woman. honestly, i could go on and on about the after affects of an abortion. but i think that the picture has been made quite clear. the picture has been made as susan b. anthony said, who believed it is not sufficient nearly to denounce abortion, anthony considered it the work of women to prevent this violation. this is the task that susan b. anthony gives us to continue today. like anthony we too must challenge the status quo for the sake of women and their children. women deserve better than abortion. thank you and i will yield back my time. mrs. schmidt: thank you to the gentlelady from north carolina for so eloquently pointing out some of the dangers of abortion,

both physical and emotional. and i don't think the chapter, mr. speaker, has been written on the dangers of abortion. but i do wonder the lives that we've missed and the fabric and how it has been compromised the fabric of america, the fabric of the world because an innocent life didn't get to be woven into it. you know, when we're born our parents don't know what we're going to become. they just hope that we're happy and they hope that we're healthy. i mean, you look at our president. you think when he was born his mom thought he was going to be the president of the united states? i seriously doubt it. he didn't come from a dynasty of presidents. he's just an ordinary person born from an ordinary mom, but he, you knee, had the

opportunity and the privilege to live in america and become the president. our very own speaker from cincinnati, ohio, i dare say his parents never thought he'd be speaker of the house. these were ordinary people. they owned a bar. they had 12 kids. chances are 12 kids would do 12 different things but i didn't think they would be speaker of the house, but that mother gave all those kids love. and because they lived in america the piece of fabric that he's become resides over this wonderful body. and i point that out because none of us know what our children or grandchildren will become. but it's incumbent upon us to give them that chance to be the best person they can be, the best version of themselves and

that starts at conception. it doesn't start when we choose for it to start. it starts when god chooses for it to start. or if you don't want to use the term god, nature chooses for it to start. and when you compromise that you compromise life all the way through. you know, as i said before, many people see femnimism and pro-life issues as exclusive. well, they're inclusive. and i would like to offer evidence of the pro-life feminists in the past, the ones we owe so much, because they are in large part responsible for women being able to go to college, to serve in the military, to vote. and may i dare say stand on the floor this very evening.

it is because of them that we are here today arguing for this precious position. in a few minutes i am going to be joined by another god lady from north carolina. and i believe that this young lady is going to eloquently talk about her views on women in history and the pro-life movement, and i now yield to the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: well, i thank the gentlewoman from ohio, my colleague, for organizing this time to speak about the importance of protecting unborn children in this country. march is national women's history month, and in each year other members and i of the pro-life caucus, pro-life women's caucus make a point of coming to the house floor to celebrate the achievements of women and talk about the debt crimental impact of abortion -- detrimental impact of abortion on women.

last year it was brought to my attention that the university of north carolina system which is -- i attended three of the universities in the system -- required a student to -- students to purchase health care through the university if they did not have acceptable coverage through their parent or on their own. these plans automatically enrolls students in abortion coverage regardless of gender or their feelings regarding abortion. pro-life groups in north carolina as well as the students for life of america wrote to the u.n.c. system as well as north carolina governor beth purdue that they not force students to purchase abortion coverage. they responded by allowing students to opt out of abortion coverage. however, a student still pays the same amount for health care coverage regardless of whether or not abortions are included on

his or her plan. this situation was brought to my attention because the u.n.c. system, along with at least 37 other university systems across the country, require their students to purchase health care coverage that includes abortion. these universities are including the cost of this health care plan and the total cost of attendance which means there may be federal money covering these health insurance plans and thereby covering abortion. my concerns about unborn chirp not only in north carolina but across the united states prompted me to send a letter to the secretary of education, arne duncan, requesting that he look into the u.n.c. situation and determine if in fact taxpayer money was being used to purchase these health insurance plans. secretary duncan responded last month and said the department of education was not able to determine if students were able to use federal, also known as

taxpayer student aid money, to purchase these health insurance plans which can include abortion coverage. this is unacceptable. there should be no question whatsoever that taxpayer money should not be used to purchase abortion coverage regardless of whether it is through a student health plan at a university or at an abortion clinic. i will continue to work with the department and the u.n.c. system to ensure that taxpayer money is not being used to pay for abortions. as a christian, i am adamantly opposed to the practice of abortion, and i am especially opposed to the american taxpayer being forced to pay for it. this is why last month i voted with 239 of my colleagues to stop subsidizing planned parenthood's radical abortion agenda with taxpayer money. in 2009 alone, planned

parenthood reported that the organization performed over 332,000 abortions nationwide. and in the next two years will require each, each and every one of its 87 affiliates to have at least one abortion clinic. the vast majority of my constituents do not want their hard-earned money paying for abortions. and as their elected representative, i will continue fighting to protect unborn children and taxpayers from the scourge of abortion. and congresswoman schmidt, i have here a chart that i'd like to make sure people watching can see. this is from a poll in december, 2009. it's a little hard to read it down here but it was a poll that

asked women -- do you support or oppose allowing abortions to be paid for by public funds under a health care reform bill? only 25% of the women polled said they support it. 70% oppose and 5% didn't know or didn't care. that is an astounding number to have. mrs. schmidt: because we are always cast as the ones that really want abortion. and it's the men that don't want it. you're telling me that 70% of the women in that december, 2009, study adamantly opposed federal funding of abortion under the health care bill? ms. foxx: that is correct. i'm sorry i couldn't be on the floor for your presentation. i was in the rules committee and

could not leave to come down. as i came in i heard you talking about the fact that pro-life women can be feminists, and i think that's very important for us to point out, but i do like to quote from alice paul who worked very hard for equality for women who said, abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women. and i think that as we work hard to see that women are treated equally in our society under the law that we make sure they are not exploited by abortion. and there's another quote from elizabeth cady stanton. i don't know if you had used it. but she said, when we consider that women are treated as property it is degrading to

women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. those in a letter to julia ward howard in october of 1873 and recorded in her diary. i think it's so important that women be here during women's history month to speak in favor again of rights for women but that we point out that we are opposed to abortion which is the ultimate exploitation of women. and i yield back. mrs. schmidt: well, thank you so much. i'm reglad you took the time to point out that survey because i believe that the nation has shifted its opinion on abortions since 1973. and maybe it's becomes with technology and with the fact

that sonograms can now show us the color of the baby's eyes and what it's being to look like inside the mom's womb as early as three months that we're really believing and knowing that it really is a baby. it's not this little fetus, this little mushy thing. it's really a baby. and when you see that sonogram and you see that baby inside the womb you got to say to yourself, how -- how can i call this anything else but life? and i think that's probably one of the reasons why throughout the years public opinion has truly shifted on abortion. you know, a decade ago back in 2001 there was a poll taken wherein 40% of the respondents identified themselves as being

pro-life while 49% identified them as being pro-choice. well, in 2005 another poll was taken. there was little movement toward the pro-life movement. 42% said they were pro-life while 52% said they were pro-choice. but for some reason in 2006 the number grew 45% to 47%. in 2008 the numbers were 46% to 48%. maybe it's because of the prevalence of all these sonograms. and today when your daughter or your son goes in with his wife or -- the sonogram, the grandparents and great grandparents go too. didn't happen a decade ago. oh, my gosh it's a family thing. we can't wait. we're told to cover your eyes. believe me, i couldn't tell anyway. i had to close my eyes twice.

the families involved in this whole sonogram with the birth of the baby that all of our eyes are beginning to light up and say, wow, that really is a life in three months' time it's a real baby. in may, 2009, 51% of those polled identified themselves as being pro-life where only 42% responded that they were pro-choice. now, the latest poll i could find on the subject was conducted in january of this year, just a couple months ago, and it was consistent with the 2009 poll. half the respondents -- pardon me -- said they were pro-life. the numbers become even more definitive when it comes to public funding or taxpayer

moneys going towards the funding of abortions, even indirectly. this is a very real and timely debate as we struggle today to tackle enormous deficit and debt which, mr. speaker, if we don't get under control, will reshape this country in a way that i don't believe will allow our children to have at least an equal opportunity if not to have a better opportunity as us, but that's a debate for another day on the debt and deficit. you know, when i first got here in september of 2005 the very first person i wanted to meet was henry hyde of illinois. because he was my hero. see, after roe v. wade people at my kitchen table and in my family were talking about money, federal money being used for abortion and, i mean, my mom and

dad were mad, shoot, even i was mad. and henry hyde was mad too and in 1976 he offered the hyde amendment and it simply said that federal taxpayer dollars were barred from funding abortion period, case closed. and that amendment has been consistent with the policy of this house ever since. so i wanted to meet that hero, that gentle man. and when you walk into my office you see a picture of he and i on the last day that he served in this house. of all the people that i've ever met he's truly my hero. anyway, every year we debate this and even in the health care bill it was a hotly contested issue and after the bill was

voted on, the president had an executive order that at this point still stops the federal funding of abortion in health care, we believe. but that's a very fragile piece of paper and i really believe this body needs to recodify in the health care bill that no money will ever be spent for abortion and no insurance policies will have any federal dollars attached to it that would allow for abortions to occur. but that's something i believe we have to work on this year, mr. speaker. you know, even today in this body, as we voted on the c.r., the issue of abortion was there. do we put it in the c.r.?

and stop the federal funding of abortion or not? you know, we have a lot of pro-life leaders in the house. and they've looked at the budget very, very shrewdly and they've termed that if we don't put these protections in place federal funding will slip into the budget in the future. and that's why they are so adamant about putting out bills and provisions and c.r.'s that would stop federal funding of abortion. in one of the latest initiatives to receive a full vote in the house was an amendment introduced by my good friend from indiana, mr. pence, that would prohibit federal funding for planned parenthood, which happens to be the largest abortion provider in the country. now, i know what you're going to say.

well, they have a separate wall and they're really only using the money for women's health issues, they're not using it for abortion, but we know money is fungible and we know in a building you can't really dissect how much energy costs are going to one side of the building and how much are going to the other. so we know that while, you yeah, the actual procedure -- while, yeah, the actual procedure isn't using federal money, we know that the building is and so it's fungible and it's slipping through. but a few weeks ago when we had the c.r., his amendment received i think 239 votes out of this body that said no, planned parent shood shouldn't receive the money -- parenthood shouldn't receive the money. and, mr. speaker, maybe it's a bigger debate than just the abortion issue because, you know, we saw last fall was a sting operation that showed in some cases abortion clinics,

planned parenthood clinics across the country were actually talking about or ignoring the fact that people were coming in about human trafficing -- trafficking and saying they wanted a human trafficking issue and if the underage girl got pregnant, how could they get an abortion and the gal at the desk didn't seem to think there was a problem with that conversation. i'm not saying that planned parenthood international condones it and i'm sure that they don't, but i'm saying that there were clinics that this conversation occurred. i know in my own hometown in cincinnati, ohio, where in two cases there were young girls that went to the planned parenthood clinic and both told the abortion provider they were under age and they were pregnant. one by her father, one by a coach. the father's now in jail and the situation with the parents, well, they didn't know the coach took her to the abortion clinic,

he signed the document that said, oh, i'm the legal guardian and it wasn't until late when are she went to the doctor on another issue that the doctor said, when did your daughter have an abortion that when this whole thing exploded and right now it's in court. they're going after the coach and they're trying to go after planned parenthood because the girl said, i'm 15. so maybe planned parenthood shouldn't have our money if they're not careful stewards about people who are coming through their doors. because a 15-year-old that's pregnant, well, i think that's called statutory rape no matter who the father was. and if a girl comes in at 15 we should be asking questions, how did you get pregnant, who was the father, what happened? because that's breaking the law. so above the fact that we have a looming deficit and a looming debt, above the fact that i

believe that money is fungible with planned parenthood, above the fact that in some cases they have people that go into clinics and they have a lady or a guy at the desk that doesn't understand what human trafficking is all about, maybe they shouldn't have the money because when it's right in their eyes they simply choose to ignore the issue. mr. speaker, there are a lot of pro-life people in america and there are a lot of pro-life people in this house and i think it is time that we discuss this issue more openly because people of this nation understand that all life is precious, including the life of the unborn. they also understand that our money comes from taxpayers and taxpayers expect us to do the right things with their money. and that means protecting life

at all costs. you know, one of the things that i want to say before i wrap up and we talk about polling is that there have been multiple polls conducted on the subject within the last year of federal funds and abortion. two that i want to highlight were conducted by cnn. now, cnn is hardly a right wing organization. but the cnn poll showed that 60% of americans oppose public moneys going to fund abortion. that's well over a majority. the other poll showed 72% oppose it. wow. that's a lot of americans. and i believe that we need to do the right thing and end the public funding of abortion. whether notice the health care bill, any bill that comes here or any moneys that go overseas.

like the feminists, the pro-life women of the past, pro-life women today simply believe that we are all afforded the right to life. it is not a gift from our government, it is a gift from our lord. he is the one that has allowed us to stand here in america and across the world. he is the one that has said to us he wants us to be in his image and his likeness. it is our lord that wants us to be the best person we can be. and if we are to be the best person we can be we have to ensure that each other has that same chance.

whether it's a little seed in a womb that is 20 minutes old or it's an elderly person in a nursing home. all of us are equal in the lord's eyes, all of us have the right to life and so i'm proud to stand here today like my sisters before me, like elizabeth cady stanton, like susan b. anthony, and, yes, alice paul, and say, enough's enough. women's rights are women's rights. and if a woman has rights those rights are the child's rights because everybody has the right to life. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair

recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege and honor to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives and also to have listened in on the presentation over the previous hour, the republican women for life led by congresswoman schmidt who has relentlessly stood up for the innocent unborn and i'd certainly support that cause and lend my voice to it. although i don't know that there's much to be had after -- added after the presentation i heard. i'm grateful it's in the congressional record and you're ear has been tuned to it, mr. speaker, and that the ear of the american people are tuned to that message as well. i have a couple of subjects that i wanted to discuss here within the upcoming 30 minutes that's been allotted and the first one is to speak to the vote that we've just had here on the floor on the continuing resolution for expending the -- extending the

funding for this government for an additional three weeks. and it is known as a clean c.r. this house came together to work its will on h.r. 1. we debated that continuing resolution which would be designed to fund this government for the balance of the fiscal year. mr. speaker, i think it's real important that you and the american people are reminded that we're in this condition of this debate over this continuing resolution because the pelosi congress didn't do business as directed and as framed under the constitution of the united states. the polycongress continued to digress -- pelosi congress continued to digress. when it first opened up after the majority in the gavel was passed right behind me where you are, mr. speaker, this congress functioned for the first few weeks pretty much the same as it had under the previous speaker. but in that transition that took place, the rules began to get

changed and there were fewer and fewer opportunities for members to weigh in, the committees began to function less and less, more and more bills were written out of the speaker's office and as this unfolded the rules changed, it took away one of the things was an open rules under the appropriations process so that members couldn't offer their amendments and force a debate and a vote on an issue of their concern, appropriation bills have always been a tool that allowed members to work their will on a package that came from committee. that went away. that was taken away by, just presume it was by order of the speaker, speaker pelosi, and so the house was no longer able to work its will, bills came down under a closed rule, appropriation bills came down under, well, modified closed rule and then they didn't come down at all. then they turned into an omnibus spending bills or they turned into continuing resolutions and this government limped along without having the opportunity

to gather together from across this country the collective wisdom of the 435 members of congress as informed by our constituents. so the congress became dysfunctional. and one of the things that is the result of that is the legacy today of having to be in this business now of seeking to put congress back on its tracks again. in the fashion that this constitution frames and the tradition of functional congresses directs us. that's been the mission of speaker boehner. and he's been very clear about this, to make this congress work again. and because of that commitment it brought about the debate on h.r. 1 which debated all the funding of the federal government for the balance of this fiscal year and allowed it under an open rule. there were hundreds of amendments that were offered by members who had four years of pentup frustration, democrats and republicans alike, that had a voice that wanted to be heard, votes that we wanted to see cast, and a message that helped shape the, let's say the political consensus of this body

before a bill goes over to the united states senate. and we worked through that bill for over 90 hours of debate and of the hundreds of amendments that were offered there were a good number that were passed and some of them shut off funding to certain pieces of policy. but it was the will of the house wrapped up in the result of the passage of h.r. 1 that went over to the senate. that was the first offer and it's the best offer of the house so far and it reflects the will of the house of representatives and the house of representatives designed by definition to reflect the will of the american people. so i want to make clear, mr. speaker, we are in this debate over the continuing resolution, the continuing resolution that was passed in the lame-duck session that carried it until march 4 of this year, the two-week, quote, clean c.r., closed quote, is set to expire on the night of march 18 and now the extended now three-week,

quote, clone c.r., closed quote, that extends the funding an additional three weeks under similar terms, not identical terms, to the previous continuing resolution. all right. that's the scenario that we're in, mr. speaker, and we're in this scenario because congress wasn't doing its job from 2007 on up until we gaveled in here in january of 2011. there's a four-year period of time where 2007 it wasn't bad when it started. it diagreesed progressively until it came close to completely dysfunctional. i'd say, mr. speaker, i lived a fair amount of history and studied the rest of it. although i wouldn't present myself being a congressional scholar, a historian on all the detail. but that's generally what's taken place. now we have speaker boehner putting us back on track and, yes, there were some growing pains going through those 90-plus hours of debate on the continuing resolution under an

open rule. and, yes, many of us compromised to take our amendments down and negotiated a unanimous consent agreement. it was negotiated in good faith, and i appreciate all the effort that went into that. it was a very, very good exercise. democrats and republicans alike. i heard no one argue that the process of open rules and open debate was a bad process or that it wasn't fair or that it somehow should not have been done, that we should have been enfwaged in a closed rule process. no, mr. speaker, that was the right thing to do. and the subsequent continuing resolutions, the first one was to buy time for the senate to digest h.r. . and the one that passed on -- h.r. 1. and the one that passed on this floor when i voted no on it is an extension of a similar philosophy with another little slice out of the cuts. so maybe, maybe the senate will swallow this one bite at a time when the whole loaf seems to be

too much. but at the same time the leverage that is diminishing as the pages on the calendar turn. mr. speaker, i didn't come here tonight to belabor this issue, to just make the point that there's a reason that we're at this position with debates over continuing resolutions, and it is because the congress didn't function in previous years and handed over the c.r. scenario to be taken at the fourth of meamp. the senate in the downward spiral of the functionality of the house of representatives, i'm not speaking on the functionality of the senate. although i might not be complementary of that should i dig into that, mr. speaker. so that's the scenario we are in. it's brought about some leverage points. it puts the house in a position where if we choose to we can hold our ground and we can direct policy across to the senate and through to the president of the united states. and we should all understand that when the majority leader in

the united states senate speaks he's speaking in such a way that it's designed to be in a way a mouthpiece for the president, a shield to protect the president from public criticism and protect the president from the initiatives that start here in the house. if members of this house will make the argument that we can't pass legislation here that we believe in because harry reid won't take it in the senate, we should be thinking in terms of the proxy for the president in the senate is resisting the republican initiative which is the will of the people that was brought about by the 87 new freshmen that's come here to support the incumbent republicans and passed all the gavels in the united states house of representatives were passed from one hand of one party to the other party. that's the will of the people. mr. speaker, we have the obligation to carry out this will of the people. in conformance with our best effort and our best judgment.

and that works in consultation with democrats, as it should, and it hasn't always been the caseworking across the aisle. there have been times i was accused myself. i will be a little more open than in the past. the house should work its will. i compliment the speaker for laying that standard out. it's not going to be an easy manner to carry. he knows that. he understands this organism of the house of representatives. in spite of all of the stress that's going on here, the house is positioning itself to work its will on the senate and working its will in the senate is working its will through the proxy for the president and on towards the white house. if the president of the united states believes that all of the functions of government don't match up to his desire to protect, his signature issue, obamacare, the american people need to know that's his priority. my priority is to repeal it, defund it and until such time we can get a president to sign the

repeal of obamacare and that's been my effort to first kill the bill and then work to repeal it and we're about a year and a half into this effort and i will continue my effort as intensively as i need to for as long as it takes until the day comes when we can actually celebrate free at last, free from the yolk of the socialized medicine policy called obamacare and free to exercise our liberty that i believe has been unjustly taken by the legislation. and two federal courts have found it unconstitutional. now, mr. speaker, that's my little editorial here. i haven't worked out a smooth transition into the subject matter. but it occurs to me as i stand here that it's been a little while since i've addressed you on the subject of immigration. and it's been a little bit quiet in the house of representatives on the immigration issue. so i want to raise this point and have this discussion. and it is this -- that we're

looking at numbers that show still millions of illegals here in the united states, about 60% of whom came across the border illegally. about 40% overstayed their visas. and it's odd that the number of illegals as reported by the department of homeland security to be less than it's been over the previous eight years that i've been here in this congress. so when i came here the number was 12 million. 12 million illegals here in the united states. and i've gone down to the border many times. i've sat in hearings year after year, week after week where expert witnesses come over and testify and they will testify that the net numbers of people that are interdicted coming across the border that they would perhaps stop one out of four of those and it's not too hard to extrapolate those numbers three, four, five years ago would come to four million, four million illegal border crossings a year which they

contend they stop one out of four. they say they perhaps catch one in three or one in four. that would be from one of the representatives of the border control. i would go down to the border and the agents down there would tell me 25%? 10% has to come first. a 10% effectiveness rate. now, one could argue whether 10%'s the right number. i hear that number is less than that too. or 25% is the right number. what it says is i don't think anybody contends that the effectiveness rate of the full list of our border control officers we have all across our southern border is interdicting a number that would be approaching even half of those attempt to across the border. and those attempts across the border are probably down from the data that i gave you from four, five years ago. but think of over four million illegal border crossings, think of stopping perhaps a million of them and now there's three

million in the united states a year. and that three million number is going to grow. some go back to their home country and cross multiple times. that's true. if we have 12 million illegals in 2003 and we have less than 12 million illegals today, according to janet napolitano's department of homeland security, what happened to all those people? we were accumulating people for all of these last eight years. and if somehow by some miracle, some mystery of nature of humanity we don't accumulate illegals in america when we have large numbers of them coming in here, i suppose you can chalk it off to a death rate or self-deportation rate. but, mr. speaker, we got to 12 million somehow. they came from somewhere. and people agree that 12 million was the illegal number, at least it was before. i always thought it was higher. but if in the years prior to 2003 we accumulated 12 million illegals and if we're watching four million illegal border

crossings a year, that might even be a peak and maybe that number's down by a third or so now, and a large percentage to get in the united states and a significant percentage of them stay here, the 12 million gets to be a bigger number, not a smaller number. how did janet napolitano come with a number lower than 12 million? and that's a question i'd like to ask her if she'd stop before the immigration subcommittee so we can have that conversation. but i think the number is larger than 12 million. i always thought it was larger than 12 million since i've been in this congress and i don't think that reduction shows the real population that's here and as we look at the enforcement ratio that they show us on the southern border. it will show they are stopping fewer illegals on the border, and the department of homeland security contends that there's less interaction with our agents and illegals that that says there are fewer illegals. well, that might be the case, but it also might be the case

that there's just less arrests, fewer interdictions. i do think when you double the number of border patrol agents they're out there competing for -- to be able to make those arrests and pickups. i think the natural orderer of our law enforcement officers will be doing -- they'll still be doing the enforcement but also it pushes people out away from those highly concentrated areas, those areas like el paso, for example, and puts them to places in the desert that aren't that close. i used to see testimony that would show 100,000 people that would die in the desert sneaking into the united states and as that number would grow, it would be 200 a year and then 250 a year and a number that i recall that went up to 450 a year.

and now that's dater that's more than five years old and i haven't been able to get my hands on that old data. so if the number of deaths in the desert are going down that would indicate there are fewer people going through the desert if the climate hasn't changed and other factors being all the same. but if the number of deaths in the desert to illegals is going up that would indicate the traffic is going up. and so in a number of the sectors we've seen those deaths go down, but in the tucson sector, most recently, we've seen the number go up which would indicate a larger number of illegals coming into the united states through the arizona desert. the travel across new mexico. the people there in a town hall meeting in columbus, new mexico said almost unanimously there are more drugs coming through and illegals coming through than ever before. they believe it's more dangerous than ever before. that, mr. speaker, is the circumstances on the border. and in any case, whether we have

11.5 million illegals here or 20.5 million illegals here, i don't think the numbers are shrinking. i think the number grows. we have a significant number of illegal entries in the united states. we don't have operational control of the whole border. we may have operational control over segments of the border but there's much of it that we do not have. we've got a long ways to go but i do believe, i do believe we can get operational control over the border and i mean operational control of the border that's signed by duncan hunter of california. i want to do honor of duncan hunter's work that passed the secure fence act. i want to complete that project because this is some other things that i know. we're spending about $12 billion -- let me see if i can get these numbers right. about $12 billion on our

southern border. that turns out to be about $6 million a mile. $6 million a mile. mr. speaker, i think about what is a mile? that's four laps around an old track. where i live in iowa it's to my west corner. our roads are laid out in mile -- in a mile grid pattern. every grid section, a mile to the corner. there is a survey pan that's a mile apart each way. surveyed the old way and they got it very, very close. a mile. $6 million a mile. for every mile, all 12 million miles of our border, $6 million and we're guarding that with a 12% or even higher efficiency rate but not up to 50% and we think we're getting our moneys' worth? that doesn't mean the agents aren't doing their job. it's tactically, are we investing the right dollars in the right resources to get the best result we can? so i look across my west mile, for example, and i think, what

if -- what if secretary of homeland security janet napolitano came to me and said, steve, i'm going to make you an offer, i'll make you an offer for a contract for you to guard a mile, how about a mile by my house, guard that so that people that want to cross it cannot cross it unless they're authorized and if they are direct them to a port of entry and i'm going to pay you $6 million next year to see to it that no more than, say, oh, 75% of the people that try get across. it's what we're looking at. if it's a 25% efficiency rate at our southern border, it means that 75% is going through. i'm picking a number that's the most recent congressional testimony that i know of and that's a 25% efficiency rate which was some thought a stretch then. so it's a 75% inefficiency rate. so if janet napolitano came to me and said, i have this offer

for you, here's $6 million, guard that west mile of your house and you can only let 75% of the people that illegally want to cross it go across. the other 25%, you have to turn them back. would i take that deal for that level of efficiency especially if it's a 10-year contract and now it's $60 million for 10 years? i hope i can live long enough to spend it. yes, i would take them up. now if the offer was you are going to get your $60 million for your mile, $60 million over 10 years for a mile guarding a mile of the border, you'll get your $60 million but you have to provide efficiency. and you're not going to grow an empire that gives you political clout by hiring a lot of people and giving them good benefits packages and marketing and that fashion, you're going to have to make the best efficiency. i'd look at that mile and here's what i'd do, mr. speaker. i'd pick up the duncan hunter

proposal and i'd say, let's build a fence and a wall and a fence. let's build that across that mile and i'd put the capital investment in for a couple of million dollars a mile i'd have that all done. for about 1/3 of my first annual budget i'd have that all done and it would cut my cost on the guard and man power cost for the duration of the decade and beyond. if you build a fence, a wall and a fence that, whether you are depreciate it out over 40 years, it would yield benefits every single year. they've built that kind of a barrier in israel and it's 99.something percent effective. if you look around the world there's fence after fence after fence. if people over on this side of the aisle as a rule, they'll say, don't know that we don't do that? don't you know that the berlin wall is abhorrent to us? and my answer to that is, how did you get history so distorted in your mind that you would compare a fence to keep people out with a fence to keep people in? there are two opposite proposals, two opposite reasons.

you can't convince -- you can't argue that the berlin wall is like building a fence on our southern border unless you want to argue that the people that were in the west wanted to get over that wall into the east. they did not. there was no traffic sneaking in behind the iron curtain. it was the other way around. and so we're trying to keep large masses of people out of the united states and force them out through the ports of entry and let them come in here the legal way and there is no country in the world that's more generous than the united states. in fact, all the countries in the world don't match up to the generosity of the united states from an immigration perspective. so we're general rowls. we're bringing about 1 1/2 million people a year legally and we watch as every night we have dozens and hundreds of people that come into the united states, one calculation showed during the peek of this -- peak of this, 11,000 a night. 11,000 on a 24-hour period. most of that's at night. the army was only about 5,000 to

6,000. it was nearly twice as large as santa ana's army every single night. no they weren't uniform and a lot of them weren't carrying guns and maybe they weren't a physical threat to us in a general sense, but that is a pretty large group of people every night to see twice the size of santa ana's army coming into the united states illegally. i'll tell you, i believe it's at least the size of santa ana's army now. every night. and we're letting this happen day bidet bidet and we turn a little blind eye to it and we watch as we tragically pick up the bodies in the desert of those that are sneaking into the united states illegally, that don't make it across that desert. and as the summer comes along, the numbers go up and up. but i ask the question a few years ago when they were testifying before the immigration committee about how many lives were lost in the desert sneaking into the united states, how many americans died at the hands of those who made

it in the united states? how many times have we seen fatalities on the highway that was someone who didn't have a driver's license, didn't have an insurance policy, that was in the united states illegally, that didn't understand our laws, that drinking and driving had been picked up, had been interdicted by law enforcement we lost a nun in virginia last year, very close to home, corey stewart knows about that, the county supervisor down there, lives in prince william county. that's an example we lost several kids in a school bus wreck in southwest minnesota, north of me, that happened with an illegal that had been interdicted several times and turned loose into our society and those families grieve for their lost children and a school bus wreck that would have been avoided if we'd enforced our laws at the border, if we'd enforced our laws with local law enforcement, here when we come across people in the united states illegally.

this is not a big ask. a sovereign nation has to have borders. and what do borders mean? they mean that you control the traffic that's coming in to those borders and we can actually decide, we can control the traffic going out of the united states but we don't have to do that because we've developed a pretty good country here. we're going to lose this country if we don't adhere to the rule of law. and the rule of law is that when this congress act, the executive branch is bound to enforce the law and it's a prudent decision that reflects the will of the american people. the american people have said, we want our borders secure and we don't want workers in the united states illegally taking jobs away from americans or illegal immigrants who become americans, we want to have a tighter labor supply than that, if we wanted to up our 1 1/2 million legal immigrants into the united states we could do that. we could double this. we could triple it, we could go 10 fold. we could say that anybody could come to the united states, all you have to do is sign up at the

u.s. council in your u.s. embassy in your home country. and we'll send you, we'll give you a visa to come to the united states. we can say. that we could bring anybody in that wanted to come in. but why do we say no? because there's a limit. we have asked the question here in this congress and in previous congresses, asked and answered the question, first, how many are too many? and what kind of people do we want to encourage to come here and what kind of people do we want to discourage from coming here? these are the questions. we have all kinds of people involved in this debate that don't have the slightest idea how to begin to answer those questions. they just say, oh, my compassion compels me to be for open borders, my heart bleeds for people that aren't as fortunate as americans are so therefore i'm just going to be for turning a blind eye or granting amnesty so that i don't feel guilty that everybody can't live on the american dream like we all do. well, things have changed.

things have changed. that was time when we had high levels of immigration into this country and zero welfare state. when my grandmother came over here in 1896, excuse me, 198 -- 1894, when she came over here we weren't a welfare state. they screened people before they got on the boat and they checked them out physically, they checked them out mentally, they made -- if they had a lot of resources they got to ride first class and got unloaded in a different dock but the rest of them went to ellis island and even though they screened a good number of people out before they boarded the ship, remember he, the they didn't want to haul them back to europe, europe primarily at that time, but even after they were screened and they arrived at ellis island they gave them a physical, looked in their eye, gave them a quick mental test, looked underneath their eye lids if they had a disease, and if they weren't a physical -- if they weren't of physical ability or

mental ability to be able to take care of themselves, they put them back on the boat. i shouldn't say ship. and sent them back to the place where they came from. and about %, 2% were sent back. now, here we are, we're interdicting 10%, 25%, we don't even get what many sent back because it's round robin. for a long time we did catch and release and we said, come back and appear and of course they didn't appear and then we did catch and return. pick them up at downtown nogales, take them up to the station sector location and they would come with their little zip lock bag, we fingerprinted them, took a digital photograph of them and sometimes we saw that same person come back, the peak one that i know of down there was in 27 times. that's a really, we had a really good return trade going won people coming into the united states illegally. we'd pick them up, give them a ride up to the headquarters and all they had to do was have

their prints taken again, get their picture taken again and then they got a little van ride that was down to the port of entry where they turned that little white van sways, opened up the side door and they'd get out and open -- walk to mexico. around and around and around we went. it was round robin. it wasn't accomplishing very much. now we're bringing prosecution against most of them which is providing a little more of a deterrent, mr. speaker. we've got to do a lot, lot better. we've got to understand this mission. the mission is to protect our borders for the sovereign nation, you can't have a border if you don't control the border, we need to control the border. we need to force all traffic through the ports of entry and yes we need to put sensory devices up there and use other technology that's there and yes we have to have border control, border patrol agents that are there that are manning the fence and running to the locations

where they need you to make the proper interdictions, all of that needs to take place. but we need to use our resources smartly and we can, we can shut off all illegal traffic coming -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. king: if we do these smart things and i have not advocated, i'll point out, mr. speaker, i haven't advocated a 2,000-mile fence. i've simply advocated that we build a fence, a wall and a fence and build it until they stop going around the end. that's the standard. and force all the traffic through the ports of entry. then we have to beef them up so we can handle the increased traffic there's there so it's not a significant -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. king: excuse me, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker, in that case a bit of a surprise to me but i'd yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 170. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 839 to amend the emergency economic stabilization act of 2008, to terminate the authority of the secretary of the treasury to provide new assistance under the home affordable modification program while preserving assistance to homeowners who are already extended and offered to

participate in the program either on a trial or permanent basis and providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 861, to rescind the third round of funding for the neighborhood stabilization program and to terminate the program. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for a motion. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning though house approves a short-term spending bill funding the government and government programs through february 28. this is -- through -- this is

the third continuing resolution. we'll have more live house coverage when the gavel comes down here on c-span. >> with current temporary federal spending expiring this friday, they're working on a short-term funding measure to last through april 8. watch the proceedings and see what your congressional representative has to say at c-span.org/congress. >> in the 21st century, it's not enough to leave no child behind. we need to help every child get ahead. we need to get every child on the path to academic excellence. >> president obama called on congress to overhaul the no child left behind law in time for the new school year in september. follow the law from its start in the bush administration, its opponents and detractors and

where it stands today. search, watch, click and share. it's washington your way. >> ohio governor john case exreleased -- kasich released the state's budget today. we'll have live coverage of that beginning after 6:00 on c-span3. while the house nrnl and commerce subcommittee energy and power is holding a joint hearing tomorrow looking at the issue of nuclear energy, president obama today defends nuclear power as a source of energy in the u.s. the news from japan a short while ago with the japanese government saying one of the nuclear reactors there is showing flames above the plant. we'll update that story as we get more information. the hearing tomorrow with the subcommittees will feature steven chu, the secretary of energy, and also the head of the nuclear regulatory

commission, gregory jasko. we'll have that live on c-span3, tomorrow morning at 9:30 eastern. earlier today in the u.s. house they passed the sixth temporary spending measure for fiscal year 2011, which will fund the federal government through april 8 and cut $6 billion over that three-week period. the final vote was 271-158 with 186 democrats, republicans, rather, and 85 democrats voting aye and 54 republicans joining 104 democrats voting against that temporary spending measure that now goes to the u.s. senate. we're going to show you debate from earlier in the u.s. house on the continuing resolution. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five lennell slative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.j.res.

248 and that i may include tabular material on the same. thepeaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today to support h. -- h.j.res. 48, the fiscal year 2011 further continuing appropriations resolution. this temporary c.r. will allow us to avoid a government shutdown that could otherwise occur on march 18. . while cutting spending by $6 bill to control our nation's staggering deficits and to facilite the continued recovery of our nation's economy. we have made it clear -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair is finding it difficult to hear with conversations that are still going on in the back of the chamber. on all sides. the gentleman from kentucky deserves to be heard.

the gentleman may continue. mr. rogers: we have made it clear that a government shut down is not an option. period. we will not allow this to happen on our watch. this bill funds the government for an additional three weeks until april 8, maintaining the critical support the government provides to the american people and allowing for the necessary time to complete negotiateations on a final long-term agreement for the remainder ofhis year. while funding the essential government agencies and programs, this c.r. makes $6 bill in spending cuts. trimming $2 billion for every week to continue our efforts to rein in spending and putting a debt in our massive and

unsustainable deficit. together with the $4 billion that we cut two weeks ago, mr. speaker, along with the $6 bill we cut in this bill, we will have cut $10 billion from current year spending. that makes it the largest rescission in american history. and so it is working. h.j.res. 48 reduces or terminates a total of 25 programs for a savings of $3.5 billion. these cuts include fundin rescissions, reductions, and program terminations. it also eliminates earmark accounts within agriculture, commerce, justice, science, financial services, geral government, interior subcommittee jurisdictions. saving the american taxpayers

$2.6 billion in earmark spending, which the president and th houses of congress have agreed they do not support. these cuts are the tough but necessary legwork required to help balance our budgets and halt the dangerous downward spiral of skyrocketing deficits. while short-term funding measures such as this is not the preferable way to fund the government, at this point it's vital. the budget for fiscal 2011, which was punted to us by the previous congress, is long, long overdue. i agree with many of my colleagues that we must get down to business and come to final agreement as quickly as possible. our economy must not be threatened by perpetual government shut down which create uncertainty and a loss

of confidence for job creators across the country. this continuing resolution provides us with an appropriate length of time for negotiateations, makes good -- negotiateations -- negotiations, makes good on our promises to provide rtainty and stability, and allows essential federal programs to continue while these negotiations continue. i'm hopeful, mr. speaker, that this continuing resolution can be passed swiftly so we can turn our attention to the realitie of our debt and deficit cris and begin to put the nation on the right path for the next fiscal year. 2012. our constituents have asked us to whip our speing into shape , to provide solutions that help our economy grow and to help our citizens get jobs. this c.r. addresses their expectations responsibly over the short term, and is jus one

of the set of bills that we intend to produce over the next year that will continue to put the nation's budget back into balance and help our economy continue on the road to recovery. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: thank you, mr. speaker. today the house is considering the fifth continuing resolution for f.y. 2011 t keep the federal government running. here we are in the middling of march considering yet another short-term bill that is supposed to buy us time to negotiate funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. i hope that profits to be true. we need -- proves to be true. we need to bring this to a conclusion. the extension reduces spending in f.y. 2011 by $45 billion below the president's request. it has ather $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, senate, and white house to settle all outstanding issues on fiscal year 2011 appropriations. i remain hopeful the negotiations will succeed and we will be able to give our agency some amount of certaint for what little remains of fiscal year 2011. today in the "new york times" there was a long article showing what kind of disruption occurs in federal agencies, including defense and social security and oers, head start, for example, because we haven't gotten these bills enacted. but i must remind my colleagues that if the c.r. extended for the remainder of the year, we would be cutting spending at historic $51 billion below the president's request. i am worried that cutting deeper will threaten a fragile

economic recovery. most economists see cuts in h.r. 1 as a drag on the economic growth leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. as federal chairman bernanke projects, moody's mark zandi estimates 400,000 jobs lost for the remainder of this year and 700,000 more next year if h.r. 1 is enacted. goldman sachs thinks it would be as high as 2.4 million jobs st. in yesterday's abc news/"washington post," the american people -- poll, the american people believe that the republican proposal cuts in h.r. 61, will hurt the economic recovery. i am relieved that chairman rogers craft add bill that relies on previously identified reductions, a significant portion of which will hold earmarks. whili know my colleagues will not agree with and may not be able to support some of the

specific program cuts included in this package, i appreciate that there was a genuine attempt to engage the senate and white house before they were chosen. most importantly, i'm tremendously relieved the chairman has stayed away from the controversial riders in this stopgap measure. he knows as i do that these riders would almost guarantee a veto by the administration which would almost guarantee a government shut down. an approprtion bill is not the place to decide enormously complex and controversial policy issues. i'm not pleased to be here today with yet another short-term bill. i sincerely hope that we will use this three-week period of time judicially -- judiously so the next time we consider a bill for 2011 it wl be the last and for theremaining six months of this year. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, a new member of our committee, mr.

diaz-balart, thr minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you very much, mr. chairman. there's a couple of things that are not debatable. i think the the american people understand and everybody understands that we are on an unsustainable th. we are on an unsustainable path as far as unemployment. the unemployment numbers are still frighteningly high. we are on an unsustainable path as far as borrowing and spending. so, frankly, we have a couple options here. we can continue that unsustainable path which is borrowing more and spending more, or we could change the way we are doing and try to get our fiscal act and fiscal house inrder. i commend the chairman, chairman rogers, for bringing forward a c.r., an extension, that does just that. that brings some sanity to this process. that reduces the amount of spending, that does so responsibly after reviewing

programs and reviewing funding and reviewing what the federal government is doing. that's exactly what we have in front of us today. yes, we wish that we could have not just an extension, but we coulgo through the entire year. the reason by the way that we have been talking about this right now is because they failed to pass it so we are forced to do so. but we already passed a c.r. for the remaining part of the year. but unfortunately the senate has not been able or has not been willing to do their part. so we are forced once again to do an extension. this is a real tension that reduces cost, that reduces expensesthat does so responsibly, and takes us off this unsustainable path. this does so by borrowing less, by spending less, and, yes, it will have the effect, mr. speake of getting our fiscal house in order and once again allow this country to start

creating jobs in a real way not just piecemeal way. i urge our colleagues to support this responsible c.r. thank you,r. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yieltwo minutes to the distinguished lady from california, barbarlee, a member othe appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. and to say today that once again i rise to oppose this continuing resolution. once again the majority is reading from a very familiar script that imposes budgetary pain on vulnerable communities that can least endure these budget cut for a third consecutive time now, the majority is presenting a temporary spending bill total -- totaling $6 billion in spending cuts and $2.6 billion

in earmark cuts to very meaningful programs. once again this c.r. does nothing to promote jobs. the majority pledge to develop jobs when they regained control of the house, but they continue to renege on their promise. it's important to emphasize that the promised cuts will hit communities that can last afford these hits. the loss of 185 million in state and local law enforcement assistance provided by byrne grants will further squeeze police budgets. with these cuts communities will be struggling to find funding to support vital police functions. at the same time, when drug use andrug trafficking is the rise, this c.r. includes cuts to cops to combat the spread of meth use and distribution. rather than continue to fund vital programs at the community level that work, we are witnessing budgeting through biweekly c.r.'s. these cuts will further harm

highly vulnerable communities that greatly rely on cops, policing services, and technology grants. also my constituents regularly call my office asking what source of funding is going to replace earmarks? that historically have supported jobs, small businesses, schools, nonprofits. also i continue to press the administration witnesses on budget -- in budget justification hearings regarding the impact of the elimination of earmarks and what alternative resources will replace them? thank you. i hope we vote no on this c.r. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the chairman of the transportation, h.u.d. subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa investigated for two minutes -- is recognized for two minutes. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for

yielding time. i do rise in support of this joint resolution. it's not because i want to, but because it's necessary to support it today. it's necessary because we are stuck in a situation that results from the previous majori's lack of completing its work last year. i think we need to step back and just look at the situation that we are handed this year. for the first time since the budget act of 1974, mr. speaker, the house failed to pass a budget last year. the house also failed, except for two occasions, to pass appropriations bills. the senate did nothing. so what we are left with today is this mess that we are in. with no fiscal yea 2011 budget, no appropriation bills passed last year. nothing done. so we are given this mess today

to clean up. what we need is a little more time, but in the meantime we are going to cut spending, $6 billion of cuts, $2 billion a week for the three weeks that this bill will be in place. . it's not enough. we've got to look at the overall problem we have in this country, $14.3 trillion of tet, an annual one-year deficit of $1.65 trillion. now while this just scratches thsurface,e've got to address long term the spending here in washington, d.c. we've got to look at not just the discretionary side, which this bill does, but look at all the entitlements. we're only addressing about 15% of the whole budget in this bill. we've go to make sure we look at the -- we've got to make sure we look at the other 85%, which is mandatory, other spending out there that cause

this explosion of debt that we have. what this is is a very good first step of goingorward to really get a handle on the spending and also, mr. speaker, i would ask that the white house finally get involved and show some leadership as far as trying to get our fiscal house in order. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, the ranking member on the interior and related agencies, appropriations and e.p.a. and also a former chairman of that committee. mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: i thank the distinguished member from washington and thank him for his leadership. but he knows as well as do, i trust, all of the members, that this is no way to run a government. lurching back and forth like a drunken sailor, the agencies

not knowing when or whether they're going to get their money. actually, i should take that back. the navy woulnever conduct operations like this. and the distinguished chairman from kentucky well knows that is is not the way we want to be doing business. but yet, here we are. with another c.r. we just had a hearing this week with the forest service. as the members know, they hire hundreds, sometimes thousands f temporary seasonal workers to fight fires in our nation's forests. they can't do that, they don't know how much money they're going to have. and the folks that they would hire seonally, as a result, can't take those jobs, don't know what they're going to do. it disrupts people's lives.

hundreds of thousands of people's lives, millions of people's lives indirectly. this is no way to run a government. why are we going it? because we can't agree on h.r. 1. and we shouldn't agree on h.r. 1 as passed by the house. so many riders that should have gone through legislative committees that did in fact when they were put in the bill after careful consideration and we gave them 10 minutes of debate and then -- in the wee hours of the morning and stripped that language from the authorizing legislation. that's no way to run a government. and beyond those riders there's thousands of programs that are being cut willy nilly. one such program, for example, national oceanic and atmospheric administration. they provided the early warning to people on the west coast when they knew about the sunesune.

-- about the tsunami. yet we are told by noaa that the 28% cut in this bill for noaa would dismantle our early warning system. to save a few million dollars. that's just wrong. you know, there was just an article, people are beginning to realize other things that are cut in this program to save a few dollars. $285 million is not a few dolrs b consider what happens when you cut $285 million out of the program integrity section of the internal revenue service. they collect $10 from every $1 we spent. and so you cut out $285 million and it costs you about $3 billion. in revenue that should be collected. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is issued an

additional minute. mr. moran: the only point i started by suggesting and i'm sure it's not in contention, this is no way to run a government. we have a responseability -- responsibility on the probabilities committee to fu these agencies, to determine our priorities, to reflect the interest and the will of the american people. this process does not do that. the bill h.r. 12 does not do that. -- h.r. 1 does not do that. the american people deserve better. they deserve careful consideration. we need to cut, but we need to cut responbly. this bill will pass but this should be the last c.r. let's get a full year appropriations bill passed as soon as possible. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. ran: i'd be happy to yield.

mr. dicks: there was an article in "the washington post" about how house g.o.p. spending cuts would add to more spending later. i yield myself an additional minute. one thing i'm most concerned about is the women and infant care program, w.i.c., where you provide nutrition to an expectant mother who is pbably on medicaid and help her baby to be born in more healthy way. we find out that hospitals in this cupry provide $26 billion of health care for these same babies who are born premature. pay me now or pay me later. in this case, it would be a lot more. the i.r.s. is another example. noaa weather satellite is another example in thed my tholve tsunami and earthquake, we need to be making reasonable judgments and i hope we can make reasonable judgments. i happen to be the ranking on

defense. we can cut money out of defense, we can do more in that area. i just think we've got to be careful and when this final package comes together, we'v got to cut out the ones that would be revenue raisers. mr. moran: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield myself one minute. the gentleman from virgini says the public deserves that we pass appropriations bills. and i could not agree with him more. his majority last year failed to pass a single bill. out of the 12 we were supposed to pass. that's why we're here. we're trying to clean up the mesthat the gentleman from virginia's party left us when we took offe in january. and so that's why we're here. yes, it's a terrible way to do business. and this should be the last

c.r. extension that we pass before we have an agreement with the other body and the white house on the rest of this year. however, mr. speaker, again, the gentleman's party and the senate refuses to pass a bill and lay something on the table. we are going to the conference table to negotiate and we're sitting there by ourselves. the other body will not come forward with a proposition. until that time, i n't know what we do. now i yield three minutes to the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from alabama,r. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. aderholt: thank you, chairman rogers, for yielding. the bill before us today is another necessary stepn addressing the national imperative of reducing our debt while keeping the government operating. essential functions like homeland security are sustained under this bill an sustained in

that a fiscally responsible way. within the more than $6 billion of spend regular duckses contained in this bill is a rescission of $107 million to customs and border protection a rescission of unobligated balances requested by the administration for f.y. 2011, supported by the minority, passed by this body as part of h.r. 1 and included in the senate appropriations committee recently reported bill. but this bill also sends a very clear signal to the white house and to the senate. as a speaker and chairman rogers -- as the speaker and chairman rogers have stated, no one wants a government shutdown. the only people talking about the shutdown of the government are those avoiding the tough cisions and seeking to shift blame from their own failure to act. instead of excuses, the american people want results. less spending an a leaner, mo effective government. that's exactly what this temporary stopgap bill

delivers. i couldn't agree more with what the chairman just stated a couple of minutes ago. congress didn't get its work done and the senate has yet to provide a viable alternative to the house-passed h.r. 1. a bill that stands as the only ar-long spending measure for f.y. 2011 passed by either congress -- chamber of congress. so complaints about a short-term stopgap bill like this ring hollow when the house-passed solution has been on the negotiating table for almost a month. the present proposed spending level for f.y. 2011 is no long aeroviable option, a fact acknowledgenot only by the administration itsf but by both parties and both chameboferse congress system of the time to get to work and fill our duty to the american people is long overdue. congress needs to deliver what the american people have so resoundingly demanded.

i can only hope the administration and the senate also acknowledge the reality of our nation's fiscal cries aand -- crisis and demonstrate resolve to cut spending and come to the table with a viable budget for the remainder of this year. the american people demand noless. i thank the gentleman, the chairman of the appropriations committee for yielding and i yield back the balance -- i would be happy to yield to the chairman. >> it was stated a moment ago -- mr. rogers: it was stated that this c.r. cuts noaa and tsunami predictions money but that's not so. the only thing that cuts money from noaa is the earmarks, and yes, we cut earmarks but they had nothing to do with tsunami warnings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i was referring to h.r. 1, not this c.r.

the gentleman from kentucky is absolutely correct. mr. rogers: h.r. 1 doesn't cut tsunami warning moneys. mr. dicks: there's some things in there that i think no one thinks would have an effect on their weather forecast -- that i think noaa thinks woud have an effect on their weather forecast. mr. rogers: they're wrong. mr. dicks: i want to yield two minutes to the delegate from the district of columbia, eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: look, the majority has chosen to run the government, the federal government from c.r. to c.r., but the majority has noright to inflict this operational outrage on the local funds of a local jurisdiction, the district of columbia. it may want -- the majority may want to incur for the federal

government the operational difficulties, after all the the district of columbia delivers services to federal officials including the president, federal buildings, foreign embassies and the like. but does the majority really want to risk the -- to put the district and its operations at risk or to place what wall street almost surely will do, a risk premium on the district due to the fact that we are being put from c.r. to c.r.? this is a fragile economy fo every big city, the d.c. local budget was approved a year ago in the city and last summer, by the appropriations committee. yet the district of columbia is being held hostage to a federal fight, although the district of columbia can do nothing to free itself from this federal fight. i have tried to get the

district on successive c.r.'s so we could spend our own money all year. there is no disapproval of that here, i wager that very few members even know that the district would close down if the federal government closed down, would be perplexed byt, would have no objection to o spending our own local money all year long, we raise and manage $8 billion, we have a right to spend our local funds without being dragged into a federal fight. you can't run a big city from c.r. to c.r. i ask you to find a way between now and three weeks to free d.c. to run its own city for the rest of theederal year. let my people go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to a new member of our

committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dick. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: the responsible cuts of $2 billion per week, it should be noted that there's broad, bipartisan agreement to nearly all the cuts contained in this legislation. basely, everything in this legislation was also contained in h.r. 1. we should note too that if this legislation is enacted this registration legislation would represent the largest spending cut on discretionary programs in history when you combine this with what was cut two weeks ago, the $4 billion. if enacted this will represent the largest spending cut on discretionary spending cut should we enact this legislation. i know some people think that this bill doesn't go far enough, but it certainly does represent a very big step forward. the cuts that are contained in here, we're eliminating $2.6

billion in earmark funding from agriculture, c.j.s., financial services, the interior, the cuts include rescisons, reductions and program terminations and i think we all understand, too, that if we pass this, this will prevent a government shutdown and we need to fleavepbt while these negotiations can continue. . this represents responsible cuts, broad bipartisan agreement. i say let's cut some spending and let's cut it now. and lets cut it today. take yes or an answer. don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. this is the right thing to do. and the american people will appreciate it. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield four minutes to the distinguished democratic quhip, mr.oyer -- whip, mr. hoyer from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding.

i'm not sure whether i rise for or against this. very frankly, because i think this process is not the process that we ought to be pursuing. i think in that context i speak for the chairman and for the ranking member and for most members in this body. but i want -- i was going to wait a while then i heard mr. dent of pennsylvania speak and i want to reiterate this point that he made because i made it last week in my colloquy with the majority leader. i made the point that we are about to make the largest single reduction in discretionary spending that we have made. the gentleman said in history, i was more modest and said in the 30 years i have been here. in any event this is not an insubstantial cut. the problem those of us have on this side of the aisle is, it is not enough r a large number of your folks. then they have said so. and the heritage foundation has

said so and the famy research council has said so and some of your members have said so. now, the fact of the matter is this is a lousy way to run a railroad. we are trying to run the largest enterprise in the world in two-week segments. it is costly to the private sector. it is extraordinarily inefficient for the public sector, and it is demoralizing for the private sector who deals with the government and for the public employees we have asked to perform the service that is we have set forth as policy. and so i say at this juncture, this ought to be the last of this type. we need to reach agreement. now, i say to my friend from pennsylvania, because it is the largest cut, i think we have come a long way. you said you wanted to cut $100

billion. now you're not cutting the $41 billion that we cut. you were using the 2011 baseline. that's how you got your $100 billion. $41 billion we have all agreed is gone. we are going to freeze at 2010 and go below that. but we have cut $41 billion and we agree on that. now, you use the 2011, that wasn't our figure first, you used it in september. we used it in december. so my view is, we have agreed on $41 billion. you don't say that, you say we are between zero and 60. i understand your rationale, it's your figure, your baseline you used in september in your pledge to amera. if we have gone 41 and we are going to go another 10 or 15, what i ask of yu is in light of the fact, as mr. dent points out, we have already done the deepest cut under republicans, under democrats, under any of

us. it is time to hear from you what is your alternative to make a deal? now, compromise is a prettier word, but we need to come to agreement. if we are going to serve our country and those who serve our country, then we need to come to agreement because they elected all of us. none of us has any greater superiority. we are all the same. and we need to come to agreement. i don't have much time but i'll be glad to yield to you. can you take time -- mr. rogers: would the gentleman talk to his colleagues over in the other body and tell them to pass something we can negoate on? mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, 435 of us have tried to talk to the people in the other body. but i will tell you under the constitution of the united states, we have the responsibility of initiating bills. read the constitution.

read the constitution. we sent h.r. 1 over there as my good friend, the former speaker of idaho, says to me, and they didn't pass it. it's not their responsibility to initiate. that didn't go any place. may i have one additional minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington controls the time. mr. dicks: 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i will say toou, we can wring our hands and say the senate is not doing its job. we are not in the senate. we are here. let us come to agreement. and we know the agreement is going to be someplace in between where you are and where we are. we know that. but what we don't know is what you can pass. what you don't know is what you can pass. you don't know what your caucus will do. i understand tat. you're deeply divided in my opinion. and we need to know because it's not just us here that are

adversely affected. let us come to agreement. let us stop this process of funding government in very short cycles. it is not good for our country. it's not good for the people who work for this country. it's not good for the people who are doing work around the world. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. dicks: mr. speaker, can you tell the chairman and myself what our time remaining is? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 12 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky has 16 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: of which i yield three minutes to the distinguished chairm of the interior subcommittee on appropriations, mr. simpson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for three minutes. mr. simpson: i thank the speaker. i can tell the gentleman that just spoke, e minority whip, good friend of mine, what we can pass in this house and what our conference will agree to,

and that's the $61 million in cuts or $100 million overall we have already agreed to and already passed. we can pass that in this house. now, i have heard that this is no way to run a railroad. my good friend from virginia said this is no way t run a government. i have heard this is operational outrage. i wi tell you the outrage here is that we are having to do this because the majority, the former majority, when they had the majority in the house, the majority in the senate, and the white house, failed to pass an appropriation bill. they left the american people and this country with this pile of wrap. they should not complain about how we try to clean this up. mr. speaker, by the end of this week the appropriations subcommittee which i am privileged to chair, the interior and environment subcommittee, will have had 12 budget oversight hearings over the past three weeks. that's 12 hearings addressing the fiscal 2012 budget. that we will soon be writing. it's worth noting we are now 5 1/2 months into the fiscal yr

2011 and we still don't have a budget to fund the government through the end of the current fiscal year. the c.r. we are considering today keeps the government operating for another three weeks, and yu're right, we need to solve this within the next three weeks. the problem is, you cannot negotiate with a body across the rotunda that fails to act. we can't be the only ones at the table. we have to have something to negotiate with. we don't have that. this c.r. saves taxpayers $6 billion including $650 million in spending cuts from the interior subcommittee accounts that republicans, democrats, and the administration agree are reasonable and supportle on a bipartisan basis. the overall savings achieved through this c.r. at the rate of $2 billion per week is three-week equivalent to the $100 billion of cutschieved in the long-term c.r. passed by the house republicanseveral weeks ago. in the interior budget alone we got earmarks, we got the

national park service preserve america program, eliminated it, and other programs, save america's treasures and the national park service, programs that the administration did not request funding for in their 2012 bget. so these are things that are agreed on by both republicans and democrats. now that the senate has voted down two versions of the year-long c.r., the republican version known as h.r. 1 that cut spending by $100 billion and the democratic version that cut substantially less, it's time for botsides to come together on a funding bill for the rest of this year. the truth is that we really need to get the fiscal year 2011 budget written, passed, and signed into law so we can turn our attention to next year budget. in the midst of the back and forth debate on spending, it's important to remember that these funding bills don't write themselves. our appropriations committee staff have been working day and night, seven days a week, for months now writg one c.r. after another even as they prepare for hearings and studied budget proposals for next year. i encourage my colleagues to support this c.r. to keep the

government opened while both parties work to identify an acceptable level of spending cuts for the rest of the year. we can and should cut more from the spending budget. i encourage my colleagues to support this c.r. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fromashington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished lady from hawaii, ms. hirono, who is going to correct the record on the noaa issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for two minutes. ms. hirono: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all the cuts to noaa and our weather services are contained in h.r. 1 and we ve not reached agreement on h.r. 1 which is why we are doing yet another c.r. and believe me those kinds of cuts to noaa and ou weather service will have an impact on our ability to implement early warning systems. some of you may not know that hawaii has already sufred millions and millions of dollars of damages as a result of the tsunami, and, yes, it does not compare at all to the tragedy that the japanese

people are facing, but nonetheless thank goodness our early warning systems were in place. now, as to this.r. i rise in opposition to this c.r. which continues the republican rategy of cutting $2 billion every week from programs that support jobs and our families. i want to focus on just one program being cut out of many by the way that affect real people and rea ways, that is particularly troubling to me in this c.r. thiss the elimination of all funding for the watershed and flood prevention operations program, popularly known as pl-566. this 30 million program means a lot to small rural communities nationwide. for hawaii the decline of sugar and pineapple industries has forced us to transition from large-scale plantation agriculture to small-scale farming. pl-5 6 has been the only federal program that has really worked to deal with our

agriculture water issues. and it is a single most important federal agriculture program for hawaii. hawaii is the most food import dependent state in the entire country. so agriculture self-sufficiency is a priority for us which is one reason why continued funding for pl-566 project is so critical. in addition, pl-566 provides flood prevention for small communities the army corps does not serve. they include the ditch water shed project, to rehabilitate a 26-mile long irrigation ditch that provides water to hundreds, hundreds of small farmers in the hawaii island. may i have another 30 seconds? mr. dicks: i yield another 30 seconds. ms. hirono: project providing water to 170 farmers and ranchers on maui. and a project -- so these long-term projects help to

build our local economy and create jobs. stopping these projects in midstream is irresponsible, un safe, it makes no economic sense at all. most of these projects are well on their way. we need to contin funding these programs to support our communities, support jobs, and this program has long held bipartisan support. in fact last year i signed a joint letter led by ag committee chair lucas urging funding for this program. mr. dicks: in going back and looking, noaaperations research and facilities in h.r. 1 is cut by $454.3 billion. one of the officials there said what would happen in the continuing resolution there will be a dismantling of our nation's early warning system, the president of the national weather certificate viss, said in a telephone interview. it will result in a roughly 30%

cut in the budget of the national weather service. the current plans call for the weather service to close individual offices for about a month at a time on a rolling basis. e speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. . mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to mr. crenshaw of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise to encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this continuing resolution. two reasons. number one, it keeps us on the path to put the brakes on this runaway spending that's gone around this place too long. it continues us to get the place where we start a culture of savings instead of this culture of spending. the second reason to vote for this, of course is to make sure

we don't shut down the government. to give us a little more time to try to final negotiate the spending levels for next year. somebody asked the question, is this the best way to fund the government? of course it's not. no way. it would have been a whole lot better if last year under the democratic leadership in this house we had a budget before this house that would pass. but that didn't happen. it would have been better last year during the session if the democratic leadership had gone through regular order, we'd passed the appropriations bill and then the government would be funded for 2011. but they didn't do that. and it would have been a whole lot better after this house got together, made some tough choices, set some priorities, made difficult decisions, passed spending bill that cut 00 billion out of this year's spending. sent it down to the senate.

it would have been better if they'd taken that up and pass it -- passed it, or at least done something. but they didn't do that. so here we are. we find ourselves another c.r., three more weeks. but let me tell you, these are difficult times. and in difficult times, leaders have to lead. we've got to sit down together and establish the priorities we have for spending. we've got to make tough choices. that's what every american family does. that's what every american business does. if we're going to get this economy moving again, we need to settle this onc and for all. i hope we pass this continuing resolution, that this will indeed be the last time we do this. three weeks, sit down, have that other body sit down and negotiate with us, it takes two to tango as they say. we sent the whole ball of wax down there, they didn't like it, now we're sending a little

bit at a time but we're honoring the pledge to cut $100 billion. if you cut $2 billion every week, that's $100 billion. this is $6 billion more on top of the $4 billion we cut. that's no way to set they will year, but let's settle it once and for all, let's pass this, ve ahead and get this thing done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from hi, ms. kaptur, a senior member of the appropriations committee and i think the longest servinwoman in the house of representatives. the eaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this continuing resolution. it cuts money for jobs for people and cuts social services to our senior citizens when gas prices are going up and food

prices are going up. jobs that clean up our bruin field site, it cuts public broadcasting the only decent broadcasting with the trash that's on the air today, and cuts the save america's treasures program. so people say, where are you going to get the money? let me tell you where the money is and what's not on the table in trying to plans the federal budget. how about the profits of the wall street big sticks, morgan stanley, citigroup, they took last year $51 billion in profits. $51 billion at the expense of the american people in this great recession we're endure, they're mape as clams. their top executives took $26 million, not counting their stocoptions. we didn't touch a penny of

their bonuses, can't do that. they're paying at an 11% tax rate when businesses in my district have to pay a 35%. what's fair about that? we could have $13 billion, $14 billion if they just paid at the same rate, just for last year and oil prices, the american people are being gouged across this country, exxon made $9 billion in the third quarter of last year, guess how much they paid in taxes? a big goose egg. zero. zero. and british petroleum, $5 billion in one qrter. how much did they pay? where's that on the table? so we say to the american people, you can't balance a trillion-dollar deficit on 14% of the budget. what you're doing, you're hurting the american people. let's take it from those who have much and give nothing. i yield back my remaining time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to a hard working member of our committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cole: mr. speaker, i rise to urge the adoption of h.j.r. 48, the continuing appropriations for this fiscal year. it seems to me we've got three questions we ought to address in the course of this debate. first an elemently, why are we here? second, what does the bill do? and third, what are the consequences with the bill ist passed. weir here for the simple reason that the last congress that my good friends on the other side ran never passed a budget, nev passed a single appropriations bill. we're here because the democratic majority failed to do its work. we're also here because the current decratic majority in the other body has so far failed to do its work. i remind my colleagues, we actually passed legislation,

sent it over. ial remind my colleagues that the one proposal in front of the senate that got the most votes us the republican h r. 1. -- h.r. 1. but nevertheless they failed to give us something to negotiate against. it's their obligation in the senate atome point to have a common negotiating position. i don't know how we c sit down and negotiate otherwise. we're here because of a democratic failure in the last congress and this one. second, what does this bill do? it's common sense, it cuts and reduces 25 programs, saving $35.5 billion. most of those programs -- $3.5 billion. most of those programs the president agre isn't necessary. it buys time b it alsoeeps the government runng and keeps us on course to reduce spending at $2 billion a week, something my colleagues and i

are committed. finay, wt happens if he we don't pass this bill? there are some that want to spen more, some that want to spend less. thfirst thing that happens is we shut down the government, something all of us know is not a wise thing to tchosme sec thing that happens is we probably create financial panic in the country and harm a fradgic economy. and finally, the last thing that happens and i think actually the most important, is we raise fundamental doubts amongst the american people as to whether or not this institution and we as elected officials have the capacity to actual address and solve our problems. so i think we need to pass this bill, we need to give our friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly in the senate, another three weeks to see if they can possibly come up with a negotiating position. i'm confident once those negotiations begin that our speaker will keep the government running, will bargain in good faith but will cut spending as we're committed to do. with that, i yield back my time, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i want to take a moment to congratulate two longtime staff members who are leaving us after years of service. beverly served onhe -- serves as clerk on the homeland subcommitte and another subcommittee before becoming the first woman staff leader. he was part of the creation of the 9/11 commission and the department of homeland security and during hurricane katrina. she helped craft the recovery and reinvestment act, the recovery act that saved tens of thousandsf american jobs and kept this country from slipping into another great depression. we tha bev for agreeing to

stay on with us and help with the committee's transition ancon garage late her on her many years of service in the executive branch as wells for us. she will be miss bud we wish her well in her new endeavors. i want to extend my deep appreciation to chris who served on the interior appropriations subcommittee since 1995. most recently as minority clerk. chris began his career with the u.s. forest service before coming to the committee as a detailee. he found himself in the middle of some of the most contentious environmental policyties putes but also remained a consummate professional. while i chaired the interior subcommittee, i relied heavily on his solid judgment and wise counsel. i wish him the best as he leaves the committee an thank him for his service. i reserve the balance of my time. mr. rogers: will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i yield to the chairman.

mr. rogers: let me join on behalf of us on this side in thanking those two wonderful individuals for dedicated public service. they have worked hard on behalf of the public and they deserve our utmost thanks which i offer at this time. thanks foyielding. mr. dicks: thank you, mr. airman. mr. simpson. mr. simpson: i echo the comments of my good friend mr. dicks. chris is a one of the most professional and widely respected individuals on the appropriations committee staff. his dry wit and friendly disposition will be greatly missed anhis institutional knowledge of forest service issues will be impossible to replace. we appreciate your dedication and commitment over your many years of public service and wish you the best in your future endeavors. mr. ticks: thank you.

how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has five minutes maining. mr. dicks: does the gentleman have further speakers? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: the gentleman from kentucky has 7 1/2 -- may i inquire as to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. rogers: i yield to the gentleman from alabama, mr. bonner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bonner: i urge my colleagues to support this continuing resolution as unpleasant as it is. our democrat colleagues, our republican colleagues, we agree, we don't like being in the situation we're in. but we're in this situation nevertheless. our colleagues remember that for the first time since 1974 we didn't pass a budget last year. we didn't pass a single appropriationsill as the chairman of the committee has noted. we don't like being in this situation. buwe're in this situation. and yet, i think there's a real disconnect between washington

and the american people. i was listening to the television news this sunday when senate kyl put the budget ebate in perspective. while rarely do house members quote senators, i think it's worth it. we talk about trillionsnd billions and millions but if you were had a $10,000 budget, $10,000 budget which most americans can more easily identify with. and 40% of that is actually borrowed money. what we're talking about with h.r. 1, the basis uponhich this c.r. is going forward, we'd be shaving off $28 from a $10,000 budget. mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen, the reason that congress has continued to draw such unpopular respect with the american people is that there is a disconnect. last year, we had a $223 billion deficit, the largest in

history. we're talking about shaving $6 billion until we can get a resolution between the house and the senate and encourage the white house to joithe mix. i thank the chairman for allowing me to speak out and encourage our colleagues to support this c.r. 13r0eu7 the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the leader of the democratic party in the house, nancy pelosi of california. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leader is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his hard work to help keep the government open. while many of us wi not agree on the legislation before us today, we know it is necessary for us to pr seed. so i don't -- to proceed. i don't rise to oppose or support the legislation but instead to comment on the situation we're in. we're debating a short-term bill to keep the government open on a week-by-week basis.

this is not any way to run a government or a business. it certainly is not the way as the military generals have told us to protect the national security of our country on a week-to-week basis. democrats will work with republicans on legislation that will create jobs that will strengthen the middle class and reduce the deficit. when all three of these scores, this -- on all three of these scores, this republican spending bill fails. demoats have long fought for fiscal responsibility as a top priority of this congress. we won't go into the history right now but it's well known that president clinton took us out of a period of deficit into his last five budgets being in surplus or in balance. . president bush turned that around when he became president

and we have to dig ourselves out of the deficit he took us into. last year we passed a $41 billion cut. we did so with one republican vote. $41 billion. democrats in the lead on fiscal soundness. on the subject of jobs, it's been 11 weeks, the 11th week of the republican majority in the congress and we have not seen one bill that will create jobs. in fact the only bill coming from the republicans, the only legislation that has come to the floor to create jobs would be the democratic initiative, one, to build america bonds, to build the infrastructure of america to keep it ahead of the game in terms of innovation. build amica bonds. republicans overwhelmingly rejected that. the other bill was a bill to keep our jobs from going overseas by rewarding businesses that sent jobs overseas. democrats said no to that idea. republicans sa nto our

legislation. zero jobs bills in 11 weeks. quite different from the record of president obama coming into office two years ago with a democratic congress. president obama was a job creator from day one. one week an one day after the president's inaugural address calling for swift, bold action now to create jobs, the house of representatives passed the recovery bill which was then passed by the senate and signed into law in a matter of weeks. that legislation created or saved 3.6 million jobs. this is important in terms of the deficit because it produced jobs, produced revenue into the treasury that helped reduce the deficit. tax cuts for the wealthy has been the job creators that the republicans had put forth in the bush administration incident, do not create jobs, and increase the deficit. so we are at a place where we again, 11 weeks, the republican

-- not by my measure, just look to some of the fed chairman ben bernanke sd the republican spending bill would cost not a trivial amount of jobs. mark zandi, a republican economist, said the republican spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs. goldman sachs said the republican spending bill would reduce economic groith by 1.5% to 2%. 320 economists sent a letter calling republican cuts a threat to our economy, long-term economic competitiveness and strength -- and the strength of our current economic recovery. ey all agree to one extent or another that the republican agenda is taking us in the wrong direction. that agenda i manifested in the continuing resolution, h.r. 1. anti-budget approach they are taking. in fact, in addition to not creating jobs, the republican

initiative is making matters worse. many of us have come to the floor to talk about budgets year in and year out. we all say that our national budget should be a statement of our national values. what is important to our country should be reflected in the allocation of our resources. we want to have that debate on values rather than just on cuts. we all agree we have to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, duplication, obsolescence, and the rest. the g.a.o. has given as you blueprint for that. we all agree we must reduce the deficit of the fiscal commission has given us a road map for that. we can agree or disagree with some of it, but the fact is it gifts us--gives us a blueprint for how to go forward and we should take heed of that. that blueprint says we should not be making cuts right now that will be harmful to our recovery. and yet that's exactly what the

republican initiatives do. this statement of val ue, we have this debate, it's not a debate about are we going to cut six million or three million seniors off meals on wheels. it's about who we are as a country. how do we protect the american people both in our national security and our neighborhoods? how we educate our children to keep -- to make them happy but also to keep us competitive as innovators, internationally. how we maintn healthy america, not just about their health care but about their good healthier, the safety of the food that they eat. it's about the creation of jobs. i believe we have an obligation as a government to be job creators which give people the means to find their own happiness but also bring revenue into the treasury if we are just speaking pragmatically

and not in terms of value. i don't believe it's just about the dollars. it's about the values that we ve to have this debate. unfortunately the bills that we are being presented with, h.r. 1, are like a balloon, sweeze it, pops out there, it -- squeeze it here, pops out there, it doesn't change anything for the better. it makes matters worse. so again as we consider our budgetary decisions as a discussion as a staement of the national values, we have to remember that the greatnessof our country depends on the strengthening of our middle class and that we have to do that by creating jobs and we certainly must reduce the deficit. now we are waiting at the negotiating table for the republicans to show that they are willing to work together. we have cut the $41 billion with one republican vote. that they are willing to work together to reach an agreent that is a stement of our values. i think we can do that. many of us have worked together

on the appropriations committee over the years. i urge our republican colleagues to join us in our efforts to create jobs, to strengthen middle class, and to reduce the deficit and to do so in the interest of the american people. that's why i think this vote today, people will vote however they view their own statement about it. but the big vote that is coming up is the vote on the continuing resolution on the long-term basis to keep government opened and functioning for people, again, in a way that is a statement of values for our great country. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to a new member of our committee, hardworking member, mr. womack from the state of arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the gentleman from

kentucky for your leadership on the appropriations committee and for yielding me time here this morning. yes, it's true. i came here on january 5. just a feweeks ago i put my hand up and took the oath of office. as i d i'm reminded of the fact that at that precise time in my life, i was taking the oath of office, already three months into the fiscal year. i show me what business, what governmental jurisdiction, anywhere in america, is effectivy and efficiently managed when you are operating without a budget already three months into the budget year? look, i was a mayor of a very dynamic city in northwest arkansas. we never did that. we couldn't survive by passing our budget sometime during the course of the ongoing year. so our conference and in particular is leading by

example. we are providing a leadership example for the spending cuts that so many people around amera have said over and over again that we have to achieve. look, america gets it. we are a trillion and a half dollars in deficit in this f.y. and we are 14-plus trillion dollars in debt. we have to do something about spending. and, look, it's all about the ends game. and this is where this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle can come to agreement. that we know that the end game is about the ceation ofobs. the ideological difference about how we get there, i think, is what divides us. but i'm a firm believer, any businessman will tell you, any mayor, any county judge, any vernmental official will tell you that your balance sheet drives a lot of things. i think fundamental to that balance sht is how much you are in debt. because how much you are in debt in business is tied to your assets.

in government it's tied to your capacity to tax. and right now one of the fundamental problems about growing jobs in this economy is the uncertainty that hangs over the job creators in america. unnecessary and overburdensome regulation -- would the gentleman yield another 30 seconds? possibly. let me finish by saying i urge support of h.j.r. 48 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining, mr. speaker? the spear pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has four minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: how many speakers does the geneman have? two? why don't you go ahead with your speaker then you finish. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washiton reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virgini mr. hurt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virgia is recognized for two minutes.

mr. hurt: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, today i rise in support of this temporary continuing resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same. as we debate this measure, let's remember why we are here. let's remember that on november 2 the people ofirginia's fifth district and people across this country sent a message to washington, a message to republicans and to democrats, t message was urgent, it was clear, and it was loud. the message sent was that now is the time to stop the government spending, stop the government borrowing, and stop the raid on our children's future. so what have we found since we got here? we fd that our president and the last congress despite enjoying great majorities in each chamber completely and totally failed six months ago to live up to it most fundamental responsibility to adopt a budget for fiscal year 2011. because of their failure to lead, the american people still six months later do not have a budget. after the house worked in the early morning hours nearly a

month ago and sent h.r. 1 down the hall to the opposite chamber, what has the senate done? they left town. they failed to adopt any proposal to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. at has thep presidt done? while continuing to fail to lead on 20911 budget, he's now propose add budget for fiscal year 2012 thatno increase spending -- that does not decrease spending but nearly doubles funding in the next 10 years. the senate and white house have not heard the message from the people in the last election and are continuing to fail to lead. w is the time for this congress to listen. now is the time for this congress to act. i believe that the majority in this house is listening and this temporary contuing resolution gets us one step closer to fulfilling the purpose given us by the american people. cut government ending and reduce government borrowing for the sake of future genations. simply put, by voting in favor

of this measure today we are putting a $6 billion deposit on the account for our children and grandchildren who for far too long have been forgotten here in washington. i thank the gentleman -- the chairman. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. dicks: madam speaker, i rise to review the bidding here. we are down to the end of this dete on this continuing resolution. and i hope and as i note chairman rogers hopes, that this will be the last continuing resolution and that working together we can come together on a solution to the f.y. 2011 budget. now, i i heard repeatedly, repeatedly, and i even mentioned this in my last

statement, and the next thing i knew it was on cantor's website, but back in 2007 the distinguished gentleman from kentucky will remember, that when we took over power and won the election in 2006, most of the -- nine or 10 of the appropriation bills are not enacted and the democrats had to ps a bill in february enacting all of these things. so maybe we learned that lesson from you all over there. i hope you'll remember it because you seem to -- like this has never happened before. well, that's not one -- that's number one. number two, the american people in a "washington post" abc poll yesterday over the weekend said that they are worried that the cuts in h.r. 1 will hurt the economy. it was narrow. it was 45-41, but 71% of the

people said the problem was that your side isn't engaging. and that they blame the republicans r nt getting this deal. why would they think that? i think the reason for it is when -- the first rogers amendment proposal came out, that was kind of a reasonable approach, but that was rejected and then they doubled the amount of these cuts, and the cuts became very severe and very questionable. . there was a story in "the washington post" today that lays out if you cut food inspectors, you're going to pay for it. if you cut w.i.c. funding, you're going to pay for it, billions for these children. i point these things out, cutting head start, this was perceid by the american people as too extreme.

that's why you can't get anybody -- the senate rejected h.r. 1, the president rejected h.r. 1. we need to have reasonable people sit down and work out a compromise and not let the government be shut down. and i believe that this should the last c.r. and that we all should agree here today that this is going to be the last c.r. and we are committed to getting this resolved and that's what the american people also said in this abc/"washington post" poll, not that i follow the polls much, but they said they wanted us to come to an agreement. so again, i am pledged to our chairman that we're not going to let this happen again. that this year we will pass all 12 appropriation bills by august and we've done that before and that will -- it will end this process that started back in 2007 and which got

continued in 2011, it's not the way to do the government's businesso let's make a pledge today that we're going to, that have c.r., that we're going to work together to solve this problem and move on to f.y. 201. i yield back the -- f.y. 2012. i yield back the balance of my time. the speakepro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield the balance of our time, the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. latourette: i thank the chair and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i listened with greatntert to the distinguished minority leader and her remarks. i never cast my ballot for her to become speaker of the house but as an american we celebrated the historic accomplishment that she became the first woman to preside over

this congress. one thing that will not be said or written is that the -- is that she provided -- presided over a house that was fiscally responsible. they passed a bill that bankrupted the nation, they passed a stimulus bill that created no jobs that may bankrupt the nation. they passed a health care bill that took over 1/6 of the nation's economy, did not bend the cost curve and if not checked will in fact bankrupt the nation. the distinguished minority leader's speech reminds mauve the adage, everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. we hear, we have to cut, we have to cut, but not these cuts, not that cut, not my program, the time is now, the time is serious, we have laid

an offer upon the table and we wait with great expectations. now i know what those people in st. peter's square must feel like when they wait for the white smoke to come out of the top of the dome for the lech of a pope. we would like for those on the other side of this capitol to give us a proposal to work with us. but it's not happening, we need to pass the bill. i yield back. the saker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 167, the joint resolution is considered read and the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opsed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek

recognition? >> mdam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution? >> i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualified. the gentleman -- the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the gentleman from pennsylvania moves to recommit the motion with the following amendment, page 20 line 2, strike the final period and preceding quotation, page 20, line 2, insert the following, none of the funds used in this fact may be used to implement a system that cuts benefits or privatizes social security. section 2, line 6, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to eliminate medicare funds for seniors or eliminating funds to purchase

health care in the private secor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minute in support of the motion. as i listen to the the binet the current c.r., i have some reasons for alarm mr. critz: i thank the best way to start it off is to at least start to let you know a little bit about myself, for most of my life, i worked in the private sector, worked all my life and paid into social security. the folks that i live with and live around and the people of my district have come to rely on social security and what it provides for actually generations at this point. as i have been sitting here listening to this current c.r. which i'm opposed to, i think that we're all, all 435 of us are sent here to lead. unfortunately, what we've heard

time and time again is finger pointing, it's your fault, it's our fault, it's their fault, instead of us sitting down and talking to one another and figuring out where we can compromise and how we can come to a fal solution to what our problems are. and it's really very disheartening. i can understand the folks who watch this at home are trying to figure out, whose side are we on? are we on their side? are we on a particular party's side? i think it's very unfortunate because at the end of the day we have strong opinions on what the best way forward is in this country and unfortunately, it's about compromise. because even though we all have strong opinions, we all have differing opinions. if we don't work it out, we're not going to get anywhere. so as i stand in opposition to this c.r., it's something that is disheartening. i'm on the armed services committee and have been hearing

from industry time and time again about how difficult it is for them in the long-term. so as we talk about cutting, we're going to t $2 billion a week for the next three weeks. by doing these short-term c.r.'s, we're costing our country money. no one talks about that, what the impact is going to be from this temporary solution. and the republicans have talked about, well the democrats didn't complete their work last year. that's true. but now the republicans are in charge you're in charge, you were given a charge to lead this country and here we are going around again doing a two-week, a three-week, this isn't leading. this is playing games. it's time to stand up and do the right thing for this country. my m.t.r., motion to recommit, involves social security. because the debate that's been happening has been trying to frame social security as a problem and the reason for the deficits that this country is

experiencing. i brought a chart with me and i want to read to you the net increase in assets in the social security trust fund for the last six years. in 2005, the social security trust fund increased $172 billion. in 2006, it increased by $189.5 billion. these are increases. this means the money that comes into social security, via your taxes and interest, is more than than what's gog out paying in benefits. when people talk about social security is causing our deficit problem, we have to address entitlement programs, they're not giving you the whole picture. they're trying to tell you that, well, down the road we may have an issue. well no,ight now in 2007, the social security trust fund increased $190 ppt 4 billion. in 2008 it increased $180

billion. the trust fund is going up, it has $2.6 trillion in it right now. so the people receiving social security now shouldn't be worried about what it's doing to the deficit because that increase in the trust fund is actually money that's coming in to the government in excess of what social security is spending. but i brought up a chart here because i want to show people that when you start talking about social security, now if you look at the 12th district of pennsylvania, i have a very -- i have an elderly population. i'm one of the districts that has a lot of senior citizens, a lot of people on social security. if you look at this chart, 77% of people say leave social security alone. don't uch the retirement age, don't touch the benefits, they say come to a solution, figure out a way to move forward. and there are compromises that can be had to help solve the social security issue.

because we do have an issue long-term. baby boomerare retiring,less people are paying in. so there are issues we have to address. but don't buy into the crisis legislation that if we don't do something immediate, that social security is going to be in trouble. you're hearing all kinds of scenarios. the one that scares me most, ladies and gentlemen, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. critz: thank you and i urge support of this amendment. it does not cre commit the bill, it's an amendment and -- recommit the bill, it's an amendment and would just be added to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. >> i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: this provision doesn't do anything. nothing in the c.r. would cut sths or medicare benefits, nor would it privatize social security. we are totally committed in this bl to saving social security. sohis -- let me be honest. this is a procedural motion

that simply is a fog screen, trying to hide us from our real task at hand. but i don't think we'll be fooled by that the debate should not be about procedure or fogcreens or things unrelated to the bill. it should be about doing our job. we are here this afternoon to provide the necessary resources to keep the government's doors hope while wellock in important budget savings totaling $6 billion. that's $2 billion in spending reductions or savings to the taxpayer, $2 billion a week. the path thisody set with passage of h.r. 1 a couple of weeks ago. i'd also like to remind my colleagues that with the passage of this c.r. today, we will have cut over $10 billion in the span of two weeks. that sets a record.

that's never beedone before in this body. the closest was 1995 at $9 billion. this is more than double the $.7 billion that senator reid and the senate democrats proposed in their c.r. last week to fund the government for the remaining six months. we do in two weeks what they would take six months to do. the american people sent us here with a clear message. last november. they want us to end the partisan bicking and get our work done. instead of picking political fights, they want us united in cutting the budget. this motion moves us further away from that goal, it would send us backwards, not forwards. it's a smoke screen a procedural motion, let's get on

zoo >> today in the house the tension provision was passed 271-158. current funding will be extended to april 8 pending senate approval. tomorrow the house takes up legislation to end federal mortgage assistance programs. live coverage of the house when members return awaits here on c-span. also tomorrow, energy secretary steven chu and the head of the regulatory commission testified before a joint hearing of the house energy and commerce subcommittees. the committee is looking at nuclear safety and the 2012 budget for the two agencies. that's live starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> with current federal spending expiring this friday, the house and senate are working this week on another short-term funding measure to last through april 8. watch your debates in its entirety and see what your

elected officials have to say in c-span's congressional chronicle with transcripts of every session. that's cspan.org/congress. >> in the 21st century it's not enough to leave no child behind. we need to help every child get ahead. we need to get every child on a path to academic excellence. >> president obama has called on congress to overhaul the no child left behind education law in time for the new school year in september. follow the law from its start in the bush administration, its deponents and contractors and where it stands today at the c-span video library. watch and share. it's washington your way. >> house democratic leaders today called for an end to short-term bills funding the government this year. they also accused the house republican majority for failing to offer legislation creating jobs. speakers at this briefing

include hawaii freshman democrat hanabusa and that it would hurt tragedies that hit japan last week. >> democrats are prepared and stepped up to do that. we recognize in the difficult times that cuts have to be made and we stepped forward to that as well, putting everything on the table. but drawing a line when it comes to important programs that we face and continuing our focus on jobs. it's been 11 weeks and republicans focused on nothing but a social agenda. the american people are crying out for jobs asking us to deal with this deficit. democrats continue to step up to the plate and offer our handout to our republican colleagues to come and join us and participate in this. with that let me turn it over to javier basarra, our vice

chair. >> mr. chairman, thanks very much. didn't we just see each other a couple weeks ago here, same time, same location, same situation. deja vu all over again. here we go, two weeks, three-week budgeting. . that is no way to run the largest economy in the world or the smallest business on main street. here we are sputtering two or three weeks at a time. this republican roadmap towards budgeting is ultimately going to edge us towards a government shutdown if the republicans continue this way. short-term budgeting won't work. we need a course america can follow. the last thing we need is further instability. we see what happens when you have instability in places like the middle east.

we've seen what happens when government is temporarily out of service as in japan. and we see what happens when we have chaos reigning in america when it comes to budgeting. the american people don't like it and the american people want us to get to work. we should be about hiring americans, not firing americans. and this republican budget essentially takes 700,000 americans off the payroll. three weeks, that's 75,000 jobs that are in jeopardy as a result of this republican three-week budget. and so it's time to get back to work and do the business of america, of putting americans back to work. that's what democrats have been all about. we started two years ago with president obama talking about creating jobs. we hope at some point after 71 days republicans now in the majority in the house will talk about creating jobs, not losing jobs. and with that i'd like to turn it over to our democratic leader nancy pelosi. >> thank you very much, vice chairman becerra, thank you, chairman larson, for bringing

us together this morning. before i join my colleagues in associating myself with their remarks and expanding on them, i want to once again express the sadness and sympathy we have for the people of japan. we're watching closely to see how we can be helpful in a humanitarian way and the administration has sent help in that regard, also in the technical way as far as the nuclear power plant there. very, very -- beyond biblical proportions the loss of life, the change in the economy and the society there. we wish them strength. we want to help them as friends. and again, our sympathy and our support go out to the people of japan. my colleagues have said that when president became president we started creating jobs right away. it is so. president obama has been a job

creator from day one. recognizing the recession near depression that our country was in at the end of the bush administration. and in his inaugural address, the president called for swift, bold action now. one week and one day after the president's inaugural address, the house of representatives passed the recovery act, a recovery act which created or saved 3.5 million jobs. not enough. we need more. but we're going in a very strong, new direction. by contrast, here we are, what is it, seven weeks, 11 weeks, whatever, we're in the 11th week of this new term in congress and we haven't seen one sign of job creation. in fact, we're going in the opposite direction. whether you're talking about one economist or another and whatever their measure it is, it's always what the direction the republicans are taking us

in now will harm our economic recovery. it will not create jobs but will lose jobs. and the speaker says hundreds of thousands of jobs, so be it. so be it? no, i don't think so. but we must have this job creation, actually the only job creation that's been on the floor of the house in this 11-week period has been our democratic initiatives, build america bonds to build the infrastructure of america in a strong way, make it in america, and other legislation to stop jobs going overseas by reversing the tax breaks for companies taking jobs overseas. so those are the only initiatives and the republicans overwhelmingly voted against those initiatives. so all we've seen in job creation has come from the democrats. what we're seeing from the republicans is taking us in the wrong direction. we have made it clear that we

will extend a hand of friendship as congressman larson said. but we will judge every initiative that comes to the floor by three criteria. one, does it create jobs? two, does it strengthen the middle class? and three, does it reduce the deficit? all of them on par with each other, all of one piece. what we see with the reversing, the economic recovery in the bill is not an initiative of that will reduce the deficit, instead we see false economies. that must be stopped. now, we have proposed we save $41 billion at the end of last year. $41 billion cut in president obama's budget. only one republican voted for that. so far, the democrats have cut $41 billion from the budget with only one republican vote. and the republicans have passed

$4 billion with a bipartisan vote. 10-1 difference. i hope you will take note of that. because most of the deficit reduction by so-1 -- by 10-1 has come from the democrats. so again, create jobs, reduce the deficit, strengthen the middle class. we're there with them. we haven't even -- we haven't even any evidence of that so far. i'm pleased we're joined this morning by two of our newer members, fresh from the trenches of campaigns, and from different sides of the country, but very strongly committed to the middle class. first you'll hear from david cities lien -- david cicilline, the new member from rhode island. >> thank you. i'm delighted to be here as the leadership of the democratic caucus. as the leader just said, i'm a new member of congress and came here because rhode islanders sent me here to do everything i can to get people back to work. and i fully expected even

though we lost control of the house, that would be the agenda and republicans would take up a jobs plan and jobs agenda and we would debate about the fine points of it but we'd be working together to get americans back to work, rhode islanders back to work. i've been here 11 weeks and there hasn't been a single jobs bill proposed by the republican leadership in the house. we haven't had a committee hearing on the jobs bill. we haven't been able to really engage the republicans in the urgent work of getting americans back to work. instead, they've focused on reducing investments and things that are necessary to rebuild our country and to rebuild the economy of america. you know, cutting pell grants and head start and attacking women's health and prevention health services and reducing investments in infrastructure. all the things the president outlined that we need to do to rebuild our economy and get people back to work, outinnovate, outeducate and outinvest in the infrastructure. that's not happening. inal here to join our colleagues to say the number one priority has to be to get americans back to work and focus on job creation.

i've been here 11 weeks, the republican leadership has not done that and this is a call to action. either set out a jobs agenda, a jobs plan, or work with the democratic leadership to develop a jobs agenda but focus on what's most urgent to all americans and that's getting people back to work. thank you. >> thank you, david. thank you for your leadership as a -- i say former mayor of providence, up until he became a congress person, the mayor of prove kens, -- providence, rhode island, he knows up close and personal the pain the american people are feeling and have come here to fight for him. thank you, congressman cicilline. and from the other side of america, a member of congress who served in the state legislature there who came here to the house, effective from the start, a leader in the legislature in hawaii and now a leader from the start in the congress of the united states, congresswoman colleen hanabusa. >> thank you, leader. and thank you for your kind words for the people of japan.

like david, i'm new. i tell people from california, like the leader, that we made california the midwest. hawaii, of course, until anybody complains about air travel, come see me. when we looked upon what happened, the devastation that has hit japan and its impact, in hawaii we have already felt it. our projections on our revenues have gone down for the first time as a result of it. and we know what that's all attributed to. we do know that when we were voted in, the new ones, people wanted us to come here and address the economy and specifically jobs. because jobs is what makes each and every one of us feel good. jobs is what makes us have public confidence. jobs is what tells us we're on the right track and we haven't seen one. 11 weeks have gone by, we haven't seen a job bill yet. but what's worse than that is we have seen cuts. and i'm hoping that the people

do not accept just the mantra that if you cut, somehow that equates to saving the economy. it's not the same. look at what we've experienced in hawaii. for example, there's a cut, the pacific tsunami warning center has been cut. what does that mean? look at all of you who are watching the news reports and how many of you relied on those reports? it's a cut. those are jobs. those are essential jobs. not only for us in the states but throughout the pacific region. that is not how we build public confidence. that is not how we tell people we're on the right track. it isn't just cuts. we believe in cutting the deficit. that's part of like what the leader said, that's part of the agenda. that's equal with the creation of jobs. but there's a right way to do it. and we're here to say to our republican colleagues, let's do it together, let's do it the right way. we can get it done if we all

pull together. but instead to simply say cut, cut, cut, it's not going to create jobs, jobs, jobs, and more importantly than that, it's not going to make the people feel good about where we're headed. thank you. >> questions? we'll take a couple. >> mr. hoyer said last week this is the last temporary measure he'll vote for. wonder if that's the sentiment in the caucus, after this one you'll be more united in opposition to another short-term fix, and if in your discussions also with the white house and senate, that's their feeling as well? >> i certainly think that's the growing sentiment in the caucus. >> many of us didn't even vote for the first one. >> do you think the senate will vote for this? >> i don't believe they will. >> people are just voting as they want to convey what this is, that we support cuts, yes.

that this is, as the gentleman said, as far as we're willing to go. but for some of us, we don't even want to go that far. but how the democrats vote on this is not what we should be watching. where we go from here is what's going to be important. >> many people this is a ruse, that this is just a matter of death by a thousand slashes and somehow as we said, as javier pointed out two weeks ago, what the american people are looking for is the idea of certainty. and what we've created here is this aura of uncertainty, and with the constant cloud hanging out there in the future that they continue to project, that they will shut down the government. and so this is of grave concern to the american people and certainly to members of our caucus. >> we heard last week from military leaders about the kind of instability of this budget approach is causing. we hear it from our

constituents, the anxiety that's accompanied with it every two weeks. so this is really an important issue to raise. we need resolution of this in a comprehensive way. we need a budget resolution. this every two weeks is really destabilizing for the government and causing incredible anxiety with military leadership, civilian leadership, contractors. it's not the way to run the government. >> i think the most important part of it -- and i sit on armed services. what you do recognize is when you start to tweak one part and it's done in this very -- almost, let's find blocks of money and cut it, then you don't know what the consequence is. right now we do know for the pacific in particular, the role that the military needs to play in the attempts to help stabilize and help rebuild, it's going to be critical, very critical. but they will each begin their testimony before armed services with the statement that the c.r. is the worst thing for them. it just does not give them a sense of security. they don't know how to plan.

you have people saying well, if the cuts come through, it means they're going to just have to shut down. one of the things, for example, talking about economic growth and creation of jobs, hawaii will host apec in november of this year, east-west center is the lead agency to do that. east-west center is cut in the first c.r. to $10 million. now, if it goes through like that, what's going to happen -- and they cut it to zero, by the way, but did not go through. if it continues, guess what? they shut down. what happens to apec in this critical time, especially when we're looking at, what is it our great partner japan is now going to do? what will happen? that's probably something they can look forward to to help build. these are the kinds of cuts that are going through. and that's not the way for us to act here. >> the republicans are still complaining that your colleagues on the senate side are not reaching out to them,

the vice president after that first meeting, is the white house doing enough to make sure we get past the short-term resolutions? >> yes, i'm very satisfied with the leadership of the white house on this. we had the meeting, the leadership in the house and senate, bipartisan -- in a bipartisan way with the vice president. we had a course of action that came out of there. it was positive that more needs to be done and we'll continue our work together and that's what we will do. but let me say as we go into this continueing this debate, we're talking about cutting here and cutting there and what the impact of it is. we're talking about trying to find middle ground. i think that that may not be enough. if middle ground is to say that $6 -- six million seniors who are home-bound will no longer receive meals on wheels but we can just compromise at $3 million, i don't think that's an appropriate debate. i think the debate is on a higher ground, not just middle ground but on a higher ground of our values. it's not just about the

dollars. it's about the values. and again, we can cut in a way that does not undermine our values. it's not about, again, about money. it's about the morality of what we are doing. and this debate in the public about who we are as a country, how we keep the american people safe, how we continue economic growth and the creation of jobs, how we educate our children, how we protect people in their neighborhoods, how do we keep our country strong in measuring it in the health and well-being of the american people? that's where the debate has to be, not in misrepresentations about this cut or that cut or is this wasteful? the g.a.o. gave us a roadmap to cut waste, fraud and abuse, and we're all for doing that. and we thank them for the time limits of their report. the fiscal commission gave us direction on how to reduce the deficit. but cautioned that you can't

make these cuts right away early in domestic investments because you will harm the economic recovery. so this is bigger than some of these individual cuts even though they are alusstritive -- illustrative of the damage that will be done. i think we have an opportunity for the president and the american people and the congress to engage in a debate in the direction we want to go. certainly fiscally sound. and when we talk about fiscal soundness, it's not just about cuts, as the fiscal commission talked about, it's about what they called revenue earmarks as well. tax breaks that are within our tax code that do not belong there. we need to cut those, too. and i'm so pleased that the president, in his state of the union address once again said that we cannot afford tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country. so if we're talking about

fiscal responsibility, we want to cut waste, fraud and abuse, duplication, obsolescence, of course. we want to do so in a fiscally sound way. that, again, upholds our values. but we also have to look at tax breaks at the high end which do not create jobs but do increase the deficit. i just want to say in closing that president obama this past year, 1.5 million jobs were created in the private sector. that was in 2010. in 2009, the first year of the president's term in office, he created more jobs in the private sector than president bush did in the eight years of his term in office. so it's really important for us to put on the table what the president inherited in terms of a near depression, how the president pulled us from the brink of that and a financial crisis. and that we have a big hole to dig ourselves out of. and we don't do that by taking

us in the opposite direction of economic growth as the republican proposals are doing now and then saying when economists say we'll lose hundreds of thousands of jobs say so be it. no. how can we change it? thank you all very much. >> just want to conclude on behalf of the caucus and say this, as watching the events that unfolded out in wisconsin, there's an analogy here that is very disturbing. even after the unions were prepared to give back and did and met the governor more than halfway, it was clear that he had one objective in mind. it had nothing to do with the deficit or the givebacks, it had everything to do with collective bargaining. as we watch this budgetary process unfold here, what's equally alarming to us as we continue to reach out and put on the table substantial cuts, that it's not about those cuts in reaching out, but it's doing

away with the very entitlement programs that are the core of this party, including programs that are paid for by the american people like social security and medicare. and so democrats in our caucus stand firm on social security, medicare, and the education needed to drive innovation in this economy, to outinnovate, outeducate, and grow this economy. thank you very much. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" a discussion on u.s. preparedness for natural and manmade disasters like those affecting japan. our guest is loretta sanchez of california, member of the armed services committee. then a look at the three-week federal spending extension passed in the house. congressman steve king of iowa gives his take on the federal

budget. and later, more on the situation with the the nuclear plants in japan with sharon squassoni, she's the director of the center for strategic and international studies proliferation prevention program. "washington journal" takes your calls and emails live every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> you're watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs every morning, it's "washington journal" our live call-in program of the news of the day, connecting you with elected officials, policymakers and journalists. weekdays watch live coverage of the u.s. house and week nights, congressional hearings and policy forums, also supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends you can see our signature interview programs, on saturdays "the communicate ors" and the british house of commons. you can watch our programming any time at c-span.org and it's all searchable at our c-span video libry,