>> there is distance between the position. the eu says they would not support a blanket ban. that would affect the people of the ivory coast. >> there is a delicate balance here. we have to find a way to prevent him from appropriating resources that belong to the people, so that he can resist the will of the people. we are fully engaged with the eu. we call attention to the fact that there is a u.s. company taking action and we welcome that action. >> the u.s. house will cattle in

this afternoon to debate a role but would cut all discretionary non-security spending to 2008 levels. we expect that debate to get under way and a vote earlier this evening. we will have live coverage when they catalan. tomorrow, the state of the union he address. we will have the president's speech at 9:00 here on c-span, .-span radio and c-span.org information on the bombing in russia. 35 people have died. in a briefing this afternoon, robert gibbs spent much of the briefing in addition to starting with the moscow bombing, trying not to reveal some of the details about the state of the union speech tomorrow evening. this is 45 minutes.

>> a very good question. >> before i get started, let me -- i want to read a brief statement from the president on the terrorist attack in moscow today. "i strongly condemn this outrageous act of terrorism against the russian people at the domodedovo airport. i want to express the solidarity of the american people with the russian people in the aftermath of this premeditated attack against innocent civilians. michelle and i offer our deepest condolences to the russian people, who have suffered greatly at the hands of terrorism. we share your sorrow and a resolve to stand with you in our common fight against those who use terrorism for their political goals. our thoughts are with the families of the victims and we are praying for a successful recovery for all of those who

were injured." to give you an update, the president was briefed on these events at 10:45 a.m. in the oval office by john brennan, separate and apart from his presidential daily briefing. so, with that -- >> on the attacks, would it be your initial sense that it would be the work of chechen rebels, as opposed to some group that might also be -- >> i'm not going to get into -- i don't think it would be a good idea for me to get into that. obviously we are continuing to gather facts, to talk with the russian government. we would extend any assistance that they might want, and officials here and throughout our government will stay briefed throughout the day on it. >> and on the state of the union, your response to the comments by mcconnell and cantor yesterday, basically holding the line on any more spending? >> well, look, i think many of you will find this to be a

semi-unsatisfying briefing, the fact that i am not, at noon on monday, going to talk or give a lot about what the president is going to say at 9:00 p.m. on tuesday. i will say that i think you'll hear the president, as we've discussed, speak -- spend most of his time talking about the economy, talking about the challenges that we face both in the short term in terms of doing whatever we can to help create jobs, in the medium and long term to continue working on issues like competitiveness and innovation, and ensuring that in the medium and the long term we get our fiscal house in order. so i think this is -- we're not going to have a debate in washington about whether we need to make some changes and whether we need to control spending. hopefully, to have, a bipartisan discussion and

work together on how we go about doing that. >> if the administration has already assured democratic leaders that the president won't be calling for cuts to social security, will there be any specifics on curbing social security or cutting entitlements? >> i was going to print out the slide that said the president's state of the union is at 9:00 p.m. on tuesday. i likely should have done that. i know there's a lot of conjecture back and forth. i'm going to wait until the speech. and with that, i'm sure nobody has their hand raised because -- [laughter] that sort of sucked the air out of the room, didn't it? [laughter] >> robert, when will the president take a position on the deficit commission's report? >> well, look, i think you'll hear -- again, as i just said to erica, i think you'll hear the president talk about a whole host of economic things including getting our fiscal

house in order. and as you know, jeff, the president's budget will be released in fairly short order as well. >> you'll notice i didn't ask that about the state of the union, but -- >> i think -- my hunch is that you took the clause, "will the president, in the state of the union --" >> let's take that whole piece out of it. at some point, will he not take a position on which particular areas from those proposals he will support and which areas he would like to see implemented? >> jeff, i think, again, this is a president who, in last year's budget, instituted some tough measures in terms of our non-defense -- or non-security discretionary spending. you've seen proposals already this year to freeze civilian pay for government employees. and the president, again, will spend some time, not just tomorrow night and not just at

the introduction of the budget, but throughout the year, talking about what we have to do, again, to make progress on our spending. >> i think you said last year from the podium that deficit reduction would be one of the main priorities of the white house this year. is that still true? >> again, i think that the steps that we need to take to get our fiscal house in order will be something you'll hear a lot of discussion on this year, yes. >> let me ask one non-deficit question. does the white house have any reaction to president sarkozy's proposals on g20 today -- specifically regarding commodities? >> i know that we talked a little bit about this this morning, the speech that had been given, and i think nec was taking a look at that. but i have not heard anything back on that. jake. >> if the president, as -- senior administration officials have talked about some of the things that are going to be in the speech with us, with

democratic consultants. i understand you're not going to get into the details of that, but if -- >> but. [laughter] >> the president has been talking for months about the competitiveness agenda, investments in infrastructure and education and innovation. if the president is calling for that, which are spending programs, would it not be responsible to offset that spending with cuts elsewhere -- if the president is concerned about the deficit -- debt and deficit, as he also has said, including in his saturday address to supporters? >> i think that you'll find that what you just said isn't going to be -- won't be contradicted in the speech. >> a quick question about bradley manning, suspected of leaking information. is the administration satisfied that he's being kept in conditions that are appropriate for his accused crime, and that visitors to bradley manning are

treated as any visitors to any prisoner would be treated? >> i truthfully, jake, have not heard a lot of discussion on that inside of here. i'm happy to take a look at something in terms of a specific question about that. i think that i would direct you to the authorities that are holding him. >> and this last question is a follow-up on the statement you read from the president on the terrorist attack in moscow. has the president been in touch with medvedev or putin? >> not that i'm aware of at this point. and if a call in the schedule is layered on, we will let you know. >> will the u.s. extend assistance in the investigation? >> absolutely. as i said earlier, any assistance that the government of russia needs or wants, we certainly stand ready to help them. dan. >> robert, how much -- you said that the president's state of the union will focus on jobs.

but how much of that speech will also look at foreign policy, and in particular, afghanistan? >> i think the president will certainly get into a discussion of some aspects of our foreign policy and will certainly talk about where we are and what progress has been made in our war in afghanistan, absolutely. >> and will it be an optimistic view in terms of the progress that is -- >> i don't think it will be different than the way we've been talking about it, and i would stay tuned for the speech. >> you're giving it away. [laughter] >> i think most of the people in this room would probably grade me as not having given a ton away at this point. >> a new poll, cnn poll pointing that the president's approval rating continuing to rise. you tend not to like those polls whenever we ask -- when the numbers are going down. >> you haven't tended to ask me about one that's gone up.

[laughter] >> now i'm asking you that. does the administration watch these numbers? and what do you credit for the spike? >> i watch these numbers because many of you ask me about your own polls during these briefings. but, look, i would go back to what we were saying, dan, in all honesty, back during the beginning of the lame duck session -- quite frankly, even somewhat directly after the election. the message that the american people had delivered in an election was that both sides have a stake in governing this country and both sides should put aside politics and game- playing to sit down and try to solve the biggest, most vexing problems that we have. i think in the state of the union address -- i'm sorry -- in the lame duck session, you

saw that whether it was on taxes, whether it was on things like start, whether it was on issues like food safety or what have you, or "don't ask, don't tell," people put aside game- playing and broad bipartisan majorities made progress on behalf of the american people. i think the american people saw two groups sitting down at a big table and figuring out how to solve our problems. and i think because of that, people have reacted positively to the progress that has been made, and not just the overall impact of it but how we went about doing it. and i think it's a pretty good road map on a whole host of issues as we move forward. >> one other question -- someone brought something up about this last week in the briefing -- about gun control. do we expect to hear the president talk anything more about that in light of what we've been seeing -- what happened out west? >> from a policy perspective,

i'll simply tell you that, as i said last week, i don't doubt that as a result of the impact of the issues of what happened in tuscon, that there will be a number of proposals that this white house and the congress will evaluate, and we'll wait until tomorrow to see what's in the state of the union. >> what is he favoring more so than another -- >> i don't have any outcome of that evaluation. >> thanks, robert. could you give any kind of tick-tock on the president's work on the state of the union, how much time he's spent, whether he was up late this weekend, how many hours he's put in, how close it is to completion? >> well, i think most of the -- most, if not all, of the policy decisions certainly have well been made. i know the president met with advisors in the oval just this morning to go through sort of where it is. and, look, i anticipate, as per most of his speeches, that he'll -- he worked on it

certainly this weekend and worked on it a lot of last week and i think he'll continue to go through it and make some line edits as -- probably well into early tomorrow evening. i should say this. we do have and we'll be putting out a fuller list of who has been invited and who will be in the first lady's box. i think some of you have seen or reported that daniel hernandez will be there, and that is accurate. the family of christina taylor green will be there, as well as dr. peter rhee from the hospital -- >> live house coverage on c-

span. this resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point in order to consider in the house to consider house resolution 38 to reduce spending through a transition through nonsecurity spending at 2008 fiscal year levels. the rules now printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted. the resolution as amended shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on rules and one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one hour.

mr. dreier: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield 30 minutes to my good friend from worcester. all time yielded will be for debate purposes only and peppeding that, i yield myself such time as i might consume and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, runaway federal spending is one of the most significant issues that this congress is facing. our national debt has implications for nearly every major challenge that we must confront. it's tied to our economic recovery. it's tied to our national security. it's tied to our ability to deliver on our constitutional mandate for transparent, limited and responsive government. the time to exercise our power of the purse with discipline and restraint is long overdue. the time for us to exercise our power of the purse restraint is

long, long overdue. we must return to pre-bailout, pre-binge spending levels for funding the federal government. we know that a great deal of hard work and tough decisions lie ahead for every single member of this institution. we know that a great deal of hard work is there and we're going to face some very difficult, tough, tough decisions. there are going to be difficult decisions, but, mr. speaker, they are decisions we are going to have to make. first and foremost, we must get our economy growing and our work force expanding again. strong growth and job creation will increase tax revenues and provide greater resources that are needed. but, mr. speaker, that's only half of the equation. economic growth is critically important. we need to do it so we can

enhance the flow of revenues to deal with owes essential items that are there, but it is half the equation. we can't get back on to a firm ground with sound fiscal standing unless we have a leaner federal budget. some of this can be accomplished by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. everybody is always in favor of eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. and what's the best way to do that? robust oversight. robust oversight will allow us to streamline federal spending and make better use of taxpayer dollars. but we have to acknowledge up front that hard work and painful cuts lie ahead. we know this isn't going to be an easy task but it is absolutely essential. just as families and small businesses across this country have been forced to cut back during these difficult economic times, we here in this

institution are going to have to do the same, and that's the message we got last november that brought people like my rules committee colleague, mr. scott, who is sitting here next to me on the floor, that's the message. some federal programs, some federal programs, mr. speaker, are wasteful, and deserve to be cut. there will be others that have merit that which we simply cannot afford at the current levels. we have to be honest about that. we have to engage in a responsible debate about what our priorities must be. what we cannot do is allow this debate to degenerate into false accusations about the other side's intentions and let me repeat that, mr. speaker. we cannot let the kind of free-flowing rigorous debate we need to have to generate into these accusations that we so

often seem to hear around here. there is no one in this body who wants to gut -- there is no one in this body that wants to gut funding for key essential programs, like veterans' programs or like education, child nutrition. no one wants to gut these programs. so i think it's important for us to state that. and there is no evidence that any proposal out there would undermine things like support for our nation's veterans. we are all entering into this debate with good faith, good intentions and a commitment to response by address the need to implement fiscal discipline. we will have to make hard choices, but that process will not be served by unfair or disingenuous accusations. we also recognize that this will be a lengthy process. we are just beginning what is

going to be a two-year process focused on this. today's underlying resolution, the measure we will be considering through this rule and then on the floor tomorrow, is merely the first step in this ongoing effort to bring our federal budget back into the black. our committees will have to conduct extensive oversight, as i mentioned earlier, of federal programs. we will have to dispense with fiscal year 2011 spending, which the last congress failed to do before we can even begin to deal with the coming fiscal year. the underlying resolution that we have before us today lays down a marker for reducing spending and puts the house on record for its commitment to tackle this issue in a serious way, the hard work will follow. as this process proceeds, rank and file members of both political parties, democrats and republicans alike, will have the

opportunity to participate in our effort to address these very tough decisions. through constructive debate, we can finally begin to impose real accountability and discipline in our federal budget. in concert with pro-growth policies, and i said, to me, the most essential thing is implementing pro-growth economic policies, but going hand and hand with thinks pro-growth policies, this effort will put us back on the path of economic recovery and job creation. today's rule sets the stage for the start of that effort. i'm going to urge my colleagues to support this rule and demonstrate their resolve to tackle runaway federal spending in a serious way. and with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized.

mr. mcgovern: i thank the chairman for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i rise in strong opposition to this closed rule, so much for an open process and so much for a free flow of ideas. i rise in strong opposition to the underlying resolution. once again, the republican majority is choosing to ignore the single most important issue facing the american people, jobs. my republican friends have brought forth a resolution that they tout as a spending reduction measure. in fact, the resolution doesn't cut a single dollar, not one dime from the federal budget. if this were a good-faith effort, there would be some numbers in this resolution. instead the resolution, and i quote, assume nonsecurity spending at fiscal year 2008 levels, unquote without specifying exactly what those levels might be.

in other words, mr. speaker, this is a budget resolution without any numbers, which is why it is so meaningless. we are told that the numbers are on their way, that the congressional budget office will tell us on wednesday of this week, what the impact of this resolution would be if it were actually put into place. so why are we are here today debating this issue? why can't we wait until wednesday we have the numbers? the answer is is as plain on the calendar on the wall, politics, pure and simple. the republican leadership has scheduled a vote before president obama addresses the nation in his state of the union address, that way they will have a fresh set of talking points. and say look how serious we are about cutting government funding, when they haven't cut anything. another problem with the resolution, it reinforces a terrible precedent that they established in their rules

package. under those rules, a single member of congress, the chairman of the budget committee, has the authority to determine spending levels for the government for the rest of the year. now, like all of my colleagues, i have a great deal of respect for mr. ryan, but i strongly disagree with the notion that he and only he should determine something is fundamental as the budget of the united states. mr. speaker, we have to vote in this house to change the name of a post office, but we can't have a vote on how much we spend on education, on food safety, on infrastructure, on environmental cleanup or medical research? that's a far cry from the openness and transparency that my republican friends promised. last week in the rules committee, i offered an amendment to this resolution that would have allowed the other 435 members of the house the opportunity to vote on this critical issue, but my republican colleagues defeated

my amendment on a party-line vote. finally, mr. speaker, the resolution walls off defense spending from the budget act. we hear all the time from my friends on the other side of the aisle that everything should be on the table. why, then, would they take hundreds of billions of dollars in potential savings off the table right out of the gate? even speaker boehner said, and i quote, i believe there is room to find savings in the department of defense, end quote. if that's true and it most certainly is, why did this resolution treat this as untouchable. when it comes to the federal budget, the republican majority is not off to a good start. the rules package paved the way for them to add $5 trillion to the deficit and they voted to repeal the health care law and ood to the deficit and now they are rushing a one-page bill without a single number or any specifics about how and where they want to cut.

what we are doing today, mr. speaker, is not real. there are no tough choices being made today. this is show business, and quite frankly, it diminishes the legislative process. the american people deserve much, much better, and i urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and i urge them to reject the underlying bill. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield two minutes to one of our new members who i mentioned in my opening remarks, the gentleman from from north charleston, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this rule we are considering. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. as a business owner who has only

been in congress for 19 days, if we want more jobs in our economy, we must be serious about spending cuts. spending in washington is burdening future generations. unborn americans, unborn americans will have to pay for the benefits that we ascribe to ourselves. in the previous two years, congress has added nearly $3.3 trillion to the national debt. is it any wonder, then, that during the same time period, our unemployment rate has skyrocket frd 7.8% to 9.4%? it's not. as a small business owner, i don't have to pay higher taxes, i'm able to hire more people. when i don't pay higher taxes, i can invest in more equipment and more services. every dollar taken by me from the government means i have to

go out and earn two more dollars just to break even. that's why i offered the amendment in the rules committee for spending even less, even less than the 2008 levels. 2008 levels is just a start. and we need to go much deeper than that. i support this rule. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me acknowledge the presence of my new colleague on the rules committee, if this was a serious effort, there would be numbers. there are none. this is about issuing a press release -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i will not. this is about issuing a press release after the state of the union so they can have a talking point to go home with. this isn't a serious effort. if it was, there would be numbers in there.

mr. dreier: would the gentleman yield for 30 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield to the the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. mcgovern: three minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank my colleague, here we go again. if this were a serious proposal on the budget, you would have a budget number in this document. there is no number in this document. . on opening day our republican colleagues wrote a measure that gutted the pay-as-you-go rule that we have in this body and did an end run around the pay-as-you-go law. a few days later we figured out why they did that. because they added $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years and $1.4 trillion over 20 years.

those aren't my numbers, those are the numbers of the independent, nonpartisan congressional budget office with respect to the impact of their effort to repeal health care reform instead of doing what we should be doing which is focusing on jobs. that measure on opening day also did another thing. it gave the chairman of the budget committee unprecedented power to unilaterally pick the budget ceilings, the spending ceilingses, for this entire congress. no input from anybody else, no debate, no vote. so all of us thought when this new measure was coming up, maybe now we're going to have some accountability. maybe this body will have an opportunity to vote on the very important spending ceilings for the united states congress and for the government. but lo and behold when you look at the resolution there's no number. where's the beef? and i have to say to my

colleagues that, if you want transparency why are you hiding the ball? is the number going to be $100 billion? is it going to be $80 billion? $60 billion? we hear all different numbers in the press out there and they haven't put it in the measure. instead they've said once again, we're going to allow the chairman of the budget committee to decide. i have great respect for the chairman of the budget committee but none of us should be contracting out our votes and our responsibilities to another member of congress. we shouldn't ever do that. certainly we shouldn't be doing that on something as important as setting the overall budget and spending ceilings for the united states government. that's irresponsible and yet that's what this rule will ask every member to do. contract out his or her vote to one person. so why are we doing this? why are we bringing a budget resolution to the floor with no number? as my colleagues said, timing is everything here. this is an opportunity to have a

press release tomorrow, the day the president's going to deliver the state of the union address, to create the illusion that they're making progress on the budget number. without a number. now, we heard from our colleagues on the republican side, well, you know what? we have to wait for the congressional budget office to tell us what their projections are so we can figure out the magnitude of the reductions. i ask for an additional minute. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. van hollen: we asked them, why don't we have the number? they said, well, we got to wait for c.b.o. we're pleased to hear the new found respect for the c.b.o. numbers, but here's my point. that's going to happen within 24 hours of tomorrow. 24 hours. we could have a budget resolution with the beef, with the numbers so everyone could decide what the ceilings are going to be. no. we got to do it tomorrow. why? state of the union address, great press release. now, i've heard my colleagues

say they've got to do this because there was nothing in place in the house from a budget perspective. well in fact the house last year passed a budget enforcement act. i got it right here. it's got a number in it. it's got a number. like these budget documents have . mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield on that point? mr. van hollen: i'd be happy to yield -- mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield the gentleman time. mr. van hollen: certainly. mr. dreier: what was the vote in the house on that budget that my friend was just talking about? mr. van hollen: i don't remember the exact vote but it passed, mr. chairman. it was deemed, there was never a vote in this institution -- mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. van hollen: there was a vote on the resolution in the house. if you want to talk about deeming, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is -- that 30 seconds came from the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i ask reckons because he yielded to me. i took three seconds and he yielded me 30. i thank you, mr. chairman.

deeming. what we're doing today is the ultimate example of deeming. we are passing a resolution that deems in advance the passage of a number that we don't even know and it's going to be decided by one person. we are deeming that individual all the authority and the shame of it is that that's a process that i think we all recognize as flawed and yet this is deeming on steroids. so i would suggest that we come up with a real number, put some beef on this, have a real argument and let every member vote and take responsibility. i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. let me say that i think that one of the thicks that we have to -- things that we have to recognize here, and i'm happy to engage in rigorous debate and i'm happy that we have not at this point had any of our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the prospect of starving

children, throwing people out of schools, dedrivinging -- depriving veterans of access to the things that they need. and so i express my appreciation to my colleagues because up in the rules committee that was the tenor of the discussion that took place upstairs. one thing that i want to say, mr. speaker, is that in 1974 the congress put into place, known as the -- legislation known as the 1974 budget and empowerment act. i happen to believe that that needs to be overhauled because democrats and republicans alike recognize that the 1974 budget and emboundment act has been a failure -- empoundment fact has been a failure, an abject failure. i've been working with my friend from maryland and mr. ryan, the chairman of the budget committee, as well as the chair and ranking member, messrs. conrad and sessions in the senate, on the notion of our working together in a bipartisan

, bicameral way to bring about an overhaul of the 1974 budget and empoundment act. now, one of the reasons, one of the reasons that i believe it is essential is that last year was the first time ever that we have not seen a budget passed. it's the first time since implementation of the 1974 budget and empoundment act. mr. speaker, with all due respect to the crocodile tears that are being shed so often on this house floor, i think it's important to note that that is why we are in the position where we are today. we wouldn't be here had we had a budget passed. now, many people talk about this calendar year. but we are five months, we are five months into the fiscal year and that is the reason that we are in a position where we're having to make the kinds of tough decisions that we are. my friend from north charleston, my very, very thoughtful colleague, is a new member of

the rules committee, has been raising with me some very simple and commonsense questions about the process that we have been going through. one of the things that he just said in a meeting that we just participated in was that we need to recognize that we at this moment are beginning the process. we're beginning the process of cutting spending. this is going to be a two-year struggle. and so this is not going to be the end of our effort to try and rein in wasteful federal spending and i know my friend had some thoughts on that and i'd be happy to yield to minimum if he'd like to either pose a question or offer any comments that relate to either the health care bill and the vote that we just had or any other issue. i i yield to my friend. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. is it the first time since 1974 that the house has operated without a budget? mr. dreier: i thank my friend for giving me the opportunity to repeat what i just said to that we can underscore it.

never before have we failed to have a budget and yet for the first time in 36 years that happened. and that's why i believe that we have a chance to work, democrats and republicans together, with our colleagues on in the other body to bring about real reform of the budget act it sefment i'd be happy to further yield to my friend. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. when you think of the about the repeal of health care, is that not a savings of trillions of dollars, a trillion-dollar hold or an abyss on an entitlement program? does it not reduce the debt by $700 billion? are these not real numbers? if we really wanted a number, if we were looking for the number, would they not have passed a budget last year? mr. dreier: let me say that my friend is absolutely right. throughout the debate that took place last week, we heard that in fact repealing the $2.7 trillion health care bill would end up costing $230 billion

based on the numbers provided to us by the congressional budget office's estimates. we kept hearing that and one of the things in one of the exchanges we had with mr. pence, only in washington, d.c., can bringing about the elimination of a $2.7 trillion expenditure actually cost money. now, mr. speaker, i think that the thing that we need to point to is not only the smoke and mirrors that went into the recommendations that were provided, whether it's dealing with the class act which the chairman of the senate budget committee has scribed as a ponzi scheme -- described as a ponsj scheme, whether it's that, or -- ponzi scheme, whether it's that, or to me the most important thing to point to is the fact that in that measure there is a 3/4 of $1 trillion, mr. speaker, that's 3/4 of a $1 trillion tax increase that is being posed along with the mandates. so my friend from north

charleston is absolutely right, mr. speaker, when he points to the fact that we were in fact saving dollars with the action that we took last week and we're very committed to ensuring that people have access to quality, affordable health insurance by allowing for the purchase of insurance across state lines, pooling to deal with pre-existing conditions, associated health plans so that small businesses can get lower rates, the idea of meaningful lawsuit abuse reform which the president of the united states talked about last year in his state of the union message. i mean, these are the kinds of things that we believe can immediately drive the cost of health insurance and health care down itself and at the same time we can disengage the federal government's dramatic involvement in it -- -- in this. i appreciate my friend from north charleston for bringing this commonsense that he's sharing with us.

with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentmalen achusetts. mr. mcgovern: yeah, mr. speaker, i'm glad my friend on the other side of the aisle are happy they voted to repeal the affordable health care bill but i'll tell you that there are real people in this country who are benefiting from the real protections in the bill, who are quite anxious about the fact that there are people who want to remove the protection, for example, to prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. there are parents who can keep their kids on their insurance until they're 26 who are not too happy about that repeal. there are senior citizens who are benefiting from the closing of the doughnut hole who are actually feeling some benefits from this health care bill that aren't too happy that the republicans want to repeal all that and on top that have c.b.o. said it adds considerably to our deficit. at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm amazed that high colleague

from california brings up the health care reform. we were bringing up the c.b.o. numbers to say that we had a $230 billion reduction in the deficit in the first 10 years and $1 trillion beyond that. we're giving them actual numbers from the c.b.o. to talk about deficit reduction. but i don't see any numbers in this budget resolution that's on the floor today and tomorrow. i call it the budget-less resolution because it contains no numbers, no spisks and no ideas for job creation or economic recovery and it doesn't even include a serious plan to reduce the deficit. this is not the way to manage the budget. it's worse than arbitrary. it's like budgeting with blind folds on. it gives no thought, no reason, no real discussion on how the cuts would be made and what the ramifications would be. and worst of all, the republican resolution continues to ignore job creation and economic recovery. it doesn't even contain a real plan to reduce the deficit. we gave you numbers with the health care reform that would actually reduce the deficit.

this is a numberless budget, nothing at all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, my colleague, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i was unclear in my own mind which was worse, the terrible procedural abuse of this resolution or the serious substantive flaw. but i then realized they come together. because it is procedurally outrageous so as to protect a substantive grave error. first of all, it is a major piece of legislation and it's not amendable. just like the health care bill. you may remember, mr. speaker, what people on the republican side said about open rules. it will be a fond memory but apparently not a reality. we have a very important piece of legislation subject to no

amendment and chaired a committee for four years and never would i have brought a bill to the floor with such an impact and had no amendments in order whatsoever. but i understand why they don't want an amendment, because it would reveal the grave flaw. this says, reduce nonsecurity spending until 2008. in other words, exempt about half of discretionary spending. all security i assume to mean military spending. now we have a war and we have to defend the people who we put out there. i have to say, those who talk about shutting the government down, i don't know what they're going to tell the people in afghanistan who are out there being shot at. but we have got tens of billions that we are spending, subsidizing our war for the allies in europe and asia. the argument that you exempt military spending from budgetary discipline is one of the reasons we are in the terrible hole we're in. now, it is clearly indefensible to argue that you would exempt military spending from budget discipline.

so how do you defend it? you dedefend it by not allowing an amendment that would bring it forward. . why shouldn't security go down to the level of 2008 but go down somewhat. this is part of the philosophy that puts pressure on all of the domestic spending. and affects the quality of life in america. by security, i mean police officers in the streets and cities i represent and firefighters and bridges that won't collapse, but that's not security as it's defined by the republicans. that's the kind of spending that will be severely cut. instead, we have a total exemption for the pentagon. we have mr. gates, a bush appointee, kept on by mr. obama, said it's time to reduce the military and republicans have attacked him. let be very clear, there can't be a balanced approach when you

follow this philosophy. not only totally exempt the military but don't even allow an amendment that would make it something that you could talk about. the notion that you give all this power to one person is interesting. what we are learning is the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, has been somewhat more courageous than others. apparently what we are learning today is the republican committee has the courage in paul ryan's conviction and i wish they had the courage to allow us to debate whether military spending is included. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: then, this is just the first step in a long process, which will allow the kind of free-flowing debate we are talking about. my friend will recall that never before had we gone through the appropriations process the way we did the last two years. that being, my friend and i

arrived here in 1981 and when it came to the issue of spending, members had the opportunity to stand up on the house floor and offer an amendment to the appropriations bill. and i will tell you that it's our intention to once again have that kind of debate that we had all the way up until the last two years. so i can assure my friend that our goal of having a free-flowing debate is important. the second point i would like to make is that while my friend has continually said we didn't make amendments in order to this measure, there were no amendments submitted to the rules committee that would have given us the opportunity to do that. we did make an amendment in order that modifies this that came from mr. scott in the rules committee that actually said that we should get to 2008 levels or less and it is true. my friend sfr worcester asked to make an amendment in order by mr. van molen, but there were no amendments submitted to the

rules committee and that vote was taken by the rules committee. mr. frank: you said no amendments were smithed and mr. mcgovern asked for one on behalf of mr. van hollen. mr. dreier: amendments submitted to the rules committee, we don't actually have. when it comes to the rules committee, when we are getting ready to point out a rule, there are amendments submitted. there were amendments proposed and the rules committee chose not to make that amendment in order. mr. frank: would the gentleman would yield to me. mr. dreier: i think i control the time here. it's important to note we did have an amendment considered in the rules committee by mr. scott, which actually brought us to lower levels. it said 2008 levels or less. and i yield to my friend. mr. frank: the record will show the gentleman just amended his statement about amendments

because he said no amendments were offered and i would ask people to look at the record, and he said, an amendment was offered. first statement was no amendments were offered. mr. dreier: reclaiming my time to say the following and i'll yield to my friend again. i want to clarify what it was that i said. amendments are submitted up to the rules committee. there were no amendments that were actually submitted to the rules committee and there is another issue that we need to point to also, and that is, there is going to be something that was often denied, and that is a motion to recommit with instructions is going to be included in this measure so that the minority will have a bite of the apple that was more often than not denied in the past. that is the direction toward a more open process. and, as i said, this is the beginning, the beginning of a process that will consider a budget resolution and an appropriations process, which will give members, democrats and

republicans a like an opportunity to participate. with that, i yield two minutes to my friend from san diego -- mr. frank: would the gentleman yield to me snr mr. mcgovern: the gentleman from san diego has asked to be recognized and i yield two minutes to my friend from san diego and if mr. mcgovern chooses to yield time to my friend, i'm happy to engage in a discussion with him again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. bilbray: let me say someone who has been in local government, those of us in the federal government have to understand that there are jurisdictions and priorities that we need to set. some people believe that it it is as much a responsibility of the federal government to hire police officers as it is to maintain a military. i'm sorry, the constitutional line for those of us who were mayors and county chairmen, the

federal government needs to concentrate on our responsibility, defending our borders and national security. those of us who served at local government, would be able to address those issues much more appropriately and have a lot less burden. but i want to talk about the opportunities we have to work in a bipartisan effort. when we talk about budget reduction, rather than denying americans the right to live in the united states unless they buy certain insurance, why aren't we talking about doing cost reductions like california has done, not exactly a right-wing legislature. it has had an impact on the cost of insurance on physicians, that an ob-gyn in los angeles paid 30% to 40% less for insurance than the same doctor in new york. you can't tell me the cost of living is that much different, except for the fact that sacramento is recognized that tort reform and limitations of trial lawyers' impact on health care is an essential one. if the legislature of california

can agree to maintain that, why can't we work together to address those issues? if we're talking about wanting to reduce costs, why didn't the health bill allow americans rather than taking away their rights to live in the country, the freedom to buy across state lines? that is well within our jurisdiction as a federal body. why didn't we give freedom the answer to be able to reduce costs rather than taking the rights of americans to live here? that is a real scary concept that we can't join on tort redorm. and let's face it, the liability issue is an interesting one. the federal government and states can actually address issues that says -- mr. dreier: i yield my friend an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. bilbray: i know this out, because i was running a health care system for over three million people. the federal government has special protection for physicians if they are in community clinics that we do not give to other physicians.

the federal government accepts the situation where somebody on medicaid has more rights to sue their physician than the men and women in uniform in this country. and i challenge you to tell me how it's justifiable that if somebody doesn't pay for their medical costs in the military, they don't get to sue their doctor, but somebody on welfare and public assistance, they can sue. can we talk about bringing those issues together and addressing the ability for a lawyer to get into an operating room is not as important as the right or the need of physicians to be able to do their job that is so essential. and i want to close with this, we have not been talking about health care in the last year, we have been talking about health insurance and the crisis that's coming down this pike, in 10 years, you may be able to call the health insurance people, but won't be able to find a doctor unless you call 1-800 and get it over the phone. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: our concern about this budget bill before us has no number in it and is a press release to be able to talk about tomorrow after the state of the union. i want to clarify what happened in the rules committee. i did offer an amendment that was rejected on party lines that would say -- that said that members of congress ought to have the ability to vote on this magic number that the chairman of the budget committee will come up with. that is rejected. there was an amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida which would allowed mr. van hollen, a substitute. that was rejected. there was an amendment for an open rule, so we could have a free and open debate, and that was rejected. there were amendments and rejected. before i yield four minutes to the the gentleman from new jersey, i yield one minute to the the gentleman from massachusetts for a point of clarification.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: i want to address this motion that police officers on our local streets pales insignificant to the military. we have troops in western europe where our western european allies are cutting their military budgets and i do think funding police officers and firefighters in our cities is more important than allowing germany and england to reduce their military budgets because we subsidize them. secondly, i will say to the the gentleman from california, i'm somewhat disappointed. he did say there were no amendments offered. we have now heard three were offered. if he meant there were none on paper previously submitted, maybe he should have said that, because it would have been of no great relevance. amendments were offered and they were rejected. the gentleman wouldn't yield to me -- mr. speaker, regular order. regular order. the gentleman from california wasn't happy with what he said

and didn't want to continue the debate. i urge people to read the record tomorrow and read his statement that no amendments were offered and read what the gentleman from massachusetts said and see where the truth lies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: there were no amendments submitted to the rules committee. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield four minutes to the the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: as we meet this afternoon, there are 15 million americans without a job. and this debate represents yet another wasted opportunity for us to come together and address the real number one issue of the country, which is putting people back to work. the debate also represents a curious lack of clarity as to

what exactly the majority is proposing. and there are words in this resolution, but there aren't numbers, so i did research on my own about numbers. let's take f.b.i. agents, for example. now, the resolution says that security spending is exempted, but doesn't define security spending. when we pass the budget for f.b.i. agents here, that budget is under the justice, commerce, science, budget, so i don't know if this is within security spending or not. but here's what i do know. in the present fiscal year, if we maintain the budget that we have been living under since october 1, we are on track to spend $7.6 billion on f.b.i. agents, if we do what the resolution says, which is to go back to spend in 2008, we would spend 22% less than that, or 6.

-- $6.5 billion. if you look at the average salary of an f.b.i. agent, that would mean we make due with 1,720 fewer f.b.i. agents than we due today. i would be happy to yield to the sponsor of the resolution for him to tell me if that is true. if this passes, are we going to have that level in f.b.i. agents? mr. dreier: it has been indicated early on, we aren't going to see across-the-board spending cuts. and i believe we can preserve the number. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time, the chairman has said we won't have across-the-board cuts. that means that we'll have to find larger cuts than 22% in other areas of the justice department budget. the court system, enforcement of

the immigration laws, the other things the justice department does. the resolution says nothing about what those would be. so i think we can be critical in another area. . we're spending about $5.8 billion in cancer research. if we do what the resolution says, we'll cut by 22% and spend $4.6 billion. the average conser research grant is $350,000. that means we would have 3,628 fewer cancer research grants if we're not -- if we're -- if we're not going to have an across the board cut, i would say, where else in the national institute of health are we going to cut? research for alzheimer's? research for diabetes?

research for other areas? the resolution says nothing. here's what a prominent american has to say about resolutions like this, and i'm quoting. you can't kill the national debt or deficit by killing npr or the national endowment for the humanities or the arts. nice political chatter, but that doesn't do it. i'm very put off when people say, let's go back and freeze to the level two years ago. don't tell me you're going to freeze to a level. that's usually a very inefficient way of doing it. tell me what you're going to cut and nobody up there, meaning capitol hill, yet is being very, very candid about what they're going to cut to fix this problem. tell me what you're going to cut. i ask for 30 more seconds. >> i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. andrews: ethe author of that quote is not a democrat inmember of the house. it's not a white house

spokesman. the author of that quote ve tired general -- retired secretary of state cloin powell. who said yesterday, tell me what you're going to cut. the minority doesn't want to grapple with that problem, which is why there are no amendments made in order, no numbers in the bill and no reason to vote for this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: i yield myself a minute and a half to respond to my friend with a couple of comments. first, this is about job creation and economic growth. today we live with an economy where there is a tremendous degree of uncertainty and we know right now that there are job creators, investors, who have resources on the sidelines. i don't believe there's anything that we could do, well there are a number of things we could do they may be as prnt, redeucing the job -- the tax burden on job

creators, but one of the things i think is critical for us to do is begin getting our fiscal house in order to provide an incentive for job creation and economic growth. the next point i'd like to make is while i con gradge lated my friends p mr. mcgovern and mr. van hollen for not engaging in the sky-is-falling threats about what might happen down the road or determining what would happen, i have to say that i was a little concerned and i've come to the conclusion that if one can't prioritize, mr. speaker, they resort to demonizing. and the notion -- i'll yield in just a moment. i will in just a moment. the fact is, we are beginning a process that will see us for the first time in two years have a free-flowing debate on appropriations. when my friend mentioned both the national institutes of health and the f.b.i., i believe

that those are important priorities that democrats and republicans alike want to fund. my friend has concluded -- i yield myself an additional 30 seconds, mr. speaker. my friend has concluded that somehow he knows exactly what will be cut based on the resolution. mr. andrews: will the gentleman yield? mr. dreier: i will in a moment. he concluded he knows what will be cut in the national institutes of health and the f.b.i. there are as we move ahead with the appropriations level, debate that will be coming in the next several months. we'll be in a position where we'll be able to, democrats and republicans alike, establish our priorities. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. andrews: how much time is left. mr. dreier: i yield. mr.en andrews: i am not demonizing the gentleman, i think the gentleman speaks with great sincerity. the gentleman says i know what is going to be cut, no one knows

what's going to be cut. can you tell us where in the n.i.h. budget you'll make up the difference by not cutting the cancer research budget. mr. dreier: let me say that obviously it does not have to be done within the national institutes of health. the notion of saying that it has to be cut there, we have seen a doubling, we've seen a doubling in the level of funding under president bush for the national institutes of health, mr. speaker and i think that there are areas where we can bring about cuts without -- i yield myself 15 seconds, mr. speaker. ewe can do that without in any way jeopardizing the important priorities we have. with that,ry i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized of. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: it could come from labor or health and human services. so where will you make up for not cutting the cancer research

budget by 22%. i yield. mr. dreier: this is the beginning of a process that will allow us to do just that, the country survived. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time. this is what general powell was talking about. tell us where to cut and we get verbiage but no real answer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: may i inquire of the chair how much time is remaining on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has six minute the gentleman from massachusetts has 9 1/2 minutes. mr. dreier: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, before i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, i just want to point out one of the reasons why these questions are coming up is because when this resolution was brought before the rules committee the chairman of the budget committee didn't show, nor did the chairman of the appropriations committee.

so there are no numbers in this bill. so we are very, very concerned about what numbers might exist out there. i think people in this house, democrats and republicans, ought to know what the real numbers are. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield for 10 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield for 10 seconds. mr. dreier: this resolution did not emerge from the budget committee, it's a resolution of the house rules committee, we are the committee of jurisdiction for the -- for h.r. 38. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for making that collar 23i case. however, what we're talking about is -- for making that clarification. however what we're talking about is setting the spending levels so if there are questions about how deep the cuts will be or where they'll come from, it's because we have no clarity. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: those of us on this side have said, we need to

focus our efforts on job creation and getting the economy going. i know the chairman said that's what this bill is all about. but let's look at what the bipartisan commission on deficit and debt reduction said. they said two things. one, absolutely, we need to put our country on a sustainable path toward deficit reduction and work together to get that done. they also said another thing. they said draconian cuts right now would in fact reverse the economic progress we're making, that it would threaten the fragile economic recovery and hurt job creation in this country chsm is one reason we would like to know what the number in this, i would yield immediately if you can tell me whether it's going to be $100 billion this year, $80 billion, $60 billion, whatever it will be, because there's no number. if you've got it, it should have been in here. let me get, mr. speaker to the other issue the gentleman raised. we have pointed out that if you do the $100 billion cut which is what you all talked about in the fall, right now in the immediate

moment, that it will result in approximately 20% across the board cuts. now all of you say when we raise specifics like cutting research for freement and cures at n.i.h., no, no, no, we're not going to cut that. then we say, ok, you're going to cut the f.b.i. budget because that's not part of the protected budget. no, no, no you say, we're not going to cut that. you keep moving stuff off the table. do you know what that does to the rest of the budget? it gos from 20% cut, to 30%, to 40% who knows what it is. but the point we're making is, you haven't given us the starting point number. so you don't have a clue and of course we don't either, but you don't have a clue because you haven't come up with a number. we know there's been a lot of discussion on your side of the aisle no secret about what that number will be, you amended this rules provision, but if you got the number, put it in here now and if you're going to get it, the day after tomorrow, on

wednesday, wait 24 hours and let this body vote on it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is expired. mr. dreier: i yield myself one minute to say to my friends, it's interesting to have this debate, and i'm happy to be standing on this side say, we got the message last november 2, i know the 87 new mobes on our side who came to the this institution have made it clear, the goal of moving in a direction of bringing about spending cuts is critically important. now my good friend has just become the ranking member of the committee on the budget. i know it's a new assignment, it's a new assignment for my friend, but i'd like to take just a moment to explain what the budget process consists of. we are going to see your committee proceed with establishing the broad 302a allocations and that big number will be determined. this institution, democrats and republicans aliking and again we haven't seen -- republicans alike, and again we haven't seen it in the last two years because we shut down the appropriations

process, but weir going to allow -- we're going to allow members the opportunity to actually participate in establishing those priorities. that is going to be a joint effort. our priority is -- i yield myself 15 seconds, mr. speaker. our priority is to get the economy back back on track and create jobs. we know very quell that getting our fiscal house in order is going to be essential if we are going to have the kind of job creation that both democrats and republicans want. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 seconds to mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the skwlelt is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: i thank the gentleman for his useful guidance. the fact of the matter is in the spring, we'll begin the budget process in the budget committee. we're now feeling with fy-2011. as the chairman know, there's a

budget resolution in effect that had a number in it. you chose not to extend put it. now for the first time ever, you have asked this house, every member to surrender his or her responsibility on the number to one person. that is budget malpractice and it also cedes all responsibility. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i really appreciate the gentleman's dramaticcally raising the level of a simple two paragraph house resolution that is the first step in a process that will allow the budget committee to do its work, to allow the appropriators and through the appropriators the full house, democrats and republicans alike to establish those priorities and so i would say to my friend that while we do very much want -- i'll yield in just a second. why we do very much want, mr. speaker, to have a chance for this institution to go on record and i hope democrats will join

in support of h.res. 38 when it's voted on tomorrow to go on record demonstrating the institution's commitment to having heard the message from the american people and out of respect to my friend, i yield myself 15 seconds and yield to my friend. mr. andrews: my question is simple. do you think it makes a difference to the process whether the number that ends up being leer is $120 million, which may mean 30% across the board or -- do you think it matters it's $149 billion. mr. dreier: across the board cuts are not something being considered here. we are pursuing 2008 levels and i believe that that's what this resolution says and we hope very much that we can get to lower levels of spending and i suspect that some members on the other side of the aisle would want to join us in working together in that effort to get our fiscal house in order. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i remind my

colleagues when they read the resolution it's 2008 or less. that muddles the numbers even more. at this point, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. berman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. berman: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. oy pose this resolution, i oppose it because i think its provisions with respect to our own economic recovery and the production of jobs is offset tremendously by its passage. but i want to focus my time on the limited question, but the very important question, of what's in and what's not in security funding. because security funding, as has been pointed out, is exempted from the requirements to go back to fiscal year 2008 functions or less. .

at the rules committee. was that part of the exemption? said no. my definition, me, david dreier, chairman of the rules committee. out of which this committee or resolution comes. as we have outlined here, this is discretionary spending that is nonsecurity spending. it's discretionary spending other than defense, military construction, v.a., and homeland security. i assume the gentleman's interpretation is one he still holds to a less than a week later. i am happy to yield. mr. drier: i will say that is the definition of security spending, defense, homeland security, v.a. and military construction. mr. berman: thank you. reclaiming my time. i appreciate the gentleman reaffirming that position. now let's take a look at what

that means. that means not exempt from these drastic cuts are weapons and training to build the capacity of key partners in the fight against terror in yemen, in pakistan, the philippines, that's all part of our security assistance package, part of our international affairs budget, financing for the purchase of u.s. military equipment to ensure israel's qualitative military edge, defense items and services that enable other countries to cooperate with us on counterterrorism, and afghanistan, cuts that would mean an end to the civilian surge, would force the military to perform civilian jobs, the reductions would harm four provencial reconstruction teams and ford operating bases -- and forward operating bases, security training, ordnance disposal, popular mechanics and eradication programs. in iraq, the state programs that would be harmed by virtue of the gentleman's definition

of nonsecurity funds that have to be dramatically cut back are training for iraqi police and security forces to take over when the u.s. troops depart, funding for our special inspectors general in iraq and afghanistan to ensure that programs are designed to achieve maximum impact and properly managed implemental. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i give the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. berman: everything the gentleman has stood for in his years in congress will be undermined by virtue of what he's proposing. the speaker pro tempore: all members will suspend. members should bear in mind the official reporters of debate cannot be expected to transscribe two members simultaneously. members should not participate in debate by interjection and should not expect to have the reporters transcribe remarks that are uttered when not

properly recognized. the chair must ask members to bear in mind the proper courtesy in the process of yielding and reclaiming time in debate especially in asking another to yield. it helps to foster the spirit of mutual commodity that elevates our deliberations above mere argument. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. drier: i yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend i very much appreciate his recognizing the opportunity i've had to recognize the assistance programs. and i must make it clear we are just beginning a process today, we are beginning a process today that will allow this house to work its will. and it's obvious, going to 2008 levels, 2008 levels is not going to gut all of the very important national security aspects that we have of foreign assistance programs.

my friend knows very well, mr. speaker, that it's essential we get our fiscal house in order and this is the first step on a road towards doing just that. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. govern: i am the final speaker on our side. i would inquire if he has additional speakers? mr. drier: if the gentleman would like to close debate, i'll close on my side. mr. mcgovern: ouch time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes. mr. mcgovern: this is not how we should deal with the budget. transparency means knowing what the budget number is. i don't know why that's such a radical idea. accountability means everybody in this house should vote yes or no on whatever that number is and it shouldn't be up to one person to unilaterally determine that number. and this budget process that the republicans have put together politicizes unnecessarily a budget process

and sets a lousy precedent. mr. speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. if the previous question is defeated, i will modify this rule to provide that immediately after the house passes this rule it will take up an amendment to exempt cuts in funding for the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism program. my republican colleagues said they won't cut programs to protect our nation's security but the resolution itself doesn't even bother to define nonsecurity spending. and the definition i've heard from the other side of the aisle would not include the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism program. so i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials in the record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: a no vote wouldo lou the house to consider an amendment exempting cuts and funding to the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism program. an amendment that would ensure we do not sacrifice our nation's security in the post-9/11 world. i urge all my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote

no on the previous question so we can assure that we continue to protect this nation from terrorism. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the -- the gentleman from california. the gentleman is recognized. mr. drier: mr. speaker, every member of this institution, democrat and republican alike knows full well the american people are hurting. we have an unemployment rate that is at 9.4%. we have, in my state of california, 12.5% unemployment rate. i see my friend mr. lewis here on the floor. in the m&m empire of california it's 15.5% the unemployment rate. people out there are making very tough decisions and the economic uncertainty that exists today is playing a big role in diminishing the kind of investment we need to create jobs. this resolution is a very simple one.

it says that we shouldn't spend money we don't have. we shouldn't spend money we don't have. that's what we're saying as we begin this process. those are the decisions that families are making all across this country. they're not spending money they don't have. and in fact we've seen, because of this economic downturn, lots of families today saving more than they have in the past because they don't want to get themselves in this position that the federal government is. we're going to have to make some tough choices around here. it's not going to be easy. no one is saying it's going to be easy. but this resolution we're going to debate tomorrow, h. recent 38 -- h. res.38 says we're going to 2008 levels or less because frankly, 2008 levels, as far as i'm concerned is too high and believe we need to cut

back even more. now, we continue to hear this argument that we are going to decimate research in the very important diseases out there. we began the debate, as i said in the opening, not going there but we did go there. as i said, if you can't prioritize, you end up demonizing and creating this great deal of fear that is out there, or the f.b.i. is going to close down if we go to 2008 spending levels. well, mr. speaker, obviously that's not the case. this institution is not about to undermine the federal bureau of investigation. but we do know that with adequate oversight, which is our constitutional responsibility, and focusing, yes, on those three things that the democrats and republicans alike say, waste, fraud and abuse, we will be able to rein this bethemeon. -- behemoth. again, it's going to be tough but this resolution is the first step in a two-year process to get our economy

growing, create jobs, and to rein in the size and scope and reach of the federal government so that we can encourage individual initiative and responsibility. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote for this rule. and tomorrow when we bring the resolution h. res.38 to the floor we support this motion and i hope very much we'll have democrats joining with republicans for this very commonsense approach to do exactly what the 87 new members on our side of the aisle and i suspect even the nine new members on the democratic side of the aisle have come here to do and that is to rein in this wasteful government spending we have seen. and so with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

>> no! the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from -- mr. drier: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yains are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair until 6:30, a period not longer than 15 minutes.

in terms of the fiscal year. >> these cuts will be made for this fiscal year? >> in general parlance, it is described as not effecting defense, not affecting homeland the security, not affecting veterans affairs. those are politically touchy and sometimes tough to round up votes for. republicans say there seems to be debate within the republican conference about how much to look at those areas for fiscal

year 2012 because it is tough to make significant savings on the spending side overall, when you're talking about $3.5 trillion annually unless move to entitlements, unless she moved to defense spending, security spending is closer to about 18% of the budget authority in fiscal year 2010. >> what is your best sense of where that number is going to be for this fiscal year? >> if i had to guess, which is never a good thing for reporters to do, somewhere between $40,000,000,000.-129694732 dollars. chairman ryan has talked about 60 billion -- somewhere between $40 billion and $60 billion.

if you just take the difference between what was projected for fiscal year 10 verses what the fiscal year 2008, you, with about $84 billion. but if this does not start until march, you'll only get 7/12 of that projected spending. you would be looking at about $50 billion. >> an update -- be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is a vote on ordering the previous question house resolution 43, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the titetheefl resolution. the clerk: house calendar number four, house resolution 43, resolution providing for consideration of the resolution, house resolution 38, to reduce spending through a transition to

nonsecurity spending at fiscal year 2008 levels. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercialurposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

are so we can figure out the magnitude of the reductions. i ask for an additional minute. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. van hollen: we asked them, why don't we have the number? they said, well, we got to wait for c.b.o. we're pleased to hear the new found respect for the c.b.o. numbers, but here's my point. that's going to happen within 24 hours of tomorrow. 24 hours. we could have a budget resolution with the beef, with the numbers so everyone could decide what the ceilings are going to be. no. we g to do it tomorrow. why? state of the unionddress, great press release. now, i've heard my colleagues say they've got to do this because there was noing in place in t house from a budget perspective. well in fact the house last year passed a budget enforcement act. i got it right here. it's got a number in it.

it's got a number. like these budget documents have . . dreier: will the gentleman yield on that point? mr. van hollen: i'd be happy to yield -- mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield the gentleman time. mr. van hollen: certainly. mr. dreier: what was the vote in the house on that budget that my friend was just talking about? mr. van hollen: i don't remember the exact vote but it passed, mr. chairman. it was deemed, there was never a vote in this institution -- mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. van hollen: there was a vote on the resolution in the house. if you want to talk about deeming, whoa, who whoa, this is -- that 30 seconds came from the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i ask reckons because he yielded to me. i took three seconds and he yielded me 30. i thank you, mr. chairman. deeming. what we'reoing today is the ultimate example of deeming. we are passing a resolution that deems in advance the passage of a number that we don't even know and it's going to be decided by

one person. we are deeming that individual all the authority and the shame of it is that that's a process that i think we all recognize as flawed and yet this is deeming on steroids. so i would suggest that we come up with a real number, put some beef on th, have a real )[

the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from florida is recognized. the gentleman will suspend. the speaker pro tempore: will members please clear the well. the house will be in order. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise to inform my colleagues of a tragedy that

took place in st. petersburg, florida, this morning. two st. petersburg police officers, sergeant thomas billingser and officer jerry rasowitz were killed in the line of duty and a deputy u.s. marshal whose name i cannot release just yet was seriously injured while serving this morning. mr. young: law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day. in the past 24 hours alone, 11 law enforcement officers across our nation have been shot in the line of duty. it's my hope my colleague will keep the families of the officers in their prayers during this difficult time. it's also a good time to say thank you for all of those who serve us in uniform at home or abroad.

mr. speaker, i thank my colleagues for listening to this announcement and i have to say, god bless the families of those who were killed and wounded. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the house will be in order. members please take your conversations off the floor. are there are additional one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order.

the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to commend mary jo karacki for her service as mayor of, the longest continuing serving mayor in rosenberg he recently announced he wasn't going to run for re-election. joe announced -- joe built his career fighting for principles he believed in. mayor garackki oversaw a four-fouled increase in property values and a 40% decrease in

crime while simultaneously lowering taxes on the residents of rosenberg. mr. olson: he will be missed as mayor. i thank him and his wife doris for their service and wish them well in the future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. any further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. brady: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. members please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, shakespeare pened the words that gave title to the true story of the 101st

airborne in world war ii, for we, the happy few who are a band of brothers. mr. thompson: actor damien lucas brought the character to life but winters was a real-life hero and the story the stuff of legends. winters died earlier this month, he was 92. winters and his men parachuted in to take on a german artillery nest on the beach. his troop fought through the battlele of the bulge, the liberation of the concentration camp at dachau. winters never sought fame and never thought of himself as a hero and asked that his funeral be private. when the world needed hero he served in a company of heroes.

pennsylvanians mourn the loss of this brother. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: jeff moschek joined the peace corps in 2004 and went to bangladesh to help the third-world country. a group of men groped her sexually, she reported the incident but no one did anything. she continued to feel unsafe and continue odd report to the peace corps but no one did anything. later a group of criminals kidnapped her, raped her and left her in an alley way and no one did anything. the peace dorpe did everything they could to cover up the dastardly deed and blamed the crime on the victim. rape is not the fault of the victim. it is the fault of the criminal. according to abc news, over

1,000 rapes and assaults occurred in the last 10 years against american women working for the peace corps. but apparently no one is listening. those days need to end. it's time for justice for her because justice is what we do in this country. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i'm concerned about the decision to allow the clean air agency to disregard states' rights by seizing control of greenhouse gas permitting in the state of texas. this will have a detrimental effect on jobs and the economy,

not just in texas but potentially the entire nation. mr. hall: it's grounded in the agency's endangerment finding, based on controversial scientific conclusions regarding the threat and impact of climate change. e.p.a.'s pursuit of job-killing regulations is the last thing this economy needs right now. congress and the obama administration both owe it to the public to base regulatory action on methods that are beyond reproach. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. any further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests? the clerk: leave of absence requested for mrs. emerson of missouri for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is

granted. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that today following ledge -- ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. mcdermott, washington, mr. defawse, oregon, mr. lipinski, illinois, ms. kaptur of ohio. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be allowed tory address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include extrains you material, mr. paul today and january 26 for five minutes reach, mr. burton today and january 26 for five minutes

each, mr. turner on january 26 for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011 and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. mcdermott of washington. mr. mcdermott: at its core, the intudget the statement of americans' priorities. it says what we as a nation value. after all, the republican budget cutting promises that proceeded and followed the recent mid term elections we're finally seeing what the republicans are really about what they really value. press releases. their whole legislative agenda since they gained control of the house has amounted to nothing more than political theater. the republicans are doing the exact opposite of what they promised. they are offering no

transparency and no thoughtful consideration of the budget in the congress and no job proposals. instead, they are just offering a radical republican wish list to appease their base. sadly, the budget process is going to be just another back room deal. mr. ryan of pisk has been appointed to determine, on his own, with no input from the rest of the house, what the budget spending limits will be. if you care about openness and transparency, you're going to be disappointed. the republicans said everything would be on the table with increased input and debate about aamong members. instead we're going to get a budget drafted by one member and we'll be forced to accept it without a vote. if you care about fairness and democracy, you're about to get a very rude awakening. if you care about making smart investments where all americans can benefit and prosper, you'll be disappointed.

if you're a faithful deficit hawk who thought a republican-controlled house would reduce the deficit, you've been hoodwinked. in the run-up to the mid term leches, republicans promised if they won the house, they'd cut $100 billion from the budget. they didn't have a plan. but $100 billion sure sounded like a good number. it's now months after the election and they still don't have a plan, no specific no baseline number, and boy, are they running away from that $100 billion commitment as fast as possible. the republicans do have a list that includes over 100 cuts that completely disregard the economic and social impacts the cuts would have. mr. speaker, budgets are about values. they are a moral document. in general, you're either in fare of making smart investment and helping the less fortunate, so you're smart and compassionate, or you demonize collective government and it's everybody for himself.

laissez-faire capitalism. the republican study committee shows us which side of the values equation the republicans are on. they want to preserve hundreds of billions of dollars for corporate tax breaks but take away student loans from tens of thousands of students. they want to keep building weapons systems that the pentagon doesn't want. but they cut historic preservation. they want to encourage the offshoring of jobs and want to cut programs that help exporters. mr. speaker, we're a month into the republican leadership of this house and we haven't seen a single move toward creating jobs. we are a month into the republican leadership of this house and we don't have a budget number. we haven't had a hear, we have no budget proposal that could be honestly debated. cutting the budget is no easy task. i strongly encourage the republicans to end the political theater and think about our country's values and priorities when it comes to laying out the

budget. let's have an open, fair, transparent discussion of job creation, the talk of shifting all the kansases of medicaid onto the state -- all the costs of medicaid onto the states is foolish. you know the poor will suffer with that kind of proposal. let's work together toward a responsible budget that reflects that we're both smart and compassionate. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: for what reason does the gentleman rise? >> i ask i speak at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i am on the floor tonight and hope to be every night to talk about bringing our troops home from afghanistan. i hope tomorrow night when the president gives the state of the union that he will stay tuned and keep his word when he

said he'd bring our troops home in 2011. mr. jones: the reason i'm corned is there have been leader in both parties primarily on the senate side that think they need four more years in afghanistan, well, you know, that might be a dream but that's all it is is a dream. you're not going to change history. history has spoken many times from alexander the great to the english and russians that afghanistan is a fast country of many, many tribes and they never had a national government and they're not under karzai, he's corrupt, very corrupt. i hope that the president will stick to his timetable of bringing our troops home beginning in july of this year and that he will not be swayed by anyone that says, well, just four more years. i say that for this reason. i remember on the armed services committee, i remember a few years ago when they were telling us, these generals would come in and i respect each and every one of them. they would say to us, we're

making progress. we're training the afghans to be policemen. we're training the afghans to be soldiers. well, we're 10 years later and we're still training. how much more can you do? it's costing us $8 billion a month. and more important than the money are the lost lives and lost bodies, the broken bodies of our men and women in uniform. recently i had the opportunity, privilege to go to walter reed and bethesda. and mr. speaker, for the first time before i walked in this young soldier's room i was told out front by the major that escorted me that he has no body parts below his waist. they've all been blown away. then i had the opportunity to see a marine sergeant at the same visit who had been to afghanistan four times, and on the fourth tour, he had his left leg blown off. what in the world are we trying to do? why don't we understand from history nobody is ever going to conquer afghanistan. so therefore i hope the

president will say to his -- stay to his word and start bringing our troops home. we're spending $8 billion a month in afghanistan and yet throughout america, including my district, the third district of north carolina, we can't even fix the roads. we can't even fix the schools because we're spending money we don't have we're borrowing from the japanese and chinese and e.a.e. -- u.a.e. and other countries. it's time the congress speaks up and listens. 63% of the american people say it's time to get out of afghanistan. so i hope that the president will speak tomorrow night about afghanistan. i hope that he will say that he intends to start bringing our troops home this year. mr. speaker, just another couple points and then i will conclude. i have here photographs of marines from the camp lejeune area which is in my district and they're young, anywhere from 19-38 of age who have given their life for their country and yet many times i wonder here in congress why don't we bring up this issue of

bringing our troops home from afghanistan. so, mr. speaker, tonight i want to thank you for giving me this chance to speak. i want to thank those that might be on the floor. i hope you'll join us and myself and jimmy duncan on our side who have been saying it's time to bring our troops home and let's join together in a bipartisan way and start talking about bringing our troops home. mr. speaker, before closing, as i do each and every night because i think about the pain that i've seen at walter reed and bethesda, i think about the families who are burying their loved ones now, who have died in afghanistan that it's time to say to god, god, please continue to bless our men and women in uniform and their families. god, in your loving realize love the families who have given up a child for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. and god, please continue to bless the house and senate, that we will do what is right in your eyes for your people. god, give wisdom, strength and courage to president obama that he will do what is right in your eyes for your people. and three times i will say,

god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of california. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, it's not often you'll hear me, lynn woolsey, say this, but i've recently found myself on the same page on a very important issue, at least in principle, with the leaders of the tea party movement. and other top lawmakers on the other side of the aisle. they've said that the military budget must be on the table in any discussion about reducing federal spending. i agree. i agree completely. and the progressive caucus has for several years authored specific cuts that in no way would help us provide for the national defense but would actually cut the pentagon spending.

here's the problem, mr. speaker. when it came time for the rubber to meet the road, well, guess what happened? the republican study group released their list of cuts last week and lo and behold, not a single dime of actual pentagon cuts was in there. what was included, irresponsible cuts to public housing, high-speed rail, and economic development, among other things. to say nothing of what would happen to funding for national parks, pell grants, and n.i.h., if they followed through with their plans to cut nondefense discretionary spending to what they recommend to 2006 levels. but perhaps most reckless of all was the proposal to zero out funding for usaid, the united states agency for international development. it just goes to show the narrowness of their perspective when it comes to national

security. when they think about protecting america, they think only of weapons and warfare. in fact, that's the approach our policymakers have taken for the last decade in iraq and afghanistan, and it's cost us nearly $6 -- nearly 600,000 american lives plus more than $1 trillion of the peoples' money while doing next to nothing to defeat the terrorist threat. what we need instead is a smart security policy. with humanitarian aid like the kind distributed by usaid as the centerpiece. instead of a military surge, we need a civilian surge. wherever there is poverty and deprivation around the world, we need to be there with assistance that promotes stability and keeps terrorism from taking root in the first place. i'm talking about everything from debt relief to democracy

promotion, to human rights, to sustainable development, to education, especially including education for women and girls. mr. speaker, development aid gives the taxpayer plenty of bang for the buck and it actually costs pennies on the dollar. it represents a microscopic portion of the federal budget, and yet development aid has great influence when it comes to creating the conditions for global stability and global peace. if we're serious about projecting moral authority and honoring american values, then we must dramatically increase humanitarian aid. and we must not cut it. and if we're serious about deficit reduction, it's time to address the real waste and

excess the pentagon, which has enjoyed a blank check for far too long. so i applaud the majority if they are truly prepared to cut military spending, but so far i hear more talking points than serious proposal. and i have to remind you, mr. speaker, that it's all talk until it's not. if the majority party really wants to do something to advance our security goal while dramatically reining in spending, then they should join me in a call to immediately bring our troops home from afghanistan. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. paul of texas. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. paul: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in the last several weeks there have been

several articles published by officials from the federal reserve system. and this is a little bit unusual because they're critical of anybody who criticizes them and critical of me in particular. they want to accomplish in these articles -- they're trying to discredit anybody who disagrees with their policies, and they're very defensive of this. they have argued the case they should have total secrecy and in this total secrecy, i claim they have tremendous power to do the things that they want to do. and it's only been recent that the american people in this congress have awakened to this. and although we did not get a full audit of the fed last year, we did get a partial audit of the emergency funding. but still, their argument is the -- the feds --'s argument is they must have total dependency while the american people believe there should be

transparency. the fed's argument is they literally are the saviors of the economy, that they came in as an emergency when the markets were crashing and were able to rescue the entire world economy by their injection of hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars. the fallacy of all this is that they may have rescued some banks and they may have rescued some big businesses, but they didn't rescue the american people. the consequence of all this has been high unemployment, the people losing their houses and can't pay their mortgages. so their claim that they prevented a deep depression, they're claiming they prevented the depression for some very wealthy, well-connected people on wall street who were making a lot of money anyway in the bubble period of time, and now the people who are suffering the most are the average people who have had to suffer the consequence of the federal reserve policies.

this is a policy that punishes the innocent people and actually awards the guilty people and the people who were the beneficiaries. you know, the very people that are claiming that they have solved all our problems are the very ones who created the problems and they never once predicted the trouble that was coming and there were numerous economists around the country, especially the free market, austrian economists predicted and explained the housing bubble and it was coming and would be a collapse. but the people at the federal reserve who now are claiming they solved all our problems never once said that we could be in trouble. when asked, they said no, there's no housing bubble, where do you get all this? so now we're supposed to believe everything they tell us. they created it, they didn't tell us there was trouble coming and now they've solved all the problems and we're not supposed to question this. and if we do, then we're going to be on the receiving end of

severe criticism. you know, the conclusion of many of these articles has been that they want to deflect the concentration on the federal reserve. they will say, yes, there still are problems but it's all on the congress. it has nothing to do with them. they saved us from ourselves and they take care of us. they create good times and take care of us when we're in bad times. but the whole thing is, they claim our deficits are a problem. i agree with them on that. deficits are a problem. but if you think about it, why do the deficits get run up? we as members of congress, this whole congress for decades on decades run up deficits to pay for welfare programs and warfare, endless spending. we tax our people and we can't tax anymore. and we borrow. there's a limit on borrowing because our interest rates go up. guess who monetizes the debt

and enables the congress to continue spending? it's the federal reserve. so they are the ones who literally facilitate the deficit financing. so for them to turn around and say it's all the blame of the congress, they're absolutely being disingenuous. it is the federal reserve and a monetary system that encourages runaway deficits, runaway spending and runaway mill tarism and runaway welfarism. their goal is to have price stability and employment. they have price stability with the nasdaq stocks in the year 2000 and it collapsed when the bubble developed. have they had steady prices, price stability with medical care costs or housing costs or education costs? no, absolutely none. . bond prices are sky high, we have a bond bubble, it's the

result of federal reserve policy but they don't want you to think and talk about that the full employment mandate. think about it. our government, labor and statistics, admit there's 9.5% unemployment. if you count more people who are partially unemployed, it's 17%, but if you have a free market approach and count everybody who is unemployed, our unemployment rate is 23%. that's why the american people are feeling lousy about what's going on even though wall street once again is making money, the banks are making money, they're repaying the bills but it's all because of a collusion between the federal reserve system, the banks, while the people are still unemployed. the congress -- congress has a proper responsibility, it is oversight. it was never meant for the federal reserve to have free reign and not have -- free rein and not have any oversight whatsoever. we have to realize the whole issue of central banking is not a new issue.

it was here if the very beginning. hamilton and jefferson argued about it, jefferson and jackson, and many others were absolutely opposed to central banking. so it's not a new issue. but there is no authority in the constitution that grants this right to have a central bank and to create money out of thin air just to accommodate the politicians. we have a right and an obligation, responsibility, for oversight of the federal reserve. our responsibility is to look at bad policy. federal reserve this responsible for the inflation, the business cycle, the unemployment. it is up to us to do something about it and look into it, look into it and understand it. because then it will be realized that we need to have more oversight. and right now, there's tremendous support in the last congress, we had 320 members of this house who supported an audit of the fed so we're making progress here. it annoys the federal reserve, it's going to continue to be

their p.r. campaign, first time in their history, they've hired a p.r. agency and lobbyists to lobby for their position. so they know they are under the gun as far as the people waking up and realizing that the federal reserve has been responsible for so much havoc we've had in this country and i think it's our responsibility to continue to look at the fed and find out how they have caused so much trouble. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lipinski: thank you, mr. speaker. as a proud graduate of rosa grammar school and st. ignatius prep, and a proud support over catholic education, i am once

again a proud spon or of a resolution honoring catholic schools week. changes in house rules will likely prohibit this resolution from being brought to the floor so i'm going to speak about it tonight. since 1974, the national catholic education association, a united states conference of catholic bishops have provided exemplary leadership through conceptualizing and organizing catholic schools week. this year, it is celebrated from january 30 through february 5. the theme this year is catholic schools: a-plus for america, which celebrates the fact that catholic schools are an added value, a plus, for our nation. they're emphasizing the necessary i have to a well-rounded educational experience, giving back to the community and helping others,

america's catholic schools produce graduates with the strength of character needed by our businesses, government and community. nearly 95% of catholic schools have a service program. in 2009, their students contributed about half a million hours of service to their communities and parishes. my own desire to serve was fostered by dedicated teachers throughout my formative years at catholic schools. today, over 2.1 million elementary and secondary student o students are enrolled in over 7,000 catholic schools. catholic school students on average surpass other students in math, science, and reading in the three grade levels tested by the naep test. the graduation rate for catholic high school students is 99% with 97% going on to college or technical school.

as we continually hear reports about our national test score, these statistics are truly remarkable and should be commended. catholic schools are also known for embracing students from all walks of life and are highly effective in providing educational opportunities for minority students and disadvantaged youth. almost 15% of students at at -- at catholic schools are not catholic. over the past 30 year the percentage of minority students enrolled in catholic schools has more than doubles. despite exceptional result the success of catholic schools does not depend on selectivity as they accept nine out of every 10 students who apply. in addition to producing well-educated students, catholic schools save american taxpayers billions of dollars every year by lowering the number of students in already overburdened

public schools. in fact, it's estimated that taxpayers in the chicago area alone save $1 billion because of catholic schools and approximately $20 billion nationwide. the importance of saving is undeniable to american taxpayers, especially now while many state and local governments are struggling with budget gaps. i was born and raised and lived in the chicago archdiocese which still has one of the most successful school systems in the country. more than 190,000 students atend 258 schools. in my district alone, there are seven catholic high schools and about 50 grammar schools, including one of the best in my home parish at st. john the cross in western springs. my own catholic education in chicago gave me the knowledge,

discipline, desire to serve and love of learning that enabled me to learn my doctorate degree and become a teacher before being elected to congress. in recognizing catholic schools week, we spay a special tribute to dedicated teachers and administrators who do so much, in many cases working for less than they could earn elsewhere. many of my favorite memories are of teachers, including many nuns who taught me the value of faith and service. throughout the united states, millions of others have similar memories of the dedicated sisters, priests and lay teachers who gave their hearts and souls to touch the lives of their students. plg, next week, i look forward to attending catholic school week events in my district to deliver the praise, support, and gratitude that they deserve. i encourage my colleagues to do the same. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: thank you, mr. speaker. last week, at the request of a lady named madeleine pickens, i met with mr. bob abby, the head of the bureau of land management to talk to him about dealing with the wild horses, the mustangs that roam out west in the western states. and the bureau of land management has somewhere between 35,000 and 40,000 mustangs in pens around the country. and the cost of this is estimated to be as much as $2,500 per horse, per year. the bureau of land management just yesterday, or last week, started rounding up another 3,000 or 5,000 to take them to

holding pens and move them to oklahoma. the thing that's interesting about this, when i talked to mr. abby, he admitted they want to move the horses from nevada, 1,000 miles to oklahoma, in order to put them in these pens. now, ms. pickens, she is very concerned about these mustangs because they're part of america's heritage and she wants to protect them as much as possible. toward that end she bought two ranches, the spruce ranch, which has 14,000 acres in it, and the ranch next to it in nevada, the warm creek ranch, which has about another 4,000 acres and got permits for another 550,000 acres so they could put those horses on this land, protect them and save the taxpayer money and make sure these horses will not be put in pens and shipped all over the country. but the bureau of land management is recalcitrant.

they want to move these horses 1,000 miles into these pens and they want to keep them there at a cost of as much as $2,500 per year per horse. now, ms. pickens says that for $500 a year, she can keep them on her range and protect them, create a kind of museum for these horses, that people can come and see them in the wild and she would have them injected so they can't reproduce, therefore they wouldn't have to worry about an expanding population of mustangs but they would be protected. but the bureau of land management wants to move them 1,000 miles, where her ranch and permits are within a few minutes of where the horses are now. when i talked to mr. abby, he said they couldn't reach an agreement with ms. pickens, there would have to be some major changes made at the bureau of land management to facilitate what she wants to do. this is another bureaucratic

nightmare that we in this congress should not, and i don't believe will, put up with. i'm going to ask the appropriations committee to cut the budget of the bue oh of land management because they're wasting the taxpayers' money by millions and millions and maybe hundreds of millions of dollars. last year, the government spent about $144 million managing private livestock on federal public lands and they only collect $21 million for grazing rights so they lost at least $123 million per year and some people estimate they lose as much as $500 million per year. half a billion dollars, by keeping these grazing lands in private hands where people get them for almost nothing. $21 million was what the fee was that they got last year. so they're losing as much as $500 million, moving these horses up to a thousand miles and they're doing it for no good purpose other than the

bureaucracy wants to keep control of them. now the reason ms. pickens started this organization to protect these mustangs was because in 2008, the bureau of land management said, well, they weren't sure they could cake -- they could take care of all these horses, they have almost 40,000 in the pens right now, so they werity thiing about killing them, euthanasia, killing these horses. the people who love these mustangs and love the west the way it was didn't want this to happen. they came up with the organization to deal with the problem in a realistic way so that the horses wouldn't be kill the organization they started when they heard they were going to -- going to euthanize them was called saving america's mustangs and they offered to enter doo into a contract with the bureau of land management to relocate at least 9,000 of these horses into the lands they just bought and got permits for so they wouldn't have to be shipped to these pens 1,000 miles away.

now it makes absolutely no sense to me at a time when we're fighting fiscal problems in this country, we've got trillions of dollars in debt, and unless we start cutting spending, we're going to see this country go into bankruptcy. moody's has already said they may have to re-evaluate the bond rating for the country. let me just end up, mr. speaker, by saying it seems to me we ought to be frugal with the public's money and cut the bureau of land management's budget to save the money and save the mustangs, that's what this is all about a humane way to treat the mustangs in this country that are part of our heritage. i thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. poe of texas. mr. defazio of oregon. ms. kaptur of ohio. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the

gentleman from california, mr. garamendi is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garr mendy: thank you very much, mr. -- mr. garmendi: thank you. tonight i'm joined by mr. pallone. tonight we want to talk about the economy, what's happened the last few years, how the united states economy has pulled itself out of the great recession and moving towards a much, much brighter future.

earlier today or actually yesterday it was reported that our esteemed majority leader on the opposition side issued a statement taking credit that in just three weeks the return of the republican party to the majority in this house has led to an astounding improvement in the economy. mr. garamendi: it's kind of like -- i don't know how exactly to describe that than to say that's just an overemphasis of the facts and a complete distortion of what's actually happened. in the previous two years as the obama administration and the majority then held by the democrats, my colleagues, work to pull the american economy out of the great recession, the republican minority voted no on

every single bill to address the problem of the economy, starting with the american recovery act, the stimulus bill. not one republican voted for it even though that bill clearly by all economic studies created or allowed it to continue. infrastructure projects that were in my district and every other district of this nation were funded by that piece of legislation yet not one republican vote. in the effort to reform wall street and to create a stable banking system in this nation, once again, not one republican vote. on all of the jobs bills, not one republican vote. on every single piece of legislation that was passed. not one republican vote -- or only a handful of republicans

voted for those bills that actually stopped the great recession and began to return america to employment. my subject matter for tonight is "make it in america." but before i get there, the comments that were made by the new majority leader deserve a complete analysis. this is a chart of private sector growth that goes back to december of 2007 when the great recession began. and you can see here the decline of private sector jobs. 2007, 2008, until january of 2009 when the new obama administration came in to power. at that point in january of

2009, the recovery act was passed, and then followed by other pieces of legislation that turned the american economy around. so the job loss began to taper off so that he here -- so that here we are in december of 2009, we begin to see private sector job growth. these are not government jobs. these are all the private sector job growth. so that beginning in the fall of 2009, we began to see the private sector come back to life and no longer shedding jobs but rather adding jobs. and every quarter since that time, all of 2010e and again now in january of 2011, we are continuing to add private sector jobs. so the fact of the matter is, and i'm -- you can say whatever you want to say, but at some point you really need to look at the facts. the faggets were that every major bill to restart the

american economy, the republican party opposed in this house, either by unanimous no vote or by just a handful of republicans voting for those pieces of legislation. so that's really where we are today is in a situation where we're beginning to see the american economy come back. for all 435 members of this house, john one is jobs for americans. american jobs now. not later. our total emphasis must be on american jobs now. and to bring those jobs back, one of the principal issues the president will be talking about tomorrow is jobs and make it in america. it's high time that we can go once again to auto dealerships,

to wal-mart or target and find made in america on the products on those shelves. america still is a very strong manufacturing nation. and in the strength of manufacturing, we find america's economic strength. and so we are setting out, as we did last year, on a set of policies that will rebuild the american manufacturing sector and we call it the strategy to make it in america. american jobs now. in the manufacturing segment. this is where the great middle class jobs are to be found, in the manufacturing sector. and actually back to the original thing i was talking about. general motors, flat on its back. chrysler, flat on their back. about to go bankrupt. the obama administration, the

democratic congress stepped forward and poured billions of dollars into those companies, stabilizing general motors. and tens of thousands of companies that were provide -- providing parts and services to general motors. and now we find general motors back, healthy, strong, and re-entering the private stock market. america, our public investment is now being recooped as general motors once again becomes a strong, vibrant part of the american manufacturing sector. how many republicans supported that, marry a vote. nary a vote. we have general motors and chrysler back on their feet once again providing great manufacturing jobs. that's the theme of tonight's discussion, how can america make it? by making it in america. rebuilding the great manufacturing industries in america. joining me tonight is my

colleague from the great state of pennsylvania, and we're going to continue our discussion so with permission of the speaker, we'd like to carry on a colloquy here. frank? mr. pallone: thank you. first of all, i wanted to thank my colleague from california for coming down here tonight and many nights to talk about the make it in america agenda and why manufacturing matters. and the fact of the matter is manufacturing, with the recent report out said that manufacturing last year for the first time, more jobs were created in manufacturing than were lost. and i think that was the first time in 10 years. and we have, as you know, i think you mentioned, over a million private sector jobs created in 2010. and i don't like to talk about how wonderful everything is because i know that it's not. i know that, you know, unemployment continues to be high and many of my constituents talk to me all the time about how hard it is to

find a job and how difficult it is for them to make ends meet. but the fact of the matter is that we are improving things. and we are beginning to see signs of the recovery, and most importantly, we're actually seeing more manufacturing jobs. so anybody says to me well, you can't make things in america anymore, i simply say look at the facts. the facts are that manufacturing jobs are on the rise. you know, i wanted to say, i was amazed today because i came down to the floor, we came in, i guess, we had debate around 5:15 and then we voted around 6:30. and i look at the agenda for the week. and we're now into the fourth week of the republican majority in the house. and to my knowledge, not a single thing has been done or is proposed to be done this week that would actually create jobs or address the economy. in fact, i was listening to the debate on this budget resolution and one of your colleagues from california, mr. dreier, started talking about

the deficit and health care, the health care repeal again. we for three weeks -- at least two weeks and one week, of course, we had the tragedy with our colleague gabby giffords. but for the last three weeks all the talk has been about repealing health care reform which of course is not going to happen because the senate is never going to take it up and the president is never going to sign it so it's a complete waste of time. and he was talking again about how that's going to reduce the deficit. the repeal would reduce the deficit. and i got up and i said, it's just the opposite. the c.b.o. which has at least provided us with numbers. your budget resolution that's coming up tomorrow that the republicans have doesn't have any numbers. but we know that the c.b.o. told us the health care reform actually reduces the deficit over the next 10 years by $230 billion and $1 trillion in the second decade. and i said, you know, what is your plan? what is the republican plan to reduce the deficit? what is the republican plan to

create jobs? what is the republican plan to help the economy? and i don't see anything. all i see is, again, three weeks on repealing health care reform. now some budget resolution that has no numbers about, you know, what the budget is actually going to be and nothing to indicate how it's really going to create jobs or reduce the deficit. and then i saw that on wednesday, we're taking up a resolution which says that -- which will repeal the presidential election public financing system. which again is nothing but another corporate giveaway because what it means is that if we don't have public financing for the presidential election, we're probably going to rely more and more on these corporate ads, these secret corporate ads to, you know -- that were used this last november that we don't even know where the money came from. it's all corporate money. again, i don't see anything being done by our republican

colleagues to address the issue of jobs. now, on the other hand, we have the president and yourself, mr. garamendi, talking about this every day. the president -- we sort of have a little prelude what he's going to do in the state of the union tomorrow but the whole focus is going to on jobs and we'll wait and see. that's what we're hearing. we're hearing it's going to be about investment and things in r&d, in transportation infrastructure, in education. a vision for the future that, you know, trains americans for better jobs, that creates the infrastructure, the mass transit, the highways so that we can -- our goods can travel around the country, the r&b to put us ahead in my district, a lot of r and d is done in the manufacturing of drugs and new products. medical devices. i mean, this is what the president's talking about. and i see you, i assume that my colleague from new york is going to talk about his visit to your district which was all

job-oriented. and then when the president or premier of china came, president obama's whole message to him was, you've got to let in our exports. you've got to lower the barriers so we can create things here and export them to china because you have to open your market. so, you know, the president, like a laser beam, is focusing on jobs. i know the democrats in the house, with the make it in america agenda are focusing on jobs. i don't think you mentioned it, but i have a paper here that says that this week, congressman garamendi, you're's introducing two make it in america bill and you can talk about that and mr. tonko can talk about the president's visit to his district. so i yield back. mr. garamendi: thank you for

pointing out the facts. the facts are four weeks into this and not one discussion about our republican colleagues about the central issue in america which is jobs. how are we going to create jobs? our colleague from the great state of new york which was and will be a greater manufacturing subject. mr. tonko, please join us and tell us. mr. tonko: it's great to represent schenectady. and it was the birthplace of an energy resolution over a century ago. and to have the president visit just the other day on friday to fout the efforts at g.e. where he speaks to the vibrancey of american manufacturing. we lost a 1/3 of american jobs in the decade that preceded this administration. i think it was through neglect.

mr. garamendi: it was the george w. bush administration. mr. tonko: they focused on financial services, they ignored agriculture and manufacturing and now we're paying the price. even though we lost a 1/3 of the manufacturing jobs in this country, we're still perched as number one in the global race. however, if we are to allow that neglect to continue, we would eventually fall out of the number one position. so the 4.6 million jobs lost, manufacturing jobs lost due to that neglect, that trend has to be turned around. and i was so delighted to hear the president speak to a progressive agenda, a proactive quality to the tone he was establishing at that center with his speech. he talked about the strength of america's manufacturing and how it can impose a strong uplift for the middle class of this