it looks at cities that are leveraging 21st century infrastructure to create jobs and foster innovation. after spending a few days in chattanooga, the intelligent community forum confirmed something we've known for a long while. big things are happening in our community. what the bedget community forum saw in -- what the intelligent community forum saw in its trip to chattanooga and what they have learned since led them to name our community as one of the seven smartest cities in the world. we are now running for the number one spot. the awards for top designation go to cities using information and communications technology to move every sector of the community ahead. these cities are leaders and are to be counted -- and to be counted among them means you're growing in ways the rest of the world is not. the intelligent community forum

is saying that chattanooga is a place to watch. they see in our community what i want to talk to you about today. the same chattanooga that once lagged behind the rest of the nation is moving ahead. we're receiving praise from all sides for generating growth in an adverse economy and for maintaining an outstanding quality of life in the process. chattanooga now offers the fastest residential service in the united states. and we're one of only a handful of cities in the world that runs at 1,000 megabits per second. and the electric power board, our city's local electric utility, has installed a fiberoptic network that uses smart meeters to process realtime information and adjust

according to the needs of individual homes. all 170,000 hopes in e.p.b.'s service area benefit from this technology. but chattanooga's strides in broadband and digital inclusion are just part of the picture. chattanooga was one of the first cities to come out of the reseg, thanks in part to a strong business communityful coordinated efforts between nonprofit organizations and small company formation. the chattanooga area chamber of commerce runs one of the largest business incubators with 60 companies employing more than 500 people under one roof. these are just a few examples of the way chattanooga is setting itself apart from the rest of the world. every leap we make ahead forward is from the rest of the world. it underscores the forces and fueling of progress. vision and collaboration. these are exactly the qualities the intelligent community forum

looks at in a number one city. i'd like to on garagelation chattanooga for the recognition it's earning and i hope you join me in spothing our quest to become the most intelligent community in 2011. great things are happening in chattanooga right now and mr. speaker, a lot more are expected to come. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland -- the gentleman from california, mr. farr. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of the peace corps and in the near -- to the nearly quarter million people who have served in the peace corps in the name of peace. 50 years ago, john f. kennedy signed the executive order creating the peace corps.

the significance of this executive order revesh rated around the world -- reverberated around the world. at this point, america was in the throes of a cold war and our great nation was viewed with cynicism. the peace corps showed the world the enduring values of peace, commitment to national service and an optimism that had been lost in the cold war and world war ii. under the masterful direction of sargent shriver, it grew to 1,500 volunteers. i was one of those early recruits. i found myself in peace corps training and found myself in medellin, colombia. i saw the grinding cycles of poverty that left so many men, women and children without hope.

i committed then to work to end the culture of poverty. it is in no small part due to that experience in the peace corps that i am standing here in the congress. yes, i will yield. mr. dreier: i'd like to con gradge late my friend for his service in the peace corps. he not only served then but he continues to share that with us today and as we deal with countries around the world, the peace corps has been very important and i'm happy to recognize their 50th anniversary. mr. farr: thank you, mr. dreier. over the past 50 years, the peace corps has shown the hopeful, uplifting side of america that shows our grass roots development. that great legacy continues today.

at this moment, 865,000 volunteers are serving in 76 developing countries around the world. i am proud to say that 25 of those volunteers are from my district. among them is gabe lahiu, who was a valedictorian and went on to study plant sciences at cornell. four months after graduating summa cum laude, he went to paraguay. he's working on rural agricultural go like many peace corps volunteers, his service ripples out beyond one single project. he also helped start a composting initiative, teaches english and is working to set up a library up. there are others like ashley burke from marina who is teaching english at an orphanage in rwanda.

james who is work in rue wan dasm they've committed two years of their lives to serving america's best values abroad. the american taxpayers reap a huge return on their investment in this remarkable program. to date, more than 20 countries have requested peace corps volunteers and other countries want to increase the number of volunteers allocated to them. the peace corps is able to build this good will on a shoe string budget. they are the most cost effective ambassadors of diplomacy. peace corps amounts to 1% of the federal budget. for the cost of sending one soldier to afghanistan, the peace corps can send 13 volunteers to serve in the name of peace. the peace corps is one of the most low cost, high return tools in our foreign policy box. in honor of the 50th anniversary of the peace corps,

i am proud to join my fellow returned peace corps volunteers tom petri, mike honda an john garamendi, all members of congress to introduce a bipartisan bill to establish a commemorative work in the district of columbia to recognize the founding of the peace corps at no expense to the u.s. taxpayer. this bill, which passed the house by voice vote last congress, commemorates the creation of a unique form of service that creates peace through people-to-people diplomacy. it doesn't cost the taxpayers a single pennyism urge my congressional colleagues to honor america's commitment to peace by having swift passage of this timely legislation. today as we mark this significant milestone in america's history, i urge each of you to join me in honoring your constituents who have served in and are supporting the peace corps funding so that

we can usher in the next generation of americans who want to serve this country. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, currently u.s. families spend about $1 billion per day on imported oil. we import about 1.6 billion barrels from politically unstable nations with corresponding instability in prices. which influence our dollars, our economy, and sometimes our soldiers having to look at defending these areas. now, we are currently losing 220,000 barrels per day in domestic pruck because the administration's moratorium on gulf of mexico oil rigs.

this also means the government is losing almost $1.4 billion in revenue that we so sorely need. keep in mind that each one cent increase in gasoline prices costs american families $1 billion per year. that's money that's not going into our economy. because 60% of our oil comes from foreign countries. it's money going into other economies. now while this moratorium is taking place, at least 12 rigs have departed from the gulf, some not to return. as they move these rigs which can cost $1 million a day to operate, as they move them to other countries. four more are considering leaving. that's 6,000 jobs in jeopardy. currently more than 30 drilling rigs in the gmgm are idle. -- in the gulf of mexico are idle.

one is moving forward with exploration, the others are off limits as they look at permits all over again. that's why i introduced the secure act. this bill allows all of those gulf of mexico drilling permits which have already been approved by regulators to move safely in regard. . keep in mind all these have been reviewed thoroughly. it takes time to do that. they all follow strict regulations. there's no short cuts on safety. there's no bypassing environmental regulations. quite frankly i trust our environmental regulations to protect the environment more so than other countries. what we have from the lost production of the domestic oil industries means we are increasingly dependent on those unstable foreign regimes to meet our needs. it puts our economy at risk should another spike in oil

prices occur like the one we have now. add to this, and punctuate this, with the recent unrest in libya, regint, bahrain, yemen, and whatever country may come next and helps point out a lot of our vulnerabilities. the vulnerability of what happens if the sue ease -- suez canal is closed down. the vulnerability that comes if libyan oil production declines. the vulnerability that comes with iran and its use of oil revenue to put the pressure on other nations to support their efforts to develop nuclear weapons, their threats to israel, the threats that dominate the middle east. the cost of an arms race in the mideast and arms race in the world of new nuclear weapons far surpasses anything we can imagine in the costs of what we need to be doing with the revenues we can get from oil. so, i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, the secure act, so we can secure our

own energy future. we can lower gas prices, we can create thousands of jobs right here at home from drilling on these rigs, from developing the pipe, from building the rigs, from so many other supply chains of what we have in this nation to do this. and above all, we keep our domestic oil at home rather than paying our own dollars to go to other nations. we can drill for our oil and our own jobs and we can boost our own economy. or we can continue to be dependent on unstable nations, rising prices, and sadly paying for both sides of the war on terror. it is a sobering thought to think for americans that every time they go to put gasoline in their tanks that they are funding both sides of the war on terror. that alone should be enough to make us change our approach. that alone should be enough to

say let's use our oil and our resources instead of propping up the economy of other nations. that alone should be something that motivates us to make sure we are working on these issues. and hopefully that means we can melt this moratorium on our own domestic oil production. the choice is ours. and i hope all my colleagues would choose to support the united states of america jobs as opposed to those dollars going to other countries. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio -- tennessee, sorry. mr. cohen. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: you are recognized for five minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr.

speaker. by recklessly slashing more than $60 billion from the budget, the republican majority is trying to assume the mantle of fiscal responsibility. yes, fiscal, sometimes we in politics have problems with pronunciation and sometimes we have problems with concepts. there are two physical cals. there's the fiscal dealing with dollars, fiscal and the physical ,. they are trying to assume the mantle of fiscal responsibility. within the $60 billion, there's some cuts that should be made, they'll be cost-effective. there are other cuts that weren't made, the defense department, farm subsidies, that aren't made but should have been. many of the programs that were cut or severely underfunded are programs that have a significant financial return. many of these underfunded or eliminated programs actually save the government far more money than they cost.

penny-wise and pound-foolish. the republican claims that they are saving the federal government more than $60 billion is simply untrue. yes, they are eliminating $60 billion from the budget, but in reality they are increasing the deficit and other areas that do not appear in the budget. certainly not this year. as paul krugman would say, eat the future or lose the future. they are not concerned about the future. it's about today. and if it's the future it's the 2012 election. the problem, mr. speaker, is that the republicans' so-called budget hawks failed to look at this holistically. the only costs they see are numbers on a page they want to hold up as talking points. this slide shows some of the cuts. food and drug administration received funding by $241 million below 2010. and $400 million below the administration's 2011 budget request. that's the food and drug administration. remember though lid immediate babies, fen-phen, remember the

problems with meat, chicken, poultry, spinach? food safety and inspection service that makes cuts of $88 million below it's 2010 funding levels, and $107 million below the administration's 201 is budget request. the national institute of health, cuts appropriations for n.i.h. by $1.6 billion below f.y. 2010, and $2.5 billion below the president's budget. the national institutes of health, they are trying to find cures for alzheimer's and parkinson's and diabetes and cancer. let's cut them by $1.6 billion. clean drinking water? the republican bill slashes the clean water and state revolving fund by 66%. e.p.a., the bill includes an undesignated $300 million recession -- rescission to e.p.a. medicare cuts appropriations for the centers for medicaid and medicare services by $458

million below fiscal year 2010, and $634 million below the president's budget request. however what they fail to consider are the benefits associated with these costs. many of which generally feed the cost. by failing to consider money saved, the republicans are increasing the deficit and costs. nowhere is failure in fiscal policy more apparent than the physical health of the american people. it would increase the deficit dramatically as a result of unseen health care costs associated with the degradation of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. the physical impact of the republican cuts. the f.d.a., $241 million, this undo and historic improvement reduces food safety by $241

million. in the united states an estimated 76 million people get sick each year with food borne illnesses, and 5,000 dy. according to the u.s. center for disease control and prevention. all of the medical costs and economic losses associated with food borne illnesses add up to a staggering price of $152 billion . by slashing funding from the f.d.a.'s food safety programs, more and more people get sick and $152 billion annual price tag will climb higher. if that doesn't sound like a responsible fiscal or physical policy to me. clean water, although more than 70% of the earth is covered in water, only about 1% of all the water on the planet is safe to drink. h.r. 1 reduced that 1% by allowing major corporations and developers to pump toxins into the water and failing to invest in the infrastructure to maintain, treat deliverable, safe drinking water. it reducing the resolving fund by 56%. a program that leverages significant private finances by

providing no and low-interest loans. leaking pipes and deteriorating planes lead to costly bacteria contamination. they create -- as you can see, the physical health of our nation is being threatened and not just the fiscal health. we need to be concerned about the physical health of our children and be concerned about the long-term effects. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, the week before last, before we adjourned, we got the sad news of the passing of our good friend and former colleague, congressman steve horn. steve horn was without a doubt one of the most intelligent and accomplished members to ever

serve in this body and at the same time, mr. speaker, he was one of the kindest and most decent members. he got his bachelor's degree from stanford university, his masters from harvard, and got his ph.d. at stanford university. he served in strategic intelligence in the early 1950's and u.s. army reserve. and then he got involved in public service in a big way. he served in the eisenhower administration, and he went on to become legislative assistant to california senator tom kuchel . from that point forward, he had dedicated himself to public service and he expanded that greatly. he got into education and for nearly two decades, from 1970 to 1988 he served as president of the california state university at long beach. during that period of time he was named one of the 100 most

effective college presidents in the country. mr. speaker, then he joined us here as a member of congress serving for five terms. and he was an individual who spent a great deal of time and effort focusing on issues. in fact, one of the great stories about steve horn that i heard from his former staff member, who i'm happy to say when he left came to work for me , his legislative assistant, now my legislative director, she told me of how they would often be looking for congressman horn. there were votes taking place here in the house and he was over in the library of congress. didn't have a pager with him. we didn't have blackberries. didn't have a pager, and yet he was over there in the library studying trying to get more and more information and developed his knowledge. he also was someone who never hesitated to go against the grain. he served on the government

operations committee, government reform was a priority for him and transportation. he represented the long beach area and he understood that 40% of the foods going to and from the consumers and workers of the united states go through the ports of long beach and los angeles. he was always dedicated to ensuring that that was a very high priority. and he had this great focus on reforming and improving the operations of the federal government. mr. speaker, he was an institutionalist. he loved this body. understanding that the deliberative nature of service here and of our work is very important and can't be forgotten. steve leaves his wonderful wife, they were married for 357 years. two children, one -- 57 years. two children, one grandchild. i have to say i miss his advice,

counsel, friendship, and camaraderie, and i would like to in the spirit of bipartisanship, yield to my friend from manhattan, mrs. maloney, who joins me, served with him on the government reform committee. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman. i rise in tribute to representative steve horn. he was a thoughtful, dedicated, honorable man who built his record on bipartisan adoption -- cooperation and commitment to good government. he was a legislator's legislator. he was deeply committed to doing the right thing. writing the right bill. getting it passed. and he was also a very good friend of mine. he came with his wife and visited me in my home in new york. i went to visit him in his district. a district he loved and was totally dedicated to during his 10 years of service here in the house of representatives. we worked together on the oversight and government reform committee. he chaired the subcommittee on government management.

information and technology for six years and i was the ranking member with him. so not only was he dedicated to running government better, saving taxpayers' money, but also legislated and passed many important bills. he helped me pass a bill that i authored, the nazi war crimes disclosure act, which we worked on together for roughly seven years. it took us that long to pass it. and it -- a book has been written about that process and the bill and what it has done to help in problem solving now as we confront delicate issues going forward. the first hearing on the debbie smith bill which has been called the most important anti-race bill in the history of our country, was in his committee where debbie smith testified about her rape, the fact that no one was reacting to it. and this whole effort, including that hearing that he chaired,

was made into a movie called "a life interrupted." and how d.n.a. has been used to put rapists behind cars. he was a dedicated, wonderful person. he also chaired the arts caucus and worked hard for its funding. and in a time when we talk about bipartisanship, steve horn was the real deal. a bipartisan problem solver. he wanted to get the problem solved. he wanted to help this country, help his community. he was devoted to his wife and two children and grandchild. i yield back to my distinguished colleague. he was just a great guy. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for her thoughtful contribution. mr. speaker, i want to say our thoughts and prayers are with mimi and their family. with that i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. the chair recognizes mr. mcgovern for -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes

-- minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you. at the end of january, the united nations reported that the cost of basic food commodfis, basic grains, oil, sugar, were at the highest level since the u.n. created its index in 1990. the bank's president -- the u.n. food bank's president said the food prices are 20% higher than just a few years ago. he warned the g-20 to put food first. these food price spikes have pushed millions to poverty. the lack of food security leads to political instability. food were the reason people took to the streets in tunisia. food and poverty were at the

top of the list in egypt along with political freedom. there were major food riots in 40 countries. in may of 2008 my fellow co-chair of the house hunger caucus, jo ann emerson, and i were briefed by the g.a.o. about the lack of continuity in uh u.s. development programs. we started calling for a comprehensive approach to global hunger. thanks in large part to the efforts of secretary of state hillary clinton and others, the u.s. government responded to that call. over a two-year period of time they initiated a government-wide approach to decrease global hunger and increase food and nutrition security. not because it feels good or because it's the moral thing to do but because it's in our national security to make

countries food secure, healthier and more stable. this strategy is known as the global hunger and food security initiative. it includes our bilateral programs and efforts with other governments and multilateral institutions. to be successful, everyone has to pitch in feed the future is the signature program of the u.s. strategy. it works with small farmers and governments to increase agricultural production and strengthen lowal and regional markets to reduce hunger aened grow economies. the other -- other efforts include the mcgovern-dole effort that brings kids to school and keep thems there by making sure they get at least one nutritious meal each day at school. this has been effective in convincing families to send their daughters to school. finally there's a food for peace program which provides food to men, women and children caught in life threatening

situations brought on by natural disasters, war and internal conflict. it includes foods that keep people trying to survive in the wrl's most dangerous situations alive. i have never heard anyone is a that they would like to see more hunger in the world, that they would like to see children too weak from hunger to be able to learn or young girls forced to work long hours because they're no longer being fed at school but that's exactly what the budget cuts that passed the house a week ago would do. the house cut $800 million out of the food aid budget and over 40% from development assistance which is where feed the future is funded. if these shortsighted and quite frankly ka louse cuts are allowed to stand, we would be literally taking the food out of the mouths of over two million children and depriving over 18 million people the food that keeps them alive in haiti, darfur, afghanistan, guatemala,

ethiopia, kenya and much more. we would be turning our boongs countries where we made commitment to boost the production of farmers so they could free thems of u.s. and international food aid to feed their own people. enough, mr. speaker. enough. this isn't a question of charity, it's an issue of national security. what happens when desperate people can't find and afford food and the anger from people that see no future for their children except poverty and debt. ski president obama to stand up for his programs and fight for them. i ask the white house to hold a global summit on food security. i ask the media to wake up an grasp the shortsightedness of these cuts and i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fund these programs so they can be successful. it really is a matter of life and death. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. jones: thank you very much. last week, secretary of defense gates spoke at west point and i'd like to quote his one comment from his speech. in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big american land army into asia or the middle east or africa should have his head examined. as general mcarthur said so delicately put it years ago, again, this is secretary gates, i have great respect for secretary gates, i think he's one of the true outstanding secretaries of defense this cupry has ever had. the reason i'm here today, i bring a photograph of a flag-draped coffin it's called a transfer case, being escorted off a plane at dover air force base. it is time to bring our troops home. they have been in afghanistan for over 10 years. i would also say it is time that this congress meet its constitutional responsibility to debate war and whether we

should be there or bring our troops home. in recent weeks, i was concerned to hear our government and military leaders say it could be 2014 before we start significantly downsizing our troops in afghanistan. mr. speaker, that brings to my mind trips to walter reed and bethesda, so i will ask this question -- how many more young men and women must lose their legs, their lives, for a corrupt government that history has proven will never be changed. -- be changed? why should they be dying and losing their legs if karzai who doesn't even know we're his friends? it makes no sense. i will quote a highly decorate red tired military general who has been advising me on afghanistan for the past year, and i quote this general, what is the end state we are looking to achieve? what are the measures of effectiveness? what is our exit strategy?

same old questions, no answers. what do we say to the mother and father, the wife of the last soldier or marine killed to support a corrupt government and corrupt leaders in a war that cannot be won? mr. speaker, these are words from a general that fought in vietnam for this country that reached the highest he could in the branch of service where he served, mr. speaker as you know i represent the third district of north carolina. the home of camp lejeune marine base. recently i was with a marine who has served this nation for years. he shares my concern about getting out of afghanistan. so i asked this marine if he would write me a letter. this is what he wrote. congressman jones, i'm writing this letter to express my concern over the current afghanistan war. i am a retired marine officer with 31-plus years of active duty.

i retired in 2004 due to service limitations or i am sure i would have been on my third or fourth deployment by now to a war that has gone on for too long. i'll go to the end, mr. speaker, of his letter to me, the afghan war has no end state to it. i urge you to make contact with all the current and newly elected members of congress and ask them to end this war and bring our young men and women home. if any of my comments will assist you in this effort, you are welcome to use them and my name. his name is dennis g. adams, lieutenant colonel, retired, united states marine corps. before i close, i want to remind those on the floor of the house today that i hope if you haven't had a chance you will go to walter reed and bethesda to see the young men and women that will never walk again to see the young men and women that maybe will not ever think properly again because of ptsd and t.b.i. and i want to

remember the young soldier, 22 years old, private, united states army who, before i walked in the room, the escort, major mack said to me, this soldier has no body parts below his waist, they've all been blown away. mr. speaker, it's time for the congress to meet its responsibility and demand a debate on the froor of the house about bringing our troops home from afghanistan. mr. speaker, in closing, as i always do as i look at this beautiful photograph of a soldier who gave his life for this country and the escort team, god, please bless our men and women in uniform. god, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. god, please hold in your arms the families who have given a loved one fighting for freedom in iraq. please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in your eyes. skigd to give wisdom, strength and courage to president obama

to do what is right in the eyes of god three times i will ask, god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. first i want to congratulate the gentleman from north carolina on the remarks he just made. he is a republican and i'm a democrat but i will tell you this, we are friends and we work together an he is one of the most conscientious members of this house who follows his conscience and his moral values in mick -- in making decisions. he gave an important and moving speech on the floor today and i thank the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones. mr. speaker, when i come to the floor to speak about our

country's recent fiscal history, i'm often told there's no point in looking back. but majority leader cantor got it entirely right when he wrote this. the future will not be won by repeating the mistakes of the past. the future will not be won by repeating the mistakes of the past. unfortunately, however, we are proceeding on a path that shows little inclination to live by those words. once again, our republican colleagues are using the language of fiscal responsibility. but pursuing policies of fiscal irresponsibility. our colleagues across the aisle trumpet the cut in -- the $100 billion they voted to cut from discretionary spending, however, their actions belie those words. their very first action in this new congress was to approve

policies, a rule package that would provide for borrowing an additional $5 trillion. unpaid for. their budget plcy -- policy would give us the worst of both worlds. on one hand they failed to take on the fiscal challenges and frankly there is blame to shear across this chamber, republicans an democrats, for failing to take on those challenges. but the policies they're pursuing would even make our situation worse. on the other hand, the cuts they do make are taken out of vital investments that would grow our economy and dreecree ate jobs, as i will mention later on, some 700,000 to 800,000 over the next 18 months. it is projected would be cost by the adoption of their policies.

this combination is not new. it is a repeat of republican fiscal policy in the past. let's look at the evidence. first of all on deficits. what this chart shows is everything below this line is a deficit. everything above this line is a surplus. obviously what you want is the deficit going down into surplus. what you don't want is going from surplus into deficit. you will notice that the ray gap administration, reagan-bush noted in this first red quadrant. the clinton administration going from deep debt to surplus, then the bush administration going from surplus into deep debt, an the

obama administration trying to get out of the extraordinarily tanking, rae ceding economic status, invested in bringing us out, now we see us coming out. it shows how the fiscally responsible policy adopted under president clinton took us into surplus and unfortunately shows when we reversed those policies in 2001, we then went back into deep deficits. we all know how those predictions the republicans made when we adopted this economic program for which none of the republicans in the house or the senate voted for. . they said economic catastrophe would occur. that was their analysis. that was their economic prediction. in fact, exactly the opposite happened and we created 22

million new jobs for americans. this deficit chart also shows how our record surplus was squandered during the bush administration. the second chart i want to show you talks about government spending. we have to cut spending. we all know that. we all talk about t but let's -- talk about it. but let's look at who did cut government spending. again government spending was up and down, but at a rate higher than it was under the clinton administration where spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product was almost, without exception, went down. so when we talk with spending, we have a record of restraining and cutting spending. in fact, that was a partnership, frankly, because republicans agreed to make compromises with the democratic president. however, when they controlled

the presidency, the house and the senate, you will see that spending went up sharply once again. gep we see government spending as a percentage of the economy rising. under president bush and the emergency measures to respond to the recession starting to come down after the recession was ameliorated. real medium wages. i want to show this chart as well because after all these are nice statistics but what does it do for people? what is the impact on them? real medium wages sort of stuck. i'll end with this and complete the rest of my statement later, mr. speaker, but you will see that median wages under the president clinton administration went up and then they were flat and they are going up again now under president obama. too slowly to be sure. mr. speaker, i will continue these remarks because if we do not learn from the past, if we

repeat the failed policies of yesterday, our people will not be well served. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. cuellar. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. quayle: mr. speaker, a little more than a week ago this house passed a continuing resolution with $100 billion in spending cuts. not only was this an important step toward reining in our nation's paralyzing deficit, it also sent a clear signal to job creators that house republicans are determined to foster an economic environment where certainty and confidence can return to the marketplace. when a young family looks for a

new neighborhood, they examine a variety of factors. they might ask how safe it is. they might want to know about the school system. or whether their neighbors are friendly. the broader question being, what is the environment like? job creators take a similar approach when they decide whether it's safe to invest capital, expand their businesses, and hire new workers in america. just as a family is not going to choose a neighborhood with overflowing sewers and high crime rate, a business owner is not going to expand and invest in an economic environment marched by debt-fueled uncertainty that will increase the costs to run their business. after all, deficits are just deferred tax payments that eventually come due. we must ensure that america is the most attractive and safest place to start a business. take risks and invest capital.

it is essential that we send a clear signal to american businesses that both parties are committed to removing the barriers to job growth and economic development. republicans believe, and i would argue many of the american public believes, that cutting spending is a crucial step in that process. yesterday mark zahndy released a study which argued that republican spending cut plan would cut jobs. i'm sure he's a nice enough person, but in recent years he hasn't seen a spending increase he didn't like. he was the democrats' go-to guy when they were looking for an economist to endorse the stimulus. and he even endorsed a second stimulus package after the initial $1 trillion package was signed into law. so before my democrat colleagues start touting mr. zahndy's

report, i suggest they look at his record on the so-called stimulus. by merely debating spending cuts for the past few weeks, this body engaged in the process that many feared was obsolete. some have said republicans are trying to cut too much. others that we are not cutting enough. and indeed we still have a long way to go to get our deficits and debt under control. but what no one can dispute, mr. speaker, is the fact that we are serious about cutting spending. in addition to the $100 billion in cuts republicans have offered over the next year, we have also made clear that our upcoming budget will include serious, commonsense entitlement reforms. all of these efforts have one goal in mind, producing an environment conducive to economic growth and job creation. house republicans are doing what we are sent here to do and

that's precisely what our job creators need. clarity and decisive leadership from their government not mixed messages and delayed action. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur. you are recognized. ms. kaptur: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. across the world we witnessed millions of ordinary people rising up in public assemblies, many at risk to their own lives, speaking out for a better life for all. from madison to cairo to columbus, courageous people are taking a stand for justice for the many not just the few. another giant rally is planned today in columbus, ohio, where the republican resumesforamerica@mail.house.gov , john kasich, the son of public workers, is systematically attacking the hard-earned

collective bargaining rights of our state public workers, policemen, firefighters, teachers, and other public sector workers, he even called an ohio policeman an idiot and was forced to apologize. that is his priority. not job creation. not education. not economic development but attacking workers. that is why thousands of people will converge on the state's capital again today to call him out on his extreme right-wing agenda. the public outcry started in wisconsin. give its long history of progressivism. americans have begun to rise up to prevent more harm being done to our way of life. more attacks on our jobs. more threats to our standard of living. of our middle class. more cuts in wages and benefits of hardworking families. the movement is spreading. just as democracy movement is spreading across northern africa and the middle east. just as we watch freedom rising in egypt, libya, tunisia, and

beyond, we watched the spectacle of america's resumesforamerica@mail.house.gov s trying to dictate the citizens who earn on average $24,000 and aren't even eligible for social security but receive about $900 a month in average public employee retirement benefits that they should sacrifice even more to balance state budgets. no, they don't deserve to be made scapegoats for their state budget problems and they don't deserve to be put on the frontlines of the battle to save workers' rights. but they are there nonetheless and they deserve our support. we are all wisconsinites. we are all buckeyes. we are all hoosiers. we have to stand together united for the america for all that we want. if john kasich wants to look for scapegoats, perhaps he should draw upon his experience with lehman brothers. maybe he should look into his rolodex for some of his cronies from wall street who helped bankroll his campaigns.

because the real people are watching gleefully on the sidelines as our friends and neighbors try to protect their livelihoods. wall street'd greed caused the financial crisis. that greed triggered lower state and local revenues with the devaluation of housing and rampant foreclosure. yet the wall street tightants who stole our home equity, our annuity, our pension accounts remains scot-free of any real attention or prosecution. i have a message to our goff -- governors. when corporate profits are at record highs yet ordinary workers are being asked to empty their pockets to balance state budgets, something's out of kilter in america. when g.e. and exxon don't pay taxes and wall street executives walk away with huge bonuses and foreclosures increase, what seriously is out of balance in america is the distribution of political power in this country.

in ohio, the brothers and sisters of the heroes of 9/11 are firefighters and police are being asked to give away their rights as free american citizens at the bargaining table for wages and benefits. our resumesforamerica@mail.house.gov wants to abolish middle class prevailing wages -- our gotschors wants to abolish middle class prevailing wages. what's at stake in our nation is more than wages. what's at stake is liberty for all and opportunity for all. governor walker wasn't the firefighters in madison that robbed main street. you might ask your friends the koch brothers about that. governor kasich, it wasn't the teachers in ohio who financed the shipping of our jobs offshore. you voted for it and your buddies on wall street rammed it through congress. and governor daniels, it wasn't your public sector workers that created the biggest financial bubble in u.s. history and jumped ship. that was created by the policies of george w. bush where you served as director of the o.m.b. while the federal budget deficit

exploded. i salute america's workers who are fighting for the middle class and our way of life. the whole world is watching. after they win their battles in madison, in columbus, in indianapolis i hope they take the fight to wall street and get our money back. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the border war continues and there is no end in sight. and this week president calderon of mexico is coming back to washington, d.c. he's going to meet with our president. it will be interesting to see if he continues to blame america for his problems. you remember the last time he was here he stood here in the house floor and dressed us down as the united states, members of the house of representatives, blaming us for his problems.

blaming us for the corruption. blaming us for the drugs that are in mexico. blaming us for the violence in mexico. blaming the folks in arizona for trying to protect their own border. i wonder if he will continue the blame game of the the problem is the situation is worse not only on the border but in mexico. corruption along the border with mexican law enforcement continues. even though the mexican military is doing a fairly good job ever reining in the drug cartels. and he blames the united states for the guns that are in mexico. you must remember, mr. speaker, just some of the guns that go to mexico are from the united states. guns from all over the world end up in mexico. there are a lot of reasons for that. one ever those is, mexico doesn't protect its borders any better than we do. people throughout the world know if you can get to mexico by any means, whether you want to bring contraband, drugs, guns, or people, you can eventually get into the united states. because mexico like the united

states doesn't have operational control of the mutual border between the united states. even the general accounting office, those are the people who keep up with statistics, and they have made this report recently, that on the united states border with mexico, only 44% of the border is under the control of the united states. and only 15% is airtight. so who controls the other 56% of the u.s. border with mexico? if it's not the united states, it's not mexico, who controls it? we don't know. probably the outlaws. the drug cartels, they are the one that is have operational control of both sides of the border. because the situation on the border continues to get worse. mexico doesn't protect its border from people going into mexico from any direction, and the united states doesn't protect its border adequately to

keep drugs and violence from coming into the united states. unfortunately, this is continuing to get worse. last year, 65 americans were killed in mexico. to my knowledge none of those cases were solved. you see, mexico has a terrible record of solving crimes. not only against americans but against mexican nationals. over 3,000 people were killed in juarez last year. that's more people than killed in afghanistan last year. serious violent situation. whether it continue to come across the border? some say it won't come to america. let me give you one statistic. the 16 border counties in texas that border mexico, on any given day they have about 35% to 40% of the people in their jails are foreign nationals charged with crimes in the united states. these are not immigration violations. these are crimes. some of them violent crimes. 35% to 40%. so the crime is already pouring

over because you see people can go back and forth across the u.s.-mexican border at will. because there are parts of the border that no one controls. in fact, the situation is so bad this year that the texas department of public safety today has made a statement telling young people about spring break, here's what they say. various crime problems exist in many popular resort areas of mexico such as acapulco and cancun. and crimes against u.s. citizens often go unpunished. the safety message is simple, avoid traveling to mexico during spring break and stay alive. . we're even being warned not to let your kids go to mexico for spring break because it's not safe. what do we do about this? there was a raid this week because of an i.c.e. agent killed in mexico, raids were made in the united states and

676 gang members were arrested, $12 million was seized, lots of drugs, lots of guns. it's a point we needs to -- we need to understand. the drug cartels operate in mexico but they operate in the united states as well. they bring those drugs to other gang members throughout the cities of america and they sell those wares here in the united states. so the crime does occur on both sides of the border. we need to understand that. it is important that we deal in reality and understand that the boarder is a war zone. a texas ranger once told me, he said, after dark on the texas-mexico border, it gets western. those days need to end. we immediate to secure the border. it will protect the united states and mexico. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms.

sutton. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. sutton: thank you, mr. speaker. today, people from across ohio are gathering at the state house in columbus. they're gathering to speak up for workers and the middle class in this country. last tuesday, i went to columbus and joined our brothers and sisters in our fight to protect the right of public employees to have a voice at the negotiating table and as we gathered to oppose senate bill 5, that backward effort of the governor and his republican friends in he state legislature to eliminate collective bargaining, i was struck by the weight of the moment and by the weight of the fight but i was inspired, too. inspired to see thousands of people from across the state coming together to protest the radical measures that the republicans were proposing.

and though we can't be there today physically, we are there with those who gathering at the state house and we stand with them from our place here in our nation's capital. last week we were there, shoulder to shoulder, people in common purpose, standing up for working families, standing together in the fight for the promise of the middle class. the unfair, backward-thinking attack on ohio's firefighters, police, teachers, nurses and other dedicated public employees must be stopped. i'm proud to be standing with ohioans that are fair-minded as we fight for progress, not for a return to old ways. instead of pursue this tra conian measure attacking ohio's working families, lawmakers -- lawmakers at every level of government should be focused on the critical priority of getting people pack to work. instead of engaging on attacks

on those who have chosen to teach our children and protect our communities an keep us safe, everyone should be working to strengthen our economy and create jobs that would generate the revenue we need to fairly compensate our employees with the wages and benefit which is they have been promised and they have earned. the focus of all officials, as i said, across all levels of government should be on creating jobs, not taking more from our workers. it was not our workers who drove the economy off the cliff. it was not our workers in ohio. it was not the workers in wisconsin. but it seems the republicans just can't stop themselves. similar efforts to disempower working families and the middle class are occurring right here in washington. it's not just collective bargaining for public employees that they're after. two weeks ago, republicans tried to pass a measure in congress to prohibit the paying

of prevailing wages and stop local project labor agreement which would put a hard hit on our trades people. they even tried to eliminate the national labor relations board, the very board that exists as a referee to make sure that our workers get a fair shake. yet they have not offered any job creation bills. and at the same time they're not creating jobs, they're defunding program that was real benefits. their refusal to expand the trade adjustment assistance that helps workers who were displaced because of the trade policies they pursued, the refusal of some to extend unemployment benefits to those who are out of a job through no fall of their own, at the same time, they are working to not create jobs, they are also giving no assistance to those who are left without a job.

it's issues like these that make it so important we keep our heads up in ohio. to all of those who are out there in ohio and across the country fighting this fight, it's an important fight and what you do matters. it's important that we speak up and be heard, that the issues that matter to us so very deeply are well founded. we have to stand together an work together and fight forward. you know, useding the deficit as an excuse, there are those who are trying to convince the american people that a more fair economy would result in a much less efficient economy. but fairness and efficiency are not mutually exclusive. using the deficit as an excuse to give a disproportionate hit to workers or unions is not the way to go. i would hope that the republicans vote at the -- both at the sate level as well as

here in congress would join with us to focus on what we really need to do and that is to create jobs. i would hope that they would stop the misguided attack on workers and the middle class. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lank spord: -- mr. lank frd spock -- mr. lankford: i rise to challenge this body and i hope the message is well received. the thation was found odd on the constitution and not the opinions of the republicans and democrats. our decisions are judged in the light of the past and the precedent it sets for future generations. according to our constitution, a president cannot pick and choose which parts of the law they prefer, the executive branch does not write the law nor choose the law, it ennorse

law. the basing function of every president is to enforce the law. every executive branch agency has its foundation in a short and clear statement in the constitution stating this, he, meaning the president, he shall take care that the law be faithfully executed. a president can petition for laws to be changed, he can complain about the law, he can encourage the pass passage of new law but he cannot ignore the law or write a new. only the courts can throw out the law and the congress write a law. the president cannot unilaterally decide not to enforce the defense of marriage act. our agencies write rules that look more like legislation than regulation. we've allowed people to serve in cabinet-like level positions without senate approval. we've exponentially increased this budget for white house staff and the president wants to set a new precedent that he

can determine which law he is likes and which he doesn't like. with this action, the president has invented a retroact i veto on all previous presidents and all previous congressional acts. it is ultimately ironic that the executive brampling states that several lower courts have said the defense of marriage act was unconstitution theasm health care act was declared unconstitutional but they ignored that. it is clear this administration is bept on placing its prempses ahead of the courts, the legislative brample and the american people. both parties need to understand the pess dent being set by the president choosing to not enforce the defense of marriage act my democrat friends should imagine, what if the republican president takes the oath and he instructs h.h.s. and other agencies not to enforce

obamacare because some lower court rejected it. they would be outraged, rightfully so, because currently it is the law of the land. a president cannot unilaterally throw it aside. before this conversation is spun as a partisan issue, let me remind everyone that the defense of marriage act passed the house and senate by a wide majority and was signed inta lawful this is not only a slap in the face to our constitutional system but to the republicans an democrats who expressed the will of their states on an issue that's been settled in law. the people spoke through congress and one person, eavep president, cannot undermine the will of the people. at least not in the america i grew up. in i do not think we'll fully understand the implications of this action if we allow it to stand. we must not act partisan now and regret it later. this is not the way to deal with the gay marriage debate,

for the president to just sweep it aside and say i will not enforce the law. many in this chamber are well aware of my traditional view of may remember and my lib lickal world view. i believe that words have meaning and that the meaning of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. the defense of marriage act codifies that definition in law, representing the belief of a majority of americans. this issue is well beyond faith, though, or a social issue or even a political issue. marriage is now not only the center of a national social debate, it's now the center of a constitutional debate. weeks ago, some members of the press suggested that republicans would ignore the budget and focus on social issues. i find it ironic that the president has submitted a budget that will raise the national debt to $26 trillion by his own numbers and he has decided to change the national debate from fiscal issues to social issues and gay marriage. as a congress, we cannot nand

of the executive brample, that is a co-equal branch of government. but i believe we must require the executive branch to fulfill its oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the united states. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from ohio. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. fudge: i rise today to express my strong opposition to attempts by the republican governor of ohio to undermine collective bargaining for ohio's public employees. ohio senate bill 5 is a measure currently under consideration by the ohio general assembly that would strip state workers of collect i bargaining rights. i fermly support the right of

public employees to collectively negotiate. who are we as a nation when we tell our firefighters and police officers and other public protectors that they should have no say in their working conditions. does a teacher's experience or education have no economic value? ohio's proposed legislation is less about fiscal responsibility than an overt political attack on public workers who speak with a collective voice. as labor battles erupt in state capitals arn the nation, a majority of american says they oppose efforts to weak then collective bargaining rights of unions. according to the latest "new york times"/cbs news poll, americans are against cutting the pay or benefits of workers to reduce the state budget deficit. we shouldn't forget, mr. speaker, the benefits that collective bargaining offers. for almost 28 years, collect iive bargaining has reduced the la i boar strike, redeuced the

likelihood of strikes, improved training and productivity among public employees, created a sense of job security and it is fair, it is fair to all working people. the repeal of collective bargaining will do nothing to balance the budget. 9% of the state's budget is for state employees. so just as an example if we fired every state employee in ohio, it would save us only $2 billion. . leaving the state without vital sr. visses and there would still be a $6 billion deficit. so since this does not address the budget deficit, it is clear that anti-worker forces are using this to harment mid 8 -- to harm middle income workers. a former president of the united states state, and i quote, republicans stand foursquare for the american home. but not for housing.

they are strong for labor but they are stroppinger for restricting labor's rights. they favor minimum wage. the smaller the minimum wage the better. they endorse educational opportunity for all, but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. they think modern medical care and hospitals are fine for people who can afford them. that is the philosophy of the masters of the republican party. these are words of president harry truman, and they were spoken in 1948. these words ring as true today as they did in 1948. we have made too many advances over the past generations and americans should not be forced to choose between a job and their rights. we cannot and should not return to the days when public workers had limited rights to warring run -- bargain. the middle class was created and has been sustained by collective

bargaining. and other labor protections. the public sector is about working families. rolling back these rights will hurt the middle income wage earners of this country and will hurt america. ohio needs jobs. not a partisan victory. i urge members of the ohio general assembly to deliberate with care and avoid rushing to adopt a measure that weakens our middle income, weakens our state, and costs us jobs. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from florida, ms. brown ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. and -- ms. brown. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker and to the members of the house. i rise today as the ranking member on transportation,s ares are and subcommittee. i have been on this committee for over 19 years. i serve on transportation because it's one of the most

bipartisan committees in the house. i got to tell you i'm very, very disappointed with florida governor, rick scott. last week the governor told the secretary of transportation, ray lahood, that the state of florida can do without the $2.5 billion for federal highway rail funding. $2.5 billion. 90% of the project is funded with federal tax dollars. that's money that floridians sent to washington that we are sending back to florida, gasoline tax money. not money from any foreign source, by the way. in addition, it didn't just happen. we worked on it bipartisan for years. in fact in 1980, bob graham appointed me to a committee to work on high speed rail in

florida. over 30 years we have worked on it. and let me just tell you 90% of the funding would put over 60,000 floridians to work, and it's 90% of the funding. well, it's another 10% there. absolutely. the private sector has ipped kated that they would put the 10% -- has indicated that they would put the 10% there. i have model trains in front of me here today. we have over eight companies committed to high-speed rail. in fact, we started the rail system in florida in this country, we started the rail system and now we are the caboose and they don't use cabooses anymore. but all of our partners, the

chinese, the french, eight different countries want to be our partners. they have indicated that they would put up the 10% because they want to have the first right of refusal to go from orlando to miami. everybody knows that's the money maker. why is the first portion that the state of florida applied for and the legislature in florida came to the congress and asked us to be partners, why was that the first leg? because all of the environmental issues have been resolved. in other words, we could put rail in florida tomorrow if this contract went out. florida has a 12% unemployment, 12%, and in my area 15%. the gotschor says he's not a politician, and i agree with him, but he says he's a

businessman. what businessman would walk away from a 90% funding? will, 90% funding -- well, 90% funding and you are a businessman? i'm concerned about florida being left with the 10%. if you are a businessman, then you know attorneys. they can write it any way you want to make sure we can protect the people of florida. so that is not the issue. money is not the issue. liability is not the issue. this is the worst kind of politics i have seen since i have been elected. it is a sad state of affairs. the gotschor says let's get to work. i agree with you, mr. gotschor, but you got to be working on something. you got have some projects. infrastructure is what put america to work. what projects do you have, mr. governor, in your budget? you say i want this money. i think it would be better used.

what's in your budget? ports? florida's got 14 ports. we compete with other states. so what is in your budget that's going to put floridians to work? and you come and say, i want another lane. on i-4. any of us that live in orlando, anybody visited us, know that another lane won't help us. we have eight lanes. i just returned monday from salt lake city, utah, where we lost the money. it went a few years ago, money for orlando, went to salt lake city, utah, and they run trains every day, move 40,000 people a day rail. salt lake city, utah. so the money that we have appropriated, this friday, will go to some other state.

it will go to new york or california or salt lake city, utah, or some other place. we are going to have rail in this country. what happens when failure is not an option? we must make sure that we work together to put floridians to work. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address the chair with their remarks. the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan, is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. a few years back towards the end of my grandfather's life, he was a steelworker for about 40 years. and towards the end of his life he couldn't drive anymore. i had the pleasure one day of

taking him shopping. in ohio and where i come from in niles, shopping is an art form. so woo had to go to a certain place for the meat and a certain place for the cheese and a certain place for something that was on sale somewhere else. so i got to spend a day with my grandpa. we had to go and get something and he said that we should go to a certain store. i said, grandpa, you know, giant eagle is right here. we could go right here. he says we can't go there. i said why not? it's right here. he said, the meat cutters are on strike and we can't cross the pickett line. he didn't go to giant eagle out of respect for the worker, out of respect for the situation that those workers were in at that grocery store. and the issue that we are talking about in ohio and

wisconsin is an issue of respect for the average worker in the united states of america. and for us to somehow try to obscure the issue and blame workers, firefighters who go into burning buildings when we are all running out of them, police officers who we call up when we are in trouble, or teachers that we ask in many instances to spend more time with our kids than we do, somehow push the blame of the major financial meltdown that happened because of wall street recklessness, blame the teachers for that? and ask them to go out and get rid of their right to stick together to determine what size of classroom, how many kids are in their classroom, is ridiculous. and at the same time in ohio we have the top person who works for the current administration get a $40,000 pay increase from

what the last gotschor was paying and the secretaries and people in the mail room get a cut. the firefighters and the police and the teachers get a cut. while all this is going on in ohio, they want to cut the estate tax for the wealthiest people who live in the state of ohio and ask the teacher to make the sacrifice. this is disrespectful and unfair to the workers in the state of ohio. and if we want to have a 21st century america where we compete with the globe, where we compete as 300 million people, compete with 1.3 billion people in china, over a billion people in india, and we are going to tell our teachers that they can't be treated with respect, how are we going to get good teachers to come into the teaching profession when they are going to be the foil for all of the problems we have in our country. when we ask them to take our

kids who have lies, who hasn't eaten today, who is hungry, who has a domestic violence issue in our family, these people, these children all go before our teachers. and we are going to say that they don't have a right to bargain? a right to come together to say, what size their class is? we are going to pull their pensions from them? this is not right. this is not right. and we need to get back to where we were when my grandfather was around. we realized the world's different and we've got to compete globally, but the issue is are we going to respect work in the united states of america? are we going to respect the workers in the united states of america? while all these fat cats have gotten off scot-free and we turn around and tell the workers in ohio and wisconsin and indiana and the big ten conference, you got to take the hit. it's unfair and it's

disrespectful. and it is not an american value. the speaker pro tempore: members of the gallery are reminded not to show approval or disapproval of any speech that's made on the floor of the house. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares in recess until the hour of 12:00 noon.

it provided substantial amah to the believe that it is on the list as far as a peace offering. i hope that you will personally review the decision that the court has ordered your department to review. finally is the issue of libya.

it may be good policy for us to arm the ben gazi army if they have a functional government. i wonder if you have begun review of the recent u.n. sanctions to make sure that america could legally do that should you decide that to be good policy. if, god forbid, there is a major conflict around tripoli, let's make sure the right side wins. >> madam secretary, without objection, members may have five calendar days to submit questions for the record for the secretary. we hope to get some answers to those important questions. i am pleased to recognize -- >> i ask for unanimous consent to my letter of february 9th be made part of the record. >> the congressman is recognized for five minutes.

>> on the question of libya, i think one of the important resources could leave libya and lesbian americans. -- lybiaibyan americans. some of the observations have had to do with what we did not do in bosnia in terms of jamming their radio stations. i carried legislation on this but we could not get it through. when a dictator is telling them to kill their own people, there's an opportunity given the fact that he is jamming the station anyway. why do not put the assets out to take care of that? one of the things for example

they could do if they were broadcasting would be to do interviews with egyptian soldiers saying why did not shoot for fire on the wrong people. this kind of thinking this is an informational war, is it not? someone in your response to that and wanted to rest briefly in terms of another problem with the l.r.a. to deploy the assets. this is it the low who exists to pillage. -- this is a fellow who converts children into soldiers so we now have passed over the authorization for the plan. i was also going to ask about the implementation of that plan to remove him from the equation. >> i think the ideas that you have offered regarding libya are ones that we're seriously

considering as part of the package of potential actions that are being looked at by both our civilian and military teams. i also think that this is an information were to a great extent. and we have been trying to do is rebuild credibility so that what we had to say would be listened to. i did a web chat with an egyptian website. we give them two days notice and they got 7000 questions. people are really anxious to hear from us. as you rightly point out, they are anxious to hear from each other, like the egyptian soldier idea which i think is a great one. we will follow up and get your feedback. i could not agree more about the horrors of the l.r.a. this is one of the great criminals of the last 50 years to has pillaged, raped,

abducted, killed in every way now in the worst of barbarism. we are very focused on that. you have followed this closely. he has been harder to get them we thought. we have had a lot of support from allies and partners. unfortunately, he has escaped accountability but we will continue to do that and we continue your keeping that in the spotlight. >> i had a last question which went to the request that north korea is making to the administration for food aid. we have had hearings in which a french engineer testified that dave testified that it ended up on the regime. it was the same information we

have also received from the minister of propaganda, i guess you would say, for 50 years, and he defected. one of his former employees had told the press yesterday the same thing he once told us. the "is it, "we must not give up food aid to north career -- the quote was, "we must not give food aid to north korea." ncy andok hard currecny t get it anyway they could. one way they got it was through the financial support they

received. it is wise counsel that we not do that. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> i am glad you agree. thank you, madam chairman. >> the ranking member on the subcommittee on europe and eurasia is recognized for five minutes. >> madam secretary, so great to see. i want to commend you and all the diplomats under your charge for the tremendous efforts of the state department to ensure u.s. security and prosperity in these difficult times. through your skin of advocacy around the world to rebuild -- three your skill and advocacy, you are making an american and the day safer and stronger nation. i also want to thank you. we have within our office a pearson fellow who is a foreign service officer who has done a tremendous job and exemplifies the great people that you have in the foreign service.

there are too many questions to ask and time is limited. i will ask questions later for the record, but before i get to them my also want to preface my statement by an overarching concern with the current budget that has been proposed by the majority. the current administration inherited a geopolitical reality. now that our reputation is being restored and there is such an opportunity for positive change come is this a time that we really want to pull back on supporting critical programs and initiatives? this is more than penny wise and pound foolish but downright dangerous. when you talked earlier in regards to europe, even though they were tightening their belts, they are also putting more money into foreign aid. one of the questions i have is the partnership we have with europe and whether or not we've

and of not holding up our end of the bargain when we talk about foreign aid which -- whether or not we end up holding up our end of the budget. i'm concerned about vulnerable populations that live in the crossfire of conflicts that are not of their own making. we lose in the progress we make to make their lives more secure as a result of our own hemisphere. my question, madam secretary, is since the united states is a leader in the protection of displaced population, what would the budget cut have on the assistance of refugees overseas? how could reducing funding for assistance and programs for displaced populations impact the united states interests in such

areas such as pakistan, afghanistan, iran, and saddam? were the major concerns the department of state has about drastically reducing the assistance to refugees? >> thank you, congressman. thank you for raising their refugee assistance issue. and inited states has been hope will remain the leader in dealing with internally displaced people, refugees, people fleeing from conflict. it has been none of the areas -- one of the areas where we are able to claim that we put our values in the action because we are very on the ground. you have seen the usaid in here know what it means to have experience, development, experts to develop the networks.

this is a particular concern that we be prepared to continue the humanitarian work that undergirds what people know about asunder -- around the world. when we go into the post- disaster situations, the united states brand is front and center. there's that feeling that we should be, so to speak, trumping -- trumpeted in our own horn. if people do not want american aid, if they do not want usaid and our programs to be there helping them, then we will not be there. if they will take us, we will be advertising. it is a big part of what we are doing. when i have found after traveling around the world as a lot of people do not know what we did. they say the chinese are doing this and the saudis are doing

that. and i say we have more money in their than those guys combined and we will get credit for it. it is not only doing the right thing which should be the primary reason, but frankly i want to build america brand again said that when people get food, clean water, shelter, they know where it came from -- the generosity of the american people. this is, for me, a big issue and we are doing even more to try to get that message out so that we can be the leader that i think the american people, with their generosity, won custody. -- want to be. >> the other issue i wanted to raise is the no. distribution network and how it has been for the efforts in afghanistan and what can be done to utilize the network to improve relations more broadly in central asia? with mr. samuel de gunnoe --

samuel vega, we have not connected with a lot of those countries in such a central part of the world. >> thank you so much. i will be giving five minutes to the gentleman of ohio, the chairman of our new subcommittee on the middle east. >> before beginning my questions, let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to keep bemoaning the cuts that we are broke. the only reason this congress is in dealing with the c.r. is because the last congress could not pass a budget for the first time in 34 years and then could not pass appropriations bills to keep the government functioning. that being said, let me begin my first question with libya. madam secretary, it is difficult to look at the initial u.s. response to the unrest in libya and think of any word other than "tepid."

although the administration has suggested the original reaction was tempered in order to prevent parochial hostage situation, such fears did not hinder other nations. the chinese and the british dispatched and employed c-130's. our rented ferry was stuck in part because it could not make the journey across the mediterranean. everything we have learned about the gaddafi regime indicates that their leadership response to force or the threat of force. back in 2003 after looking at the easter which the u.s. military, at least at first dispatch to the iraqi army, they feared that he might be next. his response was to agree to renounce all terrorism and hand over his entire weapons of mass destruction program.

effectively told gaddafi that there'd be a steep price for intervening. why did we not do the same? although we are now repositioning forces off of the libyan coast, our unwillingness to use force has left many around the world pointing to this as a sign of the weakness of american will. what led the administration to believe that threatening force to protect our own citizens would have been provocative? >> congressman, first, let me say other countries do not have the same history with libya that we do. if you look at some of the earlier statements that were coming out from gaddafi and his leadership team, they did not talk about the chinese but the americans. our embassy was overrun in libya in 1979. we feel that we did this in a prudent and effective manner. we did so in a way that did not

raise the alarm bells around the region and the world that we were about to invade for oil. you follow all the websites that are looking at what is happening in the middle east and you see a constant drumbeat that united states is going to invade libya to take over the oil and we cannot let that happen. well, we're not going to do that and we are going to side with the the indian people in their aspirations, but the last thing in the world wanted was to start off with military assets when we effectively got our people have. the seas were high for everyone. i do not agree fundamentally with your assumption and i see no evidence that anyone thinks less of us because we were smart about how we got not only our embassy people but american citizens who were working in libya out safely. as soon as we did, we pivoted very quickly and led the way at

the security camp so, led the way in pushing beyond the rhetoric with the europeans and the others. it is easier to make a speech and harder to target the arms and etc.. i think we handled this in a very effective way and without a single problem for any americans. >> madam secretary, let me move on. i would like to talk about this briefly. during the latest round of negotiations, the iranians were adamant in exercising their right to indigenous and richmond. a recent bipartisan letter reflects the overwhelming view of, this question. it is still unclear what the administration's position on this issue is. the letter cited reports suggesting that the administration is open to an indigenous iranian capability under certain conditions. the so-called einhorn plan would allow iran to maintain 4000

centrifuges. you even went so far to suggest during an interview with the bbc that they have a right to enrichment. article four of the nonproliferation treaty, the source of the iranian claim, is not clear on this point. what is the administration's claim on iran claiming they have a right to and richard program on their soil? does the minister should believe the current regime should be allowed to enrich or reprocessed domestically? >> congressman, it has been our stance that under strict conditions that they be able come sometime in the future have been responded to the international community concerns and irreversibly shutdown their weapons program have such a right under iaea inspection. that is the position along with united states. >> thank you madam secretary. the ranking member of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation.

the reason i interrupt is we have limited time and everyone wants to ask questions. i apologize, madam secretary. >> welcome, secretary clinton for the work that you do. we really appreciate you being the one voice of america and at a time when we really need it. thank you. i want to submit to questions to you in writing, what about our continued work. we had an oversight subcommittee meeting last year and we heard from stored poland. i would like an update on the transition efforts in terms of reconstruction, how the process is going, and i would like to get a written question to you about the ongoing engagement with bosnia for constitutional reforms and the need for u.s. engagement with the eu. i would like to focus my question, really, about the

voices of democracy that are rising across the middle east, north africa, and elsewhere and the need to reevaluate our public diplomacy tools. certainly, is looking beyond our traditional state to state diplomatic efforts and a citizen to citizen diplomacy, the cost effectiveness of that, i was especially reminded of that this past week when i had a bipartisan town hall meeting with congress for -- congresswoman emerson. is to dig him up to me who had studied in cairo the previous year and was continuing to have contact with students and their in cairo and have those types of engagements are so critical in those countries. could you talk about that? >> i agree completely, congressman. if i could double or triple our student exchanges into this region where we have more of our students going to cairo,

tunis, oman, where people are voicing their desire for democracy and more people coming from those regions. we have tried to increase our international visitors program and specialized program, but i'm a big believer in people to people diplomacy and i would like to see us do even more. >> what about the use of new media? >> we are moving rapidly on the use of new media. i have an extraordinary team of young people, as you might expect, who are leading the charge on this. it has totally changed how we are communicating. twitter, facebook, these are in real time. you cannot overlook broadcasting and frankly i wish we doing a better job in our broadcasting efforts. i met with walter isaacson, the new share of the broadcasting

board of governors, al-jazeera, the chinese starting an english- language television network, the russians have started an english-language television network. we should be, by far, the most effective in communicating. social media is very important, but most people get their news and images from television and radio. we cannot forget old media while we try to break ground in new media. >> thank you. finally, i wanted to touch on another issue here. we talk about women's interment worldwide. i have serious concerns about the recently passed c.r., the international gabbro, family planning, and global health assistance. they are similar programs that president george w. bush being so supportive of. can you talk about how this will impact women who are so vital

to development and how it will impact those communities and translate to our economic security? >> thank you, congressman. this is very close to my heart. a woman dies from complications to childbirth every minute. 529,000 every year. we have made a lot of progress, but we have a long way to go. i am worried that the house 2011 budget proposes more than $1 billion in cuts for global health. they'll be denied preventive intervention on malaria. 3500 mothers and 40,000 children under 5, 16,000 of those being newborns, will not have access to child survival intervention. we will have to turn away 4000 people who require treatment against hiv/aids. more than 40,000 children and

family members will be denied treatment for tuberculosis. it will have 18.8 million fewer polio vaccinations and 26.3 million fewer measles vaccinations. that affects us. i woke up this morning and heard about the effort to find some woman wandering around washington with measles. this is not just what we fail to do but how this will affect our health care at home. >> thank you, madame secretary. >> thank you, madam chairman, and welcome, madam secretary. i went to comment first about the demonstrations and the change of government going on in the middle east and mediterranean. i am hopeful, not overly optimistic, because of the long- term history of 1000 years that they do not readily adapt to to liberty. -- true liberty.

the one thing that made the difference is the use of the internet. that is a very positive step and yet governments are strong and that is the first thing they stepped down because the last thing that governments want is information to get out. a lot of people in this country have come to the conclusion that our policy overhaul has been inconsistent that we support the bad guys and the bad guys become our enemies. for instance, we worked with osama bin loudoun -- ladin when he worked with the soviets. we worked with saddam hussein against the iranians. this ushered in an age that now we are dealing with because we have radicals. it goes on and on. now, we have propped up saudi arabia for a long time selling a lot of weapons. 15 of the saudis were part of 9/11 disaster.

and they said our presence there had a lot to do with that. we keep supporting algeria, morocco, yemen, all of these dictators but as soon as it looks like they fall, we are all for democracy, freedom, and against these dictators. i didn't think they understand the people quite understand this. you mentioned in your comments that nothing should be taken off of the table. to me, that is frightening. the previous administration would say that when asking questions about pre-empting nuclear war, first attacks, and it scared the living daylights out of me when nothing is taken off of the table. i dreaded the fact that we might consider military activity in libya. we are flat out broke and we are in all of these countries.

we are bombing pakistan, dealing in yemen. we really do not have total control of iraq and partial control of afghanistan and it goes on and on. the question i have is, is there not a limit to supporting these dictators? i, of course, take a position in the least involvement the better and deal with people in different terms rather than buying our friends. a friend bought is that a friend. a friend coerced by military power, is a friend that breeds resentment. just think of what might happen in the middle east if you swore off all dictators? we supported egypt. $70 billion, a lot of weaponry, and now who knows what kind of friends they will be with israel? there are a lot of weapons here. why would israel not be a lot

better off if we swore off all aid to dictators in that region as a moral position for our national defense and national security? it is a good position for israel. >> congressman, you make a very passionate argument. my response is that the united states, over the course of its entire diplomatic history, has had to make some very difficult decisions. we try to balance what we believe to be in our interest. sometimes come and i would argue most, we get it right. sometimes we do not. taking a job for example. it was in america's interest and israel's interest to support the injured following the camp david accords. 30 years of peace between egypt and israel, albeit not warm and fuzzy, but nevertheless peace, was an essential elements of

israel's ability to develop and continue to strengthen in a very tough neighborhood. the fact that we did have those relationships in egypt made it possible for us to have very frank conversations and prevent what we now see going on in libya. >> may i interrupt? is there no chance in the world that israel may not be better off under these conditions? it seems like they could be worse off with what is happening over there mainly because these dictators will have our weapons and they may well be turned against israel. >> the qualitative military edge that we guarantee israel protect against that. my conversations prefer predictability, stability, do not want vacuums' created that could lead to bad outcomes for them. >> thank you, madam secretary. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> he can continue to watch this house hearing on line on c-

span.org. we will leave this as the house is about to double in four legislative work. members will be considering temporary extensions of federal spending. current authority will run out of friday -- on friday. talks will continue in the house will work on a two-week extension. the senate is working this week on the biggest changes in u.s. patent and trademark lot in decades. the debate continues. they will break for lunch at 12:30 p.m. for the weekly party lunches. senate coverages on c-span2. -- live now to the u.s. house.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, pastor elisa lass ter from here in

washington. the chaplain: let us pray. ever present god, we know you by many names. but most striking, you know us and each person we represent by name and with love. thank you. god, who heals, we pray for the full restoration of representative giffords and for the personal struggles of each person here. remind us that you have the power and desire to heal each wound we carry into this chamber. uniting god, give us the wisdom to understand how to work together for the plight of your people in need. save us from ourselves and surprise us with shared

solutions for the problems your children face. god of all, we represent not only those who have our ear, but those who have no voice. so let us not raise our hands to vote without bowing our hearts to your will. through your love that changes the world, we pray, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stapped stands approved. >> mr. speaker. the speaker: the gentleman from tennessee. >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stand as i proved.

>> mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the pledge allegiance will be led by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, i ask the members and the fellow guests to join me. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek to be recognized? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the speaker: what helps make the

people's house so special is its people. every day the staff members here give their time and energy not just doing the job, but fulfilling the mission of keeping this body closest to the american people. members come and go but some dead cated public servants connect the house's -- dedicated public servant connect the house's history to its future. pat kelly is a shining example of this. like many americans, pat joined the family business right out of college, she went to work for her mother, congresswoman edna kelly, who was the first woman to represent brooklyn. that went on to serve as a legislative assistant for other members of the new york delegation and the rules committee. for more than 30 years now pat has had a bird's eye view of the house as editor of "the daily digest" of the congressional record. the digest d serves as the table of content for each day's

proceedings on the house floor and in all the committees. and pat's job is a daily feat of precision and patience that requires pulling together information from dozens of offices of. and i know all of pat's clears admire her thoughtfulness and attention to detail. today she's retiring after 54 years of service to this institution. it's clear that pat has not merely recorded the house's history, she's been a rich part of it, too. when the house paid tribute to edna kell iny 1998, pat was quoted as saying of her more that she was a great person to emulate. well, let the same be said of pat and may all current and future public servants be inspired by her example. pat, we're sorry to see you go,

on behalf of all the members of the house and staff, thank you for the dedication to this institution and thank you for your service. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california wish to be recognized? i'm sorry, the gentlewoman. ms. pelosi: meeks, i'm pleased to join -- mr. speaker, i'm pleased to join the speaker of the house to honor a commit public servant, a woman of this house, a key thread in the fabric of the congressional staff, who retires today after 54 years of service, pat kelly. 54 years of service. since arriving at the committee staff in 1957, pat kelly has worked behind the scenes on behalf of the american people. never asking for recognition,

never looking for the lime light. the daughter of congresswoman edna kelly, pat said she came to washington because in her words, i just felt the urge to do something. and for more than a half a century, she did far more than her fair share. pat kelly has served many roles on capitol hill. in all she helped members to do their jobs and work tirelessly on issues important to her and critical to our country's future. few issues played a larger role for her than the fight for women's rights. in 1962 she helped her mother pass the first equal pay bill and watched with pride as president john f. kennedy signed it into law. as a legislative aide to former congresswoman martha griffith, pat fought for the equal rights amendment, continuing the march for equality, advancing the cause of justice for all women.

thank you, pat, we're all in your debt. through it all, whether the legislation succeeded or failed, she stood by a simple mantra, it's important for women to be involved. for the past 22 years, she has served as editor of "the house daily digest," tracking committee activities and getting the word out on what's happening on capitol hill. in that role she has noted, i've been through the turnover to republicans and back to democrats and tried to help each and every one of them do their jobs. helping others do their jobs, working in a bipartisan way, this was the essence of pat kelly's career and service. pat kelly's 54 years serving the house of representatives is a reflection of her own dedication to congress and the country. and represents the commitment, devotion to duty and passion for service of all of our congressional staffers. thank you, pat, for giving so

much to the house, for all of your work and fulfilling your promise to do something for all americans. yes, i join the speaker in saying you will be missed. we're sorry that you are leaving. we wish you much success and with deep gratitude, send you our love and best wishes. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas wish to be recognized? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. one of many egregious and punitive parts of obamacare is the burdensome 1099 rule. a paperwork regulation that forces millions of businesses to file a 1099 tax form each time

they spend over $600 per vendor. the national association for self-employed reports that those companies with 10 or fewer employees, their paperwork burden is going to jump from an average of two per year to roughly 27 per year. a whopping 1,250% paperwork increase. main street mom and pop shops don't need the added costs of more regulatory requirements at a time when their efforts are rightly focused on just staying in business. mr. johnson: it's jobs we're protecting, it's time to repeal the 1099 rule right now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to s.con.res. 8, recognizing women serving in the united states armed forces in

which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the time to govern is now. mr. connolly: the reckless continuing resolutions that republicans passed two weeks ago is an abject failure of leadership. in the race for ever-increasing and arbitrary cuts, they demonstrated on a party line vote that they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. moody's anly thic said their approach would cost -- analytic said their approach would cost 800,000 jobs. goldman sachs said it would lower economic growth by 2% and increase unemployment by 1%. even the conservative club called it a mistake, stating, cutting spending is important, but economic growth is even more important. mr. speaker, i ask that all of us, republicans and democrats,

negotiate in good faith in a bipartisan manner to pass a fiscally responsible c.r. that reduces deficits without sacrificing economic growth. the that prioritizes investments in our economy, that support american competitiveness without costing jobs. let's pass a continuing resolution that streds -- spreads the economy and creates jobs for all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee wish to be recognized? >> mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, last tuesday, the top front pages story on "usa today" said gas will soon hit $5 a gallon. if it does it will really slow our recovery and some think it could lead to another recession. it will really hurt the already hurting small towns and rural areas because their people on average have so drive further distances to go to work. environmentalists want gas to go much higher so people will drive less. but if gas goes to $5 a gallon

or even higher, it will hurt a lot of poor and lower income and working people. i know most environmentalists come from very wealthy or upper income families and i know they will say we don't have enough oil to drill our way out of this problem. but if we would at least start producing a ttle more oil, it would be harder for other countries to keep raising their prie prices. president clinton vetoed drilling in anwr in the mid 1990's, stopping a billion more barrels a day from being produced here. when environmental radicals stopped more domestic oil production, it helps foreign energy producers but it really hurts mid am and lower income american -- middle and lower income americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california wish to be recognized? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, congress should be focusing on creating jobs, helping middle class families and lowering the deficit with intelligent spending cuts and i say, with intelligent spending

cuts. but instead we're headed towards a devastating government shutdown. policy experts from across the political spectrum all agree, the republican budget will result in more job losses, i state, more job losses, and more suffering of our families. senator mccain's chief economic advisor estimates that the republican budget will lead to 7,000 jobs being lost, 7,000 jobs being lost, even wall street firms, the golden -- the goldman sachs say the budget plan will cause our economy to shrink by 2%. in my district teachers, police officers, firefighters who are set to lose their jobs deserve better. i say they deserve better. mr. baca: the time to play politics with our budget is over. i urge my republican friends to break free from the extremists in their party, let's work together, let's work together on a reap real plan to create jobs and -- real job to create plan

-- a real plan to create jobs and strengthen our economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the life and legacy of . frank buckles. inspired for his love of his country and the desire to serve, frank entered the army at age 16. he served in england and france during the world war, first as a car and ambulance driver and later as an escort for returning german p.o.w.'s. during world war ii he was held as a prisoner of war for 39 months. he has been recognized as a true american patriot and awarded numerous medals. i've met frank on several occasions and he's a constituent of my district and was always inspired by his sense of humility and hope. he represents the very best of this country, service, determination and patriotism. he has lived through some of the most historic events in our american history from the great

depression to two world wars, to the invention of the internet, reminding us of the immense progress yet change that we have seen in this nation. for years frank has dedicated his life to ensuring his fellow dough boys receive proper recognition. i hope this congress will honor the legacy of frank buckles and the legacy of all those who fought in the war to end all wars by paying tribute to them with a national memorial. let frank's legacy remind us of the service and sacrifice all veterans make in the name of protecting america and all for which she stands. our thoughts and prayers go to the buckles family. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california wish to be recognized? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized, one minute. ms. chu: so be it. that's what republicans are saying to 700,000 american workers who will be needless casualties of their gutting and slashing funding bill. so be it, that's the republican

attitude to a government shut down if they don't force more cuts destroying more jobs. so be it, that's the republican message to one out of every 11 americans struggling to find work. the g.o.p. continuing resolution does nothing to create jobs. in fact, it takes a step backward, weakening our economic recovery. of course i shouldn't be surprised, over the last eight weeks since the republicans took over control of the house, they haven't created a single job. what's worse, they haven't even put a single jobs will on the house floor. -- bill on the house floor. while republicans say, so be it, i say stop the war on working families and show me the jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the chair must remind all members not to wear a communiquive badge -- a commune -- communicative

badge. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california wish to be recognized? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: jobs, jobs, jobs. that's what people back home want. jobs. everybody i know wants a job. people stand in line, they want a job. and so now we are at this cru shall deadline. and the republicans want to shut down the government -- concurrent resolution deadline. and the republicans want to shut down the -- crucial deadline and the republicans want to shut down the government. their strategic this year is to gut everything, anything. 700,000 jobs. 800,000 jobs. depends who you are talking to. if you are talking to the moody's person, it's 700,000. if you are talking to the economic institute, it's 800,000. so while they concentrate on eliminating jobs, i believe most

of us here, democrats, are working hard to understand what's an investment. how do we help people to get their next job? where do they get their education? where do they get their training? how about building the high-speed rail, for example, in california to create jobs? i think republicans need to get back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan wish to be recognized? without objection, is recognized for one minute. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. while today we are debating on how we can address public needs with fewer and fewer public dollars, i'm here to bring good news on how this congress, this past congress invested or tax dollars to help save jobs. the new general motors that i proudly represent recently announce add new financial milestone -- announced a new

financial milestone. four consecutive quarters of profitablity. that's not only good for g.m.'s shareholders, but also for its employees, the majority of whom will receive profit sharing of over $4,000 each. what that shows is that when this congress works with our president to invest in u.s. manufacturing, that helps all of us to make it in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island wish to be recognized? without objection, you are recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: i rise today with serious concerns about the lack of a true jobs plan from the republican majority as we seek to tackle our spending challenges. as the race continues to find the next deepous cut, just who are the real losers? it seems to me the hardest hit. it's middle class families, our children, our seniors, our students, and women. this war on working families must end. our people are our greatest

asset. in order to move our country out of this recession, we must invest in their success. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are moving forward with yet another dangerous spending bill. one that continues to give rewards to the most successful among us and literally guts the initiatives most meaningful to middle class families. the work of reducing our deficit and controlling spending is no doubt hard. the fact of the matter is that we have to cut spending, but we have to do it responsibly. as we seek to make a compromise this week, let's remember that we cannot cut what makes us competitive or helps us innovate, succeed in the global economy, and ultimately create jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky wish to be recognized? mr. yarmuth: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yarmuth: mr. speaker, the 1% of americans now control 1/3 of our nation's income. 120% more than 0 years ago. c.e.o.'s now earn hundreds of times what the average worker

does. wall street profits are up 720%. this 2007. and corporate taxes are at their lowest point since the 1950's. all things considered the wealthiest americans are doing pretty well. much better than the rest of the country, in fact. so you'd think after all these gains the superrich, a handful of americans who control fully a third of our economy would understandably be asked to help as we try to bring our fiscal house back into order. but the republicans' spending plan does none of this. it puts the burden ever cuts solely on the showed -- of cuts solely on the shoulders of working families. those already struggling to make ends meet. the republican plan spares the richest americans even the slightest inconvenience. they have proposed to slash the budgets for programs that help seniors heat their homes, help low-income women find a doctor, and help millions of americans student access job training or affordable college and health care. this is a reckless plan. we need to reject it and make this economy work for everyone. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut wish to be recognized? without objection, you are recognized for one minute. mr. himes: mr. speaker, there are smart cuts and dumb cuts. the majority's continuing resolution the reception it has received suggested it's full of dumb cuts. been rejected by pretty much everybody. but there's something worse than a dumb cut. that's a counterproductive cut. in a misguided effort to reduce the number of abortions in this country, the republican majority zeroed out title 10 funding for planned parenthood. planned parenthood office is down the hall from my congressional office in bridge port. i seen women coming in there mainly to learn about birth control. to be responsible about their reproductive lives. to be test f tested -- to be tested for s.t.d.'s. there are estimates, 3% of planned parenthood activities are abortion. there are estimates zeroing out

title 10 will cost 400,000 more abortions in this country. that's counterproductive. it's wrong. and i would urge this house to reject a very bad idea. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from cro wish to be recognized? mr. polis: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise today in solidarity with the people of various arab countries that have risen up to throw off the yoke of tyranny that has oppressed them for too long. now is the time for us to let our idealism trump our cynicism. a time for hope not fear. i understand that there are people who are worried about the real pol lick of how developments might lead to changes in the world, must most americans, mr. speaker, have deep and unabiding sympathy for any who have democratic aspirations across the world. we support as a country the aspirations of all people to be

heard in their government. the only just government is one that governs by the consent of the governed. and for too long, mr. speaker, too many arabs and too many people across the world have suffered under unresponsive and tyrannical leaders and now is a time for hope to change that and create a new middle east to better support democratic values. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california wish to be recognized? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. i recently surveyed my constituents and asked them what they thought i should spend my time on in 2011. no surprise, they said jobs. create jobs. 15 million americans without work today. what does the republican continuing resolution do? it is going to add another 700,000 jobs lost in america. by mark zahndy, the fine

economist who was the advisor to john mccain when he was running for president, 700,000 jobs. why would they do this? you got to scratch your head. the reason why they want to do this is because they only win if the economy is down, if there are more jobs lost. so their whole approach is not to be americans but to be republicans. i say republicans join us in being americans first. let's create a job seeking engine. let's create jobs in this country. not take them away. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york wish to be recognized? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. weiner: a democracy is not beautiful ed -- edifices or words on paper, a democracy, its foundation is the people. today we pay tribute on the retirement of pat kelly. someone who has really helped our democracy thrive. for 54 years she has been one of

the people that anonymously and without much fanfare has made sure that this democracy, whose very foundation is the longest continually maintained journal in the world, kept running. she did it as a proud daughter of brooklyn and she comes from a truly patriotic family. her mother was a member of congress, minority leader pointed out, her grandfather, william kelly, was the postmaster general of brooklyn, and i was proud to kind of make quasy association with pat when i was in the city council and i got some funds to fix up kelly's playground, where so many of us enjoyed brooklyn. it really is true that many of us as members of congress widely come through here, we cast our votes, we give our speeches, and it's easy for us to forget this democracy is not about us, it's about the participation of citizenry and of course the hard work of so many people that make this institution so grand. pat kelly is such a person. she is an institution under to

herself. she will be missed -- unto herself. she will be missed around here but she will not be forgotten. we'll remember her for her charm, smile, grace, and the way with which she did her job. so to her family, the entire kelly family, from all of the people from her home of brooklyn, i want to say to her congratulations on her retirement. she will be missed. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida wish to be recognized? without objection, you are recognized for one minute. >> thank you. a two-week extension to fund the government may prevent a shutdown, but it will not change the fact that a serious choice lies before this congress. mr. deutch: will 2011 be a year which we continue to grow our economy? a year that builds on the overone million private sector jobs create -- over one million private sector jobs created in 2010? or remembered as a year extremists ignored the warnings

of world class economists at goldman sachs and moody's and allow our economy to shrink by over 700,000 jobs? will 2011 be a year you which we prepare america's children to compete in a global economy or will it be the year that right wing extremists in congress defy common sense, cutting pell grants, blaming teachers for the deficit and punishing struggling school districts across america for a financial crisis they did not cause? in two weeks these choices will once again come before this congress. i implore the republican leadership to seize this opportunity not for partisan gain but for america's gain. let's reduce the deficit in a way that does not jeopardize our recovery and make 2011 a year we move forward instead of backwards. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek to be recognized? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, when i returned to illinois last week i talked to

my constituents and the refrain i heard over and over was their frustration and concern about the pain they are feeling at the gas pump. it's not just hurting them, it's threatening and the damage our economy, it's already a weak economy, and it's damaging it even worse. at this moment the average cost of a gallon of gas in my home state of illinois is over $3.a. more than -- $3.50. more than 10 cents higher than the average. this is seasonably high hitter americans hard. and threatening our economy's tenuous recovery. it's clear the congress must act to protect our constituents from even higher gas prices by expanding our nation's domestic energies production. more energies production here at home would not only reduce the cost of gas, putting money back in the wallets of every americans, it would create the kind of good-paying jobs that so many people need and will help get our economy running again. mr. hultgren: creating jobs, saving our constituents money, helping our economy. these should be bipartisan goals

and we can achieve them by expanding american energy production. i hope we can come together to accomplish these goals in these weeks and months ahead. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia wish to be recognized? >> i call up house resolution 115 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 11, house resolution 115, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the joint resolution, house joint resolution 44, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. the joint resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening

motion -- except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member, and, two, one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. >> thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from colorado, mr. polis, pending which time i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, house resolution 115 provides a closed rule for consideration of h.j.res. 44. mr. woodall: this bill would fund the government through march 18 and reduce federal spending by $4 billion over the remainder of the fiscal year. the mease cuts $2.7 billion in

earmarks from energy and water, labor h.h.s., transportation and h.u.d., homeland security, but most importantly this measure averts the government shutdown and allows the senate time to continue to consider h.r. 1, the bill that we successfully passed in this chamber just one week ago. mr. speaker, on that bill we had roughly 50 hours of debate from both sides of the aisle, debate that ran late into the night, that allowed the house to work its will for the first time in a long time. and the end result was that continuing resolution, h.r. 1, that now sits idly in the senate. this resolution today, this rule today, which i urge members to strongly support, will allow for the two-weeks extension of federal -- two-week extension for the federal funding, to allow the senate time to seriously consider this bill, again, h.r. 1, the first bill in a long time on which the house

has had a chance to work its will. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. four days. in four days the federal government will run out of money. we must ask ourselves, how did we get into this dire situation where we are four days away from critical federal services being closed and our federal government being unable to meet its obligations? today we're raising the clock to avoid this -- racing the clock to avoid this shutdown, in large part because we've squandered the last two weeks arguing h.r. 1. a bill that contained some cut ises -- cuts so extreme it had no chance of being passed into law and left other areas of the budget that both sides generally agree to be need cut untouched. h.r. 1 also had every bit of social legislation, from the

republican majority, including gutting the ability of e.p.a. to protect our air and our water, defunding planned parenthood and family planning so, that it had a threat of a presidential veto and faces no realistic prospects of passage in the senate. so rather than working with democrats in the house and senate to craft a real long-term c.r., they would preserve th gains of our economy, invest in our future, republicans have squandered the past few weeks, to pass their out of touch and unrealistic spending bill that would prove devastating to our economy, our safety, our health and our values. their draconian spending bill would degree de-industry to 700,000 jobs -- would destroy 700,000 jobs. and as goldman sachs said, their long-term c.r. would stall the economic recovery and reduce u.s. economic growth. in fact, just this morning more than 300 economists from across the country warned against the

massive g.o.p. spending bill stating that, as economists, we believe it is short-sighted to make budget cuts that eliminate necessary investments in our human capital, our infrastructure and the next generation of scientific and technological advances. these cuts threaten our economic -- our economy's long-term competitiveness. mr. speaker, today's continuing resolution meets our shared goal of preventing a federal government shutdown. but at what cost and for how long? we are committed to reducing the deficit, beginning with an aggressive attack on waste, fraud and abuse. every member of this body owes it to our constituents to responsibly cut spending and balance the budget without sacrificing jobs or weakening our economy. time and time again the republican leadership has told us that we want to proceed in an open and transparent fashion and yet here we are again, facing another closed rule. shutting down amendments from both sides and stifling the legislative process and good

cost-cutting ideas from both sides of the aisle. in fact, yesterday in rules committee my colleagues took a party line vote to block a amendment for the -- by the top ranking member on the appropriations committee, mr. dicks. mr. dicks' amendment would have cut more fund thans the republican bill and at the same time restored funds for education programs. in the spirit of the you are jept need for cost cutting and balancing the deficit, i think this body should consider ideas from both sides of the table and allow a rule that allows for discussion of the dicks amendment and other ideas to cut costs even further than this c.r. allows. this c.r. may succeed in keeping the government open from march 5 through march 18 which we all agree is necessary, but we also all know that two weeks is not nearly enough time to negotiate a long-term solution to the enormous spending challenges we face. especially when the constitution guarantees the president 10 of those days to decide whether or not weather to sign or veto the

bill. the other side has discussed at the end of last session the need to have stability with regard to what kind of taxes people and businesses can expect over time. and at end of last session we passed a bill that set predictability for two years so people and businesses know what their taxes will be. well, the other side that have coin is we need predictability and stability around appropriations and the general activities of government. it is stifling to the economy and stifling to job creation for people to be uncertain as to whether the largest enterprise in our country, the federal government, will or won't be solvent in four days' time. this is my third year in congress and already the fourth time i've managed to rule on a short-term c.r. the shortened timeline set out by this c.r. sets a devastating shutdown crisis every two weeks. that will bring legislating to a stand still, impede hopes of a long-term economic growth and create enormous overhang on the markets because of this great

uncertainty that is of our own creation. we are also undermining through this c.r., mr. speaker, investments in our own future. take the cuts to literacy programs, for example. building an excellent public education system that ensures that each and every child has the opportunity to succeed is the most important investment that we can make in our nation's future and developing our human capital which helps keep america competitive. this is an investment that i've spent much of my life to support and achieve on a state board of education, as a founder of a charter school and now here in congress. what we see now, however, from the proposed short-term c.r. is the elimination of the striving readers fund which supports literacy for students from preschool through 12th grade. with american students reading scores stagnating for the past 30 years, this proposal makes no sense. striving readers is the only targeted federal literacy funding for preschool through 12th grade and particularly in a time of state and local budget cuts, these resources are more

important than ever. now, we can agree that striving readers should be improved. in fact, i'm working along with congressman yarmuth to provide the learn act which would ensure that teachers and students have innovative strategies and data back tools to improve reading and writing. and the administration's proposal to build on the progress of the striving readers program. president obama said in his state of the union address, it's not just about how we cut, but what we cut. republicans have mistakenly claimed that the administration also wants to eliminate striving readers but they neglect to mention that the administration's 2012 budget proposes instead to revise and improve striding readers. the goal is not to reduce and eliminate federal support for literacy, it is to consolidate and make more efficient federal support for literacy. to strengthen literacy performance expectations, scale up innovative methods of teaching reading, writing and language arts. in fact, nearly all states, 44,

have applied for the first $10 million in striving readers allocation that was available and have developed state literacy plans as a result. my home state of colorado has been awarded $150,000 for these important projects. literacy is the foundation of learning. it's the gateway to other content ars that are increasingly important in the global society, like science and magget, destroying the foundation of literacy is cutting off our nation's own legs. education is an investment in our future. by putting the rug out from under our schools and children, republicans seem willing to sacrifice our future prospects as a nation. education is how america can reclaim our edge in job creation, bring jobs back to our shores, become better business leaders and provide a livable wage for working families. we all agree that cuts must be made. but as the romans said, may the buyer beware. by agreeing to cuts in repeated short-term c.r.'s, we run the

risk of opening the door to a spending agenda that arbitrarily cutler kills jobs, hurts our communities, completely undermines education reform and we do nothing to promote the stability, the stability of the federal government that markets require to allow businesses to thrive and grow. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume to say to my friend, i could not agree with him more. we must ask ourselves, how did we get here? how did we get here? i've been on the job for 60 days but the fiscal year began back on october 1 of 2010. how did we get here? we got here because the work of the people's house didn't get done last year. and i regret that and candidly i'm not sure how. i hear so many folks talk about the partisanship and the partisanship in washington, d.c., and people can't get things done because of partisanship. but of course last year

democrats controlled the house, the senate and the presidency and yet we still sit here today without a budget. without the appropriations that the speaker knows weeed for the government to continue its operations. how did we get here? i don't know. but i know this. nobody elected me in november to come up here and point the finger of blame. they elected me to work with my friend to clean up this mess. irrespective of how we got here, we have to move forward. i have so to say, because i was at home, mr. speaker, for the past week with my constituents, working through these very same issues that we're talking about today, and the question i www.over and over and over again is, that's a great start, but let's do more. that's a great start, but let's do more. getting started is what's so hard. it's hard to get started. over and over again we heard -- we have heard our friends on both sides of the aisle say, you know this program, it can be fixed.

it can be fixed. i wonder if we'll have a day here where we can start from a blank sheet. just a blank sheet. and say, what is it that's worth borrowing from our children for? what is it that is worth increasing our children's credit card balance for? what is it that's worth mortgaging our children's future for? let me say to my friend, because i know he has a great passion for education and it's a passion that i very much respect, i have the great fortune of coming from a part of the world called georgia, we were recipient of the prize for the single best urban education school district in america. we made the finalists two years ago but last year we won. and we won in spite of federal government intervention, not because of it. in spite of it. we won because as a community we got together back in 1996 and said, there's a better way, what

can we do to enable our children to succeed better? we were doing standardized testing in the county before standardized testing was in voge. because with we knew we had to have a way to measure. we knew we had to have a way to sort out what works and what doesn't. folks we need some that have standardized testing here on capitol hill. what works and what doesn't? thrr a lot of things not working. not overwhelm do we need to get the bad out of the budget, we've got to decide that we are going to choose between good and good. between good and good because every school group i spoke to over our district workweek is a school group whose future -- from whose future we are borrowing. whose future we are mortgaging. over and over and over again. it has to be said that the house worked its will in an unprecedented fashion, an

unprecedented fashion. mr. speaker, i don't say that lightly. i mean never, never before in modern times has the house worked its will on a continuing appropriations bill the way it did last week. i don't care whose fault it is. i don't care why we couldn't get it done last october. i don't care why we couldn't get it done in november. i don't care why we couldn't get it done in december. what i care about is we have an opportunity to get it done and we did that last wk. and the house worked its will and we had some winners and losers. i voted for a number of amendments that failed. i didn't get everything i wanted in that bill. i know my friend from colorado didn't get everything he wanted in that bill. but the house worked its will, mr. speaker, with unprecedented openness. and h.r. 1 was the result. i asked my staff to call over to the senate before i came down here. i wanted to find out exactly how much debate the senate had been putting in on h.r. 1. we debated it for almost 50 hours. went through the night on a

couple nights. wanted to make sure the entire house had an opportunity to be involved in that. my staff tells me, mr. speaker, not a moment, not a moment. i hear the sense of urgency from my friend from colorado that we had to take action. this is no way to run a government. i think he's right. i think he's right. i have think cleaning up this mess means passing a single continuing resolution to get us through to the end of the fiscal year. for pete's sakes the appropriations committee is already taking testimony to get us into the 2012 budget cycle. this is left over work that simply didn't get done last congress. not one second has been spent on the senate side, mr. speaker. from what my staff tells me. not one second has been spent considering a bill on which the entire united states house of representatives works its will. a bill that was the only open process that this house has seen on a continuing resolution. a bill that allowed members from both sides of the aisle to come down here to the house floor and represent their constituents back home by doing exactly what

my friend from colorado is suggesting, trying to make good cuts. trying to make those things, present those things on the house floor that make the most sense to folks back home. mr. speaker, we are where we are. no one wants the senate to act expeditiously on the work of the people's house more than i do. given that not one moment has been dedicated to that, we have to come down here and fund the government one more time. it's the responsible thing to do. it's the responsible thing to do. the better thing to do would be to act on h.r. 1, which the house passed last week with the support of this -- the members here in this body. but now we have to come down here and extend, just for two weeks, to giver us time to finish those negotiations with the senate side. if that's not enough time, i suspect we'll be back down here again. my friend from colorado and i will be down here in this same well doing this same thing, but it's no way to run the government. it's no way to run the

government. this is just what we have to do while we wait on the senate to take up that bill on which the house worked its will last week. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. polis: i yield myself 30 seconds. the gentleman from georgia said let us do more to save money. and yet this rule shuts down the process and doesn't allow amendments from the minority, including one by mr. dicks, that saved over $1 billion and would have reduced the deficit by over $500 million. yet again through this closed rule we are unable to do more thanks to this restrictive rule by the republican majority. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: i rise in opposition to the rule and underlying bill. house joint resolution 44. this bill is just another part of the reckless republican no-jobs agenda. instead of focusing on creating jobs, republicans are trying to cut nearly one million jobs across the country. republicans have been in control

of the house for two months. they have been in control of the house for now more than two months and they failed to bring up a single bill to create a single job. i mean they haven't done just a poor job. they haven't done anything. and this bill is just the mini version of a larger republican drive to -- that america -- across america to -- that america's finally rerepresentative-elect jd -- reject add week ago. i'm against starting a short-term cuts, short-term c.r.'s that results in a bleed of the american middle class. speaker boehner stated earlier this week before the national religious broadcasters convention, he says, if they don't eat the whole loaf one at a time, he said of democrats, we'll make them eat it one slice at a time. this is what this c.r., this short-term c.r. is all about. one slice at a time. with the goal of making -- shoving a whole loaf down the

throat of the american people. the american people don't want the republican layoff. they want jobs. let's be clear. the bill before us today is just one more battle in this fight, in this battle to keep american jobs. it's the same job cut that republicans passed a week ago. just a two-week version of it. the republicans' reckless so be it attitude on spending destroys jobs and threaten america's economy. so you don't have to take my word for it. all you have to do is read the report, released by chief economist at moody's, mark zahndy, if you want to know about the republican no jobs agenda, c.r., which would cut 700,000 jobs by year-end if they make us eat one slice at a time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. ellison: 700,000 jobs by the year-end of 2012 and reduce real

economic growth. let me quote economist mark zahndy directly. while long-term government spending restraint is vital and laying out a credible path toward that restraint is very desirable, too much cutting too soon will be counterproductive. the economy is adding about 100,000, 150,000 jobs a month. and until that number reaches about 200,000 on a monthly basis, quote, imposing additional government cuts before this has happened would be -- hurt the recovery. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: to put these cuts in perspective, because again we have to get started somewhere. there's not going to be a speaker that stands up here today that doesn't speak out in favor of fiscal restraint. the question is, when do we start and how much do we do?

now, to put this bill in perspective, the bill that's before us today, the continuing resolution to fund for two weeks, adds about $4 billion in cuts in it, compare that to the bill we passed last week, with $100 billion in cuts. put that $100 billion in cuts in perspective. let's take the average american family. who has to go out and buy their groceries. 31-day grocery bill. what we are asking of the american people is knowing that you've got to go out and buy 31 day's worth of groceries, let's cut one day out. we are going to tell you now, but we are going to cut one day out and we need you to stretch your 30 day's worth of groceries into 31. mr. speaker, that doesn't seem that draconian. it doesn't seem draconian at all. it seems like what american families are doing over and over and over again in the recession that we have been battling. when we talk about these jobs

numbers, these are the same jobs numbers that folks say, if only you put your children in debt to the tune of another $1.5 trillion, we'll get unemployment down under 8%. same economists who said, if you can work the first year, but what the second year, we put you in debt to the tune of $1.6 trillion in addition to the $1.5, in addition to the $1.3 trillion the year before. then we'll get unemployment back down under 8%. mr. speaker, those jobs didn't materialize because the federal government can't create jobs. we can destroy jobs. we can and we do. but we can't create jobs. our young entrepreneurs create those jobs. 8 -- jobs. the business owners and our communities create those jobs. we destroy jobs, but we cannot create jobs. and that's what this continuing resolution is a recognition of, mr. speaker. the government can absolutely get out of the way.

can absolutely get out of the way. we are not going to hear today about the number of jobs that will be lost if the e.p.a. continues to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant and hamstrings the american economy in a way that no other economy on this planet is hamstrung. we are not going to hear those jobs numbers. h.r. 1 resolved that. we have to get started somewhere. we have to get started somewhere. mr. speaker, i take no pride of authorship. i'm just a participant in h.r. 1 as it passed the house. as the house work its will, as democrat amendments passed and republican amendments passed. i wished we had been governing the right way and it had been done back on october 1. when we passed that continuing resolution, it's unclear to me why there was no open process then. we passed the second one in december, third one in december again. the openness that this house had seen in this 112th congress is

unprecedented, absolutely unprecedented. i know my friend from colorado is a strong supporter of c.b.o. and the work that c.b.o. does. i couldn't agree with him more. when mr. dicks came before the committee last night with an amendment that would put even more -- cut even more, as someone who believes we need to cut more, i was incredibly enthusiastic about that. my understanding was c.b.o. hadn't had a chance to score that amendment. there was no scoring to be had. so we couldn't tell whether or not this was going to cut or whether this was going to add or how the spend rates were going to sort themselves out because it came at the last minute. but what didn't come at the last minute was the opportunity for the minority to offer a substitute. the speaker reached out to the minority to say if you are interested in offering the same continuing resolution that you offered before that was going to freeze funding, we have heard that word a lot, mr. speaker, let's just freeze things. we don't want to cut anything. we don't want to be draconian, but if you want to offer that as

a substitute, the majority would have absolutely made that in order. absolutely made that in order. so the house could work its will. but my understanding is that offer was turned down and folks were not interested in offering that. i would have been a proud no vote on that substitute, but i still believe as the gentleman from colorado said, openness in the process yields to a better result. which brings me full circle, mr. speaker, h.r. 1. the single continuing resolution that's had more openness in the process than any other continuing resolution that this house has ever considered. and it led to the best process and it led to the best outcome. and that is the bill that sits in the united states senate aid -- today that could be acted on today that would fund the gft and provide the certainty -- fund the government and provide the certainty we need today for the end of the fiscal year on september 30. so when we are talking about certainty, and i absolutely believe that our economy needs certainty, and it's the

government creating the uncertainty, we are creating the uncertainty, we have historically created the uncertainty, we have the opportunity with h.r. 1 to eliminate that uncertainty for the rest of the fiscal year, to get back to doing what this house always should have been doing, which is considering appropriations bills under regular order and i hope my friends on the democratic side of the aisle are throwing down that gauntlet today. saying it's not easy to lead. it's not easy to move bills through regular order. i want that opportunity to try. i want an opportunity to do it the right way. and if we can move h.r. 1 across the senate, through the senate on to the president's desk, we can then come together with the same kind of open process that we began two weeks ago to consider all of the appropriations bills and make the priorities that this house chooses to make priorities, not last congress, not two congresses ago, not president obama in his first year, not president bush in his last term, but this house today, together,

what are our priorities? as soon as we move this continuing resolution behind us, mr. speaker, we can begin to focus on those priorities which is where the true work of the house is intended to be. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pallone: thank you. i like the gentleman from georgia, he's a nice guy. i have to say that his story about what actually happened here is not exactly accurate. the fact of the matter is when the democrats were in charge in the last congress, we did have an omnibus appropriations bill, but it was the senate republicans that refused to provide the votes. as you know you need a supermajority in the senate. then he talked about how he was glad to be home last week. i was glad to be home last week, too. and i got a lot of input. we should have been working here and not moving up so perilously close to these deadlines where the government could shut down. and i think -- my fear is we are going to be kicking the can down

the road every two weeks, every two weeks facing another possible government shutdown. as the gentleman from colorado said, that creates economic uncertainty. it's not good for the economy. i just wanted to comment on the gentleman from georgia, i was glad i finally heard him use the word jobs. and talk about jobs. because that's the problem here. this h.r. 1, that he talks about, we know is going to destroy jobs. various accounts, 700,000, 800,000 jobs. . not just because the government isn't paying for the jobs but beant it doesn't invest in the future. if you liven to what president obama said in his state of the union address, he said, the government has a rule. the gentleman from georgia says the government should get out of the way. i don't agree with that. we need to make wise investments in our future, in our education program, which this cuts, in our research and development for the future, in infrastructure so that we can have roads and

highways and mass transit so that commerce can continue and we can grow the economy. that's what's wrong with h.r. 1 and this larger bill that the republicans have put forward. and of course the senate can't take up the bill the way it is. because they nope it will destroy jobs and cripple the economy. so what i ask is to my republican colleagues, go out there, sit down with the senate democrats, sit down with the house democrats, don't just say, take it or leave this bill that we know has such draconian cuts and doesn't do anything to invest in america's future. we can't continue down this road. we've got to work together. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. to associate myself with the gentleman from new jersey's comments. we absolutely have to work together and it's a great source of pride for me that i've only been on the job 60 days and we've already seen more working together than this house has allowed in the past four years combined. understand that.

understand that as we're working on this appropriations bill. as we're working through this appropriations process. that two weeks ago you saw more openness and working together in this chamber, right here, right here in the people's house, more working together than you had seen in the previous four years combined. can we do more? i say to the gentleman from new jersey, i think we can. and i look forward to being a partner in making that happen. but to say that what is sitting on the desk in the senate is the product of take it or leave it legislating could not be further from the truth. it's the furthest from take it or leave it legislating, that the house has seen in four years. arguably it's the furthest thing from take it or leave it legislation that the house has seen on continuing appropriations bills in modern time. and so when we talk about where we are and where we're going, we have to ask that question of,

why are we characterizing this as a process that's broken? why are we characterizing h.r. 1 as something that doesn't work? why isn't h.r. 1 the very best, the very best ven the makeup of this house, given our collective intellect and wisdom, why isn't h.r. 19 very best that we could do? because when the process is open and everyone gets to participate it ought to bring out our very best. i'll say to the gentleman from new jersey, he has some of the lowest gas prices until the country. and i enjoy traveling through his great state every time i go through, not only do i get full service gasoline, i get it from the best prices in the country. gas prices are up 25 cents a gallon where i come from. 25 cents a gallon in the past 10 days. we have economic crises in this country, we have economic challenges in this country, but spending more government

resources is not the answer. we have about a $15 trillion economy, even with a $3.5 trillion federal budget, the federal player is small, small. 8.5 cents of every dollar in education in georgia comes from federal government. the rest comes from exactly where you'd expect it to come from. local communities and state governments. we have to get the government out of the way and if you're worried about uncertainty as i am, if you share our concern about uncertainty, then let's pass h.r. 1. let's be done, let's be done with this two weeks, four weeks, six weeks, 12 weeks, let's get it through the end of the year, let's finish the job that we should have gotten done last year, let's put it behind us and start that new, open process again. and it's one that i look forward to joining my colleagues in. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i yield myself 30 seconds briefly to respond.

h.r. 1 cannot be looked as an a serious budget document. now, it's not about the cuts, $61 billion, $70 billion, we can come to a number that we can come to a number that we can agree and by the way you can't