Surface Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and Accountability Act

Madam Speaker, pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(C) of H. Res. 1493, Providing for Budget Enforcement for Fiscal Year 2011, I submit the following findings that identify changes in law that help achieve deficit reduction by reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, promoting efficiency and reform of government, and controlling spending within Government programs that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may authorize.

Introduction

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is

committed to improving efficiency in the Federal Government

and providing cost savings to accomplish the joint goals of

reducing expenditures and ensuring maximum value to the

taxpayer in Federal programs within the jurisdiction of the

Committee.

Beginning in the 110th Congress, the Committee has

aggressively reviewed program implementation to ensure that

Federal agencies, and their state and local partners, were

appropriately implementing laws consistent with statutory

intent and the best needs of the public. The commitment is

not to programs, but to the goals and objectives that best

serve the needs of the American people in an efficient,

fiscally responsible way. To that end, the Committee has

developed and will continue to develop multiple proposals to

improve the operation of government, including opportunities

to reduce expenditures and the deficit. Because many of the

programs within the Committee's jurisdiction are implemented

in partnership with state and local governments, the

Committee continues to pursue improvements at all levels of

government.

Today's report describes a list of activities and proposals

that include reductions in and elimination of mandatory

spending, reductions in and elimination of authorizations for

discretionary spending, investments that would be expected to

achieve quantifiable future savings, and revenues that more

equitably distribute the cost of government services among

the beneficiaries of those services and reduce demands on the

General Fund. These proposals will allow the Nation to

achieve its investment goals at less cost and allow Federal

investment to provide increased benefits.

These proposals reflect the Committee's efforts to date.

The Committee will continue its efforts to find creative and

efficient ways to make government more responsive to the

needs of the Nation.

Recent Highlights

The Committee's oversight efforts recently resulted in

exposing unwarranted cost overruns in Federal construction.

At the Committee's request, the Government Accountability

Office (GAO) analyzed courthouse construction since 2000 and

determined that expenditures have been unnecessarily

increased by nearly $900 million. The Committee is responding

through general legislation and authorizations for specific

Federal courthouse construction projects to ensure that such

unnecessary costs are not repeated.

Other positive results of the Committee's efforts have

resulted in improvements and corrections to the Coast Guard's

Integrated Deepwater Program, the Federal Aviation

Administration's regulatory responsibilities and air traffic

control modernization, mismanagement at the Federal Maritime

Commission, disaster response by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency, international water quality expenditures,

and the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers.

The Committee's efforts associated with the Coast Guard's

Integrated Deepwater Program (Deepwater) continue to provide

benefits. Deepwater is a series of procurements being

undertaken by the Coast Guard to replace or upgrade its major

surface and aviation assets. The procurements are expected to

cost $25 billion by the time they are complete in 2026.

The Committee conducted an investigation that probed deeply

into the contract management and decision-making processes

within the Coast Guard and its contract partner, Integrated

Coast Guard Systems (ICGS) (ICGS consisted of Lockheed Martin

Corporation and Northrop Grumman Corporation). The Committee

found that the Coast Guard was warned of flaws in the designs

for Coast Guard assets long before the designs were

finalized. The Committee also found that in some cases,

substandard information technology equipment was installed on

the patrol boats. Finally, records indicated that there were

irregularities in the process for testing and certifying the

ships for standards designed to prevent the release of

classified information.

The Committee's investigation resulted in the Coast Guard

removing ICGS as the lead systems integrator for Deepwater,

and a reimbursement claim by the Federal government of $96

million from ICGS.

The Committee continues to monitor the Deepwater Program,

guarding against waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, and

ensuring that taxpayers receive the full value of their

investment.

While the Committee continues to conduct oversight of

agency programs in all areas of its jurisdiction, in this

Congress, the Committee is being particularly aggressive in

overseeing the implementation of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) (P.L. 1115).

The Recovery Act provided $64.1 billion for programs within

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, including $38 billion for highway, transit,

and wastewater infrastructure formula programs. Since

enactment of the Recovery Act, the Committee has performed

vigorous oversight, to ensure that the funds provided are

invested quickly, efficiently, and in harmony with the job-

creating purposes of that Act.

Just 10 days following enactment of the Recovery Act, the

Committee requested monthly reports from States, major public

transit agencies, and metropolitan planning organizations on

the use of highway, transit, and wastewater infrastructure

formula funds provided under the Recovery Act. The Committee

continues to receive those reports.

The Committee's request goes beyond the transparency and

accountability requirements of the Recovery Act, expanding

the scope of programs covered by the reporting requirements,

and accelerating the deadline by which information is

reported. These reports include information on the number of

projects that have been put out to bid, are under contract

and underway, and have been completed. The information also

includes job hours created or saved and payroll figures. The

Committee receives monthly reports from Federal agencies

implementing Recovery Act programs under the Committee's

jurisdiction.

Since April 2009, the Committee has published a monthly

report reflecting this information. All released information

can be found at the Recovery Act section of the Committee's

website: http://transportation.house.gov. The Committee

requested that these recipients continue to submit monthly

reports directly to the Committee for the remainder of 2010.

Of the $38 billion available for highway, transit, and

wastewater infrastructure formula program projects under the

Recovery Act, as of June 30, 2010, $35 billion (92 percent)

has been put out to bid on 18,718 projects. Within this

total, 18,002 projects totaling $33.4 billion (88 percent)

are under contract. Across the Nation, work has begun on

17,024 projects totaling $32.7 billion (86 percent)--work

producing badly needed jobs today. Work has been completed on

6,920 projects totaling $5.3 billion. From these investments,

not only has the economy benefited from the jobs created, the

public benefits from the investment itself through improved

transportation and quality of the environment.

In addition to the monthly reporting, the Committee has

held 18 oversight hearings on the Recovery Act since its

enactment, with seven of these hearings occurring during

2010. This total includes nine Full Committee hearings and

nine subcommittee hearings. These 18 hearings included a

total of 123 witnesses and spanned 64 hours. The breadth of

witnesses included Ray LaHood, Secretary of the Department of

Transportation and Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other Federal,

State, and local government officials, private industry

leaders, and workers actively engaged in implementing the

Recovery Act.

The Committee held its most recent oversight hearing the

last week in July, and will continue to hold oversight

hearings on the Recovery Act throughout 2010.

In addition to overseeing implementation of the Recovery

Act, as of the date of this report, the Committee and its

subcommittees have conducted 23 separate hearings in 2010 to

review the budgets and programs of agencies within the

Committee's jurisdiction. Additional hearings are planned.

This report includes specific findings and recommendations

developed by the Committee related to Federal spending and

government operations. As the findings and recommendations

demonstrate, the Committee has made and continues to propose

many

positive changes to improve the efficiency 'of government and

deliver the best possible outcomes to our constituents.

Specific Findings and Recommendations

Reduce Excess Expenditures on New Courthouse Projects

This proposal achieves deficit reduction by promoting

efficiency and reform of government and reducing waste by

ensuring that the number of courtrooms in proposed new

courthouse projects constructed by the General Services

Administration (GSA) more accurately reflects needs and

budgetary realities by aligning the number of courtrooms to

reflect courtroom sharing by judges, and realistic

projections of additional, future judgeships. Where

practicable, the Committee seeks to ensure authorizations

directing that courthouses be redesigned to eliminate not

only excess courtrooms, but also the additional building

volume that would have accommodated those excess courtrooms.

In accordance with 40 U.S.C. 3307, appropriations for

specific GSA construction projects may only be made if

authorized by resolutions adopted by the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of

Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public

Works of the Senate.

The Government Accountability Office reported (GAO-10-417)

that courtroom overbuilding, as a consequence of both

inordinately high judgeship projections by the Judiciary and

the Judiciary's failure to share courtrooms in a fashion

supported by empiric courtroom usage data, resulted in

construction of 1.8 million square feet of unnecessary space

for 33 courthouses completed since 2000.

This excess construction translates into a one-time

construction cost waste of $422 million, and an annual waste

of $26 million in additional operation and maintenance costs

for the unneeded space.

The budgetary impact of downsizing proposed courthouses is

being realized today. Since June 2009, the Committee has

authorized five courthouses with curtailed numbers of

courtrooms. According to budget estimates provided by GSA, or

derived from information provided by GSA, the Committee has

saved more than $87 million to date by limiting the number of

courtrooms in new courthouses. The savings are a consequence

of lower initial capital costs to build, and less money spent

by GSA to lease space because the proposed courtroom space

can now be used by Federal agencies that do not need to be

located in leased facilities.

[In millions] San Diego, California Courthouse:.................................$50.8 Greenbelt, Maryland Courthouse Annex:..............................$5.2 Mobile, Alabama Courthouse:........................................$7.8 Savannah, Georgia Courthouse:......................................$7.8 San Antonio, Texas Courthouse:....................................$15.5

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1755, I call up the bill (H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the pending legislation.

I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I'm bringing a resolution to the floor that I have minimum high regard for, to say the least.

America is facing serious problems, the most depressing is that we have the biggest divide between the haves and the have-nots since the Great Depression. Over the last decade, 80 percent of the growth in our economy has gone to the luckiest 10 percent out there. Meanwhile, the economy is sputtering along, and families are hurting. And what has been Washington's response? Apparently, it is to spend nearly $80 billion over the next 2 years to give supersized tax cuts to millionaires and another $24 billion to give families worth $10 million a pass on paying taxes on their good fortune. This occurs at the same time that Washington politicians are singing pious songs about the need for deficit reduction.

I hope that the Congress is not too ``offended'' to recognize that, yes, we must deal with long-term budget deficits; but if this country is to grow for everybody, we also need to confront our investment deficits in jobs, in education, in infrastructure, and in science and technology. That is the context in which this bill, to keep the government functioning for a year, is being considered.

This bill freezes discretionary appropriations at the 2010 level for the rest of the fiscal year, spending $46 billion less than the President asked for this year. It adjusts last year's priorities in three main ways: It funds the current shortfall in Pell Grants for college students; it meets the increased medical needs for our veterans; it makes adequate adjustments to meet military pay and health costs. It provides the Department of Defense $513 billion, which is $4.9 billion more than last year with corresponding cuts on the domestic side of the ledger, I'm sorry to say.

Now I'm sure we'll hear a lot of talk about a number of changes in the bill, the number of hard choices we had to make in this package to try to keep Uncle Sam from being Uncle Scrooge this holiday season. John Wesley admonished us to ``do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.'' This product falls embarrassingly short of that goal. But I make no apologies for the fact that the committee has done its dead level best within the constraints under which we are operating to make some modest adjustments, to salvage some investments which over the long haul just might create more jobs than tax breaks for millionaires and adjustments that might ease the financial desperation faced by so many families today who cannot afford to send their kids to college, to find decent child care, or to

provide adequate medical attention to their needs.

So we have had the unmitigated gall to shift additional funds to the Social Security Administration to ensure that people get their benefits without undue delay.

In an outrageously socialistic attempt to provide some additional health safety protections for miners who have all too often been the victims of the mindset of owners who put more emphasis on profitability than they do on miner safety, we shifted about $50 million into that account.

I hope that the Congress is not so penny-wise and pound foolish that they will object to our decision to shift funding to further our efforts to ferret out waste, fraud, and abuse in Social Security and Medicare.

And on a day when temperatures are dropping to 5 above zero in my hometown, and we were a balmy 23 degrees here in Washington last night, I hope this Congress isn't too offended that we have recommended $190 million above last year for homeless assistance grants to combat the growing number of families who are living on the streets, thanks to the ``brilliance'' of political leaders in Washington in managing this economy. Those are a few of the modest changes that we have made in what would otherwise be an automatic pilot course of action in a straight continuing resolution.

Within the same dollar limits, this legislation attempts to make modest adjustments that recognize that needs and conditions change over a year's time. I hope it does not represent too great an ``inconvenience'' to those Members of this body who are much more comfortable providing budget-busting tax gifts to the economic elite in this country rather than making even the tiniest government investment in programs that will help the lives of the unlucky by making their lives a little bit better with investments that might run the unholy risk of making the economy work nearly as well for average families as it does for the American elite who can afford to make large contributions to those fortunate enough to be honored by our constituents with the stewardship of the national interest.

I want to say one other thing. There are at least 50 decisions in this bill that I am flatly opposed to. There are many arguments in this bill that I have lost. But the fact is, sooner or later, if you're going to be responsible, you have to set aside your first preferences and simply do what is necessary in order to keep the government open so that Congress doesn't become the laughingstock of the country. The only responsible vote to cast on this proposition is an ``aye'' vote. I urge support for the resolution, with all of its shortcomings.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, could I ask the gentleman how many speakers he has remaining.

We have none. I reserve my time.

Would the gentleman like an answer to that question?

This amendment was a Republican amendment offered by Mr. Cole from Oklahoma. It was not slipped in. It was voted in in the subcommittee appropriation bill 5 months ago.

Don't suggest it's been sneaked. It has not.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to agree with the gentleman from Virginia on the substance of the issue. But the fact is that the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee voted in open session with open debate to adopt the Cole amendment.

Now, as chairman of the full committee, I don't have the luxury of producing bills that represent my own priorities. It is my obligation to try to find the center of gravity that enables us to represent the views of the House. That's what we did on this issue. And for the gentleman to suggest that there is anything corrupt about it is scurrilous.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time remains.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Don't worry, I am not going to take it all.

Mr. Speaker, I had not expected to get into this kind of a discussion today, but I think the comments of a previous speaker from the other side illustrate just another reason why I am glad to be leaving this place.

When I came here, I don't think there were very many Members who would reach a conclusion that if someone disagreed with them on substance that somehow they were morally defective.

In a civilized, adult, legislative body, Members would recognize that there can be legitimate policy differences that can be highly controversial and that you can have honorable people on both sides of the question engage in honest debate and discussion about those issues.

In the main, that is what Members of this House usually do, but I have noticed a tendency in recent years on more and more occasions for Members to substitute hyperbole for thought and to substitute attacks on character for attacks on argument, and I find that sad indeed.

I do not know of a straighter shooter in this Congress than Mr. Cole. He is a highly partisan individual. He at one time ran the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, but he did it with honor and, in my view, he has brought honor to this place in the way he has handled himself on a wide variety of issues as long as I have watched him operate.

I do not believe that he or any other member of the Interior subcommittee who dealt with the issue at hand demonstrated anything but an honest effort to try to deal with a Court decision which played fruit basket upset on years and years of legal precedent.

I am, for one, proud of the service that I have had in this place with people like the gentleman from Oklahoma, and I would simply urge all Members, as I leave this Chamber, to remember that there are good people on both sides of the aisle who have honest, hard-fought views and hard-earned views and have a right to express them without some off-the-wall Member accusing them of corruption.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the funding bill before us today but not without deep reservations. Each of the appropriations subcommittees considered bills for Fiscal Year 2011, but only two were brought to the floor for a vote. All twelve appropriations bills deserved a vote by the full House. Instead, we are freezing spending levels across the board and carrying forward most of the spending decisions made last year without a full and fair debate on the consequences for today's economy and today's needs. Surely this action does not live up to the responsibility that our constituents have entrusted to us.

The results of our failure to fully weigh the tradeoffs of our spending choices are not inconsequential. Even though serious questions remain about the effectiveness and safety of full body imaging devices, this bill increases funding for the Transportation Security Administration to procure, deploy, and staff new full body scanners in America's airports. To keep spending levels constant, the bill unilaterally ends funding for certain election reform programs, reduces funding for high speed rail, and forces the Department of Energy to raid funding for renewable energy and basic science programs in order to pay for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy. This one-year funding bill freezes the pay of our dedicated public servants for two years even though non-military federal worker salaries did not create our deficit and a freeze will not solve our budget problems. While I'm pleased that this bill includes funds for a 1.4 percent military pay raise and additional funding to help our troops and their families, I regret that the bill includes tens of billions of dollars for ongoing combat operations in Afghanistan. Our continued military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not making us safer, and the billions we are wasting on these wars is money that could be far better spent at home--to hire more police for our communities, build new schools, and replace our aging and increasingly dangerous road and rail bridges.

Yet even with these and many other significant problems, this bill will keep our government operating and uphold many of our important commitments. Low-income working families will receive badly needed childcare and housing assistance. Our military personnel will receive the benefits and care they need, and our veterans will have their benefits claims processed in a more timely manner. We will fully fund our aid agreement with Israel and maintain assistance programs for other countries, including Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan. Students will continue to receive Pell grants, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will have the resources necessary to respond to natural disasters.

The choice presented to us in the form of this bill should not be. We are putting off the tough decisions that deserve careful consideration and reasoned compromise. We can and should make that effort. Yet on balance, I believe this bill is necessary, even if the process and the product are clearly insufficient.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, S. 510, and to commend the Senate for its hard work in crafting and amending the bill to ensure that it would not adversely impact small and family-owned farms.

According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, each year 76 million people (25 percent of the population) become sick, 325,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die from foodborne illnesses in the United States. In recent years, the United States has experienced many incidents of food contamination, caused by biological and man-made toxins, from spinach contaminated with E. coli bacteria, to imported wheat gluten from China contaminated with the industrial chemical melamine, to the largest beef recall in United States history--more than 143 million pounds of beef products--due to downer cattle having entered the food supply, to another of the largest food recalls in the nation's history when Georgia-based Peanut Corporation of America recalled all of its peanut products due to salmonella contamination.

These clear instances of food contamination highlight that we are long overdue in passing comprehensive food safety legislation. I was pleased to support a strong House version of this legislation when it was considered in July 2009. While I am sorry we cannot win final approval for our stronger legislation, the bill before us today includes many of those important reforms, and represents the most comprehensive set of food safety reforms put forth since the 1930s.

The bill would provide the FDA with direct mandatory recall authority, replacing the current system which depends on individual producers to issue recalls. It would also require food producers to develop food safety plans, including identifying potential risks of contamination or other hazards, and identifying the mechanisms through which those risks would be controlled. Hazards required to be identified and controlled are very broadly defined, including biological and chemical hazards, natural and man-made toxins, pesticides, drug residues, parasites, allergens and other contaminants, whether intentionally or unintentionally introduced. The bill would increase the number of FDA inspections at all food facilities. In addition, the bill establishes a food tracing system through which consumers could rapidly be identified and deaths and illnesses could be minimized in the event of a contamination outbreak. Finally, importers would be required to verify that all imported foods comply with United States food safety requirements, and the FDA would be allowed to deny entry to a food that lacks FDA certification for high-risk foods, or that is from a foreign facility that has refused U.S. inspectors.

In particular, I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate for responding to many of the concerns raised by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, NSAC, and constituents from my district that the bill would negatively impact small and family-owned farms, and value- added producers. As stated by the NSAC, ``[a]s a result of grassroots mobilization and much negotiation this bill now provides scale- appropriate food safety rules for small farms and mid-sized farms and local processors that sell to restaurants, food coops, groceries, wholesalers and at farm stands and farmers markets.''

The bill before us today includes several key Senate amendments that addressed the NSAC's concerns. For example, the Tester-Hagen amendment clarifies existing law exempting from FDA registration requirements farms that market more than 50 percent of their product directly from the farm or from farm stands or farmer's markets. In addition, it provides less costly alternatives to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Plans, HACCP, to farms that directly market more than 50 percent of their product to consumers, stores or restaurants within their state or within 400 miles of the farm, and have gross sales of less than $500,000. The HACCP is a system through which food safety hazards at producers are identified, evaluated, and controlled, and the Tester-Hagen amendment allows qualifying farms to satisfy HACCP requirements by documenting that they comply with state laws or by providing the FDA with documentation identifying potential hazards, controls implemented to address those hazards, and monitoring mechanisms.

The Stabenow amendment establishes a competitive grant program for food safety training, giving priority to small and mid-sized farms, beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, and small food processors. The Bennet amendment alleviates paperwork requirements applicable to all small farms, and requires the FDA to allow on-farm processing and other flexible mechanisms through which small farms may comply with the preventative control plan and produce standards requirements of the bill. Other important amendments that protect small and mid-sized farms would allow the FDA to exempt farms that engage in low-risk or no-risk value-added processing from regulatory requirements, exempt small farms from traceability and recordkeeping requirements if they sell directly to consumers or grocery stores, and remove requirements that negatively impact wildlife and wildlife habitat on farms.

I thank my supportive colleagues again for their leadership and comprehensive action on this matter, and I urge my undecided colleagues to support this bill.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I rise in respectful and regretful opposition to the continuing resolution. The primary reason that the Energy and Commerce Committee has time on the floor is because of the inclusion of the Food Safety Act in the continuing resolution.

The food safety bill that passed the House last year was the result of bipartisan cooperation between Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Pallone, Chairman Dingell, myself, then-subcommittee Ranking Member Nathan Deal, and others on the Republican side. It was the result of a number of years of work. It was an open process, it was an inclusive process, and the result was a very strong bipartisan vote both in the committee and on the House floor. I believe on the House floor, 59 Republicans joined with almost every Democrat to send that bill to the Senate.

The bill that's come back from the Senate that's been included in the continuing resolution is not the House bill, as amended. It is a Senate bill that is significantly different in several respects.

The inclusion of what's called the Tester amendment in the Senate bill means that some farms, small farms along the borders between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada would be exempt from some of the requirements of the bill.

The methods of payment are different. The House had a registration fee, an annual registration fee. That is not included in the Senate version.

There are a number of tax issues with the Senate bill that we have a problem with here in the House; if it was not included in the CR, the food safety bill would, in all likelihood, be subject to what we call ``blue slipping'' here in the House of Representatives.

So it really is difficult to be in opposition to the food safety bill because of the unity of purpose and the spirit of cooperation that existed in the Energy and Commerce Committee when the food safety legislation was passed last year. But our friends in the other body, as is more often than not the case, have tended to ignore our work product and send us theirs at the last moment with a ``take it or leave it'' attitude.

Ranking member and soon to be Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas and I have sent a letter to our Speaker suggesting that we would be more than willing to go to conference with our friends in the other body. We're going to be in session at least another week, perhaps two. We could have a conference. We could probably agree on a bipartisan, bicameral food safety bill that would pass muster in both bodies. I'm still hopeful that that might occur.

With regards to other items in the continuing resolution that are not part of the Food Safety Act, there are numerous things that we find objectionable. The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission is going to receive $350 million, which is an increase of over 4\1/2\ percent from fiscal year 2010. It's even more than $14 million, as I understand it, than what they perhaps asked for.

In the continuing resolution in terms of health provisions, there is funding for several sections of the health care law that we believe to be objectionable. The funding for public awareness, for example--so far, HHS has spent over $3 million for television ads featuring one of my favorite actors, Andy Griffith. ``The Andy Griffith Show'' and Barney Fife were one of my favorite television shows when I was growing up, and I continue to watch it on reruns.

But I have a little bit of a problem watching Mr. Griffith extol to seniors the important new benefits of the current health care law simply as a kind of a pitch master for something that, in all likelihood, we're going to change, perhaps even repeal next year.

Independent groups have found that some of these ads have misled seniors. They claim benefits that will be available while ignoring cuts to Medicare Advantage and other reductions in the Medicare payment rate. I think this is misleading and unfortunate.

In the area of telecommunications, the continuing resolution exempts the Universal Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act. This would allow the government to obligate money for carrier subsidies before we actually have the money in hand. Most of us on the minority side, soon to be the majority side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, find that to be very objectionable and, quite frankly, irresponsible.

So again, on the food safety bill that passed the House, I voted for it. I have nothing but respect and compliments for the leadership of Mr. Waxman, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Pallone, and others. But the CR version of the food safety bill that we're asked to vote on today is not the bill that came out of the House. And for that reason, regretfully, I oppose it.

And on the basic CR overall, there are numerous reasons from an Energy and Commerce perspective on the minority side of the aisle to oppose that.

So we would ask for a ``no'' vote, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

On the House-passed bill, not this bill, but the House-passed bill.

I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman's indulgence.

We are going to have to suggest that the Members on the minority side vote ``no'' on the CR because of a number of reasons that our friends on the Appropriations Committee have alluded to.

If we could have a conference between the House conferees and the Senate conferees on the food safety bill, we could come to some reasonable compromises where we could recommend a vote for the food safety bill as a stand-alone bill. That is still possible to do or would be possible if the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate and the chairmen of the appropriate committees in the House and Senate were willing to go down that road. In this Congress, those types of conferences have been few and far between. So we are stuck here in a situation where you have a reasonably good piece of legislation that passed the House, a not as reasonably good piece of legislation that came out of the Senate at the last moment and is being attached to a continuing resolution that shows that the majority in both this body and the other body have refused to take their funding responsibilities very seriously for the last year.

So as much as good as is in the food safety part of the bill, and as hard as Chairman Waxman and Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone have worked on that part of it, I still believe that the correct vote on this bill today is a ``no'' vote.

So, Mr. Speaker, we do ask that Members vote ``no'' on this. The good parts of the legislation we will hopefully bring back very quickly in the next Congress and have a vote in regular order early in the year.

With that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3082, the ``Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.''

This legislation includes extensions of Federal-aid highway, public transit, highway and motor carrier safety, and aviation programs.

The timely consideration of this measure is especially critical given that the current extensions of these transportation programs lapse on December 31, 2010.

Division B of this bill extends the current surface transportation programs for nine months, providing a total investment level of $54.8 billion for these programs in fiscal year 2011. This investment includes $42.3 billion for the Federal-aid highway program and $10.5 billion for Federal transit programs.

The extension of surface transportation programs provides continuity of funding for infrastructure projects, cutting-edge research, and highway safety programs across the country that are putting Americans to work, saving lives, and fostering economic prosperity for businesses and consumers alike.

An extension of current programs and funding levels is a far cry from my preferred approach to addressing the nation's growing surface transportation challenges. Meeting the overall needs of the system and developing a 21st century surface transportation network worthy of being passed on to future generations can only be accomplished through the passage of a robust and transformational long-term surface transportation authorization act.

However, extending these programs through the end of the fiscal year will provide States, localities, and public transit agencies with the degree of certainty necessary to move forward with their capital programs while Congress continues to work toward passage of a long-term surface transportation authorization bill.

I am also very pleased that Division B addresses a concern that I have raised with the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (P.L. 111-147) regarding the programmatic distribution of formerly earmarked funds that disproportionately benefited certain highway formula programs at the expense of other formula programs.

Division B distributes additional formula funds to States in lieu of additional Congressionally-designated funding. However, the HIRE Act distributed these additional funds to only six of the 13 Federal-aid highway formula programs. This extension act will instead distribute these funds among all 13 highway formula programs.

This change ensures that seven programs: the Appalachian Development Highway System; Rail-Highway Grade Crossing; Equity Bonus; Recreational Trails; Safe Routes to School; Coordinated Border Infrastructure; and Metropolitan Planning programs, receive additional funding in fiscal year 2011.

This approach is consistent with the approach taken in the 12 surface transportation extension acts enacted between 2003 and 2005, which distributed these additional funds through all Federal-aid highway formula programs.

In addition, H.R. 3082 includes an amended version of H.R. 5730, the ``Surface Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and Accountability Act,'' which passed the House on July 27, 2010, by a vote of 394-23. H.R. 3082 eliminates unobligated balances for approximately 300 Member-designated projects contained in previous surface transportation authorization acts, including every surface transportation authorization act of the past two decades. The bill clears the books of projects that will not go forward and saves taxpayers more than $600 million. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey) for introducing H.R. 5730 and working to ensure its inclusion in the bill before us today.

Specifically, the bill:

Rescinds all remaining highway earmarks designated in the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA) (P.L. 100-17);

Rescinds all remaining highway earmarks designated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240);

Rescinds all highway projects designated in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA 21) (P.L. 105-178) that have not obligated at least 10 percent of the funds authorized for the project; and

Rescinds all High Priority Project program funds authorized by the Safe, Accountable,

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) that were not designated for use on a specific project.

Division C of the bill extends aviation programs, taxes, and Airport and Airway Trust Fund expenditure authority through September 30, 2011. These provisions will ensure that Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, programs continue without interruption pending enactment of a long-term FAA reauthorization bill. As I have said many times over the past four years, the House has done its part to move FAA reauthorization legislation forward, only to be stymied by the Senate. In the event that a long-term FAA reauthorization bill is not enacted prior to the end of the 111th Congress, this extension act, which authorizes FAA programs through the end of the current fiscal year, will provide a measure of stability and certainty to FAA programs.

Finally, the bill extends all requirements and conditions of the Federal surface transportation and aviation programs, including provisions regarding the utilization of disadvantaged business enterprises, DBE. DBE provisions have been applicable to the Department of Transportation's financial assistance programs since 1980, and are designed to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts.

On March 26, 2009, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing entitled ``The Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Programs.'' During the hearing, the Committee reviewed a large volume of recent evidence of race and gender discrimination from numerous sources. This evidence demonstrated that discrimination across the nation poses a serious obstacle to full and fair participation in highway, transit, and airport construction projects of women business owners and minority business owners, and provides a strong basis in evidence that there is a compelling need for the continuation of the disadvantaged business enterprise program to address race and gender discrimination in these transportation construction projects. Based on the Committee's continuing oversight of the DBE program, Congress specifically finds that the DBE provisions are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3082, the ``Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.''