience. They realize that career colleges 
offer course work of all types and work to accommodate the busy 
schedules that we all have. They realize that life does not just stop 
for 4 years so that you can go to a school. And they realize these 
institutions will give them the skills they need to enter the workforce 
and earn a decent living.
  Mr. Chairman, I have concerns that the Department of Education has 
stepped way beyond its authority and begun determination of an 
arbitrary ruling on gainful employment. I ask my colleagues to support 
this bipartisan amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment that will prohibit the use of funds by the Department of 
Education for its misguided gainful employment rule.
  Perhaps it would be helpful for the body and the public to know what 
this gainful employment is that we are talking about. Under the Higher 
Education Act, proprietary colleges and universities and career 
training programs are required to offer programs that lead to gainful 
employment in a legally recognized occupation in order to participate 
in the Federal student aid programs.
  The term ``gainful employment'' has been in the statute for over 40 
years; and during the most recent reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act, there was absolutely no debate or discussion on a need 
to further define the term.
  Now, when this originated, several of our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, and I am deeply appreciative of the chairman and my 
colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion we went about our business trying 
to understand just what kind of proposed rule it is that the Department 
is talking about and just how it is that it will impact the overall 
public.
  What this amendment would do is prohibit the use of funds for 
implementation of the draft regulation that the Department issued on 
October 29, 2010, and will prohibit the Department from promulgating or 
enforcing new regulations regarding gainful employment.
  Let me put a face on these schools, as my colleagues that are opposed 
have done.
  Perhaps some of them have never eaten at a restaurant where the 
person that prepared the food went to a proprietary institution. I 
have.
  Perhaps none of them have had physical therapy where the person 
administering it graduated from a proprietary school. I have.
  And, most importantly, I want this body to understand that of the 
eight people that had the last hands-on experiences with my mother for 
2 years, all were nurses in two different hospitals and at home, and 
all graduated from proprietary schools.

                              {time}  2040

  We all agree that both taxpayer funds and students' best interests 
should be protected in higher education. But I can tell you this: 
rushing into a blanket approach that will limit student access to 
higher education and fail to adequately address problem institutions is 
not the way to go.
  You know what we did here in this institution? What we did here for 
the people that work with us, young people that graduate from Ivy 
League schools, historically black schools, all over this place, we 
created a program that will allow them to help pay off their student 
loans. Some of us hire people at what I would not call gainful 
employment that may have graduated from institutions that I attended or 
that the President attended.
  I don't understand why the Department refuses to recognize job 
placement, professional certification, passing rates, employer 
verification, or anything else related in determining an institution's 
effectiveness. If it's unreasonable amounts of student debt that 
they're trying to address, I agree that that is a concern. Let's have a 
frank discussion on student debt. But it is not only the institutions 
that are responsible. Students, lenders, policymakers, as well as 
institutions must be part of this process and must be held accountable.
  This proposed rule is very broad and its implementation so burdensome 
that many schools will undoubtedly close. And I don't buy into that 
fallacious argument that 50 percent of these people don't graduate or 
don't go on to do this, that, or the other. In this economy in the 
United States of America, a whole lot of students are graduating from a 
whole lot of schools and are not getting jobs today. And many of these 
schools that we're attacking, unreasonably, are places where I know, at 
least in the congressional district that I'm privileged to serve, that 
many of these people have received jobs--and many of them leave the 
institutions, like the last two nurses that worked with my mom that had 
a job when they left the institution.
  This may please some of my friends in this body, and the Department 
of Education, but what will happen to the single mother looking to 
change careers who needs the flexibility of a private sector college? 
What about the first-generation college student who needs the added 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that we support this amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. If the 
Department wants to issue a rule, do a rule that actually targets the 
abuses rather than takes on a segment of the industry that may or may 
not be complicit in the kind of allegations that are there. This is 
overly broad. Let's have them go back to the drawing board and actually 
target abuses that occur, not a segment of the industry that's actually 
providing services.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Kline amendment. Although I know that career colleges play an 
important role in higher education, I cannot support this amendment 
because the scope of the prohibition is too broad and the timing

[[Page H1154]]

of this amendment prior to the release of any final regulation preempts 
the traditional regulatory process.
  Together, the amendment's comprehensive ban on the Department's 
ability to ``implement, administer, or enforce'' any current, pending, 
or future regulation of gainful employment inappropriately and 
prematurely restricts the responsibility of the administration to 
regulate institutions of higher education.
  In the many meetings I've had with career college stakeholders, each 
one of them has admitted that there are bad actors. Despite this 
uniform recognition, this amendment would tie the hands of the 
Department of Education from any effort to encourage these schools to 
improve their practices and protect their students.
  I support career colleges, yet I am resolute in my belief that the 
Federal Government has the responsibility to protect students and hold 
institutions of higher education accountable--especially those that 
access public dollars. I stand with over 50 civil rights groups, 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and student groups who 
support strong gainful employment protections for students, including 
key civil rights groups such as the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on 
Civil and Human Rights, and the Children's Defense Fund; the three HBCU 
advocacy groups--NAFEO, the United Negro College Fund, and the Thurgood 
Marshall; and key education groups such as the American Federation of 
Teachers, the NEA, and the Council for Opportunity in Education.
  Let's be clear and make no mistake. The Kline-Foxx amendment is not 
about protecting low-income minority students. If that was the case, 
then those concerns would have been expressed by not cutting Pell 
Grants for over a million students by approximately $845 per student. 
If the goal was truly to support low-income minority students, the CR 
would not have cut $200 million in institutional aid from nonprofit 
HBCUs, predominantly black colleges and universities, and Hispanic-
Serving Institutions. If the goal was truly to help low-income minority 
students, the CR would not have cut $44 million from GEAR UP and TRIO--
programs that are designed to help first-generation students prepare 
and succeed in college.
  The reality is that this amendment completely stops the Department of 
Education from any form of oversight of career colleges that educate 10 
percent of higher education students, receive approximately 24 percent 
of Federal grants and loans, and account for 48 percent of loan 
defaults.
  I say let's slow down the process. Let's stop now. Let's give the 
Department of Education an opportunity to review its work and come back 
to us with some regulations that take care of the needs of students and 
not protect just the institutions.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Kline-Foxx-McCarthy-
Hastings amendment, which would prohibit the use of funds by the 
Department of Education for the implementation of the Gainful 
Employment Act. I am concerned that if this rule is implemented, it 
will apply an unnecessary broad-brush approach to a complicated 
situation. This rule, if implemented in its proposed form, will 
effectively close high-quality programs while leaving programs of 
questionable value open. So this is not the way to deal with this 
issue.
  We all know that a college education, whenever possible, is one of 
the best paths a student can take to secure employment in a time when 
our Nation's unemployment rate is just under 10 percent. In some 
communities, it's double that. Let's not close off any meaningful job 
training programs. The Department should not forget that these programs 
serve 2.8 million, and many of them are economically disadvantaged 
minority students who will lose access to the educational opportunities 
that they cannot get elsewhere. These students are nontraditional and 
need the extra assistance offered by these flexible programs.
  Supporting this amendment is supporting access and choice. Supporting 
this amendment is supporting educational opportunities for minorities. 
A ``yes'' vote is a vote for economically disadvantaged students. Many 
of them are the first in their families to attend college. These 
students wish to have the opportunity to attend a flexible program that 
trains them to be the best they can be.

                              {time}  2050

  I urge my colleagues to understand how important this is to be able 
to provide an opportunity for these young people in many instances. One 
incident; you cannot draw national conclusions because you know one 
student that did not finish. You can pick the finest university and the 
most prestigious university in this country and you can find examples. 
Let us be serious. We need to provide opportunities for people to be 
able to have a better quality of life.
  On that note, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I join a strong coalition of Democrats and 
Republicans in urging a ``yes'' vote on the Kline-Hastings amendment. I 
do so because I believe that every student should be guaranteed the 
right of knowing that he or she is going to get a high quality 
education for every tuition dollar they spend and because every 
taxpayer should be guaranteed that not one dime of Pell Grant or 
student money goes to any school under any ownership or management that 
does not properly spend the public's money. This is a goal that I 
believe is shared universally by each speaker on each side who has 
spoken here tonight. Our difference is not over whether we should 
guarantee students and taxpayers high quality and gainful employment. 
Our difference is over how to accomplish that.
  Here is my concern about the rule that has been proposed thus far. It 
is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. To understand that, 
consider two schools. The first school successfully places 50 percent 
of its graduates in the job for which it's training people. So let's 
say it's a job in medical records technology and 50 percent of the 
students from that school are placed successfully. That school has a 
tuition that generates a rate so that 7 percent of the graduate's 
income goes to pay back their student loan. The second school 
successfully places 90 percent of its graduates in the medical records 
technology field, but its tuition generates a repayment rate of 10 
percent. So again the first school only places half of its graduates in 
the job for which it's training people and the second school places 90 
percent of its jobs for which it's training people. Under this rule, 
the first school survives and the second school is thrown out of the 
program. Let me say this again. The school with the 50 percent 
placement rate continues to get taxpayer dollars, but the school with 
the 90 percent placement rate doesn't. This doesn't make any sense and 
it is the basis for our bipartisan objection.
  What should we do? If we're going to measure gainful employment, 
let's come up with a proposal that measures gainful employment. Let's 
ask the question that when students graduate from a school, whether 
it's for-profit, nonprofit or public, whether those students in fact 
gain employment and whether that employment raises their income and, 
therefore, is gainful. Let's measure what the law actually says.
  Finally, I think there is the issue of whom should make this 
decision. As Chairman Kline pointed out, as Mr. Hastings pointed out, 
as others have, the statutory phrase ``gainful employment'' has been 
with us for a very long time. But this Congress has never chosen to 
define it. So the issue here is a separation of powers issue. Who 
should determine what gainful employment means? Should it be an 
administrative agency or should it be the duly elected representatives 
of the people? I think it should clearly be the duly elected 
representatives of the people.
  So I would urge my friends, both Democrat and Republican, to vote yes

[[Page H1155]]

for a procedure that will correct this rule, let us join together, 
Republicans and Democrats, and do a bill, work on legislation that will 
give us the kind of outcome that we should really have here.
  Now why are we doing this? We're doing it so the person with three 
jobs gets fair treatment here. You all know her. She's the person who 
works 35 or 40 hours a week on her feet, and that's a full-time job; 
she's raising children, and that's a full-time job; and she's going to 
school, and that's a full-time job. Let's not put the additional burden 
of taking away or jeopardizing the quality school that she has chosen 
for herself. Everyone in this Chamber, I believe, supports high quality 
career education. Instead of a rule that subverts that principle, let's 
write a bill that advances that principle. Let's vote ``yes'' for the 
Kline-Hastings amendment.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chair, I rise against this amendment and to express my 
strong support for the Department of Education's proposed federal 
student aid funding rules for postsecondary education programs that 
prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.
  The program includes a loan repayment rate measure to assess how 
effectively program attendees repay the student loans they borrow; debt 
to earnings measures that assess the relationship between the student 
loan debt of program completers and their earnings; and a stringent 
performance threshold for each of the three measures.
  I strongly support these ``Gainful Employment Rules'' because they 
protect students from fraud, which has adversely impacted the minority 
student population.
  These rules were a response to the Department of Education's recent 
investigation findings that some for-profit institutions were promising 
students' job placement upon completion of their programs and not 
following through on their commitment. Consequently, students who 
enrolled in these schools were unable to pay off student loans because 
they were never placed in the jobs they were promised and could not 
find employment. According to the Institute for College Access and 
Success, the student default rate at for-profit colleges is the highest 
at 25 percent in comparison to private non-profit schools at 7.6 
percent, and public schools at 10.8 percent respectively.
  Not surprisingly, nearly one in five students who attend for-profits 
default on their loans within 3 years. Students seeking an education 
are completely unaware of the dire long term implications of loan 
default including the inability to receive credit to rent an apartment; 
buy a car or home; or receive future loans for postsecondary education. 
Moreover, evidence has shown that some programs tend to overcharge 
students for an education that can be acquired at a much lower cost at 
a private non-profit or public institution.
  Despite this increased federal assistance, tuition at for-profit 
institutions continues to far outpace other schools. Attendance at a 
two-year for-profit institution costs more than five times as much as a 
community college, forcing students to take out more loans, including 
risky private loans. The percent of bachelor's degree recipients from 
for-profit institutions who carry debt in excess of $30,000 is more 
than four times that of their peers at public institutions.
  I am especially troubled by the fact that low-income and minority 
students are increasingly concentrated in for-profit institutions. 
Approximately one out of every four African-American, Latino, and low-
income students start their post-secondary education at a for-profit 
institution. According to a study by the Education Trust, for-profit 
institutions represent about 9 percent of all student enrollments, but 
16 percent of black students and 24 percent of Pell Grant recipients 
attend these schools. Four-year, for-profit institutions have an 
average graduation rate of 22 percent, while public institutions have a 
rate of 55 percent and private institutions 65 percent. For black and 
Hispanic students, the graduation rates are similarly low at for-
profits--16 percent and 28 percent, respectively--far below the rates 
for such students at public and non-profit colleges.
  In the 2008-2009 school year, the federal government invested $4.31 
billion in grant aid at for-profit institutions, quadruple what it had 
invested just a decade earlier. With this level of public investment, 
the Department of Education has a fiduciary responsibility to make sure 
that its investment is being administered correctly and that the for-
profits are delivering on the commitment they make to their students. 
The Department's ``Gainful Employment Rules'' will accomplish these 
goals, and I support their adoption.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Pence

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be made available for any purpose to Planned Parenthood 
     Federation of America, Inc. or any of the following 
     affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.:
       (1) Planned Parenthood Southeast in Atlanta, Georgia.
       (2) Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest in Seattle, 
     Washington.
       (3) Planned Parenthood Arizona in Phoenix, Arizona.
       (4) Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma in 
     Tulsa, Oklahoma.
       (5) Planned Parenthood of Greater Memphis Region in 
     Memphis, Tennessee.
       (6) Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in 
     Sacramento, California.
       (7) Planned Parenthood Los Angeles in Los Angeles, 
     California.
       (8) Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in San Jose, California.
       (9) Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties, 
     Inc. in Orange, California.
       (10) Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley, 
     Inc. in Pasadena, California.
       (11) Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest in San 
     Diego, California.
       (12) Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura & San 
     Luis Obispo Counties in Santa Barbara, California.
       (13) Planned Parenthood: Shasta-Diablo in Concord, 
     California.
       (14) Six Rivers Planned Parenthood in Eureka, California.
       (15) Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains in Denver, 
     Colorado.
       (16) Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, Inc. in 
     New Haven, Connecticut.
       (17) Planned Parenthood of Delaware in Wilmington, 
     Delaware.
       (18) Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., 
     Inc. in Washington, District of Columbia.
       (19) Florida Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates 
     in Sarasota, Florida.
       (20) Planned Parenthood of Collier County in Naples, 
     Florida.
       (21) Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, Inc. in 
     Orlando, Florida.
       (22) Planned Parenthood of North Florida in Jacksonville, 
     Florida.
       (23) Planned Parenthood of South Florida and the Treasure 
     Coast, Inc. in West Palm Beach, Florida.
       (24) Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, 
     Inc. in Sarasota, Florida.
       (25) Planned Parenthood of Hawaii in Honolulu, Hawaii.
       (26) Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North 
     Idaho in Yakima, Washington.
       (27) Planned Parenthood of Illinois in Chicago, Illinois.
       (28) Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region in St. 
     Louis, Missouri.
       (29) Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. in Indianapolis, 
     Indiana.
       (30) Iowa Planned Parenthood Affiliate League in Des 
     Moines, Iowa.
       (31) Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa in Cedar 
     Rapids, Iowa.
       (32) Planned Parenthood of the Heartland in Des Moines, 
     Iowa.
       (33) Planned Parenthood of Southeast Iowa in Burlington, 
     Iowa.
       (34) Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri in 
     Overland Park, Kansas.
       (35) Planned Parenthood of Kentucky, Inc. in Louisville, 
     Kentucky.
       (36) Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region in 
     Cincinnati, Ohio.
       (37) Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Inc. in Houston, Texas.
       (38) Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in 
     Williston, Vermont.
       (39) Planned Parenthood of Maryland, Inc. in Baltimore, 
     Maryland.
       (40) Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts in Boston, 
     Massachusetts.
       (41) Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan in Lansing, 
     Michigan.
       (42) Planned Parenthood of West and Northern Michigan in 
     Grand Rapids, Michigan.
       (43) Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan in Ann 
     Arbor, Michigan.
       (44) Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan in 
     Kalamazoo, Michigan.
       (45) Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South 
     Dakota in St. Paul, Minnesota.
       (46) Planned Parenthood of Southwest Missouri in St. Louis, 
     Missouri.
       (47) Tri-Rivers Planned Parenthood in Rolla, Missouri.
       (48) Planned Parenthood of Montana, Inc. in Billings, 
     Montana.
       (49) Planned Parenthood of the Heartland in Omaha, 
     Nebraska.
       (50) Planned Parenthood Affiliates of New Jersey in 
     Trenton, New Jersey.

[[Page H1156]]

       (51) Planned Parenthood Association of the Mercer Area in 
     Trenton, New Jersey.
       (52) Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey in 
     Shrewsbury, New Jersey.
       (53) Planned Parenthood of Greater Northern New Jersey, 
     Inc. in Morristown, New Jersey.
       (54) Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan New Jersey in 
     Newark, New Jersey.
       (55) Planned Parenthood of Southern New Jersey in Camden, 
     New Jersey.
       (56) Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, Inc. in Albuquerque, 
     New Mexico.
       (57) Family Planning Advocates of New York State in Albany, 
     New York.
       (58) Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic, Inc. in Hawthorne, 
     New York.
       (59) Planned Parenthood Mohawk Hudson in Utica, New York.
       (60) Planned Parenthood of Mid-Hudson Valley, Inc. in 
     Poughkeepsie, New York.
       (61) Planned Parenthood of Nassau County, Inc. in 
     Hempstead, New York.
       (62) Planned Parenthood of New York City, Inc. in New York, 
     New York.
       (63) Planned Parenthood of the North Country New York, Inc. 
     in Watertown, New York.
       (64) Planned Parenthood of South Central New York, Inc. in 
     Oneonta, New York.
       (65) Planned Parenthood of the Rochester/Syracuse Region in 
     Rochester, New York.
       (66) Planned Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes in 
     Ithaca, New York.
       (67) Planned Parenthood of Western New York, Inc. in 
     Buffalo, New York.
       (68) Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood, Inc. in Albany, New 
     York.
       (69) Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Inc. in Raleigh, 
     North Carolina.
       (70) Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina in Chapel 
     Hill, North Carolina.
       (71) Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio in Columbus, 
     Ohio.
       (72) Planned Parenthood of Central Ohio, Inc. in Columbus, 
     Ohio.
       (73) Planned Parenthood of Northeast Ohio in Akron, Ohio.
       (74) Planned Parenthood of Northwest Ohio in Toledo, Ohio.
       (75) Planned Parenthood of Southeast Ohio in Athens, Ohio.
       (76) Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, Inc. in 
     Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
       (77) Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon in Eugene, 
     Oregon.
       (78) Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon in Eugene, 
     Oregon.
       (79) Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette in Portland, 
     Oregon.
       (80) Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates in 
     Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
       (81) Planned Parenthood Association of Bucks County in 
     Warminster, Pennsylvania.
       (82) Planned Parenthood of Central Pennsylvania, Inc. in 
     York, Pennsylvania.
       (83) Planned Parenthood of Northeast and Mid-Penn in 
     Trexlertown, Pennsylvania.
       (84) Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania in 
     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
       (85) Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania in 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
       (86) Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee, Inc. 
     in Nashville, Tennessee.
       (87) Texas Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates in 
     Austin, Texas.
       (88) Planned Parenthood Association of Cameron & Willacy 
     Counties, Inc. in Brownsville, Texas.
       (89) Planned Parenthood Association of Hidalgo County, Inc. 
     in McAllen, Texas.
       (90) Planned Parenthood Association of Lubbock, Inc. in 
     Lubbock, Texas.
       (91) Planned Parenthood of Central Texas, Inc. in Waco, 
     Texas.
       (92) Planned Parenthood of North Texas, Inc. in Dallas, 
     Texas.
       (93) Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region in 
     Austin, Texas.
       (94) Planned Parenthood of West Texas, Inc. in Odessa, 
     Texas.
       (95) Planned Parenthood Trust of San Antonio and South 
     Central Texas in San Antonio, Texas.
       (96) Planned Parenthood Association of Utah in Salt Lake 
     City, Utah.
       (97) Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia in 
     Charlottesville, Virginia.
       (98) Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia, Inc. in 
     Hampton, Virginia.
       (99) Virginia League for Planned Parenthood in Richmond, 
     Virginia.
       (100) Planned Parenthood Public Policy Network of 
     Washington in Seattle, Washington.
       (101) Mt. Baker Planned Parenthood in Bellingham, 
     Washington.
       (102) Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. in Milwaukee, 
     Wisconsin.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that ending an innocent human life 
is morally wrong. But I rise tonight because I also believe it's 
morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life 
Americans and use it to fund organizations that provide and promote 
abortion--like Planned Parenthood of America. The American people 
deserve to know that Planned Parenthood is not only the largest 
abortion provider in America, Planned Parenthood is also the largest 
recipient of taxpayer funding under title X.
  According to their latest annual report, Planned Parenthood received 
more than $363 million in taxpayer money while boasting of having 
performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions during the same period.
  The amendment that I bring to the floor tonight would deny any and 
all funding to Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its 
affiliates for the rest of the fiscal year. But let me be clear. This 
amendment would not cut funding for health services. It would simply 
block those funds already in the bill from subsidizing America's 
largest abortion provider.
  Now I am aware that title X family planning funds are eliminated in 
this bill. But eliminating title X funding has never been my goal. I 
support the important work of title X clinics across the country. The 
reality is that Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of 
taxpayer dollars from Federal funding sources other than title X, and 
our effort tonight is specifically to focus on denying any and all 
Federal funding to the largest abortion provider in America.
  The reasons for doing so are many. The case for defunding Planned 
Parenthood has made headlines for years. In 2002, Planned Parenthood 
was found civilly liable in Arizona for failure to report statutory 
rape. Since that time, Planned Parenthood affiliates have been found 
violating reporting laws in Indiana and California, and found to have 
violated statutory reporting laws in places like Ohio. Recently in 
California, Washington, New Jersey and New York, Planned Parenthood 
clinics have been accused of fraudulent accounting over billing 
practices. And, of course, last week as the Nation watched in horror, 
new undercover videos were released that showed Planned Parenthood 
employees in multiple States apparently willing to aid human sex 
traffickers by coaching them on how to falsify documents to secure 
secret abortions for underage prostitutes. As the father of two teenage 
daughters, there are not words strong enough to portray my contempt for 
this pattern of fraud and abuse against young women by Planned 
Parenthood, and that's what brings us here today.
  Now I know that some consider this amendment to be something of a war 
on Planned Parenthood. But this is not about Planned Parenthood's right 
to be in the abortion business. Sadly, abortion on demand is legal in 
America. This is about who pays for it. Nobody is saying that Planned 
Parenthood can't be the leading advocate of abortion on demand in 
America, but why do I have to pay for it? Nobody is saying that Planned 
Parenthood can't continue to be the largest abortion provider in 
America. But why do tens of millions of pro-life American taxpayers 
have to pay for it?

                              {time}  2100

  Let me be clear as I come to the floor.
  I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the ash heap of 
history, when we move past the broken hearts and the broken lives of 
the past 38 years. But as this debate rages on, I call on my colleagues 
in both parties:
  Let's at least respect what has been the historic and overwhelming 
consensus of the American people: that we ought not use their taxpayer 
dollars to provide or promote abortion at home and abroad. Let's end 
taxpayer support for abortion providers, specifically Planned 
Parenthood, once and for all.
  I urge my colleagues to take a stand for taxpayers and to take a 
stand for life, to take a stand against a pattern of corruption, and to 
take a stand for young women in crisis pregnancies, who deserve access 
to unbiased and compassionate health care services.
  Let's end the taxpayer support of Planned Parenthood. The Pence 
amendment's purpose is to do simply that and, in so doing, to stand 
with the American people, to stand with the American taxpayer, and to 
stand without apology for the sanctity of human life.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. We were told by our Republican colleagues that they were 
here to create jobs, to turn the economy around, and to reduce the 
deficit,

[[Page H1157]]

but here they go again--spending time on an extreme, divisive social 
agenda.
  Mr. Chairman, in a breathtaking and radical step, the Republican 
majority has already proposed to eliminate title X funding, which has 
connected millions of American women to health care since 1970. Now 
this amendment by the Congressman from Indiana continues the same 
pattern of contempt for women's health and basic rights. With this 
amendment, my colleague is trying to specifically exclude one provider 
of legal health services, Planned Parenthood, from Federal funds. This 
amendment has nothing to do with the deficit. It is an attack by one 
Congressman on one organization, and it needlessly puts the lives of 
American women in danger.
  Planned Parenthood carries out millions of preventative and primary 
care services every year. This includes immunizations and routine 
gynecological exams. This includes nearly 1 million screenings for 
cervical cancer, identifying more than 90,000 women who are at risk for 
cervical cancer. Every year, cervical cancer kills 4,000 women. If you 
can identify the risk early on, then you can save a woman's life. 
Planned Parenthood cares for more than 3 million American men and women 
every year.
  In my State of Connecticut, more than 62,000 men and women benefit 
from health care at Planned Parenthood clinics. Over 70 percent of 
those patients have a family income of less than $16,245 a year. In 
other words, this is the only way they can afford care. In fact, 6 of 
every 10 women who seek care at a title X-funded center like Planned 
Parenthood consider it their main source of medical care.
  The vital preventative care and family planning services supported by 
title X save money and save lives. For every dollar invested in title 
X, taxpayers save just under $4. But under the guise of budget cutting, 
the new majority is launching an assault on title X and endangering 
women's health. Understand their purpose. Understand it clearly: to 
impose their traditional view of a woman's role.
  This legislation is not about the Federal funding of abortion. 
Federal funds, including title X, are already banned from going towards 
abortion services under the Hyde amendment. Rather, much like the 
repeal of health care reform, this is part of a Republican agenda to 
force women back into traditional roles with limited opportunities.
  This amendment will cause more than 3 million people to lose access 
to basic primary and preventative health care. I am a cancer survivor. 
I am a cancer survivor who is only here because my cancer was found at 
stage 1. I can tell you that losing access to screening will cost lives 
and will kill women in this country.
  It comes down to this: The proposals to eliminate title X and to 
defund Planned Parenthood are bad policies that hurt women and do 
nothing for our economy. In fact, it costs money.
  This Republican Congress is trying to turn back the clock on women's 
health and to turn back the clock on women's basic rights. They are 
taking us back to a day when family planning was not a given 
opportunity for women. Instead of making it harder for women to get 
health care, we should be standing up for these vital services. I 
encourage and urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Capito). The gentlewoman from Ohio is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Every day, Americans sit at their kitchen tables, and 
they do a number of things, including trying to figure out how to 
stretch that dollar and how to stop unnecessary spending. And they are 
asking us in Congress to do the same. I look at this room as our 
kitchen table.
  Over the last week, we have debated that issue: How do we stretch the 
American tax-paying dollar?
  Tonight, Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Pence amendment 
because it ensures that our precious tax dollars will no longer go to a 
group whose main purpose is to provide abortions.
  Make no mistake: Planned Parenthood is our Nation's largest abortion 
provider. It receives one-third of its $1.1 billion from tax-paying 
Americans. For the sake of abortion, Planned Parenthood holds itself 
above the law, ignoring mandatory reporting requirements, skirting 
parental consent, and aiding and abetting child sex-trafficking.
  Madam Chair, this hurts young girls in the process.
  Four years of investigations show 17 Planned Parenthood clinics in 10 
different States facilitating the sexual exploitation of women. In 
2008, the Mona Lisa Project showed 10 Planned Parenthood clinics in 
California, Indiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Alabama, and Wisconsin 
ignoring mandatory reporting laws and finding ways to skirt parental 
consent laws, covering up sexual abuse so girls can get secret 
abortions.
  I only wish this weren't true, but in my own hometown of Cincinnati, 
Ohio, twice Cincinnati Planned Parenthood did just that. In one case, 
it was a father who brought his daughter to the abortion clinic. When 
she was taken into the room, she told the abortion provider it was he 
who raped her.
  They did nothing. He is now in jail.
  We have an ongoing case right now of a coach who took a young girl to 
the clinic, and said, I'm her guardian. When later the parents took her 
to the doctor and the doctor asked--When did she have this abortion?--
the parents were shocked.
  He is now on trial.
  So this isn't something that is out there of ``a wish come maybe.'' 
This is something that actually happened in my own city.
  In 2011, seven Planned Parenthood clinics in New Jersey, Virginia, 
New York, and Washington, D.C., aided and abetted the sexual 
trafficking of children, helping actors posing as a pimp and a 
prostitute to ``manage'' an underage sex ring to get secret abortions, 
contraceptives, and STD testing to keep their commercial child rape 
business ``safe.''
  Planned Parenthood called the behavior of a Richmond counselor, who 
coached the pimp and the prostitute on how to use judicial bypass to 
get secret abortions for their underage sex slaves, ``professional.''
  Like former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson says, ``It's not 
a training problem; it's an ideology problem.''
  Now, Planned Parenthood will tell you they are trying to prevent 
abortions, but last year alone, they performed 324,008 abortions and 
prevented 283,000. One in 10 Planned Parenthood clients receives an 
abortion. They are the largest provider of abortions in America.
  America's taxpayers are asking us to be wise with their dollars. When 
you ask the question--should we be paying for abortions?--American 
taxpayers say ``no.''
  Should we be providing America's largest abortion provider taxpayer 
funding to help keep its lights on so that on one side it can provide 
family planning services and on the other side provide abortions?
  I believe the folks at the kitchen table in America are saying 
``no.''

                              {time}  2110

  Tonight in this Chamber, at America's kitchen table, I am asking our 
Members to say no to this practice and support the Pence amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment. Our constituents sent us here to create jobs. Instead, the 
majority is pushing an extreme right-wing agenda to limit women's 
health.
  In the course of considering the underlying bill that eliminates the 
Federal family planning program, a Member of the majority--in fact, 
another gentleman from Indiana--proposed providing birth control to 
horses. And now we are considering an amendment attacking Planned 
Parenthood, which has provided health services to one in five American 
women. So it seems to me that Republicans believe that horses should 
have family planning, but women should not.
  I strongly urge those who support this affront to women's health to 
clearly explain to their constituents that

[[Page H1158]]

they want to make it harder to access pap tests, breast exams, routine 
gynecological examinations, flu vaccinations, smoking cessation 
services, cholesterol screening, contraceptives, and all of the other 
services that Planned Parenthood provides.
  My friends, this is not about abortion. Federal law prohibits Federal 
dollars from being spent on abortion. This amendment is about denying 
women access to basic health services. I oppose this amendment because 
we should be focusing on creating jobs and protecting women's health.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence) for bringing forth this tremendous amendment this evening for us 
to consider. I am grateful for his willingness to bring this forward 
because this is a concerning issue for so many Americans, concerning on 
so many issues, and concerning for people as well who are concerned 
about the use of tax funds.
  There is an article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal in 2008 
that was a fairly deep expose' of Planned Parenthood and what Planned 
Parenthood was doing with their money. I would like to quote from that 
article:
  Flush with cash, Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide are 
aggressively expanding their reach, seeking to woo more affluent 
patients with a network of suburban clinics and huge new health centers 
that project a decidedly upscale image.
  Executives say they are rebranding their clinics to appeal to women 
of means, a move that opens new avenues for boosting revenue, and they 
hope new political clout. Two elegant new health centers have been 
built, and at least five more are on the way; the Planned Parenthood 
facility in Denver, Colorado, is 52,000 square feet. They feature 
touches such as muted lighting, hardwood floors, and airy waiting rooms 
in colors selected by marketing experts.
  Planned Parenthood has also opened more than two dozen quick-service 
``express centers,'' many in suburban shopping malls, including my home 
State of Minnesota. Some Planned Parenthoods sell jewelry. Some sell 
candles, books, and T-shirts right next to the contraception. It is ``a 
new branding,'' says the president, Leslie Durgin, senior vice 
president at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.
  Planned Parenthood is the Nation's largest abortion provider. They 
reported a record $1 billion in annual revenues. One-third of that 
comes from the Federal and State grants that we are discussing this 
evening.
  And the nonprofit ended their year with a surplus of $115 million, or 
a third of the grants that they received from government, and with net 
assets of nearly $1 billion. In 2008, Planned Parenthood had 882 
clinics nationwide. One of their competitors--and they do have 
independent, for-profit competitors--said Planned Parenthood is ``not 
unlike other big national chains. They put local, independent 
businesses in a tough situation.''
  Even as the total number of abortions in the United States has 
dropped, the number performed by Planned Parenthood has grown to nearly 
290,000 a year. In 2005, Planned Parenthood accounted for one in every 
five abortions, and they are pushing to increase their market share.
  The president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains also said 
she has encouraged more Planned Parenthood clinics to offer abortions. 
Sarah Stoesz, who heads the Planned Parenthood operation in my State of 
Minnesota, said she recently opened ``three express centers in wealthy 
Minnesota suburbs, in shopping centers and malls, places where women 
are already doing their grocery shopping, picking up their Starbucks, 
living their daily lives.''
  And stopping off for an abortion.
  ``I like to think of it as the LensCrafters of family planning,'' 
Steve Trombley, the top executive in Illinois, said as he toured an 
express center a few doors down from a hair salon and a Japanese 
restaurant in the well-to-do suburb of Schaumburg, Illinois.
  The strategy draws new patients and money. In Illinois, Planned 
Parenthood officials say they take a loss of nearly $1 a packet on 
birth-control pills that go to poor women under Title X. However, they 
make nearly $22 on each month of pills sold to an adult who can afford 
to pay full price out of pocket. And the majority of woman who stop by 
the new Planned Parenthood in Schaumburg are in that group of affluent 
women.
  In 2008, Planned Parenthood's political action arm planned to raise 
$10 million to influence the fall campaigns. Under Federal tax law, the 
health care wing of Planned Parenthood can't support political 
candidates, but they can mobilize voters and they can advocate on 
issues like abortion rights and sex education in schools, all paid with 
Federal grants.
  To encourage the new wave of patients to join the cause, an express 
center in Parker, Illinois, sells political buttons next to the condoms 
and sets out invitations for political activism by the magazine rack. 
The center opening in Denver in 2008 uses 20 percent of their space for 
health care; 40 percent of their space they use for meetings, including 
political work.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to my friend in the well, the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman.
  In Portland, Oregon, a planned 40,000-square-foot headquarters will 
include space for candidate forums and phone banks, as well as a 
clinic. Again, all paid for with an additional subsidy from the Federal 
and State taxpayer. Mr. Greenberg said donors were initially skeptical 
about the size and the $16.5 million cost, but eventually they came 
around because the building becomes ``a symbol for our outreach and a 
symbol for our community activism.''
  Madam Chair, it is clear after extensive study and review by this 
Wall Street Journal what we are seeing today is that Planned Parenthood 
is focused on political activity, and they are focused on becoming big 
business. When you have the executive director of Planned Parenthood in 
Illinois saying they want to become the LensCrafters of big abortion, I 
think we should listen to them. If they want to become the 
LensCrafters, then let them become the LensCrafters.
  As my colleague, Mr. Pence, said, abortion is legal today in the 
United States, but the taxpayers shouldn't have to support it. And if 
they want to become the LensCrafters, Planned Parenthood, a billion-
dollar organization, should lose the $300 million they receive in 
Federal grants, and they should also have their tax-exempt status 
seriously studied by the Internal Revenue Service. If they are 
competing with for-profit businesses and putting them out of business, 
then Planned Parenthood has no business holding a nonprofit status that 
benefits that organization.
  On any number of levels, Madam Chair, this year, more than any other 
year, we need to completely defund Planned Parenthood and begin a 
process to end the tax-exempt status of this now profit-seeking, 
political-seeking organization.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2120

  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LEE. I rise in opposition to the Pence amendment and the war on 
women throughout this bill. And to the gentleman from Indiana, just 
take a look at what is being proposed and why I call it a war on women.
  First, the elimination of funding for lifesaving family planning 
programs funded by title X which help provide a range of critical 
services, including testing for sexually transmitted infections, 
contraceptives, and annual health exams which, by the way, do not 
include abortions services, though I wish that law was overturned.

[[Page H1159]]

  This war on women totally eliminates the President's teen pregnancy 
prevention initiative which supports evidence-based sex education and 
are specifically designed to reduce abortion. It imposes a funding 
restriction on how the District of Columbia can use its own funds to 
pay for health care and abortion services. It includes an amendment to 
restrict State Medicaid funding for family planning, which are 
predominantly women of color in many communities.
  This is really a shame and a disgrace. This includes an amendment to 
reinstate the Federal refusal rule issued in the waning days of the 
Bush administration which would dramatically expand the current ability 
of health providers to refuse to provide health care services that they 
oppose ideologically while jeopardizing the ability of patients to get 
health care. And that's just on the domestic front.
  The bill eliminates funding for the United Nations Population Fund, 
which provides critical reproductive health care, including family 
planning services to the world's poorest women and which does not 
provide abortion services, though they are much needed. This bill would 
also reinstate the global gag rule and prevent family planning 
organizations that provide abortions with their own private money from 
receiving Federal funds. This bill cuts $100 million from USAID's 
family planning programs.
  But that's not enough for some people, as an amendment was filed to 
completely, mind you, completely eliminate these programs which help 
prevent more than 7.8 million unintended pregnancies around the world.
  These decisions by the Republican majority will endanger women's 
health, severely restrict women's rights, insert the government into 
the private medical decisions of women and their families, and are 
nothing short of an all-out war against women.
  And we are fighting back. Instead of working together to get our 
economy moving again, to help the unemployed, and to create jobs, the 
Republicans are seeking to impose an ideological agenda on the country. 
And now we have the Pence amendment, an amendment that would restrict 
title X funding from going to Planned Parenthood, one of the oldest, 
most important, most trusted, most utilized public health organizations 
in the country.
  Let's be clear, this is not about abortion. Existing restrictions 
prevent Federal funding for abortion. This is about a direct attack on 
an organization that provides critical health services aimed largely at 
women in underserved communities throughout the country.
  With over 85 local affiliates and more than 800 health centers across 
the country, the services provided by Planned Parenthood are 
invaluable. Every year, Planned Parenthood affiliates see nearly 3 
million patients and provide contraception to nearly 2.5 million 
patients and over 1.1 million pregnancy tests. They provide nearly 1 
million Pap tests, identifying about 93,000 women at risk of cervical 
cancer. They provide 830,000 breast exams, nearly 4 million tests for 
sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. They provide health 
education for nearly 1.2 million people.
  How are any of these activities objectionable? Are you against women 
getting breast exams? Do you object to women and girls getting tested 
for HIV? Are you opposed to women controlling their own bodies and 
determining if and when they want to get pregnant? Let's be clear, 
government funding does not make up the whole sum of Planned 
Parenthood's finances, but government funding does provide invaluable 
support to help local health centers provide services for women to 
avoid cancer, to protect their health, and to lead healthy and 
fulfilling lives.
  So let's stop this attack on a trusted health provider, and let's 
stop this war on women. That's not what the American people want. They 
want jobs. They want a chance to work hard and take care of their 
families. They don't want to argue with their insurance provider or 
with their employer or their government or their elected officials 
about abortion. We should be working together to unite our country and 
to tackle the challenges that Americans face each and every day, not 
pursuing divisive, ideologically driven agendas.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this CR and on all these amendments that 
wage war on women.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Chair, we have seen in just the past couple of weeks 
incidents that remind us of the horrors associated with the abortion 
industry. We have seen in a women's health clinic in west Philadelphia 
women and children brutally killed in late-term abortions. We have seen 
a series of videos that have given us a behind-the-scenes look at the 
standard operating procedures at Planned Parenthood clinics across the 
countries. The videos depict investigative journalists receiving advice 
on how to run their prostitution business and how to obtain illegal 
abortions.
  Some people have said, Character is who you are when no one is 
watching. Or to put it another way, It is what you do when you think no 
one is watching. Planned Parenthood, the number one abortion provider 
in the country, has revealed its true character in these videos. 
Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood staff exposed their true colors, and 
they neglected to act with integrity when faced with a situation 
dealing with sex trafficking. It was more important to them to promote 
abortion than to help rescue underage girls enslaved in prostitution.
  In this country, 95 percent of abortions occur in clinics, not 
hospitals. These clinics don't need Federal tax dollars to support 
their unethical practices. Planned Parenthood recently reported 
providing 332,278 abortions in the year 2009. That's the last reported 
year. Planned Parenthood, itself, has recently made plain the 
centrality of abortion to its mission, mandating that every Planned 
Parenthood affiliate have at least one clinic performing abortions 
within the next 2 years.
  Despite being a billion-dollar-a-year corporation, Planned Parenthood 
receives $363.2 million, 33 percent of its income, from government 
grants and contracts, that is, from taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, 
Planned Parenthood actively ignores statutory rape reporting laws and 
campaigns against efforts to enforce or strengthen them, as illustrated 
in the recent videos.
  Planned Parenthood in Kansas claims to be ``a trusted source of 
health care and education for thousands of women, men and children,'' 
yet was charged with 107 criminal counts, including failure to report 
sexual abuse and falsifying documents in order to perform illegal late-
term abortions. Planned Parenthood in California has privately admitted 
to overcharging the State and Federal Governments by at least $180 
million for birth control pills, despite internal and external warnings 
that its billing practices were improper. Planned Parenthood in Indiana 
has been accused of endangering the safety and well-being of minor 
girls by intentionally circumventing State parental involvement laws 
and breaking State law by refusing to report statutory rape.
  There are many other sources of family planning money to other 
organizations and to State and local governments. Unfortunately, 
Planned Parenthood is exploiting women and children. They have shown 
themselves to be an extreme organization with unethical practices. Our 
daughters and granddaughters deserve better.
  I urge support of the Pence amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2130

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, House Republicans have made their 
agenda really clear. What's obvious is that it's really not about 
creating jobs. It's not about addressing the economy, but rather the 
extreme agenda is to undermine women's access to reproductive health 
care and attack women's health providers that women rely on in their 
communities.
  We've seen an all-out assault on Planned Parenthood. Instead of 
attacking unemployment, Republicans are waging a war against women. 
This is not about Federal funding of abortion, and it is not about 
quality of care. This is about cutting off women's access to

[[Page H1160]]

affordable care in an effort to score political points. This amendment 
does nothing to improve the economy. It will result in lost jobs, and 
it will take away the only source of primary and preventive care from 
millions of American women.
  Planned Parenthood, a trusted organization by women, plays a critical 
role in our Nation's health care system, and the Pence amendment would 
have a devastating impact on communities across the country. Planned 
Parenthood serves over 3 million Americans every year. More than 90 
percent of the care Planned Parenthood health centers offer is 
preventive care. Planned Parenthood provides lifesaving cancer 
screenings, routine gynecological examinations, contraceptive services, 
immunizations and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted 
infections.
  Planned Parenthood saves money. So this is not about saving Federal 
dollars. It saves money. For every dollar spent on the services I 
mentioned, and others, $3 are saved.
  One in five American women has received care from a Planned 
Parenthood health center at some point in her life, making it one of 
the largest women's health care providers in the country. And now is 
not the time to constrict women's access to and funding for Planned 
Parenthood. And American women will suffer if the extreme Republican 
agenda becomes law. Six in 10 women who access care from women's health 
centers like Planned Parenthood's health centers consider it to be 
their main source of health care. This amendment intends to literally 
wipe Planned Parenthood off the map.
  Planned Parenthood is an invaluable community-based provider, and it 
is critical to achieving the goal of improving quality health care in 
this country, including efforts to improve women's health, lowering the 
rate of unintended pregnancies, and decreasing infant mortality.
  I find it ironic, very disturbing, that the very same people that 
want to take away family planning funding and access to safe and legal 
abortions, which are not funded by public dollars, have also proposed a 
nearly $750 million cut to the Women, Infant and Children program to 
pregnant women and newborn children. This, like the repeal of health 
care reform, is part of the Republicans' divisive social agenda that 
goes too far.
  Now is the time to be working on the issues that are most important 
to Americans, creating jobs and improving the economy, rather than 
legislation that takes health care away from women.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana 
for bringing this amendment forward. It was said earlier in this 
discussion that this is a war being waged by one Congressman on one 
organization. I don't think that that's accurate. I think that this is 
an effort by many Members of Congress, each of whom represents some 
650,000 individuals, who do not want to see their tax dollars used to 
fund abortion. I think it's as simple as that. And when you see the 
videos that have been referenced earlier today about what went on in 
these clinics, and the misrepresentation that was there, and the out 
and out illegal behavior that was encouraged, that warrants some kind 
of action. And I think that's what this effort is about.
  So I think it behooves us to tone down the rhetoric and to actually 
decide what is this effort about. And it's about ensuring that 
individuals who do not want their tax dollars used to fund abortions 
may have that right to say so here in the House of Representatives on 
the floor here, and to vote to have their Members of Congress, their 
Representatives here vote in the way that they feel they should vote. 
That's what this effort's about. I commend the gentleman for bringing 
it forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, sadly, our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have no idea how to create jobs or turn the 
economy around, so their true colors have come to the surface. And 
Speaker Boehner made that clear when asked about the potential job 
losses that will result from horrendous budget cuts that we have been 
debating for the last couple of days, when he responded, so be it.
  So I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment. This is a dangerously ideologically motivated stunt that 
will imperil the lives and well-being of millions of women and their 
families. This amendment is not just a war on Planned Parenthood, as 
the gentleman from Indiana said. It's a war on women.
  Planned Parenthood clinics are a crucial part of our national health 
care fabric. Through Federal funds, including Medicaid reimbursements 
and title X funding on an annual basis, Planned Parenthood health 
centers are able to offer nearly one million lifesaving screenings for 
cervical cancer, 830,000 breast examination, contraception to nearly 
2.5 million patients, nearly 4 million tests and treatments for 
sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, and education programs 
for 1.2 million individuals. These are much needed services that we 
could not afford to lose.
  In addition to completely de-funding Planned Parenthood, this 
amendment would also strike all Federal funding for title X programs. 
This would be a colossal mistake and truly a matter of life and death 
to millions of women nationwide.
  Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a key 
component of our Nation's health care infrastructure and an essential 
element in the winning strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies.
  Today title X serves over 5 million low-income individuals every 
year. In every State, women and men rely on title X for basic primary 
and preventative health care including annual exams, lifesaving cancer 
screenings, contraception and testing and treatment for sexually 
transmitted diseases. In fact, in 2009 alone title X providers 
performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over 6 
million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including nearly a 
million HIV tests.
  As a breast cancer survivor whose cancer was caught at the earliest 
stage, like my friend from Connecticut, I know how critical these 
screenings are in saving women's lives. And preventative care isn't 
limited to cancer screenings and education on how to avoid STDs.
  Supporters of this bill mistakenly argue that this cut is necessary 
to prevent Federal funding for abortions. Let me be clear: Federal 
funding for abortions is already prohibited by law. This has been the 
case for decades. Yet this amendment attempts to take funding 
prohibitions to an unconscionable new level and, if passed, will result 
in millions of women not being able to obtain necessary preventive care 
like birth control and cancer screenings.
  If Republicans truly want to reduce abortions in this country, they 
would vote against this amendment. Indeed, title X actually reduces the 
number of abortions. Title X services help to prevent nearly 1 million 
unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise 
end in abortion. Current statistics from the Gutmacher Institute 
indicate that nearly half of pregnancies in the United States are 
unintended. We should be providing women and their families with the 
resources they need, not striking them.
  Indeed, Planned Parenthood and the title X program provide vital 
family planning services which help improve the life of the mother and 
the child. It's a simple fact. Family planning keeps women and children 
healthy. When women plan their pregnancies, they are more likely to 
seek prenatal care, improving their own health and the health of their 
children. In fact, access to family planning is directly linked to the 
declines in maternal and infant mortality rates. There should be no 
shadow of a doubt that this amendment is anti-woman and anti-family.
  While my colleague from Indiana may frame this amendment in the 
context of fiscal responsibility, that is once again a mistaken 
premise. This amendment would not cut the deficit. In fact, title X 
actually saves taxpayer dollars. Since many of the patients

[[Page H1161]]

served by title X are on Medicaid, preventative care like cancer 
screenings and contraceptive counseling actually means fewer costs to 
the taxpayer in the long run. Indeed, for every public dollar invested 
in family planning, $3.74 is saved in Medicaid-related costs. That's 
savings to both Federal and State governments.
  And one of the most detrimental and dangerous things we could do to 
women and their families right now is to de-fund the leading title X 
provider nationwide, Planned Parenthood. Every year, Planned Parenthood 
works tirelessly to improve the health of communities across this 
country. Six in 10 women who access care from centers like Planned 
Parenthood say it is their main source of health care. We cannot cut 
these women off from the health services that should be available to 
all of them.
  Efforts to undermine the title X program and this essential health 
care provider are not only reckless; they are also anti-woman, anti-
child, and anti-taxpayer.

                              {time}  2140

  Madam Chair, this is a horrendous amendment that would devastate 
access to health care for millions of American women and should be 
defeated.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. I rise in support of this amendment.
  Planned Parenthood has funded abortion from the taxpayer for too 
long. It has been said that this is a threat to women's health. Well, 
Planned Parenthood isn't about health. It's about profit.
  They have a record of preferring abortion over the truth. I have seen 
firsthand their view of truth.
  Several years ago I was a teacher, and I taught child development. I 
had a student who came to me who just found out that she was pregnant. 
The night before, she had visited a Planned Parenthood clinic to 
discuss her options. She was 4 weeks along.
  She asked a simple question, What does it look like? The answer? Oh, 
don't worry about it. It's just a blob of tissue. They encouraged her 
to have an abortion; but, thankfully, she wanted more information.
  She and a friend came to me for information. They wanted to know if I 
had pictures of what a fetus looked like at 4 weeks old, since I taught 
child development. I did. She looked at the pictures of the baby with 
its developing fingers and eyes and a beating heart. Her response? She 
was shocked.
  That's not a blob of tissue. That's a baby. And then she asked this 
question: Why would they tell me that, Mrs. Hartzler? Sadly, I didn't 
have an answer. They didn't care about the truth. They didn't care 
about the young woman before them. They cared about a profit.
  This pattern continues with recent revelations that they were willing 
to cover up child sexual trafficking and child sexual abuse and aid and 
abet prostitution. Where was Planned Parenthood when they had a chance 
to protect young women? They turned a blind eye. I'd call it a war 
against young women.
  And yet this organization received $363 million of revenue a year 
from you and me, the taxpayer.
  Hardworking men and women in this country should not have to write a 
check on April 15 to fund these abominable practices. At a time when we 
are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend and running a huge 
deficit, we need to look for savings to the taxpayer wherever we can. 
Certainly, saving $363 million from this abortion provider is a smart 
and a right thing to do, so that all Americans, born and unborn, will 
have the opportunity to enjoy the blessings and the rights of life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  So as a woman and a mother and a former teacher, I am proud to 
support the Pence amendment, and I ask all my colleagues to stand on 
the side of truth, life, and the young women of this country.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I rise this evening to speak in strong opposition to the 
Pence amendment. The Pence amendment is an attack on women's health. 
This much is clear.
  What isn't clear is what these women who today are cared for by 
Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses would do for care if the Pence 
amendment should pass.
  Planned Parenthood serves 3 million Americans every year. These are 
Americans who rely upon Planned Parenthood to receive their annual 
wellness exams; Americans who rely upon Planned Parenthood to receive 
contraceptive services to prevent unplanned pregnancies; Americans who 
get tested and treated for sexually transmitted infections, improving 
their health and protecting the health of their community; Americans 
who rely on Planned Parenthood for their cancer screenings, tests that 
can detect cervical cancer or breast cancer early, when it is easier 
and less expensive to treat, saving our entire health care 
infrastructure millions of health care dollars.
  And these Americans cannot just go somewhere else, somewhere that my 
colleague on the other side of the aisle would find more palatable. 
Sixty percent of those who use Planned Parenthood services consider it 
to be their main source of health care, their medical home.
  A vote to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding is a vote to cut 
these Americans off from their health care system. Surely we can't want 
that.
  In my own congressional district, Planned Parenthood of Santa 
Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo Counties serve over 31,000 
patients every year. I must ask the supporters of this mean-spirited 
amendment, where should these 31,000 people go, especially now when 
this reckless Republican omnibus spending package cuts community health 
centers by $1 billion?
  And what about your constituents? In the amendment's author's own 
State of Indiana, 18,000 citizens rely upon Planned Parenthood services 
each year, 18,000 Hoosiers whose elected Representatives are voting to 
shut down their doctors' office.
  Finally, Madam Chair, I know that the supporters of this amendment 
are trying to characterize this as a vote about abortion. It's not 
about abortion. It's a vote about whether or not you believe in 
providing women and Americans comprehensive health care. Because, 
despite all the misinformation being thrown around here, 95 percent of 
Planned Parenthood services have nothing to do with abortion. And as 
has been strongly and firmly stated, there are no Federal dollars used 
for those receiving abortion services.
  The last time I checked, 97 percent is an A-plus, which calls into 
real question the motivation behind this amendment. Combined with the 
mean-spirited bills moving through the Energy and Commerce and 
Judiciary Committees, attacking women's health service access, with the 
zeroing out of title X family planning funds in this bill, with a 
reinstatement of the global gag rule, with a 50 percent slash in 
international family planning money, and a completely devastating slash 
to the Women, Infants and Children's nutrition program, along with 
other cuts I have mentioned, it adds up to only one conclusion: House 
Republican leadership is starting an all-out war on women's health 
care. The targets? Women's insurance coverage, their providers, their 
health care choices.
  For more than 90 years, Planned Parenthood's doctors, nurses, and 
other health professionals have been providing health care to millions 
of women, and one in four American women voters has received care from 
a Planned Parenthood health center at some point in her life.
  So let's take a stand against this attack on women's health care. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the Pence amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the amendment. 
The elimination of family planning dollars would deny access to 
preventative care for millions of women each year.

[[Page H1162]]

  From the numerous conversations I've had with doctors, including my 
own sister who is an OB/GYN, I believe in the importance of encouraging 
access to basic preventative care.
  Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a component 
of our Nation's health care infrastructure and has been an essential 
element in providing contraception and education to millions of 
Americans.
  Today, title X family planning services over 5 million low-income 
individuals each and every year. Through a recent study, we learned 
that for every dollar invested in family planning approximately $3.74 
is saved in Medicaid-related costs.
  Title X funding provides critical preventative health care, including 
annual exams, cancer screenings, HIV testing, and family planning.

                              {time}  2150

  While we must always ensure that funds are applied properly, 
completely prohibiting any funds from going to the main provider of 
title X family planning services I believe would be shortsighted and 
would negatively impact the lives of women who depend on these health 
care services.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I am not going to repeat all of what has 
been said about the Republican war on women, about the fact that the 
Republican majority was elected pledging jobs and all we see is a war 
on various social services and women and nothing about jobs, but I am 
going to say this: I have been listening very carefully to the 
supporters of this amendment, to Mr. Pence and others, and what do I 
hear? I hear that we must punish Planned Parenthood by defunding them 
because they have committed a number of sins.
  Sin Number 1, they perform abortions. They are a very large abortion 
provider, and even though none of those abortions are paid for with 
Federal funds, that is prohibited under the Hyde amendment however you 
read it, we don't like Planned Parenthood because they are a large 
abortion provider.
  Number two, we don't like Planned Parenthood because they have 
committed allegedly various terrible things. Some provocateurs went 
into their offices and said that they were representing sex workers and 
they were offered services, and any organization that is willing to do 
this should not get Federal funds.
  We are going to punish Planned Parenthood, number one, because they 
are a large abortion provider and we don't like abortion providers; 
and, number two, because they do other things, which if in fact they 
do, which I don't think they do, but if in fact they do, they are bad 
things.
  There is a major problem with this. There is a major problem with 
this rhetoric and with this reasoning. And, by the way, the CR to which 
this is an amendment eliminates title X family planning funding anyway, 
so it will eliminate most of the funds that go to Planned Parenthood. 
But whatever funds that are available, they can go to other people to 
provide those services, not Planned Parenthood, because we don't like 
Planned Parenthood for various reasons.
  A bill that punishes someone, some person or organization who is 
named or is identifiable, by legislative action is called a bill of 
attainder. That is the definition of a bill of attainder: A legislative 
punishment, penalty, a legislative penalty, a legislative-enacted 
penalty--in this case, no funding--directed at some identifiable person 
or organization to punish them for something.
  Article I, Section 9 says, ``No bill of attainder or ex post facto 
law shall be passed''; a fundamental foundation of constitutional law.
  If Planned Parenthood or anybody else is doing terrible things and 
ought to be punished, that is up to the courts. If, indeed, Planned 
Parenthood is trafficking with sex traffickers, let them be prosecuted. 
If, indeed, Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal, let them be 
prosecuted. Let the organization be prosecuted. Let the individual 
employees who are doing these things be prosecuted at law. That is our 
system. But you don't punish an organization because they are doing 
something of which you don't approve.
  Now, if you want to say we don't think that there ought to be any 
contraceptive services in the United States and therefore we are going 
to have no title X funding, the CR does say that. I don't agree with 
it, but it is constitutional. But to say that if we have title X 
funding, if we have maternal services funding, none of it can go to 
Planned Parenthood, it can go to somebody else, but not Planned 
Parenthood, that is a legislatively enacted punishment because Planned 
Parenthood is or is allegedly doing things of which you don't approve.
  Now, I heard a lot at the beginning of this Congress about we have to 
make sure that we adhere to the Constitution. This is a bill of 
attainder, because it is a legislatively enacted punishment of a named 
organization because that organization is doing things or is allegedly 
doing things of which we don't approve.
  So I submit that in addition to all the other reasons why this 
shouldn't be done that have been enacted here, this is flatly 
unconstitutional, and I challenge anyone to say how this is not a bill 
of attainder. Again, the black letter definition of a bill of attainder 
is a legislatively enacted penalty aimed at some person or organization 
that is identifiable, named right here, for some reason, that they have 
done various things, provided abortions, done illegal things or 
otherwise.
  So in addition to all the other problems, this amendment is 
unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts if it should 
pass.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Broun of Georgia) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________