[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1806-H1810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 48, ADDITIONAL 
               CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS AMENDMENTS, 2011

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 167 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 167

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 48) making further continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against consideration of the joint 
     resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chaffetz). The gentleman from Georgia is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern). During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 167 provides a closed rule for 
consideration of H.J. Res. 48. Keeping in line with the actions of the 
minority party and its CRs last year, this rule also provides for 1 
hour of debate and a motion to recommit.
  We are here again today dealing with the continuing resolution, Mr. 
Speaker, because H.R. 1 sits idly on the Senate side. As you will 
recall, H.R. 1 has been the singly most debated piece of legislation 
that we've had in this body this year. In fact, we considered more 
amendments on that spending bill in February than on all of the 
previous spending bills in the last two Congresses combined. Yet, even 
as the House has worked its will, even as, I think, we on both sides of 
the aisle identify that as one of the finest hours of this body, it 
sits in the Senate--unused, unexamined, undebated.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of a debate on spending. It's not 
that we tax too little in this country. It's that we spend too much.

                              {time}  1220

  We're operating with $1.4 trillion annual operating deficits, $1.5 
trillion, $1.6 trillion, and now they're saying next year it could be 
$1.7 trillion--spending that we do with money that we don't have.
  We need to get to the big picture, Mr. Speaker. We need to have this 
debate about how do we move beyond what was last year's business and 
get on to what is this year's business. These thing that we're working 
on, this three-week CR, Mr. Speaker, is not the real business. The real 
business is yet to come. I sit on the Budget Committee. If you want to 
talk about real business, look at the tough decisions that are coming 
down the pipe from the Budget Committee. Look at what it's going to 
take to get this budget back in balance. Look at what it's going to 
take to restore integrity to our fiscal system. Look at what it's going 
to take to inspire confidence in our foreign creditors. These are the 
real issues that we have to discuss, but we can't discuss them, Mr. 
Speaker, because we are still working on last year's business.
  Now, I think we're frustrated on both sides of the aisle that we're 
still working on last year's business, and candidly, it may come as a 
surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, but I don't blame a soul on the other 
side. The other side of this body has been our partner in moving H.R. 1 
to the Senate. They've been our partner in making the tough decisions 
that had to be had, and we had Republican amendments that succeeded and 
Republican amendments that failed. We had Democratic amendments that 
succeeded and Democratic amendments

[[Page H1807]]

that failed, and this body worked its will.
  But the Senate has yet to take up the legislation, has yet to take up 
legislation passed in February, has yet to be taken up as we sit here 
in the middle of March. Now, I don't know how in the world we have 
negotiations, Mr. Speaker. We have done our work here in the House. I'm 
proud not only that we did it but I'm proud of the way in which we did 
it. But now we wait on the Senate to come to the table and lay down its 
vision for how we fund this government through September of this year.
  We continue to wait, and hopefully, these 3 weeks, Mr. Speaker, will 
provide the time needed for the Senate to gear up and get going, 
because I will say it over and over and over again today, this is last 
year's business, and it is distracting us from the important business 
that needs to happen.
  I'll tell you this. This CR for 3 weeks isn't what I would have liked 
to have seen. What I would like to see is H.R. 1 come back to this 
floor. What I would like to see is H.R. 1 go to the President's desk. 
What I would like to see are the tough, tough, tough decisions that we 
made and the difficult, difficult, difficult decisions that we had on 
this floor be translated into the law of the land as it sits on the 
President's desk and receives his signature. But we cannot move to that 
point until the Senate acts.
  So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to support this rule that will bring to 
the floor a continuing resolution that will give the Senate three more 
weeks to get its house in order to do the business that the American 
people sent the Senate here to do, to join us in doing the good work 
that we have done, and to move a bill to the President's desk so that 
we can get on to the rest of the business that the country has laid 
before us.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again, considering yet another short-term 
continuing resolution. The last CR was for 2 weeks. This is a 3-week 
bill. So I guess the good news is that we're heading in the right 
direction, but that's about the only good news, Mr. Speaker. This is no 
way to run a budget process. It is no way to run a government. It is 
like water torture: drip, drip, drip. How are governors and mayors and 
city councils supposed to plan if we keep passing these short-term 
bills? How are the financial markets supposed to have any certainty if 
we're passing bills that go only for 2 weeks or 3 weeks?
  We all know what needs to happen. Democrats and Republicans in the 
House, the Senate, and the White House need to get together and figure 
out a sensible, bipartisan solution to this year's budget. And while it 
may, you know, be convenient to blame the Senate, I should remind my 
colleagues here that the majority leader in the Senate tried to bring 
up a bill, but the Republicans voted to not allow the bill to be 
considered. So it's not like there aren't alternatives out there.
  The time for rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, is past. The time for press 
releases and posturing is over. The time for finger-pointing must end, 
because despite what some on the other side of the aisle seem to 
believe, a government shutdown is not in our Nation's best interests.
  I look at today's Politico, and one of the leading Republican 
spokesmen, Representative Steve King, is quoted extensively in an 
article saying that defunding is worth a shutdown. I think the last 
thing the American people want is for us to shut down the government.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we should also be grateful that the 
bill before us today does not include some of the policy changes that 
were in H.R. 1, such as blocking money for health care reform and 
Planned Parenthood, which they voted to eliminate in H.R. 1. H.R. 1, 
Mr. Speaker, took a meat ax to border security, to food safety, low-
income heating assistance, medical research, and I could go on and on 
and on. And thankfully, thankfully the Senate rejected that approach 
last week.
  But make no mistake: H.R. 1 is what my Republican colleagues not only 
want but are demanding. Their ideological and rigid loyalty to H.R. 1 
is what is holding up these negotiations, and the cuts in H.R. 1, Mr. 
Speaker, are not only egregious but they are reckless and they are 
damaging. According to former John McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi, 
the bill had the potential to lead to 700,000 lost jobs, exactly the 
wrong prescription for our recovering economy.
  And speaking of jobs, Mr. Speaker, where are the Republican jobs 
bills? Where is the legislation to encourage investment in new 
technology, in infrastructure, in education, and in medical research? 
It's been 11 weeks and we have seen nothing, not a thing from the other 
side of the aisle on jobs. Let me remind my colleagues that if you 
truly want to achieve deficit reduction focus on job creation. Put 
people back to work. We can help grow out of this deficit that we have.
  Mr. Speaker, we can and we must do better, and I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this closed rule. I remind my colleagues that we have yet to 
have a truly open rule in this House. This is a closed rule. Oppose the 
closed rule and oppose the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that 
we brought H.R. 1 to the floor under the single most open process this 
House has seen in 4 years--and I've only been on the job 65 days--the 
single most open process that this House has seen in 4 years. I'm proud 
of that. I'm proud of what we did together.
  Are there other alternatives out there to H.R. 1? I don't know, Mr. 
Speaker, because I haven't seen one, haven't seen one come back from 
the Senate. Is the Senate over there debating things? Absolutely. Are 
they passing things? No, they're not, and I don't know where we go to 
move forward with that.
  But a gentleman who might, Mr. Speaker, is my good friend, the 
president of the freshman class from the great State of Georgia.
  And I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin 
Scott).
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. To my colleague from Georgia, I want to 
thank you for your lead on this and for sharing your time with me.
  Mr. Speaker, this past November the American people sent a clear 
message that they want and demand that representatives in Washington 
get our fiscal house in order. In fact, our very livelihoods as 
Americans and that of our future generations depend on it.
  Now, Americans understand and we as Republicans understand that we 
cannot eliminate this deficit with one piece of legislation, but they 
do expect Congress to work continuously to reduce spending, excessive 
spending in all areas of the government.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, it was announced that February's deficit 
reached a record $223 billion. The House's continuing resolution simply 
cut $100 billion, approximately 2 weeks' worth of February's deficit, 
and yet the Democrats refer to that as reckless cuts, 2 weeks worth of 
February's deficits that we attempted to reduce.
  Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this continuing 
resolution, which will once again reduce the Federal budget deficit, 
this time by $6 billion. No, it's not enough, but it is a step in the 
right direction.
  House Republicans recognize that we need to do more to reduce the 
deficit. We also know that the country expects the President and 
Senator Reid to accept their responsibility for this fiscal reality 
that they have helped create and to work with the House, the House as a 
whole, to reduce this deficit.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think all of us are dedicated to eliminating excessive 
spending, wherever it may exist. The problem with H.R. 1 and the 
Republican approach is that all the tough choices and all the burden 
falls on the middle class and on the poor in this country.
  The fact is that Donald Trump got his tax cut. We didn't touch that. 
Big Oil companies continue to get taxpayer subsidies. They wrote H.R. 1 
in such a way so we couldn't get at those subsidies. Big agribusiness 
continues to get its subsidies, and I go on and on and on: No-bid 
defense contracts in the Defense Department.

                              {time}  1230

  All those special interests were protected. But they cut LIHEAP to 
help

[[Page H1808]]

people heat their homes this winter. They go after the National 
Institutes of Health. You want to find a way to make Medicare solvent, 
find a cure for Alzheimer's disease. You don't find a cure by cutting 
moneys to the National Institutes of Health.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what my friend from 
Massachusetts said when he was talking about the cuts in H.R. 1 to 
research and development. We find in New Jersey, which is the third-
largest State in the country for health care research and development, 
that every time the Federal Government spends a dollar, it creates five 
or six or seven private sector jobs. See, that's the problem here. The 
Republicans are not focusing on the issue, which is job creation. The 
problem with their continuing resolution--the long-term one that they 
adopted and they say that we should just pass in the Senate and send to 
the President--is that it actually destroys jobs. If you listen to the 
things that are actually being cut, these are the things that deal with 
investments in the future. R&D, research and development, 
infrastructure that allows commerce and allows us to fix our roads and 
provide for mass transit and fix our ports.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned Peter King from New York, 
who actually criticized H.R. 1 because he said that it really hurts 
port security. Well, how are we going to trade? How are we going to 
export products if we don't deepen our ports, if we don't provide for 
safe ports? And the same thing is true with education. H.R. 1 basically 
cuts back on education, on Pell Grants for students to go to college. 
All the investments that make sense because they actually create jobs 
are going to be eliminated with H.R. 1, with this Republican 
resolution. I mean, it is extremely shortsighted.
  I feel like I was here 2 weeks ago with the same people, my colleague 
from Georgia on the Republican side. We just can't continue to go 2 
weeks, 3 weeks at a time. You are actually going to go out of session 
and have a vacation or a break next week. Well, if you are really 
serious about this--because we know that the Senate basically couldn't 
get cloture on H.R. 1--why don't you, instead of going home next week, 
just spend the time here trying to work out something responsibly with 
the Senate so we can keep the government going? I mean, that's what we 
need to do. We need a consensus.
  You have one point of view on the Republican side. The Democrats have 
another point of view. We have a Democratic President. We are never 
going to get through this budget year unless we actually sit down and 
have some consensus and some compromise. What I hear my colleague from 
Georgia saying is, Take it or leave it. We voted on H.R. 1. That's our 
Republican bill. It has all of the cuts. The Democrats don't like it 
because we believe strongly it is going to kill jobs. But you say, Take 
it or leave it. It can't operate that way. I don't believe that our 
constituents in November expected us to just come down here and say, 
Take it or leave it. They want us to go to work. They don't want us to 
take next week off. They want us to create jobs.
  And right now, the uncertainty with these 2- or 3-week short-term 
spending bills is creating a lot of havoc. I think eventually it's 
going to create havoc on the financial markets. It is already creating 
havoc within the Federal agencies because they don't know whether they 
are going to be operating from one week to the next. It's not good for 
the country. It's not good for the economy. You may disagree, but we 
need to work together.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the 
gentleman from New Jersey that I just couldn't agree with him more. The 
House spoke. It wasn't Republicans that spoke. It wasn't Democrats that 
spoke. The House spoke with H.R. 1. We need to get to the negotiating 
table.
  Now I don't know when the Senate is going to act. I hope the Senate 
acts today. And I will stay here just as long as it takes to work 
through those things with the Senate. But we can't do it alone, as much 
as we'd like to. As much as we'd like to do it alone, we can't, and we 
are being held at bay by a Senate that refuses to move something 
forward. I think all of the gentleman's words would be useful to our 
friends on the Senate side.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously proud to yield 2 minutes to 
my good friend and a great American patriot, the gentleman from Iowa, 
Mr. Steve King.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I tend to agree 
with all the Republicans from Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here on the floor to speak to this issue of what 
frames this rule and the continuing resolution that flows behind it, 
Mr. Speaker. And I would remind the American people, I am here to talk 
about ObamaCare, about cutting off the funding to ObamaCare, and 
keeping our pledge. We have 87 new freshmen Republicans here in the 
House of Representatives. I believe all of them ran on the repeal of 
ObamaCare. I know all of them voted to repeal ObamaCare. And I know 
this House has the authority to cut off the funding to ObamaCare.
  We passed H.R. 2, the repeal. Every Senate Republican voted to repeal 
ObamaCare, and H.R. 1 was the will of the House. We stood here, and we 
debated over 90 hours. And the components of that that affect the 
policy of this country within the rule of H.R. 1 are not part of the 
negotiations of this CR, not the 2-week CR that passed that we are 
operating on now, and not the 3-week CR that is the subject of this 
rule that we are debating here, Mr. Speaker. So I lament that we don't 
have the will of the House reflected in this CR, and it is trying the 
patience of at least the Republicans in this House.
  A growing number have said that they are not willing to vote for 
another temporary spending measure in order to bridge it over until we 
get some kind of resolution. But the House can draw the line. There is 
not a dime that can be spent by this Federal government without the 
approval of the House. And my position that was reflected by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts is this: I'm willing to face the President 
because if we're not willing to face the President, he will get exactly 
everything he is willing to fight for. That means we have to confront 
the idea of the President eventually shutting the government down or 
giving him what he wants. It is more important that we stand on the 
Constitution and fiscal responsibility than it is to hand over to the 
President of the United States, who has the audacity to send us a 
budget with a $1.65 trillion deficit, and that level of 
irresponsibility, to just capitulate his demands. We must shut off the 
funding to ObamaCare, and I am ready to do that. I will vote ``no'' on 
the bill but not the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Well, there you have it. That is the difference between 
Democrats and Republicans in terms of how we approach this issue. They 
want to shut the government down. You know, what happens to Social 
Security checks and veterans' benefits and National Parks, and I could 
go on and on and on? There are consequences to being so rigid and being 
so ideological.
  I am going to say to my colleague from Georgia, he said H.R. 1 was 
not the will of Republicans; the House spoke. The House didn't speak. 
Three Democrats voted for H.R. 1. We have 192 Democrats in the House. 
It was not the House speaking. It was what Republicans wanted. So H.R. 
1 is wholly owned by my friends on the Republican side. And I again 
will say that that bill represents some of the most reckless and 
heartless cuts that I have seen since I have come to Congress.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Reckless and heartless is exactly the debate that we are going to 
have to have. Is it reckless to pass on $14 trillion in debt to our 
children with no end in sight? I would say to you that it is. Is it 
heartless to saddle our children with that burden that is going to 
drain their economy dry? I would say to you that it is. Is it reckless 
to treat the world credit markets as if they will forever feed our 
voracious appetite? And I say to you that it is. We have to take these 
steps today.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and 
colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Nugent).

[[Page H1809]]

  Mr. NUGENT. I appreciate my good friend from Georgia yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 167 and the 
underlying resolution, House Joint Resolution 48. This resolution 
provides us with a rule so that we can consider a bill that continues 
to fund the Federal Government for the next 3 weeks. I want to thank 
the Appropriations Committee for the hard work they have done and their 
ability to compromise. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
can follow their example.

                              {time}  1240

  Although I support this continuing resolution, and I hope my 
colleagues will support it as well, I don't want to keep coming back to 
this issue every 2 or 3 weeks. Funding the government a few weeks at a 
time is unacceptable.
  Although my fellow freshmen and I have been here for over 2 months 
now, we're still cleaning up the mess that was left behind by the 
previous Congress. As I see it, they've kept kicking the can down the 
road, refusing to make hard decisions as relates to spending. Now it's 
up to us to say enough's enough, Mr. Speaker, with the out-of-control 
spending.
  The House has been at the table for 2 months. We're offering 
solutions. The Senate and President have been sitting on the sidelines 
offering none.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What is reckless and heartless about H.R. 1 is that it attempts to 
balance the budget on the most vulnerable in our country, making deep 
cuts in the low income energy fuel assistance program to help keep 
people warm in the wintertime; cutting WIC, the Women, Infants and 
Children program to help keep pregnant women healthy so they can 
deliver healthy babies which, by the way, in the long run saves us 
money.
  What is heartless and reckless are the cuts in nutrition programs and 
the National Institutes of Health, medical research, trying to find 
cures to diabetes and Alzheimer's and cancer.
  And what's protected are taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. What's 
protected is Donald Trump's tax cut. What's protected are our subsidies 
to big agri-businesses. And what's not even talked about is the fact 
that we are fighting two wars and we're not paying for it. Everybody 
wants to go to war in this Chamber, but no one wants to pay for it. It 
is wrong and unconscionable, and that is adding considerably to our 
deficit.
  And what's also adding to our deficit are tax cuts that are not paid 
for. So what's heartless about H.R. 1 is that it goes after the people 
who need government the most, and it leaves people who don't need any 
government or taxpayer subsidies alone.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, there are 15 million unemployed Americans 
as we meet this afternoon, and this is the 11th consecutive week that 
the majority has not brought to the floor a bill for us to work 
together to create an environment where small businesses and 
entrepreneurs could create jobs for our country.
  Now, I do agree with the proposition that one of the ways that we 
could have jobs created by small businesses and entrepreneurs is to 
improve the country's fiscal standing and give us low long-term 
interest rates in the long run; and reducing our deficit is a key part 
of doing that. So I think the issue is not if we reduce spending; it's 
how we reduce spending.
  And I do think we should stop sending money to the Brazilian Cotton 
Institute. I think we shouldn't spend $1.5 billion for the Police 
Department in Baghdad when American cities are laying police officers 
off around our country.
  And I certainly don't think we should be giving $40 billion in 
subsidies to the oil companies that made $77 billion in profit last 
year and are raising gasoline to four or five bucks at the pump. I 
think those are areas we ought to agree on and get this budget done.
  But 11 consecutive weeks without a bill that helps small businesses 
and entrepreneurs create jobs is 11 weeks too many.
  I do, however, Mr. Speaker want to compliment the majority on a good 
decision I think they've made in this bill. There's an argument in this 
country about whether to repeal the health care bill or not. We think 
that would be a surrender to the insurance industry and hurt the 
American people, and we're against that repeal.
  And there's an argument in this country about whether Planned 
Parenthood should continue to get funding for women's health services. 
Most of us think it should, and many on the other side think it should 
not.
  These are legitimate debates. They are not debates that should result 
in a shutdown of the Federal Government, however. The right thing to do 
is to agree on the budget and then agree to disagree on repealing the 
health care bill and funding for Planned Parenthood later down the 
road.
  And I would commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and 
the chairman of the Rules Committee for putting on the floor this 
afternoon an extension that does not defund the health care bill, that 
leaves it in place, and an extension that does not defund Planned 
Parenthood, that leaves the funding for that in place.
  I think that's the result that we should have in the long run. I 
think the budget that we adopt between now and September 30 should 
continue to fund the health care bill, as this bill does, and should 
continue to fund Planned Parenthood, as this bill does.
  But I commend the majority for its decision to leave those issues out 
of this bill so that these issues are not wrapped up in this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman.
  Look, there is a significant national debate about whether insurance 
companies should be able to deny someone health coverage because they 
have leukemia or diabetes. We think they shouldn't be able to do that 
because of preexisting conditions. Others disagree with us.
  We think that if a young woman needs counseling and services on her 
gynecological health, that there should be a Planned Parenthood clinic 
available to her. Others disagree with that, and we respect that 
debate.
  But to tie up the operation of the Marine Corps and the FBI and the 
other aspects of this government over those social policy disputes is a 
big mistake. It's a mistake the majority has avoided in this resolution 
that's before us today, and I think that's a wise choice. I hope that 
the majority continues to avoid that choice.
  Let's agree on a budget that creates the conditions to help small 
businesses and entrepreneurs put America back to work, and let's leave 
the political debates out.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, these little short-term 
continuing resolutions are no way to run our government. And beyond the 
social debates that we're having here on a variety of issues, the fact 
of the matter is that this 2-week, 3-week continuing resolution puts an 
incredible burden on our local communities and our States and on our 
Federal agencies. They can't proceed with initiatives that they thought 
they had the money for. They're not sure whether next week we might cut 
an entire program or the following week we might cut it or sometime 
down the road. So there's uncertainty, and that uncertainty is having 
an adverse impact on our economy, and it's having an adverse impact on 
economic development all across this country. And so we need to get 
serious about negotiating a compromise with the Senate and with the 
White House and get this year's business done.
  And, again, the United States Senate has put a number of offers on 
the table. The one that majority leader Reid put on the table the 
Republicans wouldn't let come to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, one of my chief concerns about H.R. 1, which is, 
basically, the Republican continuing resolution, is that it has created 
a climate in Washington that makes it unfashionable to worry about the 
poor and the most vulnerable. Turning our

[[Page H1810]]

backs on the most vulnerable in our country doesn't make them go away. 
There is a cost, and all of us pay that cost.
  We need to get serious about job creation, putting people back to 
work. That's the way you reduce the deficit. That's how we grow out of 
this economic crisis that we're in.
  And yet, here we are in March and nobody's talking about jobs. I 
mean, we've talked about everything else; but the Republicans have 
refused to talk about jobs or bring a jobs bill to the floor.
  And I would suggest to my Republican friends, rather than this 
ideological rigidity, this allegiance to this bill, H.R. 1, which is 
filled with reckless and heartless cuts, I would suggest to my 
colleagues that they understand that to get a deal here it requires 
some compromise. And I think I would urge them to get about that 
business.
  I would also echo what Mr. Pallone said earlier. We're going on 
vacation next week. Rather than a vacation, maybe we should finish the 
work of this year. Rather than having Members go back and go on CODELS 
overseas or go on vacations, let's finish the business of this year. 
Let's provide some certainty to our mayors and to our city managers, to 
our city councils and our boards of selectmen all across this country. 
Let us provide some certainty that some funding that they're depending 
on will be there.

                              {time}  1250

  Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question, I would urge them to vote ``no'' on 
this closed rule, and I would also urge them to vote ``no'' on the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say there are really a number of things that we agree on across this 
body. The gentleman from Massachusetts has very strong feelings about 
paying for the bills that we create today. I share his passion, and I 
look forward to getting into the business of paying for those bills.
  What I do know is that we are not paying for the bills today.
  What I do know is that when I showed up for Congress on January 3 of 
this year, that there was no spending plan to get us past March 4. No 
spending plan.
  Just to be clear, I showed up as a brand new Member of Congress in 
January to learn that getting about the business means putting together 
a funding bill before March 4 because the previous Congress didn't take 
care of business.
  Now, I know my friend from Massachusetts wasn't in charge of the 
other side of the aisle last year. He certainly wasn't in charge of the 
Senate, although we all wish that we could be in charge of the Senate. 
But the business didn't get done, and that is why we are here today. 
That is the first reason why we are here today, to take care of 
business that didn't get done last year.
  But the second reason, Mr. Speaker, and the more important reason 
that we are here today, is because we said when we took over this body 
on January 5 that we would not go along with business as usual. It 
would have been a nothing to pass a bill that the President would sign 
that would say, hey, just keep on funding the government the way you've 
been funding it. Keep on racking up those trillion-dollar deficits the 
way you've been racking them up. Don't change a thing. Fiddle while 
Rome burns.
  It would have been easy. Except for my conscience, except for the 
conscience of the folks who were elected with me in November, except 
for our principles, it would have been easy.
  We chose the road less traveled that said, no, we're not going to put 
it off. There is always a reason to wait Mr. Speaker. There is always a 
reason to wait. And we said, no, we are going to begin making the tough 
decisions today. Today. Now, that today was back in February, and we 
are still waiting for the Senate to get to the table so that we can 
have some of those negotiations.
  But I will say to my friend from New Jersey, who was so terribly 
pleased that the riders were not included on this bill: If you think 
for a minute that I am done fighting for life, you're mistaken. If you 
think for a minute that I am done working to defund Planned Parenthood 
and its work that it is doing with Federal dollars, you're mistaken. If 
you think for a minute that I have given up on ripping every nickel out 
of the budget that belongs to ObamaCare and the nationalization of our 
health care system, you are mistaken. And if you think for a minute 
that I am going to stop trying to repeal every single one of the job-
killing, energy price-hiking regulations that the EPA is promulgating 
across this country chaining our small businesses down, you are 
mistaken.
  That fight might not be today. Today is about cutting $6 billion out 
of a budget that our children are not going to have to repay. Today is 
about keeping the government open for 3 more short weeks to give our 
friends in the Senate a chance to come to the table. But, Mr. Speaker, 
that day of reckoning is coming. The day of reckoning is coming because 
these are ideals that deserve the attention of this body. These are 
decisions that cannot be kicked down the road even further. These are 
decisions of principle on which compromise is often not an option. 
Sometimes you just have to take the vote, and somebody's going to win 
and somebody's going to lose.
  I rise in strong support of this rule, and I rise in strong support 
of the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________