feelings that we have to get real about our energy utilization. the notion that if we dreamed this country dry of our petroleum reserves that it is going to make any difference on gas prices this summer, and next summer, the year after that, i think it is a pipe dream. we only have 2% of the world's proven reserves of petroleum. a smart person would not drain them as quickly as possible, even if it did effect the global price. the majority of the benefit would go to the chinese or the japanese of the europeans, not to us. you can make all sorts of jobs with infrastructure and energy facilities. there is a reason there has not

been a nuclear plant built in the united states in 30 years. wall street does not want to ensure them -- insure them. they think it is risky. look at what is going on in japan right now for some of the questions. i think we would get a lot further a lot faster by moving away from our hopeless addiction to petroleum, that we deal with alternative energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, of which are american sources where there are a lot of jobs to be created. and it is not going to be something that puts us at risk. we will continue to develop our petroleum, but the notion that we train it dry and charge royalties that are lower than almost anyone else in the

world, and most of the states are giving this oil away -- i think we need every set on that. the petroleum that will be precious. be off to conserve it. we ought to deal with conservative -- alternatives and be more effective with the infrastructure which means we're not so heavily depended. it is insane to burn a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk. >> ladies and gentlemen, please join me in thanking the congressmen. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up next, the house rules committee meets to discuss

the procedures for house floor debate on a temporary 2011 spending bill which comes up tomorrow. then president obama asked congress to rework no child left behind. later, a discussion on federal lobbying regulations. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal," our live call-in program about the news of the day, connecting you with elected officials, policymakers, and journalists. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house, and on weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forums. also supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. on saturdays, "the communicators," and on sundays, "newsmakers," "q&a," and prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. you can also watch our programming any time at c-span.org, and it is all searchable at our c-span video library. c-span -- washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies.

>> with the current short-term spending resolution set to expire on march 18, the house will vote tomorrow on a short- term spending measure that will cut spending. earlier the house rules committee met to discuss the procedures for that debate. it is chaired by congressman david dreier. we will also hear from harold rogers. >> i want to say that we are here for a measure allowing for further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, h.r. 48. my good friend and classmate, the distinguishing chair on appropriations, much older and

more senior than night, he is here as well. we think both of you for the tremendous efforts you have put into this and it is always an honor to have the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations committee appear before the rules committee. gentlemen, let me say that without objection, in a prepared statement you have will appear in the record in its entirety. we welcome your summary. >> thank you for your service and its committees in service. mr. chairman, ranking member slaughter, members of the rules committee, we are here to present h.j. res 48. we like the traditional rule on the cr to allow for time consideration and passage so that we will avoid a shutdown. it is my hope that with prompt

passage we will provide the necessary time to complete negotiations on a bill for the rest of this fiscal year. on a short-term measure, it is not the preferable way to fund the government. it is essential to maintain that critical programs and services that the american people rely on for three weeks until congress comes to a final agreement on the remainder of this fiscal year. while keeping the government running until april 8, this legislation does make $6 billion in spending cuts, $2 billion for every week of funding. within this cr, 25 programs have been reduced or terminated, saving the american people $3.5 billion. an additional $2.6 billion in earmarked account funding has been eliminated. many of these reductions and terminations have been supported by president obama in his annual budget request, as well as

members of the senate. this cr is the third bill that the appropriations bill has produced this year that will reduce spending significantly. it continues a trend of cuts that will put a dent in our massive an unsustainable deficit, and with the passage of this bill and the passage of the two-week cr previous to it, a total of $10 billion will be cut on spending which would make it the largest precision in the history of the congress. given the realities of our debt, the short time frame for action, and the fact that many of these cuts have received bipartisan support in both houses as well as the white house, i anticipate swift passage of the bill so that we can continue negotiations on a final agreement to complete the budget process for fiscal 2011

and moved on to the important work for next year. we're nearly halfway through the current fiscal year, and it is high time we complete this long over -- long-overdue work left to us by the previous majority. >> thank you, mr. rogers. >> we are here to consider a role for h.j. res 48. it continues to april 8. it reduces spending into doubt 11 by $45 billion below the federal -- the president's request. it adds another $6 billion in common ground spending reduction. in total it cuts $51 billion below the president's request. the idea behind a relief extension is to provide an opportunity for the house, the senate, and the white house to settle all outstanding issues on 2011 appropriations. i am hopeful negotiations will succeed. working under a continuing resolution, facing the possibility of shut down every

two or three weeks is not the best way to proceed. i regret we are before you once again, mr. chairman, discussing another temporary funding measure that once again includes cuts that must be implemented in the 6.5 months that remains before the next fiscal year begins. again, i'm still concerned about the economic impact of these cuts, but i think this cr has to be enacted. >> thank you. i think both of you and i think it is -- we have at this ongoing debate on the issue -- the impact of on job creation. un die on on -- you and i are on different sides of that. economic growth is the goal that we all share. you may be sorry to be here. i am sorry you have to be here. but it is always nice to see both of you.

>> welcome to both of you. it is good to see you again. we do not want to make a habit of doing this, i am sure. here we go. >> we want to do our regular appropriations bill for 2012. >> i think that will be -- it would be very well come when you do that, normal. congratulations on your new job. you're working with chairman rogers on this and such a fourth white way. chairman rogers, it has been a question over the last few days about this $105 billion of obamacare sitting out there. is that in 2011? would that be covered in any way under this measure? >> those are authorizations. in order to get at them, we cannot do this on appropriations. unless or until the authorizing

committee paves the way for us. those are authorizations. not subject to the appropriations committee. >> so that $100 million is in 2011? i was led to believe they were over a series of years. that we are not addressing. >> the $105 billion? as i understand it, in the obamacare bill itself, now law, there are different events that take place in the future that triggers spending. by the authorization of appropriations committee. in h.r. 1 that we passed in the house three or four weeks ago, the big continuing resolution for the rest of the year, there

are provisions in that bill that does cut off obamacare funding for 2011. >> so the hundred billion -- if i said million, i meant billion -- of the $105 billion, it is simply not in the appropriations, simply in the authorization is moving forward. >> and it is over a course of time. >> which is what i was trying to get out. 14 billions for 1920. >> if the congress passes h.r. 1 and the president signs it into law, 2011 funding for obamacare would be a terminated. >> do you know the status of that bill? >> we passed in the house by a substantial margin. we sent it to the senate for

them to give us their -- they have not done that yet. we are still waiting for the senate to lay a bill on the table. they did reject both h.r. 1 and a bill that there appropriations committee released. >> the house is on record saying that we want to in a majority vote defund all of obamacare for release 2011. we have already done that. >> we are waiting for the senate. after you negotiate -- and >> it is an interesting proposition. >> you are negotiating, are you not? >> conversations are going on. >> you indicated to me that you are negotiating by yourself. i do not know that to be true.

there were votes on both bills, the house and senate bill went down. as did h.r. 1. not enough votes for either one of them. like anyone else here, i do not like funding the united states government in the two-week or three-week intervals. but i do want to be careful that we do not cut things to the bone. there are a lot of things in here that concern me. i a understand that we have to get on with it and everyone on my side seems to have signed off on this. but we would like to have an open rule. we would like to be able to attach some things to here, but i do not think that is going to happen either. let me be the third to welcome the to be back to committee. >> mr. chairman, if i could take a moment to mr. sessions, his

question about the $105 billion in the obamacare budget, but me give you the prepared statement that i think sums it up better than i have. h.r. 1 terminated all discretionary funding for obamacare. the bill that passed the house. every dollar for obamacare that was available for the committee and the house to eliminate was swept up and taken out for both the underlying bill and for multiple amendments that occurred on the floor. in the other spending for obamacare is mandatary. but the jurisdiction of the appropriations committee. therefore it cannot be addressed through cr's or any other appropriations bills. it is up to the authorizing committees to do what they can to address the mandatory spending and remove the remaining taxpayer funds for this job killing law.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to be no. 4 to say thank you very much to both of you, as i expressed to you on the floor last week. i know both of you have been working extraordinarily hard this session in working on the continuing resolution. i think it bears repeating several times that what you're doing, mr. rogers, in your comments, and perhaps in a lower voice, that basically what we are doing now is repairing what was not done last year. because our colleagues across the aisle did not pass the appropriations bill last year, we are doing our best to keep the government running.

i think that for many americans, they cannot quite understand that. we use terms like cr and assume everyone understands that. but it is the continuing of what we were funding for the year 2010. i think it is extremely important that we point that out. we've not gotten into the appropriations process, as mr. dicks said, for next year, because we are consumed by taking care of this. and there were votes on the legislation we sent to the senate, and there was a vote on the senate, there's a $6 billion, and ours was $51 billion. my understanding is that the house bill got two more votes in the senate bill.

i do think again that it is important to explain that everything -- everything you could do, the appropriations committee, to cut the funding for what we call obamacare has been done. >> that is correct. >> i think that needs to be said over and over again. >> i said it over and over again. [laughter] i hope i am not boring people with saying it. but you are absolutely correct. the reason we are here is that last year, when the democrats controlled the house, they did not pass a single appropriations bill out of the 12. we came to january when the republicans took over in the house and the democrats had passed a continuing resolution to continue the government until march 4. >> from october 1 to march 4.

simply because they had not passed any appropriations bill. they passed this catchall bill to keep us going until march 4. we came into power, if you will, with that laying on our lap. so we have been trying to keep the government going, even while we are trying to cut this exorbitant spending. and that is why we are here. >> the other point, you mentioned discretionary and mandatory spending. appropriations and authorizations. those are terms we throw around here that we think people know. but mandatory spending is something congress established many years ago, when congress did not want dealing with how to appropriate money to certain programs, and they are just on automatic pilot. i think most people do not

understand that. a huge segment of what we spend is on automatic pilot. >> 67% is automatic pilot. we appropriate maybe 33% at most, and more than half of that is the fence. so where were left with roughly 50% that we are cutting from. >> the other thing that should be pointed out is that there will be under consideration in various subcommittees, moving some of the spending for obamacare in them mandatory category 2 discretionary categories. >> the gentle lady is absolutely correct. we have begun to hear some of this, some 60 subcommittee hearings in all 12 subcommittees. and during the 2012 process,

heading into next year's bills, efforts will be made to take out the obamacare spending for next year, the ones that we can that are appropriated, and then those funds in that bill fed go off automatically by the law in years to come, if we can convert those mandatory requirements in the law to where they are subject to annual appropriations, then we can this appropriate those. -- disappropriate does. >> we have voted on a bill to repeal obamacare. we have done that. we have voted to take out all the funding for obamacare that is in discretionary funding. >> that legally we can do. >> we have a plan to move money

that is in the mandatory cat a carry into discretionary so that we can cut that next year. so basically, under the rules with which we operate in the congress, we have done everything we know to do up to this point, and we are planning to do more in the future to defund the program. >> the gentle lady has said better than i have. >> if i could just make a comment. they're still the senate that has to pass these things, and the president has to sign it into the law. i appreciate all the self- congratulation here, but the chances of this becoming law are to minimus at best, and i think it is time to focus on trying to work this thing out, getting an agreement on 2011, and start working on 2012. let's do our job and not fantasize about what you're going to do on obamacare. >> mr. dicks, thank you so much.

thank you for pointing out that the house, the republicans in the majority in the house, are not the majority of all over washington. there are other people affecting this. i would like to say, mr. chairman, there is a group of young women from the republican education network, their first time to be the rules committee, and then they are going to see votes. they are from all over the country and i have not identified exactly where. no, no. [laughter] but i did want to point out that one of the great-niece of one of our colleagues is here, from ohio. >> he was a member of the appropriations committee and chaired a subcommittee. the interior subcommittee.

we miss him and please him -- give him our best and thank you for being here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [laughter] >> he believed in earmarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome both of you back to the committee. it is interesting to reflect on the speeches we have heard. i agree with mr. dicks that we need to get down to business and deal with reality and not fantasy. it is incredible to me to have so many of my friends on the other side take lead in the potential thought of cutting health care programs that would provide people health care. >> for 36 million americans. >> maybe that is where they think the majority of the american people are. i do not believe that.

i also find it somewhat 'sfensive tthat the president name gets denigrated the way that it does, as if obamacare is a swear word, it tried to provide millions of people health care. i hope very much that you do not succeed in cutting benefits to people. because health care it is not a job killer. it will actually help create jobs and save money in the long term. the other thing is -- >> it was like $257 billion over the next 10 years. it would be saved by having this law stay in place. >> i appreciate the fact that we need to figure out to get the government operating for the next few weeks.

but this is the thiscr. you had h.r. 1, usa cr passed for two weeks. at some point, you have to take responsibility and is on your watch. >> if you would yield, that is because your party did not pass any of the 12 appropriations bills for this year. >> as you know, we could have done a long-term agreement, but we had republicans in the senate refused to cooperate. the deal right now is that you can only blame last year some many times. this is your third time up to bat. i hope it is the last, but i will not best house on that. -- that the house on that. would you passed in h.r. 1, it is so extreme that you even had some of your own party decide in the other body, who are somewhat

uncomfortable with that. at some point, we need to cut a deal with reality and try to get a long-term bill passed. >> if you would talk to your colleagues in the other body. tell them to lay up offer on the table. >> i just came back from my district, mayors and city managers, they cannot plan for this year. you talk about jobs, we cannot implement what we thought we had for this year. they are worried about the computing -- community block grant money, programs that quite frankly provide greater opportunities in cities and towns all across the country. they are not sure whether h.r. 1 israel, and whether or not it will be some kind of compromise. this drip of consent -- of continuing resolutions, it is a disincentive for job creation back home. i just hope that this is it.

and we can blame last year's congress all we want, but the fact is, it is on your watch now. this is the third time. >> we passed the bill, we made an offer. >> it was so extreme, there was no chance of it passing. >> but we cannot talk if you do not put something on the table. >> you are talking with the senate and my hope is that there will be some agreement that there be more moderation underside -- on your side. the other thing that people complain about h.r. 1, did anyone in congress to an impact -- a hearing on the impact of this? in the answer is no. it put a bill together and brought it to the floor, without any will talk to what the

implications of some of these cuts would be. >> we debated that bill for four days, 600 amendments. you were part of it. >> and some of these important issues were debated for 10 minutes. the free fall we have on the house floor, it is not a substitute for lawful committee hearings -- thought full committee hearings. i would not call that process awful in my opinion. -- thoughtful in my opinion. this is your third time here and at some point, you're going have to take responsibility for whether we move forward or do not. >> of the last quarter years, we had an 84% increase in non- defense discretionary spending which played a big role in the

outcome. >> if the gentleman will yield, the question is that people back home, when the proposed cuts to the national institutes of health, does anyone know what that means? >> if i could reclaim my time, the gentleman knows that no one is proposing cuts and the national institutes of health. when you have an 84% increase in non-defense discretionary spending we've had doubling of the hnih. >> i would argue that research creates jobs. as well helps deal with terrible problems of people are dealing with right now. >> can i reclaim my time? thank you. >> that bp #62 help -- thank you

hear and they hope not come back without a 2012 budget. -- let me the no. 6 welcome you here, and hope you do not come back with that 2012 budget. i also object to the use of the term obamacare. obamacare is not either pejorative or a complement of term, just a term of art similar to reaganomics or the bush tax cuts. if it was considered to be derogatory, it would mean the underlying bill would have to be derogatory. that was the ruling that we have on the floor at that time, and it is appropriate and we build into terms what we want to, but it does not necessarily have to be in that particular way. we appreciate you being here. hopefully when we see you again, hopefully there is a new

appropriations bill in your hands. >> i did the camp. it was 11 republicans that said obamacare, and to democrats. i am the third democrat to say it. while i agree with mr. bishop with regard to the petard of nature of matters of this kind, predict pejorative nature of this town, the way that it is intended by my colleagues when they say it is almost as if it is something nasty. and i for one would wonder what did you call what the health care program in america was before the democrats and house and represented in the united states senate passed a measure that took all much too rigid all too much time in my judgment and did not go nearly as far as it needs to go? what kind of care was it then?

what kind of care will it be when you do that paring back that you wish to assert, and wherever you take us backwards, and i guess it will be obamacare lite at that point, because he will still be in office with the people you are offering up to run against him. [laughter] very troubling, mr. rogers, but the cuts that are proposed for this continuing appropriations amendment, the third in this series, due include seven substantial measures. if they went to one, $150 million for the funding of the agricultural research service's, including a $44 million

reduction of salaries. and a $71 million reduction and building maintenance. as several of us in congress represent rural and urban areas in our districts, it is passing strange to me that we do not understand that the agricultural research services are going to have to recalculate based on this cut. somebody is going to lose their job. it is fine for us to set up here with jobs and put stocks on paper that is going to cost people jobs in these rough economic times. mr. dicks, you said you are concerned about the potential -- i have added the word potential -- economic harm.

what economic card to you perceive happening? no hyperbole, no exaggeration, no democrat-republican span -- just how many jobs will be lost by the best estimate, but lowest number, of people who will lose their jobs based on what our colleagues on the other side are proposing? >> there is a range of opinion. mark zandi says 400,000 jobs. former economic adviser to mccain. $700,000 next year. the economic research institute says 500,000, goldman sachs says it can go up to 2.4 million jobs lost, and those are the three that are most talked about. going to have're

a lot of government jobs lost, but also, a countercyclical impacts to these cuts. with all due respect to the chairman, and i have great respect for the chairman, had we not done the stimulus, unemployment today would probably be 11.5% to 12%. the stimulus help to drive down the unemployment rate. what you want to do is very noble. you want to reduce the deficit and you want to create jobs and restore the economy. i just worry that by cutting this much spending at this sensitive time in the recovery that it will have a negative effect and to adjust the opposite of what you are talking about. -- and do just the opposite of what you're talking about. >> in response, we had this discussion before.

the only correction our offer, when you say every economist. i cited john taylor of stanford university who is undersecretary of the treasury for international policy, a completely different view, one which i respect greatly on this. >> on the floor, we had six other stanford -- >> and you had a letters and the signatures. and we had a similar letter provided, not quite as many, 150 economist. >> i could reclaim my time for both of you. let me say in advance, some of these proposals -- i disagree with president obama. what needs to happen in this congress and this white house and especially the other body is that people need to sit down and recognize that in this country, there is an enormous amount of

pain were people are suffering, and we are up here babbling about " we felt are going to be doing. we all need to be locked up up here until someone comes out with some solutions. and there are solutions here. among them are to be reasonable week as other as we go forward in figure out where we are with an economic recovery. i do not need to have a master's degree or phd in economics to recognize that if we're getting ready to cause a number of people, on top of the other people out of work, to be out of work, and if gasoline prices continue to rise, and health care prices continue to rise, and wages are going to have a race to the bottom, then it does not take a lot to recognize that what we are doing is just hot air. and i had one more thing i wanted to say. until we address medicare and

medicaid and social security, all of this is periphery and we ought to be busy ourselves dealing with that. there is an enormous crisis that we just saw. i heard one of the most sensible japanese women, she was asked, what will you do to recover? and she said, we will recover because we are a community. and we will pay the taxes necessary to recover. rich and poor alike, and until this nation is prepared to do that, then we will go around and around and spiral down. >> what worries me the most in this are programs for women and infant care. we know that a poor woman who gets nutrition as a healthier baby. we spend $26 billion each year

for premature babies that hospitals have to take care of the care for, which affects medicare, medicaid, every single program, and yet we're going to cut us single -- a significant amount of money out of women and infant care. those kind of programs, head start, pell grants for these young people when they go to college, they are being reduced. we can do this in a more thoughtful way. the first round is the rogers amendment, which i thought was, it was tough but it did not take this to an extreme position. we have to find some middle ground here and save some of these important programs that will wind up hurting the poorest of the poor, and the president should be ashamed of offering up the community services block grant programs. >> i will not take more time if

you would permit me to yield. >> i was trying to make the point when i was cut off -- people need to understand that sometimes through investment, you actually reduce costs in other areas. the national institutes for health, you find a cure for alzheimer's disease, and the problem in medicare will never be an issue again. diabetes, a cure for cancer -- that is where we need to invest our money. if we can prevent human misery and be able to provide more funding for these programs, and cutting wic? i think that as heartless. i think the gentleman for yielding. >> a lot of the education programs are fundamental. >> you all are my favorite team

so far this year. it is true. we have developed a better relationship. >> every monday we are here. >> [unintelligible] >> and i talk to folks back home about the relationship. i tell the story that i saw you the first time when people were complaining they could not get their amendments made in order. you said, come to me because we ought to have a chance to talk about this on the house floor. we should talk about on the house floor and do something about it. that made a big impression on me at the time. >> i was not chairman last year. >> absolutely.

and as a fellow who was not here at all, i am troubled by some of the back-and-forth about that. we do need to take responsibility. i am proud of the responsibility we have taken. there has not been a single easy and that -- decision that your committee has been asked to pay this year. not one. you can correct me if i am wrong, chairman rogers. i have not heard anyone on the appropriations committee said that they are not going to do it. we will sit on the sidelines and pass it on. people got down to work on day one. and when you needed more, and you got back to work again and again. i am glad you're in talks with someone on the senate side, chairman rogers, and i don't know if you know how you can spur that process along. the body has not passed the bill yet. >> you have to ask the house leadership to engage, the senate

leadership to engage, and the white house to engage. that have to sit down in the room and work this out. >> is that fair, chairman rogers? president obama presented his 2012 budget as required by law. the senate -- we passed h.r. 1 to get this through the end of 2011 in the senate has done nothing. nothing last year, nothing this year. how do you work with that? >> what if the house said, you would do we're not one to pass a bill. -- we are not going to pass a bill. you have to have something to go to conference with to do business. the senate is just refusing to act. frankly the white house has not been engaged fully in the process either. we are determined on our side of

the aisle not to have a shut down. >> good. >> we want this government to continue. we need to get a fair and reasonable funding for the balance of this year, so we will not have to shut down the government. i wish the other side would have the same mission. >> mr. dicks, in the expectation that the democratic leadership on the senate will pass a bill of any kind? >> had some point, the speaker, the president, and the majority leader will have to get in the room and come up with a number and then mr. rogers, and i hope one of bipartisan basis, can backfill the numbers to do the least damage to the country and we will have a vote. it is going to have to be a compromise. it will not be all of one. it has to be somewhere between

where the houses and with the senate is. we did cut $40 billion in the cr from the pet project from the president's budget request. we should get a little credit for that. and then we have added $4 billion and then the $6 billion, and we are at $51 billion, half way there. i think some compromise is going to have to be in order. >> that $40 billion from december is in the cbo baseline? >> we are $40 billion but below the president's budget request for 2011. >> that $40 billion with the $3 billion --

$4,000,000,000.1705031750 dollars, when we talk about 2012 and you talk about 2012, will those dollars and spending reductions be in a new base line? will they continue in perpetuity? >> just for the purposes of the cr. >> whatever we come up with as a funding level for 2011, that becomes the base line. >> all of these cuts have to be imposed in the last 6.5 months -- now last six months -- of the year. they will be painful. >> if we zero out a congressional office of bob woodall, will that continue into 2012-2013-to doesn't 14? -- does that continue into 2014?

does it get assumed s.a. 0 in the cbo baseline? >> 0 until someone appropriates money for. a $6're talking about billion spending reduction today. is there a 10-year dollar value on that? what it is saving in interest costs and programs assumed to be zeroed out? just three weeks. thinking about reality and not fantasy, the reality is that there were folks set up. to do some of these tough decisions. -- sent up here to do some of these tough decisions. particularly talking about community, i could not agree with you more. i believe that we have robbed

the communities in our districts with a nanny state, a state the says, do not worry about your neighbor, we will take care of them from washington, d.c. it steals dignity from those in need to be taken care of and those who should be doing the caretaking. >> mr. woodall, would you yield to me? that meet try to properly put a question to your answer about the baseline. the cr is temporary, a temporary number. for 2012, whenever congress passes a budget resolution and passes that big spending number for the appropriations committee, we will then the by that that number among the 12 subcommittees. -- the bite -- divide that

number of among the 12 subcommittees and that becomes a base line. >> is the budget line starting from the 2011 request, from the cr past in december, from the pine cr that we passed here? what is the starting point? >> the president's budget is a recommendation to congress. the budget resolution, if passed, that lays out the parameters. >> and that becomes binding on us. >> there is not been an easy decision that came across your desk. i do not expect 2012 to contain the any easy decisions either. i have come to appreciate the way that you of work together to help me understand this process. >> it looks like we are

successfully eliminating some of the bonds that were designated for earmarks in several agencies, agriculture, commerce, science, interior. why are we not eliminating earmarks in defense? >> i assume -- well. this bill does not deal with defense. h.r. 1, a separate title, we report titles in the bill and defense was one separate title. we plucked from last year's omnibus appropriations bill, the defense portion of it. that bill never passed, but we took the provisions from that bill and drop them into h.r. 1.

that deals entirely with defense. >> no appropriations for defense in that bill? this bill does not have any appropriations for defense? >> it is a continuing resolution so it continues at the 2010 level. h.r. 1 is what i was talking about. this extends h.r. 143 weeks. -- h.r. 1 for three weeks. >> all i am saying is that this is a continuing resolution. it deals with the entire government. but it is at the 2010 numbers. we did a separate defense bill which was put into h.r. 1 and we all want to see it enacted as part of the final agreement. that is where they will go.

and the earmarks, the money for the year march, they will probably come out of that. >> in the defense component of h.r. 1, you have saved money by eliminating defense earmarks, is that correct? >> we cut by $3 billion. i would have to consult on the numbers. >> there may be some more there. that would help in the end game to get to a number that as a compromise number. >> there will be no earmarks in whatever we do. >> there are earmarks and what we were asked to vote on this week. we are continuing defense earmarks. >> they are not executing in the of the earmarks. >> they are delaying those. >> in this three-week

continuation, we've veto are all earmarks -- earmarks are stricken in this bill. >> from several agencies. >> in agriculture, commerce, justice, science, interior -- >> defense is not listed on that list. >> that is a separate title in h.r. 1. this is a continuation of the conversation about h.r. 1. >> you can say that for any of the different areas, but it does actually eliminate the earmarks in the listed categories. >> for three weeks. >> and it also continues those categories with earmarked for defense. >> we took $15 billion out of

defense and the $40 billion that we did in the original cr. obama say, from the budget request, that was mr. young denied last year, we agreed to that with senators. >> there is a provision in h.r. one that says all previous earmarks have no effect. if you want to see the language, i have it. >> we are then looking at in the final budget deal, including something along those lines were all of the prior earmarks are removed, -- where all of the private -- previous year march are removed. -- previous year marks are removed. >> that is a possibility. >> and the money would be used

for other purposes. thank you, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i echo our thanks for you being here. when you look back in history, particularly back at what occurred or did not occur last year with regard to what to do what got us in this predicament, this cr, my bigger concern is, where are we going to be as it relates to -- we do not want to be coming back. i am sure you do not want to keep coming back. it is not that we do not like it, which is not like to see you coming back every two or three weeks. the issue is much bigger. you had issues with regard to the fiscal year 2012 budget to get to where we need to go. i agree with you, mr. dicks, that the speaker and the leader

over in the senate and the president need to sit down and walk out of our room and come to an agreement regards to where we need to be, on this year's cr. by now the gnashing of teeth, hitting each other against each other with regard to what program is more important than the next, but at the end of the day, we are struggling with the fact that we have to cut dollars currently being spent or are allocated to be spent in the upcoming budget. >> i hope that we can look it will we do -- look at what we do, because we have an extraordinary step, and on some of these extensive programs with the outcome, i hope we can take care of some of these things like wic. i cannot imagine cutting the

program. >> the president recommended it. >> as i said, sometimes the president makes mistakes, too. this is one of the most important programs there is. you want to spend $26 billion a year on premature babies, we're going have to pay the bill, pay me now or pay me later. i would rather take care of a poor woman and let her and adequate food when she is president -- pregnant, so she has a healthy baby. >> i do appreciate your comments and your passion with regard to what you are speaking up. there are faces behind all of these issues. but i have not heard a good solution yet as to how we're going to cut, because every program, i would say, every program you could stand and defend. there is no doubt in my mind. but how we get to the point

where we actually cut spending? every spending program, there is a program attached to it. we have to make tough decisions, and the problem my say it see in the past is that there has been no decision making and it has been -- and the problems i have seen in the past is that there have been no decision making. we have to take responsibility. the discussions we are having are serious discussions. the implications are serious. but we did not get elected to make the easy decisions. anybody could do that. we have been elected to make tough decisions, realizing there are tough consequences associated with them. if there were not coming anybody could do this. -- if there were not, anybody could do this. >> people want to see us get

together and work out an agreement. that is what they want to say. the polls are overwhelming on that. they want to see us work this out. and you will get that, i get that. we need to work this out. >> if you would yield back. we are singing to the choir on some of this because we're working with two other portions of government that do not see it this way. don't see it this way. so how do you get them to the table? i think that sooner or later the issues as it relates to continuing crs is going to become anssue that forces us to come to the table, forces those that are resisting the opportunities to make cuts in government and cuts in spending, it's going t force them to come and actually have legitimate discussions in regardso working with folks like

yourself. yes, sir. >> if the gentleman would allow me to respond. >> absolutely. >> the house is at the table. >> i agree. >> we passed our bill. we've laid it on our table. we're sitting at the table waiting to negotiate to try to get this over with and not close the government down. the other side is not at the table. they won't come up with a paper to lay on the table and say, here's what we think. so we're sitting there waiting for the senate to come to the table and the white house and say, let's talk. we're ready to talk. fact, we're talking our ears off and it's to an empty room. >> i agree. it's like going to a dance without a date. it's hard to have a dance. >> there may be more going on than people realize. >> i yield my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the question i keep asking myself is, where are we even having this conversation? the reason we're having tis conversation is because last month we had the greatest deficit in the history of this country, $223 billion.

why are we here? because over the last four years an 84% increase is about $594 billion of additional spending so here we sit having a conversation about $6 billion. having a conversation about finding a way to fix a short-term and long-term cr the truth of the matter is, we've got to get serious about cutting spending and until we get there, we'll continue to have these conversations about a small part of the overall process. and i continue to hear the conversation around benefits for those millions of americans who need benefits. i don't disagree with that fact, that there are millions of americans that need benefits. i do disagree with the funding recommendations of those benefits. when we continue to take money from unborn americans in an attempt to provide benefits to the folks today, hence a $223 billion deficit, when do we finally realize that we are now taking awaybenefits from the next generation of americans?

unless with we get serious about taking a look at being financial responsible, we will never return to financial sanity. >> gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. appreciate it. we are always happy to see you, even though he we hope you don't have to make too many visits and we anxiously look forward to the full appropriations pross. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> tha concludes the hearing for consideration of hres-48 and we will distribute the rule now.

>> before we consider the rule itself, we would like to now consider the views and estimates on the president's proposed budg for fiscal year 2012 and the chair will be in receipt of a motio >> mr. chairman, i move that the committee adopt the views and estimates on the president's fy 2012 budget and authorize its transmission to the committee on the budget. >> you've heard the motion of the gentleman. any discussion? if not, the vote occurs. the motion is agreed to. now we'll proceed to consideration of hj res-48. >> mr. chairman, amid the committee grant hj res-48, the rule provides for one-hour debate equally divided control by the chair and ranking minority mber on the committee on appropriations. rule waves all points of order against consideration of the

joint resolution. provides that the joint resolution shall b considered as read. finally, the joint resolution provides one motion to recommit. >> you've heard the motion of the gentleman. any discussion? >> mr. chairman, i move the members have opportunity to offer amendments to this resolution and so we could have at least one truly open rule in this congress. >> i thank the gentleman for his very thoughtful amendment. if there's no further discussion, i'll urge my colleagues to vote no so we can move this matter expeditiously so the conversations can continue. the nos have it. the clerk ll call the roll. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no >> no. >> no. >> mr. mcgovern? >> aye.

>> mr. hastings? aye. >> mr. chairman? >> no. and the clerk will report the total. the motion is not agreed to. rther amendment ss? mr. sessions, those in favor say aye. the motion is agreed to. mr. wood all -- oh, you'd like a roll call on that? clerk will call the roll. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aey. >> aey of of of of of >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. and the clerk report the total. the tion is agreed to accordingly t gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall will be naging for the majority. and mr. mcgovern for the minority. let me just say to members we'll be meeting at 3:00 tomorrow afternoon for consideration on the two financial services

members. yes, tomorrow at 3:00. >> what do we think about for wednesday? >> i'm not sure yet. we don't have a time set, but we have announced further legislation for the week and we'll look forward to letting you know when we're going to have a meeting. without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [ recess ]

they may never have heard that person. but the honest -- this is for the media to track this. again, no problems with the media, but let's not present for to pretend that there that there had to be a quid pro quo. even if i could give them money, why can i just be good at my job? i'm not giving hundreds of thousands of jobs. i am low rent when it comes to that. i am not buying anything. i'm going to fund riser like

everyone else with 30 or 40 of my closest friends who were spending the same amount of money. i am not buying that vote. i would just leave it at that. >> on contacts being reported. the lobbyists know exactly what they're doing. if the lobbyist is going to the meeting to ask for substantive help on a nation, they know that, their clients know that, that is how they build their clients. it is not that difficult to figure out why you're going up to the hill. if you are asking a member of congress to join you in a basketball game, that is not a substantive issue, asking for government help. paul will not build any of his clients for saying, hey, come to a basketball game.

as take this seriously. lobbyists know what they are asking for. i do not think it will be that burdensome for them to figure out what meetings are substantive. for recordingsg of chance encounters and the hall. it is a substantive request for government action. and that is already in the law. the issued, made in terms of how these meetings can be used against you, everyone has to report, he balance out the issues. when i was on the hill, i took meetings with everyone who wanted one. it that all have to be reported, then that accuses the heat. -- if they all have to be reported, then that the pieces -- diffuses the heat.

we have the meeting for a boring for the public for the media. that is how the public gets its information. that is important. that is what transparency is about. it is also for interest groups. the contract their interests, who is meeting with whom, and leveling the playing field, balancing the playing field so that all sides of the issue can be disclosed. >> do you want to weigh in on this? >> i am curious about the argument from the lobbying perspective that it is too much to keep track of, too complicated. these are by and large law firms. a lot of law firms do lobbying, and then specialized lobbying firms. i am quite sure that they

require -- that their clients want to know exactly what you're doing for your money. you're keeping track of it anyway, aren't you? i am understanding that part of the argument, been too much work. to him what about the small one- person shop? i could be running around and not having time to add another 30 minutes or 15 minutes to track this and write this down. >> 30 minutes? >> if i am on the hill, i do not use my cell phone on that. how have to carry a personal computer or go back to the office when i want to go home. if we're going to go that far, what you do with what i call it -- professional fly-gen. they're not registered lobbyist but they are asking for something. do we require them to register because they do what i am doing,

just on a daily basis. maybe they do it once a quarter, but they are doing what i do. they are asking for just what i am asking for. if they know what i am doing, why shouldn't i know what they're doing? >> i would agree with that. closing at 20% loophole and ensuring that everyone has to be part of the report. i completely agree. >> just about everybody in america would have to register. you would have to have people cancelled but fly-in dates. they are not professional lobbyists. >> i think, addressed this particular point. >> it still retains a monetary threshold. but me get back. corporations, trade associations, and most lobbying

firms, that to retain, do not -- i have practiced law for 27 years. you're absolutely right. every law firm keeps every six or 15 minutes of time. including who, how, and when. we have tried time reporting. i see a few of my colleagues smiling and the office from the american bar association. it does add a great deal of time and is often unclear to us -- we know who we are talking to but the issues often milled in terms of a lot of the work that we do is prepare a tory, -- preparatory. when the aba president comes into town, we try to take her

and him to meet up with chairman of committees, because we provide support for some of that. i know you would not believe that -- we go on a fair amount of visits where there is not a request for any official action. are they important? yes. are they wasting time? absolutely not. do they support the lobbying objectives? i sure hope so. should they report on the system? they should not become a but i think the noise level would be high when every lobbyist is reporting every contact that despite your terrific computers and wonderful reports, the ability to extract really useful information out of this is going to be not worth the investment. >> if i could ask of follow-up, and this is a crazy flipping of

the script. what if you put that the other way and the burden is on the member's office, the committee's office? >> what you will see and what we saw in 2007 when members of congress, that would shut themselves off from us. if they have to do paperwork, they just not going to meet you. a lot of people were told we are not going to meet with you, you are a registered lobbyist. is that good for our government and our system, i do not think so. >> hollen to come at this from a different perspective. -- i want to come at this from a different perspective. let's talk about the side of being made available " we have now. -- what we have now. you were talking about id's, a terrible term which basically

means whether the person you're talking about is the same person. can you talk more about that and the problems you're currently phasing in trying to track the data currently exists? >> in our data, we are trying that fingerprints 3 million records each year. a large part of that has to do with the individual donations, giving more than $200. we also do id lobbyist because we want to see whether those lobbyists are working on specific issues and then that is contributing to members of their jurisdiction. that is one kind of match up. unique ideas would help tremendously. , so wete unique id's

can see that they -- who they represented in previous years. a double standard research and of our kinds of data. -- it helps with research and with other types of data. that would help us identify how many lobbyists have been registered as would the addition of a check box, another simple disclosure reform that would be seen to be common sense, that could be put into place now. and it would help us examine whether perform policies are having intended or unintended effects. a special with the obama administration's changes, we

have invested an enormous amount of time in doing that. >> the way things exist right now, the whale things work now, paul's son miles these, not all. -- hails these -- files these, not paul. you have to go through and look at each one to make sure it is the same person. >> we do not have any id provided by the secretary's office. >> but they do have the unique id. >> an easy way to do this, maybe every lobbyist should have his

own identification number significant file every time you file your l the eighth form, you have to put that in the box next your name. -- your lda form, you have to put that in the box next year name. i can use paul miller or paul a. miller. if they file the next quarter as paul miller, i am the same person but you may have a hard time. i don't think that many in this profession would care if we had a unique identifier, just another box that you have to check again. if you do it electronically, it will stay there quarterly quarterly -- from quarter to quarter. i may be one of a handful in this town that believes -- i've always been concerned that there is no real requirement to be a lobbyist of the that you find of

a client to support you, you hang up your shingle, and you thought your reports. we have one program that we were very proud of but i say, it is probably unconstitutional but maybe we should be licensed. lawyers will tell me it's unconstitutional but i would support something like that. and that is my own position. >> the aba lobbying report has a special section on a unique idea of paris. -- unique identifiers. i feel very apprehensive about summarizing, but you need basically three things, to make two lobbying contacts with a federal official, spent 20% of your time lobbying, and what i hear from all three of you is that the 20% threshold, i hear

different ways, but that may not make sense. i hear from you, paul, that there are people doing the support work. they are simply not caught in the lobbying system. the aba lobbying task force is approaching this. and i will start with for lisa. -- a tough question for lisa. a lot folks who are the non- profit lobbying firms, or you have the one or two person lobbying firm like it your firm. but for-profit folks, representing corporations and deep pockets, should they be treated the same as the others,

getting rid of the 20% entirely or just some sort of threshold? >> a lot of concern that lobbyists have with removing the 20% threshold comes as a result of some of the punitive actions that the obama administration -- we will not hire a lobbyist and lobbyists cannot serve on boards we are different than the for-profit guys or the big guys. we should not have this punitive treatment. and i would say that from my perspective, i don't want the in the position of picking and choosing who should be and who should not. compared to someone else, a small firm, that person could have more influence and access than another person. i don't think it is fair to in

terms of disclosure break it up that way. i would personally rather see punitive issues imposed on lobbyist by the obama administration, if they do not want them serving in the administration, use a different definition to define who those people are. you should not use the disclosure regime which this in essence is, to say, you cannot work for me or serve on this committee. i do not think we should pick and choose who has to disclose and who should not. i think it opens up the door for a lot of loopholes as well. there ways that lobbyists could gain the system. -- game the system. and many are lobbying but relying on the 20% threshold.

>> i think we just had a successful statement of that. >> i would agree with you. the question comes back to, because you're small, you should not have to do this. you're big, and you should be in -- require more reporting because you're bigger. and your nonprofits and you're not making as much money. if and make the same argument on the contacts issue. i am a small guy. why should i report and spend that time? if we start carving people out, you are diluting the process and the hunt that -- in a conversation. if you are advocating for or against this, and we have this threshold and these rules, you should be required to report and it should be open to the public to find that what they are and what they are doing. >> i would say three years ago,

and i was in a multinational private law firm representing large corporate clients, that we do not distinguish between nonprofits and for-profits. the university, chamber of commerce, they are all nonprofits. now that i'm the president of the aba iamb rethinking that subject. >> we will move to questions from the audience next. in terms of enforcement, everything that i have read and what we've heard today is that reporting is incredibly lax. the doj never brings prosecution, the house and the senate are now situated in such a way -- are not situated in such a way to what they rectified records against each other, and there not in the

least. this is a long question. there was a proposal in the last congress, one piece of it was that lobbyist should have to pay a small registration fee, i think it was $10, and then -- and there is a $500 late fee. i do not know if this is good or bad. i am trying to think of ways that address the enforcement question. i know the 88 deals recommending that the civil division deal with this. one of the five principles -- >> i would tell you and i said it during the in run scandal, you cannot legislate morality. people are going to break the law when it wanted. they're always going to be those people that do it.

is that every lobbyist in town? no. it is a small tube. and i think we know he goes people argue stay away from them. is there a way to police everything we do now? nope. you are on the honor system and there are a lot of us in this profession. our code of ethics is hanging in our office. everyone who works for me has to go through the certificate program. there things that we need to do. i do not know how you and force that, including the revolving door. how're you going to enforce that, including on former members of congress? >> is honesty good enough? >> it cannot enforce morality but that does that mean we do not have laws against bribery or

speeding. we do not catch everybody, but having a law that sets a limit and some people get caught sends a strong message to the rest of us who would engage in activity that is illegal, not just unethical, if it were defined as illegal. therefore the fact that enforcement is going to be imperfect does not mean there should not be penalties. and how you do this, practically speaking? there are a lot of local problems that we can revert to. congress does not want to put enforcement into someone else's hands, especially when it is unfortunate that will implicate congress has almost every lobbyist violation does. it becomes very tough. congress does not want to give

an executive branch agency the authority to effectively police something so near and dear to the heart and close to the pocketbooks of congress and members of congress and campaigns. it does this say that we cannot do a better job. we try to. but it does not say that we cannot do a better job. we try to. criminal penalties only was a big mistake. it did not work. the justice department abandoned enforcement completely decades ago. we tried different regimes on the lobbying disclosure act, and i use the term imperfect. it would send form letters and not follow. some were responsible for turning up the requests to get the only instances of the tested

department consent actions. enforcement was used as a way to keep people within the lines come of and they try to do something about that through late in disclosure. referrals and statements. that may now be working that well either. -- that may not be working that well either. it is difficult and weast should not think in terms of enforcement, i think that is not the right approach here. cedeno like to open up to questions. we have someone with a microphone going around. we will work our way back. this gentleman here. >> it will work better if i hold it.

>> i have a question about the extent either interest or resistance to any of these proposals in terms of whether anyone who talked to members of congress about them, and what you heard back, would you think you might hear back. it seems like none of these have gone even to the extent of being introduced as legislation. has anyone talked to potential sponsors, that kind of stuff? >> mine is a really scienter. it is not yet the official position of the american bar association. as the chief lobbyist, i can advocate beyond appearing in an educational program like this. we will not be actively pursuing a but it is a long-term agenda in that congress is not going to

be rushing in to considering lobbying reformation the session. it will take something else, whether that scandal or working up to the next election, that the members will look around and say we need to do something about this. i think all of us have the same thought. we should try to expose concepts, ready to go when that time occurs. that is the optimistic perspective. >> i would add one thing. representative quickly in the last congress introduced a bill called the chance parents in government act. that was a broad, sweeping transparency bill. it was not as comprehensive as some might apply, although he introduce some contact information being disclosed in a few other things. i believe that congressman leach

is the bill again. certainly i agree with paul that this is to be an opportunity to educate members of congress on what can be done, what needs to be done, that way. >> there is a link to a page that has all the lobbying reform narrative's introduced in congress. the only comprehensive one was the transparency in government act, and if you follow the links, you can find out about that. let's go over to the side. >> just to comment, first. all the big points, enforcement, coverage of the lobbying reports, issues like that, greater disclosure of context,

there's really nothing new conceptually. all of these have been raised a number of times in the past. they have not generally succeeded for ranger reason. second, a longtime lobbyist lobbying for 30-something years, and his outspoken for claudia and reform, there are many who do in fact support greater reforms than either sunlight's or the aba. as a longtime lobbyists who is made countless contacts, i am a little troubled by the thought of having to report every time i talk to someone. you know, it is a burden. if i am doing my job, believe me, i am talking to everyone on the bloody committee that deals with it anyway. i think you folks from the

press and sunlight might be putting more emphasis on that than it is worth. the big things of the broader coverage of people, the greater enforcement, and the need to separate campaign finance from the lobbying process. >> i want to respond quickly. in terms of coverage, we may disagree on the degree of contacts that should be reported, but the lobbying rules is that i have to report -- is relatively meaningful -- meaningless. what committee and met with, had all consider that much more a burden, it could contribute to understanding, and that has been done. there is a lot in canada that requires context of the reported.

it is not across the country but there is an amount of detail that is not that difficult to come by. >> it is simply me saying that i am contacting all of the people and list their names. but if it means me going back in an list every time i am dealing with that particular office, that gives me more concerned. >> another proposal that difference -- differs from a ba, ba -- differs from aba, is a real time reporting. it's unrealistic to report the same composition at every single time that abbott. -- that i have that.

i do not want have to have report every time i send an e- mail either. but every quarter, it i think that misses the point in that this really is an effort to record a dialogue. maybe it is too late. maybe i can i get my message heard. in real time -- i cannot get my message heard. in real time. >> it is not my job to help you do your job. i am a lobbyist. i have a strategy. i am meeting with people. if i am doing my job correctly, i am meeting with everyone on the committee. it is not my job to do my job for you. if you want to attract to buy and meeting with so you can go in behind me, that is not what

transparency is for. it is not to help you do your job. it is the helps people see him we're meeting with. can i invoice and get a paycheck at the end of the month? i would be happy to do that. >> is about the integrity of the process. that is why when a more realistic reporting. >> me doing your job so you can go in and asked me to send your message, that is not transparency. >> part of the problem that the public has with this institution and with his profession is that they think that there are these meetings going on behind closed doors. i'm not asking you to do my job. >> you're saying that general public wants to know -- i am happy clique veterans affairs committee, but you're saying that i am meeting with scott peterson at 3:00 p.m. and this

is the issue discussed. that is what you want me to do. >> if you look to the example that we use, it did not say the name of the staffer or what time the meeting took place. i guess that would be implied, but i think you're reading too much into it. the integrity of the institution requires more so that people did not receive lobbyists as making all of the super secret meetings. >> and phone calls -- i hate to say it, but given the dynamics of capitol hill security and the wonders of electronic communications, you can cover a lot more territory with e-mails and a telephone and you can with shoe leather. real time reporting? >> is a fair question.

-- it is a fair question. again, i useful contact, would you think about lda reforms, and there are 10 or 12 e-mails back- and-forth, not all need to be reported. does the initial e-mail need to be reported? >> wind then we would send out a communication to the senate on appropriations matters to all 100 senators? >> in your own proposal you have a way to do that. >> aba does not require contact reporting. i raise that as a subject that was not included in the final. >> i think there are ways to cover that. >> wait a second.

we are not carving out. >> it would make it up filing requirement. .very member of congress >> absolutely you can bet how helpful is that? every good lobbyist is going to cover every member of the committee. >> how helpful is it to know that someone is bidding with every member of upham -- is meeting with every member of a committee? >> that actually is helpful. in the sense that it shows the importance of an issue to a given lobbying group. it also reveals, you find this out when you report a story like this on a committee level, a lot of time is telling who they do

not meet with and who they do not contact. sometimes it is partisan, sometimes they're just dealing with the republicans or the democrats, so that does have some backing. i do not know that is worth the tradeoff, that is the policy debate. but there is some benefit to that. i'll let you deal with this first and then i will come back. i am interested in the campaign finance. bing. i think that is an interesting -- >> one issue being compared to another, it is useful to see a demonstrable relationship -- this clients and/or their representation with that member for that chairman or ranking member of that committee, and it demonstrates our relationship, and it demonstrates the

relative clout of the particular interest and the frequency with which an entity is meeting with or its lobbyists are meeting with members of congress demonstrate the money they are putting behind it. we do not have any way of knowing how much patton boggs is spending on an issue relative to many others. if you're concerned about how much is pfizer putting behind health care reform, you be able to know the dixie how often their representation is listing the meeting with -- how often their representation is meeting. >> can i play devil's advocate on that one? if the onus is on me to do this and i want to be the super lobbyist in washington for however long it lasts, i want to build my client list and make

millions, i would write up with every chairman, chief of staff, to help bolster my claim that i'm the best in this town and and have access needed to represent the -- -- -- represent them. >> your point is that people would like. >> they could be. -- that people will lie. >> they could be. if you go to those reports, there probably has some misleading accounts in their both in the dollar figures in their. >> that it back to the question of enforcement. people can lie now and we have much less information.

it can be virtually worthless in a candy measuring for the average citizen how much are these powerful moneyed interest players pushing on a particular interest, so that they can can gauge how much the congress is passing legislation based on the merits and not based on those interests and their relationships with them. >> did you want to come back and? >> the part that is interesting to make for the predictable reasons, the way that plays out in this town, the weighted to gain influence and prestige by raising money for members. what i find most interesting, the dirty secret is that a lot of lobbyists would gladly never

have to do another fund-raiser again. aba,ery intrigued by the because that gives everybody an adult, it is my reading of that. -- gives everybody an out, is my reading of that. if you are having to show up and sign this and all that coming you consent, i have to be able to do my job. -- and all that, and say, i have to be able to do my job. >> as a predicate to that, when the task force first got together, this was the american bar association lawyers have codes of ethics and we have to follow those or we lose our license. make it an ethical violation for

lawyers, and the answer was, it gives a tremendous advantage to those who are not lawyers. when i talk to the board and they were revising the code of ethics, i thought about addressing this issue. a lot of people dropping out, it leaves an uneven playing field, and so i hear this echo throughout the probably the most of the professional lobbyist in the room would agree because we're interested in the betterment of the professional we would not be here. as long as it is a level playing field and all lobbies are equally situated, then we would love not to be criticized and

vilified by day and have members or fund risers at nighttime. having that across the board, yes, that would require legislation and congress is not likely to be enthusiastic about removing that lucrative source of fund raising from the system. and that is a problem. there are some reasons that people get money and raise money dead do not relate to the substantive objectives in your lobbying. uptrend in congress, a person i did not do business with, but i would write a check.

a token of my personal fashion. or paul would say, i am going to a fund-raiser, this is the subject in you believe in, education, i would send a check with him, and then i would call him back. i'm not looking for the objective for may, and doing it as a favor for part of the lobbying community. most of it is that you are looking for something, support of your industry, because the member has helped or you want him to help. but access? of course it is not imposed by the end, but when you are influential v -- is knockedote -- it is not vote buying, but when you are influential, it is worth something to that member. i have spoken and written from time to time about the basic

principle of reference out -- repricocity, it is hard wired to respond favorably in some way. >> what happens in a situation where you have someone spending $500 on members because they do want that person back because they are so supportive. they spent $500? is that a quid pro quo? campaign contribution should not be vilified. there are a lot of things that probably needs to be changed. how'd you do this to you do not make it difficult for the average person like myself to support somebody? judith distinguish between campaign contributions and fund- raising activities.

hosting or supporting fund- raising events. bundling of many different sorts. those are all activities that go beyond the individual contribution. is that something that you could feel comfortable saying it is wrong for lobbyists to do? >> if you are a lobbyist, you should not be in the business of doing that. said one of my clients is a small business association saying come up with like to have an industry practice, would you organize it in hosted? i do not see any problem with putting my name on and invite and asking people to support this member of congress because they have been so supportive of the issue that is important to them. not that they are asking him or her to do something specific, but we want to see people

supportive of our issues. if i get the other woman, i am not going to be better off. i should probably move into a profession because it will make my job harder. >> it is not a quid pro quo, you are just pleased with the work they did to support small businesses. you wanted them to have the $500. that would be an illegal gratuity. >> you may as well arrest everyone in america who is given a campaign contribution. >> we're going to try to craft rules which separates fund raising from lobbying. >> with that, i think will take one more question and then we will end. in the back there. it's coming year. >> i am glad to hear people

touch on the campaign finance issue and the contact reporting issue. i was pleased to be able to participate in the aba exercise, and i would highly recognized -- recommend people take the book. not everyone agreed but it was good proposals will put together. my question was touched on by dan. i struggle with this. we struggle so much in terms of who was a lobbyist and the finding that and getting them to report, all one-person shop, i do not have much bird. sheila and i have had this conversation, maybe thinking that we have this the wrong way. rather than all of these individuals trying to report, why don't the public officials themselves to these reports. if they meet with someone who is a registered lobbyist, that should be on the data base of registered lobbyist, the have

unique identifier, and you try to have a meeting in the executive branch these days, but the time you give your social security number and everything else, it is not a question it is burdensome. they already had everything in the world about you. my question to you, should we really take a step back and think that the reporting should not be by the lobbyists of by the government officials or receiving a question mark that we have a better way of having the cases report -- by the government official? then we have a better case of reporting. >> of what have other -- i would rather have more reporting requirements. you will close them off and they will not meet with us. if i have to give them my social

security number or date of birth, it would take forever for me to get a meeting. i cannot do a drive by because i have to do the reporting requirement to see if i'm ok. i'm not someone who is going to blow up the building. however rather have more burdensome steps on myself. i don't think it will be effective and we will close off the process. >> i think members will not do that to themselves because a likelihood of some unintentional error that could get a member in trouble, if you walk in the door, if you have to scan your lobbyist id number, but he cuts the men of all, you do not. it will come out that a lot is met with someone because you may have to report that are not. the member has now reported it,

" said. that will be -- the member has not reported it, whoops. it will chill exchanges. lobbyist discussions with members is not a bad thing. i do not think. i'm not really enthusiastic about making members -- uncertain about whether they should talk to you, that is what it amounts to. >> as fluid and easy as you can make it, leverage technology to make instantaneous, it is a higher hurdle. they're going to use the burden as i think we have already heard from some public officials, and use that as an excuse to not even go. it is a high burden to get them

to act on it. >> speaking of bars, some state legislators require obvious where identification tags. if we all have a bar code with our right the -- with our id, the member would only need a portable scanner. [laughter] never mind. >> i would like to thank -- you want to say something? >> i wanted to chime in that the last minute. i felt like -- we're getting ready to drive all lobby disclosure enhancement bill next month. it had a lot of the same ideas that tig had.

i think they're really common sense things -- our goal is not to limit access at all but to increase transparency. make sure everything is out in the open. i think lisa touched on this, my boss feels like there has been a crisis of confidence. polling members of congress, they are at an all-time low. anything we can do to make the public try to increase confidence that we are being open and honest, that is our objective. i would be happy to talk to you about it. >> we will like to thank them both for making this room available. there are a pleasure to work with us always. i was like to thank all of our panelists for talking about this important issue. the next event will be on april

14 on the future of crs. the head of the congressional research service is stepping down and we will discuss what happens next with them. the key to our panel again and thank you all for coming. -- thank you to our panel again and thank you all for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house will work on and is

pending measure the will extend federal spending for three weeks. the spending resolution will expire on friday. the house cavils and at 10:00 a.m. eastern. debate on 2011 spending begins at noon. live house coverage on c-span. the house rules committee met yesterday to lay out the procedures for today's spending debate. that is next. topics on today's open " washington journal" include federal spending in the budget. we will also hear from the president of the alzheimer's foundation. that is live at 7:00 eastern. general david petreaus will be on capitol hill today to give his assessment on the security situation in afghanistan. the u.s. is scheduled to begin withdrawing forces this summer from the country.

live coverage from the senate armed services committee at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later, the assistant secretary of the navy for energy and the environment will testify about u.s. military operations in the specifics -- in the pacific. live coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern. with the current short-term spending resolution set to expire on march 18, the house will vote today on a short-term spending measure that will cut $6 billion in spending. earlier, the house rules committee met to work out the procedures for the floor debate. their rules committee is chaired by california congressman dave dreier. we will also hear from harold rogers who chairs the appropriations committee.

>> we are here for a measure allowing for further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, chair res 48. happy to welcome my good friend and classmate, the distinguished chairman of appropriations, and the ranking member is here as well. we thank both of you for the tremendous effort you have put into this. it is always an honor for us to have the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations committee appear before the rules committee. gentlemen, let me say that without objection, in a prepared statement that you have will appear in the record in its entirety, and we welcome your summary. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your service and its committees service. ch for your service and this

committee's service, so, mr. chairman, ranking member slaughter, and members of the rules committee, we are here to present res 48, the continuing appropriations resolution. we would like a traditional rule on the cr to allow for timely consideration in passage so we can avoid a government shutdown. it's my hope that with passage, we will provide the necessary time to complete negotiations on a bill for the rest of this fiscal year. on a short-term measure, it's not the preferable way to fund the government. this bill is essential to maintain the critical programs and services that the american people rely on for three weeks until congress comes to a final agreement on the remainder of this fiscal year. while keeping the government running until aprille l8th this

makes $6 billion in spending cuts, cutting $2 billion for every week of funding. within this cr 25 programs have been reduced or terminated saving the american people $3.5 billion, an additional $2.6 billion in earmark account funding has been eliminated. many of these reductions and terminations have been supported by president obama in his annual budget requests as well as members of the senate. this cr is the third bill that the appropriations committee has produced this year that will reduce spending significantly continuing a trend of cuts that will put a dent in our massive and unsustainable deficits, and with the passage of this bill and the passage of the two-week cr previous to that, a total of $10 billion will have been cut from '11 spending which would make it the largest recision in

the history of the congress. given the realities of our debt, the short time frame for action and the fact that many of these cuts have received bipartisan support in both houses as well as the white house, i anticipate swift passage of the bill so we can continue negotiations on a final agreement, complete the budget process for fiscal 11, and move onto the important work for the next year. we're nearly halfway through the current fiscal year, and it's high time we complete this long overdue work left to us by the previous majority. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. rogers. mr. dix. >> we are here this evening to consider a rule for hk res 48. this measure extends the cr until april 8th. the extension reduces spending in 2011 by $45 billion below the president's request. hr 48 also adds another $6 billion in common ground spending reductions.

in total the measure cuts $51 billion below the president's request. the idea behind the three-week extension is to provide an opportunity for the house, the senate, and white house to settle all outstanding issues on fiscal year 2011 appropriations. i'm hopeful that negotiations will succeed. lurching forward under a continuing resolution facing the possibility of a shutdown every two or three weeks is not the best way to proceed. i think we all agree on that. and so i regret that we are here before you once again, mr. chairman, discussing another temporary funding pressure that includes serious reductions in appropriations for fiscal year 11 which now must be implemented in 6 1/2 months that remain before the next fiscal year begins. and, again, i still have concerned about the economic impact of these cuts, but i think this cr has to be enacted. >> thank you very much, mr.