in the c.r. we've already proposed deep cuts with tough choices in the interior and environmental section. we have proposed to cut $4.4 billion and eliminate 26 different programs. mr. simpson: the star program exetively funds research grants and graduate fellowships in numerous disciplines. i would note as the gentleman from arizona knows this is exetively awarded in that they actually, as i said, compete for these. the e.p.a. receives approximately 2,000 to 2,500 proposals each year and funds about 150 research grants and 125 graduate fellow -- fellowships. i'd be leery about coming down here and just naming off the title quhaff a research project is and then saying that's silly because i don't know. i don't know exactly what they're trying to do sw some of these things. you actually need to dig into it and find out what they're tryinging to find out with some of these research grants. a few years ago some people did this with i think it was the national academy of science research grants and i

the c.r. includes absolutely no earmark funding and eliminates all previous earmark funding from fiscal year 2010, saving taxpayers approximately $.5 billion. -- $8.5 billion. furthermore it eliminates any unobligated stimulus funding approved in the american recovery and reinvestment act, another $5 billion of taxpayer dollars saved. as we help put our nation's budget back into balance, we're finding real savings that are just -- justifiable to the american people and that will stop the dangerous spiral of unsustainable and irresponsible deficits. in addition, this c.r. is only the first of many appropriations bills this year that will significantly trim federal spending. it's hard and fast proof that we are serious about returning our nation to a sustainable financial and fiscal path. however, so that we can continue the important work of reducing spending in our regular budgetary work for this year, the house, senate and white house must come together to complete this process before march 4,

the c.r. period will preclude us from eliminating the agency entirely. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from from the american samoa rise? >> i move to strike the last word and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. mr. faleomavaega: i rise to talk to the amendments. mr. chairman, h.r. 1 debates the bill put forward by the republicans and already cuts the east-west center from the current $23 million to $10.7 million. my friends across the aisle want to eliminate any and all funding for this institution. while i agree we need to cut the federal budget, i do not believe we should carelessly use a machete, a samurai sword or sledgehammer to discard programs that are necessary to protect u.s. interests in this region of the world. the east-west center was established by federal law by the u.s. congress in 1960. president eisenhower signed the mutual security act of 1960 which authorized its creation only after the state department conducted a study and reported back

if we are to go with the c.r. as it is, we are talking about a reduction in the middle of a school year of $5,550 to $4,705. dune what that does to a student? it doesn't tell them, let me try to ramp up my extra job. it says, i am dropping out. you know what happens to the work force? it disappears. so i am concerned that we are in this predicament. let me tell you something else. i have been a strong champion of the cops on the beat program and we have seen evidence of the fact that we have gained in the downsizing or the decreasing of crime. the proposed c.r. will cut $600 million in funding to community-oriented policing and what will happen is 3,000 fewer officers. you can be assured houston, texas who got their first cops grant, just a few months ago, that i worked very hard on, will be one of the victims of that. let me just conclude by suggesting that one of the points my good friend, the assistant leader, made, community health clinics is not a partisan issue. it is to give access to all communities and par

at the rate we're going, c.r. providing $100 billion for military operations, that is more than $1 billion per al qaeda operative. our amendment would limit the funds for military operations in afghanistan to $10 billion to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of forces. as we stand here debating this $100 billion allocation in the c.r., i cannot help but contrast that with the fact that our domestic agenda is being cut and cut and cut, not only by this c.r. but by the budget, both from the opposite side of the aisle and the white house. the homelessness is shameful in america. we have people who are wondering how they're going to keep their homes warm. we're cutting heating oil. in america. the environment is taking a licking with this c.r. at the same time we talk about innovation and creating jobs, i don't see anything in this c. reform that will create any jobs. what i see is unwise expenditures such as we are witnessing. for the $100 billion. what i see on the opposite side of the aisle is a dedicated c

the republican c.r. is another broken promise that will eliminate thousands of good-paying jobs in construction, law enforcement, research and education and public safety. this is just more of the same and this turns us into a pink slip nation. i believe that's what the goal of the republicans is. and this bill will cost us jobs today, tomorrow, and in the future by failing to invest in our infrastructure and by failing to invest in education. mr. speaker, the mistakes the majority intends to make today will not be very easy to reverse. i urge the majority to keep its promise to america, which is, it's all about jobs. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 92 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number nine, house resolution 92, resolved,

the c.r. also already cuts $2.4 million to the food and drug administration and this amendment would take an additional $22 million. cuts to state law enforcement assistance by $1.3 billion, 35%. compared to the current late. the -- rate. the jordan amendment would cut an additional $68 million. the original version also completely eliminated the cops hiring program but an amendment passed by the house this week from our side prevailed, reinstating some of that funding. cut $661 million below the current rate from the army corps of engineering, leaving hundreds of communities without critical flood control and navigation work. the jordan amendment would cut an additional $35 million. the c.r. also completely eliminates weatherization and tate energy programs. cuts $648 million from the -- for the nuclear nonproliferation program, increasing the likelihood of bomb grade material entering the united states. the yordan amendment would cut an additional $37 million. the c. reform cuts safe drinking

if the c.r. has language in it that allows for funding of obamacare, then a vote in support of the continuing resolution is a vote that funds the very thing that we voted to repeal. which would be inconsistent. i do not believe that we will have inconsistent members here in the house of representatives. i think they voted to repeal obamacare. i think they're happy to vote to cut off funding to obamacare and i believe that we'll have a universal support for that among our conference. and i believe the senate if they have an opportunity for the vote would co-the same thing. down party lines, perhaps, but they'd do the same thing. herein is the difficulty, mr. speaker. it's this. that the funding that might otherwise be in this continuing resolution or may perhaps actually come out tomorrow in it is not very large in comparison to the overall cost. the chairman of the budget committee has said that the spending under obamacare is $2.6 trillion. $2.6 trillion. there's taxes enacted by it and we know h

the c.r. is very simple. arizona, the state of arizona has implemented laws in its state to protect the dignity and sovereignty of the state. the united states federal government in all of its awesome power has jumped in and sued the state of arizona at taxpayer expense, preventing them from enforcing the rule of law in their own state. the federal government doesn't enforce the rule of law on the borders. recently, the g.a.o. reported that only 44% of the border is secure that means somebody else controls the other 56% of the southern border. and it's not the united states of america. arizona is trying to protect its people, the federal government won't protect the border but yet it sues the state of arizona. this legislation would prohibit the federal government from using its resources and any money to implement the lawsuit against the united states of america versus the state of arizona and janis brewer, the governor thereof. it's a very simple amendment. i yield the remainder of my time to

the c.r. is the pivotal item we are looking at. i was working at the president and harry reid as much as i could, and then the next 30 days, we will do it all over again. i would do that every 30 days. we need to. [applause] and yet, it seems that that decision may have been made to extend funding out to the end of the fiscal year, september 30. it will be the largest appropriations bill times 5 ever voted on by congress before, en though it will be rolled back to 2008 level, and it will still be five times larger than anything voted for before but -- before. i can get my mind about that, but the most important pivotal component of important pivotalc.r. -- important pivotal we canwith the c.r., choose this grant to fight on, and if we can stand cella, there is not -- we can choose this ground to fight on. and if we can stand, it will be possible to shut off any spending to be used this year to a force obama care -- to enforce obama care. those of you know me know that i am not easily satisfied. there is the position i have taken. >

and that's kind of the antithesis of what the c.r. does given the early analysis that would cost us about 800,000 jobs. and so if you juxtaposed what's happening today in the c.r. and the president's budget specifically things such as the build america bonds which were so successful. i know sacramento airport used those. they generated 1250 jobs. in and probably every district across the country can say something similar. and i'd like to hear how you deal with that because that's certainly a job-creator vis-a-vis the job killer in the c.r. and also on energy issues, i noticed the president's budget extends the 1603 treasury grant program which is so important for renewable energy and the section 48c provision, the manufacturing tax credit which is important to keeping those jobs here in america. i'd like to hear about that and what you see is an opportunity for us through encouraging and investing in renewable energy -- how we can use that to create more jobs? and i should also mention because it was brought up today by someone on the

the c.r. we will be voting on late they are week. by that, i mean we have a c.r. before us this week that will do gai daniel to our economic competitiveness while having negligible impact on the nation's budgetary situation. it is clear that without a robust innovative economy it will be next to impossible to truly reduce our national budgetary deficit yet this c.r. cuts some of the very investments needed to address the crisis in competitiveness in our country that we are confronting now. for some time, important leaders in our business and academic community have warned us about this crisis. in 2005, the national academy chaired by former lockheed moffer tin c.e.o. norm augustine released a report, "rising above the gathering storm" this report showed that without a focus -- warned that without a focused effort by the federal government, america's future was bleak. it recommended increased efforts in science, technology, engineering and math. we have failed to heed this vision. i yield back.

if the goal was to help low-income minority students, the c.r. would not have cut $44 million from other programs. programs that are designed to help first generation students prepare and succeed in college. the reality is is that this amendment completely stops the department of education from any form of oversight of career colleges that educate 10% of higher education students, receive approximately 24% of federal grants and loans and account for 48% of loans defaults. . let's stop now. let's give the department of education the opportunity review its work and come back to us with some regulations that take care of the needs of students and not protect just the institution. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? -- does the gentleman from new york rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. towns: i strongly support the kline-fox amendment which would prohibit the use of funds for georgia

i don't think the chame of the full committee likes the c.r. that we are considering. if he did, he wouldn't have been required to write it three times to get the bill to the floor. the salient points, the substitute we are presenting tonight is a deeper cut than the base bill. the base bill is advertised in saving $106 billion. this amendment cuts $120 billion and cuts numbers in defense, homeland, israel and gitmo, earmarks are gone, stimulus money is back. to my republican colleagues, if this debate is about the number, this is a bigger number, $120 billion. if it's about social engineering, then you'll vote on no on this particular amendment. to my democratic friends, i say we can't give speeches well, we would like to cut stuff and we want to cut that stuff and don't want to cut this stuff. the president's vision of a freeze was a bold strategy in 1995 when i got here, was a failed strategy in 2011. this particular substitute restores some and across-the-board sacrifice and reserve the balance of my time. mr. dicks: i request the time in opposition to the amendment

but they failed to do that in the last four years an now in this c.r. they say this is the time to do so. the gentlelady talked about punishing the agencies. they are punishing people. they are punishing the enforcement folks and i would question the gentleman from massachusetts before he put in this language, did you contact any one of those agencies to see what the implications would be on those agencies for cutting to the extent that you are here? i will yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: thank you. we cut more by multiples than the cuts by the subcommittee majority. mr. fware rhett: did you contact the agencies? mr. frank: i spoke to the people at the subcommittee and i think the cuts are too deep. mr. barrett: reclaiming my time resm claiming my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: when you come to the floor with an amendment to sea we're going to take money from up with agency, you have a primary responsibility to go to those agencies and ask, what impact will they have? it doesn't matter whether other ame

but i hope that we can reject these provisions in the c.r. that actually make no difference in terms of reducing the budget and violate commitments that we have made. the chair: the gentleman yields back. read. the clerk will continue reading. the clerk: page 264, line 9, section 1704. the level for department of interior, united states fish and wildlife service, resource management, $1,204,247,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask to take up amendment number 295. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 295 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, the national fish and wildlife foundation is a government established, government financed so-called private nonprofit set up to act as a conduit to funnel public dollars to private environmental advocacy groups. the authorization for these grants has expired. i'm going to repeat that. there is no congressional authoriza

for the c.r., it's essentially noninvest or disinvest. and cut the deficit except increase it by how much, the high income tax cut over 10 years? >> well, to extend the high income tax cuts for 10 years would cost $100 billion maybe a trillion. >> now, mr. chairman, it's interesting. i think we need to have this discussion. .. >> we live in a very competitive world. we have to make sure we focus every day on how to make the country stronger and more competitive and wheeler going to be -- be able to meet a substantial share of the growing demand for goods and services around the world we want more of that by investment in the united states and what the president's but it does is proposed a range of reforms to make it more likely that the next great american business in the next factory in the united states and the great foreign competitor of the united states builds or her next factory in united states and the tax code is working to encourage those investments and not to discourage those investments. it is very important when we think about

the process by which this c.r. is being produced makes a mockry that we as members of congress have to protect our national security. first, the republican leadership announced a plan to make $44 billion in cuts then we started hearing other numbers, $74 billion, $100 billion, it is measured a different way. and no matter how high the number goes there are proposals to cut even deeper. these numbers weren't chosen because they looked at programs and said here's something that's not working or something we don't need to do. no, the number was plucked out of a hat, unrelated to any thoughtful calculation of what was needed and how much that cost. this bill isn't about making government more cost effective or more efficient and and doesn't create streamlining to ensure our aid reaches that who need it most. it is a/and burn process hacking away without consideration for all the critically important work that's being destroyed or how it affects our national security. the base bill itself might be laughable if it weren't

the c.r. cuts cops programs by $501 million including a reduction of $298 million that specifically zeros out the cops hiring program. elimination of cops hiring would result in 1,330 fewer cops hired or rehired in f.y. 2011 compared to f.y. 2010 with fewer cops hired in f.y. 2011 compared to the f.y. 2011 request of $600 million. towns across the country need federal assistance to help them get through this difficult economic period and that's exactly what this amendment is designed to do. by restoring cops funding for cops hiring grants, camden and other municipalities all across the country could get grants to cover the three-year cost of rehiring officers they were forced to lay off or hiring new officers they need but have been unable to afford. after three years when the economies expected to be in much better shape these municipalities would be required to take on the cost of these officers. while i support the gentleman's amendment, we should restore funding for the cops program, i am d

the c.r. is the pivotal item we are looking at. i was working at the president and harry reid as much as i could, and then the next 30 days, we will do it all over again. i would do that every 30 days. we need to. [applause] and yet, it seems that that decision may have been made to extend funding out to the end of the fiscal year, september 30. it will be the largest appropriations bill times 5 ever voted on by congress before, even though it will be rolled back to 2008 level, and it will still be five times larger than anything voted for before but -- before. i can get my mind about that, but the most important pivotal component of important pivotalc.r. -- important pivotal we canwith the c.r., choose this grant to fight on, and if we can stand cella, there is not -- we can choose this ground to fight on. and if we can stand, it will be possible to shut off any spending to be used this year to a force obama care -- to enforce obama care. those of you know me know that i am not easily satisfied. there is the position i have taken.

so my gripe with the c.r. that my friends on the other side of the aisle have now put forward is that they originally came up with a $60 billion to $74 billion, maybe a thoughtful analysis of what we could cut, remember now, this is in the middle of you working and all of a sudden somebody comes and gives you a pink slip. but rather than stick with what might have been a thoughtful analysis and again i had not studied it, it had not been introduced, all of a sudden they go by the -- we have to be dominated by voices of which force us without thought to now make it $100 billion. i'm as angry about the deficit and want a strong budget that we're not doing right now and want to work with my good ranking member, chairman of the defense subcommittee in the last congress, mr. dicks, on a thoughtful passage going forward, but i want to make sure we stay on a pathway of creating jobs. there is something to cutting spending. you have my commitment. we -- a compromise just last month or two months ago, three months ago i

we talk about draconian measures of the c.r. 's leaving our children with debt that splinters them. >> what happens in the real world? >> i'm not naive to the fact that the senate will make its changes. then it's got to go to to president. it will not be what we produced yesterday at 5:00 a.m. when we left the house being on the floor all night. >> you're prepared for half of that? >> i'm interested. i'm eager to see what happens. i don't know what's going to happen. i don't think it will be in the same form as yesterday morning. >> where will this go? everybody talks about government shutdown or not. >> well that's premature. the democratic senators have to decide, as does the president, do they want to spend the next two years blocking in the senate or vetoing on the president's desk, spending bills because they believe they're too small. the democratic senators have to decide if out of a $15 trillion economy, the economy will be hurt by cutting $60 billion. they have to decide whether out of a $3.7 trillion budget there is not

i plan to carry forward and expand the oversight we began with the c.r. within the fy-2012 bill and i'd like to work closely with you in your committee in an effort as we move forward to try to address these concerns that you shared with us this morning. . we want to strike a balance between security in this nation an make sure we have appropriate oversight. i appreciate you calling attention to these issues that you mentioned this morning, and i can assure you our committee will work with you in trying to work toward making -- doing a better job at oversight for t.s.a. and making sure we do have the security we need for this country. i yield back. mr. rogers: if the gentleman would stand by a moment. when we first stood up t.s.a., i chaired that subcommittee. we put a limit on the number of employees that t.s.a. could have. they first wanted i think it was 30,000 people. we said no. they interup to 35,000, then 40,000, then they went to 43,000, and i said, time-out. so we put a limit on the number of t.s.a. employees that were allowed alt 44 -- at 44,000.

further, 466 takes the c.r. a step further prohibiting the e.p.a. from enforcing national regulation of greenhouse gases similar to the cap and trade regulations. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like unanimous consent to introduce a "wall street journal" article, january 4, 2011, that says the e.p.a. is at war with texas. the chair: without objection. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment basically prohibits the e.p.a. from overregulating not only the state of texas but the rest of the states regarding greenhouse gases. probably no member of congress represents more refineries than i do in southeast texas, and the regulatory process, the overregulation of the e.p.a. coming in and trying to now regulate the state of texas regarding greenhouse gases is a detriment to the industry. the state of texas regulates greenhouse gases, the state of texas regulates the industry, has done a good job, and this is overreaching on the part of the e.p.a. and it's time for the e.p.a. not to put industry out of business, put the refinery industry out of busine

sooner rather than later but we didn't get into this thinking we would have a deadline of meeting the c.r. timetable, the debt ceiling vote. none of that was really our focus at the time we started these discussions and as we've gone through it. so we're going to make sure we get it right, judy, and however long it takes us, mark and i are committed to make sure that we do the right thing. my leadership has been apprised of these conversations from day one, as mark has been in touch with his leadership. the discussions have been in private simply because we didn't want media exposure out there. we wanted to be able to get people to sit in a room around the table and discuss the most serious issue facing the united states of america and do in the a very sober and a way which didn't invite the media to look at it until we were really to the point to where we could start getting into the specifics of it. >> woodruff: well, senators, when you are ready to say more we would welcome you back on the program. senator chambliss, senator warner, thank you both. >> thank you very much, judy. >> brow

the republican c.r. is another attempt to play politics with the well-being of every american. 200,000 children will be kicked out of their head start while republicans still live in their offices. over 700,000 -- 700,000,000 will be cut from w.i.c. pell programs will be reduced making college unaffordable for tovense thousands and thousands more teachers will be receiving a pink slip. cripture tells us love thy neighbor, not thyself. but apparently for americans it's about me, myself, and irene. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> once again this echinese government has targeted someone. a head of civil rights. he was granted an interview regarding the absence of the chinese delegation at an international gathering of evangelicals. mr. pitts: the government's response to the interview was systematic interrogation, search and seizure an torture. he's under house arrest, guarded b

levin: if this amendment would become part of the c.r. there will be no c.r. and that will be your responsibility. your responsibility. this is an effort to repeal by paralysis, paralyzing the provisions that have gone into effect, pre-existing conditions for children being covered, children under 26 having the ability to get insurance. it would paralyze the efforts to begin imple meant -- implementing the 2014 benefits. instead of searching for common ground, this amendment intensifies warfare. instead of collaboration this amendment would mean chaos. the republicans have become a wrecking crew led by paul ryan and wrecking medicare. this amendment is a deeply dangerous prescription for americans' health. this prescription needs to be >> democratic leaders are spending'so be it' bill, talking about the possibility of federal job losses. >> good afternoon, we are in the sixth week of the new republican majority and we have yet to see republicans address the number one priority. they have not put forth one jobs bill to create one job. democrats and the american

the c.r. gives legal services to the poor by $70 million, which is a cut compared to the current level. there's no question we need to find savings in the budget and we are and will and stand ready to work with our colleagues across the aisle to find cuts that make sense. but to make a drastic cut to a program at a time that's keeping people in their homes and where people are struggling most is not the most proficient place to find savings and i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman from virginia continue to reserve his point of order? does the gentleman continue to reserve -- mr. wolf: i do. the chair: for what purpose does the other the gentleman from seek recognition? mr. scott: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scott: i thank the gentleman from tennessee for offering the amendment and the gentleman from california for his remarks. legal services corporation programs are forced to already reject over half the cases that have com

the c.r. is the pivotal item we are looking at. i was working at the president and harry reid as much as i could, and then the next 30 days, we will do it all over again. i would do that every 30 days. we need to. [applause] and yet, it seems that that decision may have been made to extend funding out to the end of the fiscal year, september 30. it will be the largest appropriations bill times 5 ever voted on by congress before, even though it will be rolled back to 2008 level, and it will still be five times larger than anything voted for before but -- before. i can get my mind about that, but the most important pivotal component of important pivotalc.r. -- important pivotal we canwith the c.r., choose this grant to fight on, and if we can stand cella, there is not -- we can choose this ground to fight on. and if we can stand, it will be possible to shut off any spending to be used this year to a force obama care -- to enforce obama care. those of you know me know that i am not easily satisfied. there is the position i have taken.

if we don't get agreement in the meantime, we think there will be a short-term c.r. we don't want the short-term c.r.s to rubber stamp -- >> injury i saying for any short-term extension, those would have to be at reduced levels? >> i think we'll have to negotiate exactly how the short-term c.r.s occur. >> thank you for your time this morning. >>> now, to iran. where tens of thousands of

skete track the second c.r. european cup stage had been delayed by heavy snow but finally what's ahead danielle cramer became the venue's first winner after the austrian won the downhill events on the track that had also been tested by president medvedev and prime minister putin the roles of thorstein track is solid she is her sporting facility that is fully ready for the impacts and those in charge hope it will set a good example for all future building work. as well we had lots of difficulties due to the heavy snow fall and i showed you was very tight but we completed the venue on time it could be compared to plus in a tough exam i hope build in other venues will do much easier thanks to the experience we have gained twelve build in this one mind you prepares so much for the winter games is no easy thing firstly because of the unpredictable weather you can never tell if you have enough snow but we're doing all we can to avoid taking chances that's what artificial snow is one of our riches. and finally the first

levin: if this amendment would become part of the c.r. there will be no c.r. and that will be your responsibility. your responsibility. this is an effort to repeal by paralysis, paralyzing the provisions that have gone into effect, pre-existing conditions for children being covered, children under 26 having the ability to get insurance. it would paralyze the efforts to begin imple meant -- implementing the 2014 benefits. instead of searching for common ground, this amendment intensifies warfare. instead of collaboration this amendment would mean chaos. the republicans have become a wrecking crew led by paul ryan and wrecking medicare. this amendment is a deeply dangerous prescription for americans' health. this prescription needs to be rejected. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself one minute. does anybody honestly believe in america that by repealing obamacare it's actually going to cost the government money? it just doesn't pass the smell te

over the past few days members of this house have voted on amendments to the c.r. which will severely cut or entirely eliminate government entities or programs that will cut assistance to the most vulnerable assistance. it will eliminate funding for research and some of the pressing and social and economic issues. to my knowledge, none of these existing programs appeared on the gao's list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse. in the meantime, numerous department of defense initiatives and specifically dod contracting ranked prominently as programs that remain very susceptible to fraud and abuse. the report states that there are, quote, significant ongoing programs unquote and quote, persistently programs in the defense's inability of performing audits of acquisition programs. it notes for fiscal year 2009, for example, the dod obligated $372 billion in contracts for goods and services and yet that the contracting is hampered by, quote, the lack of well defined legal requirements, the use of ill-suited business arrangements and the lack of an

in a few days, we're going to deal with the c.r. c.r. is a continuing resolution and the c.r. represents the republican pinching slip for america. the republican caucus had their way, against regulation. they are saying they don't need to be regulated. they promoted no regulation of big business and what it resulted in was the worst financial crisis since the great depression, the worst one. financial crisis, housing crisis, caused because the people who are supposed to mind the store refuse to. they figure that everybody -- all the folks who work in our nation's economy, the business people, the industry folks would just always do the right thing. the market would solve every question. well, the market didn't solve every question. markets are important things, as people know. and they can be extremely helpful. but they need folks to regulate them, because they are a social activity that human beings conduct in. and when human beings get together and do something, some will do good things and some will not. that's why we have the police. and in every market, most people do the

jackson lee: i rise in support of the lowey amendment, because i really can't believe that this c.r. is eliminating $327 million in family planning. it just baffles the mind that this critical aspect of health care is now in jeopardy, is now being part of turning the block back. it is amazing that we would not acknowledge the fact that lives of women have been saved, lives of young women have been saved because they have had access to family planning. as much as we have fought to be able to ensure around the world indigent women who have lost their lives through the birthing process have had access to good medical care and yes family planning so they can have live births, now we come here to the soil of the united states and to take $327 million out of the mouths and the hands of women and children, yes, children, who can be born healthy, children who are part of the health care process, that these women are able to secure through the many clinics that are around this nation and in this community. i'm disappointed of the games that are played with planned parenthood. and to be able to

if we don't get agreement in the meantime, we think there will be a short-term c.r. we don't want the short-term c.r.s to rubber stamp -- >> injury i saying for any short-term extension, those would have to be at reduced levels? >> i think we'll have to negotiate exactly how the short-term c.r.s occur. >> thank you for your time this morning. >>> now, to iran. where tens of thousands of protesters turned out for anti-governmentalries on monday. the largest mass demonstrations there since 2009. sparked in large part by the uprising in tunisia, and egypt. jim sciutto has the latest from cairo again. >> reporter: good morning, robin. the turnout, surprisingly large in iran. and what's significant here, is many thought the protest movement in iran was effectively shutdown, silenced from a year-long crackdown. this is showing how far and wide the protests here in egypt are inspiring people. inspired by egypt, iranians took to the streets. and took aim at their own leaders. chanting, death to the dictator. a crowd estimated in the tens of thousands. their spirit lifted by a

speaker this amendment would cut funding in the c.r. other than for the department of defense and the u.s. postal service, other than those two, by $280 million. that's the amount of money that would be saved if federal civilian agencies except d.o.d. and the postal service were to reduce their vehicle fleet by 20%. if adopted, it is my intention that these federal agencies determine where to cut their portion of the $280 million in cuts specifically toward finding savings in their vehicle fleet budgets. . this is a bipartisan idea supported by the chairs of reform. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i would like to yield to my colleague from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. the bipartisan deficit reduction commission has looked at the work of the g.a.o. on this issue. the g.a.o. has tried to get governmental agencies to look at reducing their vehicle lear -- vehicle fleet. one of the examples is where the g.a.o. found automobiles in a parking lot that had not even been used for th

formula one racing this season as a brand new car hits the track for its first test drive the car called moto c.r. was revealed to the public at a packed media launch in london earlier this week the team is gearing up to drive it under the russian colors in just over a month when the new season starts presidents of both yours and a life of many says he's proud of his team's achievements. which it was. we managed to build here in times conditions a new modern and technically advanced automobile production when i started working for formula one and succeeded in some of our undertakings but it means that everything is possible there is a good attitude towards a certain ones from the moment we presented herself from frankfurt even before formula one so far we've fulfilled we have cleaned we will do. create a car and we did what we promised to perform in formula one and we do so at least we deserve to be respected. and now for a brief look at some other major headlines from around the world a suicide bomber has killed nineteen people and wounded twenty six others at a military training center in north

i know that because we are in the middle of a second quarter operating under a c.r., consequently, ace explained in november, the only unobligated balances remaining outside of those operating under the c.r. in 201 are those accounts that are -- in 2011 are those accounts that are slow spend rates such as infrastructure accounts. that is why it has taken $44 billion in rescissions to pay for a $19 billion problem. as a result, we'll be cutting deeply into nondiswens discretionary -- non-defense discretionary programs, without any analysis of the ultimate cost of impacts. this approach is simply irresponsible. while we can't say with certainty what the cuts will be, because the executive branch will have complete authority over what programs will be impacted, i believe the following cuts are likely: stated local enforcement will face cuts of $200 million to $3 00 million in grant programs including $82 million in violence against women grants, $81 million in burn and other justice program grants, and $10 million in juvenile justice grants. cutting these grants funds will take funding fr

president, is ensure that long after the point in time when the c.r. indow opens and closes, long after the time the debt ceiling vote which will happen a little bit later this year occurs, long after those occur and the american people have moved on to other issues, and obviously congress has moved on to other issues, we keep in place this fiscal discipline, this straitjacket to take us where we need to go. the presiding officer and i were in pakistan and afghanistan last week, and we witnessed some of the problems that we're having there. we also witnessed the brilliance of our men and women in uniform and also many hardworking individuals at the state department. and while those threats are threats, the threats that we're dealing with there are threats that are very important to the american people, i think most of us know the biggest threat today to our country is our inability to deal appropriately with our financial circumstances. and i think we all know that if we don't deal with that pretty soon, we're going to be putting our country, our countr

so now that earmarks have been eliminated in the c.r. and eliminated for the future, you will not have that funding as a possibility for this study. also, the administration has not put any money in its budget and therefore there's no money in the budget. so for all practical purposes, the funding for this study is not going to continue. so therefore it's very unlikely the funding level provided in the bill will receive anything more than the amount to close the study. and i would tell my friend that the reason i oppose it is that this language i think may be unnecessary because it may impact the orderly termination of the study, and that's why i rise in opposition because i believe since this study at least in my opinion has been terminated, that we at least go through an orderly order with the few funding that -- the funding that's available so we can have an orderly termination and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: with all due respect, i would

maybe i should amend my previous statement, the cuts in the republicans' c.r. are shortsighted, counterproductive, and may even not cut the deficit. we need a smarter approach. we need an approach of shared sacrifice, not sacrifice by the most vulnerable. we do need to cut the deficit. but there are different ways to cut the deficit. and i believe the republicans have chosen the wrong way. democrats offer a better approach. we cut the deficit by at least $61 billion in such a manner that helps, doesn't hurt, struggling americans. our economy or our shared future. first, as i mentioned before, we need to get rid of once and for all the tax cuts for the richest 2% of americans. it is too late to save the $39 billion we wasted this year, but we could save more next year. next, i think we need to get rid of special tax preferences for oil and gas companies. many of which were instituted by republicans the last time they were in the majority. this would save $44 billion over the next 10 years. . there is good reason to keep -- there is no good reason to keep these su

host: reflect on the budget, the c.r. that was recently passed. guest: as far as funding, we get discretionary dollars out of washington. the funds are things that mayors can designate in our communities where the needs are. if you start cutting those, you are going to start cutting into a lot of social programs that affect a lot of people that really need the help. a 60% and cut is way too much. we are willing to tighten our belt. the idea of cutting the funds drastically is a really bad decision. host: how is your voice heard in this debate? guest: it is my opinion that we will take some cuts. i have tried to communicate on the white house level and to congress there are otherays that they can help. i think the main street fairness act, taking the loophole involving sales tax on sales over the internet, is a way to not have a negative impact on the federal budget. host: what is your opinion of the predent's proposed budget for the next fiscal year? guest: this is from the mayor's perspective, but i think we have to be less focused on the democrat

appropriators cannot finish wrapping up work today is there any fear that they won't be able to get the bill next week? c.r. next week. >> when did you first become aware of the situation with congressman lee and when he'd resign? >> sometime yesterday afternoon and then it was a little after 6:00 that i heard that he had resigned. >> are you pleased with that decision? did he make the right one? >> i think he made the right decision for hims and his family. >> was it a mistake for the majority leader to bring some of these bills to the floor this week when it was clear that they didn't have the votes to pass? is there any concern about the process -- >> now, listen, we're in a new era. i've made it pretty clear we're going to allow the house to work its will. that means the leaders may not get what they want every day. i really do believe that it's early in the process, the house works its will, under the suspension bills, and the bills didn't pass. i think part of the issue here is the fact that committees are just now finally, all of them, have been organized and we get back to a regular process. we wan