his rule to get our house in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 second. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the need to be fiscally responsible. i tried last night to or an -- offered an amendment in the rules committee that would say we should pay for the war in afghanistan. we should not continue to borrow the money. last year we borrowed $450 billion. that went on to the credit card. that leaves our kids and grandkids have to bear that burden. that amendment was not made in order. i couldn't offer that amendment. we talked last night about the give aways to big oil companies. and the need to get at those subsidies, we can't do it. we can't do it. it's not so open. i'd yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. andrews: we do believe that reducing the deficit is one way to instill confidence and create jobs. i have a proposal for consideration. we give away $4 billion a year in tax breaks to oil companies. last week, the former c.e.o. of shell oil company said they don't need the tax breaks anymore. because they've searched for -- they'd search for the oil anyway. and by the way they made a 53% profit last year. here's the proposal i'd like to make. let's do away with the $4 billion in oil company tax breaks. let's take 80% of that money and use it to reduce the deficit. and then let's take the remaining 20% of the money and spend it on programs for homeless veterans. there was a report last week that 16% of the homeless in our country are veterans of the military service. this is obviously a condition that's a disgrace to our country and should be stopped.

so my proposal under this open rule is that i be permitted to offer an amendment that says, let's get rid of the tax breaks for the oil companies, put 80% of the money to reducing the deficit, and spend the other 20% to help the homeless veterans lives on the streets of our country. now it's my understanding reading this rule that i will not be permitted to offer that amendment. i would yield to anyone in the majority side if they can tell me whether they agree with my interpretation of the rule. would i be permitted to offer the amendment that i propose on the floor. i yield to the majority? mr. woodall: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i certainly defer to the parliamentarian, but i'm encouraging everyone to bring every amendment, bring every amendment to congress and offer that amendment. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time.

i would then respectfully ask the gentleman if the majority would then not lodge a point of order when my majority -- when my amendment comes -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. andrews: i yield to my friend to respond. mr. andrews: having -- mr. woodall: having an open process is critical to getting the work done. if the rules of the house permit this amendment, i look forward to it. mr. andrews: i would just read the words of our speaker on opening day when he said to us, you will always have the right to robust debate and an open process that allows you to make your case and offer alternatives. always. i'm not sure if always applies to this rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: at this time, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on

appropriations, mr. dicks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. dicks: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman, mr. mcgovern, yielding and i want to stand here today and tell you that we're all worried about the economy. we're all worried about getting people back to work. we have 9% unemployment but the reality is there are a lot more people who have lost their jobs, who have given up looking , are underemployed. this is the most serious economic problem we face since the great depression. now unfortunately, the choice of the majority is to cut very substantially into programs that are in the domestic accounts and $15 billion from defense. we all understand, we have got to get spending under control. we have to eliminate waste,

fraud, and abuse. we have to look at this oil subsidy issue, which the oil companies even are embarrassed about. but what i worry about here is with this approach, we are going to hurt the economy, we are going to drive unemployment up, we're going to drive the deficit up, and it is countercyclical. when you cut this much spending, it is going to hurt the fragile recovery. it's not going to put people back to work. the other side seems to think that by making these cuts the private sector is going to say, ah-ha and invest all kinds of money and create jobs to offset these cuts. as the majority leader, democratic leaders just said, there's highly regarded studies out there that show that 800,000 jobs will be lost because of this bill. that will have a major negative impact on the economy.

also, one program i that looked into, and i hope we can fix, is the voucher program for homeless veterans. in -- this has been a program that's been going on for about thee or four years, homeless veterans can get a voucher and go through their public housing authorities and get a place to live. there are about 20,000, almost 30,000 people in this program. the ones that are in it are doing better, less alcohol, less drugs. they're getting jobs, they're feeling better about themselves. and there is a need, according to general shinseki, head of the v.a., for another 30,000 of these vouchers. this money is in the 2012 budget request. it was in the 2010 budget request. and we've -- the majority

decided to terminate this program. i would hope we could reconsider that. the program is working. we need another 30,000 of these vouchers. and the most recent data indicates that 10,000 -- can i have 15 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. dicks: that 10,000 of these veterans are from the iraq and afghanistan war. these are young people coming back who have served their country and they deserve to have these vouchers if they need them and we should restore this program. and again, i think we should vote against the rule, vote for the previous question. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i'm very proud to yield three minutes to a true american patriot and lover of this country, mr. steve king from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman

from georgia and i'm proud to welcome him to the united states congress, he knows a little bit about this organism we live and breathe in. i come to raise a subject i think needs to be brought before the congress, mr. speaker. even though this house, in h r. 2, the second priority of the speaker, voted to repeal obamacare and sent that bill to the senate where it was taken up and every republican voted to repeal obamacare, so every republican in all the united states congress has voted to repeal obamacare, it was bipartisan in this house by the former speaker's definition and even though that took place, we did not shut off the funding to obamacare because in a, i will say a legislative slight of hand, there was written in the obamacare bill automatic appropriations that just last week we were able to pull all those pieces out and add them up and received a c.r.s. report last friday that shows that

$105.5 billion are automatically triggered for spending that will implement obama care whether or not we shut off the funds in the c.r. going forward. these are automatic appropriations. i believe, and i've seen it for a long time and worked on this thing for, ever since mid last summerer, that we need to shut off all funding for obamacare in every propings bill going forward and we had the assurance we would have regular order. the regular order that we have is, an open rule that closes out an amendment that would shut off the funding that's automatically appropriated by obamacare. if we'd had a full regular order, i could have brought that amendment before he the subcommittee opingses, have somebody do that, or the full pro-ips committee and i followed all those paths until such time as it wasn't written into the bill, as was shutting off funding to the transferring people out of gitmo or cutting off the 1099 or the stimulus plan of the president.

all of that is written out in the bill. but nothing is in the bill that allows us to write out the automatic $105 billion, so we're faced with the automatic institutionalization of obamacare even while we cut the budget $100 billion. i went to rules last night and asked rules, protect my amendment from a point of order so this house can work its will. but even though i have great respect for all the members of the rules committee and the tone and the the nor of the debate and dialogue in there could not have been better, the rule committees declined to do that. i'm here on the floor how asking myself, how do i vote yes on a rule i so oppose? that's my position, mr. speaker. i think that if we fail to act now, now while we have the maximum amount of leverage and one of two pieces of must-pass legislation, that's the c.r. and the next is the debt ceiling bill. if we don't use one of those two pieces of legislation for leverage to shut off funding to implement obamacare, we will have missed our chance an every

appropriations bill will come to this floor with the same kind of rule that will block out anyone from legislation that will shut off funding the automatic appropriations to obamacare. as much as it pains to me to be standing in this point, i can't figure out how to vote yes on this rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: i'm pleased to hear the comments from my friend from iowa. i couldn't sympathize more with him. i know i'll have his support in opposing a point of order to an amendment i have that will stop funding for a project. while i understand and support the need to establish long-term

fiscal responsibility, reduce spending, reduce the deficit, deprow the economy, h r. 1 is not the way. it takes a meat ax to american competitiveness and actually destroys jobs. that's why i introduced the build america bonds now act, legislation to extend the successful build america bonds program a jobs bill. creating jobs grows the economy. encourages american innovation and positions us to remain a global economic leader. during the past two years, $4.4 billion from the recovery act leveraged $181 billion worth of projects to construct and repair schools, bridges, roads, transit systems in more than 2,270 prments in every state of the union. according to moody's analytics chief economist and john mccain's 2008 presidential campaign advisor, infrastructure investments resulted in eight million new

or protected jobs that otherwise would have been lost in 2009 and 2010. by extending the build america bonds program, we can do more. i ask my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and support the amendment to bring the build america bonds now to create jobs act to the floor. let's create jobs. let's grow the economy. let's unleash american competitiveness. i yield back to the gentleman from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. -- the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson. mr. simpson: it's only about 1,500 miles due west of idaho. i appreciate that. first, let's discuss the rule. we are here debating the rule. this is essentially an open rule. yes, it does have a requirement for preprinting.

but any member can offer any amendment they want, as long as they preprint it. i understand my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might not like that. it's kind of foreign to them. for the last four years, we've had rules come to the floor that were closed, members condition have an opportunity to amend it. if we were under the previous leadership, what we have here is a closed rule and an hour's debate on the c.r., pass it and it would be done. members wouldn't have an opportunity to influence the legislation before us. this is part of this majority's promise that we are going to open the process and let the members of congress, the elected representatives of the people, have a say in how we craft this legislation and how it turns out in the long run. i don't understand, frankly, why the majority would oppose the rule. i can understand -- i can understand their opposition to the underlying bill but to oppose the rule makes no sense whatsoever. secondly, the underlying legislation. i rise in support of the

underlying legislation. it is tough. the other side of the aisle continues to say all the right things. we've got to make tough decisions. we've got to enforce tough love. we've got to reduce the deficit. we've got to cut spending. i hear those words and phrases by every speak that's come up. yet they oppose every evert tissue every effort to try to reduce -- every effort to try to reduce spending as if it's a drastic reduction in what's going to happen and it's going to redestroy the economy and the federal government. frankly, none of that is true. we know that to balance this budget, remember as the gentleman from iowa did say, we've got a $1. 5 trillion deficit in this budget, $1.65 trillion. that's on top of the $14 trillion we're already in debt. mr. woodall: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: there is no magic bullet. and we know we can't balance this budget simply by reducing nonsecurity, nondefense spending. but as the saying goes, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. this is that first step. and, yes, we have to get after the entitlement programs if we're going to reduce this deficit. yes, we have to look at all our tax structure. but we've got to do what the american people instinctively know is the right thing to do and that is, get back to a balanced budget and quit endangering the future of our children and grandchildren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a statement as to why this is not an open rule and about the restrictions that are on members wishing to offer amendments. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. emerson.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. emanuel: i rise in strong support of thes remain -- mrs. ellmers: i rise in support of the resolution. the american people didn't ask us to start making tough choices next year. -- mrs. emerson: our effort has got to start right now. this continues resolution honors our commitment, starting with funding for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year. as chair of the financial services subcommittee of the appropriations committee, i want to say that our financial services section contains a total of $20.4 billion, a $3.8 billion or 16% reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels, and a reduction of 4.9 -- $4.9 billion or 19% from the president's fiscal year 2011 request.

reductions of this magnitude are really challenging but very necessary given the fiscal situation facing the nation. priority funding in this bill is focused on the most essential program such as security for the courts, counterterrorism and financial intelligence operations as well as drug task forces. yet other programs can easily achieve the new efficiencies this fiscal year -- fiscal environment demands, especially at the office of the president and the treasury department. these agencies should set an example for the rest of the executive branch by realizing significant budget savings. for the i.r.s. the committee believes the agency can achieve efficiencies and has reduced its funding accordingly. in addition, the bill prohibits the i.r.s. from using c.r. funding to implement the 1099 provision in the health care reform act, which would cause great harm to our small businesses. it also requires g.s.a. to become more efficient and eliminates funding for construction or major

alterations to federal buildings that have been earmarked in the past by congress and by the president. government has to be accountable to the people and government spending. this bill strikes that balance and makes priorities at a time when our congress and our country must begin to face some very tough choices. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire of my friend if he has any speakers remaining. mr. mcgovern: i'm the remaining speaker. mr. woodall: at this time, mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the chairman of the rules committee, the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to begin by compliments my friend. he has an amazing honor. he is able to make history here, we've not been able to find a time that a continuing resolution has been brought to

the floor under a modified open rule. under any kind of press like. this he's done a superb job managing it. i didn't hear my friend from worcester say anything. we are making history and we are going to for the first time allow any democrat or republican to stand up on this floor and offer an amendment to the appropriations bill that is going to be before us, the continuing resolution. and i think that, mr. speaker, it is important for us to recognize that it's not only a new day when it comes to the process in this house, for us to consider appropriations bills, but it's a new day in that we have stepped forward and recognized that if we don't get our fiscal house in order and bring about dramatic spending cuts, our future is very much in question. and i say that because people use comparisons to crazy places like greece and california when

they talk about the potential problems that the united states of america faces. and i've got to say that if we don't bring about these kinds of spending cuts, we are going to be passing on to future generations a responsibility that they do not deserve to have. that's why it's up to us to do our job and make sure we get our fiscal house in order. i mean, as the distinguished chair of the committee on appropriations, mr. rogers, has said so well, the consults in this bill -- cuts in this bill are larger than the gross domestic product of 126 countries, 126 countries. and that's why we've got a monumental responsibility and a chance for democrats and republicans together to work on this thing and i'm so pleased to see my friend, norm dicks, the distinguished ranking member, in the back of the chamber already working on his great product that's going to be coming

forward as we seek to have the two of us come together as political parties to resolve our nation's challenges. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: may i inquire, does the gentleman have any further speakers? mr. woodall: i do not have any other speakers. i'll close. mr. mcgovern: i'll close for our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. mcgovern: thank you. mr. speaker, democrats very much want to eliminate wasteful spending. we are committed to making the duff choices to get this -- tough choices to get this budget more balanced, to get our deficit reduced and start paying down the debt. that's not the issue. the issue is, where do you make those cuts? my friends on the other side of the aisle talked about shared sacrifice. well, the only people that seem to be sacrificing under their approach are middle income families and the poorest of the poor in our country. a few weeks ago, millions and

billionaires got an extension of the bush tax cuts at a cost of billions of dollars in terms of more borrowed money added onto our deficit. so the donald trumps of the world are not sacrificing. big oil is not sacrificing. just to put it in perspective, b.p., chevron, exxon mobil and shell make a combined -- make a combined profit of nearly over a trillion dollars during this past decade and yet taxpayers are subsidizing big oil companies. why? and for all the talk about how open this rule is, we can't come up with an amendment that is germane or that we made in order to go after the subsidies because they're protected. i mentioned earlier the war. we borrowed $450 billion last year. our soldiers are sacrificing, their families are sacrificing and we're not paying for the

war. we're just putting it on our credit card. that is unconscionable and yet an amendment is not eligible to be brought up to insist that we pay for this war. so where do they cut? education, more than 200,000 kids kicked out of head start. and thousand of teachers would lose their jobs. an $800 reduction pursuant to in pell grant awards. 20,000 fewer researchers, trying to find a cure to cancer, $1.4 billion reduction in science and energy research to spur clean energy economy of the future. $2.5 billion in cuts to the national institutes of health. again, trying to find cures to diseases like cancer and diabetes. we find a cure to a.l.s., we're never going to have another problem with medicaid again. but yet you are cutting back on those important investments. high speed rail, being cut back. a loss of 25,000 construction

jobs if your bill becomes law. you're cutting cops and firefighters. and yet we're protecting the very wealthy in this country, we're protecting subsidies to major oil and gas companies. it is just wrong, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that i can offer an amendment to the rule, to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule it will bring up h.r. 11, the bill -- the build america bonds to create jobs now act. unlike the irresponsible bill the republicans want to bring up which will cut jobs, threaten american inowevation and slash initiatives to create -- innovation to create economic growth, this will spur job creation here at home. by extending the build america bonds to help state and local governments finance the rebuilding of american schools and hospitals, water systems and transit projects at significantly lower costs. it has been calculated that every $1 billion in federal funds invested in infrastructure creates or sustains

approximately 35,000 jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. build america bonds are broadly supported by american business, the construction industry and president obama as well as state and local governments. at a time of fiscal restraint, they're a good deal for the american taxpayer. wisely using small public investments to leverage significant private funds to rebuild america and create jobs. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so that we can debate and pass real jobs legislation. the american people want us to talk about jobs and how to create jobs and protect jobs. this will do it. so i urge a no vote on the previous question and a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i'll say again, i can't believe that here on my first rule we have an open process. for the first time in the history of this house, to the best i can tell, an open process on a continuing resolution. now, we're only dealing with this continuing resolution because of the mess we were left in last year. we're doing the very best we can with it. you've heard words like draconian, decimates, slashes. i want to put it in terms that i think we can all understand. i want you to think about it in terms of your family grocery budget, mr. speaker. if you went to the grocery store today and bought your groceries for a month, my friends on the other side would have you believe that we want to you fast for an entire day because that's what this is. about one day out of a month's grocery budget. but if you took that 30 days of groceries and you spread those 30 days around and that's what we do under an open process, we let you spread it around, add where you want to add, cut where you want to cut, spread that around, can we do that? can we do that as a very first

step toward getting our fiscal house in order? not only can we do it, mr. speaker, we must do. it i'm grateful to the leadership for allowing us to do it. i urge a strong yes vote on the rule and with that i yield back the balance of my time. and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. woodall: i ask for the yeas and nays, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the concurrent

resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 17. resolved that when the house adjourns on the legislative day of thursday, february 17, 2011, friday, february 18, 2011, or saturday, february 19, 2011, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, february 28, 2011, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which ever occurs first. and that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from thursday, february 17, 2011, through friday, february 25, 2011, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on monday, february 28, 2011, or such other time on that day as may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this

concurrent resolution, which ever occurs first. section 2, the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the senate or their respected designees, acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of the house and the minority leader of the senate, shall notify the members of the house and the senate respectively to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if in their opinion the public interest shall warrant it. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the concurrent resolution. as many as are in favor shall signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. woodall: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. ordering the previous question on house resolution 92, adopting house resolution 92, and adopting house concurrent resolution number 17. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote resm maining electronic votes will be conducts as a five-minute vote. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is ordering the previous question

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

for what purpose does the speaker rise? the speaker: the ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the speaker's recognized. the speaker: my colleagues, i think a lot of you know that i've always believed that the house works best when the house is allowed to work its will. i think all of you know that we're embarking on a more open process in this congress and it will start today with a consideration of this continuing resolution. i take to the well to suggest to members that we want all members to be able to participate in the debate here in the house. we also want to keep our commitment to the members to meet the schedule that we've outlined for everyone.

that means as we go through the next couple of days i'm going to ask members on both sides of the aisle to try to bring your amendments together, to try to respect the amount of time that's being taken so that all members have an opportunity to be heard and to participate in the debate. we've never had an open process for a continuing resolution in our history and so we're into some uncharted waters. i'm ready to expect whatever. but i do believe that this process is important for all the members and i want this week for all of us to get started down this road working together so that as we get into the weeks and months ahead we can show the american people that the house can work together, the house can work its will and at the end of the day i think the american people will be better served by

our service. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the gentleman from -- >> on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are ordered. as many as are in favor of a recorded vote -- or ordering the yeas and nays will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made posble by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperaon with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned verage of the house proceedings for political or commeral purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242. the nays are 174.

two voting present. the resolution is adopted. without objectio the question to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished busins is the question on adoption of house concurrent resolution 17 which the chair will put de novo. the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 17, concurrent resolution providing for an adjourent or recess of the two houses. the spker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the aye have it. the motion is agreed to. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, i'd like to ask a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded

vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. those in favor will vote aye. those opposed will vote no. members will record their votes by e by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 243. the nays are 176. the concurrent resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 1, and insert extraneous material thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 92 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of

the union for consideration of h.r. 1. the chair appoints the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense and other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. but could we have order, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the chamber will come to order. the chamber will come to order so that we may proceed. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: the continuing resolution on the floor today represents the largest reduction in nonsecurity discretionary spending in the history of the nation. it funds the federal government for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, but most importantly, mr. chairman, it answers taxpayers' calls to right our nation's fiscal ship, making specific substitute and comprehensive spending reductions. cutting more than $100 billion compared with the president's

fiscal 2011 budget request. this c.r. reverses a trend of out-of-control democrat spending over the last two years, that has increased overall discretionary funding, including stimulus, by 84% in two years. never before has congress undertaken a task of this magnitude, but never before have we been faced with a deficit crisis of this scale. the government is borrowing over 40 cents of every dollar that it spends. our constituents sent us a clear, decisive message in the last election. they want government to spend less, stop undue interference in american lives and businesses and take action to create jobs and get our economy moving again.

through the republican pledge to america, we made the commitment to do just that and today we offer the first step in fulfilling these propositions by presenting a spending package to the american people that makes deep but manageable cuts in nearly every area of the government. this bill is about shared commitments and shared sacrifice. make no mistake, these cuts will not be easy and they will affect every congressional district. but they are necessary and long overdue. although we recognize that every dollar we cut has a constituency of support and association and industry, individual citizens who will disagree with our decision, these cuts are the necessary difficult work by our subcommittees to make the smartest and fairest reductions

possible. no stones were left unturned, no programs were held sacred. the appropriations committee went line by line to craft a responsible judicious c.r. one that will allow our economy to thrive, our businesses to create jobs and our national security to be strengthened. our subcommittees scoured the budget for wasteful activities and cleaned out excessive and unnecessary spending while prioritizing the most essential and effective programs. including $460 million for accelerating the process through which veterans resolve their health care claims. and an additional $13 million for increased oversight of the troubled asset relief program, tarp. the c.r. includes absolutely no earmark funding and eliminates all previous earmark funding

from fiscal year 2010, saving taxpayers approximately $.5 billion. -- $8.5 billion. furthermore it eliminates any unobligated stimulus funding approved in the american recovery and reinvestment act, another $5 billion of taxpayer dollars saved. as we help put our nation's budget back into balance, we're finding real savings that are just -- justifiable to the american people and that will stop the dangerous spiral of unsustainable and irresponsible deficits. in addition, this c.r. is only the first of many appropriations bills this year that will significantly trim federal spending. it's hard and fast proof that we are serious about returning our nation to a sustainable

financial and fiscal path. however, so that we can continue the important work of reducing spending in our regular budgetary work for this year, the house, senate and white house must come together to complete this process before march 4, when our current funding measure expires. it is critically important that the house move this c.r. to avoid a government shutdown and get these spending cuts passed by the house over to the senate and let them act their will to avoid a shutdown. and then get the bill to the president. the american people expect no less. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from washington state seek recognition? mr. dicks: i yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington state yields himself five minutes.

mr. dicks: had mr. chairman, it is clear that a debt crisis -- mr. chairman, it is clear that a debt crisis is looming. there's no denying we need a comprehensive plan to reduce the debt over the long-term. what the majority offers instead in this bill is a one-dimensional focus on the smallest segment of spending in the federal budget. we believe that at this time we should be putting everything on the table, discretionary spending, entitlements and taxes . without a more comprehensive approach to this debt crisis, we cannot effectively change the trajectory and begin to bring our public debt downward. without a more comprehensive budgetary approach, what we would be offering to the american people would be what allen simpson has called a sparrow's belch in the midst of a typhoon. as we address the debt crisis, it is fundamental that we should first do no harm to the fragile economic recovery.

here i'm just echoing what many others have said. as the bipartisan fiscal commission put it, in order to avoid shocking the fragile economy, the commission recommends waiting until 2012 to begin enacting spending cuts and waiting until fiscal year 2013 before making large nominal cuts. fed chairman ben bernanke in his testimony last week to the house budget committee said, to the extent you can change programs that will have long-term effects on spending and revenues, that will be more effective and incredible program on one that focuses only on the current fiscal year. right way, to do this doesn't put too much -- right away, to do this doesn't put too much -- and make sure you don't put too much pressure on the ongoing recovery. as the democratic leader just said, there is a recent analysis done by the economic policy institute that says a full $100

billion cut to discretionary spending would likely result in job losses on the order of 994,000, using o.m.b.'s g.d.b. projections and c.b.o. projections are based on current law and assuming a fiscal multiplier of 1.5%. so this is a very serious matter. and we democrats support dealing with waste, fraud and abuse. we want to see a program. i personally support president obama's five-year freeze on domestic spending because it doesn't cut as much in the first year. this is all about timing. and i recognize that my colleagues over on this side of the aisle, they believe and think that what they're doing is going to have a positive

economic effect. and that this will somehow create economic activity and lower the deficit, lower unemployment. i hope and pray they're right because if what i think and most economists, reputable economists, think is true, this will have a negative effect and hurt the economy. and hurt the people that are out there who are unemployed. so i think we need to think about this very, very carefully. and the cuts of this magnitude, as the chairman said, have never been done before. we are in uncharted waters. and we all recognize that we have to have a plan for the deficit. but the plan has to include entitlements, has to include taxes. discretionary spending is 1/3 of the budget. you can cut and cut and cut and you're still not going to solve the problem. so hopefully we can do what we

did in the 1980's with tip o'neill and bob dole and that is have a bipartisan approach like they're doing in the senate today, where democrats and republicans get together and work on all of these issues and come up with a credible plan. that is the way to do this. and i see my good friend, mr. young from florida, i just want to say that i have enjoyed working with him for over 30 years and i strongly support the defense part of this bill, the defense part of this bill has been worked out on a bipartisan basis by the defense subcommittee. it does make reductions in spending, but it does it in a very careful and professional way. and want to commend the gentleman from florida for his leadership over the years on national security issues. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the

chairman of the republican conference in the house, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the chair: the gentleman yields three minutes to the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, if we want to have jobs today, if we want to protect our children from bankruptcy tomorrow, we've got to quit spending money we don't have. there is a debt crisis in america. and it is spending driven, being led by the president and our friends from the other side of the aisle. it is a true crisis. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt. one of these reputable economists that the previous gentleman spoke about, robert samuelson, has said that spending could trigger an economic and political death spiral. a democrat who headed up the

president's fiscal responsibility commission said that debt is like a cancer, it's truly going to destroy the country from within. and what do we have, mr. chairman? we have the president presenting a new budget that will again double the national debt in five years, trip the it in 10, add $13 trillion -- triple it in 10, add $13 trillion worth of red ink to the nation's debt. this is after expanding garned variety government, 84% in two years. nondefense discretionary. mr. chairman, you can't spend money you don't have. massive debts lead to massive tax increases. massive tax increases lead to no jobs. the chairman of the federal reserve has said one of the best ways that we can improve jobs today is to put our nation on a sustainable fiscal course.

i heard the gentleman say that entitlement spending should be on the table, clearly the president hasn't got the message. it's not what we saw in his budget. we haven't seen it in any other democrat budget. so it would be wonderful if we saw it, but we don't see it. you know, i talked to business people in my own district, mr. chairman, like diane ford of coffman, texas, a small business laidy. when she stairs in the face of this -- stares in the face of this debt and sees the tax increase, she said, congressman, i couldn't hire any more employees. i couldn't expand my business. i would definitely have to close up shop as a small business owner, i am afraid of my future. small business people all around the nation know that massive debt leads to massive tax increases, it leads to no jobs. if we want to create jobs, we have to take care of this debt. and think about future generations, mr. chairman. i heard from one of my other constituents who said, i've

never felt so embarrassed and ashamed about anything i've done in my life as i do about leaving this mess in the laps of tyler and caitlin, my precious grandkids. he's talking about the national debt. to protect future generations, to create jobs today, we've got to quit spending money we don't have and i want to congratulate the chairman of the appropriations committee for his excellent work in turning the corner. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to mr. moran of virginia, the ranking member of the interior and environment appropriations subcommittee. i give him four minutes. the chair: four minutes to the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i've been on the appropriations committee for 17 years. 11 of them were under republican control. eight under a republican president.

and i'm proud of the investments that we've made in this country during those 17 years. we are a stronger, more secure, more productive economy as a result of those investments. we've improved the lives of americans, we cleaned up our water, we've invested in transportation, our national defense, our education system. that's why we have the strongest economy and in fact continue to be the very best place on the planet to live and work and provide a better future for our children. what we are doing in this continuing resolution is to target those programs that are called domestic discretionary. they represent about 4.5% of the entire budget. and they stayed pretty well evan during the reagan administration, during the clinton administration, during the bush administration when we had the lowest job growth ever,

they ran about 7.5%. but the fact is that we are not going to balance our budget by targeting that small amount of the budget. the reality is that when president reagan left office, tax receipts were about 18.2%. they went up a bit during the clinton administration when we had the greatest expansion ever, and in fact people at the highest rate of income tax pocketed more money after taxes than at any time in american history. but right now there are 14.9% of g.d.p. i would say, mr. chairman, suggest that the problem is not one of not investing enough in our country, it's the revenue that we are bringing in being grossly inadequate. and in the historical context we

can prove that to be the case. when revenue goes down that low our economy shrinks and it becomes a self-defeating cycle. now, in the environment appropriations bill some of the things we do is to pick out the program that uses offshore oil revenues for land and water conservation fund, that protects our nation's precious lands. we are going to dramatically cut construction and maintenance at our national parks, refuges, and parks. we are going to take the money away from our governors and mayors throughout the country for the plumbing that goes underneath our land, what's called the clean water and safe drinking water revolving fund. that's money they desperately need to ensure the public's health. we take it for granted. we won't take it for granted anymore if we stop those grants. now, this bill will not create a

single new job. in fact, we estimate it will cut about 800,000 jobs. both public and private. that's not worthy. of this congress on either side of the aisle. to be cutting jobs. what we need to be doing is investing the jobs. investing in education. making sure that children that have been born in social and economic conditions and make it particularly difficult have access to head start. don't cut $1 billion out of head start. don't cut kindergarten through 12 education which is the seed corn of our future. those aren't investments. those are arbitrary cuts. that's not what we have been about and that's not how we enable this country to be strong and as great as it is. i would suggest, mr. chairman, that when we do our budget analysis, it should be done with

a scalpel, like a surgeon would approach it, not with a meat axe. and we should respect all of the good work that the appropriations committees have done over the years in making this a better country as a result. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i yield four minutes to the immediate past chairman of the committee, now chairman emare to us -- amar'e to us of the -- emeritus of the committee, mr. lewis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lewis: i appreciate my colleague yielding. some of my colleagues say they are shocked at the spending reductions we have proposed here. no one should be surprised. for the past several years congress and the administration have been spending like there's no tomorrow. since f.y. 2008 we have increased nonsecurity discretionary spending by almost 25%.

in some areas it has jumped nearly a third in two years. those were historic spending increases and they don't even include the $800 billion that was in the massive failed stimulus package. that was such a huge amount of money, some agencies still have not been able to spend it two years later. well, my colleagues, tomorrow is here. the bill is coming due and if we do not find a way to stop spending, we are headed towards fiscal disaster. this absolutely should surprise no one, republicans on the appropriations committee have been warning for two years that we cannot continue spending this way. we tried to stop it. to at least slow it down. but for the past two years we have not even been able to get an amendment to change the

direction of our spendthrift ways. so now we are faced with record deficits. the president's budget predicts an all-time high of $1.65 trillion in red ink next year. we have been warned that the federal debt limitation of $14 trillion must be increased. within a decade our federal debt could equal more than 70% of our g.d.p. without question this kind of spending is going to run our federal budget off a clip and it will do more harm to our economy than we have seen from the current terrible recession. at least a third of our national debt is owned by foreign nations and investors. what will they do if we cannot begin to pay it down? last year we paid nearly $415 billion in interest on our national debt. that is more than we spent on

any discretionary government program other than defense. that is hundreds of billions of dollars not being spent to create jobs, not being spent to fix our roads, not being spent to secure our nation. and it will continue to grow at an ever-faster rate as long as we keep running up these huge deficits. the american people told us last november that it's time to stop. they were alarmed enough to raise the questions all over the country. they indeed at the polls indicated that we needed to find a new direction. they want fiscal sanity, they want us to stop spending now before it is too late. the spending reductions in this package are extremely painful. the cuts will affect programs supported by every member of this house. when americans begin to understand what is being reduced, we will all be receiving calls from people

asking us to change our minds. we must resist these calls for more spending. we cannot become europe where citizens believe that government can do everything. we cannot let the united states become another greece or another ireland or another portugal faced with fiscal collapse. we have to make a decision now. these cuts will seem harsh, but we cannot avoid them. we cannot settle for half measures in the hope that in five or 10 years we will stop adding to this terrible federal debt. this is just the down payment. we need to begin entitlement reform to really solve our fiscal problems. but we must start now and we must make it here and now. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes

to congresswoman rosa delauro who is the new ranking member on health and human services appropriations subcommittee, and was former chairman and ranking on agriculture. the chair: the gentleman yields three minutes to the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to this continuing resolution. americans wanted us to work together to address their top priority, creating jobs, fostering economic recovery, and unfortunately the majority's priorities are deeply out of touch with those of the country. democrats are committed to reducing the deficit and we believe as taxpayers do that we should start by ending tax subsidies and special interest waste. we should be slashing oil company subsidies first. we must make programs accountable and the ones that do not work, and we can no longer afford to continue the tax breaks for the top 2% of the country. republicans are in a reckless rush to slash without regard to the impact on our economy, the

businesses who create jobs or the middle class and working families who are being responsible, doing the best for their families, and educating for the future. they are hitting ordinary, hardworking families with children, our young people trying to get an education, and the elderly. that is their starting point. under their budget, every student in america receiving a pell grant, close to nine million people, will see their aid slashed by almost $850 a year. 1.3 million students will lose their supplemental education opportunity grants and thus the ability to pay for college. their plan cuts more than 200,000 kids out of head start. kids who will forever lose the opportunity for an early childhood education. they cut aid to school districts and special education. they will cut 55,000 head start teachers and close down 16,000 head start classrooms.

as with education, so, too, is jobs. in the midst of a recession and the tough labor market, training and employment services proven to work programs are cut now by $5 billion. that means 8.4 million job seekers, flesh and blood human beings could lose access to this aid completely. in these tough economic times it's our low-income seniors who are the most vulnerable. this budget eliminates at least 10 million new meals delivered to the home bound elderly, cuts fuel assistance for them as well. it will force seniors to either go hungry or move into nursing homes. and others to have to choose whether to eat or to stay warm. the challenge is, the challenge is not whether we address the deficit and spending or not, the question is where do we start to cut? do we start with slashing ineffective programs and special interest waste like $40 billion

in oil company subsidies, or do we start cutting those that help the middle class, our businesses, and working families with children and seniors? our job, our job is to get this budget back to common sense to create jobs, to get this economy running again for the people of this nation, this continuing resolution offered by the republicans will do neither. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: yield three minutes, mr. chairman, to the chairman of the labor-hhs subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from montana, mr. rehberg. the chair: the gentleman yields three minutes to the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: members in this body have an obligation as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on labor, health and human services, and education to tell you the simple truth we are bleeding cash, piling up liabilities, and trying to postpone the day of reckoning. as a result america is in a financial free fall.

in four quick years congress made what was a spending problem into a spending crisis. we on this side of the aisle wanted to create jobs. you wasted time on health care reform bill that did not reform health care. while we wanted to build an economy, you wasted time building government. unfortunately many in washington, d.c., especially on cyclical capitol hill -- capitol hill are in denial. my colleagues, it's time to stop pretending the well of wealthle is endless. we must cut spending now or it will be worse next year. two years ago the congress passed a spending bill, unfortunately now we know it did not stimulate. we know a lot of money went for programs not necessarily bad programs, but programs that couldn't stimulate the economy. but the biggest travesty of washington stimulus spending spree is not that it was a waste of money, it's that the money has been stolen in plain sight from our children and grandchildren. that is what taxation without representation looks like in the

21st century. and it means our nation's fiscal mess is not just a math problem it's a moral problem. and we owe it to our children to have much better leadership. that's why i stand before you with a savings of $23 billion in the three departments i have responsibility for. no program is immune from waste so there are no more sacred cows, no law, regulation, or program is perfect or timeless. if something is not working we'll fix it or eliminate it. in my subcommittee, we want to help people, to help train people, to help educate people. but we have learned repeatedly that simply throwing more and more money at well-intentioned programs does not necessarily work. those who want to spend money have the burden of prove and with the debt crisis we face that burden is a heavy one. those seeking funding have to prove that the programs are working. show us the results. show us that the benefits outweigh the costs. show us the government can do a better job with this money than the private sector.

this continuing resolution is a change in direction away from looking to bigger government solutions, to empowering individuals and small businesses to create jobs and grow this economy. anyone who relies on federal funding has a patriotic duty to look for ways to get by on less. for the sake of our country's future, today and tomorrow. i yield back my time. . the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished former chairman and now ranking member of the h.u.d. appropriations subcommittee, mr. observer -- olver from massachusetts. three minutes. the chair: the gentleman yields three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. dicks: give him three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. olver: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank the gentleman for

yielding time. mr. chairman, this continuing resolution clearly endangers the fragile recovery of america's economy. while i have the greatest respect for chairman latham, he has been saddled with an irrational task of cutting $15.5 billion, a 23% cut, from the transportation and housing title of the resolution. i cannot fathom how the new majority which proclaims to be all about jobs could, as their first piece of business, impose deep cuts on the very programs that have the greatest potential for creating jobs and that provide the necessary foundation for a strong economic recovery. specifically the continuing resolution cuts funding for the community development block grants program by more than 60%, to by far the lowest level since the program was created in 1975. and you republican president.

president gerald ford. as a result, over 1,200 cities and towns across all 50 states will be forced to shelf local economic development projects in every one of our districts and the associated 45,000 jobs will be lost. in addition the bill proposes to cut over $7 billion in transportation and infrastructure investments. this includes reductions that force amtrak to lay off roughly 1,500 employees and will halt work on 76 tiger grants already announced in 40 states and cancel the associated 25,000 construction jobs. finally, as we consider the ongoing housing needs of our most vulnerable citizens, this bill reduces by 75%, $760

million, a program serving elderly and disabled persons, handcuffing our ability to keep up with the support required to meet the needs of our expanding and aging senior population. in addition, the $75 million cut to our veterans' support housing program is appalling. just last week h.u.d. released a report indicating that more than 76,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. and that vets are 50% more likely to be homeless. yet the majority's bill turns our back on our homeless vets, leaving them literally out in the cold. mr. chairman, while i'm glad this bill does not meet the republican majority's pledge to cut $100 billion in nonsecurity spending, it will still have a dramatic negative impact on american families, law making -- making no more than a ripple in the debt caused by the massive

tax cuts adopted during the bush administration, at the very time that america has engaged in two trillion-dollar wars in the islamic world. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: yield one minute, mr. chairman, to the chairman of the transportation and h.e.d. subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham. the chair: the gentleman yields one minute to the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: i thank the gentleman from kentucky and, mr. speaker, i just maybe respond a little bit to what the gentleman from massachusetts just said. the fact of the matter is there will not be a veteran -- homeless vet that will not get a voucher. the fact of the matter is there are 30,000 vouchers available today, only 19,000 of those have been used. there are 11,000 vouchers

waiting and the problem basically is what the department , with h.u.d. and v.a., trying to write the rules to actually get these people, the vouchers -- piece theme the vouchers they need. so any characterization that we're putting vets out in the cold is absolutely untrue. you can have your opinion but the facts speak for themselves. now also we're not reducing any such section 8 vouchers. they will remain. no one is going to be put out anywhere. we maintain those programs for those folks and to characterize it any way differently is simply not factual. the fact of the matter is -- sure. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington yields himself one minute. mr. dicks: i would say to the gentleman, here's the problem. there are i think about 29,000 of these vouchers out there now and you're correct, some of them

haven't been able to find the place to live yet. the secretary shinseki who i talked to personally about this and secretary donovan have said there are 60,000 of these veterans who need this voucher. and so there's 30,000 more that we need to do. and i was shocked when i saw on the list of terminations that your side decided to terminate this program. i hope you'll reconsider that. of course i yield. mr. latham: that's not true. there are 11,000 vouchers not used today. 19,000 have been issued. the gentleman knows that we are not cutting those 11,000 -- cutting, those 11,000 are still available under this bill and we're going to review this as we go through for the next fiscal year, 2012. mr. dicks: that's what i was going to ask the gentleman. i'd like to work with you on this. mr. latham: absolutely. mr. dicks: if that's the

gentleman's intent, then we will work together and try to get the job done. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dicks: i thank the gentleman. mr. latham: thank you. mr. dicks: i now now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, the former chairman and now the ranking member of the financial services subcommittee, mr. serrano. the chair: the gentleman yields to the gentleman from new york, three minutes. seeing no objection. mr. serrano: the continuing resolution that we're voting on today is irresponsible and extreme. we all recognize that we should take reasonable steps to address our deficit. however, what we're voting on today makes cuts that will harm our students, our public safety, our health and our environment. when i served as chair of the financial services subcommittee, i worked hard to make sure that we protected the consumer, the investor and the taxpayer. the agencies funded by this subcommittee ensure that americans can have confidence in the products that they use and

the security of their investment. the c.r. that we are considering today, with its cuts to the i.r.s. and the securities exchange commission, fail to provide sufficient resources to meet these challenges. i.r.s. funding will be cut by $600 million and this will have an immediate impact on taxpayer services as we approach the busy tax season. the i.r.s. will be forced to cut its spending as 4,100 employees lost jobs, mainly enforcement agents and this will harm the ability of the i.r.s. to find tax cheaters. it is important to remember that it if we reduce the government's ability -- that if we reduce the government's ability to enforce taxes, this lynn crease our deficit since enforcement resources have a $7 to $1 return on investment. the securities and exchange commission will see a $41 million reduction from last year which will prevent it from hiring the staff it needs to

carry out the critical new dodd-frank financial oversight functions that have been r -- it has been given. this will mean that hedge funds, credit rating agencies and broker dealers will continue to operate without regulation, adding to an increased risk of another fiscal meltdown. as chair of this subcommittee, i also worked hard to make sure that capital and other assistants went to small businesses and low income communities. a key part of this was making sure that the community development financial institutions fund had the resources it needed to support financial institutions making investments in disenfranchised communities. under the continued resolution which we're voting odd -- which veer woting -- voting on today, it will get slashed to just $50 million this year. this will mean that more than 19,000 jobs will now materialize.

more than 14,000 affordable housing units will not be built. and more than 3,100 small businesses will not be assisted. i'm particularly distressed that the majority party decided to meddle once again in the district of columbia's local affairs. we should all be able to agree that these should be left alone to decide how to spend its own funds. one local program that the majority has decided to ban is the syringe exchange program. the science on this is clear. giving addicts clean needles does nothing to drive up drug use but it does do wonders to prevent the spread of hiv-aids. even if you do not believe the science, you should not meddle in the district of columbia. spo the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee, the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the chair: the gentleman yields

to the gentleman from alabama, three minutes. mr. aderholt: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as many have said here today, our government has a spending problem and the american people are demanding that we find the solution. this c.r. that's before the house today is a step toward finding the solution to that problem. the homeland security title of this c.r. strikes the right balance between funding priority programs that are essential to our nation's security and at the same time keeping our discretionary spending in check. this c.r. provides a total of $41.5 billion in discretionary funding for the department of homeland security that funding is $1 billion or $2 -- 2.4% below f.y. 2010 and $2.1 billion or 4.8% below the president's f.y. 2011 requests. in contrast to previous annual spending bills, this c.r. provides funding for the annual

cost of disasters from within the existing budget. so rather than relying upon emergency supplementals, the c.r. responsibly addresses the $1.6 billion shortfall in disaster relief that costs -- that the president has failed to address in the 2011 budget request. supporting the cost of security demands truth in budgeting and we're delivering what the president and o.m.b. have failed. having said that, the department of homeland security is not i municipal from fiscal -- immune -- immune from fiscal programs. let me add, by implementing these cuts, we are not choosing between homeland security and fiscal responsibility, but both are serious national security issues and they must be dealt with immediately. and through a series of tough choices, this c.r. achieves both.

that is precisely why this c.r. includes sufficient funding to sustain critical operations in the frontline agencies such as the c.b.p., coast guard, i.c.e., the t.s.a. and the departments intelligence office. mr. speaker, homeland security is far too important to be subject to budget gimmicks and inadequate justifications. the homeland security title of this c.r. responsibly funds programs vital to our nation's security and it will help them get back on track from our federal budget perspective. i thank the distinguished appropriations chairman for yielding this time and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, who has been the chairman and now the ranking member of the homeland security subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman yields three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: mr. speaker, i'm afraid if there ever were a case

of overheated campaign rhetoric overtaking responsible governing, then we're seeing that case here today. far from continuing to fund the government through to the end of the fiscal year, this measure would dramatically slash the investments in our economic recovery and undermine our national security in the process. i don't know why we even call it a continuing resolution. i guess to avoid a markup in the appropriations committee. but it's a brand new appropriations bill and a very destructive one at that. it's a job killer of all kinds of jobs, but most especially of national security jobs. let's talk about firefighters. we rely on our fighters -- firefighters as our first responders. they arrive at the scene of all types of emergencies, attempted bombings, security incidents, fire emergencies, all kinds of emergencies. but this bill eliminates the safer firefighter staffing

program. guaranteeing the thousands of firefighters will lose their jobs this year according to the fire chiefs association. safer has enabled our local communities to avoid firefighter layoffs. to keep their fire departments at full strength. and this republican continuing resolution will just simply remove this protection. let's talk about law enforcement funded in the commerce justice appropriations bill. we rely on our local police officers not only as first responders but also as first detectors of homegrown terrorist activity yet this bill eliminates the community policing grant program, guaranteeing that local governments which are already laying off workers will have to fire between 1,300 and 3,000 police officers. meeze job losses could be prevented if we were attempting to govern seriously instead of

appeasing the republican tea party base. the best cure for our deficit is a recovered economy, not a bill that slashes and burns government services that are critical to our economic competitiveness and our public safety. i urge a no vote on this c.r. and suggest that instead of a continuing resolution, we might say that c.r. stands for continuing the recession. because that's really what this bill would achieve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. >> i yield three minutes to the gentlelady, ms. granger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields three minutes to the gentlelady from texas. ms. granger: we have seen unsustainable increases in spending. this bill before us today puts an end to that practice by making unprecedented cuts to the federal budget. as chair of the state foreign

operations subcommittee, i know the difficult tradeoffs that have to be made to achieve these levels of cuts. but with cannot continue to ignore our skyrocketing deficit and our debt. in the bill before us, we are taking our pledge to cut spending seriously. since fiscal year 2008, the state foreign operations budget has had dramatic increases. this bill begins to rein in the growth of many programs. the state foreign operations title of the bill before us is 44.-- is $44.9 billion this represents a 21% reduction from the fiss -- the president's fiscal year 2011 request and an 8% reduction from the 2010 fiscal year enacted level and a reduction from the fiscal year 2010 level with supplemental appropriations. let me be clear. while these are dramatic cuts, i support the goals and

objectives of using civilian power to achieve our national security goals. to achieve the level of savings included for f.y. 2011, reductions were made in areas that, while difficult, preserb important efforts and priorities. for example, the bill before us supports top national security priorities. maintains momentum in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. and fully funds the u.s.-israeli -- u.s.-israel memorandum of understanding at $3 billion. it continues the fight against illegal drug trafficing in mexico, central america and colombia. in order to do all these things in this bill, new activities are paused, many programs are scaled back, and large administrative commitments like climate change are shelved. while these choices were difficult, they must be made in order to preserve our national

security priorities. there's a need for continued oversight in our foreign aid and for that reason, i've included language which provides additional oversight for countries like afghanistan and lebanon. i'd like to thank ranking member lloyd for her dedication to the committee as chair for the last four years and i look forward to continuing to work together. we both agree that members on both sides of the aisle deserve to be heard on the important matters that come before our subcommittee. i hope this bill will move forward quickly to ensure government operations are continued in a manner that is fiscally responsible and meets our foreign policy challenges around the world. thank you and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair would note that the gentleman from kentucky has nine minutes, the gentleman from washington has nine minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington.

mr. dicks: i yield to the gentlelady from new york the former chair of the state and foreign operations subcommittee, now the ranking member, my good friend, nita lowey, and i yield two and a half minutes. the chair: the gentleman yields to the gentlelady 2 1/2 minutes. mrs. lowey: i thank the gentleman, our distinguished chair. it's been a pleasure working with you and i want to say to the current chair of our committee, we've always worked in a bipartisan way and that's why i reluctantly rise in opposition to the state and foreign operations budget in the c.r., but i look forward to continuing to work together. these are irresponsible cuts. these cuts would threaten global security and stability. despite broad agreement that a three-legged stool of defense, diplomacy and development is vital to our national security,

this bill dramatically weakens diplomacy and development. on a positive note, i'm pleased with the inclusion of $3 billion pursuant to the m.o.u. between the united states and israel and continued commitment to egypt and junior dan. however, especially given the ongoing developments in egypt throughout the region and around the world, the drastic cuts in democratic governance, alternate development options, international financial institutions, conflict mitigation, reconciliation, disaster assistance, and global health would significantly impede our ability to achieve our security objectives. i'm really disappointed with the republican leadership's partisan approach. because as i mentioned, during my four years as chair of the subcommittee, i work closely with my ranking member and we did not include divisive social

issues in our bills. yet this c.r. would reinstate the global gag rule and prohibit funds to the united nations population fund, denying millions of women family planning and basic health services. finally, while all these measures are brought to the floor, under the guise of fiscal responsibility, in my judgment, they endanger our long-term economic security and fail to create jobs. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from kentucky. >> i yield two minutes to the former chairman of the republican conference in the house, the gentleman from indiana. the chair: the gentleman yields two minutes to the gentleman from indiana. mr. pence: i thank the

gentleman for yielding time on this and for his leadership on this and so many issues. after years of runaway federal spending by both parties, last year, house republicans took the pledge. we said to the american -- mr. -- i said, the first thing we'll do is reduce the spending to prebailout, prespending levels, saving the american people at least $100 billion. today, simply put, this new majority will keep our word with the american people. in washington, d.c., that's saying a lot. now, we'll consider h.r. 1, which will save at least $100 billion in this fiscal year. it is in fact the single largest rescission package in the history of this congress with a $14 trillion national debt and $1.5 trillion deficit this year, cutting $100 billion will not solve our fiscal crisis, but it's a good start.

and it's a promise kept. here in washington, d.c., that's really saying something. now, to save our nation from an avenue lanche of debt face -- from an avalanche of debt facing future generations, we must do a couple of basic things. first, we've got to stop what we've been doing, piling a mountain of debt on our children and grandchildren. we've got to turn around and begin to head in the other direction. we have to face our present fiscal crisis squarely and with courage. today, this new republican majority will do just that. we'll begin the process of turning our ship of state back toward that horizon of fiscal responsibility and fiscal solvency and sustainability for generations to come. i urge my colleagues in both political parties, join us in this important first step. join us in this important promise kept. work with us and we will work

with you. to put our nation on a pathway toward fiscal solvency and ultimately lay a foundation for real economic growth for generations to come. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer of maryland, who has been a longtime member of the appropriations committee and a good friend. the chair: the gentleman yields to the minority whip. mr. hoyer: i say to my friend, mr. pence, we did that. in 1993, we looked the fiscal posture of our country in the eye. we had sustained $1 hadn't 4 trillion of deficit spending urn mr. reagan and $1.1 trillion of deficit spending under mr. bush. we put legislation on this floor and said, we need to meet our fiscal respopsabilities. not -- responsibilities.

not a single member, unfortunately, of the republican party voted for that legislation. but over the next eight years, we had a net surplus in this country. the only time in the lifetime of anybody in this body that that's happened. we did it working together. unfortunately, the last administration ran up $3.8 trillion of deficits. and we inherited a -- an economy that was in substantial free fall. the president said that, mr. bernanke said that, mr. paulson said that. so we adopted legislation that tried to stabilize that economy and the good news is, we have. we haven't gotten to where we want to be. we want to create more jobs. as the president says, we want to invest in growing our economy and bringing jobs bag. -- back. there will be some very tough decisions we'll have to make

moving forward, and frankly as the chairman of the appropriations committee knows and as the ranking member of the appropriations committee knows, you will not get there focused simply on 14% of the budget. it will not happen, my friends. you might want to delude yourself or delude our constituents and say that you can simply cut all 14% of nondefense discretionary spending. and you'll still have an operating deficit this year if we cut out every nickel. of -- every nickel of discretionary spending. that discretionary spending educates our children. it promotes our health. it promotes our commerce. it promotes building the economy. that's what this issue is about. the chair: the gentleman yields one additional minute. mr. hoyer: i rise to say to all of us, all 435 of us, it will take courage, cooperation, and common sense to address the

deficit situation that confronts us and it is a crisis, it must be met. we do not have an alternative. because if we do not address this, all of you have heard about my three children, my three grandchildren and my one great granddaughter. all of them will hold me and all of you responsible for the legacy of fiscal irresponsibility which we will leave them. we now have bipartisan responsibility. you're in charge of this house. the democrats are in charge of the senate. and we have a president who is a democrat. it is a perfect opportunity for us all to take responsibility and yes, part of the blame, because the decisions we will have to make will be tough. they will be agonizing and they will be wrenching. and people will say, we're not sure you should have done it. if we do it together, we can do it. and we owe it to our country,

our fellow citizens and our children to do so. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to a new member of congress, a new member of the appropriations committee, a gentleman from a wonderful place in arkansas calls rogers, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack. the chair: the gentleman yields two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: i'm glad the gentleman a few minutes ago talked about the mayors of america and the county -- county judges of america. just a few weeks ago, i was one of those mayors. 12 years ago, when i sought that office, i inherited a city that was in terrible deficit spending, that had unreasonable government intrusion into the private sector, that was affecting the economic well being of that city. i am pleased to say that because we took the position of putting our fiscal house in

order, and because we changed the way government approaches its involvement in the private sector, and because we limited the dependency of our city on the federal government, that we created a city of excellence, that we significantly enhanced the quality of life. we did a billion dollars' orth wolf -- worth of investments, created thousands of jobs in rogers, arkansas, and that's the example the american people are looking for today. i realize that these are difficult times. they are times that are going to require great courage, a sense of duty, and shared sacrifice in order to put america on the right path. i believe in this america and that's the way forward. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield a minute to my good friend, mr. farr, ranking member on agriculture. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields exactly 1 1/3 minutes to the gentleman from california. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. speaker and ranking chair. i rise with serious concerns. i have been the ranking member of the agriculture appropriations committee and leading ag state in the nation, california, and we are a state that is diversified and we do it without subsidies and do it by partnerships. it is a private-public partnership and there isn't a major role to make success without that partnership. we care about feeding people, all people, whether rich or poor. one thing they all have in common is they want the food to be safe, they want the drink to be safe, they want the drugs that they buy in the stores to be safe. and the problem with this c.r., which is very interestingly talked about on their side in

the generic of the necessary of cutting the deficit, which we agree on, but to take a meat axe approach cuts the safety net for food and drugs. for example, the food and safety inspection service would have to close -- would have to cut down on their inspectors who happen to be in every one of the 6,300 processing facilities. they would have to close these facilities for months on time, therefore putting a lot of people out of work, less jobs and certainly no food and safety. it goes on and on and on. we need to argue these details, not just the generic. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: yield two minutes to the chairman of the legislative branch appropriations committee, mr. crenshaw. the speaker pro tempore: the chair yields to the gentleman from florida, two minutes.

mr. crenshaw: thank you for the work you have done helping to put this continuing resolution together. this is a giant step forward in stopping the culture of spending that has gone on in this town for a long time and begins a culture of savings. and the subcommittee which i have been asked to chair the legislative branch, only deals with maybe one half of 1% of all the money that we're talking about, but we didn't think that we ought to be immune to all the pain that goes on as well. in fact, i think when times are tough, leaders ought to lead. and so we can help save taxpayers' dollars by spending less money on ourselves and that's what we do in this bill. we cut the accounts of the leadership offices. we cut the accounts of all the members' offices. we cut the accounts of the committee staff and their

offices. in fact, the appropriations committee, which mr. rogers chairs, they will reduce their spending by 9%. so certainly congress is taking the budget axe to its own spending and leading by example. and i think that's important. so as we move forward, mr. chairman, i think that we can do a whole lot more with a whole lot less around this place. we want to lead by example. that's what we're trying to do and we are taking a giant step forward. i yield back my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky has the remaining four minutes and the gentleman from washington has two minutes and 3/4. mr. dicks: i yield to the distinguished the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop, 1 1/2 minutes. he has become the new ranking member on military construction and v.a. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from washington yields to the gentleman from georgia 1 1/2 minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. while the military construction and v.a. portion of this bill is not cut as much as some other parts of the continuing resolution, the cumulative effect of this c.r. is really to hurt our veterans. $74.2 billion, 2.4 billion below the fiscal year 2010, $1.8 billion below the president's request. let's end the they at tricks and get to work. this continues the heated rhetoric. if this bill is signed into law will hurt our economic recovery and hurt our veterans. according to the bureau of labor statistics, 15% of iraq and afghanistan war veterans are unemployed, far higher than the national jobless rate. if we follow through with these cuts, we will see that rate go

higher as the operations in iraq and afghanistan wind down and our troops come home. as the gentleman from north carolina pointed out, cutting aid that local governments use to hire police officers. many of our local police officers are veterans and they are hired with the community with policing grants. this will be eliminated. if we cut money for firefighters, this cut will have the same effect as cutting money from the cops. our veterans have no where to go to continue to serve their communities. we can do better than this bill. we must be serious because we have serious issues. veterans have paid the price for freedom but freedom is not free. it has been paid for with the lives and limbs of countless men and women who have served this country in uniform. we owe them better than this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield one minute

to the gentleman from wisconsin, brand new member of this body, mr. duffy. the chair: gentleman yeeds one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: permission to revise and extend the chair: no objection. mr. duffy: i appreciate you yielding time to address the issue today regard to unspent or unobligated stimulus money. two years ago, this congress voted to spend nearly $1 trillion of stimulus money and said we could borrow and spend our way to prosperity. two years later, we are aware that borrowing and spending doesn't lead to economic prosperity and sustainable jobs. people who invest in their businesses and ideas and from there, they expand and grow. that's how we create jobs. now we are stuck with a $14 trillion debt. this year, we are going to borrow $1.5 trillion.

more borrowing, more spending is going to lead job-crushing taxes and passing this debt on to our next generation. it's unacceptable. i'm encouraged we are working on sending unobligated money back to the fed to pay down our debt. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. which gentleman seeks to be recognized? the gentleman from kentucky has three minutes. the gentleman from washington has 11/4. mr. dicks: i yield 1 1/4 to the new member tft commerce, science justice subcommittee, mr. fa tow of pennsylvania. the chair: which would be the gentleman's remaining time. mr. dicks: that's it. the chair: the gentleman yields to the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i thank him for his

extraordinary leadership. the economic policy says the g.o.p. plan will cost our country 100,000 jobs. the parts of the c.r. that relates to justice, commerce and science, international trade exports, president has a major initiative to create american jobs through exporting and want to cut it by $93 billion. cut $1.3 billion out of law enforcement. if you need a cop and call 9-1-1 and there may not be one available because it's one scheduled to be cut. in legal services, some 80,000 cases reduced for seniors who will be fighting mortgage foreclosure that would be fraudulent in their case or domestic abuse violence through cuts in legal services and 150 million cut to the national science foundation. my colleagues have a tough job

and they are in the majority and have to make rational decisions. if spending is bad, we would eliminate all spending. some spending is necessary. we should be cutting waste and not law enforcement and legal assistance and scientific analysis and shouldn't be cutting export opportunities for american workers and shouldn't be risking 800,000 jobs in our country, not today, not on any day. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: two minutes to the energy and water subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. fleelingfleeling mr. speaker, some suggested some time ago we have to wait until 2012 or 2013 to make these decisions. we need to make these tough decisions now to cut spending and create a climate where the private sector hire workers.

energy and water development sections totals $29.9 billion an 11% reduction from fiscal year 2010. this level truly represents should be the top priorities of the department of energy, army corps of engineers, bureau of reckclamation and other accounts funded our committee's purview. some of the acts we are taking in h.r. 1, our product is one of careful, thoughtful, line by line analysis. we have looked on programs must-haves. and we have ensured that the core national security mandates of the department is adequately funded. frankly, other countries nuclear stockpile programs aren't taking a timeout while we wrestle with

the our budget challenges. the stockpile is the foremost responsibility of the department of energy. weapons activities and naval reactors receive the only increases. we do have or make major reductions in the department of energy, major cuts. we eliminate all earmarks, close to $500 million just in the department of energy and cut out programs like weatherization with billions and billions of unspent stuss money. the department of energy received close to $39 billion in stimulus money. and we have cut back on programs like biological and environmental research that are not core to the department's historical responsibilities and focus. we do all of this so the department of energy can focus on what we need to do to support the private sector in developing the next round of energy-related intellectual property and the jobs associated with it. we need to do it and i support

the c.r. and we ought to move on. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time if the gentleman from the other side -- the chair: the gentleman from washington's time has expired. ken ken i yield back. the chair: all time having expired. pursuant to the rule the bill shall be considered tore amendment under the five-minute rule, no amendment shall be considered in order until those received in the congressional record designated for that purpose dated at least one day before the day of consideration of the amendment, but no later than february 15, 2011 and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. each amendment so received may be offered only by a member who submitted it for printing or a

designee and shall be considered as read if printed. the clerk will read. the clerk: section one, table of contents, section two, references, any reference to this act in division a shall be referring to that provision of that disks. >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, the -- chairman rogers deserves credit having been able to put together this h.r. 1 that saves $100 billion over many expected what we would spend this year. the largest part of this bill is the defense part. the defense part of this bill is not a c.r. and not a continuing resolution. it is an actual, honest to god appropriations bill.

one that under the leadership of chairman dicks during last year, we put together, the subcommittee worked hard, many hearings, a really good bill. we worked with our senate counterparts and we had agreement on this bill. we had agreement on this bill from the defense department and we were just really disappointed that here we are five months into the fiscal year and we are just now getting this bill to the floor. it's no fault of chairman dicks, he worked hard. and i know the pressures he tried to apply and i tried to apply to get permission to put this bill on the floor. but any way, here it is. and we have it today. and it's a good defense bill. it's $516 billion. it's a lot of money. our defense war fighters, they need training, they need salaries, they need pay, they

need medical care, they need weapons, they need equipment, they need technology and this bill for the most part provides that. . it's $14.8 billion less than what was requested for this fiscal year. that $14.8 billion didn't come about easily. we saved that by going line by line, the best we could in the time we had, to find program changes, to find budget changes, to try to slash some slush funds that we didn't think were necessary, a lot of other ways we saved $14.8 billion. we've got a good bill here and i'm hopeful that the house will support this today. one thing that is different from the bill that we thought we were going to have on the

floor is 1,300 earmarks. aren't there anymore. we took out the earmarks, nearly $3 billion worth of earmarks, so we have a clean defense bill here for you today. i know that many would like to have more, and there are more things we could do, more -- we could reach out into the future. but the world we live in today shows a growing deficit that it's important that we all are willing to contribute to solving. it is crucial to the future of this nation that we solve this deficit problem. because if we don't, i hate to think what might happen to our economy, what might happen to our currency, what might happen to our standing in the economy of the world. i would ask the members if this bill came on the floor during jack murtha's chairmanship, we

would have probably passed this bill in about 10 minutes. and that's the way he did business when he was in the majority. we didn't quite do that. we have an open rule. we have an open rule that anybody can offer an amendment that'sier main to the bill -- that's germane to the bill. if it makes it better, fine, we'll agree to it. if it doesn't make it better, we won't agree to it. some will be subject to a point of order and we'll raise those points of order, but the member who offers the amendment will be allowed to discuss it before we raise the point of order as a courtesy to them. anyway, again, i want to congratulate mr. dicks for the work that he did during the time he was chairman and as he said in the general debate, he and i have worked together for over 30 years on the national security and intelligence affairs of our nation. he is a very honorable, very

hard working, very much determined to do a good job for our nation and he shares the same feelings that i have here that while we may have to make reductions and have to come up with savings, we will not approve anything that has an adverse effect on the war fighters. we will not do anything that has an adverse effect on readiness of our nation and our national security effort. it is a commitment i've made many years ago and that mr. dicks made many years ago and when we made these cut we did not affect the war fighter, we didn't cut his pay, one of the largest portions of our defense bill is military personnel. the cost of salaries. we did not cut that. didn't get into that at all. mr. chairman, i see that my time is expiring and i yield back, if i have any time left.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page two, line 9, department of defense appropriations act of 2011, the following sums are appropriated for 2011, for military functions administered by the department of defense, namely, title 1, military personnel, military personnel army, $41,042,653,000. military personnel, navy, $49,512, 25,000. military personnel, marine corps, military personnel air force, $27,105,755,000. reserve personnel, army. $4,333,165,000. reserve personnel, navy, $1,940,191,000.

reserve personnel, marine corps. $612,191,000. reserve personnel, air force. $1,650,79 ,000. national guard personnel. army. $7,511,296,000. national guard personnel, air force. $3,060,09 ,000. title 2. operation and maintenance. operation and maintenance, army. $33,306,169,000. operations, navy, operation and maintenance, marine corps, $5,539,740,000. operation and maintenance, air force, $36,062,989,000.

operation and maintenance, defense-wide, including transfer of funds, $30,210, 810,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. flake: i rise to offer an amendment, designated as amendment 370. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 370 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: i just want to say a few words about the process here. it is refreshing to so many of us to come to the house with an open rule. there are so members who have been part of this body for four years now and have not been allowed the opportunity to offer one amendment on the floor. and because of the absence of open rules. so we're going to have a number of amendments offered here, this is just a great process. i also want to commend the appropriations committee for the hard work it took to get

the level of savings that we are in the legislation. what a positive step as was mentioned to cut out the earmarks. there are no earmarks in this bill. that is a wonderful thing. we can talk more about the substance an less about pet projects on the side. this amendment would reduce by $18.57 billion the operations and maintenance defense-wide account, it would send the money to the spending account. we're told when we offer amendments on the floor it's not going to save money. this one does. the money saved here will go to the spend regular duck account. last august, secretary gates ordered a review of all boards and commissions that provided studies to the defense department, with an eye toward eliminating unnecessary entities and cuing funding for the studies they produce by 25%. the department of defense funds 65 boards and commissions at a cost of $75 million. this amendment would achieve

approximate savings, as secretary gates sought for f.y.-2011, that would equal $18.75 million, 25% of the $75 million over time. i certainly don't have any problems with the various panels from which the defense department seeks counsel. but i'm sure there is some waste there. that's why secretary gates has targeted 25% reduction. i realize that the amount of savings in this amendment is relatively small compared to the overall defense budget but i think the point has to be made here that the defense budget is not sacrosanct. we can't say, if it's defense, it's all good. there's no waste here. we can't cut any system of it's important to look for ways that we can actually save. in fiscal year 2010, more than $1 trillion was spent on discretionary spending. the department of defense received more than $508 billion. certainly in a federal agency

that requires the largest budget, this is a federal agency that has the largest budget, there is going to be some waste and inefficiencies. this is a great place to start. s that proposal from the defense secretary himself, one that wasn't induded in the underlying bill, and one that will be addressed in the f.y.-2012 budget according to documents released yesterday. in fact, according to the defense department, it intends to achieve a savings of more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2012 by erim nate -- eliminating internally produce red ports and eliminating funding for the studies produced here. i applaud the department's willingness to talk about cuts in its own budget and i urge my colleagues to adopt the same willingness here. if the defense department is willing to find savings, we ought to be able to do that here as well. we need to reduce this account which funds the boards and commissions and the studies they produce by $18.75 million.

again, passing this amendment will reduce funding that will not impact the war fighter, it won't impact the war in afghanistan or the war still going on in iraq. this would simply signal that this body is willing to cut where we can cut without affecting the necessary protections that we have in the department of defense. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve the balance of his time. does the gentleman yields back? mr. flake: there's no reservation. may i inquire -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mainly what i'm

opposed to is we're not sure what commissions this would apply to. i think the subcommittee would like to have an opportunity to investigate whether or not a board is necessary or is doing some positive function for the department of defense. we'd like to have time to look into that. we agree with the gentleman that we should find all the savings, all the waste we can and we did. we reduced the request for this year by $14.8 billion. ing we did a pretty good job. thope gentleman's comment about the process, i had the privilege of serving as chairman of the appropriations committee for six years. i never brought a closed rule. i never brought an appropriations bill to the floor under a closed rule. that was six years we -- that any germane amendment could be offered. mr. flake: would the gentleman yield? --

>> would the gentleman yield? mr. young: i yield. mr. dicks: this amendment cuts $18.75 million defense-wide to reduce boards and commissions. well, i think things like the defense science board are very important. we have a number of commissions that are looking into acquisition reform. that are trying to help us save money, help us get our acquisition straightened out. so i agree with the gentleman. i think we should strongly oppose this amendment and i yell back. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for his comments and like i said, the subcommittee would like an opportunity to review this to make sure that we don't make a mistake and cut something that is important. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> i rise to strike the reck sith number of words.

-- to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: one moment. the chair observed first and will acknowledge the lady from california. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: i rise in support of amendment 370 to cut from the may want nance and operations at the pentagon. any discussion about getting our fiscal house in order must begin with a real discussion about reducing the bloated size of the pentagon budget and ending the war in afghanistan. if we are really serious about reducing the deficit, we should be cutting defense to the 2008 levels, rather than cutting domestic discretionary spending to 2008 levels. i mean, we're talking about a

$750 billion budget. but the republican continuing resolution fails to cut the pentagon budget and it really increases it by more than $8 billion this year. this will put families and teachers and cops and children out on the street. these cuts will not come close to ending the deficit and will only hurt our economy. it won't create any jobs. and given the fact that our economy is on the verge of recovery, we should be doing everything in our power to create jobs. a nearly $700 million cut to food for women, infants and children during the height of a recession is really heartless and it's cold. this cut will not balance the budget and it will certainly not magically reduce the number of hungry children and families across the country. republicans want to cut billions of dollars in education programs that impact students at every level from preschool to graduate school. starting with $1.1 billion in

terms of a cut, mind you, for head start. that's going to hurt millions of needy preschoolers and gutting the federal supplemental education opportunity grants by $757 million will really end the dreesms needy college students to be first in their families to earn a college or university degree. . republicans willing to risk the future of needy students. republican cuts to critical programs, like community health centers are a prime example of what is really wrong with this one-sided approach to the budget. smart investments and proven access to health care especially through loss cost programs like the community health centers are the most effective way to reduce the long-term costs of health care in our country and to reduce the deficits. republican attempts to cut support for maternal and child

health, family planning, $317 million and state funds for access grants, this worsens the health of children and families and increases the rates of chronic diseases and does nothing to reduce the deficit. as a member of the appropriations committee, let me tell you we see these budgets come to us each and every day and know what the cuts will do to the majority of americans who are struggling to survive. we are in the middle of a housing crisis and struggling to correct this. we are seeing unprecedented demand for housing assistance and standstill of affordable housing. republicans believe this would be a good time to make massive cuts to rental assistance to keep countless families from suffering from homelessness and want to cut community development funds, public housing capital funds which invests federal dollars in creating new, affordable housing.

these cuts will do nothing to create jobs or jump start the economy. they have the wrong prescription what ails our country and need to go back to the amendment. the flake amendment will cut over $18 million from defense, which is an excellent beginning, but only a beginning. in closing, let me remind our friends on the other side of the aisle that will budgets really moral documents. they reflect our values in who we are as americans. proposing these deep and painful cuts reflect an unfortunate reality that we are putting bombs and missiles and wasteful pentagon spending first rather than creating jobs for people who deserve to live the american dream. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i rise to strike the number of words. i yield my time to the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized.

mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i won't take the full-time. i was asked which boards and commissions are there, which would cut some 65 boards and commissions. the biggest three are the defense policy board and defense business board. let me say again what this amendment does is move forward what the secretary of defense has already identified as savings that he would like to achieve. he has said they want to cut 25% of the budget for these boards and commissions. and the secretary put this report out that august of last year, so it seems that he intended this for the fiscal year 2011 cycle. we are doing what the secretary of defense has asked us to do or what he is going to carry through. if we can't do this on defense or on other wasteful spending, where can we do it? this is a great place to start and we should get this done now,

because it's going to be tackled later on, why not do it in the budget if we are trying to realize the savings and let's take these boards and commissions that the secretary of defense said we shut cut by 25% and give him what he asks for and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. >> and what i addresses is important and as a former soldier and nothing more i care about that we take care of our soldiers, airmen and marines and we should do eliminate this from the defense appropriations bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. honda: move to strike the last word. i rise in support of this amendment. i am opposed to this continuing

resolution and republicans no jobs agenda. the american people want recovery that supports jobs. the republicans have controlled the house for 41 days and brought up zero bills to create jobs. these cuts mean one million job cuts, no jobs for nurses, teachers, police, firefighters manufacturing and small businesses. even worst than what the republicans are doing to american workers is what they are doing to america's children. this bill will cut funding for education programs by over $10 billion or 16%, the largest education cut in history. the individuals with disabilities act, idea, state grants will be slashed by $557 million, shifting to states and local districts the costs of educating 324,000 students with disabilities, therefore

increasing local tax burdens and killing over 7,000 education jobs. pell grants, pell grants will be cut by $5.6 billion and make it more difficult for low and middle-income families to pay for college. they would reduce aid for 1.5 million students. head start will be cut by over $1 billion leading to the elimination of enrollment slots of 127,000 children and loss of 14,000 jobs. no one who votes for this bill could ever have the audacity to say they care for our children. republicans are saying they are wearing their heart on their sleeve day after valentine's but don't care about children, middle-class families or follow the rules of the road. they want to make you pay for big oil billion dollar subsidies, make you pay for higher drug prices, make you pay taxes to start a small business,

make you pay for c.e.o. salaries, make you and your children go it alone. so, mr. chairman, i just want to, in closing, i oppose this bill. republicans want you to keep paying for their war and tax cuts for the ultrarich while they cut jobs, services and schools. this is not fiscal discipline but fiscal insanity. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: in support of the amendment that mr. flake has proposed and opposition to the underlying c.r. this whole discussion about dealing with the deficits is prefaced on the idea that the consequence of this budget reduction that is being recommended by the republicans,

the consequence of that is going to be jobs. well, if you look at what's being proposed, the other side has nearly two months and has brought zero bills to create jobs. and these cuts amount to one million jobs that will be lost. those jobs -- there will be no jobs for nurses. 51 million will be cut from national park services, that's a loss of jobs. $256 million will be cut from state and federal law enforcement. those are law enforcement, local police that will be cut. $889 million cut from renewable energy programs, those are jobs creating solar panels, retrofitting homes so they will be energy efficient. cut from the national institutes for health, loss of jobs and research and providing direct public health to the american citizens, $1.3 million cut from community health centers.

that is no jobs and increased costs in the emergency rooms where people who cannot find health care will be crowding into those rooms in very acute sickness because they have no where else to go. cuts in rural development, loss of jobs. $1.6 billion cut from the environmental protection agency, loss of jobs. $96 million for substance abuse and mental health services, loss of jobs. one of the realities is that we must invest. and what has been said over and over again that the point of dealing with this deficit that we have in this country has to be a practicing matic, measured process and has taken us 10 years to get us into the hole we are in and we need to plan to get out of that with the same amount of time, if not more. and we also need to talk about revenue generation. we aren't going to cut our way out of this deficit. and you aren't going to cut your

way out of this deficit if you are only concentrating on 14% or 15% of the federal budget. i support this amendment because it deals with defense. and we must create revenues and must quit giving huge subsidies to big oil and big gas and ask mining companies to begin to pay royalties for the extraction on public lands. we must close corporate loopholes that exist that created the financial collapse of housing in this country. and we must, we must ask wall street to pay their fair share to a transaction fee that will generate billions and billions of dollars for the taxpayers of this country. in order to deal with this deficit, there must be a corresponding generation of revenue so we can continue to invest in the things that are important to the american people, their families, their lives, their education, their

health care, their future. that's an investment. and with additional revenue, we'll be able to begin to cut the deficit. the continuing resolution is not an effort to deal with the deficit. it is a calculation to deal with programs and projects that have helped the middle class succeed, poor people survive, the disable endure and has made this country stronger with the support for education and health care. i urge all my colleagues to vote against the continuing resolution. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. fudge: i ry to support mr. flake's amendments, this is a great start but i do oppose the underlying republicans' continuing resolution.

this resolution threatens jobs, american innovation and investments that will rebuild america. as a member of the science, space technology committee, this will lead our nation forward. we know that basic research and technology development create jobs and will help america to win the future. republicans have this thing backwards. they have proposed cutting $2.5 billion to fund the national institutes of health. this $2.5 billion cut to n.i.h. funding will be devastating to the biomedical industry that serves as the backbone of cleveland and so many other communities across the country. the innovative ways that scientists are pursuing solutions to human suffering with neuroimaging, genomics and treatments, will improve life for all of us and cut down on the cross of these illnesses loss productivity in the workplace and new avenues for

investigations that will create new jobs, new ventures and new industries. we must continue to make investments in america. our future is in innovation and technology development. and these cuts are not something we can afford. the loss of funding also means the loss of jobs. where are the jobs? according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan economic policy institute, the republican c.r. will cost more than 800,000 private and public jobs. republicans have control of the house for 41 days, nearly two months, and brought up zero bills to create jobs. republicans want to cut social security and medicare. for republicans say they are cutting costs, they mean cutting social security, medicare and medicaid until they don't exist. the american people want leadership that will create jobs and jump start our nation's economy. this careless resolution cuts jobs and damages the economy. i again do support the resolution -- the amendment by mr. flake, but the republican

c.r. is bad for the american economy and bad for americans. i urge my colleagues to oppose the republicans' c.r. and help put americans back to work. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? ms. woolsey: i move to strike the last word. i rise in support of mr. flake's amendment. i see it as a small beginning, a very small beginning to cutting wasteful pentagon spending, but, mr. chair, this entire continuing resolution is bad for the economy and bad for this country. it's all a part of a republican no jobs for america agenda. the majority has no interest in doing anything and many americans are out of work and have controlled the house for just about six weeks and they have not brought up a single bill that would create a single job. they have brought up a bill that

would continue to shred our civil liberties. they brought up a bill that will infuse our campaigns with even more corrupting special interest money. they have brought up a bill that would take away guaranteed affordable health care, but nothing to address persistent joblessness, nothing at all to fix the devastating recession that they aused in the first place. their mindless cuts don't do anything to strengthen america. they're not cutting spending, they're cutting jobs. . it means cutting jobs for the very people who form the backbone of the people of america. the house itself said this morning that some jobs are lost as a result of their cuts, so be it. he might as well have added, let

them eat cake. the best way to reduce the deficit is to put americans back to work, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman. but the republicans' no job plan is all about cutting the very spending that sustains middle class families. when they say they want to cut costs, what they really mean is they want to cut social security, medicare and medicaid, right out of existence. and on top of cutting their hard-earned benefits, the republicans want to make the middle class pay. pay for big oil subsidies, pay for higher drug prices, pay for astronomical c.e.o. salaries, for higher taxes to start a small business. the chairman of the house budget committee said yesterday, and i quote him, she said, what we're doing here is we're having a great debate in congress about how much spending we should cut. i mean, how cool is that?

well, i'd like to tell him, it's not cool at all, mr. chairman. not when you're asking struggling families to shoulder the sacrifice. giving a sweetheart deal to corporate special interests and asking the middle class to pay for it, not cool at all. the republican continuing resolution and no jobs agenda is bad for america, totally uncool. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is -- the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. madam chair, i rise in support of the flake amendment and i strongly oppose the underlying republican no jobs continuing resolution. ms. schakowsky: you know, if people out there have the

gnawing feeling that the rich are getting richer and that the poor are getting poorer and they're stuck in the middle and stuck getting the bill, the fact of the matter is, they're right. this bill is just another example of the republicans' true agenda which is helping out big business and the rich while sticking it to the middle class and those who aspire to it. the cuts that they're proposing would actually cause a devastating wave of unemployment at the state and local level, particularly in the public sector. the economic policy institute has estimated that passage would cost us nearly $1 million -- one million jobs. who are we talking about? you know, it's cool these days to go after public sector workers. but what we're talking about are the teachers. i was one once a long time ago. the teachers who teach our children and grandchildren.

the very police who keep our streets safe and put their lives on the line. and the firefighters who answer the call for our 911 emergency call. we're talking about workers who are the backbone of our communities. over the last two years the democratic congress and president obama were successfully able to stave off a second great depression. but we're still in the early stages of recovery, unemployment is still too high at 9% and american families are still suffering. but the proposed cuts would cost us one million more jobs, be devastating to our recovery and hurt americans trying to take care of their families and make ends meet. let's take a look at some of the things they want to cut. how about the national institutes of health? would be cut, $1.6 billion. this is funding that goes to vital medical research,

including cures and improved treatments for devastating diseases. high speed rail development which would provide desperately needed jobs, but beyond that reinvigorate a keystone of the american infrastructure. it faces $2.5 billion in cuts. and in addition to the important jobs program, what really hurts is republicans want to put assistance to poor families on the cutting board. they want to cut $1 billion for community health centers, the only access to health care for many poor families. and how about $747 million for the women, infant and children, the w.i.c., program, that's food assistance for low income pregnant women and their children. the 300,000 beneficiaries in my state of illinois receive a grand average benefit of $44.62 a month. that's it. per person. per month. and that minimal subsidy would

be cut. house republican proposals to slash federal spending programs are irresponsible, indiscriminant, eliminating programs that create jobs and cutting assistance for low income and middle class families. there is another way to deal with the deficit and to balance our budget. we need to enact a democratic initiative to make it in america. we should be making things here, we should revive our manufacturing sector, rather than providing tax breaks that encourage companies to go offia -- offshore. i offered a plan last year as part of president obama's 18-member national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform to make investments to get us out of the economic doldrums, boost job creation, reduce the deficit and not on the backs of low income and middle income

americans. we can do it. we need to stop the republican efforts and protect job-creating programs that benefit the middle class and the safety net programs that help the most vulnerable in our society because that's who we are as americans. the republicans refuse to make the investments necessary to get people back to work because they refuse to give up tax cuts for millionaires. their policies and -- and billions. their policies are prescription for disaster, one that puts family, communities and our nation at risk. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the speaker. i'm a little disappointed in the amendment by my friend from arizona. this is our biggest deficit hawk in the house.

he wants to cut $18 million from the defense budget. did i get that number right, mr. flake? $18 million. we have a $612 billion defense budget. mr. filner: what are you .0001% of the budget? not good for a senator from arizona, mr. flake. i would say, let's really get at this. man, you want to cut the budget, republican president, republican congress, funded a whole two wars off the budget. we're talking about trillions of dollars added to our deficit. you don't go after those, mr. flake. we need you to go after those. we'll gladly support you. $18 million out of ads 612 billion budget, -- a $612 billion budget, i'll vote for it, you know whenever i vote for yours it wins. let's go after some real stuff in that pentagon budget and not go after jobs as this underlying bill does.

comon. you talk about jobs, the -- come on. you talk about jobs the whole campaign. i haven't seen a pro-job bill yet from the republicans in this congress. and yet this bill, h.r. 1, cuts millions of jobs. i'm on the transportation and infrastructure committee, mr. flake, i don't know if you know about it, but the cuts to the clean water moneys -- the chair: members are advised they address the chair, not individual members. mr. filner: the bill cuts millions of jobs from our economy, the cuts to the clean water act, the cluts -- cuts to the high speed inner city rail act, other infrastructure cuts. in my state of california we're losing just on this bill almost 50,000 jobs. total jobs around the country, almost 300,000. come on. this is not a way to both cut the deficit and keep our economy going.

i happen to -- happen to represent a border district. i represent the whole mexican border with california. and, mr. flake, you know the border very well in arizona. through the chair, i'm sure mr. flake knows very well the boarder in arizona. and he knows in this bill the g.s.a. construction and acquisition funding line has been eliminated. eliminated. $894 million worth. i don't know about in the state that mr. flake represents but in california you're eliminating the modernization of several hundred million-dollar modernization of two of the biggest border crossings in our country and the biggest one in the world. in my district 300,000 people cross the border every day legally, legally and they're crossing mainly for jobs and for

shopping. we all know we need to make that far more efficient, their crossing, so people can spend money in our country and create jobs. you've eliminated the whole modernization budget out of this -- moneys out of this budget and i'm sure it affects arizona. the mesa crossing where we have all the commercial crossings in california, gone. the biggest border crossing in the world, gone. another big one in my district, gone. we're leaving billions of dollars on the table -- on the table, madam speaker, for jobs in our economy. if we don't have efficient border crossings we don't have trade we don't have shopping or the crossings that are legal that we all want to encourage. these modernization programs went directly at that.

not only in california but in texas, in arizona and i'm sure in arizona and new mexico. and yet all those jobs that's created by more efficient crossings are now thrown away. so the gentleman from arizona who wants to give up efficient border crossings in his state, you might tell him, madam speaker, i don't think that's a good way to run for the senate. taking the $18 million out of a defense budget of $612 million is pretty miserly stuff. it's not even a good symbol for a guy running for senate in the united states. we should really go after what we -- what the republicans said they're going after, let's end the war in afghanistan, save trillions of dollars off the deficit, but more important, the cuts that we have seen in infrastructure in this country, the cuts that we've seen in g.s.a. are costing hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs. this is a job buster, it should be defeated.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. tonko: madam speaker, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, madam speaker. while i support the flake amendment i oppose the underlying continuing resolution. the republicans are here today offering another piece of their no jobs agenda. and they are in disarray and are hatefully pushing an irresponsible and dangerous spending bill that threatens jobs, undercuts american innovation and jeopardizes investments in rebuilding america. creating jobs, protecting the middle class and reducing the deficit are indeed my top priorities. we should be working together so to accomplish these very valid goals. however, the republicans have controlled this house for 41 days, nearly two months, and brought up zero bills to create jobs. the mindless cuts that are on this floor today mean one million jobs cut.

one million jobs cut from our economy. no jobs for nurses, no jobs for teachers, no jobs for police, no jobs for firefighters, no jobs for manufacturing, no jobs for small businesses. you cut the deficit by putting america back to work. not by cutting social security. republicans aim to cut social security and medicare. when republicans say they're cutting costs, they mean cutting social security, medicare and medicaid until they don't exist. ask my seniors in the 21st congressional district of new york, they'll tell you to leave alone the social security system that has served them well. republicans want to make you pay, make you pay for big oils' billion-dollar subsidies, make you pay for higher drug prices, make you pay taxes to start a business, a small business, make you pay for c.e.o. salaries, let main street take a hit while wall street gets a bonus. .

>> this careless resolution cuts jobs and damages our economy. just six weeks after taking charge of the house, republicans are not just ignoring jobs, they are cutting them and they admit it. this morning our speaker, speaker boehner, had a response with a concern this bill destroys, destroys american jobs, and he said, so be it. well, i guess he meant so be it if there are 1,300 fewer cops on the beat because this bill terminates the cops program. so be it if there are 2,400 fewer firefighters on the job protecting their community because this bill eliminates funding for safer grants. so be it if there are 20,000 fewer researchers at the national science foundation. so be it if there are 25,000 lost construction jobs and 76 construction projects are canceled in 40 states.

so be it if there are 200,000 children kicked out of head start programs, and so be it that thousands of teachers will lose their jobs. mr. speaker, so be it isn't a good enough answer for the hard-working middle class of our country. i agree with the president that we must out innovate, outeducate and outbuild the rest of the world. we will continue to measure every effort by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class and reduces the deficit. i have submitted eight amendments to this irresponsible republican spending bill to protect and grow jobs, outinnovate other countries in clean energy, protect our seniors and ensure quality education for our children. i support efforts to balance the budget. however, i will not support a spending bill which threatens our economic recovery, that cuts one million jobs just after we created 1.2 million private sector jobs since last march. and it's achieved on the backs of senior citizens, children,

and the working middle class. republicans have gone too far. sacrificing americans' health, safety, and future in order to protect their special interests while offering no real plan to create jobs. madam speaker, the american people are united, and they are saying one thing, show us the jobs. i urge defeat of this bill, madam speaker, and i withdraw my motion and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from u.s. virgin islands rise? mrs. christensen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. christensen: i rise in opposition to the flake amendment and the underlying bill. i join speaker pelosi and others on this side of the aisle and call this an irresponsible spending bill that threatens economic growth and hampers or competitiveness and harms the people working the most, the working families,

the middle class, and the poor. this c.r. arguments vulnerable americans because it would cut funding for the things they most desperately need like food stamps, head start, and funding to heat their homes, all to keep a reckless tea party campaign spending cut goal. and at the end of the day these kind of hurtful cuts will never get us a balanced budget and will not secure the kind of future we want for our children and grandchildren. as one of the five representatives of the people of the u.s. offshore territories, as well as the ranking member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the territories, i am particularly troubled by the painful cuts this c.r. will make to the important programs that the people of the territories rely on. the bill slashes 8.33% from the general technical assistance account of the office of insular affairs. madam speaker, the technical assistance program provides support not otherwise available to the insular areas to fight such things as the

deteriorating fiscal condition which is facing all of the islands and our ability to maintain the momentum that has been made in making and changing systemic changes. these funds also support student training programs for high school and college students as well as for training for insular professionals in financial management, accounting, and auditing, as well as other programs. the program also provides funds to sister islands in maintaining accreditation for our colleges and universities. what is critical about this meager program which is not seen an increase in its budget in more than a decade is that it is funding the territories could not get anywhere else in the federal government. sparing this very small but essential program from the majority's indiscriminate meat cleaver approach to budgeting would do infinitely more good than any harm it might cause to the budget. after all, the small amount of money we're talking about here does not move the meter one

blip. madam speaker, the people of the territories recognize that the federal government -- the federal budget cannot sustain the path it's on and reductions in spending must be made. we have done our part and will continue to do our part to reduce federal spending as you look at the budgets of the territories, it has not increased in several years and it has been cut for a number of those years. but the cuts we're talking about in the c.r. do not only affect the territories, in addition to cutting jobs, there are also disastrous cuts the republicans are proposing to health-related programs that are critical to millions of americans and integral to all of our efforts to achieve health equity and eliminate health disparities. thesis health disparities we know leaves many people of color, rural americans, and low-income americans in poorer health without reliable access to adequate health care and at greater risk for premature death at preventative causes also cost the nation a great

deal from an economic point of view. in fact, we know between 2003-2006, the combined direct and indirect cost of health disparities and the subsequent premature deaths that often result, the cost was $1.24 trillion. rather than base budget cuts on measures that will save human lives in addition to precious federal resources, the republicans are instead proposing cuts that will achieve the exact opposite. we all know from their efforts to appeal the landmark health care reform law, a law that has already begun to expand access to affordable, high-quality health care to more than 30 million americans who were in the ranks of uninsured, the republicans either do not care about the importance of ensuring every american and their families have health care coverage or they do not understand such coverage in promoting health, wellness and thus improving life

opportunities, or maybe it's both. and now we also know they don't care about or understand the benefits and the needs for the programs and efforts that will significantly improve the health and wellness of some of our nation's most vulnerable residents by reducing the very health disparities that cost this nation so much in human lives and in money. in fact, they want to cut more than $1 billion from the nation's community health centers, the very centers that provide medical homes to millions of hard-working americans whose health care needs would be poorly addressed without them. and to cut $210 million from maternal and child health block grant programs, more than $300 million from family planning and $758 million from the w.i.c. program, all of which would have a detrimental impact on the health and wellness of women and children and young families across this country. i urge my colleagues to reject this budget.

budget c.r. which only hurts the americans. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york, a member of the committee, rise? >> well, thank you, madam, and i would move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hinchey: yesterday was valentine's day but the majority is showing no love throughout the district i represent and all across the rest of this country. the new majority said they would cut wasteful spending but instead are slashing jobs for police officers, jobs for firefighters, jobs for teachers and many other jobs all across the country. they told us they would work to eliminate needless layers of bureaucracy, but instead, they're cutting heating assistance for the elderly, food aid for young mothers and infants, and college age -- college aid for 15,000 students in the district that i represent and hundreds of thousands of other students all

across the country. they said they would focus on the economy but instead they're eliminating energy research and development that we need to create green jobs and compete with other countries around the world. they're sending the workers home on 76 high-speed rail projects underway in 40 states, all very necessary. this hurts real people. it does nothing to address our long-term deficit, and middle-class families are the ones who pay the price. the american people don't want more hidden cuts and budget tricks. we need a plan. we need a solid, secure, positive plan. the national debt we hold today was not created over the last two years as some people are saying. the fiscal crisis we are facing today was inherited from the bush administration. under the previous administration, annual budget surpluses were turned into annual deficits. it was vice president dick

cheney who said deficits don't matter. clearly, that's a lesson the new majority has learned well, because while they do cut spending with this c.r., this bill will undoubtedly worsen our budget deficit. why? because it will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs. that means more people unemployed. the people didn't send us here to tend to the needs of wall street and oil company c.e.o.'s, so why does the majority stand against the plan to end special tax earmarks that would actually cut the deficit? we could be discussing how to end government red tape. for instance, in five years, we could save many billions of dollars by allowing medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for seniors. but instead, the majority here wants to cut the administration budget for social security.

this plan hurts new yorkers and others all across the country. and it hurts the district that i represent. 15,000 college students in places like ithaca and new falls will get hurt with the maximum pell grant falling by $800 as the cost of college continues to go up for students all across america. 123,000 low-income pregnant women and new moms in new york will get less assistance with the pre and post natal nutrition they need. that will happen to thousands and thousands of others all across the country. nearly two million new yorkers who applied for liheap this year will find it harder to heat their homes next year, as will so many thousands of others across the country, job training programs like job corps in sullivan county will help high school dropouts get the training they need to get good jobs. they will get cut out, too. like a blindfold child at a

pinata party, this continuing resolution takes a bat to all the wrong things at exactly the wrong time. i would urge my colleagues to oppose it. stand up for the american people. stand up for a real plan to reduce the deficit and fight to save the jobs this country needs so desperately. thank you, madam. the chair: the gentleman from yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> madam chairwoman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be here and rise in support of the flake amendment and know we at this point in time, the american public asked us to tighten our belts. we have to do so and i believe we have to talk and look at every single department, including the department of defense. mr. dold: this specific amendment deals with a very small amount in the department of defense, one secretary gates has outlined and determined they do not need.

this will not jeopardize those in harm's way and will not jeopardize military preparedness and yet is one small step. we have, i think, over 400 amendments today, and i'm delighted that those on other the other side of the aisle are in support of the flake amendment, so we certainly look for its passage. this right now, what we're talking about in terms of reigning in -- reining in spending is exactly what the american people demand. yes, we've had spending on both sides of the aisle. washington has a spending problem. we need to cut back on spending. we're spending $1.48 trillion in deficit spending and i think the president's budget actually brings it up to $1.6 trillion. that's over $3 million a minute in deficit spending. i come from the private sector. i run a small business. i understand what's going on in the private sector. and i can tell you that out-of-control spending in washington does not send the right signal. and in fact does hurt jobs. we have to get our fiscal house

in order. this is what this is going to attempt to do, and we certainly know that spending, out-of-control spending, has not been the answer. i urge my colleagues to support the flake amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. waters: i rise to seek -- strike the last word. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much, madam speaker, and members. i rise to address what i consider the serious, very serious problems with this continuing resolution. and this defense budget. and the lack of attention to jobs. i'm going to talk about something that's quite unpopular. we all know that we have 9%

unemployment in this country which is significant. we all know that communities all over america are suffering. not simply rural communities, not simply suburban areas, not simply inner cities. but people are hurting, having lost their jobs, all over america. in some communities it's not 9%, it's not 10%, it's not even 15% or 20%. we have communities in america where there is 30% and 40% unemployment. there are those who would like to say, well, that's in those urban areas. no. it is not simply in urban areas. we have poor rural communities who have representatives who come here every day talking about their -- representing them when in fact they never speak to

the needs of those communities. they don't talk about the lack of health care that people have had to endure for so many years. the inability for people in these rural communities to access clinics. some of us are fighting for all people, not only the cities and the towns, but these rural areas that are being hurt so badly. now, it is not popular to even use the word poor. as a matter of fact, you will hear over and over again about concerns for the middle class. of course we're all concerned for the middle class. but who represents the poor people in america these days? there are some of us who do and proudly so. and we are referred to as big spenders, tax and spend, they say. and they don't talk about the poverty in their own communities. but let me just tell you, with this continuing resolution, the

c.b.g., a community development block grant money, is going to hurt all of these communities across america. many of these representatives who support cutting cdbg from $4.45 billion down to $1.5 billion are going to hurt their cities. their mayers are absolutely going nut -- mayors are absolutely going nuts about what's happening with the cutting of cdbg. the last block grant funding that they can depend on to a's -- assist with economic development that hell helps create jobs in america. you hear a lot about what we care about jobs. well, we know what people care about jobs based on where they place their priorities. my friends who are cutting in areas where we could be creating jobs have demonstrated that they have zero bills to create jobs. the mindless cuts that they're proposing mean one million job

cuts. no jobs for nurses, teachers, police, firefighters, manufacturing, small businesses. we need to put america back to work and we can do this if we are sensible, if we are targeting the cuts in areas that can take it. why are we spending the amount that we're spending on the military budget and defense budget? when we have those who are telling us, for example, secretary gates announced his intention to terminate the expeditionary fighting vehicles program and the surface launch medium range air to aramisle system. why are we trying to disregard what we've been told by the very people who understand this defense budget better than anybody else? no, we want to continue to fund a budget that doesn't need any

funding, not talking about how we reduce and eliminate the funding for afghanistan and bring our soldiers home and put that money into our own domestic needs. we're talking about somehow cutting in ways that they would have people believe that they're helping them, when in fact they're hurting them. this continuing resolution does nothing for strengthening the economy. it does nothing for creating jobs. it does nothing for support of those cities who are fighting desperately to hold on to opportunities for people who have nowhere else to turn. not only do we have the cuts in areas that would create jobs, but also many of these areas are faced with foreclosures. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentlelady from california rise? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. chu: madam speaker, i move to strike the last word and i rise in opposition to this amendment because it doesn't do anything to create jobs. of course i shouldn't be surprised. over the last six weeks, since the republicans took over control of the house, they haven't created a single job. in fact, they haven't even put a single jobs bill on the house floor. with this mindless job-killing republican spending bill, they are hurting the american people. this bill senselessly cuts over a million jobs at a time when we need them most. at a time when we can least

afford it. this is nothing more than a republican pink slip for america. this bill doesn't get our broken american economy back on track. instead republicans are hitting american workers where it hurts. these merciless republican cuts mean if you work in manufacturing, no jobs. if you're a cop, no jobs. if you're a nurse, no jobs. if you're a teacher, no jobs. if you're a firefighter, no jobs. if you're a construction worker, no jobs. republicans aren't just ignoring jobs, they are slashing them. and that means pink slips for americans across the country and across almost every industry. and if we aren't helpinging real americans -- helping real americans, where is this money going? right into the pockets of big defense contractors. while americans across the country are finding themselves

out of work due to mindless republican spending cuts, the military industrial complex will actually be making more money. while they slash jobs in safety net programs, republicans are actually increasing funding to the department of defense by $10 billion. this spending is excessive and way out of proportion with the needs of the american people. even defense secretary gates has found $100 billion in cuts and savings to the department of defense while still keeping america safe. that's the entire cost of the job-killing cuts republicans are asking for here today. instead of expanding our economy and growing the middle class, republicans want to make you the, the american people, pay. they want to make you pay to line the pockets of defense

contractors, make you pay for big oils' billion-dollar subsidies, make you pay for higher drug prices, make you pay taxes to start a small business, make you pay for c.e.o. salaries, make you take a hit while wall street gets a bonus. we need to look out for constituents first, not corporate friends. and this bill isn't even about reducing deficits. because we all know that the best way to reduce the deficit is to put americans back to work, not carelessly gut government programs. instead, we need to rebuild america and focus on winning the future. today's bill is a choice between cutting the deficit or putting americans back to work and i am voting for jobs. we need to invest in our nation so that we can outinnovate,

outeducate and outbuild the rest of the world. i want to see the words made in america again. the american people voted for jobs and all they're getting with this gutting and slashing funding proposal are pink slips. this is a heartless and careless plan that cuts real american jobs and hurts real american families. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. garamendi: madam chair, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, madam chair. the amendment before us is historic. $18 million out of $720 billion is a start. you might take it one step forward and let's end the war in

afghanistan where we're spending $120 billion and another $30 billion or so in iraq. now we've got some real money to talk about. because this is historic i find that it's an unworthy start and therefore i oppose the amendment. however, the real issue before america is not how we can slash and burn in foolish ways that actually lose tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and indeed a million jobs in the next seven months, which is the proposal before us with this continuing resolution that the republican caucus has put on the floor. it seems to me that if we wanted to create jobs we certainly wouldn't, as a first step, lose a million jobs in virtually every sector of the economy. teachers that are providing services for the early childhood education programs, head start.

they'll lose their jobs. firefighters, 1,300 or more of them, excuse me 2,400 or more of them will lose their jobs across the nation. the cops program, which has provided jobs for police in our cities, they'll lose their jobs, some 1,300. they just had men and women from my own district come in and say, why would they want to do that? why would they want to take cops off the street? i told them, i don't know. i don't understand. i don't understand this r.r. -- c.r. fst the most foolish, nonsensical slash and burn i've ever seen. i was at the department of interior in the mid 1990's when we reduced in thoughtful way over a four-year period of time the number of employees by some 12,000. from 90,000 down to the 70,000 range. we did it. and we continued to do the services. but you don't slash and burn. you don't just in a wholesale

carry out a political promise of $100 billion and foist it upon the american public in this way where we lose a million jobs. where we lose critical services. california has been at a water work for generations. we rely upon the bureau of reclamation. we rely upon recycling. we rely upon these programs and yet you slash those and those are real jobs and real programs that deal with the water problems in the west. why would you do that? what's the point of that? why would you go into programs where we need to educate? my daughter is a second grade teacher. she now has 32 kids in her elementary program. an almost impossible situation. and your cuts that you're proposing will make that situation worse. she cried out to me this week, why are they doing that, dad? i said, for some political promise made in a campaign,

without any thinking about the impact that it has on real human beings. real students who are trying to get education. my final point is this, there are five things that lead to true economic growth. the best education system in the world and so this c.r. cuts education. the best research in the world and so this c.r. cuts research programs in science, in energy, in health care. the best infrastructure and this program, this c.r. cuts infrastructure expenditures. you have to have -- manufacturing matters, you have to make it in america, you cut out those programs that assist manufacturing. and finally we know that we have to have an energy policy and you destroy the beginnings of a green energy, self-sustaining energy program in this nation.

why would you do so many foolish things? i don't get it. perhaps it's because your real agenda is the no jobs agenda. madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia, for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, we've had promise after promise after promise after promise that the republicans were going to pay attention to what the people wanted. and what the people want is jobs, jobs, jobs. i rise in opposition to this

amendment, madam speaker, and i want to point out that these republican cuts that have been proposed are draconian, they are extremist, they are bad for america, they're bad for our economic recovery. everybody knows that we just came out of the worst recession since the great depression. we call it the great recession. we're just coming out of it even though most americans don't feel it yet. certainly those folks up on wall street who got the bailouts, they feel the recovery and they are back to the huge bonuses and salaries, and they are looking at this republican congress to release them from all the regulatory

measures that the democrats put in place over the last two years so that they can continue to party. and while they party, their friends here in congress on the republican side of the aisle are busy trying to balance the budget on the backs of working men and women in this country. that's what the c.r. proposal is all about. it came out on friday at 8:00 p.m.. they issued their plan, and here we are on tuesday arguing the merits or demerits, actually, of this plan that is nothing other than a plan that undermines america's future. this plan is going to cause

severe job cuts which will hurt our economic recovery. you know, it's ironic that as reported in "the wall street journal," a new "wall street journal" survey of economists shows that they expect the economy to expand at the fastest pace since 2003, a recovery that would be certainly jeopardized, snuffed out by this g.o.p. plan. this is going to cut at least 300,000 private-sector jobs, according to an analysis by staff at the transportation and infrastructure committee. by the way, these 300,000 cuts

are less than half of the total infrastructure cuts in the bill. these republican cuts are in roads, business, transit, and rail, including a cut of $1.4 billion in state water, state revolving loan fund moneys, which is $23 million for georgia -- madam speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct, the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. i know nobody cares about the working men and women of this country over there, but i deserve to be heard. a cut of $6.3 billion in high-speed inner city rail funding, that's going to cause people to not be able to go out

and work to make that investment in america's future a reality. a $75 million cut in the tiger 2 program, those are transit projects that will happen just in the state of georgia. so we're talking about massive job loss, 300,000 just with transportation and infrastructure projects, madam speaker. the consequences of that extending into our future, it's actually strangling the future of millions of americans, both working and poor people. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california rise? >> to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i won't take near that time. simply to get back to the amendment of mr. flake which is the matter before us right now, and to say i support this amendment, madam chair. the gentleman from arizona has very, i think, properly brought up something that the secretary of defense has said is one of the areas in which the defense budget can be reduced. mr. campbell: and he can save money. the greatest threat to the national security of this country today is our debt. the secretary of defense has said that. he said certainly it is a national security threat, as has the secretary of state. and so we need to get this debt down. we need to get this deficit down. we need to do it in every single area of the budget. and i think that the gentleman's amendment, the

gentleman from arizona, is very proper and very appropriate one and i support it and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for five minutes. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. manzullo: to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. manzullo: i rise to oppose the underlying bill and support the flake amendment and the drastic cuts that will devastate the most vulnerable citizens in our nation. just to highlight some of these cuts. mr. gutierrez: the bill will cut $25 million from the ryan white, h.i.v. aids program, the drug assistance program, which is a last resort for the poorest americans who don't qualify for medicaid or medicare. currently there's a waiting

list of over 6,000 people in six states to receive benefits from this program. $850 million in reductions to the c.d.c.! an organization who first has to defend us against diseases. $850 million. that's smart. let's just cut and make america more vulnerable. the bill cuts $1.6 billion in n.i.h. so i guess we won't need any other research since we're going to let the diseases run rampant in america. it goes so far to say in the district of columbia, we're even going to tell you how to spend your very last dollar. but it gets better. community health centers, community health centers where the most vulnerable are treated for their health, $1.3 billion in cuts. community health centers will lose the capacity to serve 11 million patients over the next year and well over 3.3 million

current patients losing their care within the next few months. the bill cuts $5 billion from the pell grant. i did hear there were a lot of new millionaires elected to the congress of the united states, so i imagine they can pay for their children's education. but maybe we should think about people that don't have the medium income of members of congress. people who don't make $175,000 a year, which puts all of us in the top 1% of wage earners. what about the most humble and the poorest and those who wish to aspire one day to lead this great nation of ours? shouldn't they be given an opportunity, not under this program, let's cut the program, the basic program that allows young men and women to seek a college education, the pell grant. let's eliminate billions of dollars from there, also. but wait, $25 billion in the federal trio program. that's for first-generation,

that's the first kid in a family where nobody's gone to college. let's just cut from that program, too. the bill cuts $20 million from gera. and $1 billion from head start. now, i'm just going to end with this. i know -- i want the public to understand this. we get great health care here. excellent health care. it's not free but we get great health care, about $400 is what they deduct from my check. my wife gets good health care, my daughter gets good health care and so do every one of you get good health care. shame on anybody that would adopt this kind of budget knowing very well the kind of great health care the american public, cut your health care first before you cut the health care of the most poorest and vulnerable in this nation. i retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise?

>> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized 5. mr. ellison: i rise to support mr. flake's amendment. unfortunately the underlying bill is just another part of the republican no jobs agenda. since the republican caucus has taken over the majority, they haven't put one jobs bill on. they haven't done a poor job, they haven't done anything. it's as if they're not in favor of americans having jobs. we know they are but they haven't demonstrated it in anything that they have done, which is the important thing. instead, as part of the republican no jobs agenda, they bring up a bill to cut a million jobs, cut a million jobs from the american middle class. these cuts are the republican answers for the job crisis that they created. cutting a million jobs. if you're a nurse, no job.

if you're a teacher, no job. if you're a firefighter or police officer, no job. if your jobs are for american manufacturing, no jobs. and if you're a small businessperson who's going to have any money to even go into your store? no jobs for them either. the list goes on and on. if you want to know how we cut the deficit, putting america to work, not by cutting social security. make no mistake, when the republicans say they're cutting costs, they are cutting social security. they are cutting medicare, they are cutting medicaid until they cease to exist. republicans want working americans to shoulder the whole burden, the burden of taxpayer funded spending spree for the rich while protecting millionaires and billionaires who refuse to pay their fair share. the republican answer to the crisis they created, you pay, american people. they must make you pay for big

oil's billion dollar subsidies. they want to make you pay for higher drug prices. they want to make you pay for taxes to smart a small business. they want to make you pay for c.e.o. bonuses. they want main street to take the hit while wall street gets a bonus. while democrats work to create jobs, reduce the deficit, rebuild america, the republican speaker john boehner says, so be it if we lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. is that what the american people said they wanted in november? the american people want republican leaders to look out for constituents first, not corporate friends. and now the american people are saying, show us the jobs. we've been seeing a no jobs agenda, a jobless agenda 40 days in the majority, and nothing to create jobs. no jobs for the american people . and madam chair, we need to make this change.

will the republican caucus even today, madam chair, say that, you know what, we're not going to cut a million public employees out of work, we're going to actually do something to create jobs. appears not, madam speaker. what we need to do is withdraw some of these massive oil subsidies. what we need to do is take some of the -- save some money by rewarding the wealthiest among us and industries that have not been responsible corporate citizens, and actually use it to put americans back to work so that they can pay some taxes, so that we can reduce this deficit. and make no mistake about it, madam chair, we are concerned about the deficit. $200 billion of it goes to interest on the debt. that money could be going to programs that help people, that put -- help children, to help seniors that can make and improve our infrastructure in our country. but instead it goes to this massive debt built up by republicanth