dicks, and i thank both of you. and i think that it is -- we've had this ongoing debate on the issue of the impact of spending cuts on job creation and we are on a different side on that one. i believe getting our fiscal house in order will go a long way towards encouraging job creation and economic growth. while you may be sorry to be here, i'm sorry that you have to be here, but it is, as i said, always nice to see both of you. mr. sessions? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome to both of you, hall and norm. it's good to see you again. we don't want to make a habit of doing this, i'm sure, but here we go. >> we want to do our regular appropriation bills for 2012. >> you know, i think that that will be -- you'll be welcome, very welcome then when you do that, norm, and congratulations on your new job. >> thank you. >> and you working with chairman rogers on this in such a fo

forthright way. there's been a question about that $105 billion worth of obama care that's sitting out there. is that in 2011? that they're in reference to? would that be covered in any way under this measure? >> those are authorization matters. in order to get at them -- we can't do that on appropriations unless and until the authorizing committee paves the way for us. those are authorizations and not subject to appropriations. >> so that $100 million is in this 2011 budget? i was led to believe maybe they were over a series of years that really we're not addressing. >> are you talking about the $105 billion? >> right. >> well, as i understand it, in

the obama care bill that passed and became law, there are different events that take place in the future that triggers spending. by the authorization bill, not the appropriations bill. >> right. >> now, in the hr-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 obama care funding. >> for '11. >> $100 billion, if i said million, i meant to say billion, the $105 billion then is simply in not the appropriations, simply in the authorization that's moving forward. >> and it's over a course of time. >> and then -- which is really what i was trying to get at.

the 14 through 19 -- >> but if we pass hr-1, if the congress passesh r-1 and the president signs it and it becomes the law, '11 funding, this current year for obama care, would be terminated. the appropriations portion of it. >> you know the status of that bill at all once it left the house? >> hr-1? well, we passed it in the house by a rather substantial margin. we sent it to the senate for them to give us their bill. they haven't done that yet. we're still waiting for the senate to lay a bill on the table. now, they did have votes rejecting both hr-1 and a bill that their appropriations committee came up, with voted no on both. >> effectively the house is on record saying we want to in a majority vote, we want to defund all of obama care for at least 2011. already done that and sits. >> well, the house has.

>> we're waiting for the senate. how can you negotiate with yourself? >> it is an interesting proposition. thanks for both of you for being here. yield back. >> miss slaughter. >> thank you, mr. chaurirman. you are negotiating, are you not? >> conversations are going on. >> that was my understanding. you just said sort of indicated to me that you were negotiating by yourself, but i don't know that to be true. there were votes on both bills, the house and the senate bill went down as did hr-1, not enough votes for either one of them. i think like everybody else here, i don't like slouching toward the end here about funding the united states government in two-week and three-week intervals. that really does not become us very much. at the same time i want us to be very careful that we don't cut things to the bone. there are a lot of things in here that concern me, but i

understand that we have to get on with it and everybody 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 contest some of the things in here, but i don't think that's going to happen either. so let me be the third to welcome the two of you back to the committee. thank you very much for coming. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, if i could take a moment to mr. sessions question about the $105 billion and the obama care funding. let me give you a prepared statement that i think sums it up better than i perhaps have. hr-1 terminated all discretionary funding for obama care, the bill that passed the house. every dollar for obama care that was available for the committee and the house to eliminate was swept up and taken out through both the underlying bill and

through multiple amendments that occurred on the floor. any other spending for obama care is mandatory, not the jurisdiction of the appropriations committee and, therefore, can't be addressed through crs or any other appropriations bill. it's now up to the authorizing committees to do what they can to address this mandatory spending and remove the remaining taxpayer funds for this job killing law. that i think clarifies it perhaps better. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to be number four to say thank you very much to boept 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, and i think it wears repeating several times that what you are doing, and mr. rogers, you said this

sort of at the tail end of your comments and perhaps in a little bit lower voice, that basically what we're doing now is repairing what was not done last year because our colleagues across the aisle did not pass the appropriations bills last year, we are doing our best to keep the government running. i think that for many americans they don't quite understand that. we use terms like cr and assume everybody understands that, but it is the continuing of what was funding for the year 2010, and i think it's extremely important that we point that out. we haven't gotten into the appropriations process, as mr. dicks said, for the next year, but we're really 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's cuts which i think were $6 billion, ours was $51 billion, and it's my understanding that the bill from the house got two more votes than the senate bill got. >> our cut was 61. >> 61, right. and i do think, again, that it's important to explain that everything we could -- you could do, the appropriation committee could do to cut the funding for what we call obama care has been done. >> that's correct. >> i think that really needs to be said over and over and over again. >> i have said it over and over again. i'm afraid -- i hope i'm not boring people with saying it, but it's true. and the gentle lady is absolutely correct. the reason we're here is that

last year when the democrats controlled the house they didn't pass a single appropriations bill out of the 12, and 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 the 4th -- >> from october 1 to mamrch the 4th. >> from the beginning of the fiscal year, october 1, to march 4th simply because they hadn't passed an appropriations bill. they passed this catch-all bill to keep us going. we came into power, if you will, with that laying on our lap and so we've been trying to keep the government going even while we're trying to cut exorbitant wasteful spending, and that's why we're here. >> and the other point, you mentioned discretionary spending and mandatory spending and

appropriations and authorizations. again, those are terms we throw around here that we think people know, but mandatory spending is something congress established that cattory many years ago when congress didn't want i think to deal on a year-to-year basis with how to appropriate money for certain programs, and they're just on automatic pilot, and again i think most people don't understand that. that a huge segment of what we spend is on automatic pilot. >> two-thirds of it is automatic pilot. we appropriate maybe one-third at lost of the annual budget and more than half of that is for defense. so we're left with roughly 15% that we're cutting from here. >> right. and i think the other thing that probably should be pointed out is that there will be under consideration in various

subcommittees of appropriations moving some of the spending for obama care that's in mandatory category into the discretionary category. am i correct about that? >> the gentle lady is absolutely correct. we have already begun hearings on the '12 bills. we have held maybe 60 subcommittee hearings in all 12 subcommittees. and during the '12 process, during these hearings that we're having for next year's bills, efforts will be made to take out the obama care spending for next year, the ones that we can that are appropriated funds, and then those funds that are in that bill that sort of go off automatically by the law in years to come, if we can convert those mandatory requirements in the law to where they're subject to annual appropriations, then we can disappropriate those

funds. >> one more comment, mr. chairman, and i'll be done. we have voted on a bill to repeal obama care. we did that. we have voted to take out all the funding for obama care that's in discretionary funding. >> that legally we can do. >> right. >> we have a plan to move money that's in mandatory category into discretionary category so we can cut that next year. so basically under the rules with which we operate here in the congress, we have done everything we know to do up until this point and we're planning to do more in the future to defund that program. >> the gentle lady has said it better than i have. >> well, i want to thank you -- >> if i could just make a comment. >> certainly. >> you know, there's still the senate that has to pass these things and the president has to

sign them into law. so i appreciate all the self-congratulations here, but the chances of this becoming law are de minimis at best and i think it's time to focus on trying to work this thing out, get an agreement on '11, and lets start working on '12 and let's do our job and not fantasize about what you're going to do on obama care. >> well, mr. dicks, thank you so much -- >> i just couldn't help myself. >> thank you for pointing out that the house -- the republicans in the majority in the house are not the majority all over washington. there are other people who are affecting this, and i would like to say, mr. chairman, there's a group of young women in here from the public leadership education network. their first time to be in the rules committee, and then they're going to go see votes, and they're from all over the

country. i haven't identified exactly where, but i do want to point out that one of the -- the great niece of one of our former colleagues is here, miss regula is here. >> he was a member of the appropriations committee and chaired a subcommittee. >> interior. >> please give him our best and thank you very, very much for being here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> very strongly. he believed in earmarks. >> mr. mcgovern. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and again i want to welcome both of you back to the committee. and it really is interesting to reflect on the speeches we've heard. i agree with mr. dicks that we need to get down to business and

deal with reality and not fantasy but it is somewhat incredible to me to have so many of my friends on the other side to take gle in the potential or the thought of cutting health care programs that will provide people health care. >> for 36 million americans. >> for 36 million americans, and maybe that's where they think the majority of the american people are. i just don't believe it, and, you know, i also find it somewhat offensive that the president of the united states' name gets denigrated in the way that it constantly does by referring to it as obama care as if it's a swear word. it's a health care reform bill to try to provide millions of people in this country health care and i propose very muhope don't succeed in cutting benefits to people because health care reform is not a job killer. providing people health care actually will help create jobs

and actually save money in the long term. the other thing is that -- >> cbo said i think it was like $257 billion over the next ten years would be saved by having this law stay in place. that's caused a few stirs. >> and i appreciate the fact that, you know, we need to figure out a way to continue to have the government operate for the next few weeks, but at some point -- i mean, this really is kind of the third sierra. you had the hr-1, we had a cr that you passed for two weeks, now we're going for a third cr. at some point you have to take responsibility and it's on your watch, and -- >> well, if you'll yield. >> yes. >> that's because your party didn't pass any of the 12 appropriations bills for this year. >> well, as you know, we could have gotten a long-term agreement, but we had the republicans in the senate who refused to cooperate.

having said that, you know, i think the deal right now is that you can only blame last year so many times. this is the third time up to bat. i hope it's the last, but i mean i'm not going to bet the house on that fact, and i think part of the problem is what you passed in hr-1 is so extreme that you have even some of your own party in the other body who are somewhat uncomfortable with that, and so at some point i think 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 -- >> well, you know -- >> tell them to lay an offer on the table. we passed a bill, they haven't. >> i just came back from my district, and i'll tell you mayors and city managers all say the same thing, we can't plan for this year. you talk about jobs, creating jobs, we can't inl plement what we thought we had for this year. they're worried about their

community development bloc grant monies, worried about programs that quite frankly, you know, provide and create opportunities in cities and towns across the country. they're not sure if hr-1 is real and if it is they're in one spot or whether there's going to be a compromise. this kind of drip, drip, drip of continuing resolutions is a disincentive for job creation back home and i just hope that this is it. i hope that -- you know, and we can blame last year's congress all we want, but the fact is it's on your watch now. we're here -- >> look, we've passed a bill. we've made our offer. >> what you passed though is a bill that was so extreme there's no -- >> come back -- if you consider it extreme we'll have a chance to talk but we can't talk if you don't put something on the table. >> well, you told mrs. slaughter you are, in fact, talking with the senate and my hope is that there will be some agreement

that there needs to be some moderation on your side so we can get something that can pass. the other thing people complain to me about, they ask the question did anybody in congress ever do a hearing as to what the impact of some of these cuts are going to be? and the answer is no. i mean, put a bill together, brought it to the floor without any real thought to what the implications of some of these cuts would be. >> look, we debated that bill for four days, 90 hours, 600 amendments. you were a part of it. >> right. and some of these important issues were debated for ten minutes, but the reality is kind of the free for all we had on the house floor, you know, is not a substitute for thoughtful committee hearings -- >> you're saying we weren't thoughtful. >> i'll tell you, i look at that process and don't -- i would call it a lot of things. i wouldn't call it thoughtful in

my opinion, and anyway, i hope this is the last time, but this is your third time. this is the third time here, and at some point i think you're going to have to take responsibility for whether we move forward or we don't. >> thank you. let me just say over the last four years, we've had an 84% increase in nondefense discretionary spending -- >> well if the gentleman would yield, i think the questions i'm getting back home is did anybody -- when they propose cuts to the national institutes of health, has anybody did a hearing on what that means and how that holds up research? >> if i can reclaim my time, let me say that the gentleman knows that no one is proposing cuts in the national institutes of health. when you have an 84% increase in nondefense discretionary spending we have had a doubling to the nic and the notion of

paring that back -- >> we are paring it back. >> is part of the message sent by the american people as the right thing. let me recognize mr. -- >> i would argue that -- >> mr. bishop. >> -- that it creates jobs as well helps deal with some terrible problems that people are dealing with right now. >> can i reclaim my time? thank you. i appreciate that. let me be number six to welcome you here and apparently number six to hope you don't come back without a 2012 budget. >> until we get the '12 bill. >> yeah, until 2012 is available. i don't want to expand our suggestion into a different area although i think i will with this comment. i was in the chair when the question of the use of the term obama care came to the floor, and as it was discussed at that time obama care is not either a pejorative or a complimentary term. it's just a term of art similar to reaganomics or the bush tax cuts. if obama care was considered to

be somewhat derogatory it would have to mean the underlying bill that created obama care would have to be derogatory. so i think that was the ruling we had on the floor at the time. i think it's an appropriate one. it simply says we build into terms what we want to build into terms but it does not necessarily have to be in that particular way. appreciate you being here. and like i say, when i see you again, hopefully there's a new appropriations bill in your hand. >> thank you. >> mr. hastings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd ask either of my colleagues, i did the count, it was 11 republicans that said obama care and two democrats. now, i'm the third democrat to say it. while i agree with mr. bishop with regard to the pejorative nature perhaps of matters of this kind, the way it is intended and i'll echo the sentiments of my colleague, mr. mcgovern, the way it's intended by my colleagues when they say it, it's almost as if it's something nasty, and i for one

would wonder what did you call what the health care program in america was before the democrats in the house of representatives and the united states senate passed a measure that took all too much time in my judgment to do and did not go nearly as far as it needs to go. so what kind of care was it then? and what kind of care will it be when you do the paring back that you wish to assert and then we are wherever you take us backward and i don't know -- i guess it will be obama care light at that point because he'll still be in office with the kind of people you all are offering up to run against him. but things are very troubling. mr. rogers, you and mr. dicks do

your jobs admirably, but the cuts that are proposed for this continuing appropriation amendment, the third in the series, the sixth time, do include some pretty substantial measures. and if i just went to one, $115 million in funding for the agriculture research service including a $44 million reduction for salaries. and a $71 million reduction in building maintenance. as one of several of us in congress that represents rural and urban areas in the congressional district we're privileged to serve, it's passing strange to me that we do not understand that the agriculture research services are going to have to recalculate based on this cut. and somebody is going to lose

their job. now, it's fine for us to sit up here with jobs and put stuff on paper that's going to cost people jobs in these rough economic times. mr. dicks, you said that you're concerned about other potential -- you didn't say potential, i have added the word, economic harm. what economic harm do you perceive happening and give me a low figure. no hyperbole, no exaggeration, no democrat/republican spin. just how many jobs will be lost by the best estimate, the lowest number of people that will lose their jobs based on what our colleagues on the other side are proposing? >> well, there's a range of opinion on this. mark zandi says it will be 400,000 jobs -- >> that's mccain's former

economic adviser. >> 400,000 this year, 700,000 next year. economic policy institute says 800,0 800,000. goldman sachs says it can go go -- up to 2.4 million jobs lost. my view is we're going to have a lot of government jobs lost, but also there's going to be a counter cyclical impact of these cuts, and 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 did help -- every economist says it helped to drive down the unemployment rate, and what you all 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 do just the opposite of what you're talking about. you know, cut and grow -- >> of course i will. i appreciate the kind words. we had this discussion on the floor. the only correction i would offer to what you have said is when you said every economist, as you recall i have cited john taylor at stanford university who -- he was under secretary of the treasury for international policy. he has a completely different view, one which i happen to respect greatly on this. so i just -- >> as you remember i gave you six other stanford -- >> yeah, and you had the letter of the signatures and we have a similar letter that was provided with maybe not quite as many -- i think it was 150 economists.

so again, i think it's important -- >> if i could reclaim my time from both of you, i know mr. -- let me say in advance some of these proposals are offered by president obama and let me say pointedly i disagree with president obama. what needs to happen here in this congress and in the white house and especially in the other body is people need to sit down and recognize that in this country there's an enormous amount of pain where people are suffering, and we're up here with babble about what we're going to be doing. what needs to happen is we all need to be locked up up here until somebody comes out with some solutions, and there are solutions here, and among them are to try to be reasonable with each other as we go forward and figure out where we are with economic recovery. i don't need to have a master's degree or have a ph.d. in economics to recognize that if we're getting ready to cause a

number of people on top of the people that are already out of work to be out of work and if gasoline prices are going to continue to rise and if health care prices are going to continue to rise and if wages are going to have a race to the bottom, then it doesn't take me a whole lot to recognize that what we are doing is just hot air and -- i have one more thing i want to say, mr. dicks. until we address medicare and medicaid and social security, all of this is periphery and we ought to be busying ourselves dealing with that. japan has this enormous crisis that we jubs saw, and i heard one of the most sensible japanese women, i don't think she's anybody's expert. 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. meaning rich and poor alike, and until this nation is prepared to do that, then we'll go around and around and spiral down. yes. >> the only thing i had add to that, what worries me the most in this are programs like wic, women and infant care. we know that a poor woman who gets nutrition has a healthier baby. we spend $26 billion each year for premature babies that the hospitals have to take care of, which affects medicare, medicaid, every single program, and yet we're going to cut out a significant amount of money out of women and infant care. i mean, it's the social safety net, the vouchers for housing and those kind of programs, headstart, pell grants for these young people when they go to college are being reduced. we can do this in a more

thoughtful way. the first round of the rogers amendment was -- i thought was tough, but it was not -- didn't take us to an extreme position. we have got to back off a little bit and find some middle ground here and save some of these important programs that are going to wind up hurting the poorest of the poor and the president should be ashamed of offering up the community services block grant program. >> mr. chairman, mr. mcgovern asked for time and i won't take more time if you will permit me to yield. >> i appreciate it. i was trying to make a point when i was cut off that people need to understand that sometimes through investments you actually make, you know, you actually reduce costs in other areas. i was mentioning the national institutes for health. you find a cure to alzheimer's disease, the issue of medicaid and it's solvency will never be a problem again. find a cure to diabetes, find a cure to cancer.

that's where we should be investing our dollars. it creates jobs, but if we can prevent human misery and on top of that, you know, be able to provide more solvency to some of these programs that right now are difficult, that's -- cutting wic zwroosh he wic. >> head start. >> i think is heartless. >> and a lot of the educational -- >> let me say you all are my favorite team to work with. it could just be we've developed a better relationship. >> every monday we're here. >> i tell folks -- >> i feel like "dancing with the stars," don't you? >> i get to lead though. >> i don't see cynthia. >> and i talk to folks back home about that relationship that the two of you have. i tell the story, mr. dicks, the first time i saw you before the rules committee when folks on the committee were complaining

they weren't able to get their amendments made in order and you said come to me and i will help you make this in order because if it's important to you, it's important to me and we ought to have a chance to talk about this on the house floor. we should talk about it on the house floor and we should do something about it if it's worth doing something about. that made a big impression on me. >> i wasn't chairman last year. i was down the list. >> absolutely. and, you know, as a fellow who wasn't here at all last year, i'm troubled by some of the back and the forth about that because we need to take responsibility. i'm proud of the responsibility we've taken. there hasn't been a single easy decision your committee has been asked to make this year, not one, not one, and nobody sat around. and you can correct me if i'm wrong, i haven't heard anybody say we're on the appropriations committee and i'm not going to do it because it's not our fault we're in this mess. folks got down to work on day

one and when folks came back and said we needed more, you got down to work again and again and again and here we are. i don't know. i'm glad you're in talks with somebody on the senate side, chairman rogers, and i don't know if you know mr. dicks, how it is we can spur that process along. how do you have a negotiation with a body that hasn't passed a bill yet. >> i think you have to keep asking your leadership to engage. we have to ask the house leadership to engage, the senate leadership to engage, and the white house to engage. i mean, they've got to sit down in a room and work this out. this has gone far enough. >> and is that fair, chairman rogers? we've got a president who presented a budget. he presented his fy 11 budget and 12, presented both budgets. he's done, too. the senate, we passed hr-1 to get through the end of 2011 and the senate has done nothing. nothing last year, nothing this year. how do you work with that? >> what if the house had said

we're not going to pass a bill. you guys need to talk to us? no, they say pass a bill, then we'll talk. and we say, okay, we've passed a bill. you pass a bill, we'll have something to go to conference with to work out differences and that's the way we do business. but the senate is just refusing to act and, frankly, the white house has not been engaged fully in this process either. we're determined on our side of the aisle, we're determined not to have a shutdown. >> good. >> we want this government to continue. it needs to continue. so we're trying our best to get a fair and reasonable funding for the balance of this year so we won't have to shut down the government. i wish the other side would have the same sentiments. >> mr. dicks, do you have any expectation that the democratic leadership on the senate side will end up passing a bill of any kind or do you expect to have to go into negotiations with just ideas. >> my view of this is at some

point the speaker, the president, and the majority leader are going to have to get in the room and come up with a number and then mr. rogers and i hope on a bipartisan basis can backfill the nments aumbers and put the bill that will put the least damage to the country and we'll have a vote. it has to be a compromise. it's not going to be all or one. it has to be somewhere between where the house is and where the senate is. now, remember, we did -- even those the press just throws this out the door, we did cut $40 billion in the cr for the first cr that went to march 4th, from the president's budget request, $40 billion. so, you know, we think we should get a little credit for that, and then we've added this $4 billion and then the 6, and we're over $51 billion. that's halfway there. >> and those $40 billion -- >> and i think some compromise

is going to have to be in order. >> those $40 billion go into the baseline now, that $40 billion from december is now in the cbo baseline going forward? is that right? >> we're $40 billion below the president's budget request for '11 in what was put in the cr. >> but what happens with that $40 billion, with the $3 billion from -- or the $2 billion from -- $4 billion from three weeks ago, the $6 billion here. when we get together to start talking about 2012 and you all start talking about 2012, will those spending reductions be in a new baseline or are they assumed to continue in perpetuity or are they assumed -- >> it's just for the period of the cr. >> just for the period of the cr? >> well, whatever we finally come up with as the funding level for '11 in a cr that goes for the balance of the year, that becomes the baseline.

>> and, remember, all these cuts have to be imposed in the last 6 1/2 months -- now it's going to be the last 6 months of this year. that's going to be painful. >> if we zero out the congressional office of rob woodall, is it assumed to continue into 2012, 2013, 2014 or is it assumed to be reborn -- if i were an agency, is it reborn on october 1st, 2012, or does it get assumed as a zero in the cbo baseline? do you know the answer. >> it's a zero as long as it's zero until somebody appropriates money for it. >> so when we're talking about a $6 billion cr spending reduction today, is there a ten-year dollar value on that $6 billion that it's saving us in interest costs down the road and saving us in programs that are assumed to be -- >> it's just the three weeks. >> just the three weeks. okay.

i'm thinking about reality and not fantasy. you know, the reality is there are folks who were sent up here to do some of these tough decisions, and it pains me to hear people talk about jobs, and particularly to talk about community because i couldn't agree with you more, mr. hastings. i believe that we have robbed the communities in our districts with the nanny state, with a state that says don't you worry about it, we'll take care of it from washington, d.c. it steals dignity from those who need to be taking care of and steals dignity from those of us who should be doing the caretaking. >> would you yield to me? >> mr. chairman. >> let me try to properly put an answer to your question earlier about the baseline. the cr is a temporary --

whatever we come up with a temporary number. for fiscal '12 whenever the congress passes a budget resolution and passes that big spending number, macro number, welling divide up that number amongst the 12 subcommittees, and that becomes the base figure for next year. >> and for purposes of beginning that budget process then, is the budget line starting from the 2011 request, is it starting from the cr passed in december, is it starting from the final cr that we passed here? what delineates the starting point for that budget resolution? >> it will be the bunt committees -- >> the president's budget is a recommendation to the congress, and then the budget resolution, if it's passed, when it's passed, that lays out the

parameters. >> and that becomes binding on us. >> there has not been a single easy decision that's come across your desk. i don't actually expect 2012 to contain any easy decisions either, but i do want you to know how much i have come to appreciate the way that you all have worked together and helped me to understand this process better. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it looks like we are successfully eliminating some of the funds that were designated for earmarks in several agencies, agriculture, commerce, justice, science, financial services, and interior. why are we not also eliminated earmarks in defense? >> i assume that -- well, this bill doesn't deal with dod.

that, as you recollect -- in hr-1, there are four titles and dod was one separate title, and we merely plucked from last year's omnibus appropriations bill the defense fortion of it. that bill never passed, but we took all the provisions from that bill and dropped them into hr-1 and that deals entirely with dod. >> are you are you saying that l doesn't have any appropriations for defense? >> i'm sorry. >> did you say this bill does not have any appropriations for defense? >> it's a continuing resolution so it continues at the ten levels. >> hr-1 is what we're talking about. this extends the conversation about hr-1 for three weeks. hr-1 contained dod funding. >> i'm talking about what this bill does, not what hr-1.

maybe mr. dix can clarify. mr. dix? >> all i'm saying is this is a continuing resolution so this deals with the entire government. beit's at the '10 numbers. and we did a separate defense bill which is put into hr-1, which the defense department and myself and mr. young all want to see enacted as part of the final agreement. so that's where that will go. and the earmarks -- the money for the earmarks will probably come out of that. to get to a compromise number, we're going to need that source. >> okay. so in the defense component of hr-1, you have saved money by eliminating the defense earmarks, is that correct? >> we cut it by 3 billion. i'd have to consult the numbers to find -- >> there may be some more there, but that would help us in the end game to get to a number that's a compromise number. >> but let me just say this.

there will be no earmarks in whatever we do. >> well, there are earmarks in what we're asked to vote on this week. we're still continuing the defense earmarks while we're rolling back certain earmarks. there are earmarks in this cr. >> no, they're not. >> they're not xoouting any of the eefr earmarks. >> in this three-week continuation, we do veto all earmarks -- earmarks are included in this bill -- are stricken in this bill. >> from several agencies. >> 2.6 billion, in agriculture, commerce, justice, science, interior. >> but defense is not listed on that list. >> as i say, defense is a separate title in hr-1. this is a continuation of the conversation about hr-1. >> so, again, while this does -- i mean, you can say that for any

of the different areas, but it does actually ilt teliminate th earmarks in the listed categories. >> right. for three weeks. >> right. so -- well, and it also continues those categories of earmarks for defense, although i think mr. dicks said nothing of that money will be spent pending a final deal. >> remember, we did take 15 billion out of defense in the 40 billion that we did in the original cr. so, i mean, that may be -- but i'm just saying from the obama budget request, which defense was 530 without mil con. we went at 515. that was something mr. young and i agreed to last year and was agreed to by others. >> but there is a provision in hr-1 that says, all previous earmarks have no effect in fiscal '11. and if you want to see the language, i have it here.

>> the president has also said it he'll veto any bill with earmarks. >> so we're looking at a final budget deal including something along those lines where all the prior earmarks are removed, correct? all of them. clearly this cr is a step in that direction. >> -- earmarks but leave the money there, too. that's another possibility. >> the money that would then -- >> be used for other purposes. >> it's money whether you use it for savings or whatever purpose. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. to echo once again our thanks for both of you being here today. you know, when you look back in history, in particular in what occurred or didn't occur raft year in regards to what got us in this predicament right now as we're talking about a continuing cr, you know, my bigger concern is where are we going to be as

relates to -- you don't want to keep going back, i'm sure you don't want to keep coming back every two or three weeks, not that we don't like you, i'd just as soon not see you coming back every two or three weeks. because the issue is much bigger. you have issues in regards to the fy '12 budget to hammer out to get where we need to go. and i agree with you, mr. dicks, that obviously the speaker and the leader over in the senate and the president need to sit down and walk out of a room and come to an agreement in regards to where we need to be on this year's cr. because right now we're gnashing our teeth, pitting each other against each other as to what program is more important than the next. but at the end of the day, we're still struggling with the fact that we have to cut dollars currently being spent or allocated to be spent in this

upcoming budget in this current budget we're in, '11. >> i hope that we can look at what we do and we have really an extraordinary staff, and on some of these really sensitive programs, in the outcome, i hope we'll take care of some of these things like wic, for example. i just can't imagine cutting that program. >> the president recommended it. >> well, as i said, sometimes the president makes mistakes, too. wic is a program -- it's a congressionally created program. one of the most important programs there is. if you want to spend $26 billion a year on premature babies, we're going to have to pay the bill. it's pay me now or pay me later. i'd rather take care of the poor woman and have her have adequate food when she's pregnant so she has a healthy baby. >> if the gentleman would yield. >> yes.

>> and i appreciate -- i do appreciate your comments and your passion in regards to what you're speaking on because there are faces behind all of these issues. but i've not heard a good solution yet as to how we're going to cut -- because every program, i will say, you could stand and defend. there's no doubt in my mind. but how do we get to a point where we actually cut spending? there's -- every spending program there's a program attached to it. so we're going to have to make tough decisions. and the problem that i see -- what i've seen in the past is that there's been no decision made and it's been punted down the road in regards to coming up with the cuts that we need to make. for america to be successful and prosperous and to create jobs we've got to take responsibility. you know, the discussions we're having are serious discussions, the implications are serious.

but we didn't get elected to make the easy decisions. anybody could do that. we've been elected to make tough decisions, realizing there's tough consequences associated with them. because if there weren't, anybody could do this. >> well, on that point, if you'd yield, i think what the american people want is to see us get together and work out an agreement. that's what they want to see, and the polls are overwhelming on that. they want to see us work this out, not keep doing these crs. and you all get that. i get it. >> if you would yield back -- >> we need to work this back. >> if you would yield back. obviously, we're singing to the choir on some of this because we're working with two other portions of government that 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 an issue 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 to force them to come and actually have legitimate discussions in regards to 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. in 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 this 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 away benefits 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 process. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> that 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 budget for fiscal year 2012 and the chair will be in receipt of a motion. >> 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 member on the committee on appropriations. rule waves all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution. provides that the joint resolution shall be 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 will 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. further 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 motion is agreed to accordingly the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall will be managing 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. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the cspan ad, which provide coverage of politics, public affairs, books, and american

history. available on radio, television, and social media networking sites and online. find their content anytime this is bent the library and we take cspan on the road with our local content vehicle bring our resources to your community. it is washington your way, the cspan networks, available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable and provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" is next. we will get an update on the situation in japan. the house will work on a new 2011 spending measure today that will extend federal spending for three weeks. the current short-term spending resolution will expire on friday. the house gavels in at 10:00 a.m. eastern and debate on 2007 spending begins at noon. live house coverage will be on c-span. and coming up this hour, we will continue our look at federal