and at some other things and to that. i would be very happy if it were the things we agreed upon last year, as long as it were within the limits of the sequestered. this is one of the first constructive steps i have seen anyone take in the face of this. i want to commend you for doing it. you may have accidentally sparked an outbreak of sanity and regular order. i do not think it was accidental, but i think it was very well done, and i think you provided a real service to get us moving in the right direction. >> thank you. >> thing to very much, mr. chairman. i apologize, i have a cold. mr. chairman, i would beg to ask unanimous consent to include the statement of administration policy, and in addition, i would like to ask the unanimous consent to include a statement

from the congressional black caucus regarding the impact of sequestration. to go without objection. german rogers, let me begin by pointing out something that i think is the trip really good that i think you achieved, along with others on the appropriations committee, and that is the secretary of defense will be able to provide the government of israel of the necessary procurement funds for the iron dome defense program. i am just two weeks ago returning from my 15th trip to israel, not only to israel but other areas in the middle east. in light of all of the instability that is ongoing, i think this program, as well as the short range of ballistic

missile defense programs are crucial at this time. mr. chairman, you mentioned the fact that we polled a carrier out of the middle east. i could not agree with you more that at a time of in ordinate and stability in that region, it would seem to me particularly in light of meetings that i had with different officials in the area that a carrier is may bbe e of the few things iran understands. my question is when this measure passes and is completed, the you feel it the appropriate authorities make the determination to return the carrier that this measure will

allow or facilitate a carrier being returned to the middle east? >> i think so. the department has some discretion in how they move monies around. they can ask for reprogramming in transfer. as they see fit. this should solve the problem. i worry about the inability to send a carrier force to the middle east, because that is of vital importance. >> i heard you say this will assist in meeting the development of additional aircraft carrier. is do that as a vital to defense, but also vital to jobs

in this country. much of what gets ignored is how many jobs are likely to be provided by virtue of the work you all have done. thank you. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the gentleman. take a think you come mr. chairman. i apologize for coming in late. -- >> thank you mr. chairman. i was thinking about the investments that go on to produce amazing innovation that but for your committee would not be produced. because i was late i may have missed some very important things at the beginning. listening to some of my colleagues questions, there appears to be a lot of

controversy about this bill. i will ask you, because i know the chairman is here to advocate for the bill. this seems like a step around which we can agree on? am i misunderstanding the nature of an agreement today? >> as i said from the outset, there is no question in my mind that the chairman and i could sit down, put together a continuing resolution that would include all 12 committees and then send it to the senate to do it will, come to the congress in conference, and we could work it all out. i do not think the chairman or i or both chairmen and ranking member in the senate would support sequestration, because they know it would be devastating. i think all four of us would like to work something out so

we could not have the bill, the continuing resolution subject for sequestration. so i was very pleased when the chairman made adjustments, took the 2013 bill that was agreed upon by the senate and house, and included in the cr. however, since we know every one of the bills will be subject to sequestration, i think it would have been much more productive, much more positive and would have been enthusiastically supported this effort if the other 10 that bills were at the fyi 2013 level. by the way, it is not always more money. as the chairman knows, the 2013 defense bill is not more money. they were given option of flexibility in moving the bills around so it serves their import

needs to defend our country. to make it clear, i support the continuing resolution process. i think it is essential that it be for all 12 bills, and i think it is unfortunate we are doing it for two bills and not the other 10. i may be mistaken, but i have homeland security and there may be others where there was agreement between the house and senate, because what is critical here, since sequester is the law of the land, all of these bills have the level they are at in the continuing resolution that will be subject to sequester. i will not repeat again devastate education, health care, air traffic control, the food and safety inspectors, etc.. that is why i think there has to be an adjustment. >> perhaps we should have put

you in the joint selection committee. i am pleased that you can come together and find that the agreement. i have never gone to vote on a labor of hhs bill. i would have said the process was so problematic that agreement was near impossible and i might serve another two years and not see that process, but to hear even with these challenging funding levels set by sequestration that in your experience you are able to look forward and say we really are cord to be able to come to an agreement. i can tell you that my summer will be a better summer if it is filled with appropriation bills that have been reported out of the appropriations committee. >> i want to clarify, i did not think chairman rogers or myself support sequestration, but

regular order with all the 12 bills were we work together and then work with the senate and the conference, i think, is the regular order, the way we have always operated, and i think it would be a very productive process. >> let me make sure i understand. my experience has been operating under the budget caps that the president passed. one thing we all seem to agree upon in the two years and three months -- >> i am glad you brought that up. we have already cut a trillion dollars for the next 10 years and put caps of 555 billion, and i think this was an important step in the right direction. the to see these potentially devastating cuts when i think we could work it out so there is a long-range plan for reducing the

debt, but short-term create jobs and get the economy moving again. >> let me say this, the name of the game or the end product we're after is a law that stops the shutting down of the government. therefore, the better chance you have of getting the law passed. so we did not include these other bills because it would have greatly complicated and even make controversial of bill but otherwise really has not. if the senate wants to add something in, we will take a look at the top -- we will take a look at that, but i want to keep the bill as simple as we can to make sure we pass a bill that becomes ball that prevents the shutdown of the government. we cannot take on top of

sequestration. this bill is not about sequestration. this is about continuing funding of the government for the balance of the year, albeit a at reduced levels because of sequestration. we can deal with sequestration perhaps later, but for now we need to keep the government from shutting down. >> i find that very persuasive, and given the concerns about the 5% reduction or 8.2% reduction or something higher if we fail to succeed in this effort, we're talking about 100% reduction across these categories, which is why my sense was this was an area of agreement. while we all find things we could do differently or maybe do better, at least when it comes to can we can see by march 28 this was an area in which we found more agreement than disagreement. am i reading this tea leaves correctly? tea leaves

correctly? >> let me clarify it again. i do believe we could agree on a flight 2013 bills, and it would be my preference to include no sequester. then i think we have a very rational plan. we're not cutting education, the national institute of health, air traffic controllers. we're not cutting food and safety inspectors, etc.. the idea of the sea are not closing down the government, we are in -- the idea of the cr not closing down the government is a good idea. i think the other 10 bills are so important for health and national security or economy. almost every economist predicted the sequester on top

of the other 10 bills you are dealing at the continuing resolution level. the sequester on top of them would be terribly damaging to the economy. the bottom line, when the big hospitals, the research institute's come to talk to me about the hundreds of millions of dollars they are spending on research, cancer, autism, alzheimer's -- not just ground- breaking research that will save lives, is jobs. you were talking about jobs in the defense bill. i am saying national institute of health, education, etc. -- it is jobs, in addition to performing critical roles in our society. so we both agree there should be a continuing resolution. i think we both agreed there should not be a sequester. i would like to see a continuing

resolution regular order on all 12 bills sent to the senate. >> that would be terrific. i would like to echo the ranking members' enthusiasm. i am a big believer. i know mr. kohl has a lot of affection for the appropriations committee. i value my opportunity to participate in the process, too. you have inspired me by your belief that at least at the committee can come together and report out the bills. i look forward to seeing those things on the floor of the house. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank both of you for being here today. i know if you are passionate about issues that are not contained within the cr, but i will tell you this, i am new as

a member on the senate armed services. listening to testimony from the joint chiefs and those that have come to testify, they led me to believe that as bad as sequestration is for them, the cr is even worse and so many different ways. i was so happy to see the fact con and are utilizing milacro appropriations, but also for our veterans because when you look at our troops, and those young men and women who volunteered to serve us and keep us free, and we're putting them at risk because we do not have the funds in the proper categories, which is crazy. the way it works, you could be funding this piece of paper and

they did not needed anymore. you are still funding this piece of paper at $100. they have critical needs as it relates to readiness. i have a son that is currently a national training center with the first infantry division. they had to cut back on the amount of equipment they take, the amount of ammunition they can expand, because they are fearful that they will not have the money and have the ability for their superiors to put it in places they need it. the army national guard will not be able to fly their helicopters for training mission, which put us in two distinct areas one is national defense, but to be able to respond to critical issues

that affect us because of natural disasters. if these men and women cannot fly, cannot keep their skills honed, then we put them at risk when they are called into action, whether it is a hurricane or whether it is a foreign country to defend this nation's interest. so cr to get the flexibility to the leaders that are entrusted with our sons and daughters in keeping a safe, for the first time i am proud of the fact that we are doing a cr. i would much rather see us pass all of the appropriation bills and get us out of this rut we are in, but this is the first time i think we're doing the right thing by those that have volunteered to defend us in every way, that are willing to give the last measure. while i agree with you, and may

not go far enough in a lot of areas, it certainly is going in the right direction for those that are critically important to us, and those that have served us. i think you mentioned that some of this goes -- is there some going to the va to help? the gusher. absolutely. -- >> sure. as i mentioned, there are 17 hospitals that need to be constructed. do any new starts. am i correct? you cannot have any new starts. >> that is correct. they have to have special permission. >> there is also staff.

almost 200 other construction projects that can go forward only if we do this bill. >> 200 construction projects. across the united states? that is jobs. it adds jobs. >> construction work. first of all, i want to thank you for your passionate statement. i want to clarify i am supportive of the defense bill and milcon bill, but let me give you a few examples because the other 10 bills are operating at last year's level where we are updating the defense bill to this year's level, which is so very important. i had a group of parents in my

office, as i do all the time, but these were parents with children who have optimism. -- autism. the research being done is extraordinary. the president and i believe just last week talked about a focus on the brain and investing in the brain. national -- dr. collins of the national institutes of health has done an amazing work. if we are not investing in the national institutes of health at the level they need, whether it ,s autism, alzheimer's, heart diabetes research for rea made so much progress, then these are not just jobs, there are lives that will be lost. i just want to emphasize again that what the chairman did was

important but did not go far enough, because these kids did not get back those years. the opportunity to get research done and save lives and create jobs is absolutely essential. isgree the cr we the worst possible thing to be done, but the regular order portion of it, and i think what you are both committed to is the process to actually bring forward appropriation bills and passed them and hopefully the senate will do the same thing. >> that is the problem. we passed all 12 of the appropriations bills through the house committee. we passed seven of them on the floor of the house. the meantime, the senate did nothing.

they refused to take up a single appropriations bill. so it takes two to tango under the constitution and we were doing a solo dance. that has been going on for two straight years. the refuse to pass a budget and refuse to pass a single appropriations bill. that puts us into a continuing resolution. unless the senate wakes up and does their job on appropriations, we will be back here next year. >> that goes to the issue the gentle lady is talking about and that goes to programs are important across america. they will not get fixed unless we pass the appropriations bill here, but then more and portly actor we do our business that the senate does it. if i am going to be angry at someone, i just have to walk

down the hall. under the rotunda and go on the other side. those are the folks that need to get off the dime and help us help america. thank you very much, mr. chairman, and the ranking member. . yield back to g >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like the ring. i was listening with interest. i think i understand what you are saying. if we were able to get this cr combination appropriation act out of the way, then that is our best opportunity to get back to regular order. is that what you are saying? >> absolutely. we are already holding hearings

on fiscal 14. it is a year-long effort, but we cannot focus on that until we get rid of fiscal 13, which this will do. >> i have one other question about sequestration. i want to make sure i understand these terms. in the reports that cbo did, there are adjustments in overseas contingency, emergency requirements and disaster relief. aren't those numbers are -- i am not going to say their numbers pulled out about hats. i am sure there is discussion that goes behind that, but are those numbers that we in search like disaster relief? we did not know sandy was going to happen, so we put in a number

and it is there, and then if there is some other special necessity we come back to adjust that or do a supplemental. is that true for all of the numbers, those for overseas contingency, emergency requirement in disaster relief? don't we from time to time at supplement those? >> those accounts are outside the budget. to go in here they are sequestered. and here they are sequestered. almost like placeholders it seems like. the money,sequestere we do not know what the need would be. is there, but it seems like it

was sandy or other overseas needs we have come back to supplement whatever it needs. is that true? >> well, suffice it to say those were perforated funds and therefore subject to sequestration. >> right, but what i am saying is it is not like some fixed number. it is reliant on some zero currents -- on some zero current happening that would facilitate the needs-- on some occurance happening out there that was facilitate the needs. dollars dollars

-- when we say 85 billion, some of those dollars are being sequestered, which is in my thought placeholders for what needs to happen. what they are showing -- really the number is about $59 billion in discretionary budget authority that is being sequestered, not 85. >> these are sequestration matters. we are prepared to do this with cr for the rest of the year. we can talk about sequestration tomorrow. right now i want to get a bill on the floor to talk about the government shutting down. we can talk about those things later. >> the potential of us getting back to regular order is way higher than if we spend our time

bouncing bills back and forth that we know probably the senate is not going to take. >> i want to do 12 individual bills and bring them to the floor and sent a bill to the senate and have them send a bill back. we do a conference with the senate. everyone has their day in court. that is what i want to get back to. >> the potential for doing that for the rest of the year, six months is pretty low for getting back to regular order for that. it is far better to do what you are proposing here, and then start on the 2014 appropriation.

>> i would like to do it for 12 bills. then the reasonable people here could orchestrate a discussion, a meeting where we could all agree in getting rid of sequestration, because whether it is defense, military, nih, homeland security, air-traffic controllers, food safety inspectors -- everyone agrees it would be a disaster. maybe we have made progress here and can have a meeting to in a bipartisan way do away with sequestration. >> thank you. gentle lady from florida. you, mr. chairman.

i want to follow up on what senator hastings, my florida colleague asked about iron dome program. i wanted to ask further about the foreign assistance aspect of our economy and confirmed there is nothing in this bill -- confirm there is nothing in this bill that would give the obama administration the flexibility to fund unesco or any agency in the u.n. that allows palestine to be recognized as a country and does not have anything about weapons aid? secretary kerrey has been going around promising weapons aid to syria rebels, for example. we are so relieved he said the vast majority will not go to

extremism. certainly a cause for relief. >> there is no path and rigid policy matters in this. -- there is no policy matters in this. >> thank you. >> thank you. the gentleman from texas. >> i thank the chairman for the recognition. i appreciate you being here and spending so much time with us. i appreciate what you're trying to do with the cr and the attached appropriation bill. i would have liked to have seen go us -- seen as go a little bit further in some of the attempts to pare down what i consider to be excessive federal spending. we're all familiar with the numbers and discretionary spending. we are all familiar with the

numbers in entitlement spending. i would like to see as tackled the imaginary numbers -- tackele the imaginary numbers. we have done some of the work in the committee, but there are lots of places where we can look in this law as it is rolled out and the implementation thereof where the dollars will be easier to contain before they get out the door, and it is one of our -- one of the main things we can do for future generations of americans, to the correct implementation and curtail some of the spending that is contained therein, because it is unlike anything anyone has seen before. i want to thank mr. hastings for bringing the policy for us. and the fact that it does not contain a veto threat is good news for you. they can be deeply concerned, as the language they use. they can be deeply concerned,

but apparently in agreement with you they want to see the cr pass and into law, which is why i appreciate the fact you are not waging the kind of fight but i would perhaps wage if i were in your position on the affordable care act that one of these days we will have to have that, and i think those days are not too far off. it is interesting on the sequesters side, the moneys from the prescription drug user fee agreement that were hammered out in a bipartisan passion -- fashion, it is a mystery to me why these dollars, which are brought by industry to the food and drug administration to allow them to simply do their jobs, why those numbers have to be put into some holding account and not used. it does seem strange, and seems terribly inefficient to not use those dollars for the purposes for which there were intended,

and i hope your committee can look into that and perhaps provide it not relief, some clarity in the thinking of the food and drug administration. i think you all for the work you are doing. >> i yield back. >> i appreciate you spending the time on this. there is a transition and will and i the members to which they wish to talk to the amendments. if they would come up and take seats. you may have to bring and an extra chair if you would.

-- bring in an extra chair.mr. van hollen, we will go with you. mr. van holland, you are recognized. i think you for the opportunity to be here. the last time i made a proposal that i thought you should take me up on, which is it you made an amendment to replace the quaestor in order that i would not be back to the rules committee for a very long time. you only have yourself to blame for the fact that you have to listen to me here today. listen, this is not the fourth time this year that we have asked for a simple up or down

vote on the house of representatives on proposal to replace the sequestered. the sequestered kicked in on march 1, and unless we do something about it, it will progressively create more and more disruptions in the economy, and according to the independent non-partisan congressional budget office, if left in place throughout the calendar year, will result in the loss of 750,000 jobs. we will have 750,000 fewer american jobs in this country by the end of december than we would otherwise if we do not replace this sequestered. in addition to that, last week the chairman of the federal reserve, mr. ben bernanke said it the sequestered remains in place we can expect to see -- if the sequester remains in

place, we can expect to see the economy the reduced by one- third. lots of jobs lost, and you would think we would at least have a chance to vote on a plan to avoid the 750,000 in job losses and disruption to the economy. very briefly, so what this proposal does is replace the sequester in a way that achieves the same amount of deficit reduction, but it does so in a way that does not result in a loss of 750,000 jobs and economic disruption, because it targets those cuts over time and closes lots of tax breaks. for example, it would eliminate the subsidies for big oil, something that was proposed by former president bush, and would apply the buffet role so folks making more than $2 million

would still be able to take advantage of deductions and exemptions, but they would pay an effective tax rate of 30%. we think that is an alternative worthy of consideration by this house in order to avoid the job loss and that economic disruption. we would ask that you simply allow this people's house to work its will. make that amendment in order, and if people want to vote no and have it go down, that is a choice people can make in the light of day. people should be on record for that. at the very least, people should be willing to stand up and take a vote on that issue on a plan to avoid the sequestered. i would ask for the fourth time this year that you and the members of this committee make that amendment in order. thank you, mr. chairman.

i have amendment number for version one. i would like to yield my colleague from oklahoma. -- number four, version one. >> thank you. in oklahoma we have a very great governors who is resisting the expansion of medicaid and resisting the creation of the obama care of obama care exchanges. we have universities working extremely hard to preserve religious liberties and businesses that are working to preserve religious liberties. what we would like to do is propose an amendment that would defund a lot of implementations and problems that keep coming up in the state of oklahoma. certainly there are irs agents that are working to continue collecting taxes for the implementation of obama care. there are health and human services rule makers that

continue to make rules. businesses in oklahoma and kansas are having problems not knowing what the next day holds as far as roles go. we would like to own fund the rule makers and the enforcement and other items for the implementation of obama care as an amendment. >> thank you. just to follow up on the issue of the president's health-care plan that passed before i was here, it has certainly not lived up to its promises. over 2400 waivers, provisions. more than two dozen lawsuits in reference to the mandate out of hhs. up to 7 million americans will not be able to keep their health care coverage as promised. this amendment is very simple. we allow -- we ask for the

opportunity to have an up or down vote on the president's health-care plan. pretty simple issue. hopefully we will have an opportunity to vote on the floor as we move forward on the cr. >> thank you. i appreciate you presenting your ammendments. >> to mr. van hollen, i certainly appreciate your in -- persistence and everyone who voted last week, and we are on record are ready for we are. do it in a straightforward and honest way. i have already mentioned before we got here -- you got here that i hope the ranking budget committee will pay you courtesy on your fourth visit.

>> mr. nugent. mr. hastings? >> [inaudible] >> mr. webster? mr. burgis? >> let me briefly say thank you to the gentleman from kansas and oklahoma for bringing forward an important concept. you heard my comments to the chairman of the appropriations committee. i do think now is not the time to have this fight, but i do very much believe this is a fight that we must have. i appreciate your enthusiasm and passion for bringing it forward. i will say the governor of oklahoma is exactly right in persisting the medicaid expansion. i have had discussions with the governor of texas along the lines. you are on the right track. i appreciate your bringing this up to us today.

i yield back. thing to very much. i yield back my time. here we go again. >> offer stands. make this an order and i will go away. for a while. i know. take me up on offer. >> i am delighted you are back up here. i saw you downstairs a few minutes ago. i extended the offer and the distilled at any time you want to come up. i am delighted to see you. we have been kicking around -- i know i walked out a few moments ago, but we're still kicking around the whole sequestration and how we're going to do things. i think you and i both recognize what we're trying to

do is to work through a progress -- a process where we are very open with the american public about where we are, about the need to take care of not just the american people but to be honest about where we are going and also the process. i go to many children's disability conferences and events. i ran across a couple of moms who said gasoline is double what it was. she said it is getting hard for us. i promised her we would continue to work. we would try to work together on the issues that would try to make life better for them. i guess i am lucky. i have a down syndrome son. it is different than autism.

different than zero palsy -- to repro policy -- cerebral pasly. i thank you as always my dear friend for coming up here. so thank you for taking time to be with us. i have been told that everyone has a chance to fully but you and you have the chance to challenge us, and we will take it that way and we will do so. are excused at this time. thank you very much. this closes the hearing portion of hr933. i see no further witnesses, so we will close the hearing. vice chairman dr. fox. committee grante

the department of defense and veterans affairs and full year continuing the appropriations act of 2013 and closed roll. the rule provides one hour of debate equally divided by control of the chair and ranking minority member on appropriations. the rules which all points of order against consideration of the bill. the rule provides the amendment printed shall be considered as adopted and the bill is amended shall be considered as read. the rule is all points of provisions against the bill as amended. finally, one motion to commit with or without construction -- instruction. >> i would defer to the gentleman, mr. kohl, for an explanation of the role. take of think you. this is a closed rule, standard on the cr. it is one hour debate divided equally between both sides. it makes a technical correction to the bill requested by the appropriations committee and

that is assault best executing measure. -- self-executing measure. >> i thank not only the witnesses but the germans were, on the appropriations committee. now hearing the motion is there, any discussion or amendment that would be in order? >> i move on mr. van hollins behalf to move this and get necessary waivers for mr. van holland that replaces the entire sequestered for calendar year 2013 which would cause deep cuts for domestic priorities in defense with specific policies that reflect a balanced approach to deficit reduction. this amendment protect our most honorable citizens. those earning over 1,000,004 -- 1 million per year or more.

and cut subsidies to big oil. >> is there any discussion on this amendment? the chairman does recognize that the amendment the gentlewoman moves on behalf of mr. van holland is a consensus choice. i also recognize at a time when we're not trying to raise costs on gasoline that there would be a raise on gasoline. under president obama we of seen the price of students -- food substantially rise. cereal, milk, commodities rise as a result of the excessive price of gasoline, and further, that we just had a big tax increase under president obama, and i would note there are calls for increasing taxes for their.

brand new revenue estimated to be 600 billion that would come in this year. i have seen where the american public are now asking we do our part to reduce the cost of government. i will vote no on this amendment. those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. those opposed no. the no's have it. is there further amendment? the gentleman is recognized. to go a move the committee granted hr933 so all members have the opportunity to offer bills on the floor. this bill entirely skip the regular process. members are supposed to have an opportunity to propose changes. this was written by house republicans in the back room somewhere. now we're sending it directly to the floor. in order to give members of the

house a chance to improve -- to approve the bill on the floor, i am asking the members of the house to support a role on the floor. this bill picks winners and losers and makes many changes in current law. it is 269 pages long. it is a long bill. we know this bill helps the pentagon cope with the cuts from sequester. i did not have any problem with that, but there is no reason why it cannot give the same help to all the other agencies that enforce our laws, keep the food supply safe and helps farmers and small businesses and keep the air and water clean. in addition, this bill, the way it is written ensures a lot of people who are poor will suffer even worse consequences as a result of poverty. i think that is just wrong. if we have an open rule, we can do something about that. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. >> can i be heard on this

amendment? i appreciate the tournament effort to have open rules. i am a big fan of the process. i am worried the consequences of not passing this bill is not a 10% reduction or 15% reduction for those groups in need that did gentleman mentioned. it is a 100% reduction. -- that the gentleman mentioned. i take him at his word that we will have an open process. but if we did not get this done , the tournament remembers the only open process we of ever had the one we had two years ago. i thought that was a festival of democracy we have here in the house. it went on day and night for five days. this is a shorter bill. milcon, va, and dod went through

an open process. these are the bills that went through the open process, passed the house and a completely open matter that summer. to be clear, in case anyone was confused, this bill does nothing to make anyone's plight worse. this bill takes what is a tough situation for all americans and makes things better for every veteran, every man and woman serving in uniform. it does nothing to make anyone's plight worse than current law is today. that is an important distinction. an important distinction. i yelled back. >> i appreciate the fact that these open roles -- i wish you would vote for a couple. a long time since we have had an open rule. i think this process deserves it.

this bill does make many people's lives worse. people who will lose wic, nutrition programs and many people that are suffering as a result of a bad economy that rely on the federal government just to get by. the fact that we're not changing the sequester. the fact that we're sitting by and twiddling our thumbs while these cuts go into effect i think is unconscionable. i think one of the things we can at least do is we ought to have a more open process that my friend says he supports, but both for it overall. i will give him the opportunity. >> the gentleman makes my point about the controversy of this bill and read the passage of the underlying bill. this insures the communities you are talking about it every penny allowed to them under federal law today. the tournament characterize that as doing a disservice. it is a member brings down this bill, those folks get zero.

again, that is -- the gentleman makes exactly the point about why it is important remove this forward in a way that ensures these dollars continue to go out to them. to >> i would urge my colleagueo vote yes on the amendments. . >> i appreciate the dialogue. we're trying to make sure on this committee we believe that and have witnesses and allow the testimony. it is not unusual to have five our hearings. >> i would prefer less testimony and more amendments. take of that might be a trade- off the gentleman does seek. i would say in the process that many leaders in this house of representatives have been attempting for quite some time to make sure we understood the difference between fiscal cliff, the difference between cr, the

difference between sequestration, and the items that are necessary, including a debt limit. what we're trying to do in this house is before the last minute to offer of bipartisan, bicameral agreement. we saw both the ranking member and the chairman it sits before us, and while they lamented certain parts of where we all are, i think a common sense purpose to do the right thing with what we have. i think we have given plenty of time for the united states senate to see what we would do. we will welcome any opportunity to negotiate with them in the conference. so i urge a no vote. is there further discussion? those in favor will signify by saying aye. those not in favor no.

the no's have it. >> [calling roll] ms. slaughter aye. mr. hastings aye. mr. polis aye. mr. chairmen no. yays, 9 nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman -- a woman from north carolina. the aye's have it. >> roll call. >> [calling roll]

mr. bishop aye. mr. cole aye. mr. woodall aye. mr. webster aye. mr. burgis aye. ms. slaughter no. mr. mcgovern no. mr. hastings no. mr. german ay -- chairman aye. >> the motion is agreed to. the gentleman from oklahoma will be handling the majority. i do not anticipate that this time that we will have any further action. i also would advise the chairwoman we're interested in

working with her on decision making about the placement of he floor rules on te and the timing of that theory and we want to take considerations of the weather and the timing into that. we will do that tomorrow. subject to the institute. >> people who do not live the way up north are really afraid of snow. [laughter] >> i have heard for year, texans do not know how to drive on 4 inches of snow. the problem is is the 6 inches of ice that is underneath that is where we get into trouble. thank you all very much. we are now in recess. >> looking at our live coverage

today on our companion network on c-span 3. this morning the senate judiciary committee will hear from attorney general eric holder. the justice department oversight hearing is that 9:30 eastern. at 2:00 the hearing on preventing military suicides. in a few moments, today's headlines, your calls and tweets on "washington journal." the house of representatives in at 10:00 eastern to consider resolutions to fund the government through september. in about 45 minutes we will discuss the effect of automatic spending cuts with republican representative liynn westmoreland from california -- from georgia. we will then be joined by jan schakowsky. schakowsky.