Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 101) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1742 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1742.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H. Res. 1742 provides a closed rule for consideration of S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

The rules waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions of the bill. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit the bill with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, as many of my colleagues know, my colleague from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has decided not to seek reelection and move on to other endeavors in his home State of Florida. I just want to publicly thank him for his friendship over the years, and also thank him for his great service not only to the people of Florida but to the people of this country. This may be the last rule that we handle together, so I wanted to take this opportunity simply to acknowledge his service and to thank him.

Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today to pass a very good bill that will improve the lives of our children. And I believe that we must seize that opportunity.

I want to thank Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Miller, Congresswoman DeLauro, Congresswoman McCarthy, and others who have worked so hard on this issue. And I want to say a special thank you to First Lady Michelle Obama. She has been an incredible champion for our children, particularly in the areas of nutrition and obesity.

She has challenged us to live up to one of our highest moral obligations--to make sure that the children of this Nation have the nutritious food they need to grow, to thrive, and to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I chair both the House Hunger Caucus and the Congressional Hunger Center, and I've said many times that hunger is a political condition. We have the resources to end hunger, particularly childhood hunger, and what we need is the political will to make it happen.

President Obama has pledged to end childhood hunger in America by 2015. If we support that goal, then we must pass this bill. I hope that the Members of this House, all of us, Democrats and Republicans, can come together today to summon the political will necessary to move forward on this issue.

There is not a single community in America that is hunger free. Talk to any food bank. They will tell you that the demand has never been greater, and far too many of the people who need help are children.

The child nutrition bill that we will take up today gives us a chance to provide healthy meals to hundreds of thousands of children who need them. It's also important to remember that hunger and obesity are two sides of the same coin. The fact is that highly processed, empty calorie foods are less expensive than fresh, nutritious foods. That's why so many families are forced to make unhealthy choices. This bill increases the reimbursement to schools for meals by 6 cents a meal, 6 cents, and that's the first increase in 30 years.

Too often, the only nutritious food our kids get is in a school setting, and this bill also increases access to after-school programs. And the bill helps communities to establish farm-to-school networks, which are not just good for children, but they're also good for our local farmers.

Now, it's no secret, Mr. Speaker, that I've had concerns with how this bill is paid for, and I remind my colleagues that this bill is fully paid for. The cuts to the SNAP, or food stamp, program don't make a lot of sense to me. I don't believe we should be taking access to food away from some people in order to provide it for others. But we have been assured, repeatedly, by the President and the White House that they will work with us to restore these cuts, and I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues to make sure that the White House lives up to that commitment. Quite frankly, if I did not believe that this commitment to restore SNAP funding was real, I would have had a hard time voting for the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, this exact same piece of legislation, passed unanimously in the Senate. Every single Member in the Senate, including a Who's Who of the most conservative Republicans, voted for reauthorizing our child nutrition programs. Unfortunately, from what I heard in the Rules Committee last night, that probably won't happen today in the House.

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have no problem expanding wasteful weapons systems. They have no problem expanding tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street, but apparently, some of them have a problem with expanding access to nutritious food for our children.

They say it's an outrageous example of Big Government or that a high school basketball team would be prohibited from having a bake sale. Nonsense. Utter nonsense. As the president of the national PTA has said, ``The measure will effectively eliminate the constant presence of junk food in school while allowing reasonable practices like periodic PTA or other school group fundraisers, such as bake sales, and the sale of hot dogs and sodas at after-school sporting events.''

An extra few million for a hedge fund manager who doesn't need it? No problem, so my Republican friends say, but heaven forbid we spend another 6 cents to make sure our kids have a more healthy school lunch. Those may be their priorities, Mr. Speaker, but they're not mine, and they're not the priorities of the people in my district.

Some of my friends on the other side will say that they want no children in our country to go hungry. Fair enough. Here's their opportunity to put their vote where their rhetoric is. Here's their opportunity to demonstrate that their concern for the hungry in this country is more than just lip service.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the politics here. It's pretty simple. If the President's for it, my Republican friends are against it. But I would ask them and I would plead with them to check those politics at the door just this once. Please don't sacrifice an opportunity to improve the lives of millions of our children on the altar of partisan politics.

The need to act is clear. Our moral obligation is clear. Our children are getting sicker and sicker and sicker. If kids don't have enough nutritious food to eat they don't learn. We are wasting millions and millions of dollars on health care for diseases like diabetes and heart disease that are preventable with healthier diets.

Today, we could begin to turn that tide. Please join us in doing the right thing. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me just respond to my colleague briefly by saying, when he talks about borrowing, I can't help but be reminded of the fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle have borrowed countless billions of dollars to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They have no problem with doing that. They have no problem with borrowing money to pay for wars. That all goes onto our credit card. They have no problem with that.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is improving the quality of nutritious food that our kids will have access to. In doing so, we accomplish a number of things.

One is we end up with healthier kids who, quite frankly, will grow up to be healthier adults, which--guess what?--will cost less to our public systems. We are ensuring when our kids get healthy meals that they can learn better in school. I don't think there is any debate-- maybe there is on that side of the aisle--about the fact that there is a tie between kids' ability to concentrate and learn and having adequate food and having healthy food.

So I would say to my colleague Mr. Diaz-Balart, we are paying for it, and I know we are paying for it because I don't like the offset. I don't like the fact that the offset that the Senate gave us was in the SNAP Program. I've been fighting that offset. That is a real offset and it has real consequences. It is one of the reasons we are lobbying the White House: to find an alternative offset.

But let's not diminish the fact that, by passing this bill, we are actually saving this government countless billions, if not trillions, of dollars down the road by making sure that our kids have access to nutritious food in the school setting.

At this point, I yield 3 minutes to a valued member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), who will focus on the important issue of child nutrition.

I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentlewoman that when they are in charge next year, I am happy to support her in eliminating excessive paperwork. But I wish she and others would understand the importance of what we are discussing here today, feeding hungry kids, making sure that our children get nutritious meals at schools. I mean, I've got to be honest with you. I think that's a hell of a lot more important. The fact that, to some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this appears as if it's some sort of a trivial issue tells me that they haven't been to food banks and they haven't been in some of their schools talking to teachers and talking to the people who oversee the food service program about the challenges that so many school districts face in providing healthy meals to our kids.

We all talk about how we want to control health care costs. Let's give our kids healthy food in school settings. That will do more to control health care costs and ensure that kids will have a healthy adulthood. You want to deal with the issue of better test scores? Making sure kids have a good, nutritious meal in a school setting is one of the ways to do that.

That's an important issue. This is a big deal what we're talking about here today. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come to this floor, and I would appreciate if my friends on the other side of the aisle would join us in supporting this underlying bill so we can get it on the President's desk at the end of the day to get him to sign this so we can move forward in an area that is of great importance.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who's been a champion on this and so many issues dealing with food insecurity and hunger and good nutrition.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When my friends talk about passing on to future generations debt, I can't help but wonder where they were when President Bush passed these tax cuts that added over a trillion dollars to our debt, totally unpaid for, most of it going to millionaires and billionaires. And I want to know where they are right now, they want to extend the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and they still don't want to pay for it.

But somehow when it comes to debt and piling it on to future generations, when it comes to tax cuts for very wealthy people, they're silent. Where were they when President Bush at 2 o'clock in the morning, they kept a roll call open for 3 hours and passed a Medicare prescription drug bill that cost hundreds of billions of dollars that was totally unpaid for. That cost a lot more than was advertised. Totally silent.

Where are they when some of us are saying, we ought to pay for these wars. If you want them, you ought to pay for them or end them. I'd prefer to end them, but for those who want them you ought to pay for them. They're silent.

When it comes to closing loopholes for big corporations that routinely stick it to the American people, no, no, we can't do that. Even though it might save money for taxpayers, we can put it toward deficit reduction. No, no, no. Those are very wealthy special interests. They want to protect them, whether it's Big Oil or big pharmaceuticals or whatever, at any cost.

So when I hear them talk about debt, I am reminded of the fact that when President Clinton left office we had a surplus. They ran this place and drove this economy into a ditch. And quite frankly, it's been a nightmare trying to dig us out of this ditch.

And I give the President great credit for his courage in trying to move this country forward in the area of health care, and today in the area of trying to move this bill forward on child nutrition. So they have no credibility when it comes to talking about reducing deficits or debt.

And, in fact, as we speak, they are trying to figure out a way I think probably to defeat this bill, to take the money that this bill costs, the offsets for this bill, take that money and put it toward tax cuts for rich people. I mean, that's what they want do.

So again, I would urge my colleagues to understand the importance of what we are doing today. We are trying to make sure that our kids get healthy food and nutritious food in school settings. We are trying to pave the way for healthy futures for our kids. We want to make sure our kids can learn better. This is important stuff that we are talking about here today, and I would urge all my colleagues to support the rule and to support the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends will do what they always do. They will come up with some stunts to try to get us to delay or to not pass this bill today. That's just what they do. And the fact is that if we change this underlying bill in any way--and I would urge my colleagues to be prepared for probably an uncomfortable or an ugly motion to recommit later on in the debate. But if any of their procedural stunts prevail, then we will end up not passing this bill-- the Senate will not consider an amended child nutrition bill; it ends it right here and now--and that would be a tragedy.

I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stop the politics just for a few minutes and do the right thing when it comes to this child nutrition bill. This is a bill that will improve access for our kids. This is a bill that increases the focus on nutrition quality and on children's health. It is a

bill that will improve program management and program integrity. It is fully paid for at no cost to the taxpayers.

And I would say to my colleagues on the Democratic side who are concerned about the current offset, that we have a commitment from the White House to fix that in a future vehicle so that the offset is not the SNAP cuts. But the underlying bill here is a good bill, is a good bill that will mean a world of difference for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our kids all throughout this country. Making sure that hungry kids get at least one, hopefully more than one nutritious meal a day in a school setting is something we all should be for. It should not be the subject of partisan politics.

Making sure our kids get healthy, nutritious food and not junk in school should be a priority of all of ours, Republican and Democrat alike. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. I mean, the fact that we are here today and there is some controversy around this bill tells me that it's just politics as usual. My friends on the Republican side don't like it because the President likes it. Well, you know what? That's been the routine throughout the entire tenure of this President. But for once, for once, just put the party politics aside and do what's right.

I cochair the House Hunger Caucus and the Congressional Hunger Center. Hunger is a problem in this country. There are tens of millions of our citizens who are hungry. Seventeen million children in this country, the United States of America, the richest country on this planet, are hungry. It's a national disgrace. All of us in this Congress should be ashamed of that fact, that we haven't been able to help be part of the solution in a more significant way. This is one way that we can be part of that solution.

I have a list of national organizations and State organizations, too many to put in the Congressional Record, but it is significant. The support across this country for this legislation is significant.

I want to thank the Speaker of the House and Chairman George Miller and Rosa DeLauro and Carolyn McCarthy and Barbara Lee and so many others who have been part of this legislation. I want to thank Senator Blanche Lincoln, who was a champion of this legislation over in the Senate.

But we must act today. We must do what's right for our kids, not for our political party, but for our kids. So enough of the stunts. Let's say ``no'' to all the stunts today. Let's say ``yes'' to this important child nutrition reauthorization bill, ``yes'' to a healthier future for our kids, ``yes'' to making sure they can better learn in school, ``yes'' to developing better and healthier habits that will last them a lifetime. This is a good, this is an important bill. This is a big deal today. This is a huge deal, and everybody should join and support the final passage of the bill.

So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. I urge my colleagues not to fall for any motion to recommit stunts when the bill is under consideration.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1741 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1741.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1741 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 101, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions of the joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit the joint resolution with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of approving a continuing resolution to maintain a level and consistent funding stream for our Federal Government. It is one of our primary constitutional responsibilities as Members of Congress to keep the Federal Government running through the passage of appropriations legislation. This continuing resolution will ensure that all necessary and vital functions of government will continue uninterrupted until both Chambers of our legislature have completed their work.

If we do not act now, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government will effectively shut down this Friday, December 3. This continuing resolution is a short term, straightforward measure to keep the government running and get us through the next 2 weeks, until December 18, while bipartisan negotiations continue in the House and the Senate. It is my hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with us to move this important bill forward and to pass a clean continuing resolution contained under this rule.

This continuing resolution will fund the Federal Government at levels already approved by the House in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills and the fiscal year 2009 supplementals. This includes extending the authority for the Department of Defense to execute the Commanders Emergency Response Program, an essential tool for military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It would also continue the application period for retroactive stop loss benefits through the duration of the continuing resolution.

The Retroactive Stop Loss Pay Program provides $500 for each month served in stop loss status with an average benefit of $3,700 to the brave servicemen and -women, veterans and beneficiaries of those whose service was involuntarily extended under stop loss.

This continuing resolution would also continue to fund VA hospitals already under construction, including one in my home State of Colorado, the Denver VA Hospital, which serves 58,000 veterans living in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Millions of veterans and their families across this Nation depend on the VA for medical care and support, and we must pass this CR so we continue to build these much- needed facilities. Absent this CR, construction on these VA facilities will grind to a halt, leaving our veterans in the lurch. Our veterans took an oath to defend our country, and they deserve to come home to better care and a quality hospital that meets their needs.

This CR would also allow the Federal air marshals to maintain the existing fiscal year 2010 fourth quarter coverage levels for international and domestic flights. This funding will allow for continued training, including investigative techniques, criminal terrorist behavior recognition, firearms proficiency, aircraft specific tactics, and self-defense measures that are necessary to protect the flying public.

This funding allows the Federal air marshals to fulfill their mission of protecting air passengers and crew. Protecting our Nation and combating terrorism is a top priority for this Congress, and without the passage of this CR, those efforts with regard to our air marshals will grind to a halt, leaving the traveling public at greater risk.

This continuing resolution would also allow the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to maintain the level of Customs and Border Protection personnel in place for the final quarter and the final few weeks of fiscal year 2010. This provides proper funding to keep terrorists and their weapons out of the United States, secure and facilitate trade and travel and enforce hundreds of U.S. regulations, including immigration and drug laws.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection law enforcement professionals serve as America's front-line defense on our Nation's borders at ports of entry, field stations and check points across the United States. It's important that we maintain a consistent level of personnel at our Nation's borders. By interrupting these funds, we would be jeopardizing Customs and Border Protection's ability to do their job and protect America. This funding enables these officers to inspect our borders, process trade, combat terrorism and smuggling.

A vote against this continuing resolution is a vote to gut our border security when we need it the most.

In addition to extending the existing authority for the Department of Homeland Security to regulate chemical facilities to prevent high levels of risk, this continuing resolution would also extend the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA authority, to provide technical and financial assistance to States and localities for pre-disaster hazard mitigation activity.

As an example, in my home State of Colorado, this continuing resolution would mean keeping in place vital programs like the 2008 Colorado Springs Wildfire Mitigation Project that removes vegetation around critical facilities and communities; to the 2008 Denver Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which assists 37 communities, townships, and counties in the Denver metro area in analyzing and assessing their hazard risks; the 2007 Coal Creek Crossing affecting the town of Erie in Boulder County, Colorado, flood reduction project that helps the town of Erie modify infrastructure around the Coal Creek Crossing to eliminate future damages.

My district, Mr. Speaker, recently suffered one of the worst forest fires in the history of Colorado, which completely destroyed over 100 residences. These emergencies can strike anywhere, anytime; and if we fail to pass this continuing resolution, we will cripple the ability of the Federal Government to help with emergencies wherever they occur and whatever their nature is.

This continuing resolution would also maintain the additional $23 million in funding for the Department of the Interior's new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for increased inspections for offshore oil rigs. In light of the recent disaster we all witnessed unfold this summer in the Gulf of Mexico, these funds should be the last thing that we want to allow to expire or to cut. These funds are critical to ensure that tragedies like the Deepwater Horizon spill are not repeated and that our oil rigs are inspected.

These funds allow existing rigs to continue operating in a manner that protects the workers on the rigs in the sensitive environmental areas in which these rigs operate, as well as protect our economy from future job loss. Interrupting these funds will put offshore oil rig workers' lives in danger, the environment in danger, and our economy in danger as well.

The continuing resolution before us also maintains the current rate of the Foreign Military Financing, FMF, program, to include the $965 million that was advanced for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental. By providing assistance and aid to our allies in the Middle East, we strengthen our position and make a vital investment in global and national security.

A vote against this continuing resolution is a vote to cut off aid to our allies like Israel and the Middle East at a time when they are critical for the global fight against terrorism and to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran.

Through this continuing resolution, we also continue the rate of operations

for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund at $700 million. This section also continues the terms and conditions included in the fiscal year 2009 and 2010 supplementals which will help build and maintain the counterinsurgency capability of Pakistan under the same terms and conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I have not been a supporter of the escalation of efforts in Afghanistan or in Iraq, but I think there is a strong bipartisan consensus in this body that assisting the Government of Pakistan in counterinsurgency efforts is one of the most critical fronts to protect Americans from terrorism, from a resurgence of the Taliban and from allowing al Qaeda a foothold in that area.

There are vital programs that we must continue to fund without interruption. There may be some who question the need for a CR. Let me remind everyone that with the exception of fiscal years 1989, 1995 and 1997, at least one continuing resolution has been enacted for each fiscal year since 1955.

I encourage my colleagues to support the necessary rule for this CR as well as the underlying CR to prevent the Federal Government from shutting down, jeopardizing our allies and friends across the world, as well as the safety and security of Americans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree with my colleague from California that to the extent we can grow American markets we need to work together in a bipartisan way to do that. I joined my colleague on letters to the President as colleagues on both sides of the aisle to encourage the further development of trade relationships, certainly starting with trade agreements that are very near completion with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

And also, I had the opportunity to host the honorable ambassador from Panama, Jaime Aleman, in my district of Colorado not too long ago, and I was able to introduce him to a number of Colorado businesses which stand to benefit from these.

Now, of course, as a matter of how this comes to pass, that these efforts could not be initiated by this body, we could not have an amendment to a CR if this was an open rule. We could not have an amendment to an appropriations bill which contained a trade agreement. It has to be negotiated and delivered to us by the administration.

And I know that President Obama has been committed to delivering and working on these trade agreements. In fact, in this very body, in the State of the Union address, President Obama very proudly talked about the export agenda and what it meant for American job creation. Of course, this means union jobs and it means nonunion jobs. It means job creation overall. The President remains committed to continuing to grow the market for American products and services across the world. That includes enforcing intellectual property provisions and it includes making sure that American products are available across the entire world.

Now, again, one of the issues that would be threatened if this continuing resolution is not passed is the flow of products across our border. The funding will run out for the Border Patrol and the ports of entry. Products coming into this country, for good reason, have to be inspected. Some of that has to do with whether there are illegal, illicit products, narcotics that are being smuggled, whether there are illegal people that are being smuggled, or whether products that are not allowed to be sold here or were not created in compliance with our existing trade agreements are created. The border security efforts would be gutted if this continuing resolution does not pass, leaving trade in the lurch and leaving American job creation in the lurch. So this bill has an important nexus in international trade.

The passage of this continuing resolution will facilitate the continued funding of our ports of entry, the continued funding of our border inspection services for both goods and people, which must continue. What degree of confidence would our negotiating partners of South Korea, Panama, and Colombia and many others have on our own ability to deliver on our trade agreements if the funding runs out at our ports of entry for goods and products? We must not allow that to happen.

I also certainly agree that the public, as demonstrated in the last election, they want a change in the business as usual, and I think that change has not yet fully manifested itself. Yesterday this body passed the Pickford-Cobell bill, a long-overdue bill to pass, but it had one earmark in it, a Republican earmark from the Senate, from Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, a very large earmark that apparently was the price of support of getting it out of that body.

I am happy to say that this continuing resolution before us today is a very clean CR, a very clean continuing resolution, that would allow during this negotiating process--and where we wind up with regard to these appropriation bills next year and the year after is a very important issue for political discussion, a very important issue between both parties to come to consensus around what we can do to pass both bodies. But it is not what we are debating here today. We are simply allowing the Federal Government to continue to operate its ports of entries, its border security, counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan, continued aid to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Middle East, continuing to allow these programs to operate for a 2-week period while we seek the bipartisan consensus that will emerge and is necessary to continue to be able to pass the appropriations bills that are necessary to allow government to continue funding.

So this CR is an important part of our democratic process, and at least one continuing resolution has been enacted for every fiscal year since 1955. Traditionally they have been in many of those cases clean continuing resolutions, and simply allowed at the previously agreed upon rates by these bodies the Federal Government to continue while the negotiations are pending.

I also believe it would strike panic in global financial markets if the Federal Government closes down and people don't have confidence that this Congress can even allow the Federal Government to continue its routine operations while the negotiating process for future agreements is still underway. So I encourage my colleagues to support this process through its conclusion over the next 2 weeks and support this continuing resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is standard and bipartisan practice to consider continuing resolutions under a closed rule. I would say this has been the practice on both sides of the aisle. Republicans have issued closed rules for every continuing resolution that they considered in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. Our goal with this continuing resolution is to do this in as clean a way as possible that allow these vital functions of government to continue to function: facilitation of international trade, our counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan, our border security, and our sky marshals.

In recent history, again since 1955, at least one continuing resolution has been enacted in each fiscal year except for three. And, in fact, during the entire 59-year period, from 1952 to 2010, there were only four instances when all of the regular appropriation acts were enacted on time.

Mr. Speaker, the democratic process is a time-consuming one, but it is one that is worthwhile, and it is one that ultimately will reflect the will of the American people with appropriations bills that emerge from the Senate and from the House ultimately to be signed by the President. This continuing resolution gives our democracy time to work and makes sure that the world will not lose confidence in our country. It makes sure that our vital security interests here and abroad are maintained--our aid to our allies, our security, and our ports of entry here at home. We must make sure that the safety of the American people doesn't pay the price for the time it takes for our democracy to work. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.

I would like to thank Chairman Obey for his leadership on this bill, and his staff for their hard work and their dedication.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend from Boulder, a hard-working member of the Rules Committee, and I want to associate myself with much of what he said.

We obviously have very important priorities that need to be addressed, whether it's dealing with environmental issues, border security, FMF, the Pakistani anti-insurgency effort, all of those things are very, very high priorities which need to be addressed; and so I think he is right on target in pointing to those.

The unfortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, is what is it that got us to the point where we are at this moment.

We all know that the American people are hurting. We know that unemployment benefits have expired. We know that we have looked at the election that took place on November 2 and that, in and of itself, was evidence of a high level of anger and frustration that has been shown by the American people, I mean, the largest turnover in this institution in nearly three-quarters of a century. And by virtue of that, it seems to me that we need to realize that there is a message that has been received, and that message is a clear one.

This business-as-usual pattern cannot continue. And when I say ``business as usual,'' it's a very tragic and sad commentary as to what business as usual has become. Because in this 111th Congress, we have for the first time since passage of the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act not passed a budget. We have not even dealt with the budget issue, and that has played a role in getting us to where we are at this moment.

The importance of keeping the government running is one which Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge, but we also know that we have what my friend described as constitutional responsibilities; and those constitutional responsibilities, under article 1, section 9, are for us to do everything that we can to make sure that we responsibly expend those taxpayer dollars. We basically abrogated our responsibility.

So for the first time in history, we have not passed a budget. And then, Mr. Speaker, if you look at what has happened in the last 2 years, we have for the first time ever not allowed Democrats or Republicans an opportunity to participate in a free-flowing open debate on appropriations bills, which had always been the case on virtually every appropriations bill up until this Congress.

And it's unfortunate that we have gotten to this point, because if we had had that free-flowing debate, Mr. Speaker, I'm convinced that we wouldn't be here today with this continuing resolution. Of course, I acknowledge that continuing resolutions have taken place in the past, but I wrote down the remarks that my friend just offered when he said that this continuing resolution will continue the funding levels that we have had already in existence. That's the funding level for the massive trillion-dollar so-called stimulus bill, the appropriations bills which have seen a 91 percent increase in the past 4 years in nondefense--nondefense discretionary spending. That's what is being maintained with this continuing resolution, and that is why we are very, very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about continuing to move in that direction.

Now, I believe that there are a number of things that have to be done. And the reason that I'm concerned and opposed to the continuing resolution that we have before us is that it does perpetuate this ``business as usual.'' So I mentioned the message that came from the November 2 election. We all know that. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that the American people are angry, they are hurting, and they want change.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we know how important this issue is that we are trying to address. We have the Debt Commission, which was scheduled to have a vote today. It's now been postponed until Friday. They are looking at attacking this issue. We have a month before the 112th Congress convenes. And it seems to me that at this moment, certainly following the outcome of the November 2 election, the responsible thing for us to do would be to take on these issues right here and now.

We are looking at the challenge of getting the economy growing, as I said in my 1-minute presentation. And I bring this up because I know my friend from Boulder shares the commitment I have to prying open new markets around the world so that we can create good American jobs for people.

In fact, I met yesterday with the new Ambassador, Gabriel Silva, from Colombia, who has just taken over from Carolina Barco, who did a spectacular job, as we all know, working diligently to try and pass that U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement which has been languishing for 3 years. And again, for the first time in history, having passed the Trade Act in 1974, we saw that measure thrown aside by Speaker Pelosi nearly 3 years ago after the deal had been signed and was sent up by then-President Bush.

The numbers that we got yesterday from this meeting that I'm going to be releasing in a ``Dear Colleague,'' that I know my friend will look at, interestingly enough is in the area of agricultural products. We have seen the level of exports of U.S. agricultural goods drop from 46 percent to 22 percent in the last 2 years from the U.S. to Colombia. And at the same time, Colombia is dramatically expanding its trade relationship with Mercosur, the four countries in South America: Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil. They developed a greater linkage with Western Europe. And here in the United States of America, we could create good jobs, get our economy growing and generate revenues to deal with many of these priority items that my friend mentioned in his remarks that need to be addressed. We'd have the revenues to deal with border security, foreign policy issues, and environmental issues if we could create good American jobs by opening up these markets.

And so that is why, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, as we look at the notion of a 17-day continuing resolution to keep the government going and the expiration of unemployment benefits, what we should be doing is we should have a laser-like effort focused on our need to create good American manufacturing jobs.

My California colleague was critical of me for talking about the importance of creating union jobs. He said that I couldn't have it both ways because I didn't vote for the nearly trillion-dollar stimulus bill and somehow want to create good union jobs by expanding market-opening opportunities for U.S. workers. Well, I believe that union and nonunion workers will benefit.

Workers from companies, as I mentioned in my 1-minute speech, like Caterpillar, like John Deere, like Whirlpool and others, companies in my State of California, would have a chance to have union members, union and nonunion workers, have opportunities that

don't exist today because we haven't opened up these markets.

And so, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that as we look at the challenges that are lying ahead, the notion of saying we are going to continue funding at the levels that created a 91 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending, that we're going to continue the funding levels that have created that obviously failed $787 billion, if you add interest and all, it's a trillion-dollar stimulus bill which has been decried as having failed by people all across the political spectrum, and if you look at the notion of our denying the American people a chance to have their proposals heard through their elected representatives with the kind of free-flowing debate when it comes to the notion of trying to bring about reductions in spending is just plain wrong.

That is why I'm going to urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to oppose this measure. I believe that we can do better.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the time.

First, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I don't know if I will have the privilege again of speaking on this floor while you're presiding, and I want to thank you for your service and especially for your friendship.

And to Mr. McGovern, I thank him for his kind words. I said a few days ago in some remarks here on the floor that this is a great honor of being a Member of Congress of the United States I will never forget, and for the rest of my days, I will feel that honor. And I thanked all of my colleagues, those who have helped me during the years here and the many battles that I've been involved in, and those who have opposed me. And so I think it's appropriate to point to the example of the graciousness demonstrated by Mr. McGovern. We've had very strong debates on this floor, and yet, he demonstrated that graciousness once again today. I thank him for his words, and as I did the other day, I thank all of my colleagues, those who have agreed with me and those who have opposed me, for the great honor of having been able to serve along with them here in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing the issue of the effect of the debt on the economic reality of the American people, and as a matter of fact as this Congress starts reaching an end, I think it's appropriate to bring forth the fact to remind our colleagues that this is going to be, I believe, the first Congress where we have not seen even one open rule. So we stand here today with another piece of legislation being brought to the floor with no amendments allowed by the Rules Committee and, in this case, a product from the Senate before us that has had absolutely no input from Members of the House.

I think that all of us in this House, certainly an overwhelming majority of the membership of the House, would support--I certainly do--the continuation and reauthorization of reduced and free school food programs. The bill before us unfortunately does not improve upon the current situation in that regard.

In fact, the bipartisan National Governors Association has outlined several problems that they have with this underlying legislation, and I was reading some hours ago their objections. Governors Ritter of Colorado and Rell of Connecticut highlighted new certification and monitoring mandates that will be forced on States by this legislation in order for the States to be able to continue their important participation in these programs.

Actually, I was disturbed to learn from the bipartisan National Governors Association that the underlying legislation sets a federally mandated minimum price that school districts must pay for meals. In the past, if a school district negotiated lower food costs, that was considered applying smart business practices by the school districts. But no longer. With a mandatory minimum, school districts are now going to have to pay more for their food programs, which of course will be passed along to middle class families in the form of higher meal costs.

So I think, in reality, what we are seeing in this legislation is a tax increase on working families. Unfortunately, a substitute that was brought forth in the Rules Committee by the minority, by Ranking Member Kline, which would have reauthorized these important programs, was not allowed to be offered. That substitute amendment would have extended and strengthened the existing important programs but would have avoided the new mandates on States and communities.

There is another issue, Mr. Speaker, that I think is important to bring out. In order to pay for the new programs in this legislation, the congressional majority decided to use previously appropriated funding intended for the Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp funds were provided under the so-called stimulus legislation, so it's as though the majority is admitting that taxpayer dollars were incorrectly spent, and they are now using those stimulus funds to pay for these programs.

The stimulus bill was not subject to the so-called PAYGO requirements because the majority labeled it as ``emergency spending.'' Under the rules of the House, emergency spending cannot be used as a PAYGO offset for future spending because it was never originally offset. As a result, the rule that we are debating must again waive the important PAYGO requirements.

Now, I know it's difficult to follow. I was trying to understand it in the Rules Committee last night. But the end result is that this bill is paid for by funds that are borrowed by the Federal Government. So I guess we could say that we are voting to provide our children with nutritious school lunches which will be paid to foreign entities in the future, with interest, foreign entities from which we are borrowing funds, thus adding to our national debt and imposing new fees on families.

By the way, we could have reauthorized these programs without adding to our national debt and imposing new fees on families. Adding to our national debt in that way and imposing new fees on families is not the solution to improving the Nation's school meal programs at a time when, obviously, many are struggling.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my friend from New York (Mr. Lee), who is the author of the proposal that we will be discussing subsequently, the YouCut proposal.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to point out I think it's important to clarify that if our proposal today, the YouCut proposal, to eliminate for the taxpayer unnecessary spending on paperwork, if that's adopted it would not negate in any way consideration of the underlying bill on the lunch programs.

At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe it's fitting that those of us on this side of the aisle are bringing forward another proposal, a YouCut proposal that's been voted on and recommended to this House by a significant number of our constituents. They continue to sound the alarm on government spending, and we must, this Congress must finally listen.

To date, participants in Republican Whip Cantor's YouCut initiative have voted to cut over $180 billion in spending. This week, those participating have voted for a proposal by Congressman Lee of New York, who we heard from before, to end the unnecessary printing of congressional bills and resolutions.

I think it's appropriate that we finally acknowledge the existence of the Internet, and that much unnecessary spending is taking place through the printing of documents. That was appropriate and logical in the past, but not after the development of many new technologies.

So I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have a vote on Congressman Lee's proposal. And again, I remind my colleagues that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not preclude consideration of the underlying legislation that we have been debating today.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be placed in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, by any definition, this year's appropriations process has been a complete and utter failure. We are now 5 weeks past the beginning of the new fiscal year and Congress has yet to enact a single appropriations bill. Out of 12 total bills, two have passed the House, while 10 bills were never even considered by the full committee.

Even more astonishing, Mr. Speaker, is this fact: During all of 2010, the full appropriations committee met just once--in July--and that meeting occurred almost a full year since the last time the committee met--in July of 2009.

This record is all the more striking when you consider the fact that the House has spent week after week, month after month considering hundreds of insignificant bills, while ignoring the substantive work required of the Congress to pass a Federal budget.

Today, the House is considering a 2-week extension of the current continuing resolution. Chairman Obey and the Democrat leadership are hoping that 2 weeks will be enough time to muster enough Democratic votes to pass a massive 12-bill package, loaded with earmarks, with a price tag exceeding $1.1 trillion. If they succeed, House Democrats will pass an omnibus without a single Republican vote.

Democratic staff in the House and the Senate began negotiations on the omnibus spending bill after Members of Congress left Washington in October. Realizing that these negotiations excluded input from the elected Members of Congress, and recognizing the likelihood that these negotiations would lead to yet another massive trillion-dollar government spending bill, I directed my staff not to engage in these negotiations. While Democratic staff was focused on additional ways to spend money, Republican staffers on the committee were working to identify spending cuts.

As I have made clear time and time again, I am strongly, unequivocally opposed to any potential omnibus spending bill the Democratic leadership may be planning to bring to the House floor before the end of the year. Likewise, I remain adamantly opposed to extending the CR for the balance of the fiscal year to current spending levels, which are, frankly, too darn high. I am encouraging my leadership and each of my colleagues who are concerned about excessive spending to oppose any effort to pass an omnibus or extend the CR beyond February.

Voters have made it abundantly clear that they want Congress to cut spending, starting today. There is no better place to begin this process than by returning to the U.S. Treasury unobligated funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, one of the most costly and ineffective bills in modern history. For this very reason, I introduced legislation on November 15 to immediately rescind billions of dollars of unspent stimulus funding and immediately applying those dollars to the deficit. I am hopeful that rescinding this funding will be among the first orders of business in the 112th Congress.

This commitment to cut spending will also consist of rescinding previously appropriated dollars passed under the current Democratic majority as well as dramatically scaling back funding proposed by the President in his final 2 years in office.

I believe we ought to extend the CR until February, allowing the House Republicans the opportunity to begin putting our Nation's fiscal house in order by completing the FY 11 appropriations bills at an FY 2008 level or below, and saving taxpayers at least $100 billion. It would be the clearest signal the House could send to the American people that we got the message and take seriously their commitment to cutting spending.

Should the Democratic leadership muster the votes to pass an omnibus in its last-gasp effort to spend yet another trillion-plus dollars, every penny above and beyond the 2008 levels will be on the chopping block come January. Or put another way, if House Democrats use their last 4 weeks in power to spend another $1.1 trillion, House Republicans will rescind every penny above and beyond the 2008 levels when the new Congress convenes.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we should have shut down the government, but I cannot and will not support this CR because it continues unsustainable levels of spending established last year. At a

time of historic deficits, record debt, and 10 percent unemployment, I believe we owe our constituents more than the status quo. Let's start cutting spending, Mr. Speaker, today. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.