of our taxes on the screen every time. are a good interviewer but we need a pie chart. we need to be reminded every time that we spend more on war than the whole rest of the world put together. we pretend it is defense but they are not defending the american people. they are defending the big corporations taking resources out of foreign countries and not paying for them. that is one of our biggest problems. host: ezra klein as an article in "the washington post" --

there is a lot in the papers this morning about the president's 2012 budget proposal. that does it for today's "washington journal," we will bring it to the floor where they will bring up keeping the government running for this year. we are expecting one hour of general debate. thank you for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] utes. each. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:00 -- 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from illinois, mr. lew pinsky, for five minutes. -- i will pin i ask, for five minutes -- lipinski, for five minutes. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lipinski: thank you, madam speaker. as one of only a handful of engineers in congress, i'm proud again to sponsor resolution honoring our nation's engineers during national engineers week. this is my seventh year introducing this resolution and it has a special significance this year. next week will mark the 60th anniversary of engineers week. it was nearly half of the practicing engineers in our country eligible to retire over the next few years, the central goal of engineers week, 'tracting new students to engineering careerses, has never

been more important. that's why educating and inspiring america's youth about engineering and science needs to be a national priority. engineers design and build all of our everyday products such as bridges, airplanes, roads, computers, medical devices, cars, power plants, just to name a few. but engineering is more than that. engineering is problem solving. we have many problems to solve, from our dependence on foreign oil to our crumbling infrastructure. and as a recent national academy report explained, while only 4% of our nation's work force is composed of engineers and scientists, this group disproportionately creates jobs for the other 96%. america's 2.5 million engineers have helped make our country great by solving problems in

turning dreams into reality. and america's future depends on them. unfortunately often times their contributions, though, go unnoticed. national engineers week seeks to fix this problem through events aimed to educate youth, in fostering public awareness of the vital contributions made by engineers to our quality of life and our economic prosperity. engineers promote recognition among parents, teachers and students, of the importance of stem education and literacy. this year's theme is engineers make a world of difference, a celebration of engineer volunteerism. it recognizes the more than one million hours annually that america's engineers contribute to public service. celebratory events include the city of future competition, introducing girls to engineering day, and discover engineering family day.

which all in part -- impart an appreciation of the wonders of engineering to our children of all backgrounds. i can attest to my own childhood experiences with science and engineering and how they captivated me. i remember in high school, my calculus and physics teachers, especially, they helped mold my childhood fascination into an interest in engineering. these teachers, together with informal experiences at places like the museum of science and industry, and even at brookfield zoo, helped motivate me to pursue an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering from northwestern university in and from stanford. one of the central goals of national engineers week is to provide this kind of inspiration for the next generation of students. during engineers week in chicago

i will be attending the engineers week celebratory dinner where they will give the washington award to a professor from purdue university and will be honoring students who are -- who have made contributions in engineering through the future cities projects. i'd like to encourage all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this resolution, to go home, find some engneers week celebrations that are going on, participate in your districts, this is a great opportunity for us to thank the engineers who will contribute so much to our country and inspire that next generation of engineers that our country so terribly needs to solve the problems that face us today. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i bring you news from the war on our third front, the southern border with mexico. last saturday two american teenagers were brutally shot and killed in mexico in the mexican border town of juarez, mexico. that's right across el paso, texas. on thursday, drug cartels gunned down eight people in a bar in juarez. on sunday the head of security and intelligence for the state of nuevo lion in mexico was shot in the head and his car was set ablaze. it is close to the u.s. border and was was considered one of the safest towns in all of mexico. this murder is evidence that the narco terrorists are continuing to expand their control with our neighbors to the south in mexico. there are portions of mexico that are under the chrome of the drug bandits, and honest law

enforcement is unanimous existent. however, secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, has said that the situation on the border has, quote, been mischaracterized by lawmakers for political reasons. well, the same can be said of homeland security director napolitano. she mischaracterizes the border region claiming it is safe. this is either for political reasons or because she refuses to admit the federal government is unwilling or incapable of securing the border. more than 34,000 people have been murdered in our neighboring country of mexico since the drug cartels began their reign of terror in 2006. in my opinion, neither the united states nor mexico has operational control of some border regions. drugs and money are smuggling north into the u.s. and guns -- or drugs and people are smuggled into the u.s. and guns and money are smuggled to the south, into mexico. and this is just not a mexican problem.

for example, 27% of the inmates in united states' prisons are not u.s. citizens. 17.5% are from the nation of mexico and a whopping 37% of texas border jails contain foreign nationals. if the border is so secure, mrs. napolitano, how come so many thousands of illegals are pouring into our country, committing serious crimes and filling up our prisons? how can any reasonable person say our borders are secure when 27% of america's prisons are the home to foreign nationals? they wouldn't be in prison if they didn't cross the border in the first place. there is more. jose reyes, an illegal immigrant from el salvador, went on a killing rampage on wednesday. he shot and killed three people and injured another. he had been ordered to be deported in 2002 but he just never left the country. these murders could have been prevented if our border security plan, mrs. napolitano, was

working. an 8-year-old girl in fairfax, virginia, was raped by an illegal in hur own home. her rapist was a known criminal who was living in the united states illegally. in 2003, an m.s. 13 began members was arrested and deported to el salvador but he was able to sneak back into the united states unnoticed and under the radar. he was even arrested in november of 2010 but rather than be held in jail for deportation, he was released back on the street because no one was able to check his illegal status. and one month later, he raped an innocent 8-year-old girl in her own home. this disgusting crime could have been prevented if we'd secured our borders, deported illegals that were in this country and kept them from returning. tell the parents of this 8-year-old girl, madam serks that our border crisis is just

mischaracterized. our system is flawed and homeland security better understand that it is the duty of the federal government to protect the people of this nation and quit making excuses. it's way past time to put more national guard troops on the border. i've introduced legislation to put 10,000 national guard troops on the southern border, to be paid for by the federal government, but supervised by the four state governors. we protect the borders of our nations, it's about time we protect our own. meanwhile, it appears homeland security is living in never-neverland or blissfully unaware of the real world on the southern border or mischaracterizes the situation for political reasons and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, for five minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today with great concern about the future of our country.

and that's because in the past few days we've seen the valley between the hardworking middle class and the rich continue to grow wider and wider. it's a matter of priorities, madam speaker, and right now we can see very clearly where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have placed their priorities. it's not in the well-being of our work force, not in the effectiveness of our classrooms, not in the safety of our neighborhoods. no, madam speaker, the priorities of the majority party are not with the people who have worked hard all their lives to earn a decent wage, buy a decent home, put their kids through school and do what they can to keep their families and communities strong. the priorities of my republican colleagues lay with america's most successful, the hedge fund managers, wall street financiers and investment bankers. that's why they worked so hard to give those folks another tax break at the end of last year under the guise of extending unemployment benefits for many people who lost jobs through no fault of their own. my friends, you see the rich

didn't need another tax break. not now, not when their taxes are the lowest they've been since 1950. and a tax cut that added $800 billion to our deficit over the next decade. in addition to that, as part of the recovery act, congress enacted the largest tax cut in american history and democrats provided additional tax rebates for businesses that provide their employees with health insurance. amidst these tremendous tax breaks of the past two years, republicans are moving forward with a dangerous spending bill, one that continues to give rewards to the rich and literally guts the initiatives most meaningful to middle class families. simply put, the republicans' spending bill is irreresponsible and tone deaf to the needs of a healing nation. it cuts jobs, threatens american innovation and diminishes investments in rebuilding america. it makes devastating cuts to education, reducing pell grants by $800 pursuant to and kicking more than 200,000 children out of head start.

it reduces the competitiveness of our work force by slashing $1.6 billion in job training. and cutting $120 million in alternative youth training that sends kids to work in construction and other trades. critical skills that will help us make things again in america and put us on better footing to compete with the rest of the world. it derails $2.5 billion in funding for high speed trains, canceling 76 projects in 40 states, and the loss of 25,000 jobs focused on rebuilding america. and at the same time reduces our domestic security by eliminating 1,330 police officers and 2,400 firefighters, making our communities less safe. the work of reducing our deficit and controlling spending will be hard to be sure. the fact of the matter is that we have to cut spending. but we have to do it responsibly. we cannot cut what makes us competitive and what helps us to inowevate, to succeed in the

global economy and ultimately to create jobs. the president's budget makes some serious cuts to good programs, some i strongly object to. but as we work to cut spending we have to be sure that it's not at the expense of continuing to support initiatives that create jobs, educate our children and keep our communities safe. we have to be serious and smart about how we address america's budget challengeless. this week we will begin debate here in this chamber on this budget challenge. i've heard from many of my constituents about the concerns that they have relating to the federal budget for this year. it's those conferences and the families i've met a -- conversations and the families i've neat i've got on my mind. i know what they're priorities are. i've seen the circumstances and i understand the challenges that their families are facing. my friends, we owe it to the hardworking people of our country who are struggling to get by and who are playing by the rules but just waiting for someone to stand up for them, rather than the rich guy on wall street. we owe it to america's

hardworking people to have a serious and thoughtful debate in the hopes of producing a smart and sensible budget for our country. my friends, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have become captive to extremist agenda that harms people who are already hurting the most. that's why it's critical we ask our republican friends, just what are your priorities? . we have the qurge to come together not as democrats and republicans but americans and invest in our country's greatest assets, our people, the people who built this great nation and who we must believe in now more than ever to move our country forward to prosper and promising future. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i now -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada, mr. heck, for five minutes. mr. heck: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize the heroic nevadan who patched away february -- patched away

february 2, 2011. his name was francisco "frank" sedula. he was important in the philippines on january 7, 1923. frank studied journalism at the university of santo thomas until he joined the philippine resistance in 1941. at 17 years old he fought to disrupt the japanese military's occupation. eventually frank was captured and tore -- tore fured by the japanese but he managed to escape and rejoin the guerrilla fighters. on december 26, 1941, frank fought in the battle of peace. more than 100 american and filipino soldiers fought and died in the battle. their sacrifice gave general macarthur's troops enough time to assemble in bataan. the commander was the lone survivor of the three-day battle. he was bacon netted four times and left for dead. the natives assigned to ferry the dead found him alive and nursed him back to help.

once healthy he again rejoined the guerrilla forces and continued the fight. later in the war, frank helped liberate american prisoners of war. when the war ended, frank served as the filipino veterans legion national commander for almost three decades. during his term as national commander, the filipino veterans legion created significant new benefits for their members. in 2005, commander sedulo offered filipino veterans of world war ii an endangered human species to help inform congressional members and veteran supporters about world war ii filipino veterans who were promised and later denied recognition and benefits for 60 years. frank was a man who set goals then accomplished them. frank achieved within goal -- one goal when the world war ii filipino veterans equity bill became law. after the law passed, frank co-authored a new book, "denial and restitution by america."

this seek well to his first book thanked the congressional and senate leaders who fought to turn the world war ii filipino veterans equity bill into law. for 20 years he planned to construct a memorial marker at kilometer 134 in caisson, philippines, to honor and memorialize the men who lost their lives in the battle. commander sedulo recently returned from the trip to the philippines where he finalized the funding for that dream. i am honored to call him a friend and a nevadan, and madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i now wreck -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind, for five minutes. mr. kind:00 thank you, madam speaker. -- mr. kind: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to commend and thank my good friend and colleague from the pittsburgh area, jason altmire, for delivering on his super bowl bet with me last evening.

as we now know a little over a week ago my green bay packers defeated his pittsburgh steelers 31-25 to win super bowl xlv. it was the packers' 13th world title and their fourth super bowl victory. enabling them to bring home once again where it belongs the vince lombardi trophy, the title town u.s.a., green bay, wisconsin. to the victor belongs the spoils so last night jason and his staff delivered to my office some of pittsburgh's phiens cuisine. primanti sandwiches and iron city brew. it wasn't bad. we may have fun with our sports teams around here from time to time, but it's also -- also useful to remind ourselves at the end of the day when the game is played and the score is settled that it is just only a game. and no one expressed that more eloquently than the m.v.p. of

super bowl xlv, green bay packers quarterback, aaron rogers. it was recently reported that earlier in the season aaron rogers had sent a big care package out to his former girlfriend's elementary school in california where she's teaching. and in it was a host of school supplies, along with a bunch of packer t-shirts and sweatshirts and other packer pair -- paraphernalia. but also included was a note he wrote to his former girlfriend, teacher of that class, which read, just to be clear, what you're doing in your life right now is a heck of a lot more important than what i'm doing in my life. it's really refreshing to see a professional athlete at the peak of his career, at the height of his game, stay so well-grounded. understanding what really is important to the future of our country, which is the future of our children and their educational success in the classroom. whether he called for it or not, aaron rogers has turned into a terrific role model for all of

our children across this country. it's a constant reminder of a challenge that we still face and the values that we still must hold dear in this country. so i, too, want to congratulate aaron rogers and the green bay packer football team for their success, the packer organization, the tens of thousands of packer fans who are part owner of the packer franchise, including my own family, and in the immortal words of my 12-year-old son, matthew, who shortly after their super bowl victory last week, turned to me and said, hey, dad, you know, that was a lot of fun. let's do it again. so, indeed, let's do this again next season. i wish the packers well. i thank jason altmire and his staff for delivering the goodies to our office last night. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes.

mr. defazio: our nation is in dire financial straits and unfortunately many on both sides of the aisle are blowing smoke about how serious they are at dealing with this problem. the fact is we are looking at a record $1.6 trillion deficit. now, it wouldn't have been a record and it wouldn't have been $1.6 trillion but for one vote. the obama-mcconnell tax compromise. the republicans insisting that all of the bush tax cuts passed in a time of surplus should be continued in the time of record deficits. that means tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires

and other special interests with borrowed money, or we will forgo the revenue of having them pay a fair share of their taxes save the rate they paid in the clinton era when the economy did well, and they did very well. with that one single vote suddenly we jumped up to a $1.6 trillion deficit. now, the republican majority says, oh, no. cutting taxes doesn't count. their rules deem the cutting taxes doesn't count. we can cut taxes without reducing spending, borrow the money, increase the deficit and the debt, but they say it doesn't count. they have deemed that in their rules. so they are really blowing smoke here. you cannot pretend that you're serious about the deficit if you say we can continue to reduce income. here's what this year's federal budget looks like. this is the total budget. we are borrowing almost half of what we are spending.

from china and other places around the world. we are borrowing $1.6 trillion in the federal tax revenue is $2.2 billion. those are just extraordinary numbers. now, they say they'll fix that by cutting. well, here we go. here we go again. the budget, $3.8 trillion, deficit, $1.6 trillion. they say wait a minute. you can't increase revenues, nope. you could decrease revenues, they say that wouldn't count. then, oh, well, department of defense is off limits. entitlements are all off limits. mandatory spending, meaning agriculture subsidies and other egregious things, those are all off limits. we will balance the budget by going after nondefense discretionary spending. hard money. seems to be a little bit -- hmm, seems to be a little bit of a problem. if we eliminated all nondefense discretionary spending, which

would mean basically the daily operations of the government of the united states outside the defense department, all gone, close the door, open the federal prison, let the prisoners out, no more justice department, no more f.b.i., no more border patrol, none of those, get rid of that stuff, i.r.s., department of education, health education, centers for disease control, all gone. you would still have a $1 trillion deficit. but don't worry, they are going to get us there by cutting. you can't get there simply by cutting. yes, you need to cut. you need to reduce and eliminate wasteful programs. but you can't pretend that you can cut revenues. that you can maintain tax loopholes for companies that go -- move their headquarters to a post office box in the bahamas, like carnival cruise lines, excuse me, that's in panama, who operate out of the u.s., get their customers in the u.s., use the ports of the u.s., use the

u.s. coast guard and all whose executives live in the u.s. and they don't pay taxes here. or exxonmobil who doesn't pay taxes in the united states but pays other places around the world, we borrow money to give a subsidy to exxonmobil, yet in the last quarter of also year, they had the largest single corporate profit in the history of the world. we are going to borrow money to give them tax rebates or taxes they didn't pay in the united states of america that they paid elsewhere. that system can't be fixed, the republicans say. those would be tax increases. agriculture subsidies, pay people $20 billion not to grow things? nope. can't go there. we are going to balance the budget by hacking away at nondefense discretionary spending. unfortunately, physics and reality don't work for them here, nor does math because it's a tiny fraction of the deficit if we totally eliminated those programs instead of just hacking at them. let's get real, let's get together here. the country is confronted with a serious long-term debt problem,

and everybody said yet, everything's on the table. well, it's not. but everything should be on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. the next few days on the floor of the house will be critical for the future of public broadcasting. people here with the new republican majority are hoping to save -- saving less than one cent per day on this ideological assault on what for 170 million americans is their voice of america. their window to the world. in an era of local papers and radio stations being gobbled up

by large conglomerates, public broadcasting and the 1,300 stations around the country are the only source, increasingly, of locally owned, locally controlled content. now, there's a attention, appropriately, give to the major stations in america's -- given to the major station's in america's largest cities. we have seen and heard programming from stations in boston, san francisco, new york, and portland, oregon, recognized as one of the national leaders, but for much of america, outside the major metropolitan areas, public broadcasting actually plays an even more important role. in the rockies, pacific northwest, rural areas, upper midwest, often public broadcasting is not just the

only local source, it's the only source of information that relates directly to their communities. you know, the big stations in the large communities are going to be harmed by these -- by this assault on public broadcasting. my own public broadcasting in oregon will lose $2.4 million, really harm the quality of that effort. but it is in rural and small town america that the greatest dg will be done. for example -- damage will be done, for example in eastern oregon it costs 11 times as much to get a signal to burns than it does in the more pop pew laws -- populous with a lamet -- with a lam met valley. it's ironic that these partisans are attacking one of america's

best public-private partnerships. it's not uncommon for the public investment to leverage $6 or more of private investment to make this high quality programming possible. . there are some who claim that in an era of 5,000 cable and satellite stations, that we don't need another source of information. well, those people fail to grasp the power of noncommercial public broadcasting. how it is unique today. there are countless shows that are directed towards america's kids. but public broadcasting provides the only children's programming that is trying to educate and entertain our children. not sell them something. the public supports public broadcasting not just in opinion polls but with millions of

dollars of voluntary contributions that they make every year to provide the quality programming. i fear that this reckless partisan assault on public broadcasting is actually going to hurt our long-term efforts to tame the budget deficit. trading a savings of less than one-half sent per day per american won't offset the damage to public confidence by eliminating what so many people believe in and count upon. but more important, it will be a loss of have a valuable to do to -- of a valuable tool to educate and inform the public from a respected nonpartisan source. exactly how we're going to need to get information to the american public to deal with this massive deficit problem that we face. for those of us, to meet

america's challenge, public broadcasting is an essential ally. but i will say that with the tremendous outpouring of support that we are now seeing, people calling and writing members of congress, stopping them on the street, i think there is a good chance that those 1,300 public broadcasting stations will still be here in the future, helping inform the debates of today, if all of us do our job, listen to the public and do what is in the best long-term interests of this country. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio -- excuse me, california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: madam speaker, last year i voted to extend the patriot act for one year. i regret that vote and was glad to have been able to correct it,

although i'm pained that the house voted otherwise yesterday. during this past year i have become convinced that the provisions of the so-called patriot act are an affront to the bill of rights and a serious threat to our fundamental liberty as americans. the fourth amendment arises from the abuses of the british crown that allowed roving searches by revenue agents under the guise of what were called writs of assistance or general warrants. instead of following specific allegations against specific individuals, the crown's revenue agents were given free iranian to -- reign to search. in 1761 the famous colonial leader james otis challenged these writs, arguing that, quote, a man's house is his castle and while is he quiet, he is as well-guarded as a prince in his castle. this writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally anye light this privilege. -- annihilate this privilege.

250 years later the patriot act restores those roving searches. in the audience that day in 1761 was a 25-year-old lawyer named john adams. he would later recall, quote, every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as i did, ready to take arms -- arms against writs of assistance. then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of great britain, then and there the child independence was born. the american founders responded with the fourth amendment. it provides that before the government can invade a person's privacy, the executive branch must present sworn testimony to an independent judiciary that a crime has occurred and that there is reason to believe that an individual should be searched for evidence of the crime and then specify the place to be certained and the things to be seized.

the john dough roving wiretaps provided under this bill are a clear breach of this crystal clear provision. the entire point of having an open and independent judiciary is so that abuses of power can be quickly identified by the public and corrected. the very structure of this law prevents this from occurring. i also object to the lone wolf provision of the act that allows a person who's not acting in concert with a foreign power to be treated as if they were. this malignant fiction utterly blurs the distinction between a private person protected under our constitution and an enemy combatant acting as an agent of a foreign power. my chief of staff was born in moscow. his family immigrated to america when he was 14. he tells of the days leading up to their long-awaited departure. his father had technical expertise and the authorities were desperate to find some pretens to cancel the family's exit visa.

a week before they departed for america, the family returned home to find that the soviet authorities had turned their apartment upside down looking for anything that could be used to block their emigration. this is not the result of suspected criminal activity but rather the same kind of open-ended search the fourth amendment protects us against. his younger brother was terrified and hysterical. his mother calmed the little boy by saying, don't worry, don't worry, we're leaving in a few days for america. this will never happen to us there. our country is threatened by foreign governments and by multinational terrorist groups which are actively trying to do us harm, backed by a fifth column within our own borders. but we have faced far more powerful governments and far better organized net, with of spice and saab tours in the past without having to shred our bill of rights. the freedom that our constitution protects is the source of our economic

prosperity, our moral authority and our marshal strength. it is also the ultimate bull work against authoritarianism. no transatlantic military giant, let alone some if a nal cat terrorist group, can ever step across the ocean and crush us at a blow and no foreign power can destroy our constitution, only we can do that. as lincoln said, as a nation of free men, we are destined to live forever or to die by suicide. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from ohio for five minutes. thank you, ms. fudge. ms. fudge: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, republicans have introduced a irresponsible and dangerous spending bill that cuts jobs, threatens american innovation and diminishes

investments in rebuilding america. republicans only want to offer americans a pink slip. we all want to find an appropriate way to reduce our deficit, but this certainly is not the way. republicans have proposed a resolution that will not decrease the deficit but that will add $5 trillion to the deficit. through tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, unlimited war funding and the repeal of the health care legislation. we have not presented -- they have not presented a serious plan for actually addressing the deficit. the irresponsible impact of republican spending, in education, democrats are going to fight with everything we have to ensure that the next generation of students is prepared to become the educated work force of tomorrow, but the republicans believe that it is ok that more than 200,000

children will be kicked out of head start. the republicans believe that thousands of teachers should lose their jobs. the republicans believe that pell grant recipients should lose $800 worth of financial support to pursue their education. in the area of innovation, america's competitiveness depends on our ability to innovate and keep america number one. republicans believe that there should be 20,000 fewer researchers supported by the national science foundation. they believe that there should be a $1.4 billion reduction in science and energy research. they believe that there should be $2.5 billion in cuts to the national institutes of health. representing a significant setback in cancer and other diseases and research in general which will especially hit hard the district i represent. if we're talking about

rebuilding america, democrats support key investments in roads, schools, bridges that are critical for businesses to grow and that create good paying american jobs. republicans would rescind more than $2.5 billion for high speed rail projects that have already been awarded. that would allow the loss of more than 25,000 new construction jobs and cancellation of 76 projects in 40 states. republicans would cut $234 million designed to improve our nation's air traffic control system and as it represents to public safety, one of the most important things that a government does provide, we are here to take care of our people, we are to provide safety. the republicans propose less -- more than 1,300 fewer cops should be on the streets because they're going to eliminate the cop grant. they would have less than 2,400 firefighters on the job because they're going to eliminate

funding for safer grants. as president obama said, we must outinnovate, outeducate and outbuild the rest of the world. let's invest in america. let us reject the republican c.r. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from maine, ms. pingree, for five minutes. ms. pingree: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, we are facing some very important and difficult decisions in the coming weeks as we debate both the continuing resolution and the president's budget. i'd like to talk just a little bit about some of the decisions that we have to make today as we discuss this this morning. as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, the proposed continuing resolution that the

republicans have put on the table has draconian cuts that will not move our country forward. whether it's cutting to -- cuts to the national institutes of health and investigating important research that we have before us or cuts to our infrastructure or education, arts and culture, cuts to our police protection and fire protection in our home communities this budget does not do what the american people need and it will not move us forward. the proposed continuing resolution has made one particular cut that i want to discuss in more detail. for a party that discusses itself as a party of jobs and says they want to move the economy forward, i am very disturbed to see that they are slashing the funding for the economic development authority and i'm here to say that doing so will pull the rug out from the very people who are creating jobs and helping turn our economy around. last year i brought thed a strast straighter of the economic development -- the administrator of the economic

development committee to maine and he saw firsthand how e.d.a. funding could make it possible to build a new freezer facility in the city of portland. this is a critical infrastructure improvement for our already struggling maine fishermen. this would make it possible for so that they would not have to send their catch off to another state or even another country to be processed. if we can build that freezer in portland, hundreds of jobs could be created and our working water fronts could be strengthened. also in mabe, -- maine, the community of brunswick has been hit by a base closure and they have worked long and hard to develop economic development opportunities that will strengthen that community and reuse the base. they've successfully attracted exciting new projects including an aircraft manufacturing facility, using carbon fiber, high technology materials and the highest technology and new engineering in building on the site of the former airbase. but those projects and the hundreds of jobs that they will

create are counting on the e.d.a. funding to help transform what was once a former navy base into a civilian economic engine. the economy is just starting to turn around. and i mrs. lummis: nating the critical investments we need to keep it going is the last thing we should be doing right now. i want to say a couple of things, too, about the president's budget. the president has put forward a budget on the table that does many of the things that we need to have done. investing in infrastructure, science and technology, education, the very kinds of things that will make our country competitive and move us forward. there are many good things in this budget, whether it's eliminating the tax breaks for big oil companies, no further extensions of tax cuts for the wealthy, making sure we do increase the economic development administration and invest in economic development, investing in health care, continuing to implement the health care reform bill or putting money into the critical training of 4,000 more primary

care providers, i know that's a huge need in my state and so many other states. as well as working to move forward on the permanent fix to the s.g.r. so our physicians are adequately reimbursed. . investments in housing making sure homeless veterans are not on the streets and people have more choices to move forward in housing. eliminating tax breaks for big oil companies, making our commercial buildings more efficient, even cutting defense and strategic waste, up to $78 billion in wasteful spending is cut out of the president's budget, cutting of the alternative engine for f-35, which is unnecessary. at the same time he is taking sure that our military personnel get a pay raise and that they are recognized and supported. i do need to discuss one issue in the president's budget that will be a problem for my

constituents in maine. the president's budget proposes to cut liheap funding. liheap funding helps nearly 70,000 maine households make ends meet by offsetting home heating costs. funding is especially important for maine. we have some of the country's oldest housing stock and we are heavily dependent on oil for heating. in fact, we are the most dependent state in the nation on oil heat. the cost of heating oil is going up from a low of about 225 at the beginning of the economic downturn to about $3.35 now. maine communities are still struggling. slashing funding for this program will not appropriate and it must be changed in the president's budget. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, for five minutes. mr. ellison: madam speaker, i

come before the house today to talk about a critically important program that i think all americans need to know about and is hanging in the balance as we approach this continuing resolution. the program i'm here to talk about is the low income home energy assistance program, also known as liheap. liheap is a program commonly believed to be an income support program, but actually, madam speaker, it's not an income support program. liheap, which pro vidse -- provides energy to low-income families, heating oil, things like that is actually a health program and a program that is designed to make sure that citizens do not have to choose between heat and eat. do not have to choose between dinner and a warm room. and many of us who are from

places like minnesota, my own home state, would but also michigan, maine, new jersey, new hampshire, add to that many others, montana, many others, and even some states we think as warm weather states but in winter can get cold, too, people depend upon these programs to survive. in my own state, if liheap is cut, several people will simply go without. of course i have statistics here, mr. speaker -- madam speaker, but rather than talk about statistics, i want to talk about a man who lives in my district who was actually not a liheap recipient but was eligible for the program and didn't use it. he didn't have enough money for his heat, so what he did is he kind of generated space heaters and made do. and this caused a fire, madam speaker, which resulted in his death.

and when i looked up what really happened, how often people die from space heaters, the numbers are not always consistent, but upwards of 32% of all home fires are because of space heaters and about 75% of all home fires are -- deaths are due to space heaters. deaths. people die when this happens because they don't have the energy assistance that they need . and our congress, right now, under republican majority, is talking about cutting this program even more. now, you think about a winter like this one, madam speaker, where there has been record snowfalls in many places around our country and it's been cold since october in minnesota, and the fact is is that people are -- programs that provide liheap funding are already running out of money. if they were drawn back to 2008 spending levels, we would have run out of liheap funding in january. january.

in minnesota it really does not warm up until around april. so this is terrible. madam speaker, let me tell you, if you look at young people, kids, statistics show that if a family does not have to put a bunch of money into heating the home, the child's diet improves and the kid has enough to eat before he goes to school. which means that that little girl or that little boy can sit in a classroom without their stomach growling and could pay attention to the lessons going on because their family has some home energy assistance. our seniors, our -- it's about the prescription or heated room. madam speaker, it's not right to tell americans that the wealthiest and most well-to-do among us get their tax break extended and the poorest among us, they can just go get another blanket. that's wrong.

we are failing the moral test of our nation when we do things like this, and, madam speaker, i want to raise this issue that we consider what we are doing to our society. it's not welfare, it's not income support. it is a health program. it is a health program designed to make sure that americans don't freeze to death in their own home. it is a health program designed to make sure that americans don't have to make awful decisions about medication, about food, and things like this . it is a health program. and it's a program that has done countless amount of good for many, many people. it helps seniors, it helps children. and i'm very proud, madam speaker, as i close, to quote a man from my state of minnesota. his name was hubert h. humphrey. he said the moral test of a nation is how it treats people

in the dawn of life, our children, tweem in the twilight of life, our seniors, and people in the shadows of life, the poor and underprivileged. if we cut low-income energy assistance, we failed that moral telf. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from florida, ms. wasserman schultz, for five minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, it has been six weeks now since republicans assumed control of the house of representatives and we have yet to see a single job creation bill brought to the house floor. indeed, just last week we spent roughly 10 hours debating a primary function of congress, that of congressional oversight, something we already do. yet, still, no legislative brought forward to spur job creation. while the republican congress has yet to bring forward a job agenda, they have found plenty of time to bring forward an extreme anti-woman agenda.

just recently we saw the introduction of h.r. 3, legislation that originally sought to redefine the definition of rape. yep, that's right. legislation that would change rape from acting without a woman's consent to instead require women to prove forcefulness to prove rape t remains to be scene whether republicans working on this legislation have shelved their plans to redefine rape and whether they will revise the language in h.r. 3. still 163 republicans signed on as co-sponsors of the bill with the forceable rape language included. the extreme anti-woman agenda doesn't stop there. this week the house will vote on an amendment introduced by representative mike pence that would eliminate family planning and lifesaving preventive care to millions of individuals each year. mr. pence's amendment does this by eliminating title 10 funding. since 1970 the title 10 family planning program has been a key component of our nation's health care infrastructure and

essential element in the winning strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies. efforts to cut the program would take away funding from essential women's health care providers like planned parenthood. today title 10 serves over five million low-income and individuals every year. in every state. women and men rely on title 10 for basic primary and preventive health care, including annual examples, lifesaving cancer screenings, sexually transmitted diseases. in 2009 alone title 10 providers performed 2.2 million pap tests, and over six million tests for sexually transmitted diseases. and preventive care isn't limited to cancer screenings and education on how to avoid s.s.t.d.'s. it reduces the number of abortions. title 10 services helps prevent nearly one million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion.

planned parnehood and the program provides vital family planning services which help improve the life of the mother and child. indeed, family planning keeps women and children healthy. studies have shown when women have better access to family planning it leads to healthier outcomes for both mother and child. when women plan their pregnancies, they are more likely to seek prenatal care, improving their own health and health of their children. access to family planning is directly linked to decline in maternal and infant mortality rate. eliminating the program will result in millions of women across the country losing access to basic primary and preventive health care and to the providers that offer these services. without title 10 more women will experience unintended prg -- pregnancies and face potentially life threatening cancer and diseases that could have been prevented. the simple fact this proposal is anti-woman and anti-family. now i know we are interested in finding ways to cut spending.

eliminating funding for title 10 is framed in the context of fiscal responsibility. more important than cutting spending is asking the question, are we reducing the deficit? unfortunately, the answer to whether the 10th amendment would also cut the deficit is no. that's because title 10 actually saves taxpayer dollars. since many of the patients served by title 10 are on medicaid, preventive care like cancer screenings and contraceptive counseling actually means fewer costs to the taxpayer in the long run. for every public dollar invested in family planning, $3.74 is saved in medicaid related costs. that's savings to both federal and state government. every year planned parenthood worked tirelessly to help to improve the health of communities across this country. efforts to undermine the title 10 program and essential health care provider are not only reckless, they are also anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-taxpayer. can we please stop the relentless attack on women, stop pursuing the anti-woman legislation and focus on job

creation and spurring economic growth once and for all? thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the remader of her time. -- remainder of her time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 12:00 noon today.

>> some of the savings will come through less waste and more efficiency. we will save billions of dollars by getting rid of 14,000 office buildings, blocks, and government-owned properties we no longer need. i have pledged to veto any bill that contain earmarks. we will need to make tough choices like freezing the salaries of the federal law -- federal employees, and cutting things like access for low- income communities. we have conservation programs that will be scared -- scaled

back. if these are programs i would not cut if we were in a better fiscal situations. but we know that cutting annual domestic spending alone will not be an off. that is what the bipartisan fiscal commission concluded. that is why i am eager to tackle excessive spending wherever we find it, in domestic spending, but also in defense spending, health-care spending, and spending that is imbedded in the tax code. some of the spending we have begun to tackle in the budget, like the $78 billion that secretary gates identified in the cuts. but to get where we are going to go, we will need to do more, taking down health-care costs further, including in programs like medicare and medicaid, the biggest contributor to our long- term deficits. i think we should strengthen social security, and i think we can do that without putting

retirees at risk or slashing benefits. i am willing to work with everyone on capitol hill to simplify the individual tax code for all americans. all of these steps will be difficult, which is why it will require democrats, republicans, and independents to work together. i recognize there will be plenty of arguments in the months to come, and everyone will have to give a little bit, but when it comes to our priorities, we have found common ground before. ronald reagan and tip o'neill came together to save social security. if bill clinton and republican congress found a way to settle differences and balance the budget. republicans and democrats came together to pass a tax cut that has made american paychecks bigger this year and will spur on additional growth this year. i think we can find common ground, but we will have to

work. we owe the american people a government that lives within its means while still investing in our future in areas like education and infrastructure that will help us attract new jobs and businesses to our shores. if that is the principle that should drive the debate in the coming months that is how america will win the future in the coming years. with that, i'll start off with a few questions. >> thank you very much. you have been talking about the need for tough choices in your budget, but your plan does not address the long-term depression costs of medicare, medicaid, and social security. where is your leadership on that issue, when will we see your plan, and on the foreign front, the uprising in egypt has

prompted protests. i wonder how you balance your polish for freedom against instability -- push for freedom against instability. >> on the budget, what my budget does is put forward some tough choices, significant spending cuts, so that by the middle of this decade, our annual spending will manage our annual revenues. we will not add more to the national debt. to use an analogy that families are familiar with, we will not run up the credit card anymore. that is important, and that is hard to do, but it is necessary, and i think the american people understand that. at the same time, we will make key investments in places like education and science and technology, research and development, that the american people understand is required

to win the future. we have taken a scalpel to the discretionary budget, rather than a machete. i said in the state of the union, and i will repeat, that side of the ledger only accounts for about 12% of our budget. so, we have a lot of other stuff to do, including dealing with entitlements. if you talk about social security, medicare, and medicaid. the truth is social security's is not a huge contributor that the other two entitlements are. i am confident we can get socials 30 done in the same way ronald reagan and tip o'neill were able to get it done by parties coming together. i think we can avoid slashing benefits, and we can make it safer and stronger for this generation, and the next generation. medicare and medicaid are huge problems because health-care costs are rising, even as the population is getting older what i have said is i am prepared to

work with democrats and republicans to start dealing with that in a serious way. we have made a down payment on that with health care reform last year. that is part of what health-care reform was about. projected budgets will be about 250 billion dollars lower, and $1 trillion less than they would be for the coming decade. we will still need to do more. if you look at the history of how these deals get done, typically, it is not because there is an obama plan out there, it is because democrats and republicans are both committed to tackling this issue yet a serious way. what we have done is the specific on how to stabilize the budget, be sure we are not

adding additional debt by 2015, and then, let us together, democrats and republicans, tackle long-term problems in a way that i think will inshore our fiscal health, and insure that we are making investments in the future. we will be in discussions over the next several months. this will be a negotiation process. the key thing that i think the american people want to see is that all sides are serious about it, and all sides are willing to give a little bit, and there is a genuine. to of compromise, as opposed to people interested in scoring political points. we did that in december on the tax-cut issue. both sides had to give. there were folks and my party that were not happen -- happy,

and my suspicion is we will be able to do the same thing with the same attitude. the thing i want to emphasize is that no one is more mindful than me that entitlements are going to be a key part of this issue, as is tax reform. i want to simplify rates, and at the same time make sure that we have the same amount of money coming in as go in and out. those are big, tough negotiations, and i expect there will be a lot of ups and downs in the months to come before we get that solution. just as people were skeptical about being able to deal with the tax cuts, and we end up getting it done, i am confident we can get this done. with respect to the situation in the middle east, obviously, there is a lot of work to be done in egypt itself, but what we have seen so far is positive.

the military council that is in charge has reaffirmed its treaties with countries like israel and international treaties. it has met with the opposition, and the opposition has felt that it is serious about working toward fair and free elections. egypt will require help in building democratic institutions, and strengthening an economy that has taken a hit as a consequence of what has happened. so far, we have seen the right signals. there are ramifications throw the region. isadministration's approach the approach that jives with how most americans been above the region, which is that each country is different. each country has its own traditions. america cannot dictate how they run their societies, but there are certain universal principles

that we adhere to, and one of them is we do not believe in violence as a way of maintaining control. we think it is very important that in all of the protests we are seeing throughout the region, that governments respond to a peaceful protesters peacefully. the second principle we believe in strongly is the right to express your opinions -- the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, that allows people to share grievances with the government, and express themselves in ways that hopefully, over time, will meet their needs. we have sent a strong message to our allies in the region, saying let's look at egypt's example, as opposed to iran's example. i find it ironic that you have the regime pretended to

celebrate what happened in egypt, when in fact they have acted in direct contrast by gunning down and eating people that were tried -- beating people that were trying to express themselves peacefully in iran. i also think an important lesson we can draw from this is real change in these societies will not happen because of terrorism. it will not happen because you go around killing the innocent. it is going to happen because people come around together, and applied moral force. that is what garner's international support and internal support. patricia. >> thank you, mr. president. getting back to the unrest in

the middle east and north africa, what concerns do have about instability, especially in saudi arabia as the demonstrations spread? do you foresee effect on oil prices? can you comment more on iran? what is your message to the iranian people in light of criticism that your administration did not speak out strongly enough that after their elections? >> first of all, on the round talks -- on iran, we were clear them, and we are clear now -- then, and we are clear now, that what has been true even egypt, should be truly in iran -- people should be able to express their grievances and seek a more responsive government. what has been different is the

government's response, which is to shoot people, beat people, and arrest people. my hope and expectation is that we are going to continue to see the people of iran having the courage to express their your name for greater freedoms and a more representative government. understanding that america cannot ultimately dictate what happens inside a red, any more that it -- than it could in signed -- inside of iran, anymore than it could it inside of egypt. we could lend moral support to those who are seeking a better life for themselves. obviously, we are concerned about stability throughout the region. each country is different. the message that we have sent, even before the demonstrations

in egypt has been to friend and foe alike that the world is changing, that you have a young, vibrant generation within the middle east that is looking for greater opportunity, and that if you are covered in these countries, you need to get out ahead of change. you cannot be behind the curve. so, i think the thing that will actually achieve stability in that region is if young people, ordinary folks, and end up feeling that there are pathways for them to feed their families, get a decent job, a better education, and this buyer to a better -- aspire to a better life.

you cannot maintain our through coercion. at some level, in any society, there has to be consent, and that is particularly true in this new era, where people can communicate, not just through some centralized government, or a state-run tv, but they can get on a smartphone, or a twitter account, and mobilized hundreds of thousands of people. -- mobilized hundreds of thousands of people. my belief is that as a consequence of what has happened in tunisia and egypt, governments in that region are starting to understand this. my hope is they can operate in a way that is responsive to this hollander for change, but always do so in a way that does not lead to violence.

chip read. >> thank you, mr. president. actually, i have to get my glasses out. >> that as of bad sign, chip. [laughter] >> you said this will not add to the credit card by the middle of the decade. as robert gibbs might say, i am not a budget expert, and i am not an economist, but if you can explain to me, if you look on page 171, the deficits in godown all the way to 607 billion in 2000 16th. then, they creep up. the total debt over those 10 years is $7.20 trillion. how can you say we are living

within our means? >> let me be clear on what i am saying. i am not suggesting that we do not have to do more. we still have all of this accumulated debt as a consequence of the recession, and as a consequence of a series of decisions that were made over the last decade. we have piled up -- racked up a bunch of debt, and there is a lot of interest on that debt. in the same way that if you have a big balance on a credit card, you might not be adding to principle. you still tell all of that interest you have to pay. we have a big problem in terms of accumulated interest. that is why we will have to whittle down further the bat that has been accumulated. -- the debt that has been

accumulated. rising health-care costs, and once you get past this decade, are going to start going up again as a consequence of the population getting older and health-care costs going up more rapidly than incomes, wages, and revenues are going up. you have those two big problems. when we have done is try to take this in stages. we say let's get control of our discretionary budget to make sure that whenever it is we are spending on an annual basis, we are also taking in a similar amount. that is step number one. step two will be making sure we are taking them along term drivers, -- long-term drivers, and take down debt. that will require a long-term

form and tax reform. to accomplish those two things, we will need cooperation between democrats and republicans. if i think that is possible. i think that is what the american people are looking for. it is important not to discount the tough choices that are required. if we can get that done, that starts introducing the concept of loss been able to, in a serious way, cooperate to meet this fiscal challenge, and that will laid the predicate for us being able to solve some of the big problems over the course of the next couple of years as well. again, i just want to repeat, the first step in this budget is to make sure we are stabilizing the current situation. the second step is going to take on the long-term drivers. we need to get control of the

short-term deficit as well, and people will be looking at a signal for that. the choices we have made are pretty tough choices, which is why you have been seeing some grumblings, not just from the other party, but also from my own party about some of the decisions we made. uck todd. >> thank you, mr. president. everything you have talked about, tax reform, and type of a report -- entitlement reform, you have a majority consensus to do all of this. it has now been shelved. i guess my question is, what was the 10th of the fiscal commission? if you have -- the fiscal condition -- what was the point of the fiscal commission?

if the answer -- if everything you just described, why not read them? >> the notion i think is not correct. it still provides a framework for a conversation. part of the challenge here, let's face it, you guys are pretty and patient. if it does not happen today, the assumption is that it will not happen. right? i have had this conversation for the last two years about every single issue that we worked on, whether it was health care, don't ask, don't tell, on egypt -- we have had this monumental change your last three weeks. why did it take three weeks? i think there is a tendency to assume that if it did not happen today, it will not happen. well, the fiscal commission pulled out a framework.

i agree with much of the framework, and i disagree with some of the framework. it is true that it got 11 votes. that was a positive sign. when is also true is that the chairman of the house republican budget years did not sign off. -- budgeteers did not sign off. i will need to have a conversation with him, and with the democrats that did not vote for it. there are some issues in there, that as a matter of principle i do not agree with, where i think they did not go far enough. this will be a process in which each side in both chambers of

congress go back and forth and start trying to whittle their differences down until we arrive said something better has an actual chance at passage. that is my goal. my goal is to solve the problem. it is not to get a good headline on the first date. my goal is that one year from now, or two years from now, people look back and they say we started making progress on this issue. [unintelligible] >> chuck, this was the same criticism people had read after the midterm election. if you had told the press room -- polled the press room, the assumption was there was no way we are going to get a tax bill

that the majority it votes from both republicans and democrats. it was impossible, and we got it done. this is not a matter of who goes first, it is a matter of everybody having a serious conversation about where we want to go, and ultimately getting boat, so it does not sit over. julianna goldman. >> thank you, mr. president. your budget replies on revenue from increases that ship jobs overseas. you have been calling on this for years. if you could not get it through a democratic congress, why the think you can get it through now, and as a blunt or push for a deficit-neutral corporate tax reform? >> well, i continue to believe

i'm right, so we are going to try again. what is different is everyone says there are serious about the deficit. if you are really serious, not just spending, but the deficit overall, part of what you have to look at his spending that is not justifiable through the tax code -- 3 tax breaks that do not make us more competitive, do not make us more competitive. the two examples you cite, the most economists would look at, would say these are not contributing to our long-term economic growth, and if they're not, why are we letting some folks pay lower taxes than other folks were not paid -- creating jobs? why are we not investing in the energy sources of the future, just the ones of the past, particularly the energy sources of the past are highly profitable now, and do not need

a tax break. i think what may have changed, is that if we are going to get serious about deficit reduction and debt reduction, we have to look at all of the sources of deficit and debt. we cannot just try to pick and choose. the same is true for democrats. there are provisions in this budget that are hard for me to take. and statesities around the country that are having a tremendously difficult time trying to balance their own budgets because of falling revenue. they have greater demands because of folks that have lost their jobs. the housing market is still in a tough way in a lot of these places, yet part of what this budget says is we are going to

reduce development block grants by 10%. that is not something i would like to do, and if it would have come up with one year ago or two years ago i would have said no, but under the circumstances i am saying yes. my expectation is that everybody will need to make those sorts of compromises. with respect to corporate tax reform, the whole concept is to simplify, eliminate loopholes, and treat everybody fairly. that is entirely consistent with same, for example, we should not provide special treatment to the oil industry when they have been making huge profits and cannot afford -- can afford to further invest without special tax breaks. what is absolutely true is that it is going to be difficult to

achieve serious corporate tax reform is the formula is low or our tax rates and let us keep all of our special loopholes. if that is the formula, then we are not going to get it done. i would not such -- i would not sign such a bill. if you are a small business person and you are paying your taxes, and you find out that you have some big company with billions of dollars and businesses around the world, and they are paying a fraction of what you are paying, you would be pretty irritated. so, the whole idea of corporate tax reform is yes, let's lower everyone's rates so that american businesses are competitive, but in order to pay for it, let's also make sure that the special interest

loopholes that lobbyists have been working very hard on -- let's get rid of those. all right. .pril rye an >> mr. president, i want to focus in on the least of these. you started your career of service as a community organizer, and we are hearing from organizations like the cbc that say rebuilding the economy on the backs of the most gullible americans is simply not acceptable, like cuts to heating oil assistance, and freezing salaries of federal workers. the joint center for economic studies says it is not good to make these kind of cuts. i also want to ask if you have

been placing calls for your friend, rahm emanuel. >> i will answer the last question first. i do not need to make calls for rahm emanuel. he seems to define on his own. he has been very busy shoveling snow out there. i have been very impressed. i've never seen him shovelling around here. [laughter] >> let me use pell grants as an example of how we are approaching these difficult budget choices in a way that is sustainable, but preserves our core commitment to expanding opportunity. when i came into office, i said i wanted to once again have america have the highest college graduation rates of any country in the world. i significantly increase the pell grant program by tens of billions of dollars.

so, millions of young people will have opportunities they did not have before, and the size of the pell grant itself went up. what we also did, partly because we read in a recession, and more people were having to go back to school, what we did was say you can get pell grants for summer school. now, we are in a budget crunch. the take up rate has skyrocketed. the costs have gone up significantly. if we continue on this pace, sooner or later, we are just going to have to chop off eligibility. we are going to have to say it is too expensive. instead, we decided how to take a scalpel to the program, make sure we keep the increase for each pell grant, make sure that

the young people that are being served by the program are still being served, but for example on the summer school thing, let's eliminate that. that will save us some money, but the core functions are sustained. that is how we are approaching all of these cuts. on the home heating assistance program, we doubled the home heating assistance program when i first came into office, in part because there was a huge energy spike. if we had just kept it at the same level, folks would have been in real trouble. energy prices have gone down, but the cost of the program has stayed the same. what we have said is let's go back to a more sustainable level. if it turns out that once again you see a huge energy spike, we

can revisited, but let's not assume because is that a $5 billion level, that each year we will sustain it at a $5 billion level, regardless of what is happening on the energy front. that does not mean that these are not still tough cuts. there are always more people that could use some help across the country than we have resources. it is still a tough decision. i a understand people's frustrations. having said that, my goal is to make sure we are looking after the vulnerable, the disabled, our seniors, and making sure our education system is serving kids to succeed in the 21st century. we are investing in the future, and doing that in no way that is sustainable and that we are paying for, as opposed to having a huge imbalances where we are

having things that are under- funded. we are trying to make an adjustment so that we have a sustainable budget over the long term. and, by the way, there are things that are not working at all, so we have a limited a couple of hundred programs. on the education front, we are consolidating. there is waste and inefficiency there and that is long overdue. we identified a number of these programs that just do not work. take that all the programs that do not work, and put it into programs that do. >> look, i definitely feel folks' pain. someone is doing a book about the 10 letters that i get every day. they came by to talk to me

yesterday, and they said "when is the overwhelming impression they you get when you read these 10 letters a day?" what i told them was i was so inspired by the strength and resiliency of the american people, but sometimes i am also frustrated by the number of people out there that are struggling. you want to help every single one individually, and you feel like you want to be a case worker and pick up the phone and advocating for each of these people who are working hard and trying to do right. often times through no fault of their own they have had a tough time. yes, it is frustrating, but my job is to make sure we are focused over long-term -- where is it that we need to go, and

the most important thing i can do as president is to make sure we are living within our means, getting a budget that is sustainable, investing in the future, and growing the economy. if i do that, that is the most help i can give the most number of people. jake. >> thank you, mr. president. house republicans, as you know, want to start cutting now, this year's budget. are you willing to work with them in the next few weeks so as to avoid a government shut down? there has been talk about a down payment they would like to make for this year's budget. also, could you talk about the attempts to get american diplomat ray davis freed from pakistan? some of criticized the process. could you walk us through?

>> my goal is to work with the republicans both on the continuing resolution, and for those of you that are watching that do not know, the cr is a continuing resolution -- a way to keep government going when you have -- when you do not have an overall budget settled. this is coming over from last year, funding vital government functions this year. i want to work with everyone to get that resolved i think it is important to make sure -- resolved. i think it is important that we do not try to make symbolic cuts this year that could endanger the recovery. what i will be looking for is some common sense that the recovery is still fragile. we passed the tax cut package precisely to make sure people have more money in their pockets, that their paychecks were larger.

we provided incentives, but if the steps that we take then prompt thousands of layoffs in state or local government, or court vital functions are not performed properly, that could have a dampening impact on our recovery as well. my measure is going to be are we doing things in a sensible way, and needing core functions, not in danger in our recovery? in some cases, like defense, for example, secretary gates has already testified if we are operating under the current continuing resolution is putting significant strains on making sure our 2 -- troops have what they need to perform their missions. further slashes will impair our ability to meet our mission. so, all we need to be careful. let's use a scalpel, not a

machete, and if we do that, there should be no reason not all for a government to shut down. i think people should be careful in terms of being too loose in terms of talking above a government shutdown. this is not an abstraction. people did not get their social security checks, they're veterans payments -- basic functions shot down. that would also have an adverse effect on our economic recovery , at a time that everyone is hopeful we could grow this economy quicker. the key is to be practical, and not to score political points. that is true for all of us. if we take that approach, we can navigate the situation in short term, and deal with the problem long term. with respect to mr. davis, our

diplomat in pakistan, there is a simple principle here. c-span.org [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> if our diplomats are in another country, they are not subject to that country's local prosecution. we respect that with diplomats that are here. we recognize mr. davis as a diplomat, to abide by the same convention. the reason why this is an important principle is that if it starts been fair game on our ambassador around the world, including dangerous places, where we might have differences with those governments, and our ambassadors and our various embassy personnel are having to

deliver a tough messages to those countries where we disagree with them, and they start being vulnerable to prosecution, that is untenable. that means they cannot do their job. that is why we respect these conventions and every country should as well. we will continue to work with the pakistani government to get this person released, and, obviously, for those of you that are not familiar with the background on this, a couple of pakistanis were killed in an incident between mr. davis within pakistan. we're concerned about the loss of life. we are not tell us about that -- about that, but there is

a broader principle to a pulled -- up cold. >> consequences for the pakistani government? >> i will not discuss the specific exchanges, but we have been clear about this being an important party. >> i wanted to go back to egypt. there was some concern that you were too cautious. i know you said there was a dramatic change in three weeks. i realize it is a complicated situation, but as a protest growth throughout the middle east, you said before your message to the governments involved was to make sure you are not violent, but what is your message to the protesters? do you want them to taste freedom, or only taste freedom if it bring stability to our interests in the region?

>> without revisiting all of the events over the last three weeks, i think history will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in egypt, we were on the right side of history. what we did not do is pretend that we could dictate the outcome in egypt, because we cannot. we were very mindful that it was important for this to remain and egypt in the event -- egyptian event. the united states did not become the issue. we sent out a very clear message that we believe in an orderly transition, a meaningful transition, and a transition that needed to happen and not

later, but sooner, and we were consistent on that message throughout. so, particularly if you look at my statements, i started talking about reform two weeks or two and a half weeks before mr. bling -- mr. mubarak's alternately stepped down. at each juncture, i think we calculated did just about right. part of the test is that we ended up seeing a peaceful transition, relatively little violence, and relatively little, if any, anti-american sentiment, or anti-israel sentiment, or anti-western settlement -- sentiment. i think that testifies to the fact that in a complicated situation, we got it about right.

my message to demonstrators going forward is that your aspirations for greater opportunities, for the ability to speak your mind, for a free press -- those are absolutely aspirations we support. as was true in egypt, ultimately, what happens in each of these countries will be determined by the citizens of those countries, and even as we uphold these universal bet -- values, we want to make sure transitions do not degenerate into chaos and violence. that is not just good for us, it is good for those countries. the history of successful transitions to democracy have generally them ones in which

peaceful protests led to the dialogue, discussion, reform, and ultimately democracy. that is true in countries like eastern europe, and in countries like indonesia, a majority- moslem country that went through some of these similar transitions, but did not do it in such a chaotic fashion that it ended /-- dividing the society is fundamentally. >> hasn't likened the chat -- has it offered the chances for middle east peace? >> i think it offers an opportunity and a challenge. the opportunity is that when you have the kinds of young people that were in sorrier square feeling that they have hope --

tehrir square, feeling they have hope and opportunity, there is less chance to have an anti- israeli sentiment, or anti- western sentiment. the challenges that democracy is messy. if you are trying to negotiate with a democracy, you do not just have one person to negotiate with. you have to negotiate with a wide range of views, but i like the odds of actually getting a better outcome in the former circumstance than in the latter. all right. mike emanu-el. -- emanuel. >> thank you, mr. president.

the number one concern for many americans is jobs. there are tax cuts in your budget. do you worry about the impact on jobs? >> if you look at that budget, there is a bunch of stuff for job creation. i think some folks noted for example, our infrastructure proposals, which would create millions of jobs. our investments in research and development and clean energy have the potential for creating job growth in industries of the future. my belief that the high-end tax cuts, or the bush tax cuts for the high-end of the population, folks like me, my belief is that

that does not in any way impede job growth, and most economists agree. we had this debate. we compromise in order to achieve an overall package that reduced taxes for all americans, so i continue to believe that was a smart compromise. but, when it comes to over long term maintaining tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, when that will mean additional deficits of $1 trillion -- if you are serious about deficit reduction, you do not do that. as i said, most economists, even ones that tend to lean to the right would agree that that is not the best way to approach

deficit reduction and debt reduction. i do think it is the important as we think about corporate tax reform, individual tax reform, to sink to -- to keep taxes as low as possible, and as simple as possible. we also have to it knowledge in the same way that families hefty pay for what they buy, the government has to pay for what it buys. if we believe it is important for us to have a strong military, that does not come for free. we have to pay for it. if we think we have to take care of our veterans when they come home, and not just salute on memorial day, but we have to work with folks there have posttraumatic stress disorder, or traumatic brain injuries, that require services that are labour-intensive and expensive.

if we think it is important that our senior citizens continue to enjoy health care in their golden years, that costs money. if we think that after a flood we help of our neighbors and our fellow citizens so that they can recover, we have to pay for it. so, the circumstance that has changed -- earlier julianna goldman asked why i thought i might get a deal. generally, the questions have been about what will be different this time. my hope is that we have an adult conversation where everyone says here is what is important, and here is how we are going to pay for it. there will be significant disagreements about what people

think is important, and that is our democracy should work. at the margins, i think i will end up having to compromise on some things. hopefully, others will have that same spirit. >> but is this a deeper spending cuts before they consider tax hikes? >> it depends on what exactly it is you are talking about. there should be a full, open debate with the american people. are we willing to cut millions of young people off when it comes to student loans? are we only serious about education in the abstract, but when it is concrete, we are not

willing to put the money into what? -- into it? if we are cutting infant formula to poor kids -- is that we are as a people? we will need to have those debates, particularly as it turns out that making those cuts does not make a big dent in the long term debt and deficits, i think the american people might conclude let's have a more balanced approach, but that is what we will be talking about over the next couple of months. a lot of people would like to see it get resolved if today, it probably will not be. that is a fair prediction. i will take one last question. >> thank you, mr. president. i had almost given up there. >> and do not give up. >> you correctly suggested that the media could be impatient

about seeing both sides come to the deal. this is your third budget, your third year of your presidency. you have said many times that you would rather be a one-term president if it means they you have done the hard things they need to be done. i know you are not going to stand there and invite republicans to the negotiating table today, but why not, and since you are not, what more are you doing to build the cooperation you mentioned needs to happen before there is bipartisanship? finally, do you think the markets will wait two years? >> i should have written all of this down. >> i am happy to repeat my questions. >> let me speak to this generally. it is true that this is my third budget.

the first two budgets were in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression, so we had a different set of priorities. i said it at the time. impeach what i said was the deficit is going up -- in each what i said is that the deficit is going up, we are compiling additional debt, but the reason is because it is important to avoid going into a depression or having a longer recession than is necessary. the important thing we had to do in order to limit the amount of increased debt and bigger deficits is to grow the economy in some more. that was our priority, our focus, but this third budget reflects a change in focus. the economy is now growing again. people are more hopeful. when it created more than 1 million jobs over the last year -- we have created more than 1

million jobs over the last year. employers are starting to hire and businesses are starting to invest. in that environment, and now that we are out of the deaths of the crisis, we have to look at the long-term problems and medium-term problems in a much more urgent and serious way. in terms of what i'm doing what the republicans, i am having a conversation with them and democratic leadership. i did before this budget was released, and i will do so afterward. i will not give you a play-by- play of every negotiation that takes place. i expect that all sides will have to do a little bit of posturing on television, and speak to their constituencies, rally the troops, and so forth, but ultimately what we need is a reasonable, responsible, and additionally -- initially,

probably toned down conversation about where we can compromise and get something done. i am confident that will be the speed to -- spirit that congressional leaders take over the coming months, because i do not think anyone wants to see our economy derailed. all of us agree that we have to cut spending, and all of us agree that we have to get our deficit and our debt under control. all of us agree that part of it has to be entitlements. so, there is a framework there that speaks, by the way, again, to the point i made with you, chuck about the commission. they gave us a significant framework, and within that framework, we will have tough conversations. the devil will be in the details. i was glad to see yesterday republican leaders say how come he did not talk about entitlements? i think that as progress,

because what we had been hearing was set -- was making it sound as if we just slashed deeper on education or other provisions in domestic spending, that somehow, that alone, was coined soldo -- sopped -- that was going to solve the problem. in terms of the markets, i think what the markets want to see is progress. the markets understand that we did not get here overnight, and we're not going to get out overnight. what they want to see is that we have the capacity to work together. if they see us chipping away at this problem in a serious way, even if we have not solved 100% of the, -- of it, that will provide more confidence that

washington can work. more than anything, that is not just with the markets want, that is what the american people want. they want confirmation that this place can work. i think it can. all right? thank you, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the president wrapping up his nearly 1-hour-long news conference as the u.s. house gets set to gavel back in. the house is coming in now to begin work on federal spending for the beginning of this budget year. republicans are proposing a $1 trillion plan. live house coverage here, on c-. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: dear lord god, our beginning and our end,

for us to be aware of this leads to gratitude and petition. so we praise and thank you for all the blessings of the past which brings us to this present moment. we seek your continued guidance and wisdom to accomplish great deeds in your holy name and give you glory both now and forever. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge today will be led by the gentleman from illinois, mr. jackson. mr. jackson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, individual with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair intill

entertain up to 15 one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week marks an important turning point in restoring fiscal sanity to our country as we begin discussion of a measure that will reduce spending by $100 billion. many members committed to this reduction which will return spending to 2008 pre-stimulus levels. this is more than just a promise, it is fundamental to the health of our economy and the security of our nation. mr. fitzpatrick: the budget of every department must be scrutinized while keeping in mind the promises made to our constituents, mine in the 18th district of pennsylvania and the millions who showed concern across america with our growing deficit. it is notable that for the first time this will be considered under an open rule

to allow this process to be collaborative. i'm sure it will be trying but i'm looking forward to working with my colleagues toward our collective goal of reducing the federal deficit. the deficit did not get out of hand overnight but it -- and it will not be fixed overnight but changes must be made. this marks an important milestone on the road to a sustainable federal budget. it requires tough choices but choices that must be made for the economic health and security for this yen ration and the next. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the royce for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. jackson: mr. speaker, the book of matthew says, for where your treasure is, there your heart shall be also. that's the biblical prescription for judging the priorities of politicians -- politicians. we've seen it in the continuing

resolution offered by my republican colleagues. when they're needed most, vital programs are on the chopping block. grants to states and cities for help with development, pell grants and much, much more. in the midst of the worst economy most of us have ever seen, we're cutting the legs of the unemployed, underemployed and financially insecure out from under them. it is clear these proposals did not consider the well being of the people. we must organize ourselves. the unemployed party is larger than the tea party. no jobs are promised, but i will put your story in the congressional record so our government, that is supposed to be of, for, and by the people, can begin to live up to the true meaning of its creed. resumesforamerica@mail.house.go v. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

time of the gentleman has ex-pired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. every texas family must live within a budget. i don't understand why the federal government can't do the same. to get our fiscal house in order, we need to cut spending, balance the budget and shrink the deficit. mr. johnson: as a fiscal hawk, i know in november, american taxpayers voted for congress to roll back the failed stimulus spending. stop bailing out wall street. end government motors. stop saving fannie and freddie and defund and repeal obamacare. plain and simple, the american people want washington to tax less, spend less and borrow less. the c.r. represents some tough choices. but i know the american public is willing to make some sacrifices now so we can make a

brighter and better future for our children and grandchildren tomorrow. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the quelt from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cohen: the state department is determining whether to issue a permit for he the x.l. pipeline which could deliver 5,000 barrels of tar sands oil from alberta canada to refineries in the gulf coast. the proposed keystone x.l. pipeline would put communities in its path at unnecessary risk by using traditional technology to carry diluted bitumin. this substance is more corrosive and more likely to cause leaks than traditional

oil. already one pipeline that came online six months ago has experienced seven leaks, that's for a pipeline transcanada claims is the safest ever built. considering the dangers of piping bitumin, i find it troubling that it goes through the ogala act fer in the midwest which provides clean drinking water to most of america's heartland. u.s. regulators do not delineate between this new product and standard petroleum. we need new regulation and need to put on hold the planned tar sands pipeline x.l. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: we are here to speak about the c.r., the

continuing resolution which is going to set forth the budget for the rest of this fiscal year. yes, it is true, we have a responsibility for the budget. but the bottom line for each and every one of us is how does that budget affect us? how does it aft the people we represent? let's look at what the c.r. does. i think we all know that in the creation of jobs, we must invest in america, we must invest in each and every one of you. when you look at a c.r. that eliminates and puts a chilling effect on all of the major investments that we need, we know that's not the right way to go. but more importantly than that, this is the c.r. that's going to cut, cut the future. cut those students, 200,000 of them, who rely on head start. we all know that we've got to invest in them now. it's also going to cut those middle class kids who are going to college on pell grants, $800

apiece. so when we hear about the budget generally, let's not forget, it's the people. it's the kids that matter. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so order. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. the republican c.r. is another broken promise that will eliminate thousands of good-paying jobs in construction, law enforcement, research and education and public safety. this is just more of the same and this turns us into a pink slip nation. i believe that's what the goal of the republicans is. and this bill will cost us jobs today, tomorrow, and in the future by failing to invest in

our infrastructure and by failing to invest in education. mr. speaker, the mistakes the majority intends to make today will not be very easy to reverse. i urge the majority to keep its promise to america, which is, it's all about jobs. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 92 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number nine, house resolution 92, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 1, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union

for consideration of the bill h.r. 1, making appropriations for the department of defense and the other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. yen debate shall be confined to the bill and shall in the exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except, one, those received for printing as a portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause of rule 18, dated at least one day before the consideration of the amendment, no later than february 18, 2011, and two, pro forma amendments for the purposes of debate. each amendment so received may be offered only by the member who submitted it for printing

or a designee and shall be considered as read if printed. when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, during consideration of h reform 1, clause 2-f of rule 1 shall not apply to amendments adressing objects within more one suballocations made by the committee on appropriations under section 302-b of the congressional budget act of 1974. section 3. 24e requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 oh vote to consider it on the same day it's presented in the house is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of february 17, 2011, providing for disposition

of h.r. 1. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. >> thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to my new friend, the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which time i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. >> during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded -- yielded for the purpose of debate only and i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> house resolution 92 provides for a modified open rule for h r. 1. this bill reaffirms our commitment to fiscal responsibility by implementing two main pillars of our pledge to america. mr. woodall: to cut discretionary spending and ensure an open and bipartisan debate. if you told me six months ago i would have been standing here on the floor of the house

handling my very first rule on the floor of the house and we would have been succeeding on two pillars of the pledge to america, i would have told you that might have been wishful thinking, but we have come together as a house, not as republicans, not as democrats, but as a house to bring this process forward today. you know, mr. speaker, as an experienced member of the rules committee and a former -- in a former life how unusual it is to have an open process on a continuing resolution. i dare say even the dean of the house, the gentleman from michigan, has not seen a continuing resolution come to the floor under the open process that we're bringing it to the floor under today. that's important. because as i listened to one-minute this is morning and i heard some folks on the left and heard some folks on the right who weren't quite happy with the way h.r. 1 turned out. that was an important consideration over the past four year, over the past 0 year, over the past 20 years. if you weren't happy with the -- with the way the continuing

resolution turned out, when leadership brought it to the floor, too bad for you. you department have a voice, or a vote or a process. it was take it or leave it. whether it was republican leadership or democratic leadership, take it or leave it. in the 112th congress, our new leadership said, we can do better. we have to do better. and the american people deserve better and today we're fulfilling that process. this open process will allow any member, republican or democrat, to come to the floor today, tomorrow, bring their amendments to the floor so that they can say we don't think you got it right. my 600,000 constituents back home want to make a change. we think we can do better. we think you did too much, we think you didn't do enough. the first time a continuing resolution has come to the floor in this open process. . i believe in the commitment of openness. i can't tell you how many times i said that if speaker nancy

pelosi rammed the bill through in the middle of the night, that was wrong. and if speaker newt gingrich ran the bill through in the middle of the night, that was wrong. right and wrong are not partisan issues, they are american issues. i can't tell you how much i enjoyed our rules committee hearing last night, mr. speaker, where we had the ranking member and the chairman of the appropriations committee come forward, lay out competing views about where they think we should take spending in this country, and then agree to come to the floor over the next several days to offer amendments to work through that process to make sure that at the end of the day, that at the end of the day no longer do we have a take it or leave it leadership bill from either side of the aisle, that at the end of the day we have a bill that was truly the work product of this new 112th congress, of this people's house. and it's just with tremendous pride, mr. speaker, that i take part in this debate today. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she may consume. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i come to the floor today still waiting for the majority to give us a chance to vote on legislation that will create jobs. we are now six weeks into the 112th congress and we have yet seen a jobs bill from the republican majority. it's high time the majority party allows us to debate and vote on legislation to get americans back to work. instead, today we are debating dangerous and reckless legislation that will cut american jobs and seriously threaten our ability to build upon our fragile economic recovery. at a time when many americans are still struggling to find employment, republican majority proposes a spending bill that ends construction projects, takes police off the street, and

halts innovation that spurs job creation. this stands in stark contrast to the president's twelve budget proposal -- 2012 budget proposal that creates jobs for americans by investing in natural priorities like education, infrastructure, and emergency technology. unlike some within republican party, the american people are not looking to completely cripple the federal government and leave the nation to the corporate elite. americans have repeatedly express add desire to make smart investments in our national priorities that leave our country more competitive now and into the future. i stand today with the american people. the republicans' slash and burn budget does nothing to achieve this goal. it even cuts the most fundamental public services. ending leasing programs, and defunding educational reform efforts here in the united states. as nations like china and india

poor money into the development of solar panels and high-speed trains creating thousands of jobs for their citizens, the republican majority is removing the most fundamental investment in comparable american jobs. this reckless approach not only destroys jobs today but also in the months and years to come. this is a critical time in america's history. and if we are to compete with nations like china, to create jobs in the united states and win the global marketplace, we must support our own nation with smart, targeted cuss that will lower the deficit but invest -- targeted cuts that will lower the deficit but invest in american jobs. six weeks into the new congress we are still waiting to see this plan to get americans back to work. instead we see this hastily drawn up c.r. that takes a meat axe to the middle class. as america waits, the global economy moves ahead leaving us behind. as the 112th congress was sworn

into office, we were bombarded with promise that is an open and transparent process would make a triumphant return to this house floor. we do not consider our first appropriations bill, we continue to wait for that grand return. mr. speaker, while this rule may have the word open in the title, i assure you this is not an open process. through last-minute changes, convoluted parliamentary maneuvers, and preprinting requirement, the republican majority has provided an extremely convoluted and restrictive process. an open rule means that as the legislative process proceeds, as an amendment passes, it may spark an idea for an amendment that another member may choose to offer with the changes made in the legislation. this rule takes away that ability. also, the republicans adopted in a party-line vote at 9:00 p.m. last night a parliamentary sleight of hand that blocks the transfer of any money from one

part of government to another. this means you cannot use an offset from one part of the bill to increase spending in different parts. in all my years serving in congress, i have never seen such a blanket prohibition. and yet the leadership would have us believe this is an open process and this is regular order. to top it all off, republicans have even given themselves an escape hatch with martial law provision in the rule which will allow them to report out a new rule for h.r. 1 that shuts down the amendment process without the normal one-day waiting period. this convoluted process has once again illustrated that the republican party continues to believe that claiming the sky is green will make it so. the truth is you can't create jobs in a press release. you can't fix the nation's health care system with a clever tag line. and you can't create an open and transparent congress by creating an open rule in name only.

my fellow democrat colleagues and i are committed to living within our means while investing in the programs and policies that will help our country compete and win the global future. the republican majority continuing resolution couldn't be more dangerous to these values that we all hold dear. i urge my colleagues to stand up for our communities, support legislation that creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, while reducing our deficit. today's c.r. does not meet this threshold and as a result, i urge my colleagues to vote no on today's rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. you can't make everybody happy all the time. in fact i don't think that's the role of government. i could design -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. woodall: you caught me both on the first rule on the floor on a day i'm pleased to be here because of the things going on

here today, because of the changes i believe in, both in terms of fiscal responsibility and in terms of openness here in the process. i understand this rule isn't going to make everyone happy. it doesn't make me happy because we are only here today, it's been very confusing for folks back home, mr. speaker, we talk so much about receiving the president's budget on capitol hill yesterday, of course that was his budget for f.y. 2012, we are still here working on the budget for 2011. this is the fifth continuing resolution that we have had to try to get that process right. it's the first one since i have been sworn in that develop been involved in. i can tell you as much of a voice you have in this continuing resolution today, we have not seen this much debate or this many amendments in the last four continuing resolutions combined. i'm told last night more than 400 amendments were filed to be eligible to come to the floor. now, i hear from my friends on

the democratic side of the aisle, which -- for whom i have deep respect and admiration, that they believe this bill was put together in a hasty process. we have been working on this bill day and night for weeks. but then i hear from my friends that they are disappointed we have a preprinting requirement to allow for the thoughtful consideration of amendments, and they would rather it be a willy-nilly process that happens on the floor as come up with good ideas. i look forward to that process. i very much hope we can have that as the appropriations bills move forward, folks, this is a time of urgency. we have troops in harm's way overseas. we have economic development projects going on around this country that have no idea after march 4 whether there will be a single nickel available to support their cause. no idea. it is no way to run a government. again, to put credit where credit is due and blame where blame resides, both parties over

the last decade have been guilty of this horrendous, this horrendous practice of bringing continuing resolutions to the floor. today we bring forward a bill that will put a stop to this process, that will get us through the end of 2011 and allow us to go through regular order to bring the remaining appropriations bills to the floor. it's a process i very much look forward to. i see my friend, mr. mcgovern, in the chamber this morning. he and i had a discussion last night in the rules committee about how to go after some, what i would go, egregious tax subsidies. those things that happen on the tax side of the ledger that shouldn't happen. i believe in a fair code. i believe in a code that's transparent, that people understand, you'll see my fair tax pin i'm wearing here today. i believe in fundamental tax reform, but today we only have a chance to talk about f.y. 2011 spending. i want to have that discussion about fundamental tax reform. i want to have the discussion that the gentlelady from new york wants to have about entitlement reform because i know precisely what my colleagues know, which is if we

are going to be serious about budgets, that's where the dollars are. that's where the growth is. that's where the change has to come. but today we have, because it's an open process, simply one bill that we can deal with. simply one idea we can deal with. that one idea is spending for f.y. 2011. it would have been easy, mr. speaker, for this new house to have punted on making tough decisions. it would have been perfectly legitimate for this new house to say we didn't cause this problem, we inherited this problem from last year's congress, and we are just going to continue a continuing resolution on until the end of the year because we don't have the time or the commitment to start making tough choices. but we didn't. i'm just so proud that we didn't. what we said is, we have seven months left in the year, let's start right now. let's start right now. and let's lay these ideas out one by one by one not in big general terms, but in specifics, line item by line item by line

item across literally thousands of appropriations accounts. and we didn't say it's my way or the highway, mr. speaker. we said, if you have a better idea, if you have a better idea, come to the floor and let's talk about it. if you have a better idea, if we did too much here, tell us where we did too much and tell us how we can do better. and too little here, tell us where we did too little and tell us how to make it better. i so look forward at the end of this rules consideration as we pass this rule and move forward in the general debate to being able to engage in those amendments one by one not in a backroom somewhere, not off in the corner where the -- it's just the leertship involved -- leadership involved, but here on the floor of the people's house for all of america to see line item by line item by line item about where our priorities are. i'll tell you, mr. speaker, you know as i know, that every nickel we collect in federal revenue today goes to entitlements and service our

national debt of the every nickel we spend on every program we are going to talk about today, every program on the discretionary side, on the nondefense discretionary side, is a nickel that we borrow. so when we talk about these things good to do, i promise you that's not -- it's not where my heart is today. i know there are some good programs out here that are doing good things. what i also know is we are borrowing every nickel to fund those programs from our children and grandchildren. when we talk about priorities, one of those priorities is paying for what it is we commit this nation to. again, my good friend, mr. mcgovern, was very persuasive last night when he said, for pete's sakes there's programs i don't agree with, but if we are going to be involved in them we ought to fund them. i couldn't agree more. we received the president's budget just yesterday and over a 10-year window, our systemic deficit never falls below 3%. never falls below 3% of g.d.p. we don't even qualify to join

the european union. we are so devoid of fiscal responsibility at this point in our nation's history that we do not even qualify to join the european union. i tell you, mr. speaker, that's a low standard. we should do better. we should do better. we can do better. we brought h.r. 1 to the floor today, this rule will bring it to the floor this afternoon so we can do better. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'd like to yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. slaughter: what i would love to see us debating is how we get out of afghanistan and stop paying $8 billion borrowed dollars a month for that. also in an editorial printed today in "new york times" said i think what a lot are saying, we are cutting this -- this bill will cut vital government functions and not have any lasting impact on the deficit. i ask unanimous consent to put those in the report. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. slaughter: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the rules committee, mr. polis.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. polis: mr. speaker, america's top priority is creating jobs. here we are six weeks into the 112th congress and the republican leadership has yet to bring a single jobs bill to the floor. once again we are here today to exercise one of our primary constitutional responsibilities as members of congress, to pass appropriations legislation, to fund the many basic and essential programs of the federal government on which millions of americans rely. today is an incredible opportunity for republicans and democrats to work together to bridge the gap between parties and pass a bill that meets our shared goals of creating jobs, building infrastructure, and strengthening the economy. . sadly the republican leadership has brought to the floor a continuing resolution that jeopardizes american jobs and investment in the future by rolling back investments that are necessary to help our private sector grow an help create jobs this c.r. thoughtlessly creates extreme

cuts to appease an extreme wing of the republican party at the expense of the american people. it arbitraryly kills jobs that would set our country back decades in scientific research pause the republicans don't like what the science says. worst of all, it would tie the e.p.a.'s hands in dealing with the clean air act. the clean air act protects the most vulnerable americans, those with asthma and other diseases. each year, it affects thousands. this year alone it was estimated by the u.s. environmental protection agency that the clean air act will save 160,000 lives yet republicans plan to starve this life-saving agency of its funding. mr. speaker, building an excellent public education system that provides each and every american the opportunity succeed is the most important investment we can make in our future. as president obama said in his

state of the union address, it's not just about how we cut, but what we cut. education is an investment in our future and we can't sacrifice our future. but republicans through this c.r. are willing to sacrifice our future to meet an arbitrary campaign pledge. by putting to the -- cutting to the heart of the learning needs of american children and youth through this nonsense call measure, republican lawmakers don't know the meaning of investing in our future as a nation. mr. speaker, at the state and local level, my home state of colorado also receives a slap in the face from this resolution. a year ago, highway 36 was awarded a $10 million tiger tiffia challenge grant to expand one of the most used and heavily congested highways in our state. the $10 million investment helped leverage additional funds in the area, creating $276 million in employment income and 7,200 jobs. it impacts 191,000 employee, 10% of the state's total this

c.r. would rescind $9 ppt 1 million in funding without thought to details or consequences upon which the rest of the funding is built. this is a critical grant for colorado that we were promised and received leverage. can i request 30 additional seconds? ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. polis: colorado's i-36 corridor won the award because it's one of the most innovative projects in the country. the american public needs and deserves real solutions. i encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule for the c.r. as well as the underlying c.r. to prevent the unnecessary cuts in this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. wood yawl: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. woeful. the speaker pro tempore: the -- mr. wolf.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. wolf: i rise in support of h.r. 1, congress must step up to cut our nation's deficit and debt this measure takes an important step. this is an important effort and we need to cut wasteful and duplicative spend bug these kind of cuts won't get us to a balanced budget. only 16% of our nation's spending is in nonsecurity discretionary accounts. today we're cutting over $100 billion from just 1/6 of the federal spending. the infamous bank robber willie sutton once said he robbed banks because that's where the money is. in our government, the money is in the entitlements. for those who are concerned about funding for sciences and education and medical research and infrastructure as i am, the way to ensure that our nation can pay for the programs so many people care about is to deal with the mandatory spending entitlements. the president's state of the union address was

disappointing. he had a national forum to step up andle embrace the recommendations of the national commission on fiscal responsibility. the commission clearly recognized the looming crisis and offered a framework for a serious national conversation to begin on entitlement issues and do it in a bipartisan way. i didn't agree with every recommendation and would have tried to change some, but had i been appointed to the commission, i would have voted with senator coburn and senator durbin for the report. if those senators from far opposite sides could come together for the good of the country, then where is the president? as important as it is to tighten the federal discretionary spending bill, we will only continue to tilt at windmills with a budget lenneller if we don't deal with entitlements, medicare, medicaid and social security. and i believe the opportunity to come together in a

bipartisan way to put everything on the table to deal with it. also, we need a president to step up to the plate and to be an honest broker on this issue and to lead the nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise in very strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying continuing resolution. the spending bill that the republican leadership is bringing before the house today is reckless, thoughtless and heartless. most disturbingly, it's a jobs killer. believe that the best way to reduce our deficit and long-term debt is to grow our economy, to help businesses create jobs. at a time when our economy is emerging from the worst recession in our lifetimes, when millions of americans are

out of work and millions more are struggling to make ends meet, this continuing resolution takes exactly the wrong approach. instead of making needed investments in education, medical research, infrastructure and other priorities this bill takes a meat ax to them. instead of strengthening the middle class on main street this bill gives sweetheart deals for wall street. instead of investing in workers, it protects special interest subsidies for big oil companies and hedge fund managers. a few weeks ago on the floor, republicans told us that veterans' programs, education, child nutrition and health care research would be protected. it is clear now that those were empty promises, mr. speaker. for veteran the bill eliminates a program that offers housing vouchers for homeless veterans. in education, the bill decimates the pell grant program by reducing the maximum award by $800 and by cutting another $4.9 billion from other education programs. for child knew trig, the bill

cuts $750 million from the women, infant and children's program. and the bill slashes $2.5 billion from the national institutes of health, jeopardizing important research into the -- into diseases like cancer, alzheimer's and diabetes. it destroys the land and water conservation fund, a common sense program to protect our natural resources and outdoor recreational spaces. mr. speaker, when we brought up the prospect of these cuts a few weeks ago, we were accused of demonizing the the bait. now that we have seen the numbers before us, i'm sad to say, it's worse than any of us could have predicted. i find the cuts in education funding to be particularly troublesome. as president obama made clear in his state of the union, we must invest in our children if we are to compete in the 21st century economy. in order to maintain our economic standing, in order to create the jobs of the future, in order to compete against china, we must have a well-educated work force. so why on earth would we slash

pell grants which help millions of families, 12,000 in my district alone, pay for college? we shouldn't. this bill would also decimate important life-saving food aid programs to feed hungry children and refugees. it would literally take the food out of the mouths of some of the most vulnerable people around the world. mr. speaker, retreating from the global war against extreme poverty and hunger will not just -- will undermine not just our moral authority but our national security as well. i also want to point out that this bill continues the same misguided policy under republican and democratic presidents alike that borrows hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. if we are truly serious about reducing the deficit, then those wars need to be ended or paid for. along with my -- along with colleagues like walter jones and others, i'm going to continue to talk about these issues. these wars are bankrupting us and we need to have a

meaningful, thorough debate about them. i believe this continuing resolution contains exactly the wrong prescription for our nation. we should be focusing on creating jobs and growing our economy, instead, this republican bill would lead to more unemployment, more unfairness, and more hardship for the american people. i urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his type. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, jack kingston. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kings spon -- mr. kingston: yesterday we got the president's budget. it was more of the same. higher taxes, more spending, more deficits. it would give us the third year of trillion-dollar deficits and made no mention of entitlement reform they feel president ignored the recommendations of his very own hand-picked deficit reduction committee.

i was very disappointed. at the same time, i want to work with the president. where he wans to cey money and reduce spending, i think it's important for republicans to reach out and say yes. it sounds to me like the democrats want to remove thems from that process. which is interesting, because what we are debating in this $100 billion spending reduction bill is an open rule process where democrats can put amendments on the board. and if they do agree with us, as i'm sure they do, that for every $1 we spend, 40 cents is borrowed, that our national debt is 96% of our g.d.p. right now and that spending each year is 25% of the g.d.p., a historical high, then i know that they would want to act with us, rather than against us and try to address the situation. so i'll say to my democrat friends if you feel this is too much, then offer your own spending cuts.

this is what can change in washington this year. rather than having the same old hollow, rhetorical debate which incidentally doesn't pull the rug out from the republican party, it pulls the rug out from congress. it damages our own credibility that we can't come together as representatives of a nation and try to move the country forward together. sure, we can skirmish over things. for example, $8.5 billion in earmarks eliminated in this maybe they want to restore earmarks. that's fine. we have a dre ducks -- reduction of 149 different spending programs. maybe they want to restore those. maybe they want to double that amount. we go after -- can i have 30 more seconds? mr. wood yawl: -- mr. wood al: maybe they want to -- mr.

woodall: i eeledyeeled the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. kingston: rather than having the same old drama over and over again, hiding behind children and seniors and pell grants and everything else, why not come to the table and say, here are our cuts. mr. speaker, this is $2 -- this is 2.6%. that is to say, that if i owed you $1 -- could i have 30 more seconds. mr. woodall: i yield the gentleman 30 more seconds. mr. kingston: if i owed you $1 and paid you back 97 cent, you might still want the three cents from me, but you know, you're pretty doggone close. this is a 2% reduction in a $3.7 trillion budget. now, the democrats don't like it, don't call it slashing and burning and all these other descriptions that are lively and make good rhetoric and good drama, but if anything is

irresponsible, it's irresponsible to call it a cut of -- to call a cut of 2.6% reckless. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter spm i'm honored to yield one minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from california, the minority leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and join her in opposing this rule and urging our colleagues to vote no on the rule, no on the previous question and no on final passage of the bill. voting no on the previous question will enable us, if it seeds to -- if it succeeds, to bring to the floor our build america bond legislation. build america bonds is supported on -- outside the congress, across the board in a nonpartisan way, by those who are building america. who are dredging our ports, to enhance our trade, who are building our schools to educate

our children, who are building our roads and highways and mass transit to get people to work and back, improving the quality of their lives and in moving people and products again to work and to market, growing our economy. creating jobs is the number one priority for democrats. we have said that in every measure that comes before this house we will judge it by how it creates jobs, how it strengthens the middle class an how it reduces the deficit. indeed that is what president obama's budget, released just yesterday, will do. it will strengthen our nation, invest in the future, help create jobs and grow the economy while reducing the deficit. by reducing the deficit by $1.1 trillion, it sets us on a path, in president obama's words to out-educate, out-innovate and out build the rest of the world. that is indeed what we must do.

in terms of innovation and education, the president's budget is a commitment to competitiveness that will keep america number one. in terms of out-building the rest of the world, consider this rote quothe from "usa today," quote, associated general contractors and trade groups for the construction industry estimates that the plan could create about 5.4 million construction jobs and 10 million more jobs in related industries and the broader economy. . president obama's budget is a tough budget and makes tough choices. i don't agree with everything the president cut in the budget, but it is a statement of values that we must support. it makes cuts and tougher ones in a responsible way. as president obama said yesterday, we must live within our means and invest in the future. that is in stark contrast to the republican legislation we debate today.

with severe and indiscriminate spending cuts goes too far, this legislation will destroy american jobs while harming middle class families, young adults, seniors, and, yes, even our veterans. since coming to office republicans have not put forward any initiative to create jobs. indeed, with this legislation they are making matters worse. according to an independent study just released, the domestic cuts in this bill would destroy 800,000 private and public sector jobs. 800,000 private and public sector jobs. democrats are saying no to the republican majority, we are saying show us the jobs. show the american people where the jobs are. just today speaker boehner said that if jobs are lost as a result of republican spending cuts, so be it. so be it?

is it a statement of our -- we believe that our budget should be a statement of our national values. what is important to us must be included in our budget. consider what the republican legislation we debate today would do to diminish our investment in education, halt innovation, destroy good-paying american jobs, and make our neighborhoods less secure. indeed, not even homeless veterans are spared by the republicans. our federal -- as i said our budget must be a statement of our national values. we must ask ourselves is this republican legislation a statement of our values? is it a statement of our values to undermine our commitment to educate the next generation of leaders and innovators? the republican proposal cuts $800 per student in the maximum

pell grant award. thousands of teachers would lose their jobs and in your neighborhood class size could increase. is the statement of our values to diminish our efforts to create green jobs and fight disease, innovation? $1.3 billion in this bill, it cuts $1.3 billion in investments to spur clean energy economy of the future. it cuts more than $1.3 million for cancer and other disease research. in terms of innovation and education, the president's budget is a commitment to competitiveness. this legislation is not. is it a statement of our values to destroy jobs and undermine investments in our roads, schools, bridges to rebuild america? tens of thousands of new construction jobs would be lost and 76 projects to upgrade our roads in your disstricts and bridges in 40 states would be canceled. i mentioned earlier what the

general contractor said about creating millions of jobs in the industry and 10 million more jobs indirectly. is there a statement of our values to demippish the public safety of our neighborhoods? there would be up to 3,000 fewer cops on the beat in your neighborhood and 2,400 fewer firefighters on the job in our communities coast to coast. 3,000 fewer cops on the beat. 2,400 fewer firefighters in our community coast to coast. is it a statement of our values to cut funding for homeless veterans? one example of where this goes too far, think of it. republicans want to eliminate $75 million on an initiative that offers housing vouchers to our homeless vets. it's a very effective initiative. the republicans want to cut it. is it a statement of our values

to deprive women of primary care when it comes to health and education republicans put women and children last. democrats and republicans must work together to ensure our nation lives within its means. that's for sure. we must continue to aggressively attack waste, fraud, and abuse and we will subject every taxpayer dollar we spend to the toughest scrutiny, ensuring that the american people are getting their money's worth. but republicans have not presented a responsible plan for addressing the deficit. we believe we can cut the deficit and create jobs. to do so we must invest in the future. democrats do not subscribe to speaker boehner's verdict that if jobs are lost in this continuing resolution, so be it. maybe so be it for him, but not so be it for the people who are losing their jobs.

instead, we support president obama's budget to outinnovate, outeducate, and outbuild the rest of the world, that is why, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question, no on the rule, and no on the underlying bill. let's put this aside and get on with the business the people sent us here to do. creating jobs, reducing the deficit, strengthening the middle class, and protecting the american people. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. woodall: at this time i'm proud to yield two minutes to a hardworking member of the appropriation committee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the rule and continuing resolution. mr. speaker, we would not be in this situation this afternoon if the leadership of the last congress let the appropriations committee do its work last year, to act on the president's budget

proposal when it came out, to debate our bills in full committee, to debate our bills on the floor. that's why we are here today. it would have been great if last year's house leadership listened to the american people. we would not be in this situation if the president and the congressional leadership hadn't borrowed billions of dollars, mortgaging our future, to spend on multiple stimulus bills and bailouts that did little to create public sector jobs and restore consumer confidence. the department of energy aloan has $39 billion in stimulus money, all, i may say, borrowed. more than $9 billion than its entire budget. it was a recipe for waste, a scatter gun approach that raised many public expectations but in the end provided few achievement and fewer yet jobs. in many cases it created businesses in the energy sector that could not survive without more government funding. to me it created false markets.

as some described it, it was more money than some knew how to deal with. for months those dollars were not obligated much less spent, hiring up people in the public and private sector that the white house and the house and senate leadership knew would eventually be laid off. some might call it a job ponzi scheme, a blank check owed our children. here we are this week to pick up the pieces, right size the ship of state, stop spending money we don't have, and restore trust for the american people that has been badly -- i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the -- the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, let me take 10 seconds to just say "the new york times" prize winning columnist paul krugman said the bill would sacrifice the future. republicans don't have a mandate to cut spending they have a mandate to repeal the laws of arithmetic. i ask unanimous consent to

insert the full text of the column into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. slaughter: two minutes to my fellow new yorker, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule and more importantly in opposition to the underlying legislation. i think we all recognize that we must make painful cuts, we must make difficult cuts. but i think it's important to recognize that there is a real difference between painful cuts and difficult cuts. and cuts that are destructive. and i want to if he cuss on an area that i think the cuts will be particularly disruptive. they will be destructive to ambition, destructive to aspiration, and destructive to our ability to maintain a vibrant economy. and those are the cuts that are contained in this legislation that would take $6.5 billion, $6.5 billion in one year out of the student financial aid program. cutting pell grants by $5.6 billion, almost $5.7 billion,

and cutting a program that's been in existence since the late 1960's, completely eliminating it to the tune of $800 million a year. these cuts are destructive. we have -- the most powerful that we have to put our economy back on track is an educated work force and the most powerful tool we have to bring about the fiscal stability that we need in this country is a growing economy. that is not possible unless we have an educated work force. 63% of the jobs that will be created over the next six years will require postsecondary education. 90% of the jobs that are expected to be the highest growing areas, science, technology, math, health care require a postsecondary education. yet the response of the current leadership of this congress to that is to cut 23u7bd -- funding that allows students to go on to

college. it is wrong-headed and destructive 6 our future -- of our future and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. the gentleman from new jersey just said that it's the -- if the democrats did not listen to the american people last year, that is a continuing refrain. well, the american people have spoken loudly and clearly about education cuts. 61% of them believe the federal government should spend more on education and only 11% believe we should cut education the. i -- education. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. wowed, the gentleman from massachusetts will control the time object the minority -- on the minority side. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. latham: i thank the gentleman from georgia for the time. mr. speaker, what a difference a new congress makes. we have seen in the last four years, on the appropriations committee, a lack of any kind of

transparent, open process. this last year on the other side of the aisle when they were in control they didn't even pass a budget, a blueprint for spending. and that's why this year, mr. speaker, we have a $1.65 trillion deficit. one year, $1.65 trillion. we can't continue. the president's budget that he brought up which is not just dead on arrival it's debt on arrival, what this says is that we are going to double the privately held national debt another $7 trillion. this is not fiscal restraint. this is not sanity. i have four grandchildren. and the reason i'm here is to make sure that they have a future. we cannot continue this outrageous spending that's going on in washington. when you look at this bill that

we are talking about on the floor, $100 billion off the president's proposal for this past year. that's less than 1/16 of the annual deficit. it is scratching the surface. but because there has been no budget, there has been no fiscal restraint at all in the previous two congresses, this thing is totally -- has totally grown way beyond what is comprehensible by any normal person. that's why, mr. speaker, this is the first step to bring some fiscal sanity back to washington, d.c., to actually understand what the ramifications are long-term in spending. we cannot continue. and it's amazing to me, and this rule, to have an open process where people can actually have amendments. i have had some democrat colleagues come up and say, you mean we are actually going to have amendments? they don't know how to handle that because we have had a closed process for the last four years. we have second-term members of

congress have never seen an open rule on an appropriations bill. the speaker pro tempore: the nt