Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 48) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House is considering the fifth continuing resolution for FY 2011 to keep the Federal Government running. Here we are, in the middle of March, considering yet another short-term bill that is supposed to buy us time to negotiate funding for the remainder of the fiscal year, and I hope that proves to be true. We need to bring this to a conclusion.

The extension reduces spending in FY 2011 by $45 billion below the President's request. It adds another $6 billion in ``common ground'' spending reductions. In total, the measure cuts $51 billion below the President's request.

The idea behind the 3-week extension is to provide an opportunity for the House, Senate, and White House to settle all outstanding issues on fiscal year 2011 appropriations. I remain hopeful that negotiations will succeed and we will be able to give our agencies some amount of certainty for what little remains of fiscal year 2011.

Today, in The New York Times, there was a long article showing what kind of disruption occurs in Federal agencies, including Defense and Social Security and others, Head Start for example, because we haven't gotten these bills enacted, but I must remind my colleagues that if this CR is extended for the remainder of the year, we would be cutting spending at historic levels, $51 billion below the President's request. I am worried that cutting deeper will threaten a fragile economic recovery. Most economists see cuts in H.R. 1 as a drag on economic growth leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, as Fed Chairman Bernanke projects. Moody's Mark Zandi estimates 400,000 jobs lost for the remainder of this year and 700,000 more next year if H.R. 1 is enacted. Goldman Sachs think it would be as high as 2.4 million jobs lost. In yesterday's ABC News-Washington Post poll, the American people believe that the Republican proposed cuts in H.R. 1 will hurt the economic recovery.

I am relieved that Chairman Rogers crafted a bill that relies on previously identified reductions, a significant portion of which were old earmarks. And while I know my colleagues will not agree with, and may not be able to support, some of the specific program cuts included in this package, I appreciate that there was a genuine attempt to engage the Senate and White House before they were chosen.

Most importantly, I am tremendously relieved the chairman has stayed away from controversial riders in this stopgap measure. He knows, as I do, that these riders would almost guarantee a veto by the administration, which would almost guarantee a government shutdown. An appropriations bill is not the place to decide enormously complex and controversial policy issues.

I am not pleased to be here today with yet another short-term bill. I sincerely hope that we will use this 3-week period of time judiciously so the next time we consider a bill for fiscal year 2011 it will be the last and for the remaining 6 months of this year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Barbara Lee, a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is the ranking member on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and is also the former chairman of that committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Will the gentleman yield?

There is an article today in the Washington Post how House GOP spending cuts would add up to more spending later. This is what we worry about here.

I yield an additional minute.

And one of the things that I'm most concerned about is the women and infant care program, WIC, which provides nutrition to an expectant mother, who's probably on Medicaid, and help her and the baby to be born in a more healthy way. And we find out that the hospitals in this country provide $26 billion of health care for these same babies who are born premature. So it's pay me now or pay me later. And in this case, it would be a lot more.

The IRS is another example. NOAA weather satellites is another example. In the middle of this tsunami and earthquake, we need to be doing more in these areas. And the American people understand this. They want us to make reasonable judgments. And I hope we can make reasonable judgments.

I happen to be the ranking on Defense. We can cut some money out of defense. We cut $15 billion. We can do a little bit more in that area. But I think we've got to be careful. And when this final package comes together, we've got to talk out the ones that would be revenue raisers.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I want to correct the record. I was referring to H.R. 1, not to the

I yield to the gentleman.

There are some things that I think NOAA thinks would have an effect on their weather forecasting.

Okay. Well, we'll check that out.

I yield 2 minutes to the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell the chairman and myself what our time remaining is?

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Hawaii, Mazie Hirono, who is going to correct the record on the NOAA issue.

I yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

In going back and looking, NOAA operations, research, and facilities in H.R. 1 is cut by $454.3 million. And one of the officials there said what would happen in the continuing resolution, there will be a dismantling of our Nation's early warning system, Dan Sobien, president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, said in a telephone interview. It will result in a roughly 30 percent cut in the budget of the National Weather Service. Sobien said the current plan called for the Weather Service to close individual offices for about a month at a time on a rolling basis.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, who is a very senior member of the Appropriations Committee and, I think, the longest serving woman in the House of Representatives.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to congratulate and thank two long-time committee staff members who both are leaving us this month after many years of service.

Beverly Pheto spent 10 years on the committee, serving as clerk on both the Transportation Subcommittee and the Homeland Security Subcommittee before becoming the first woman staff director of the full committee under former Chairman David Obey. Bev was the top Democratic staff person during 9/11, the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security, and during Hurricane Katrina. And in the last Congress, as majority clerk, Beverly helped craft the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--the Recovery Act that saved tens of thousands of American jobs and kept this country from slipping into another Great Depression.

We thank Bev for agreeing to stay on with us and help with the committee's transition and congratulate her on her many years of service, both in the executive branch as well as for us. She will be missed, but we wish her well in her new endeavors.

I also want to extend my deep appreciation to Chris Topik, who has served on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee since 1995, most recently as the minority clerk. Chris began his career with the U.S. Forest Service before coming to the committee as a detailee. During his time on the Interior Subcommittee, Chris found himself in the middle of some of the most contentious environmental policy disputes but always remained the consummate professional. While I chaired the Interior Subcommittee, I relied heavily on his solid judgment and wise counsel. I wish Chris the very best as he leaves the committee and thank him again for his service.

I yield to the distinguished chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished leader of the Democratic Party in the House, Nancy Pelosi of California.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to review the bidding here. We are down to the end of this debate on this continuing resolution, and I hope--and as I know Chairman Rogers hopes--that this will be the last continuing resolution and that working together we can come together on a solution to the FY11 budget.

Now, I've heard repeatedly, repeatedly, and I've even mentioned this in my last statement, and the next thing I knew it was on Cantor's Web site, but back in 2007, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky will remember that when we took over power and won the election in 2006, most of the nine, I think, or 10 of the appropriations bills were not enacted, and the Democrats had to pass a bill in February enacting all of these things. So maybe we learned that lesson from you-all over there, and I hope you will remember it because you seem to act like this has never happened before. Well, that's number one.

Number two, the American people in a Washington Post-ABC poll yesterday over the weekend said that they are

worried that the cuts in H.R. 1 will hurt the economy. It was narrow. It was 45-41, but 71 percent of the people said the problem was that your side isn't engaging and that they blame the Republicans for not getting this deal.

Now, why would they think that? I think the reason for it is when the first Rogers amendment proposal came out, that was kind of a reasonable approach, but that was rejected; and then they doubled the amount of these cuts, and the cuts became very severe and very questionable.

There was a story in The Washington Post today that lays out if you cut food inspectors, you're going to pay for it; if you cut WIC funding, you're going to pay for it, billions, in these children.

So I just point these things out. Cutting Head Start, this was perceived by the American people as too extreme, and that is why the Senate rejected H.R. 1, the President rejected H.R. 1. We need to have reasonable people sit down and work out a compromise and not let the government be shut down.

I believe that this should be the last CR and that we all should agree here today that this is going to be the last CR and that we are committed to getting this resolved. And that's what the American people also said in this ABC-Washington Post poll, not that I follow the polls much; but they also said they wanted us to come to an agreement.

So, again, I pledge to our chairman that we're not going to let this happen again; that this year we will pass all 12 appropriation bills by August, and we've done that before; and that we will end this process that started back in 2007 and which got continued in 2011. It is not the way to do the government's business. So let's make a pledge today that after this CR, we're going to work together to solve this problem and move on to FY12.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 167 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 167 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 48. Keeping in line with the actions of the minority party and its CRs last year, this rule also provides for 1 hour of debate and a motion to recommit.

We are here again today dealing with the continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 1 sits idly on the Senate side. As you will recall, H.R. 1 has been the singly most debated piece of legislation that we've had in this body this year. In fact, we considered more amendments on that spending bill in February than on all of the previous spending bills in the last two Congresses combined. Yet, even as the House has worked its will, even as, I think, we on both sides of the aisle identify that as one of the finest hours of this body, it sits in the Senate--unused, unexamined, undebated.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of a debate on spending. It's not that we tax too little in this country. It's that we spend too much.

We're operating with $1.4 trillion annual operating deficits, $1.5 trillion, $1.6 trillion, and now they're saying next year it could be $1.7 trillion--spending that we do with money that we don't have.

We need to get to the big picture, Mr. Speaker. We need to have this debate about how do we move beyond what was last year's business and get on to what is this year's business. These thing that we're working on, this three-week CR, Mr. Speaker, is not the real business. The real business is yet to come. I sit on the Budget Committee. If you want to talk about real business, look at the tough decisions that are coming down the pipe from the Budget Committee. Look at what it's going to take to get this budget back in balance. Look at what it's going to take to restore integrity to our fiscal system. Look at what it's going to take to inspire confidence in our foreign creditors. These are the real issues that we have to discuss, but we can't discuss them, Mr. Speaker, because we are still working on last year's business.

Now, I think we're frustrated on both sides of the aisle that we're still working on last year's business, and candidly, it may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, but I don't blame a soul on the other side. The other side of this body has been our partner in moving H.R. 1 to the Senate. They've been our partner in making the tough decisions that had to be had, and we had Republican amendments that succeeded and Republican amendments that failed. We had Democratic amendments that succeeded and Democratic amendments

that failed, and this body worked its will.

But the Senate has yet to take up the legislation, has yet to take up legislation passed in February, has yet to be taken up as we sit here in the middle of March. Now, I don't know how in the world we have negotiations, Mr. Speaker. We have done our work here in the House. I'm proud not only that we did it but I'm proud of the way in which we did it. But now we wait on the Senate to come to the table and lay down its vision for how we fund this government through September of this year.

We continue to wait, and hopefully, these 3 weeks, Mr. Speaker, will provide the time needed for the Senate to gear up and get going, because I will say it over and over and over again today, this is last year's business, and it is distracting us from the important business that needs to happen.

I'll tell you this. This CR for 3 weeks isn't what I would have liked to have seen. What I would like to see is H.R. 1 come back to this floor. What I would like to see is H.R. 1 go to the President's desk. What I would like to see are the tough, tough, tough decisions that we made and the difficult, difficult, difficult decisions that we had on this floor be translated into the law of the land as it sits on the President's desk and receives his signature. But we cannot move to that point until the Senate acts.

So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to support this rule that will bring to the floor a continuing resolution that will give the Senate three more weeks to get its house in order to do the business that the American people sent the Senate here to do, to join us in doing the good work that we have done, and to move a bill to the President's desk so that we can get on to the rest of the business that the country has laid before us.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that we brought H.R. 1 to the floor under the single most open process this House has seen in 4 years--and I've only been on the job 65 days--the single most open process that this House has seen in 4 years. I'm proud of that. I'm proud of what we did together.

Are there other alternatives out there to H.R. 1? I don't know, Mr. Speaker, because I haven't seen one, haven't seen one come back from the Senate. Is the Senate over there debating things? Absolutely. Are they passing things? No, they're not, and I don't know where we go to move forward with that.

But a gentleman who might, Mr. Speaker, is my good friend, the president of the freshman class from the great State of Georgia.

And I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the gentleman from New Jersey that I just couldn't agree with him more. The House spoke. It wasn't Republicans that spoke. It wasn't Democrats that spoke. The House spoke with H.R. 1. We need to get to the negotiating table.

Now I don't know when the Senate is going to act. I hope the Senate acts today. And I will stay here just as long as it takes to work through those things with the Senate. But we can't do it alone, as much as we'd like to. As much as we'd like to do it alone, we can't, and we are being held at bay by a Senate that refuses to move something forward. I think all of the gentleman's words would be useful to our friends on the Senate side.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously proud to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and a great American patriot, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Steve King.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Reckless and heartless is exactly the debate that we are going to have to have. Is it reckless to pass on $14 trillion in debt to our children with no end in sight? I would say to you that it is. Is it heartless to saddle our children with that burden that is going to drain their economy dry? I would say to you that it is. Is it reckless to treat the world credit markets as if they will forever feed our voracious appetite? And I say to you that it is. We have to take these steps today.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say there are really a number of things that we agree on across this body. The gentleman from Massachusetts has very strong feelings about paying for the bills that we create today. I share his passion, and I look forward to getting into the business of paying for those bills.

What I do know is that we are not paying for the bills today.

What I do know is that when I showed up for Congress on January 3 of this year, that there was no spending plan to get us past March 4. No spending plan.

Just to be clear, I showed up as a brand new Member of Congress in January to learn that getting about the business means putting together a funding bill before March 4 because the previous Congress didn't take care of business.

Now, I know my friend from Massachusetts wasn't in charge of the other side of the aisle last year. He certainly wasn't in charge of the Senate, although we all wish that we could be in charge of the Senate. But the business didn't get done, and that is why we are here today. That is the first reason why we are here today, to take care of business that didn't get done last year.

But the second reason, Mr. Speaker, and the more important reason that we are here today, is because we said when we took over this body on January 5 that we would not go along with business as usual. It would have been a nothing to pass a bill that the President would sign that would say, hey, just keep on funding the government the way you've been funding it. Keep on racking up those trillion-dollar deficits the way you've been racking them up. Don't change a thing. Fiddle while Rome burns.

It would have been easy. Except for my conscience, except for the conscience of the folks who were elected with me in November, except for our principles, it would have been easy.

We chose the road less traveled that said, no, we're not going to put it off. There is always a reason to wait Mr. Speaker. There is always a reason to wait. And we said, no, we are going to begin making the tough decisions today. Today. Now, that today was back in February, and we are still waiting for the Senate to get to the table so that we can have some of those negotiations.

But I will say to my friend from New Jersey, who was so terribly pleased that the riders were not included on this bill: If you think for a minute that I am done fighting for life, you're mistaken. If you think for a minute that I am done working to defund Planned Parenthood and its work that it is doing with Federal dollars, you're mistaken. If you think for a minute that I have given up on ripping every nickel out of the budget that belongs to ObamaCare and the nationalization of our health care system, you are mistaken. And if you think for a minute that I am going to stop trying to repeal every single one of the job- killing, energy price-hiking regulations that the EPA is promulgating across this country chaining our small businesses down, you are mistaken.

That fight might not be today. Today is about cutting $6 billion out of a budget that our children are not going to have to repay. Today is about keeping the government open for 3 more short weeks to give our friends in the Senate a chance to come to the table. But, Mr. Speaker, that day of reckoning is coming. The day of reckoning is coming because these are ideals that deserve the attention of this body. These are decisions that cannot be kicked down the road even further. These are decisions of principle on which compromise is often not an option. Sometimes you just have to take the vote, and somebody's going to win and somebody's going to lose.

I rise in strong support of this rule, and I rise in strong support of the underlying bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again, considering yet another short-term continuing resolution. The last CR was for 2 weeks. This is a 3-week bill. So I guess the good news is that we're heading in the right direction, but that's about the only good news, Mr. Speaker. This is no way to run a budget process. It is no way to run a government. It is like water torture: drip, drip, drip. How are governors and mayors and city councils supposed to plan if we keep passing these short-term bills? How are the financial markets supposed to have any certainty if we're passing bills that go only for 2 weeks or 3 weeks?

We all know what needs to happen. Democrats and Republicans in the House, the Senate, and the White House need to get together and figure out a sensible, bipartisan solution to this year's budget. And while it may, you know, be convenient to blame the Senate, I should remind my colleagues here that the majority leader in the Senate tried to bring up a bill, but the Republicans voted to not allow the bill to be considered. So it's not like there aren't alternatives out there.

The time for rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, is past. The time for press releases and posturing is over. The time for finger-pointing must end, because despite what some on the other side of the aisle seem to believe, a government shutdown is not in our Nation's best interests.

I look at today's Politico, and one of the leading Republican spokesmen, Representative Steve King, is quoted extensively in an article saying that defunding is worth a shutdown. I think the last thing the American people want is for us to shut down the government.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we should also be grateful that the bill before us today does not include some of the policy changes that were in H.R. 1, such as blocking money for health care reform and Planned Parenthood, which they voted to eliminate in H.R. 1. H.R. 1, Mr. Speaker, took a meat ax to border security, to food safety, low- income heating assistance, medical research, and I could go on and on and on. And thankfully, thankfully the Senate rejected that approach last week.

But make no mistake: H.R. 1 is what my Republican colleagues not only want but are demanding. Their ideological and rigid loyalty to H.R. 1 is what is holding up these negotiations, and the cuts in H.R. 1, Mr. Speaker, are not only egregious but they are reckless and they are damaging. According to former John McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi, the bill had the potential to lead to 700,000 lost jobs, exactly the wrong prescription for our recovering economy.

And speaking of jobs, Mr. Speaker, where are the Republican jobs bills? Where is the legislation to encourage investment in new technology, in infrastructure, in education, and in medical research? It's been 11 weeks and we have seen nothing, not a thing from the other side of the aisle on jobs. Let me remind my colleagues that if you truly want to achieve deficit reduction focus on job creation. Put people back to work. We can help grow out of this deficit that we have.

Mr. Speaker, we can and we must do better, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule. I remind my colleagues that we have yet to have a truly open rule in this House. This is a closed rule. Oppose the closed rule and oppose the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us are dedicated to eliminating excessive spending, wherever it may exist. The problem with H.R. 1 and the Republican approach is that all the tough choices and all the burden falls on the middle class and on the poor in this country.

The fact is that Donald Trump got his tax cut. We didn't touch that. Big Oil companies continue to get taxpayer subsidies. They wrote H.R. 1 in such a way so we couldn't get at those subsidies. Big agribusiness continues to get its subsidies, and I go on and on and on: No-bid defense contracts in the Defense Department.

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

people heat their homes this winter. They go after the National Institutes of Health. You want to find a way to make Medicare solvent, find a cure for Alzheimer's disease. You don't find a cure by cutting moneys to the National Institutes of Health.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Well, there you have it. That is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of how we approach this issue. They want to shut the government down. You know, what happens to Social Security checks and veterans' benefits and National Parks, and I could go on and on and on? There are consequences to being so rigid and being so ideological.

I am going to say to my colleague from Georgia, he said H.R. 1 was not the will of Republicans; the House spoke. The House didn't speak. Three Democrats voted for H.R. 1. We have 192 Democrats in the House. It was not the House speaking. It was what Republicans wanted. So H.R. 1 is wholly owned by my friends on the Republican side. And I again will say that that bill represents some of the most reckless and heartless cuts that I have seen since I have come to Congress.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

What is reckless and heartless about H.R. 1 is that it attempts to balance the budget on the most vulnerable in our country, making deep cuts in the low income energy fuel assistance program to help keep people warm in the wintertime; cutting WIC, the Women, Infants and Children program to help keep pregnant women healthy so they can deliver healthy babies which, by the way, in the long run saves us money.

What is heartless and reckless are the cuts in nutrition programs and the National Institutes of Health, medical research, trying to find cures to diabetes and Alzheimer's and cancer.

And what's protected are taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. What's protected is Donald Trump's tax cut. What's protected are our subsidies to big agri-businesses. And what's not even talked about is the fact that we are fighting two wars and we're not paying for it. Everybody wants to go to war in this Chamber, but no one wants to pay for it. It is wrong and unconscionable, and that is adding considerably to our deficit.

And what's also adding to our deficit are tax cuts that are not paid for. So what's heartless about H.R. 1 is that it goes after the people who need government the most, and it leaves people who don't need any government or taxpayer subsidies alone.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, these little short-term continuing resolutions are no way to run our government. And beyond the social debates that we're having here on a variety of issues, the fact of the matter is that this 2-week, 3-week continuing resolution puts an incredible burden on our local communities and our States and on our Federal agencies. They can't proceed with initiatives that they thought they had the money for. They're not sure whether next week we might cut an entire program or the following week we might cut it or sometime down the road. So there's uncertainty, and that uncertainty is having an adverse impact on our economy, and it's having an adverse impact on economic development all across this country. And so we need to get serious about negotiating a compromise with the Senate and with the White House and get this year's business done.

And, again, the United States Senate has put a number of offers on the table. The one that majority leader Reid put on the table the Republicans wouldn't let come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, one of my chief concerns about H.R. 1, which is, basically, the Republican continuing resolution, is that it has created a climate in Washington that makes it unfashionable to worry about the poor and the most vulnerable. Turning our

backs on the most vulnerable in our country doesn't make them go away. There is a cost, and all of us pay that cost.

We need to get serious about job creation, putting people back to work. That's the way you reduce the deficit. That's how we grow out of this economic crisis that we're in.

And yet, here we are in March and nobody's talking about jobs. I mean, we've talked about everything else; but the Republicans have refused to talk about jobs or bring a jobs bill to the floor.

And I would suggest to my Republican friends, rather than this ideological rigidity, this allegiance to this bill, H.R. 1, which is filled with reckless and heartless cuts, I would suggest to my colleagues that they understand that to get a deal here it requires some compromise. And I think I would urge them to get about that business.

I would also echo what Mr. Pallone said earlier. We're going on vacation next week. Rather than a vacation, maybe we should finish the work of this year. Rather than having Members go back and go on CODELS overseas or go on vacations, let's finish the business of this year. Let's provide some certainty to our mayors and to our city managers, to our city councils and our boards of selectmen all across this country. Let us provide some certainty that some funding that they're depending on will be there.

Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, I would urge them to vote ``no'' on this closed rule, and I would also urge them to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 48) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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. 48, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

I rise today to support H.J. Res. 48, the fiscal year 2011 further continuing appropriations resolution. This temporary CR will allow us to avoid a government shutdown that could otherwise occur on March 18, while cutting spending by $6 billion to control our Nation's staggering deficits and to facilitate the continued recovery of our Nation's economy.

We've made it clear that a government shutdown is not an option, period. We will not allow this to happen on our watch.

This bill funds the government for an additional 3 weeks, until April 8, maintaining the critical support the government provides to the American people and allowing for the necessary time to complete negotiations on a final long-term agreement for the remainder of this year.

While funding the essential government agencies and programs, this CR makes $6 billion in spending cuts, trimming $2 billion for every week, to continue our efforts to rein in spending and put a dent in our massive and unsustainable deficit. Together with the $4 billion that we cut 2 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, along with the $6 billion we cut in this bill, we will have cut $10 billion from current year spending. That makes it the largest rescission in American history, and so it is working.

H.J. Res. 48 reduces or terminates a total of 25 programs for a savings of $3.5 billion. These cuts include funding rescissions, reductions, and program terminations. It also eliminates earmark accounts within the Agriculture; Commerce, Justice and Science; Financial Services; General Government; and Interior subcommittee jurisdictions, saving the American taxpayers $2.6 billion in earmark spending, which the President and both Houses of Congress have agreed they do not support.

These cuts are the tough, but necessary, legwork required to help balance our budgets and halt the dangerous downward spiral of skyrocketing deficits. While short-term funding measures such as this are not the preferable way to fund the government, at this point, it's vital.

The budget for fiscal 2011, which was punted to us by the previous Congress, is long, long overdue. I agree with many of my colleagues that we must get down to business and come to a final agreement as quickly as possible. Our economy must not be threatened by perpetual government shutdowns, which create uncertainty and a loss of confidence for job creators across the country.

This continuing resolution provides us with an appropriate length of time for negotiations, makes good on our promise to the American people to cut spending, provides certainty and stability, and allows essential Federal programs to continue while these negotiations ensue.

I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this continuing resolution can be passed swiftly so we can turn our attention to the realities of our debt and deficit crisis and begin to put the Nation on the right path for the next fiscal year, 2012.

Our constituents have asked us to whip our spending into shape, to provide solutions that help our economy grow, and to help our citizens get jobs. This CR addresses their expectations responsibly over the short term and is just one of the set of bills that we intend to produce over the next year that will continue to put the Nation's budget back into balance and help our economy continue on the road to recovery.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a new member of our committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the chairman of the Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.

I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman from Virginia says that the public deserves that we pass appropriations bills, and I could not agree with him more. His majority last year failed to enact a single bill out of the 12 that we were supposed to pass. That's why we're here. We're trying to clean up the mess that the gentleman from Virginia's party left us when we took office in January.

Yes, it's a terrible way to do business. And this should be the last CR extension that we pass before we have an agreement with the other body and the White House on the rest of this year. However, Mr. Speaker, again, the gentleman's party in the Senate refuses to pass a bill and lay something on the table. We are going to the conference table to negotiate, and we're sitting there by ourselves. The other body will not come forward with a proposition. Until that time, I don't know what we do.

I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Will the gentleman yield?

You know, it was stated a moment ago by a gentleman on the other side that this CR cuts NOAA and the tsunami prediction monies. That is not so. The only thing in this bill that cuts money from NOAA are the earmarks, and, yes, we cut the earmarks, but they had nothing to do with tsunami warning.

H.R. 1 doesn't cut tsunami warning monies nor weather service monies.

Well, NOAA's wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Would the gentleman talk to his colleagues over in the other body and tell them to pass something we can begin to negotiate on?

Of which I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriation, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Let me join, on behalf of us on this side, in thanking those two wonderful individuals for their dedicated public service. They have worked hard on behalf of the public, and they deserve our utmost thanks, which I offer at this time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on our side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new member of our committee, a hardworking member, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to a hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, this provision doesn't do anything. Nothing in the CR would cut Social Security or Medicare benefits, nor would it privatize Social Security. We are totally committed in this bill to saving Social Security.

Let me be honest. This is a procedural motion that is simply a fog screen, trying to hide us from our real task at hand, but I don't think we'll be fooled at that. The debate should not be about procedure or fog screens or things unrelated to the bill. It should be about doing our job.

We are here this afternoon to provide the necessary resources to keep the government's doors open while we lock in important budget savings totaling $6 billion. That is $2 billion in spending reductions, or savings, to the taxpayer, $2 billion a week, the path this body has set with the passage of H.R. 1 a couple of weeks ago.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that, with the passage of this CR today, we will have cut over $10 billion in the span of 2 weeks. That sets a record. That has never been done before in this body. The closest was 1995 at $9 billion. This is more than double the $4.7 billion that Senator Reid and the Senate Democrats proposed in their CR last week to fund the government for the remaining 6 months. We do in 2 weeks what they would take 6 months to do.

The American people sent us here with a clear message last November. They want us to end the partisan bickering and get our work done. Instead of picking political fights, they want us united in cutting the budget. This motion moves us further away from that goal. It would send us backwards, not forwards. It's a smokescreen, a procedural motion.

Let's get on with it. Vote ``no,'' and then vote ``yes'' on final.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his hard work to help keep the government open.

While many of us will not agree on the legislation before us today, we know it is necessary for us to proceed. So I don't rise to support or oppose the legislation but, instead, to comment on the situation that we are in.

Again, today, we are in a situation. We are debating a short-term bill to keep the government open on a week-by-week basis. This is not any way to run a government or a business. It certainly is not the way, as the military leadership has told us, to protect the national security of our country--on a week-to-week basis.

Democrats will work with Republicans on legislation that will create jobs, that will strengthen the middle class, and that will reduce the deficit. On all three of these scores, this Republican spending bill fails.

Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility as a top priority of this Congress. We won't go into the history right now, but it's well known that President Clinton took us out of a period of deficit--his last five budgets being in surplus, or in balance. President Bush turned that around immediately when he became President, and now we have to dig ourselves out of the deficit that he has taken us into. Last December, Democrats passed a $41 billion cut in the President's budget. We did so with only one Republican vote, $41 billion. Democrats are in the lead on fiscal soundness.

On the subject of jobs, we are in the 11th week of the Republican majority in the Congress, and we have not seen one bill that will create jobs. In fact, the only bill coming from the Republicans, the only legislation that has come to the floor to create jobs, would be the Democratic initiatives.

One is Build America Bonds: to build the infrastructure of America to keep ahead of the game in terms of innovation. Build America Bonds. Republicans overwhelmingly rejected that. The other bill was a bill to keep our jobs from going overseas by rewarding businesses that sent jobs overseas. Democrats said ``no'' to that idea. Republicans said ``no'' to our legislation. Zero jobs bills in 11 weeks.

It is quite different from the record of President Obama, who came into office 2 years ago with a Democratic Congress. President Obama was a job creator from day one, one week and one day after the President's inaugural address, calling for swift bold action now to create jobs. The House of Representatives passed the recovery bill, which was then passed by the Senate and signed into law in a matter of weeks. That legislation created or saved 3.6 million jobs. This is important in terms of the deficit because it produced jobs. It produced revenue into the Treasury that helped reduce the deficit.

Tax cuts for the wealthy, which has been the job creator that the Republicans put forth in the Bush administration and have put forth since, do not create jobs but increase the deficit.

So we are at the place, again, of 11 weeks. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Republican spending bill would cost not a trivial amount of jobs; Mark Zandi, the Republican economist, said the Republican spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs. Goldman Sachs said the Republican spending bill would reduce U.S. economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percent; 320 economists sent a letter, calling Republican cuts a threat to our economy's long-term economic competitiveness and to the strength of our current economic recovery.

They all agree, to one extent or another, that the Republican agenda is taking us in the wrong direction, and that agenda is manifested in the continuing resolution, H.R. 1, and in the budget approach that they are taking. In fact, in addition to not creating jobs, the Republican initiative is making matters worse.

Many of us have come to the floor to talk about budgets year in and year out. We all say that our national budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to our country should be reflected in the allocation of our resources. We want to have that debate on values rather than just on cuts.

Again, we all agree we have to get rid of waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, obsolescence, and the rest. The GAO has given us a blueprint for that, and we subscribe to that. We all agree that we must reduce the deficit, and the fiscal commission has given us a road map for that. We can agree or disagree with some of it; but the fact is it gives us a blueprint for how to go forward, and we should take heed of that. That blueprint says that we should not be making cuts right now that will be harmful to our recovery. Yet that's exactly what the Republican initiatives do.

So as to this statement of value, when we have this debate, it's not a debate about are we going to cut 6 million or 3 million seniors off of Meals on Wheels. It's about who we are as a country, how do we protect the American people both in our national security and our neighborhoods. It's how we educate our children to make them happy and also how to keep us competitive as innovators internationally. It's how we maintain a healthy America. It's not just about their health care but about their good health: the air they breathe, the water they drink, the safety of the food they eat.

It is about the creation of jobs. I believe we have an obligation as a government to be job creators. Jobs give people the means to find their own happiness and also to bring revenue into the Treasury, if we're just speaking pragmatically and not in terms of values.

I don't believe it's just about the dollars. It's because of the values that we have to have this debate. Unfortunately, the bills that we are being presented with, like H.R. 1, are like a balloon. You squeeze it here and it pops out there. It doesn't change anything for the better. In fact, as has been indicated, it makes matters worse.

So as we consider our budgetary decisions as a discussion, as a statement of our national values, we have to remember that the greatness of our country depends on the strengthening of our middle class. We have to do that by creating jobs, and we certainly must reduce the deficit.

Now we are waiting at the negotiating table for the Republicans to show that they are willing to work together--we cut $41 billion with one Republican vote--and that they are willing to work together to reach an agreement that is a statement of our values. I think we can do that. Many of us have worked together on the Appropriations Committee over the years.

I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in our efforts to create jobs, to strengthen the middle class, and to reduce the deficit--and to do so in the interest of the American people.

That's why I think, on this vote today, people will vote however they view their own statements about it. The big vote that is coming up is the vote on the continuing resolution, on the long-term basis to keep the government open and functioning for people--again, in a way that is a statement of values for our great country.