[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2900-2922]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS AMENDMENTS, 2011

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 115 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 115

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 44) 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. 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 from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending 
which time I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  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 
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. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 115 provides a closed rule 
for consideration of H.J. Res. 44. This bill would fund the government 
through March 18 and reduce federal spending by $4 billion over the 
remainder of the fiscal year. The measure cuts $2.7 billion in earmarks 
from Energy and Water, Labor-HHS, Transportation-HUD, Homeland 
Security, and Legislative Branch appropriations, but most importantly, 
this measure averts a government shutdown and allows the Senate time to 
continue to consider H.R. 1, the bill that we successfully passed in 
this Chamber just 1 week ago.
  Mr. Speaker, on that bill, we had roughly 50 hours of debate from 
both sides of the aisle, debate that ran late into the night that 
allowed the House to work its will for the first time in a long time. 
And the end result was that continuing resolution, H.R. 1, that now 
sits idly in the Senate.
  This resolution today, this rule today, which I urge Members to 
strongly support, will allow for the 2-week extension of Federal 
funding to allow the Senate time to seriously consider this bill, 
again, H.R. 1, the first bill in a long time on which the House has had 
a chance to work its will.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in 4 days, the Federal Government will run out of money. 
We must ask ourselves, how did we get into this dire situation where we 
are 4 days away from critical Federal services being closed and our 
Federal Government being unable to meet its obligations.
  Today we are racing the clock to avoid this shutdown in large part 
because we have squandered the past 2 weeks debating H.R. 1, a 
ridiculous spending bill that contained some cuts so extreme it had no 
realistic chance of ever being passed into law and left other areas of 
the budget that both sides have generally agreed need to be cut 
untouched. H.R. 1 also had every bit of social legislation from the 
Republican majority, including gutting the ability of EPA to protect 
our air and our water and defunding Planned Parenthood and family 
planning, so that it had a threat of a Presidential veto and faces no 
realistic prospects of passage in the Senate.
  So rather than working with Democrats in the House and Senate to 
craft a real long-term CR that would preserve the gains of our economy 
and invest in our future, Republicans have squandered the past few 
weeks to pass their out-of-touch and unrealistic spending bill that 
would prove devastating to our economy, our safety, our health, and, 
yes, our values.
  Their draconian spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs, according 
to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's and former adviser to Senator 
John McCain. And as Goldman Sachs said, their long-term CR would 
``stall the economic recovery and reduce U.S. economic growth.'' In 
fact, just this morning more than 300 economists from across the 
country warned against the massive GOP spending bill, stating that, 
``as economists, we believe it is shortsighted to make budget cuts that 
eliminate necessary investments in our human capital, our 
infrastructure, and the next generation of scientific and technological 
advances. These cuts threaten our economy's long-term economic 
competitiveness.''
  Mr. Speaker, today's continuing resolution meets our shared goal of 
preventing a Federal Government shutdown, but at what cost? And for how 
long? We are committed to reducing the deficit beginning with an 
aggressive attack on waste, fraud, and abuse. Every Member in this body 
owes it to our constituents to responsibly cut spending and balance the 
budget without sacrificing jobs or weakening our economy.
  Time and time again, the Republican leadership has told us that they 
want to proceed in an open and transparent fashion, and yet here we are 
again, facing another closed rule, shutting down amendments from both 
sides and stifling the legislative process and good cost-cutting ideas 
from both sides of the aisle. In fact, yesterday in the Rules 
Committee, my colleagues took a party-line vote to block an amendment 
from the top ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Dicks. 
Mr. Dicks' amendment would have cut more funds than the Republican bill 
and, at the same time, restored funds for education programs.
  In the spirit of the urgent need for cost-cutting and balancing the 
deficit, I think this body should consider ideas from both sides of the 
table and allow a rule that allows for discussion of the Dicks 
amendment and other ideas to cut costs even further than this CR 
allows.
  This CR may succeed in keeping the government open from March 5 
through March 18, which I think we all agree is necessary. But we also 
all know that 2 weeks is not nearly enough time to negotiate a long-
term solution to the enormous spending challenges we face, especially 
when the Constitution guarantees the President 10 of those days to 
decide whether to sign or veto the bill.
  The other side had discussed, at the end of last session, the need to 
have stability with regard to what kind of taxes people and businesses 
can expect over time. And at the end of last session, we passed a bill 
that set predictability for 2 years so people and businesses know what 
their taxes will be. Well, the other side of that coin is we need 
predictability and stability around appropriations and the general 
activities of government. It is stifling to the economy and stifling to 
job creation for people to be uncertain as to whether the largest 
enterprise in our country, the Federal Government, will or won't be 
solvent in 4 days' time.
  This is my third year in Congress and already the fourth time I've 
managed a rule on a short-term CR. The shortened timeline set out by 
this CR sets the stage for a devastating shutdown crisis every 2 weeks 
that will bring legislating to a standstill, impede hopes of long-term 
economic growth, and create enormous overhang on the markets because of 
this great uncertainty that is of our own creation.

                              {time}  1240

  We are also undermining, through this CR, Mr. Speaker, investments in

[[Page 2901]]

our own future. Take the cuts to literacy programs, for example.
  Building an excellent public education system that ensures that each 
and every child has an opportunity to succeed is the most important 
investment we can make in our Nation's future and developing our human 
capital which helps keep America competitive. This is an investment 
that I have spent much of my life to support and achieve--on the State 
Board of Education, as a founder of a charter school, and now here in 
Congress.
  What we see now, however, from the proposed short-term CR is the 
elimination of the Striving Readers Fund, which supports literacy for 
students from preschool through 12th grade. With American students' 
reading scores stagnating for the past 30 years, this proposal makes no 
sense.
  Striving Readers is the only targeted Federal literacy funding for 
preschool through 12th grade. And particularly at a time of State and 
local budgets cuts, these resources are more important than ever.
  Now, we can agree that Striving Readers should be improved. In fact, 
I am working, along with Congressman Yarmuth, to provide the LEARN Act, 
which would ensure that teachers and students have innovative 
strategies and data-backed tools to improve reading and writing. The 
administration's proposal would build on the progress of the Striving 
Readers program.
  President Obama said in his State of the Union address: It's not just 
about how we cut, but what we cut. Republicans have mistakenly claimed 
that the administration also wants to eliminate Striving Readers, but 
they neglect to mention that the administration's 2012 budget proposes 
instead to revise, improve Striving Readers. The goal is not to reduce 
and eliminate Federal support for literacy; it is to consolidate and 
make more efficient Federal support for literacy, to strengthen 
literacy performance expectations, scale up innovative methods of 
teaching reading, writing, and language arts.
  In fact, nearly all States, 44, have applied for the first $10 
million in the Striving Readers allocation that was available and have 
developed State literacy plans as a result. My home State of Colorado 
has been awarded $150,000 for these important projects.
  Literacy is the foundation of learning. It is the gateway to other 
content areas that are increasingly important in the global society, 
like science and math. Destroying the foundation of literacy is cutting 
off our Nation's own legs. Education is an investment in our future. By 
pulling the rug out from under our schools and children, Republicans 
seem willing to sacrifice our future prospects as a Nation. Education 
is how America can reclaim our edge in job creation, bring jobs back to 
our shores, become better business leaders, and provide a livable wage 
for working families.
  We all agree that cuts must be made. But as the Romans said, caveat 
emptor, may the buyer beware. By agreeing to cuts in repeated short-
term CRs, we run the risk of opening the door to a spending agenda that 
arbitrarily kills jobs, hurts our communities, completely undermines 
education reform, and we do nothing to promote the stability of the 
Federal Government that markets require to allow businesses to thrive 
and grow.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say to my friend, I could not agree with him more. We must ask 
ourselves: How did we get here? How did we get here? I have been on the 
job for 60 days, but the fiscal year began back on October 1 of 2010. 
How did we get here?
  We got here because the work of the people's House didn't get done 
last year, and I regret that. Candidly, I'm not sure how. I hear so 
many folks talk about the partisanship in the Congress and the 
partisanship in Washington, DC, and people can't get things done 
because of the partisanship. But, of course, last year Democrats 
controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And yet we still 
sit here today without a budget, without the appropriations that the 
speaker knows we need for the government to continue its operations.
  How did we get here? I don't know. But I know this: Nobody elected me 
in November to come up here and point the finger of blame. They elected 
me to work with my friend to clean up this mess. Irrespective of how we 
got here, we have to move forward.
  I have to say, because I was at home for the past week with my 
constituents working through these very same issues we are talking 
about today, the question I got over and over and over again is: Rob, 
that is a great start, but let's do more. That's a great start, but 
let's do more.
  You know, getting started is what is hard. It is hard to get started. 
Over and over again we have heard our friends on both sides of the 
aisle say: You know, this program, it can be fixed. It can be fixed.
  I wonder if we will have a day here where we can start from a blank 
sheet, just a blank sheet, and say: What is it that is worth borrowing 
from our children for? What is it that is worth increasing our 
children's credit card balance for? What is it that is worth mortgaging 
our children's future for?
  Let me just say to my friend, because I know he has a great passion 
for education, and it is a passion I very much respect, I have the 
great fortune of coming from the part of the world called Gwinnett 
County, Georgia. And Gwinnett County was the recipient of the Broad 
Prize for the single best urban education school district in America. 
We made it as a finalist 2 years ago, but last year we won. And we won 
in spite of Federal Government intervention--not because of it, in 
spite of it. We won because, as a community, we got together back in 
1996 and said there is a better way. What can we do to enable our 
children to succeed better?
  We were doing standardized testing in Gwinnett County before 
standardized testing was in vogue because we knew we had to have a way 
to measure. We knew we had to have a way to sort out what works and 
what doesn't. Well, folks, we need some of that standardized testing 
here on Capitol Hill: What works and what doesn't?
  And there are a lot of things that aren't working. Not only do we 
need to get the bad out of the budget, we've got to decide that we're 
going to choose between good and good, between good and good because 
every school group I spoke to over our district workweek is a school 
group from whose future we are borrowing, whose future we are 
mortgaging over and over and over again.
  It has to be said that the House worked its will in an unprecedented 
fashion, an unprecedented fashion. Mr. Speaker, I don't say that 
lightly. I mean never, never before in modern times has the House 
worked its will on a continuing appropriations bill the way it did last 
week. Again, I don't care whose fault it is. I don't care why we 
couldn't get it done last October. I don't care why we couldn't get it 
done in November. I don't care why we couldn't get it done in December. 
What I care about is we have an opportunity to get it done, and we did 
that last week.
  The House worked its will, and we had some winners and we had some 
losers. I voted for a number of amendments that failed. I didn't get 
everything that I wanted in that bill. I know my friend from Colorado 
didn't get everything he wanted in that bill, but the House worked its 
will, Mr. Speaker, with unprecedented openness, and H.R. 1 was the 
result.
  Well, I asked my staff to call over to the Senate before I came down 
here. I wanted to find out exactly how much debate the Senate had been 
putting in on H.R. 1. Of course, we debated it for almost 50 hours. We 
went through the night on a couple of nights. We wanted to make sure 
that the entire House had an opportunity to be involved. My staff tells 
me, Mr. Speaker, not a moment. Not a moment.
  I hear the sense of urgency from my friend from Colorado that we have 
to take action; this is no way to run a government. I think he is 
right. I think cleaning up this mess means passing a single continuing 
resolution that gets us through to the end of the fiscal

[[Page 2902]]

year. For Pete's sake, the Appropriations Committee is already taking 
testimony to try to get us into the 2012 budget cycle. This is leftover 
work that simply didn't get done last Congress. Not one second has been 
spent on the Senate side, Mr. Speaker, from what my staff tells me. Not 
one second has been spent considering a bill on which the entire United 
States House of Representatives worked its will; a bill that was the 
only open process that this House has seen on a continuing resolution; 
a bill that allowed Members from both sides of the aisle to come down 
here to the House floor and represent their constituents back home by 
doing exactly what my friend from Colorado is suggesting--trying to 
make good cuts, trying to make those things, present those things on 
the House floor that make the most sense to folks back home.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we are where we are. No one wants the Senate to 
act expeditiously on the work of the people's House more than I do. But 
given that not one moment has been dedicated to that, we have to come 
down here and fund the government one more time. It is the responsible 
thing to do. It is the responsible thing to do.
  The better thing to do would be to act on H.R. 1, which the House 
passed last week with the support of Members in this body. But now, we 
have to come down here and extend for 2 weeks to give us time to finish 
those negotiations with the Senate side. And if that is not enough 
time, I suspect we will be back down here again. My friend from 
Colorado and I will be back down here in this well doing this same 
thing.
  But it is no way to run the government, Mr. Speaker. It is no way to 
run the government. This is just what we have to do while we wait on 
the Senate to take up that bill on which the House worked its will last 
week.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman from Georgia said let us do more to save money, and yet 
this rule shuts down the process and doesn't allow amendments from the 
minority, including one by Mr. Dicks that saved over $1 billion and 
would have reduced the deficit by over $500 million. And yet again, 
through this closed rule, we are unable to do more, thanks to this 
restrictive rule by the Republican majority.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill, House Joint Resolution 44.
  This bill is just another part of the reckless Republican no-jobs 
agenda. Instead of focusing on creating jobs, Republicans are trying to 
cut nearly 1 million jobs across the country. Republicans have been in 
control of the House for now more than 2 months. They have been in 
control of the House for now more than 2 months, and they have failed 
to bring up a single bill to create a single job.

                              {time}  1250

  I mean, they haven't done just a poor job. They haven't done 
anything. This bill is just a mini-version of a larger Republican drive 
that America soundly rejected a week ago. I am absolutely against 
starting down a series of short-term cuts, of short-term CRs, that 
result in a bleed of the American middle class. This is death by 1,000 
cuts--a slow bleed.
  As Speaker Boehner stated earlier this week before the National 
Religious Broadcasters convention, ``If they won't eat the whole loaf 
at one time,'' he said of the Democrats, ``we'll make them eat it one 
slice at a time.''
  This is what this short-term CR is all about, one slice at a time, 
with the goal of shoving a whole loaf down the throats of the American 
people. The American people don't want the Republican layoffs. They 
want jobs.
  Let's be clear. The bill before us today is just one more fight in 
this battle to keep American jobs. It's the same job cuts that 
Republicans passed a week ago. This is just a 2-week version of it. The 
Republicans' reckless ``so be it'' attitude on spending destroys jobs 
that threaten America's economy. You don't have to take my word for it. 
All you have to do is read the report released by the chief economist 
at Moody's, Mark Zandi, if you want to know about the Republicans' ``no 
jobs agenda'' CR, which would cut 700,000 jobs by year's end if they 
make us eat one slice at a time and which would reduce economic growth.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ELLISON. Let me quote economist Mark Zandi directly: ``While 
long-term government spending restraint is vital and laying out a 
credible path toward that restraint very desirable, too much cutting 
too soon would be counterproductive.''
  The economy is adding about 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month; but 
until that number reaches about 200,000 on a monthly basis, ``imposing 
additional government spending cuts before this has happened would be 
taking an unnecessary chance with the recovery.''
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, to put these cuts in perspective, because, again, we 
have to get started somewhere, there is not going to be a speaker who 
stands up here today who doesn't speak out in favor of fiscal 
restraint. The questions are: When do we start? How much do we do?
  Compare the bill that's before us today, which is the continuing 
resolution to fund the government for 2 weeks and is adding about $4 
billion in cuts, to the bill we passed last week, which had $100 
billion of cuts in it. Now put that $100 billion of cuts in 
perspective.
  Let's take the average American family who has to go out and buy 
groceries. That family has a 31-day grocery bill. Knowing that you've 
got to go out and buy 31 days' worth of groceries, what we're asking of 
the American people is to cut 1 day out. We're going to tell you now 
that we're going to cut 1 day out, and we need you to stretch your 30-
days' worth of groceries into 31.
  Mr. Speaker, that doesn't seem that draconian. In fact, it doesn't 
seem draconian at all. It seems like what American families are doing 
over and over and over again in the recession that we've been battling.
  When we talk about these jobs numbers, these are the same jobs 
numbers about which folks said, If only you'll put your children in 
debt to the tune of another $1.5 trillion, we'll get unemployment down 
under 8 percent. It's the same economist who said, Well, it didn't work 
the first year, but what if we do it the second year? If we put you in 
debt to the tune of $1.6 trillion, in addition to the 1.5, in addition 
to the 1.3 the year before, then we're going to get unemployment back 
down under 8 percent.
  Those jobs didn't materialize because the Federal Government can't 
create jobs. We can destroy jobs--we can and we do--but we can't create 
jobs. Our young entrepreneurs create those jobs. The business owners in 
our communities create those jobs. We destroy jobs, but we cannot 
create jobs. That is what this continuing resolution is a recognition 
of, Mr. Speaker: that the government can absolutely get out of the way. 
We're not going to hear today about the numbers of jobs that will be 
lost if the EPA continues to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant and 
hamstrings the American economy in a way that no other economy on this 
planet is hamstrung. We're not going to hear those jobs numbers. H.R. 1 
would solve that, and we have to get started somewhere.
  Mr. Speaker, I take no pride of authorship. I'm just a participant in 
H.R. 1 as it passed the House, as the House worked its will, as 
Democratic amendments passed and as Republican amendments passed. I 
wish we'd been governing the right way and that this had been done back 
on October 1. We passed that continuing resolution, and it's unclear to 
me why there was no open process there. We passed the second one in 
December and then the third one in December.
  Again, the openness that this House has seen in this 112th Congress 
is absolutely unprecedented.
  Now, I know my friend from Colorado is a strong supporter of CBO and 
of the work that CBO does. I couldn't agree

[[Page 2903]]

with him more. Then when Mr. Dicks came before the committee last night 
with an amendment that would cut even more, as someone who believes we 
need to cut more, I was incredibly enthusiastic about that. My 
understanding was that CBO hadn't had a chance to score that amendment, 
that there was no scoring to be had, and so we couldn't tell whether or 
not this was going to cut or whether or not this was going to add or 
how the spend rates were going to sort themselves out, because it came 
at the very last minute.
  Yet what didn't come at the last minute was the opportunity for the 
minority to offer a substitute. The Speaker reached out to the minority 
to say if you were interested in offering the same continuing 
resolution that you had offered before, which was going to freeze 
funding--and we've heard that a lot. Let's just freeze things. We don't 
want to cut anything, and we don't want to be draconian--the majority 
would have absolutely made that in order.
  Again, the House could work its will, but my understanding is that 
that offer was turned down and that folks were not interested in 
offering that substitute. I would have been a proud ``no'' vote on that 
substitute, but I still believe, as the gentleman from Colorado said, 
openness in the process yields a better result.
  This brings me full circle, Mr. Speaker, to H.R. 1, which is the 
single continuing resolution that has had more openness in the process 
than any other continuing resolution this House has ever considered. It 
led to the best process, and it led to the best outcome. This is the 
bill that sits in the United States Senate today, that could be acted 
on today, that would fund the government and provide the certainty that 
we need today through the end of the fiscal year, which is on September 
30.
  So when we're talking about certainty, and I absolutely believe that 
our economy needs certainty, it is the government that's creating the 
uncertainty. We are creating the uncertainty. We have historically 
created the uncertainty. We have an opportunity with H.R. 1 to 
eliminate that uncertainty for the rest of the fiscal year and to get 
back to doing what this House always should have been doing, which is 
considering appropriations bills under regular order.
  Candidly, I hope my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle are 
throwing down that gauntlet today. I hope they're saying, You know, 
Rob, it's not easy to lead. It's not easy to move bills through regular 
order.
  I want that opportunity to try. I want an opportunity to do it the 
right way. If we can move H.R. 1 through the Senate and onto the 
President's desk, we can then come together with the same kind of open 
process that we began 2 weeks ago to consider all of the appropriations 
bills and to make the priorities that this House chooses to make 
priorities, not the last Congress, not two Congresses ago, not 
President Obama in his first year, not President Bush in his last 
term--but this House today, together. What are our priorities?
  As soon as we move this continuing resolution behind us, Mr. Speaker, 
we can begin to focus on those priorities, which is where the true work 
of the House is intended to be.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. I like the gentleman from Georgia. He's a nice guy. But 
I have to say that his story about what actually happened here is not 
exactly accurate.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is when the Democrats were in 
charge in the last Congress, we did have an omnibus appropriations 
bill, but it was the Senate Republicans who refused to provide the 
votes, because, as you know, you need a supermajority in the Senate.
  Then he talked about how he was glad to be home last week. I was glad 
to be home last week too, and I got a lot of input, but we should have 
been working here and not moving up so perilously close to these 
deadlines where the government could actually shut down. My fear is 
that we're just going to be kicking the can down the road every 2 
weeks, every 2 weeks, facing another possible government shutdown. As 
the gentleman from Colorado said, that creates economic uncertainty and 
is not good for the economy.

                              {time}  1300

  Now, I just wanted to comment on the gentleman from Georgia. I was 
glad that I finally heard him use the word ``jobs'' and talk about jobs 
because that's the problem here. This H.R. 1 that he talks about we 
know is going to destroy jobs--various accounts, 700,000, 800,000 jobs 
that will be destroyed or will be eliminated, not just because the 
government isn't paying for the jobs, but because it doesn't invest in 
the future.
  If you listened to what President Obama said in his State of the 
Union address, he said that the government has a role. The gentleman 
from Georgia says the government should get out of the way. Well, I 
don't agree with that. We need to make wise investments in our future, 
in our education programs--which this cuts--in our research and 
development for the future, in infrastructure so that we can have roads 
and highways and mass transit so that commerce can continue and we can 
grow the economy.
  That is what's wrong with H.R. 1 and this larger bill that the 
Republicans have put forward. And, of course, the Senate can't take up 
the bill the way it is because they know it will destroy jobs and 
cripple the economy.
  So what I ask of my Republican colleagues is go out there, sit down 
with the Senate Democrats, sit down with the House Democrats. Don't 
just say take it or leave this bill that we know has such draconian 
cuts and doesn't do anything to invest in America's future. We can't 
continue down this road. We've got to work together.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I associate myself with the gentleman from New Jersey's comments. We 
absolutely have to work together. It's a great source of pride for me 
that I've only been on the job 60 days and we've already seen more 
working together than this House has allowed in the past 4 years 
combined. Understand that. Understand that as we're working on this 
appropriations bill, as we're working through this appropriations 
process, that 2 weeks ago you saw more openness and working together in 
this Chamber--right here, right here in the people's House--more 
working together than you had seen in the previous 4 years combined.
  Can we do more? I say to the gentleman from New Jersey, I think we 
can, and I look forward to being a partner and making that happen. But 
to say that what is sitting on the desk in the Senate is the product of 
take-it-or-leave-it legislating could not be further from the truth. 
It's the furthest from take-it-or-leave-it legislating that the House 
has seen in 4 years. Arguably, it's the furthest thing from take-it-or-
leave-it legislating that the House has seen on continuing 
appropriations bills in modern time.
  So when we talk about where we are and where we're going, we have to 
ask that question of, why are we characterizing this as a process 
that's broken? Why are we characterizing H.R. 1 as something that 
doesn't work? Why isn't H.R. 1 the very best, the very best, given the 
makeup of this House, given our collective intellect and wisdom? Why 
isn't H.R. 1 the very best that we can do? Because when the process is 
open and everyone gets to participate, it ought to bring out our very 
best.
  And I'll say to the gentleman from New Jersey, he has some of the 
lowest gas prices in the country. I enjoy traveling through his great 
State. Every time I go through, not only do I get full-service 
gasoline, I get it for the best prices in the country.
  Gas prices are up 25 cents a gallon in Gwinnett County, where I come 
from; 25 cents a gallon in the past 10 days. We have economic crises in 
this country; we have economic challenges in this country; but spending 
more government resources is not the answer.

[[Page 2904]]

We have about a $15 trillion economy. Even with a $3.5 trillion Federal 
budget, the Federal player is small, small--8.5 cents of every dollar 
in education in Georgia comes from the Federal Government. The rest 
comes from exactly where you expect it to come from, local communities 
and State governments. We have to get the government out of the way.
  And if you're worried about uncertainty, as I am, if you share our 
concern about uncertainty, then let's pass H.R. 1. Let's be done. Let's 
be done with this 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks. Let's get us 
through the end of the year. Let's finish the job that we should have 
gotten done last year. Let's put it behind us, and let's start that new 
open process again. And it's one that I look forward to joining my 
colleagues in.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  H.R. 1 cannot be looked at as a serious budget document. Now, it's 
not about the cuts--$61 billion, $70 billion, we can come to a number 
that we can agree. And by the way, you can't come to a serious number 
without making sure that defense is also on the table. But what we have 
with H.R. 1 is a bill that loads up every piece of the far-right social 
agenda in one bill, from restricting a woman's right to choose, to 
preventing government from protecting the air we breathe and the water 
we drink. So if we want to have a discussion about a serious budget 
document and serious cuts, that's one thing. If we want to have a far-
right dream list, that's another.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, the CR disproportionately cuts education, 
especially literacy efforts. David Brooks, not known as a left-wing 
journalist, writes in the New York Times column today: ``If you look 
across the country, you see education financing getting sliced often in 
the most thoughtless and destructive ways. In Washington, the 
Republicans who designed the cuts for this fiscal year seem to have 
done no serious policy evaluation.''
  Last night, I asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment 
restoring education cuts. The amendment cut $1 billion from the Census 
in money that wasn't needed, applying most of that to offset education 
spending, and the remainder went to further reducing the deficit below 
the levels in the CR before us. The Rules Committee chose not to make 
that amendment in order, and therefore I oppose the rule.
  But to talk to the gentleman, I spent 8 years on the staff of the 
other body, and this is my 35th year in the House of Representatives. 
Nobody ever gets everything they want: This is a process where the 
House passes a bill, it goes to the Senate, and then we have a 
conference committee or the Senate sends the bill back to us. Both 
sides meet and work out their differences. There is give and take, 
there is compromise, and that is the way this process works.
  And I also want to say to the gentleman, and to your side, remember 
it was the Democratic Congress and the House Senate and Mr. Obama 
signing the $41 billion cut from the Obama FY11 budget. It was the 
Democrats that did it. We had one Republican vote. And I just want to 
remind you, that was done in December in a lame duck session, which 
turned out to be a very effective lame duck session; and in that bill 
we made cuts across the board in all these areas.
  So I want to make it clear we are also for deficit reduction, but 
what I am concerned about--and I know the gentleman is very sincere, I 
can tell that, I know you believe in every word that you are saying--
but the biggest problem with that is what the effect will be on our 
economy. Mark Zandi of Moody's says, it will cost us 400,000 jobs in 
2011, 700,000 jobs in 2012. Goldman Sachs, who I don't normally quote, 
they say that this could cut 1.5 to 2 percent of gross domestic 
product. That could mean the loss of 2.4 million jobs over the next 2 
years. That's not what you want to do.
  You're trying to reduce the deficit, and the way you reduce the 
deficit is put people back to work. You get them back to work, and they 
pay their taxes in and the deficit comes down, the unemployment rate 
comes down. If you do the wrong thing and make draconian cuts at the 
same time that the States are cutting $125 billion from their budgets, 
the impact of those two things--$61 billion and the $125 billion--could 
have a very devastating effect on the economy and hurt a lot of 
programs needlessly because it's going to be counterproductive. I just 
hope that you think about that.
  There isn't any economic theory that I've ever heard of called ``cut 
and grow.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DICKS. So, again, it was the Democratic Congress that cut the $41 
billion. And every reputable economist says what you did in H.R. 1 is 
going to have a negative effect on the economy. And so I hope you all 
think carefully about what you're about to do.
  Again, it takes compromise. You've got to work with the other body to 
come up with a reasonable solution here, or we're going to have 
problems with a government shutdown. And you can say whatever you want, 
but we don't need the government shutting down when we're in two wars, 
a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq, and a global war on terror. We 
don't need to shut the government down.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds only to say 
that's why we're here today, as the gentleman knows, so that there is 
no government shutdown. And I could not be more proud that we're here 
taking that responsibility exactly as seriously as it is.
  It's very difficult to have a conversation about jobs when we have 
carbon regs coming down the pipe that will destroy jobs and we have 
financial regulations coming down the pipe that will destroy jobs and 
we have health care regs coming down the pipe that will destroy jobs 
over and over again. My folks are saying ``enough.''
  With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman that I give credit to for giving us the most open process on 
a continuing resolution that we've seen in modern times.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. That was a good process. I appreciate what you all did in 
having an open rule. I applaud Chairman Rogers and Chairman Dreier. 
That is the right thing to do. It was appreciated on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Mr. WOODALL. And we could not have done it without your support.
  Mr. DICKS. I did my best to help.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, I was going to begin by 
saying that both my colleagues, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks, did an 
absolutely phenomenal job at taking on the responsibility that is 
thrust on them when we have an open amendment process.
  The people who go through the greatest challenge are those who have 
to defend the bill and be here for hours and hours and hours. And as we 
all know, we had 162 amendments considered on the House floor during 
those days that led up to before adjournment week before last. And we 
worked into the morning on every occasion. That means after midnight. I 
mean, I guess we adjourned at 2 or 3 on some of those days. I was sound 
asleep then, I have to admit. But you guys were working very, very 
hard, Mr. Speaker. And I want to thank them.
  And I was pleased that those in the minority did recognize that doing 
what we did was unprecedented. Never before has a continuing resolution 
been considered under the process that we've had. At best, it's been a 
structured rule, which is what we had two decades ago, and both 
political parties had had usually a closed rule for the consideration 
of continuing resolutions up to

[[Page 2905]]

that point. So I do believe that we have come together with, as Mr. 
Woodall has said, a package that included amendments from both sides of 
the aisle as we proceed with this.
  Now, I was tickled also to hear my friend talk about the fact that 
$41 billion in cuts were made under Democratic leadership. The fact 
that both sides of the aisle are now talking about and bragging about 
ways to cut spending is, I think, a very encouraging sign, because that 
is the message. That's the message that Mr. Woodall was just offering. 
The constant expansion of government is, in fact, counterproductive in 
our quest to create jobs and get the economy moving.
  Now, we had this exchange last night in the Rules Committee--
yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, in which we 
were talking about Mark Zandi and the Goldman Sachs projections as far 
as bringing about spending reductions.
  And I brought to the fore one of the most brilliant economists I 
know, John Taylor, who is at the Hoover Institution of Stanford 
University, former undersecretary of the Treasury for International 
Affairs, a very good personal friend of mine. His son used to work in 
our office. He's serving in the United States Marine Corps. And I've 
got to say, Mr. Speaker, that John Taylor, in responding to the Zandi 
quote, made it very clear that the notion of not bringing about 
spending reductions would in fact exacerbate the economic challenges 
that we have. And the bottom line is: The best way for us to get our 
economy growing is to ensure that people can keep more of their hard-
earned money and to restrict the kind of control that the Federal 
Government has continued to thrust on individuals.
  I'd be happy to yield to my friend if he would like to share one of 
those quotes.
  Mr. DICKS. Let me just make a brief comment.
  And I do applaud the gentleman from California as chairman of the 
Rules Committee for giving, for working out that modified open rule.
  Just let me, on the point about Mr. Taylor at Stanford, Stanford's a 
very good school. My son graduated from it, and I'm quite proud of 
that.
  A letter signed by 300 of America's leading economists makes the 
argument that cutting investments this quickly will undermine growth. 
Among the original signers from Stanford alone: Kenneth Arrow, Martin 
Carnoy, Paul David, Mordecai Kurz, Roger Noll, and Gavin Wright.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I would say to 
my friend I think what we've just shown is that the proverbial 
economists say on one hand, on the other hand.
  The fact is not every economist agrees on this notion, but a 
statement has been made. And, in fact, my friend made it upstairs, and 
that is, he said when he was quoting Mark Zandi, that everyone, 
basically every economist--and that is what I inferred from the 
statement--came to this conclusion. And my point in actually 
referencing Professor Taylor is that there is disagreement on it.
  I happen to come down on the side, personally, of Mr. Taylor. I think 
it's important for us, just because we want to all encourage individual 
initiative and responsibility, to do everything that we can to reduce 
the size and scope and reach of government--and that's what the goal of 
H.R. 1 is--so that we can get the economy growing. And I believe that 
more incentives by reducing that tax and regulatory burden will create 
jobs, because we do share that goal. I mean, I'm convinced that 
everyone wants to do that.
  But this notion, I mean I've heard commentators saying that somehow 
that Republicans in saying that we might see a reduction in the number 
of Federal Government jobs, that we're not for job creation. We want 
people to have good, long-term jobs in the private sector, and that's 
our goal here.
  This rule is a standard rule. I should say at the outset that we 
wanted to have this not a closed rule but a modified closed rule. And I 
know my friend was concerned that his amendment that he testified on 
behalf of in the Rules Committee wasn't made in order. But I will tell 
you that we did, from the very beginning, say to the minority leader, 
Ms. Pelosi, that she, when having introduced on February 18 her 
substitute proposal that basically kept spending at 2010 levels, that 
we would have made that in order and it would have made it a modified 
closed rule that we had offered, so we did do that.
  We are where we are. Ensuring that we don't go through a government 
shutdown is something that Chairman Rogers and I know Mr. Dicks and all 
of us in leadership positions, rank-and-file Members alike, want to 
avoid, and that's why we've got this 2-week package that's before us. I 
hope the Senate will act so that we can do that, and then do what we 
all want to make sure happens, and that is have a negotiated agreement 
that will get to where we need to be.
  So I thank my friend for his management of this rule just as he 
managed the last open rule.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. And before I yield back, I guess I should yield to the 
ranking member.
  Mr. DICKS. I just want to say one brief word.
  I applaud these modified open rules. And on the regular bills on 
appropriations, we hope--Mr. Rogers and I have been in contact, we're 
going to get these bills done in a timely way. And we want open rules, 
and we want to be able to have these unanimous consent agreements after 
the bills have been on the floor for a while in order to narrow the 
amendments and then to get these things done in a timely fashion. And I 
think that it's going to take the cooperation of all of the Members to 
be able to do that.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will say the gentleman is 
absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. We want to have something that we 
haven't had in the last couple of years, and that is an open amendment 
process when it comes to the regular appropriations bills. And Mr. 
Rogers and I have been discussing that at length and will continue to.
  And I believe that the best way to deal with this is for not 
leadership but for the floor managers to come together and work out an 
agreement on that.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  I join the gentleman from Washington in praising the gentleman from 
California, the chair of the Rules Committee, with regard to the 
modified open process that this body was able to undertake.
  But again, with regard to this particular bill before us, what the 
gentleman from California said is that the Democrats would be allowed 
to offer an amendment that would spend more but not allowed to offer a 
substitute amendment that would spend less. The Democrats, in fact, 
don't have a desire to offer forward a substitute amendment that spends 
more. We do have a desire to offer a substitute amendment that Mr. 
Dicks came forward that does spend less. The rule doesn't allow for 
that.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, let's 
take the next 2 weeks to try to work together to do the right thing for 
the American people.

                              {time}  1320

  I believe that the right thing for the American people is to come up 
with a budget plan that sensibly reduces spending but does not put 
American jobs at risk. What do I mean by this? What do we mean by this? 
Let me give you an example.
  I think that a policy that says that oil companies, which made $77 
billion in profit last year alone, can drill on federally owned 
property that's offshore and not pay anything in royalties to the 
American taxpayer is wasteful, and we should stop it. I think 
provisions that say that there are tax loopholes for companies that 
outsource jobs out of our country are wasteful, and we should stop 
them. Let's get rid of those things from our budget.
  But let's not follow the reckless plan of the majority that says in 
education,

[[Page 2906]]

let's cut funding for 10,000 reading tutors and math coaches. In 
education, let's cut funding for 7,000 teachers of autistic children, 
children with a learning disability. In border security, let's cut 
funding that's used to pay the people who board ships and inspect 
containers that come into this country to make sure they don't have 
dirty bombs in them. In public safety, let's not cut funding that will 
lay off police officers and firefighters in towns around our country. 
In health care, let's not cancel hundreds, if not thousands of research 
grants, where our best researchers are working on cures for cancer, or 
dementia, or diabetes. These are reckless cuts.
  The problem with the Republican plan is not just that it disrupts the 
United States Government; the problem with the Republican plan is it 
disrupts the United States economy. And this is why the leading 
economist for John McCain's Presidential campaign of 2 years ago says 
this plan the Republicans are offering will cost 700,000 jobs. That's 
why the largest investment bank in the country, in a nonpolitical way, 
says that this Republican plan will cut in half the economic growth the 
country is counting on for this year.
  Let's not disrupt jobs in this country. Let's cut wasteful spending. 
Let's go after corporate welfare, not special education. Let's go after 
oil company giveaways, not Head Start. Let's get back to the business 
of debating job creation in the private sector in our country, not 
defunding Planned Parenthood.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. There are 15 million unemployed Americans as we meet 
here this afternoon. Let us resolve in the next 2 weeks to put their 
interests first, to sensibly reduce spending where we can, to invest in 
education and health care where we must, and get on with the people's 
business.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to invite my 
friend from New Jersey to join me on H.R. 25, the Fair Tax Act. Not 
only will it create jobs in this country, it's the only bill in 
Congress that will eliminate every single corporate piece of welfare, 
loophole, tax exception, credit, so on and so on, because none of them 
need a nickel of it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I would ask the gentleman what the sales tax rate would 
be on his fair tax proposal on American families for buying something?
  Mr. WOODALL. Given that it eliminates the payroll tax, which is the 
largest tax 80 percent of American families pay----
  Mr. ANDREWS. What is the sales tax rate?
  Mr. WOODALL. Twenty-three percent.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Twenty-three percent on every purchase.
  Mr. WOODALL. Less than what you're paying now.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Richardson).
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
rule on this continuing resolution that the Republicans have brought 
forward. Why? Number one, it's for 14 days. Can you imagine one of the 
most powerful economies in this country and we are talking about doing 
kind of in a pause mode for 14 days? That's not very responsible.
  But let's get to the specifics of why I am opposed to this. This CR 
would slash $340 million for construction jobs for projects of the Army 
Corps. Now, I just heard the previous speaker talk about private jobs. 
Are we prepared to say that this government, we don't think there 
should be any Federal Government jobs? So are you to tell me that in my 
district, where I have two ports, the largest ports in the Nation, that 
we don't need to do dredging, that we can just have ships run afoul? I 
mean, how are we going to continue our economy?
  I support cuts. If you check my record, you will see that I have 
supported many of the initiatives that have been brought forward. But 
they need to be thoughtful, and they need to make sense. A few others 
that concern me greatly: A slash of $20 million to the Department of 
Homeland Security. What are we thinking here? Haven't we learned 
anything from Hurricane Katrina or 9/11? That we would suggest a cut, 
$103 million of FEMA State and local programs that would provide grants 
to avoid disasters and how we prepare for them. Cut $129 million from 
higher education.
  I would ask, what is this 14 days about? We have talked about that we 
are prepared, everyone's going to come here and make these cuts. Well, 
let's have a real civil discussion, and let's build upon last week, but 
let's not do it on the backs of the American people. There is waste 
that can be addressed. And I look forward to supporting those 
initiatives. But this 14-day pause button is the wrong way, and I am 
opposed to it.
  Mr. WOODALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule and to this bill. This CR is further proof that the majority does 
not care about the unemployment crisis. This really is a question of 
our morality as a Nation.
  Are we going to eat a loaf of bread that is spotted with the mold of 
conservatism and so-called fiscal responsibility, or are we going to 
bring to our children a loaf of bread that is healthy, whole wheat, and 
good for America? This bill represents a loaf of bread. And I might 
point out the Speaker yesterday or a few days ago said something about, 
well, if they don't want to eat the whole loaf of bread at one time, 
then I am going to make them eat it one slice at a time. Well, every 
slice is speckled with mold of this old-fashioned, old way of thinking 
that got us into this problem that we are in now.
  What we have done is given the keys to the car that they drove into 
the ditch back to them, and now we are forced to eat bread in that car, 
moldy bread in that car that is going nowhere but down.
  Mark Zandi said 700,000 jobs would be lost if we do it the way that 
these Republicans who cannot drive, if we allow them to do that. And I 
am simply looking ahead for my children and for my grandchildren and my 
great-grandchildren. I cannot in good faith go along with this.
  Mr. WOODALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if the other side has any 
remaining speakers.
  Mr. WOODALL. I am the final speaker.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself as much time as remains.
  Mr. Speaker, we all share the goal of reducing the deficit. But if we 
are serious about deficit reduction, we need to look at defense as one 
of the line items. I am a member of the Spending Cuts and Deficit 
Reduction Working Group, and I have worked with my colleagues to 
identify more than $70 billion in savings that could be used for 
deficit reduction.
  If Republicans truly claim to be committed to deficit reduction, then 
why, as they cut millions from programs like Even Start and LEAP, do 
they spare defense spending? The short term CR carries forward the 2010 
defense budget, but the policies, priorities, and levels proposed for 
2010 no longer apply. Our current military expenditures support bloated 
troop levels and bases across Europe that quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, 
are relics of a bygone era. Rather than fighting the demons of the 
past, we need to focus on the very real threats of the present and 
future.

                              {time}  1330

  Who are we fighting? The Nazis, the Soviets, the French? It's time 
for us to rethink our defense spending. It's clear that the current 
strategy is one that we cannot afford.
  The expenditures in Afghanistan are $100 billion. It's been estimated 
that there is only, at most, 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. 
That's a

[[Page 2907]]

spending level of $1 billion per al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan. 
Most of al Qaeda's operations have moved across the border to Pakistan, 
and they have also gained a foothold in Yemen. Meanwhile, we are bogged 
down in a costly war with no clear end game.
  Let's get serious about balancing the budget. Let's find savings in 
every agency, including the Department of Defense. Until we get serious 
about controlling defense spending, the largest component of the 
discretionary budget, we will never achieve our goals of reducing the 
deficit.
  This CR claims to only cut earmarks, but in reality we are playing a 
shell game. This continuing resolution states that earmarks have no 
legal effect, which means that agencies have not been funding these 
programs. It means the Department of Homeland Security, for example, 
will have $264 million less to prepare and respond to threats and 
disasters and protect our ports.
  Two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, Members from both sides of the aisle 
proposed amendments to enact even more cuts. My friend from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) proposed cutting funding to Afghanistan so that we could 
have a responsible withdrawal, saving $90 billion. My friend from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) proposed a very reasonable cut to the Department of 
Defense's operation and maintenance budget so that we could get rid of 
funding for unneeded boards and commissions.
  I have also heard from many of my Republican friends that we want to 
go back to 2008 levels. Well, my colleagues from California, Mr. Stark 
and Ms. Lee, proposed to do just that with the defense budget. Let's 
get real on deficit reduction and lead the way with real cuts that 
actually balance the budget.
  The President is proposing real change for public education through 
funding for the Investing in Innovation and Early Learning Challenge 
funds. We see none of these solutions in the proposed CR. As we look to 
agree on a budget for the rest of the fiscal year, it's critical that 
we have meaningful resources for our public schools, particularly at a 
time when they are under increasing budget pressure from districts and 
State cutbacks. Education of our children in their youngest years is a 
research-proven return on investment.
  We have no second or third chance with kids. They are only young 
once. By ending literacy support for our children and restricting 
proven school improvements in repeated short-term CRs, we run the risk 
of opening the door to a spending agenda that eliminates jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we give the markets and businesses 
the predictability that they need with regard to the ongoing operations 
of government. A 2-week continuing resolution simply fails to do that. 
We will be back before this body, again, to do it again regardless of 
the outcome today. But I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can work across the 
aisle to put together a real long-term solution to keep the Federal 
Government open.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 3\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, we are here today for one reason and one 
reason only, and that's to provide ample time for the Senate to 
consider H.R. 1, to keep the doors of the Federal Government open, to 
keep important services being dispensed, to keep the government of 
America on track for 2 more weeks while the Senate takes time.
  I will associate myself with the gentleman from Washington when he 
says we can't always get what we want. I sadly haven't gotten what I 
wanted so far, and I am prepared to get even less of what I want going 
forward. But I don't mind telling you I don't know how we are going to 
get to what any of us want if folks don't even start considering the 
bill.
  This was our very best shot. It was our very best work product. 
Whether you love it or whether you hate it, it was the most openly 
produced work product in continuing resolution history. And there it 
sits, and there it sits, almost 10 days now with no advancement 
whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope these 2 weeks are enough. I recognize the caution 
that my friend from Colorado suggests that we may be back here one more 
time doing this again. I hope this is the last time that we will be 
here.
  But I know this: I know we can't continue to mortgage our children's 
future while we wait. I know we can't fiddle while Rome burns. So we 
have passed, we have presented this continuing resolution with cuts 
there to prevent our children's future from continuing to be mortgaged.
  As I spoke with school groups across the district last week--and I 
share my friend from Colorado's passion for education--I asked them to 
turn on C-SPAN this week, because I said it doesn't matter who stands 
up, whether they stand up on the left or the right, or whether they 
speak from the well or from the leadership table, they will tell you 
that the reason they are there today is for you, is for you, the 
children. It's for your future that they are there on the floor of that 
House.
  I believe that. I believe that in everyone's heart they are here to 
make sure that tomorrow's generation does better than today's 
generation. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that if there are 
schoolchildren out there watching today, perhaps they will pick up the 
phone and they will give us a call and let us know exactly which one of 
us is on the right track, because I know it's all about them that we do 
what we do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 179, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 151]

                               YEAS--241

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed

[[Page 2908]]


     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--179

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bonner
     Castor (FL)
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Fattah
     Giffords
     Hanna
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Lewis (GA)
     Marchant
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1359

  Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, THOMPSON of Mississippi, RAHALL, DAVIS 
of Illinois, and PASCRELL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 251, 
nays 170, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 152]

                               YEAS--251

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--170

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bonner
     Castor (FL)
     Connolly (VA)
     DeGette
     Fattah
     Giffords
     Hanna
     Hinojosa
     Lewis (GA)
     Marchant
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1405

  Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 2909]]


  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) making further continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 44

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242) is 
     further amended--
       (1) by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and 
     inserting ``March 18, 2011''; and
       (2) by adding after section 166, as added by the Continuing 
     Appropriations Amendments, 2011 (section 1 of Public Law 111-
     322), the following new sections:
       ``Sec. 167.  The amounts described in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of section 114 of this Act are designated as being for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 3(c)(2) of H. Res. 5 (112th 
     Congress) and as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
       ``Sec. 168.  Any language specifying an earmark in an 
     appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, or in a committee 
     report or joint explanatory statement accompanying such an 
     Act, shall have no legal effect with respect to funds 
     appropriated by this Act. For purposes of this section, the 
     term `earmark' means a congressional earmark or 
     congressionally directed spending item, as defined in clause 
     9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     and paragraph 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate.
       ``Sec. 169.  The first and third paragraphs under the 
     heading `Rural Development Programs--Rural Utilities 
     Service--Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband 
     Program' in Public Law 111-80 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 170.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Corps of Engineers-Civil--Investigations' at a 
     rate for operations of $104,000,000.
       ``Sec. 171.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Corps of Engineers-Civil--Construction' at a 
     rate for operations of $1,690,000,000: Provided, That all of 
     the provisos under such heading in Public Law 111-85 shall 
     not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 172.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Corps of Engineers-Civil--Mississippi River and 
     Tributaries' at a rate for operations of $260,000,000: 
     Provided, That the proviso under such heading in Public Law 
     111-85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 173.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Corps of Engineers-Civil--Operation and 
     Maintenance' at a rate for operations of $2,361,000,000.
       ``Sec. 174.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of the Interior--Bureau of 
     Reclamation--Water and Related Resources' at a rate for 
     operations of $913,580,000: Provided, That the fifth proviso 
     (regarding the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund) and 
     seventh proviso (regarding the Milk River Project) under such 
     heading in Public Law 111-85 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 175.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy 
     Efficiency and Renewable Energy' at a rate for operations of 
     $1,950,370,000: Provided, That all of the provisos under such 
     heading in Public Law 111-85 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 176.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--
     Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability' at a rate for 
     operations of $158,910,000: Provided, That all of the 
     provisos under such heading in Public Law 111-85 shall not 
     apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 177.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Nuclear 
     Energy' at a rate for operations of $784,140,000: Provided, 
     That the proviso under such heading in Public Law 111-85 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 178.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Fossil 
     Energy Research and Development' at a rate for operations of 
     $635,530,000: Provided, That the second proviso under such 
     heading in Public Law 111-85 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 179.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science' 
     at a rate for operations of $4,826,820,000: Provided, That 
     all of the provisos under such heading in Public Law 111-85 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 180.  The last proviso under the heading `Department 
     of Energy--Atomic Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear 
     Security Administration--Weapons Activities' in Public Law 
     111-85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 181.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Energy--Atomic Energy Defense 
     Activities--National Nuclear Security Administration--Defense 
     Nuclear Nonproliferation' at a rate for operations of 
     $2,136,460,000: Provided, That the proviso under such heading 
     in Public Law 111-85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by 
     this Act.
       ``Sec. 182.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Energy--Atomic Energy Defense 
     Activities--National Nuclear Security Administration--Office 
     of the Administrator' at a rate for operations of 
     $407,750,000: Provided, That the last proviso under such 
     heading in Public Law 111-85 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 183.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Energy--Environmental and Other 
     Defense Activities--Defense Environmental Cleanup' at a rate 
     for operations of $5,209,031,000, of which $33,700,000 shall 
     be transferred to the `Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
     Decommissioning Fund': Provided, That the proviso under such 
     heading in Public Law 111-85 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 184.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Energy--Environmental and Other 
     Defense Activities--Other Defense Activities' at a rate for 
     operations of $844,470,000: Provided, That the proviso under 
     such heading in Public Law 111-85 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 185.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Independent Agencies--Election Assistance 
     Commission--Election Reform Programs' at a rate for 
     operations of $0.
       ``Sec. 186.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Management' at a rate for operations of 
     $253,190,000.
       ``Sec. 187.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection--Salaries and Expenses' at a rate for 
     operations of $8,063,913,000.
       ``Sec. 188.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection--Construction and Facilities 
     Management' at a rate for operations of $276,370,000.
       ``Sec. 189.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--Transportation 
     Security Administration--Aviation Security' at a rate for 
     operations of $5,212,790,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     included under such heading in Public Law 111-83 shall be 
     applied to funds appropriated by this Act as follows: by 
     substituting `$5,212,790,000' for `$5,214,040,000'; by 
     substituting `$4,356,826,000' for `$4,358,076,000'; by 
     substituting `$1,115,156,000' for `$1,116,406,000'; by 
     substituting $777,050,000 for $778,300,000; and by 
     substituting `$3,112,790,000' for `$3,114,040,000'.
       ``Sec. 190.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--Coast Guard--
     Operating Expenses' at a rate for operations of 
     $6,801,791,000: Provided, That section 157 of this Act shall 
     be applied by substituting `$17,880,000' for `$21,880,000', 
     and without regard to `and ``Coast Guard, Alteration of 
     Bridges'''.
       ``Sec. 191.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--Coast Guard--
     Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements' at a rate for 
     operations of $1,519,980,000.
       ``Sec. 192.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--Coast Guard--
     Alteration of Bridges' at a rate for operations of $0.
       ``Sec. 193.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--National 
     Protection and Programs Directorate--Infrastructure 
     Protection and Information Security' at a rate for operations 
     of $879,816,000.
       ``Sec. 194.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--Office of 
     Health Affairs' at a rate for operations of $134,250,000.
       ``Sec. 195.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency--State and Local Programs' at a 
     rate for operations of $2,912,558,000: Provided, That the 
     amounts included under such heading in Public Law 111-83 
     shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act as 
     follows: in paragraph (12), by substituting `$12,554,000' for 
     `$60,000,000' and by substituting `$0' for each subsequent 
     amount in such paragraph; in paragraph (13), by substituting 
     `$212,500,000' for `$267,200,000'; in paragraph (13)(A), by 
     substituting `$114,000,000' for `$164,500,000'; in paragraph 
     (13)(B), by substituting `$0' for `$1,700,000'; and in 
     paragraph (13)(C), by substituting `$0' for `$3,000,000': 
     Provided further, That 4.5 percent of the amount provided for 
     `Federal Emergency Management Agency--State and Local 
     Programs' by this Act shall be transferred to `Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency--Management and Administration' 
     for program administration.

[[Page 2910]]

       ``Sec. 196.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency--National Predisaster Mitigation 
     Fund' at a rate for operations of $75,364,000.
       ``Sec. 197.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Homeland Security--Science and 
     Technology--Research, Development, Acquisition, and 
     Operations' at a rate for operations of $821,906,000.
       ``Sec. 198.  Sections 541 and 545 of Public Law 111-83 (123 
     Stat. 2176) shall have no force or effect.
       ``Sec. 199.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Smithsonian Institution--Legacy Fund' at a rate 
     for operations of $0.
       ``Sec. 200.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Labor--Employment and Training 
     Administration--Training and Employment Services' at a rate 
     for operations of $3,779,641,000, of which $340,154,000 shall 
     be for national activities described in paragraph (3) under 
     such heading in division D of Public Law 111-117: Provided, 
     That the amounts included for national activities under such 
     heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied 
     to funds appropriated by this Act as follows: by substituting 
     `$44,561,000' for `$93,450,000' and by substituting `$0' for 
     `$48,889,000'.
       ``Sec. 201.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Labor--Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration--Salaries and Expenses' at a rate for 
     operations of $355,843,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     included under such heading in division D of Public Law 111-
     117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by 
     substituting `$0' for `$1,450,000'.
       ``Sec. 202.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Labor--Departmental Management' 
     at a rate for operations of $314,827,000: Provided, That the 
     amounts included under such heading in division D of Public 
     Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this 
     Act by substituting `$0' for `$40,000,000'.
       ``Sec. 203.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Health and Human Services--Health 
     Resources and Services Administration--Health Resources and 
     Services' at a rate for operations of $7,076,520,000: 
     Provided, That the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twenty-second 
     provisos under such heading in division D of Public Law 111-
     117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 204.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Health and Human Services--
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--Disease Control, 
     Research, and Training' at a rate for operations of 
     $6,369,767,000: Provided, That the amount included before the 
     first proviso under such heading in division D of Public Law 
     111-117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by 
     substituting `$0' for `$20,620,000'.
       ``Sec. 205.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Health and Human Services--
     Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration--
     Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services' at a rate for 
     operations of $3,417,106,000: Provided, That the amount 
     included before the first proviso under such heading in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this Act by substituting `$0' for 
     `$14,518,000'.
       ``Sec. 206.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 
     and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund 
     for `Department of Health and Human Services--Centers for 
     Medicare and Medicaid Services--Program Management' at a rate 
     for operations of $3,467,142,000: Provided, That the sixth 
     proviso under such heading in division D of Public Law 111-
     117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 207.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Health and Human Services--
     Administration for Children and Families--Payments to States 
     for the Child Care and Development Block Grant' at a rate for 
     operations of $2,126,081,000: Provided, That the amount 
     included in the first proviso under such heading in division 
     D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this Act by substituting `$0' for 
     `$1,000,000'.
       ``Sec. 208.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Health and Human Services--
     Administration for Children and Families--Children and 
     Families Services Programs' at a rate for operations of 
     $9,293,747,000: Provided, That the fifteenth proviso under 
     such heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not 
     apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 209.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Health and Human Services--
     Administration on Aging, Aging Services Programs' at a rate 
     for operations of $1,510,323,000: Provided, That the first 
     proviso under such heading in division D of Public Law 111-
     117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 210.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Health and Human Services--Office 
     of the Secretary--General Departmental Management' at a rate 
     for operations of $491,727,000: Provided, That the seventh 
     proviso under such heading in division D of Public Law 111-
     117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 211.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Education--Education for the 
     Disadvantaged' at a rate for operations of $15,598,212,000, 
     of which $4,638,056,000 shall become available on July 1, 
     2011, and remain available through September 30, 2012: 
     Provided, That the tenth, eleventh and twelfth provisos under 
     such heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not 
     apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 212.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Education--School Improvement 
     Programs' at a rate for operations of $5,223,444,000, of 
     which $3,358,993,000 shall become available on July 1, 2011, 
     and remain available through September 30, 2012: Provided, 
     That of such amounts, no funds shall be available for 
     activities authorized under part Z of title VIII of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965: Provided further, That the 
     second, third, and thirteenth provisos under such heading in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 213.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Education--Innovation and 
     Improvement' at a rate for operations of $1,160,480,000, of 
     which no funds shall be available for activities authorized 
     under subpart 5 of part A of title II, section 1504 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (`ESEA'), or 
     part F of title VIII of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and 
     $499,222,000 shall be for part D of title V of the ESEA: 
     Provided, That the first, fourth, and fifth provisos under 
     such heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not 
     apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 214.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Education--Safe Schools and 
     Citizenship Education' at a rate for operations of 
     $361,398,000, of which, notwithstanding section 2343(b) of 
     the ESEA, $2,578,000 is for the continuation costs of awards 
     made on a competitive basis under section 2345 of the ESEA: 
     Provided, That the third proviso under such heading in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 215.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Education--Special Education' at 
     a rate for operations of $12,564,953,000, of which 
     $3,726,354,000 shall become available on July 1, 2011, and 
     remain available through September 30, 2012: Provided, That 
     the first and second provisos under such heading in division 
     D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds appropriated 
     by this Act.
       ``Sec. 216.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Education--Rehabilitation 
     Services and Disability Research' at a rate for operations of 
     $3,501,766,000: Provided, That the second proviso under such 
     heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply 
     to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 217.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Education--Career, Technical, and 
     Adult Education' at a rate for operations of $1,928,447,000, 
     of which $1,137,447,000 shall become available on July 1, 
     2011, and remain available through September 30, 2012 and no 
     funds shall be available for activities authorized under 
     subpart 4 of part D of title V of the ESEA: Provided, That 
     the seventh and eighth provisos under such heading in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply to funds 
     appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 218.  Notwithstanding sections 101 and 164, amounts 
     are provided for `Department of Education--Student Financial 
     Assistance' at a rate for operations of $24,899,957,000, of 
     which $23,162,000,000 shall be available to carry out subpart 
     1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     and no funds shall be available for activities authorized 
     under subpart 4 of part A of title IV of such Act: Provided, 
     That the maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be 
     eligible during award year 2011-2012 shall be $4,860.
       ``Sec. 219.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Education--Higher Education' at a 
     rate for operations of $2,126,935,000, of which no funds 
     shall be available for activities authorized under section 
     1543 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 or section 
     117 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act 
     of 2006: Provided, That the thirteenth proviso under such 
     heading in division D of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply 
     to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 220.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Institute of Museum and Library Services--
     Office of Museum and Library Services: Grants and 
     Administration' at a rate for operations of $265,869,000: 
     Provided, That the amounts included under such heading in 
     division D of Public Law 111-117 shall be applied to funds 
     appropriated by this Act by substituting `$0' for 
     `$16,382,000'.
       ``Sec. 221.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Library of Congress--Salaries and Expenses' at 
     a rate for operations of $445,951,000, of which $0 shall be

[[Page 2911]]

     for the operations described in the seventh proviso under 
     this heading in Public Law 111-68.
       ``Sec. 222.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Transportation--Federal Highway 
     Administration--Surface Transportation Priorities' at a rate 
     for operations of $0.
       ``Sec. 223.  Notwithstanding section 101, no funds are 
     provided for activities described in section 122 of title I 
     of division A of Public Law 111-117.
       ``Sec. 224.  Notwithstanding section 101, section 186 of 
     title I of division A of Public Law 111-117 shall not apply 
     to funds appropriated by this Act.
       ``Sec. 225.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Transportation--Federal Railroad 
     Administration--Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program' 
     at a rate for operations of $10,012,800.
       ``Sec. 226.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for `Department of Housing and Urban Development--
     Community Planning and Development--Community Development 
     Fund' at a rate for operations of $4,255,068,480, of which $0 
     shall be for grants for the Economic Development Initiative 
     (EDI), and $0 shall be for neighborhood initiatives: 
     Provided, That the second and third paragraphs under such 
     heading in title II of division A of Public Law 111-117 shall 
     not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.''.
        This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Further 
     Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 115, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 44, the fiscal year 2011 Further 
Continuing Appropriations resolution.
  This temporary CR is an extra special effort by the majority 
Republicans to avoid a government shutdown that could otherwise occur 
on March 4, when the current funding resolution expires. This temporary 
CR contains funding to allow all government agencies and programs to 
continue at the current rate of spending for the next 2 weeks until 
March 18, 2011, while reducing spending by $4 billion through several 
spending cuts and program terminations. These cuts reflect this 
Republican majority's continued commitment to significantly reduce 
spending, to rein in the Nation's exploding deficits and debt, and to 
help our economy continue on the road to recovery.
  Madam Speaker, a government shutdown would halt critical and 
necessary services and programs that Americans across the country rely 
on, and it is not what our constituents expect or demand.

                              {time}  1410

  I would have greatly preferred that the Senate act on the hard-fought 
and thoughtfully crafted funding legislation that the House passed 
almost 2 weeks ago which saves the taxpayers $100 billion compared to 
the President's request, but it's clear that the Senate needs more 
time. So this short-term CR will provide an additional 2 weeks by 
cutting spending to show our continued resolve to get our Nation's 
fiscal house in order.
  The bill before us terminates eight programs for a savings of about 
$1.24 billion. These eight programs were all targeted for elimination 
in the President's budget request and have also been part of proposed 
cuts in the past in the House and the Senate by Members of both 
parties. These eight programs include: Election Assistance Grants, the 
Broadband Direct Loan Subsidy, the Smithsonian Institution Legacy Fund, 
the Striving Readers program, the LEAP program, Even Start, Smaller 
Learning Communities, and a one-time highway funding addition.
  In addition, the bill also eliminates more than $2.7 billion in 
funding previously reserved for earmarks, eliminations that the House, 
the Senate, and the White House have all called for this year. The 
earmark funding cuts in this legislation come from Energy and Water; 
Homeland Security; Labor, Health and Human Services; legislative 
branch; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development program 
accounts.
  This legislation will represent the second of many appropriations 
bills this year that will significantly reduce spending, continuing a 
pattern of cuts that will help put our Nation's budget back in balance 
and stop the dangerous spiral of unsustainable deficits and debt.
  It is my hope that this CR can be passed quickly and that the 
President will sign it before the March 4 deadline. This legislation 
should garner broad support today, given the short timeframe for action 
and given the fact that these spending cuts have received previous 
bipartisan support by Members of the House and Senate as well as the 
White House.
  Madam Speaker, we're now 5 months into the current fiscal year and 
it's critically important that we complete this budget process so that 
we can turn our attention quickly to passing funding bills for fiscal 
year 2012. It is high time we start looking forward instead of 
constantly looking back to clean up past mistakes and inaction. We must 
move forward quickly in regular order, passing bills on time in an open 
and transparent fashion to avoid these budget uncertainties in the 
future.
  Madam Speaker, this is one more step that we have to take to get our 
fiscal house in order. While this isn't a perfect or an easy process, 
it is essential that we pass this bill, avoid a government shutdown, 
and continue to work on a long-term solution to complete this long 
overdue funding process. Our constituents expect and deserve no less.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today we will consider a short-term continuing 
resolution that will allow the essential functions of our government to 
continue beyond March 4, the date on which the current continuing 
resolution will expire.
  With no final agreement on the spending levels for the current fiscal 
year, this measure is necessary in order to avoid a government 
shutdown, something I believe we should all want to do. I think that 2 
weeks is not enough time to reach an agreement on H.R. 1 with the other 
body, and I'm afraid we're going to be back here doing this again.
  Now, when the House approved H.R. 1 last month, despite the 
overwhelming opposition of the Democratic Caucus, it was clear to me 
that gaining agreement on a compromise version of a full-year 
continuing resolution would be very difficult, at least before the 
expiration of the current CR. We opposed H.R. 1 because we believe it 
would have the effect of slamming on the fiscal brakes too abruptly, 
resulting in higher unemployment and threatening our Nation's economic 
recovery.
  There is no dispute that cutting Federal spending too deeply and too 
quickly before the economy has fully recovered risks slowing growth and 
losing jobs. Moody's estimates that H.R. 1 would reduce real growth in 
2011 by 0.5 percent, meaning 400,000 fewer jobs in 2011 and 700,000 
fewer jobs by the end of 2012. The Economic Policy Institute projected 
job losses near 800,000. Goldman Sachs predicts that H.R. 1 would slow 
economic growth by about 1.5 to 2 percentage points, which translates 
into the American economy losing up to 2.4 million jobs.
  So the recovery of our economy and the reduction of unemployment 
should be our paramount concern at this time.
  I said during the debate on H.R. 1 earlier this month, and I will 
repeat today, that I believe the approach to deficit reduction that has 
been adopted by the Republican majority here in the House is far too 
narrow and too focused on the smallest segment of spending in the 
budget. It is a risky strategy based on the specious concept of cut and 
grow, which of course has no basis in sound economic theory.
  So where does this leave us? We are now 6 months into the current 
fiscal year, FY11, and hearings with regard to the fiscal year 2012 
budget have begun in both the Budget Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee.
  H.R. 1 is clearly not acceptable to the other body, nor would it be 
acceptable to the President, whose signature is necessary before any 
funding bill can

[[Page 2912]]

become law. What the President has already proposed for the coming 
year--a budget freeze at last year's level--remains, in my judgment, 
the best and most effective way to reduce the deficit and to support 
recovery in major sectors of our economy. In fact, we have already 
adopted a freeze at FY10 levels in the continuing resolution that we 
are currently operating under.
  Democrats approved the CR in December with only one Republican vote, 
which represents a reduction of $41 billion from the levels sought by 
the President in his FY 2011 budget request. This is a significant 
reduction in the deficit, and a significant part of that came from 
defense. I want to repeat this. The $41 billion cut from the Obama FY11 
budget was passed in a CR by the Democratic House and Democratic Senate 
and signed into law by the Democratic President with only one 
Republican vote.
  We are now on the verge of an expiring CR, and we are considering 
another version that extends the time to resolve the differences by 
only 2 weeks.
  I take the chairman at his word that neither he nor his leadership is 
interested in shutting down the operation of the Federal Government by 
declaring a stalemate in these appropriations deliberations. I will 
concede that it is disconcerting to me and others on our side to read 
the Speaker's comments this week that would seem to imply that there is 
a strategy of passing shorter term appropriation bills, with further 
and further and further cuts 2 weeks at a time.

                              {time}  1420

  We were concerned by his statement that seemed to indicate a plan for 
a piecemeal approach to future spending cuts. He said, ``If they won't 
eat the whole loaf at one time, we'll make them eat it one slice at a 
time.''
  I believe we need to set aside these political machinations and get 
serious about finishing up work on the fiscal year 2011 budget. I will 
be the first to admit that it is because the Democrats didn't pass our 
bills last year that we're here working on this. So we have 
responsibility, too, and that's one of the reasons why we were so eager 
to engage Chairman Rogers in trying to get this open rule, to work 
through the amendments, get a unanimous consent agreement--to help move 
this process forward because I personally feel we have some 
responsibility here.
  And I think it is obvious that we are going to need more than the 2 
weeks to get from here to there.
  Now, I appreciate the desire of the gentleman from Kentucky to 
encourage the Members of his caucus to enter into serious negotiations 
with the other body with the hope of completing work by March 18.
  But in a conference--I've been in conferences for 34 years as a 
Member and 8 years before that as a staffer--nobody gets everything 
they want. It's a process of compromise. You work out the differences 
between the two positions.
  So I'm proud of the fact that we start with a cut of $41 billion that 
was enacted by the Democratic Congress in December during a very 
successful lame duck session.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman, who is my friend, mentioned the economists and their 
opinion of H.R. 1, the budget-cutting bill we passed a couple of weeks 
ago.
  The best source that I think of, right off, is Ben Bernanke, Chairman 
of the Federal Reserve, who has said H.R. 1 would have no negligible 
harmful impact on the economy. And if the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve says that, I tend to believe him.
  Now I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee on our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in support of this continuing resolution. 
It's a reasonable and a thoughtful path forward to avoid a potential 
government shutdown.
  Madam Speaker, the American people have made two things perfectly 
clear: First, they want their government to stay up and running; and, 
secondly, they want us to cut spending. We need to do both.
  Like many of us, I would have greatly preferred that the Senate act 
on H.R. 1, the 7-month continuing resolution that we debated for over 
90 hours that included, indeed, the largest spending reductions in the 
history of any Congress.
  Ten days ago, this committee and this House took the President's 
budget and cut it by over $100 billion, terminating dozens of 
government programs in the process. And in a city where President 
Reagan once said ``A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal 
life we'll ever see on this Earth,'' that's quite an accomplishment.
  Madam Speaker, the resolution we have before us today is a simple 
stopgap measure to provide more time for negotiations to develop a 
funding bill for the rest of the current fiscal year. It's temporary 
and it must pass to keep the government open beyond Friday.
  This bill contains $4 billion in savings including just under a 
billion from programs under the jurisdiction of my committee, Energy 
and Water Development. These savings are found purely from eliminating 
earmarks inserted by Congress in the fiscal year 2010 bill.
  As with other spending reductions in this temporary bill, the 
committee has taken great pains to include only savings that both 
parties and both Chambers support. Both the House and Senate have sworn 
off earmarks for fiscal year 2011, so these reductions should not be 
controversial.
  My colleagues, we must move this resolution. We need it to provide 
time to continue negotiations to complete the important work that 
should have been done by the last Congress--which passed no 
appropriations bills.
  Madam Speaker, I repeat: The American people have made it clear. They 
want their government to stay open for business. They also want us to 
cut spending. Let's do it. Let's move ahead. This resolution needs to 
be passed.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is also the ranking Democratic member on 
Health and Human Services.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 14-day continuing 
resolution. The House majority is threatening to close down the 
government. This is brinkmanship. Their desire to engage in 
brinkmanship damages our economy and creates uncertainty for businesses 
and families.
  Make no mistake, the proposed budget cuts will cost jobs, 700,000 
jobs by the end of 2012, according to economist Mark Zandi, who, in 
fact, was the chief economist for Senator John McCain in his 
Presidential bid.
  Let me be clear. I am very supportive of the removal of earmarks in 
this resolution. They should be cut. We understand the need for deficit 
reduction. The question is where do we start?
  Our first priority should be to go after waste and special interest 
spending: $40 billion to the oil industry which we are providing today, 
$40 billion. What about the almost $8 billion to multinational 
corporations who take their jobs overseas? And, yes, what about the $8 
billion in agricultural subsidies?
  It is too bad that cutting these special interest subsidies is not 
the priority of the majority's resolution. Instead, this budget makes 
deep and reckless cuts in the areas that most impact middle class and 
working families.
  Of the $4 billion in immediate cuts put forward by this 14-day 
resolution, $1.4 billion comes out of Education, Health and Human 
Services, and out of training programs. And, yes, almost a billion 
dollars, a quarter of the cuts, comes out of education. Education 
should be one of the last places we look to cut the budget, not the 
first.
  Yes, these cuts could be achieved by eliminating four programs 
proposed for termination by the President, as well as eliminating 
funding associated with earmarks last year. But these are not the 
President's proposals. While he would cut some education programs, he 
would then reinvest those savings in other education programs 
considered

[[Page 2913]]

more effective. This resolution just wipes out the funding.
  This resolution severely cuts efforts to reduce illiteracy, which is 
a serious national problem for economic, as well as human, reasons. The 
largest program targeted, Striving Readers, represents a consolidation 
and reorganization of literacy programs that was just launched in 2010. 
Why would the Republican majority think it is responsible to strip away 
funding to improve literacy in this country before it even has a chance 
to work?
  I'm particularly concerned and disappointed by the elimination of 
Even Start. Even Start is about breaking the cycle of poverty and 
illiteracy by improving educational opportunities for families. I do 
not agree with the President's assessment that it should be terminated, 
and I do not support its elimination in this resolution. This is an 
effective and a critical program that should be allowed to continue.
  I'm not the only one concerned by the consequences of this reckless 
budget. Three hundred leading economists have signed a letter to the 
President noting how these spending cuts will diminish our economic 
competitiveness. Goldman Sachs reported to its investors that the 
Republican budget will slash economic growth by 2 percent of our 
economic growth. That would send the unemployment numbers back over 10 
percent.
  Americans want us to craft a budget for the remainder of the year 
that creates jobs, reduces the deficit, and strengthens the economy.

                              {time}  1430

  Do we start with slashing special interests and waste like the $40 
billion that we are providing in subsidies to the oil companies? And 
last time any of us looked, they were doing pretty well. They don't 
need any subsidies. Or do we start by cutting the things that help the 
middle class, which help our businesses, and working families with 
children and with seniors?
  This resolution increases unemployment. It will hurt our economic 
recovery. And I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless resolution.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Agriculture Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the chairman for the time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to make three very important points right off 
the bat:
  Number one, our debt is almost at 95 percent of the GDP. It's the 
highest debt we have ever had in history. Last year alone the deficit 
was $1.5 trillion. We are borrowing 40 cents for every $1 that we 
spend. Now, if you and I were doing that in our households or our 
business was doing it or anybody else, you would say, okay, we've got 
to change our spending habits. But somehow there are those in Congress 
who think that we can continue to defy the laws of gravity. We have got 
to get our house in order.
  Number two, why are we here? We are here because the Democrats last 
year did not pass a budget, did not pass appropriation bills, and did 
not complete their work on fiscal year 2011. That's what we're doing. 
We are trying to clean up the mess that was left to us. And in doing 
that, we are mindful of our financial situation and trying to reduce 
some of the spending.
  Number three, let me say this. This bill was passed with an open 
rule. Indeed, I believe we had 127 votes on different amendments. 
Democrats and Republicans offered a myriad of amendments. Now, for 
those who are complaining on the floor today that they don't like these 
cuts, why didn't they offer their amendments on the floor a couple of 
weeks ago? That would have been the way to do this. Now, the chairman 
and the Speaker have committed to have open rules throughout this 
process this year, and so there will be a lot of opportunities to go 
after some of these programs. And some of the ones that are mentioned, 
I think I will support those cuts. But I just want to emphasize that 
everyone has had a bite of this apple.
  Finally, let me just say this, Madam Speaker. The Zandi report comes 
from an economist, a political economist we might say, who was the same 
person who told us the stimulus bill would work, the stimulus bill 
would keep us from going to 8 percent unemployment. We reached 10 
percent. I don't think we need to listen to any more of his advice.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the chairman.
  I just want to say that I don't think that Mr. Zandi has any more 
credibility. We have already spent $800 billion on his advice that the 
stimulus program would work, and it did not work.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Is the gentleman aware that Ben Bernanke, the 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve, now says that H.R. 1 would have no 
harmful effect on the economy?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I have heard that. And I understand there is something 
like 150 other economists who have signed a letter to that effect that 
was led by John Taylor, who is an economist as well.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. And that cutting spending and reducing the 
deficit will give confidence to the business community to hire people 
and put people to work.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee), one of our distinguished Members.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee and let me thank the chairperson. I sometimes 
have a slip of tongue, Mr. Dicks, and call you ``chairman,'' but I 
thank you very much for this opportunity.
  I want to just try to give a procedural class here today. The 
procedural class is that this document is a placeholder. I would 
hesitate to call it a fake document, but that is what it is.
  As I left my constituency, the last words I heard were, ``Don't you 
all shut down the government.'' And I am glad that Mr. Dicks worked 
hard to submit his amendment in the Rules Committee. It's unfortunate 
that the wise men and women didn't have a majority. The Republicans 
would not yield to a thoughtful amendment by Mr. Dicks.
  But this is a 2-week document. We know how old, and what--many of us 
have seen a 2-week-old baby. That's what this is: a 2-week document so 
we can do the right thing.
  It needs to be very clear that before we left in the 110th Congress, 
Democrats had already cut $41 billion. Now, many say we didn't have a 
budget. We had a budget, but we had no compromise, no reconciliation, 
no fairness, no concern about the American people.
  Now we have spent 3 months, March 1, doing nothing, and not one bill 
creates a job. Goldman Sachs, I know that there is a critique on 
Goldman Sachs, but you can't discount the independent, objective 
assessment of them saying that in the CR that was passed a week ago 
700,000 to 800,000 jobs would be lost.
  Mark Zandi was the economist and adviser to John McCain. I am not 
sure what politics he has, but he is not in a political office today. 
And he provides us with an independent assessment that the CR that we 
voted on, which the Senate would not agree to, would cost us 800,000 
jobs. This document will go nowhere.
  Unfortunately, the $4 billion that is cut out of here, and a litany 
of other unfortunate cuts, is only temporary. I want to live to fight 
another day. We all want to be able to respond to the needs of this 
country in deficit reduction and a fair budget. But we could have had a 
clean CR, and we would have reasonably sat down and made right 
decisions.
  Most economists have said that cutting the government in the middle 
of a budget year is ineffective. The bipartisan fiscal commission said: 
Project to 2012 and 2013; don't cut 2011.

[[Page 2914]]

  It's important for the American people to know this is in the midst 
of your budget year. So Pell Grants for students who are in college 
right now, who have already gotten an amount rendered to them, 
operating on maybe a $1,000 grant to finish out in May, what we're 
doing is cutting them in the midst.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. That's what was voted on a week ago. What 
we're doing now is to recognize that people who govern are responsible 
for making sure the doors of this government stay open.
  I care about homeland security as a member of the Homeland Security 
Committee. I care about the DEA task force fighting drug cartels. I 
care about children getting education, health care, the environment.
  So let me just say this. We're doing this because we believe in the 
American people, but don't you for a moment think that this document is 
worth anything. We've got to get to business and fight for the American 
people and preserve education. That's what Democrats stand for, and 
that's what we'll fight for.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support for H.J. Res. 44, the 
Continuing Resolution (CR) to make further continuing appropriations 
for Fiscal Year 2011 to keep our Federal Government open through March 
18, 2011.
  Though I have serious reservations about this CR offered by my 
Republican colleagues, I absolutely refuse to let our Federal 
Government close on my watch. Allowing the Federal Government to close 
while this nation continues to recover from its economic downturn does 
no good for anyone. Closure of the Federal Government at this juncture 
would deal a crushing blow to the people all over the United States who 
are looking to Congress to do its part in bringing about much-needed 
economic relief and to get this country back on course.
  Moreover, states all around this nation are in the midst of 
recovering from their own economic crises. The closure of the federal 
government would deal them a crushing blow. Worse still, it would only 
serve to increase the hardship and suffering visited upon the citizens 
of those states. We must remember that these citizens are also our 
constituents and we must not let unfettered zeal to make spending cuts 
blind us to the point where we allow cuts to the funding necessary for 
economic recovery.
  This insufficient, fake CR contains many horrible cuts to important 
programs. It unjustly heaves a heavy weight upon the backs of the 
American people who should not be made to bear this burden. These cuts 
include but are not limited to:
  Critical Education Funding at All Levels from Head Start to Higher 
Education
  Health and Human Services Funding
  Energy Funding
  Critical Transportation Funding
  Military and Veteran's Affairs Funding
  Science and Technology and NASA Funding
  However, this is only a two-week CR and the critical funding it cuts 
can be recouped and restored. I look forward to fighting hard over the 
next two weeks to restore this crucial funding. The cuts contained in 
this CR squarely impact the people and programs we need to support the 
most in order to bring about job creation and sustained economic 
growth. I am committed to doing all that I can to restore these funds 
while making fiscally responsible, well deliberated appropriations for 
funding the Federal Government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in this commitment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Speaker, as has been pointed out, 2 weeks ago this Chamber 
voted emphatically to cut spending and to right-size our government. 
This CR that's before us today is a necessary stopgap that will keep 
the government operating until we can finalize an agreement on those 
spending cuts that was contained in H.R. 1.
  The homeland security sections of the CR before us today strikes the 
right balance between funding priority programs that are essential to 
our Nation's security and, at the same time, keeping our discretionary 
spending in check. This CR cuts over $264 million in earmarks from the 
Department of Homeland Security's budget, while at the same time 
sustaining the current staffing levels of our frontline operating 
agencies like Border Patrol, CBP, ICE, and the Coast Guard, proof that 
we can cut spending and fund these functions of government that are 
truly vital.
  As I said 2 weeks ago on this floor, the Department of Homeland 
Security is not immune from fiscal discipline, and no program or agency 
is beyond the belt-tightening that our government so desperately needs.

                              {time}  1440

  By implementing these cuts, we are not choosing between homeland 
security and fiscal responsibility. Both are serious national security 
issues that must be dealt with immediately. Through a series of prudent 
choices, this CR achieves both.
  Madam Speaker, this CR is a reasonable first step in addressing our 
government's fiscal crisis. There is absolutely no reason why the 
President or our colleagues in the Senate cannot support these overdue 
spending cuts. The American people are demanding no less.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 1 minute.
  You know, as I have said here today, everyone is in favor of doing 
deficit reduction. We want to do it in a way that won't hurt the 
economy. What I am concerned about is that if we have this large cut 
and then the States and local governments cut $125 billion at the same 
time, we will have about $185 billion of cuts, and that is going to 
cause a decline in economic growth.
  I mean, it is basic economics. The way you get the deficit down is 
get people back to work, get people jobs, get them back to work. When 
the economy is as fragile as it is, it's a question of timing.
  What the commission members said is don't do it in 2011; do it in 
2012 and 2013 and then deal with the entire budget, deal with the 
entitlements, deal with the taxes, do the whole thing. Do the budget 
agreement that we all know we have to do, and that's going to take 
bipartisanship. That's going to take both parties, the President and 
the Senate and the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  We are going to have to get together and work out an agreement and 
come out together and support it in order to get this through. This is 
what we did with Bob Dole and Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan.
  So, this can be done, but we have to have everything on the table. 
Again, I worry about the 2 week Continuing Resolution. I think that's a 
bit ambitious.
  Again, I want to point out to my colleagues that it was the 
Democratic House and Senate and President who passed the bill, the CR 
that cut $41 billion from Obama's FY 2011 request, $41 billion.
  So I want to make sure you all don't forget that. I am going to try 
to continue to remind you of that fact.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
chairman of the Labor-HHS subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Chairman Rogers.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to express my deep frustration with this 
extension. Here we go again, debating another continuing resolution. I 
am starting to feel like Bill Murray in ``Groundhog Day.'' In that 
movie, the main character wakes up every morning to relive the same day 
again and again. He never moves forward because he is stuck on 
Groundhog Day.
  Last year, Republicans in the House put the country on notice that we 
would try to reduce spending by $100 billion this year. The Senate 
knew, and the American people knew, and they gave us a substantial 
majority in the House.
  We worked responsibly and openly on a continuing resolution to meet 
that goal. After considering scores of

[[Page 2915]]

amendments and engaging in long days of thoughtful debate, we 
succeeded. In response, the Senate majority leader summarily dismissed 
our good-faith efforts and recessed the Senate for a week.
  Despite giving us an unprecedented 3 years of trillion-dollar 
deficits, the majority leader dismissed our efforts to reduce spending 
less than 2 percent from the total fiscal 2011 budget.
  In the interest of continuing our work on behalf of the American 
taxpayer and finding some common ground, Republicans are offering this 
2-week extension, another continuing resolution made necessary only 
because the Democrat leadership refused to adopt a budget last year. It 
is like Groundhog Day all over again.
  During this short extension we propose to save $4 billion--too much 
for Senator Reid. He suggests a freeze on spending for 30 days while he 
contemplates our proposal. The national debt will increase another $136 
billion during that time.
  This is part of a big stall. Keep stalling. Keep implementing 
unaffordable health care entitlement programs. Keep threatening, keep 
spending, all the while ignoring the will of the people.
  But the growing $14.5 trillion national debt is dragging our country 
into economic ruin, and a looming health care law with $2.5 trillion in 
new spending, when fully implemented, is about to bury us. And make no 
mistake, I am not happy that funding for the implementation of health 
care law continues in this continuing resolution.
  At some point soon, before it is too late, the majority leader and 
his Democrat colleagues need to meaningfully address our spending 
problem. Unfortunately, all indications are that our good-faith effort 
to find common ground with this 2-week extension will not bring the 
Senate to the table to negotiate.
  The President and the Senate majority hold the balance of power in 
Washington D.C., but they stand against the majority of Americans.
  I will support this measure, but I have been pushed to my limit. 
``Groundhog Day'' may have been an entertaining movie, but it shouldn't 
be the basis for a system of government. It's time for the Senate to 
get to work.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 13 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Kentucky has 15\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I hope that we are beginning to usher in in the next 2 
weeks a season of compromise on this very important question before the 
country. I hope and I am confident that Chairman Rogers and Mr. Dicks 
are capable of striking a very sound compromise for the people of our 
country.
  Here is where we are. When the fiscal year began on October 1, there 
were a series of resolutions that said let's live under the budget that 
spent what last year spent, and we have lived under that budget until 
this time. That budget saves $41 billion below what the administration 
asked for last February.
  The majority, about 10 days ago, passed a bill that said it wants to 
spend $100 billion less than what was proposed by the administration 
last February. Now, logical people would say that we are very well on 
the way to a sensible compromise.
  We are on track to save $41 billion below what was requested. The 
majority wishes to spend $100 billion less than that.
  I am certain that talented legislators like the chairman, like Mr. 
Dicks, left to their own devices and leadership, can find a way to have 
us strike a middle ground for the rest of the fiscal year. I am hoping 
that this is the last one of these temporary extensions we have so that 
those who rely upon the continuing funding of government departments--
vendors, employees, and institutions--will be able to do so.
  I think it's fertile for a good compromise, and I certainly hope the 
House reaches it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).
  Mr. AUSTRIA. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this short-term continuing 
resolution, which must be passed this week to avoid a shutdown of many 
important programs and services.
  Our first priority today is job growth. That's why we are putting 
into place policies that will stop the runaway spending here in 
Washington and help bring more certainty to our financial and business 
markets to grow our economy and create long-term sustainable jobs.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the largest single site 
employer in the State of Ohio, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and I 
was told that if the government shuts down that thousands of people may 
be asked not to come to work. If we don't pass this short-term CR, this 
is one place that would surely suffer from a shutdown, which is 
responsible for numerous national defense programs that depend on 
continued funding.
  Without funding, programs like this across the country will not get 
off the ground in a timely manner, may incur programmatic delays and 
costs, jeopardize the national defense programs they support, and put 
thousands of jobs, including small businesses, on the line. We must do 
the responsible thing and pass this short-term resolution, which will 
buy us time to find a long-term solution to our budget crisis.
  Madam Speaker, people across America, and especially in Ohio, have 
spoken very clearly that Washington needs to cut spending.

                              {time}  1450

  Nobody said these cuts were going to be easy, but they are absolutely 
essential to help put our country back on a fiscally sustainable path 
that will create jobs and strengthen our economy for future 
generations.
  With the leadership of Chairman Rogers, this House has already passed 
a CR to help protect national defense, but in addition to that made 
more than $100 billion in cuts; and when we pass this short-term CR, we 
will have passed another $4 billion in cuts. It's time for the Senate 
to do their job and pass a CR. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this short-term CR and show that we're listening to the 
American people by passing a CR that includes substantive cuts and will 
put us on a fiscally sustainable path forward.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader 
and former Speaker, the gentlelady from California, Nancy Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding time and for 
presenting the Dicks substitute, which was not allowed to come to the 
floor, but nonetheless I salute him for his leadership in that regard.
  Madam Speaker, Members of Congress agree, I think, on two things 
today: that we must move this process forward so that government does 
not shut down, and that we must reduce the deficit. As we do that, we 
must create jobs and strengthen the middle class. That is someplace 
where we may have some separation, because as the distinguished ranking 
member, Mr. Dicks, has said earlier, in December of 2010, congressional 
Democrats and the President of the United States cut spending by $41 
billion--$41 billion. On that day in December, only one Republican 
voted for those cuts--only one.
  February, 2 months later, Republicans passed a spending bill that 
does not create jobs but, in fact, has been said to destroy 700,000 
jobs. That's approximately 100,000 jobs a week since we passed our 
``cut it'' bill.
  February 2011, Republicans passed the same spending bill that reduces 
U.S. economic growth by 1\1/2\ to 2 percent. Now some have questioned, 
Is it really as much as 700,000 jobs? Is it really as much as 1\1/2\ to 
2 percent? But no one questions whether there will be job loss or 
whether there will be a slowing down of our economic growth among 
serious economists.

[[Page 2916]]

  We are going in the wrong direction. How fast may be the question. 
But we are going in the wrong direction. That is why it's very 
important for us to proceed with great care and great caution here 
because, again, we have the opportunity to create jobs, to strengthen 
the middle class, and to do so in a way that is fiscally sound.
  When I hear our colleagues talk about the deficit and the immorality 
of a big deficit--and I completely agree that we owe it to our children 
and our grandchildren not to leave them a debt--but all this talk about 
deficit is what we have, as Democrats, taken the lead on for decades.
  Do you remember--because many of you were here at the time--that when 
President Clinton became President he inherited an enormous debt? He 
instituted pay-as-you-go, we had an economic agreement that was passed 
in the Congress, and the deficit began to reduce to a path of $5.6 
trillion in surplus. Another President Bush took office; pay-as-you-go 
went out the window; and, again, the turnaround into growing deficits.
  So for all of this talk about the immorality of deficits, where were 
you when those deficits were instituted in the late eighties? Some of 
you were here. In the 2000s, many of you were here. And, again, we have 
to take our country on a path of deficit reduction. Many of you were 
here when the tax cuts for the high end were implemented, creating no 
jobs, except increasing our deficit, sending the bill to our children 
and the credit to the Chinese Government.
  How about when we did the prescription drug bill, giving away the 
store to the pharmaceutical industry and the price tag to our children 
by increasing the deficit? How about two wars, unpaid-for wars? God 
knows we will do anything to protect and defend our people. And I would 
hope that everybody subscribes to that. Why would we have tax cuts for 
people at the highest end? Why wouldn't they pay their fair share of 
protecting the American people and American interests and their 
interest wherever they may exist in the world?
  And so we had in the 8 years of President Bush's administration a 
complete reversal, an $11 trillion swing, $5.6 trillion in surplus to 
nearly $5 trillion in debt.
  And now people are saying it is an immorality to have national debt 
and to have these deficits. We thoroughly agree. And that's why, once 
again, we must take our country down a path of deficit reduction, but 
to do so in a way that is job creating and strengthening of the middle 
class.
  As I said, in December 2010 Democrats cut $41 billion in spending. 
Only one Republican voted for that. February 2011, Republicans passed a 
spending bill that could destroy 700,000 jobs and reduce and slow down 
our GDP, our gross domestic product, by 1.5 to 2 percent. If you want 
to say it's going to slow down less than that, it's still going in the 
wrong direction.
  I commented on Mr. Dicks' proposal because in the bill that we have 
before us, we have a situation where the Republicans have stripped the 
bill of important initiatives to the education of our children. In 
fact, President Obama made some of those cuts, too; but he didn't do it 
in a way that hurt the children.
  What we debate today undermines our future by stripping support for 
some pressing educational challenges without redirecting those critical 
resources to meet the educational needs of our children. What Mr. Dicks 
proposed would have reversed that. He would have eliminated those 
educational programs in a way, as did the President, in the context of 
a comprehensive budget that also redirected funds to other initiatives 
addressing these needs.
  If we do not, as a Congress, understand that education is essential, 
is key to all of our success--key to all of our success--then, frankly, 
the American people are way ahead of us on that. That's why I asked 
when we debated the bill before the break to see a quarter of a million 
children thrown off Head Start and many teachers fired alongside that, 
is that a smart cut? Sure, we have to tighten our belt. But let's do 
it, again, in a very smart way.
  I just want to know where everybody was in the days when this deficit 
grew in the 8 years of the Bush administration. That's why we're in the 
situation we are in today. That's why we must, again, make some very 
difficult decisions.
  So what is before us today is for the short term. It is saying, let's 
just keep the government open 2 weeks so we use that time to do the 
right thing and so we use that time to have a reality check--a reality 
check--on how we got these deficits in the first place. Tax cuts at the 
highest end do not create jobs but increase the deficit and are not the 
appropriate path to deficit reduction. Cutting education and therefore 
the innovation that goes with it and the strength of our children and 
affecting our economy is not the way to do it.
  Many people here have met much experience on the way to do it, and 
they sit on both sides of the aisle. So let's get through this today, 
recognizing the challenge that we have, understanding that this bill 
before us is not a good one, but it's not final.

                              {time}  1500

  And when we come together, we need to meet the three criteria: Does 
it create jobs? Does it strengthen the middle class? Does it reduce the 
deficit? Because all of those who say that it is immoral for us to grow 
the deficit and pass those bills on to our children and grandchildren 
are right. I just don't want them to ignore the fact that we got here a 
certain way, and please do not ask us to go down that path again with 
the sanctimonious attitude that it is a morality for us to do exactly 
the same thing again, ignoring again the tremendous, tremendous 
suffering of the American people and their need for jobs, ignoring the 
aspirations of our children and their need for education by making the 
cuts that are in here without them rechanneling to a better place.
  This is as serious a debate that we can have in the Congress of the 
United States because it affects our children and their future, because 
the deficits have gotten so far out of hand.
  I am very proud of the fact that 30 years ago--in 1982, 29 years 
ago--when Democrats gathered in Philadelphia for a midterm conference, 
pay-as-you-go was placed on the agenda, passed as a resolution, and 
became part of the Democratic platform. Fiscal responsibility is a part 
of who we are. Our Blue Dog Coalition has had this as their mantra: pay 
as you go. Do not add to the deficit. If we all share that view, we 
should all be able to come together because the numbers will add up or 
they will not add up, and the bill for sure will be sent to our 
children and grandchildren.
  Some of you have children; some of you have children and 
grandchildren. Would you ever dream of sending them a bill for a 
personal expense? If you were to leave them anything, would you leave 
them a bill? We cannot leave the children of America with any bills for 
any fiscal deficit either. It wouldn't be the right thing to do. But in 
order for us to do the right thing, it is time for a serious reality 
check, and that is the opportunity Mr. Dicks was giving us today. The 
Rules Committee rejected that. I hope that in the weeks ahead, 
depending on what happens here today, we can move on with it so we can 
spend whatever time it takes to do it right. Nothing less is at stake 
than the economic security of our country, the well-being of our 
children, the well-being of our children and the confidence that the 
American people have in what we are sent here to do for them.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to 
point out to the body that over the last 2 years, the Congress went on 
a spending spree and increased spending by 84 percent in just 2 years. 
You ran the deficit up; the annual deficit, now two in a row, trillion-
dollar-plus deficits per year, record breaking. We have never had that 
before. You ran the debt up to where now we are bouncing against the 
ceiling and the Congress will be called upon to increase the debt 
ceiling.

[[Page 2917]]

  There were no appropriations bills passed last year at all. Thus 
that's why we are here today. So let's talk about the spending spree 
that we're trying to slow down and stop, Madam Speaker, with this bill.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), a 
member of our committee.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chairman 
clarifying some things we just heard because I was at a loss thinking I 
was going to need much more than 3 minutes to rewrite some of what we 
just heard there and correct the historical account of the last several 
years.
  We've heard the lamenting and wailing today from the other side of 
the aisle. It is amazing to hear about why we are here? Why are we in 
this position today?
  We are hearing government shutdown from the Democrats. You're not 
hearing that from the Republicans. You're hearing no, we have to cut 
spending and reduce the size of government. But we hear we're at the 
brink, we're about to shut down government, and we have to wonder: Why 
are we here?
  Well, the chairman brought it up so eloquently just a minute ago. 
When they were in the leadership last year, and it wasn't that long 
ago, 1 year ago, they had the opportunity. They had the opportunity to 
pass their own budget. They didn't do it.
  So instead, they passed a CR. The CR went for 4 or 5 weeks. It wasn't 
enough. Let's do another one because again, they couldn't pass a 
budget. They passed another CR for 2 more weeks. Again, it wasn't quite 
enough. So let's go 3 days because we don't know now to pass a budget 
nor have an appropriations meeting. And then, yet again, let's pass 
another one for just over 2 months. That is why we are here today. That 
is why the Republicans are stepping up and leading. That is why the 
Republicans passed a CR a few weeks ago cutting a hundred billion 
dollars. But yet again the Democrats, they do not want to step up and 
lead at this time in our Nation.
  So here we are again, the chairman of appropriations and the 
Republicans have stepped up and said it is time to lead. So $2 billion 
a week in cuts, yes, that is what we are proposing. Should it be more? 
Sure it should be more.
  To those who have said we were cutting the wrong programs, I assure 
you, you'll have your chance to cut those programs because, again, we 
will be cutting more.
  So this measure, hopefully it will pass both Chambers, and we will 
avert the government shutdown. And the question is then: What happens 
next? The American people want to know that.
  Well, I want the American people to know this: that there are more 
spending cuts on the way. Now, some of my colleagues on the other side 
will say, we don't need to cut spending. In fact, we have heard that. 
We've heard that they want to freeze spending instead, which is akin to 
tying a brick to the accelerator of this vehicle that is going off the 
cliff when we need to take our foot off that accelerator. Again, it is 
the status quo that we hear from the other side.
  We heard a minute ago from the leader of the Democrats, the former 
Speaker, and her quote was: They took the lead in deficits.
  Oh, is she so right. In fact, they have led 3 straight years of 
deficit spending, consecutive years, trillion-dollar deficits, and now 
a $14 trillion debt. What leadership that is.
  The status quo is unacceptable. The American people deserve so much 
more. So today, let's stop that threat of a government shutdown, and 
let's save the taxpayers $4 billion. Let's come back and let's save 
them billions upon billions more. But let's get ready because deeper 
spending cuts are necessary. And as we saw from that Government 
Accountability report, duplicative programs exist.
  Madam Speaker, it is time to eliminate some of those programs, 
continue eliminating portions of this government, and get this fiscal 
house back on track.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip and former 
majority leader, who will help correct the record.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have now heard and watched on television and I have been on the 
floor with two members from Georgia, both of whom are brand new to this 
body who were talking about the history. Well, I want to tell my friend 
from Georgia a little bit of history. I have been here 30 years. I have 
served some 20 of those years under Republican Presidents. Every one of 
them has run a deficit of $100 billion or more. In fact, during that 
cumulative period of 30 years, notwithstanding the Obama 
administration, and I will discuss that in a second, Mr. Reagan, Mr. 
Bush I, and Mr. Bush II ran deficits of over $6 trillion that they 
signed the bills to spend. Over $6 trillion. Bill Clinton was President 
for 8 years. The last 4 years, we didn't raise the debt at all, unlike 
every one of the Republican administrations, where we raised it on a 
regular basis. Not at all during the last administration, the last 4 
years of Mr. Clinton's administration, and he ran--the only President 
in your lifetime, and very frankly mine, and I may be twice as old as 
you are--a $62.9 billion surplus. Look it up. No argument.
  But let me say something. Irrespective of who is responsible, we are 
responsible for fixing it. Republicans and Democrats. The American 
people know that we have a crisis confronting us. They know there is no 
option other than to deal with this realistically. I would call 
everybody's attention in this body--Republican, Democrat, liberal, 
conservatives--to an article written by David Brooks today in The New 
York Times. Read it. Read it. David Brooks is a conservative columnist 
of the New York Times. We all ought to read this and take it to heart. 
I called it to my caucus' attention this morning.
  Our deep debt is a serious danger to our economy, to our future, and 
our children's opportunities. The American people want us to bring the 
debt down. They said so very loudly. And I doubt there is a Member who 
disagrees.

                              {time}  1510

  Democrats believe that spending cuts are part of the solution. Let 
there be no mistake. We need to cut spending, but we also believe that 
those cuts must be smart and targeted, not pegged to an arbitrary 
number.
  One of your staffers, when you put the Pledge to America, came forth 
with a figure of $100 billion. That's a nice round figure; $100 billion 
sounds good. It's good PR. It's good spin--$100 billion. Read David 
Brooks. No analysis was given to that figure. No hearings were held on 
that figure. Nobody could testify on the cuts that were proposed to 
reach that figure.
  We have to cut the spending. We can do without some spending, not the 
vital investments, however, that are helping to grow our economy, that 
are helping our private sector innovate and creating the jobs of the 
future.
  During the Clinton administration, I will tell my young friend from 
Georgia there were 22 million new jobs. During the Bush administration, 
we lost 8 million jobs. A 30 million job turnaround. That's why there 
was so much spending of which Mr. Rogers spoke. And $700 billion of 
that, of course, was asked for by the Bush Presidency, Secretary 
Paulson and Mr. Bernanke, so that we didn't fall into a depression for 
the first time since Herbert Hoover. This President has been trying to 
bring us out and, frankly, is succeeding.
  Unfortunately, Republicans passed a spending bill full of 
shortsighted and indiscriminate cuts. Do we need cuts? Yes. Do we need 
shortsighted and indiscriminate cuts? No. Just over a week ago, you 
would cut billions in energy and medical research, kick 200,000 
children out of Head Start, make college more expensive, and stop 21st-
century infrastructure projects in 40 States. That's what Mr. Zandi is 
talking about. That's what Goldman Sachs is talking about. Cuts like 
these could cripple America's competitiveness and job growth.
  According to Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, who 
advised

[[Page 2918]]

Senator McCain's Presidential campaign, Republicans' cuts would cost 
America a total of 700,000 jobs. The Economic Policy Institute puts it 
at 800,000.
  Rather than such job-destroying policies, both of us, both parties, 
need to come together and reason together. Frankly, the American public 
doesn't care who works with whom. They just want it to work. This is no 
way to fund the largest enterprise in the world--on 14-day cycles. The 
gentleman criticized us for doing it, and we should have been 
criticized.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Let me tell my friend what he didn't mention: One of the 
reasons we did it was that we couldn't get 60 votes in the United 
States Senate in order to move a bill forward.
  Keeping our government running is vital to our economy. None of us 
should want to shut down the government. It is also vital to the 
millions who rely on government every day. The sooner we can agree on a 
long-term package of smart cuts, not reckless, arbitrary, job-
destroying cuts, the sooner we can stop funding the government in 
disruptive 2-week increments. The gentleman was correct that we ought 
not to do that. We need to pass a 7-month funding so that government 
and all who rely on the government, who work for the government, and 
who have contracts with the government can rely on some certainty.
  You've talked a lot about certainty on your side of the aisle. You're 
absolutely right, we need certainty. The business community needs 
certainty. Individuals need certainty, and the government needs 
certainty.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. Rather than passing 2-week continuing resolutions, I urge 
Republicans and Democrats to work together on a long-term solution--in 
this case, ``long term'' is 7 months--to reduce spending, to try to 
balance our budget, and to try to bring rationality to this process. We 
cannot, my friends on the Republican side of the aisle and the 
Democratic side of the aisle, continue to look at 15 percent of the 
budget and expect us to get to where we need to be from where we now 
are.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a brand-
new member of the committee, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).
  Mr. YODER. Madam Speaker, we can debate today who is at fault for the 
crisis we are in; but I think we have an agreement, which is, with 
record spending, deficits and accumulated debt, coupled with 20 months 
straight of 9 percent unemployment, it is time for us to get serious 
about the crushing effect of a runaway debt on this economy.
  As Speaker Boehner said, ``Just like a bankrupt business can't create 
jobs, a bankrupt country can't create jobs.''
  Small business owners, individuals and families now find themselves 
at the mercy of this debt that we as a government have recklessly 
accumulated. It's not Democrats or Republicans. It's those families and 
individuals and business owners who are the real casualties of this 
government spending spree. So now we must choose a pathway. We are at a 
crossroads: reasonable spending reductions and keeping the government 
open or heading towards devastating tax increases and crushing 
deficits.
  The tax increases that would be needed to actually alleviate these 
bloated deficits would wipe out individuals, families and businesses. 
According to the CRS, current income tax rates would need to double 
across the board to close the expected deficits of this administration. 
You can't create jobs under these devastating taxes. We must reduce 
spending.
  We have a choice as the American people. We can choose prosperity; we 
can choose lower taxes; and we can choose reduced debt. Or we can go 
other the other direction and choose record-breaking deficits, historic 
taxes and devastation all across this country.
  Madam Speaker, we have a choice to make today, and it is my hope the 
Members of this body will choose to keep the government open, will 
choose to begin making modest reductions, and will pass this necessary 
resolution to begin the pathway towards prosperity again in this 
country.
  Mr. DICKS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, last November, the people I represent in Virginia's 
Fifth District sent an urgent message that America must make a bold 
departure from the status quo and put a stop to the out-of-control 
spending that has come to define Washington over the past 2 years. No 
longer can we continue on the path of unchecked, reckless spending that 
has crippled our economy and has left us with a massive $14 trillion in 
debt, $1.6 trillion in deficit spending, and an unacceptably high 
unemployment rate.
  Last year, the 111th Congress completely failed in its fundamental 
responsibility to adopt a budget for the American people. Remarkably, 
they have punted that responsibility and have kept the Federal 
Government operating over the last 5 months by adopting continuing 
resolutions.
  Fortunately, the new 112th Congress has accepted this responsibility 
to clean up the mess of the last Congress. Indeed, the House of 
Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, worked late into the night 
last week to get a proposal to the Senate that recognizes the critical 
need to adopt a budget while cutting a historic $100 billion in 
spending for the rest of this fiscal year.
  After 5 months of failed leadership by Senate Democrats, we now find 
they need more time. This is truly unbelievable. Over the past week, 
back home in the Fifth District, I was reminded again and again by my 
constituents that now is the time for leadership, not for excuses.
  While the House takes up another resolution today that will continue 
to temporarily fund the government while keeping our commitment to the 
people to cut an additional $4 billion in spending, it is critical that 
the Senate join us to produce a responsible funding resolution that 
makes the cuts necessary to get our fiscal house in order. For the sake 
of the next generation of Americans, we must act, and we must act now 
to secure our future.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member and former 
chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Virginia, Jim Moran.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, so many of our brand-new colleagues seem to 
have run on the thesis that government can't be the solution to any of 
your problems, rather that ``it'' is the problem, that it can't be 
counted upon to help people, that it can't even be counted upon to 
invest in America's long-term interests. It seems as though, now that 
they've been elected, they're doing everything they can to prove 
themselves to be right.
  This is no way to run a government. A 2-week CR?
  Now, we don't have any great problem with the components of this CR 
except for the fact that it's 2 weeks.

                              {time}  1520

  It should be a 7-month CR. In fact, we should really tackle the 
appropriations bills themselves. But if it's a 7-month CR, it shouldn't 
be a dump truck of legislation that includes in it virtually every 
controversial issue that this Congress has dealt with over the last 20, 
30 years.
  My good friend from Kentucky, the chairman of the committee, will 
recall that quaint phrase that we would deploy in committee, that this 
amendment is not in order because it constitutes legislating on an 
appropriations bill. Well, we legislated everything. This bill has more 
poison pills in

[[Page 2919]]

it than Rasputin's medicine cabinet. Everything is thrown in here, and 
it was thrown in in the middle of the night. You know, bills that we 
had considered carefully in committee that had come to the floor, that 
they were debated carefully and then resolved, and yet sometimes in a 
10-minute debate those bills were dispensed with. That's not the way an 
appropriations bill should be brought to the floor. It ought to be a 
clean, continuing resolution if we're going to do a CR.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MORAN. The fact is we know we can do this. We can get a good 
appropriation bill. We can make surgical cuts and we can agree on those 
surgical cuts. But let's not try to put together a dump truck that 
includes in it every possible controversial issue that we know we can't 
resolve. That's not in the long-term best interest of the American 
people, and, in fact, it ought to be an embarrassment to our 
appropriations process.
  So I would hope that we would vote against this continuing resolution 
simply because it's only a 2-week CR. We can do better.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I wish they had done better 
last year and passed one appropriations bill.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 44, and that 
I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
chairman of the MilCon and VA Subcommittee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Speaker, I first would like to yield to my 
colleague from Georgia (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I have to take a moment here 
to, I guess, comment back on the distinguished whip's comments a minute 
ago.
  It's great that he pointed out his knowledge of history and his years 
of experience here, and he's right about a few things. He talked about 
the years of Bill Clinton and the spending cuts and the deficit 
reduction and debt reduction, all those kinds of things. He's 
absolutely right. But he didn't tell you the rest of the story, and 
that is the Republicans took the majority in 1995 and were part of that 
process, in leading through the legislative process not through the 
executive process.
  And then he talked about George Bush and the 8 million job losses. 
And if you look back, if you look at the rest of the story on that 
again, that starts in about 2006 and 2007 and 2008. And if we think 
about who was in charge at the time, yes, it was the distinguished 
whip, who was the leader at the time, and the former Speaker. So they 
were right. They were right about history, but they weren't telling the 
whole story, and that is that the Republicans were leading during those 
difficult times and providing the spending cuts when necessary.
  To the gentleman a minute ago who said government is not the 
solution, you're absolutely right. And to finish that quote from Ronald 
Reagan, more so, it is the problem.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I think it's 
important to remember that the people of America spoke decisively in 
the November election. It was as clear a referendum on the direction 
that President Obama and Speaker Pelosi were taking the Nation as we 
could have, and the Nation decisively rejected the agenda that Speaker 
Pelosi and President Obama were promoting.
  The spending that Chairman Rogers spoke about was out of control over 
these last several years. I know in the time I served under President 
Bush I voted against about $2.6 trillion of new spending under 
President Bush. And in just the last 2 years, under President Obama and 
Speaker Pelosi, my staff calculates I've had to vote against about $7.6 
trillion in spending under President Obama. I know that the level of 
spending under President Bush was higher than it should have been, but 
it has absolutely gone vertical under President Obama.
  The country decisively rejected the direction that President Obama 
was taking the Nation. The country elected this new majority to cut 
spending, to repeal ObamaCare, and to put the Nation back on track 
towards a balanced budget, and that's what this appropriations bill 
does. In this 2-week period, we're doing our best at every opportunity, 
on every occasion. Chairman Rogers and all of us are working to cut 
spending and to get the Federal Government out of our pockets, off our 
backs, and out of our lives.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I am happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I was just glad to hear the litany of these things that 
you voted against. Are you still for those Civil War battlefields?
  Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, there are a few core functions the 
government has to do, and I'll tell you that national defense, for 
example, we've protected the Pentagon and national security. We've 
protected the investments in medical and scientific research and in law 
enforcement. And you will find on every bill that we present we're 
going to work to cut spending in every possible way.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think this has been a very spirited debate in the best traditions 
of the House. I want to point out a few facts to again correct the 
Record.
  First of all, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act probably 
brought down the unemployment rate from 12 or 13 percent to 9.5 
percent. We would have a 12.5 percent unemployment rate today if it 
weren't for the American Recovery Act.
  The only deficit that has been cut around here was the $41 billion 
that was done by the Democrats and enacted in December and passed to 
March 4.
  Now, again, we did not get our work done. Mr. Rogers and I are going 
to get the work done. But again, gentlemen and ladies, it's the 
economy. You've got to put people back to work. And if the net impact 
of what you do, the cuts you make are to throw people out of work, to 
cause the economy to stumble and stop the recovery and increase 
unemployment, then the deficit will go up.
  The only way you get this better is to drive down unemployment, get 
people working, get businesses producing, get the revenues coming in. 
That will do it. But what the best economists in this country say is 
your medicine is not going to cure the patient. It could well harm the 
patient and cause things to get worse, not better. So that's why some 
people believe it's a timing issue.
  And yet, again, I want you to know, we will work together in these 
next 2 weeks. We've got to get this thing resolved.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. May I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Let's be clear what it is we're voting on here today. This is a 
short-term, 2-week CR. It cuts $4 billion, a little over $4 billion in 
spending that both parties have agreed to in the past, both bodies in 
the House and Senate have agreed to in the past, and agreed to by the 
White House.
  So what are we talking about here? This is a 2-week extension. It's 
about as clean as you can make it. And, oh, by the way, speaking about 
that bill we passed 2 weeks ago, H.R. 1, that cuts $61 billion off of 
current spending, Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, said 
as late as today that that bill will have no harmful effect on the

[[Page 2920]]

economy. I don't know that there's a bigger, better source on the 
economy than the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and he says no 
problem.
  Now, what the Democrats want to do, Madam Speaker--this is pretty 
simple--they want to freeze spending. They want to freeze spending at 
the biggest bloated level we've ever had.

                              {time}  1530

  They increased spending 84 percent over the last 2 years. Now they 
want to freeze and they'll go no higher. Well, it's bloated. We want to 
take it back down to where it's reasonable, where we can live with it. 
So we don't want another $1.7 trillion-a-year deficit like they've had 
the last year and, before that, something approaching that.
  So I ask Members to vote for this short-term CR, to give us time to 
work with the other body on H.R. 1 to find out what their position is, 
about which we have no idea at this moment. They haven't acted. And so 
to avert a closedown of the government, which is what we're after here, 
we want to give the Senate time to look at H.R. 1 and tell us what 
their position is so we can have a conversation about it. And, frankly, 
2 weeks is plenty of time, plenty of time in the House. I know the 
Senate works a bit more slowly, but 2 weeks should be plenty.
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote for this reasonable, fair, 
budget-cutting extension of the time to shut down the government. Vote 
``yes'' and keep the government operating.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today's legislation proposes to extend 
Federal Government operations for an additional two weeks while cutting 
roughly $4 billion in spending from FY 2011, if the proposed cuts are 
ultimately extended for the rest of the fiscal year.
  Democrats understand the need to get serious about our deficits and 
debt, but we also understand the difference between making smart, 
deliberate cuts to spending while maintaining targeted investments that 
create jobs, grow our economy and strengthen our international 
competitiveness. In that regard, I am especially disappointed that the 
majority did not make in order an amendment offered by ranking Member 
Dicks, which would have restored some of the education cuts in today's 
bill by finding the necessary savings in unused Census funds. It seems 
to me those are the kinds of distinctions, priorities and choices this 
body should be able and willing to make.
  Furthermore, based on our experience with H.R. 1, I am concerned that 
the majority is ignoring the explicit advice of two fiscal commissions 
and a growing chorus of bipartisan commentators warning that we must 
not in the guise of fiscal discipline cut so indiscriminately, so fast 
that we sabotage job creation and weaken our ongoing economic recovery.
  Madam Speaker, sooner rather than later, we need to come to a final 
agreement on federal spending for the rest of FY 2011. That agreement 
should chart a credible course towards long term fiscal sustainability 
while making the kinds of investments that will allow us to win the 
future in the 21st century.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle that we must get our fiscal house in order. That is 
why Democrats sought to cut more than $40 billion from the President's 
2011 budget request in December. We have a responsibility to our 
constituents to evaluate every program and determine whether it merits 
taxpayer funding.
  Although I will vote for it, I do not support every cut in the 
underlying bill. We must make targeted reductions that make our 
government more efficient while prioritizing critical investments in 
innovation if we are to remain a global leader. Instead of reducing our 
deficit by eliminating education programs, we should find savings by 
ending taxpayer-funded subsidies to large oil companies, which fleece 
taxpayers of tens of billions of dollars.
  However, it is imperative that Congress do everything it can, and 
reach common ground whenever possible, to avoid a government shutdown. 
We cannot allow for the possibility of seniors going without Social 
Security checks or veterans losing access to the health benefits they 
have earned.
  The seven month continuing resolution the House passed in February is 
a dangerous bill that would create not a single job, hurt federal 
programs essential to economic growth, and compromise our security. We 
must adopt this short-term continuing resolution to keep the government 
operating while we negotiate spending for the remainder of the fiscal 
year that will continue economic growth.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 44, a 
short-term continuing resolution (CR) for one simple reason. It 
continues the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Yesterday, nine Afghan children between the ages of nine and fifteen 
were killed by a NATO strike after being mistaken for insurgents. 
General Petraeus issued an apology and promised to investigate the 
killings. According to the New York Times, news of their deaths sparked 
anti-U.S. protests. They were killed in the Pech Valley, an area of 
Afghanistan once considered vital to U.S. military strategy, that the 
U.S. military will soon be withdrawing from after a realization that 
our presence was destabilizing the area. Our presence in Afghanistan is 
destabilizing the country as a whole, not just in the Pech Valley.
  We can no longer ignore such incidents as just a part of the reality 
of war. It is time to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have 
only undermined U.S. national and economic security.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 115, the joint resolution is considered 
read and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. KEATING. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint 
resolution?
  Mr. KEATING. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Keating moves to recommit the joint resolution H. J. 
     Res. 44 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       Page 18, line 21, strike the quotation marks and final 
     period.
       Page 18, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``Sec. 227.  For the period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of the Further Continuing Appropriations 
     Amendments, 2011 and ending on the date specified in section 
     106(3) of this Act, no major integrated oil company (as 
     defined in section 167(h)(5)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986) shall be eligible for any tax benefit or relief 
     under the following provisions of such Code to the extent 
     attributable to such period:
       ``(1) Section 43.
       ``(2) Section 45I.
       ``(3) Section 469 with respect to working interests in oil 
     and gas property.
       ``(4) Sections 613 and 613A, with respect to percentage 
     depletion for oil and gas.
       ``(5) Section 199 with respect to income derived from the 
     production of oil and gas.

     For purposes of this section, the amount of any tax benefit 
     or relief for any taxable year shall be treated as 
     attributable to the period described in the preceding 
     sentence in the same ratio that the portion of such period 
     which is part of such taxable year bears to the entire 
     taxable year.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. KEATING. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer this motion to recommit 
which I believe will greatly improve our fiscal health and ensure that 
we're responsible to all taxpayer dollars and the taxpayers of this 
great Nation.
  We all agree--all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike--that cuts 
in wasteful spending are vital to our country's future. The decision 
that stands before us is whether we should adopt reckless cuts to some 
of our most important programs or not: education cuts, cuts to college 
scholarships, reading teachers, Head Start.
  As a D.A. for the last decade, I know the effects of cuts to police 
officers and firefighters, and I know what they mean to our public 
safety. Reckless cuts: cuts to border protection, cuts to the hubs of 
cybersecurity research so that we can better protect ourselves in our 
infrastructure, cuts in cancer research and other life-saving ventures 
of the National Institute of Health.
  It's worth repeating that Moody's chief economic expert, Mark Zandi, 
the former adviser to the McCain for President campaign, just this week 
estimated that the reckless Republican cuts will cost our country 
700,000 jobs. Investment groups estimate that the

[[Page 2921]]

reckless cuts will cut the economy by a growth this year of almost one-
half.
  Our alternative? Our alternative is an alternative of sensible 
spending cuts. In this motion, we're offering such a sensible spending 
cut.
  Let's stop sending taxpayers' money to the most profitable companies 
in the world. The time is now to stop subsidizing the largest oil 
companies. I think it shocks every American taxpayer to know that 
they're required to fork out over $40 billion in subsidies over the 
next decade to the most economically profitable of companies--
especially as oil soars to a hundred dollars per barrel. My 
constituents in Plymouth, Massachusetts, are paying almost $3.50 per 
gallon and have had enough. Even ex-Shell CEO John Hofmeister says 
enough is enough. He said, ``With high oil prices, such subsidies are 
not necessary.''
  So let's put a stop to this welfare program for Big Oil right now. 
Cuts to police, cuts to fire, cuts to cancer research, cuts to border 
security, cuts to reading teachers--or oil subsidies to the most 
profitable of companies.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If I understand the gentleman's motion 
correctly, it would, for a 2-week period, attempt to change the Tax 
Code to single out resource companies and increase their costs of doing 
business. This misguided policy can only lead to higher energy prices, 
continued reliance on foreign oil, and economic hardship that hampers 
job creation.
  At a time when gasoline is currently approaching $4 a gallon around 
the country and when our resources are being threatened by the 
instability in the Middle East, we should be encouraging domestic 
energy production--not cutting it down.
  We're talking about a 2-week continuing resolution to keep the 
government running past Friday, reduce spending, and avoid a government 
shutdown. This is neither the time nor the place to inject an unrelated 
job-crushing, controversial rider to the CR that will absolutely hinder 
its chance of passing in the Senate before this Friday when the current 
CR expires.
  I urge defeat of this ill-advised motion.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), chairman of 
the Interior Subcommittee Appropriations.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, if this wasn't such a serious subject that we're 
discussing here, the Federal budget and how we're going to fund it for 
the next 2 weeks, it would almost be funny.
  Almost every Member of the Democratic Party that has stood up and 
talked about this CR has said something like this--even the sponsor of 
this motion said something along these lines: Democrats know we have to 
reduce spending. Democrats want to reduce spending. Yet the very first 
time they have a chance to vote to reduce spending, reductions that the 
administration agrees with in its 2012 budget and eliminating earmarks, 
the Democrats vote ``no''? It's strange but true.
  In fact, instead of cutting spending, they propose to increase 
revenue. Or increase taxes.
  In this fragile economy with energy prices rising, we should be 
encouraging more energy and gas development and production in the 
United States. We need more supply, not less supply. This would reduce 
the supply.
  Oil prices are rising again; and with the wave of unrest in the 
Middle East and North Africa, there are fears that we could soon see a 
return to $4 or $5 gas in the United States this summer.

                              {time}  1540

  The moratorium put in place following the Deepwater Horizon accident 
was lifted last fall by the administration; but the administration has 
issued just one deepwater permit in the gulf, and that was issued just 
yesterday. The Federal judge called this de facto deepwater drilling 
moratorium unreasonable, unacceptable, and unjustifiable.
  The public will have no patience for more delays, more excuses, and 
higher taxes if gas prices continue to rise, especially when we have 
untapped resources here in the United States not being utilized. We 
need to be encouraging more production in this country, not 
discouraging production in this country.
  Oil and gas from Federal lands, both onshore and offshore, provide an 
important energy source and domestic jobs and billions of dollars of 
revenue to the United States. This is a job-killing proposal. This is 
an issue that needs to be addressed carefully and in great detail. A 
rush to impose new taxes and fees through a motion to recommit is hasty 
and unwise. We ought to let the committees of jurisdiction address this 
issue. I strongly, in the strongest terms, encourage my colleagues to 
vote against this ill-conceived motion to recommit.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KEATING. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the joint resolution, if ordered; and 
approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 176, 
nays 249, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 153]

                               YEAS--176

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--249

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole

[[Page 2922]]


     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Capito
     Castor (FL)
     Giffords
     Hanna
     Hinojosa
     Marchant
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1605

  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Messrs. GRAVES of Georgia, CHANDLER, and SMITH 
of Nebraska changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CLARKE of Michigan, CARNEY, LEWIS of Georgia, SCHIFF, 
TIERNEY, and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 335, 
noes 91, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 154]

                               AYES--335

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                                NOES--91

     Amash
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Brown (FL)
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeLauro
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Castor (FL)
     Giffords
     Hanna
     Hinojosa
     Marchant
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1614

  Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. COSTELLO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________