Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 933) making appropriations for the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 99 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for the consideration of H.R. 933, the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013.

The rule is a closed rule, which provides for the consideration of fully conferenced Department of Defense and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bills and a continuing resolution for other government programs at the FY 2012 levels. This rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. In addition, the rule incorporates a purely technical amendment to the bill by Chairman Rogers.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 933 accomplishes several key objectives.

First, it preserves military readiness and national security capability, while maintaining core commitments to our troops and our veterans.

Second, it ends the current uncertainty of the fiscal year 2013 budget. It seems that over the past year, we have moved from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Rogers and Chairman Sessions, we are able to consider funding the Federal Government through the end of the fiscal year at this point, avoiding the threat of a government shutdown.

Additionally, by considering full-year DOD and MilCon-VA bills, we are able to establish a stable baseline for the Department to act upon, as opposed to having them rely on fiscal year 2012 priorities. This bill realigns the appropriation accounts for Department of Defense and MilCon-VA to better reflect the fiscal year 2013 execution, rather than the fiscal year 2012 levels carried forward in a CR.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation operates under the caps of the Budget Control Act of 2011 as modified by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. There are across-the-board reductions in security and nonsecurity spending to reach the caps of $1.043 trillion. Additionally, there is a provision which ensures that the funding will be reduced to the post- sequester level of $982 billion in total spending, a reduction of $85 billion in overall Federal spending for fiscal year 2013.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a moment discussing the anomalies in this bill. Let me assure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that none of the anomalies in this legislation, on net, do anything that raise the cost of the bill above the statutory Budget Control Act caps.

Some of the anomalies in the bill are things like turning off the $100 million in convention funding for Charlotte and Tampa, and turning off $31 million in funding for the Eisenhower Commission, where funding has been delayed indefinitely and no funds have yet been expended.

These anomalies are limited. There are only approximately 80 in the entire bill. For reference, in the last full-year continuing resolution, there were over 600 anomalies. The Appropriations Committee has been judicious in its use of anomalies, only providing them in cases where mission-critical operations might be impacted.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a few quick comments in reference to my good friend's remarks. You referred to an interesting phrase, ``selective bipartisanship.'' I would suggest to my friend that we've probably practiced that more in 2 months than they did in 2 years when they were in the majority.

These were major pieces of legislation that we did move in a bipartisan fashion. As my good friend knows, I helped on all three of those occasions, was happy to do so, and I'm sure the Speaker will continue to try and work across the aisle whenever he can.

My friend also referred to the nature of the cuts. Let me assure him of this: these are cuts, and they are going to occur; but we've repeatedly told our friends and the President and the Senate that we would be more than happy to redistribute where the cuts are going to occur. We did that twice: in May of last year and in December of last year, after the election, in good faith. In neither case did the Senate pick that up or the White House respond with a serious offer. Now my friend is asking us to do it for a third time in the hopes it will be different.

Perhaps this time you should go first. Perhaps the Senate should actually pass a plan or the President actually lay one out. I don't think we've really seen that. But again, if we see that, we'll be willing to work with our friends and try and redistribute the cuts.

But don't have any illusion that we're going to eliminate them. We're not, any more than our friends eliminated the idea of tax cuts when the Bush tax cuts ran out. This is something we feel is a first step in getting our fiscal house in order.

And let me remind my friend, as I know he knows, this bill, in itself, is an effort to work with the President and the administration. The President has said, and I think quite correctly, that we need to avoid a government shutdown. Mr. Rogers and the Appropriations Committee are acting early and acting, I think, in a very responsible manner to put a vehicle out there and begin to move it through the process.

We are more than willing for the Senate to do the same thing, would expect that they will. They may well add other departments. Frankly, speaking only for myself, I would hope that they do. I would like to recapture a lot of the appropriations work that was done for the fiscal year 2013 and lost during the CR process, and we can have, I think, a good negotiation going back and forth between the two parties.

So this is the beginning of a process. It's the beginning of a return to regular order, and it's an opportunity to work, I think, in a bipartisan fashion.

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

Just for the purpose of response, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate my good friend's offer on staying in session last week. It would have been nice if we'd have dealt with this 18 months ago. We've known it's been coming. We tried to do that twice.

I'm not sure the President would have been around last week. Frankly, he spent the last 6 weeks crisscrossing the country, campaigning and bludgeoning people, as opposed to having a dialogue. He did not bother to invite the Speaker, the Majority Leader, or the leader of the Senate or the minority leader of this House to a meeting until the very last day--the very last day. Now, that suggests to us there wasn't a great deal of interest in serious negotiations.

So, again, this process is going to allow that to occur. We're going to advance our bill through this Chamber. It's going to have incorporated some of the work in the appropriations process. It's going to help the Defense Department a great deal.

We're waiting for our friends in the Senate to do the same thing. They're going to, undoubtedly, add some things. I think there will be a negotiation. I think we will end up in a good place. But we will preserve the spending reductions of the sequester in the final product of the bill.

With all due respect to my friend, revenue's off the table. You had revenue about 6, 8 weeks ago with no cuts. This time I suspect you're going to get cuts and no revenue.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess), my distinguished colleague, classmate, and a distinguished physician.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Listening to my colleagues, I'm reminded of that old saying that Washington, D.C., is 10 square miles surrounded by reality.

Let's talk a little bit about the definitions we use for cuts. First of all, the Government will spend more money this year than it did last year, just as last year it spent more money than it did the year before. We're not cutting anything. We're slowing down the rate of growth. In parts of the budget there are real cuts. But in terms of overall spending, it's ever and ever higher.

According to the much quoted, much loved Congressional Budget Office, this year we will have the highest level of income for the Federal Government in history. In the history of the United States, we will have more money to spend than we have ever spent before. And yet that same CBO estimates it will run a budget deficit if we keep sequester, if we allow the revenue that occurred in January of over $850 billion.

Now at some point you have to reconcile the highest level of income and an $850 billion deficit. We don't have a revenue problem here; we have a spending problem of historic and massive proportions. This is one small step in the right direction to try and get that under control.

We look forward to what our friends in the Senate do. We look forward to what the administration does. And we look forward to having a conversation over not just this bill but in the next several months we're going to have that opportunity when the Senate finally presents a budget. We'll present a budget. The administration for the fourth time in 5 years will be late but surely will at some point present a budget.

The American people can look at all of those.

We're going to have an opportunity for a great debate, and I suspect we'll continue to try and adjust things as we move forward to get ourselves more in balance. But let's recognize the reality. We've had four trillion-dollar deficits in a row. We have, with these cuts and with additional revenue, an $850 billion deficit, at the minimum, in front of us. Maybe that ought to be the focus.

I can assure my friends--we all talk a lot about polling and what the American people think. I can assure you, I've done a lot of polling in my lifetime. They think the Federal Government is too big; they think it spends too much; and they would like to see

us take less of their money, not more. So if we get into a real debate here, I suspect the American people will say: Figure out a way to live within the highest level of income in American history as opposed to coming to us and asking us for more.

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

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

Just, again, to get back to the big picture for a moment, as my friends know, we're going to spend about $3.5 trillion this year in the Federal budget. These dreaded cuts, in terms of the total budget, amount to 2.4 percent of all spending--2.4 percent of $3.5 trillion. I suspect the American people think: You could find a better way to distribute those cuts than closing our towers.

I agree, actually, with my friend, Mr. McGovern. One of those towers, by the way, is in my district, so I certainly understand it. I have 20,000 Federal defense employees in my district, so I'm quite aware of the problems with the distribution of the cuts.

Now, I'll leave it to my friends on the other side of the aisle and Mr. Woodward to argue whose idea this was and what purpose and how it was constructed, but it's hardly as if the President of the United States or our friends in the Senate were innocent bystanders in all of this.

We tried twice last year to sit down and renegotiate. We moved something through. We've said repeatedly this year we're willing to sit down and renegotiate the cuts. To me, that's compromise.

The President talks a lot about a balanced approach. Two months ago, he got a lot of revenue. That's his side of the equation. This time it should be cuts. That's an appropriate balance. We'll sit down and renegotiate where they should come from--we think we've got some great ideas on that--but they are going to occur. They're the first and appropriate step toward getting our fiscal house back in order.

So when my friends want to work with us about the distribution, I know they'll find a willing negotiating partner in the Speaker. Until such time, we will follow the course that the President laid out, advocated for, and signed into law. If he wants to revisit that, we agree with him, let's revisit it and redistribute it, but the cuts are going to occur.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of response.

First, I appreciate my good friend, whom I have worked with on a number of things, most recently the Violence Against Women Act, where she certainly ably represented the bill in the Rules Committee and on the floor, and I appreciate that very much. I'm going to gently correct in return.

When we talk about cuts that were previously agreed to, with all due respect to my friends, most of those cuts still haven't even taken place. If you look at them, they are far in the future, in the 10-year window.

These were not cuts, by the way, that the two sides found contentious. This was the easy stuff that they all agreed

to right up front. It wasn't as if there was some concession.

The real discussion was in the next round of cuts, where the supercommittee wasn't able to come to an agreement. Even there, there were $600 or $700 million in agreed-upon ``cuts'' that both sides acknowledge. There just wasn't agreement about revenue, and so the cuts didn't occur.

Well, we're here today, and just as the tax increases were written into law effectively when the Bush tax cuts sunsetted in January, these cuts are also written into law.

Again, since they're written into law, they're going to occur. Now, we're willing, again, to sit down with our friends and redistribute where they come from. We think that would be the prudent thing to do. We tried to do it twice last year. It didn't work out. Nobody was interested in talking to us last year. The President wasn't interested in putting a proposal on until, if anything, recent days, and I really couldn't still tell you what it truly is.

I will finish my point, and I will be happy to yield to my friend briefly.

I think that the reality is we ought to recognize--just as I urge my friends on my side of the aisle to recognize--as we approach the end of the Bush tax cuts, that they're going to end. We ought to sit down and negotiate with our friends some better and more proper distribution, whether we like it or not. That's just the case. It's going to be that way. That's what's going to happen here.

Now, we would rather renegotiate, minimize the harm and spread that 2.4 percent over the entire $3.5 trillion budget. I suspect our friends would like to do that, too, over time, and hopefully we can arrive at that. So I look forward to continuing the dialogue, but the cuts are going to be secured. This legislation will move through the House, and then I'm sure something will move through the Senate and we'll sit down and negotiate in a bipartisan, bicameral manner.

With that, I yield to my good friend from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, if I may, I think the gentlelady asked a good question, and I look forward to working with my friends on the other side of the aisle. I actually think today is the beginning of a process where that will happen. It's one of the reasons I really commend Chairman Rogers for moving early.

We're not in a last-minute crisis atmosphere here, and we're not trying to jam our friends in the Senate. We want them to move as quickly and expeditiously as they can. We would like to move toward the discussion and talks with them, and I'm sure the administration will be involved in that.

To me, that's a step back toward what I would like and what we all talk about around here, which is regular order. While that's going on, we can engage in the normal appropriations process for fiscal year 2014.

So, as difficult as this is--and we've been through a difficult time, I think, in recent months and over the last year plus, honestly--this may be the first step back in the right direction.

Again, I respect that my friends have a different point of view on this, but I'm talking what I would view as political reality to them, just as I did to my friends on my own side of the aisle a few weeks ago. This is going to occur, so let's just be reasonable and rational about how it is. We're going to have a lower deficit because of that. I think that's one of the reasons that Wall Street is doing well. But who knows? It's always hard to predict what's going on there.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with my good friend from Virginia on his point about discretionary spending. It's probably an area that he and I would find a considerable amount of common ground on. I certainly do think that far too much of this is coming out of the discretionary side of the budget, particularly in defense, but I would say across the board.

I have Indian health facilities in my district that will be hit, and I have the National Severe Storms Laboratory in my district that will be hit. I understand my friend makes those points. He's making a very important point.

Now, we've been willing to go where no man has gone before, the nondiscretionary side of the budget. The Ryan budget, which you may like or not like, or the Ryan plan on Medicare is a real attempt to deal with where we all in the room know the real problem is, and that's on the nondiscretionary side of the budget.

I hope that our friends put their ideas out there. The President has put, and sometimes withdrawn, but has put a number of interesting ideas on the table at various points. We never seem to quite get there, whether it's change CPI or raising age over time gradually on some of our programs.

Now, my friends on the other side, at least our distinguished minority leader, has refused to ever do that. Whether it's Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, it's been: We're going to defend this ground; we're not going to make any changes. At the end of the day, that's the kind of thing that we're going to have to deal with.

As an appropriator, as somebody who, like my friend from Virginia, sees the impacts of these discretionary reductions and this squeezing down, I think that is the solution. I think that's at least a big part of the solution.

I have no illusions we're going to settle all our deficit problems with this bill, but we are taking a step in the right direction. Hopefully our friends, and our side as well, will expand the dialogue to include the nondiscretionary side of the budget in the weeks and months ahead, and we can begin to arrive at common ground. But we can't simply allow Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and farm programs--I'll put some of our sacred cows on the table as well--to expand by a matter of law without any effort to look at them.

We've offered to do that. We've actually written a budget that has done that. We've gone through the political fires. I can assure my friends you can do that and still survive as a majority. And we're anxious to do that going forward. If we can find willing partners in that, both on the other side of the aisle, the other side of the rotunda, and the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I think we'll actually be on the road to doing something.

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

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

I want to thank my friend. I can assure you that we take this very serious, as well. I have lots of Federal employees, and the real job loss won't be theirs. They will certainly be hard-hit, they'll be furloughed, but the real job loss, as my friend suggests, really is in the private sector, and that's why we should sit down and have a serious discussion about entitlement costs.

With all due respect to my friend, Mr. Van Hollen, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I don't think that proposal would pass. I certainly wouldn't vote for it. I want that very much in the Record.

If our friends want to do something, they do have control of the United States Senate. That's a body that can do whatever it wants to do, and we'll see what happens going forward.

Again, what I'm pleased with is, I think this is the beginning of a real discussion and the beginning of a real dialogue. We're going to do some good things in terms of giving flexibility to the Defense Department and our friends that deal with military construction and the VA. We're anxious to hear ideas on the other side. But we are going to reduce spending, and we're going to reduce it not by an extraordinary amount, but by 2.4 percent of the entire $3.5 trillion Federal budget, and we're willing to renegotiate where those cuts come from. I think that's a pretty reasonable position to have.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I'd be happy if the United States Senate decided to operate collectively instead of individually, but I didn't write their rules and neither did my friends. I'm sure if we got to write them--although we've both sent a lot of our friends over there, neither of them seem to be willing to sit down and change the rules to make them a more functional body.

But I'm glad you've moved the discussion to where we both agree away from our adversarial discussion toward the real enemy, the United States Senate, which has a hard time acting.

In this case, honestly I think they are going to act, and I say that with a great deal of respect to Senator Reid and to Senator McConnell. I think that they will produce a product to make sure that something doesn't happen that we all agree shouldn't happen. The President doesn't think the government should shut down. We don't think the government should shut down. I don't believe our friends in the Senate think it should shut down.

This is actually a pretty good day. It may not be the perfect bill from my friends's standpoint. I certainly respect that. It's probably not the perfect bill from all of our Members' standpoint.

I will in a moment. Let me just finish my point.

But we will move in the right direction. We will actually move to avoid a government shutdown. We'll leave open an avenue of negotiation with our friends in the Senate. I'm sure the President will be involved in discussion at some point too. So I take some heart from that.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, we'll have an opportunity in the sense of the previous question. We'll see how the majority shakes out on that issue. I'm sure my friends will regard that as effectively a vote on their proposal.

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

I'm certainly prepared to close whenever my friend is.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to begin by, frankly, agreeing with my friend. The time to act has long since passed. We tried to act a long time ago. We tried to act in May, but nobody in the Senate chose to pick up our bill. They sent us back something different, which was their right, but it didn't do anything at all. We tried to act in December, but nobody did anything in the Senate then.

We offered to negotiate with the President for weeks. Instead, we saw a 6-week, an 8-week campaign all over the country. There was no time, evidently, in the President's busy schedule in city after city, at photo op after photo op to simply get on the phone, call the Speaker and say--How would you like to come down and talk?--until the very last day before the sequester, when it had become evident that this type of political bullying wouldn't work.

So we believe the time has passed to act. That's why we're acting today. We are actually going to secure the cuts that are in the legislation that the President advocated for. He originated the idea--I accept the Woodward version of that, I suppose--and he signed it into law. He had 18 months to do something about it. We offered two opportunities in that timeframe to do something, and the Speaker has always been available to sit down with the President and do something.

We are going to take a small step in the right direction. Now, let's not overestimate what we're doing. We could probably take more pride in this than is warranted. Our friends, I think, are shouting more alarm than is necessary. This is $85 billion in a $3.5 trillion deficit--2.4 percent. We ought to be able to do that in our sleep. Quite frankly, we are willing to sit down and renegotiate with our friends from where they come. We are not willing to renegotiate the total amount of the money involved. Over time, it does add up to $1.2 trillion. That's a lot of money, but it's not anywhere near what it's going to take to get our budget in balance.

I look forward to the debates we're going to have on that in the budget discussions ahead; but let's right now, while we have that debate and while we go through that process, take the responsible step that the President urges us to take and that we all agree on, which is simply to make sure that the government doesn't shut down while we have our discussion and sort out our differences.

I applaud Chairman Rogers and Chairman Sessions for making that possible, particularly for bringing this bill in a timely fashion, giving us enough time when we're not going to be jammed. I know our friends in the Senate are going to try and do the same thing. They're going to produce, I have no doubt, a different product than we have. That's fine. We'll negotiate it out, and we'll avoid a government shutdown, but we will secure these savings for the taxpayers of the United States, and we will then take the next step in a longer discussion.

I believe we've had a good debate on the rule. I believe the underlying bill provides the American people with the hope that we can do the basic functions that we were sent here to accomplish--funding the government. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here to consider the rule for H.R. 933, the continuing resolution for the rest of fiscal year 2013. This is a disappointing bill, Mr. Speaker, and this is a disappointing process.

This continuing resolution, quite frankly, is inadequate. It does not meet the needs of our people. And because it does not address sequestration, it actually will hurt many millions of our people. The Department of Defense and the VA are given some flexibility to deal with the devastating sequestration cuts, but no other agency is given that tool.

This is clearly, in my opinion, a tacit statement by the majority that they are going to keep this harmful sequester, one of the stupidest things ever to come out of Congress.

And that, Mr. Speaker, is the disappointing part of this entire process. The majority has had plenty of opportunity to address the sequester. Time after time after time after time, Democrats, through the efforts of the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, have offered a sequester alternative. And time after time after time after time, the Republican majority has blocked this amendment from being debated and voted on the House floor.

Yet the Republicans in Congress have yet to put forth a sequester alternative. Of course they will say that they have passed two different proposals, but that was last Congress. As many of my friends on the other side of the aisle know so well, legislation dies at the end of each Congress. Every 2 years, Congress repopulates and every bill must start over. There is no carryover from one Congress to the next. We all learned that in the most basic political science class, Politics 101. So this claim that we did something last Congress is irrelevant to addressing the sequester that the Republicans let take effect last week.

And let's remember the context of those two bills the House Republicans are so proud of. They were the result of, once again, the Republican leadership walking away from difficult bipartisan negotiations just at the moment when a deal seemed to be within reach. They both are completely partisan bills, and they both were dead on arrival in the Senate. So they were not genuine efforts to solve problems. They were all for show. They were simply political theater.

On the other hand, at the end of the last Congress, the House Republican leadership had a bipartisan, bicameral negotiated omnibus appropriations bill that would have taken us through fiscal year 2013, the result of hundreds of hours of careful bipartisan negotiation. But the House Republicans would not let that bill come to the floor for approval, a bill that would have passed the Senate and gone straight to the President's desk for signature.

Instead, they chose to waste the House's time on its two highly touted, highly partisan budget bills that went nowhere. But as I said, Mr. Speaker, that was the last Congress, and we must now start all over to address the sequester and provide funding for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Frankly, I don't know what the Republicans in the House are scared of. Speaker Boehner seems to have moved past the Hastert rule, which is a silly notion that the bill must only pass if it has the majority of the majority, and he has replaced it with selective bipartisanship. That's right, Speaker Boehner clearly believes that the House should operate under a process of selective bipartisanship.

This means he turns to Democrats when he needs the votes to pass important bills, like he did for VAWA, the fiscal cliff, and Hurricane Sandy relief, when only 49 Republicans, only 49 Republicans out of 232 voted to help our fellow citizens on the east coast who were devastated by that storm. The Speaker should do the same thing with the sequester and allow the House to debate and to vote on the Van Hollen amendment.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is part of a broader Republican economic plan that is, to put it mildly, extremely disappointing.

First, Republicans brought us to the brink of economic mayhem with the fiscal cliff. At the last minute, the Senate swooped in to save the day with leadership and help from the administration. Then House Republicans allowed the sequester to take effect, once again playing Russian roulette with our economy. Now we are going to consider this hybrid CR that just doesn't pass muster, despite the best efforts of the appropriators.

No one--no one--wants a government shutdown, and we all know that some kind of bill funding the Federal Government through the end of the fiscal year will pass before March 27. The real fights are going to come in the next few weeks and months when the Republicans outline their budget priorities with the new Ryan budget and when the debt limit, once again, needs to be raised.

What is clear is that the Republicans are hell-bent on cutting spending just for its own sake, no matter how mindless or senseless. We know that the economy is slowly rebounding, and we also know that these cuts in government spending--Federal, State, and local--are taking their toll on the economy. Fourth-quarter growth last year was reduced only because of reduced government spending--the cuts to cops, the cuts to firefighters, the cuts to teachers, and other workers--when that showed up in that economic report.

Now we are going to see a Republican budget that supposedly eliminates the deficit in 10 years. Call it the Ryan budget on steroids. It is going to cut Medicare, food stamps, and nearly every nondefense discretionary program funded by the Federal Government; and during the debt ceiling debate, we will see another attempt to arbitrarily cut these programs.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a responsible way to govern. The continuing resolution before us today is just one more example of how the House Republicans are leading with their heads in the sand. Instead of working to jump-start our economy, instead of engaging in true bipartisan negotiations, House Republicans continue to push on with misguided and ill-conceived budget cuts that do harm, but no good.

Like I said, this is a disappointing bill and a disappointing effort. We should be considering an omnibus appropriations bill. We should work to replace the sequester. We should be thinking long-term about economic recovery. We should be putting country ahead of political party. Instead, once again, we are playing games with our economy. This is no way to run a government.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

And I have great respect for my colleague from Oklahoma, and I appreciate the efforts that he has made toward bipartisanship on a number of bills; but, quite frankly, the leadership of this House has not adhered to regular order. We haven't seen regular in order a long time.

And when he talks about trying to find an alternative to sequestration, I would remind my colleague that Mr. Van Hollen, who is about to speak, has tried on four occasions--on four occasions--to be able to come to the floor and offer his alternative to sequestration that the Democrats support--I think some Republicans would support it as well--to have a debate and to have an up-or-down vote to avoid these mindless, senseless, across-the-board, indiscriminate cuts that have now gone into place. He's been denied all four times.

Now, by contrast, the Republicans have had zero alternatives. That's right, zero. They have brought nothing to the floor in this Congress to avoid sequestration. We're in March--January, February, March. We're in March, so we've had time to come up with alternatives. We've had an alternative that we have not allowed to be brought to the floor.

And let me just say, the United States Senate did actually pass an alternative with 51 votes. That's a majority. Unfortunately, I think, partly due to the influence of some of the House leadership here, the Republicans said, no, you need 60 votes to get that thing through.

So we have been trying. The White House has been trying. So the fact that we are here and that my Republican friends have allowed sequestration to go into effect, I think, is, quite frankly, unconscionable. We should not be in this mess.

And sequestration took effect last week. We should have stayed in session all week and tried to figure this out. And my friends adjourned the House, recessed the House on Thursday--no urgency, no nothing. And research to education funding to funding for roads and bridges. It will impact, in a negative way, jobs. People will lose their jobs.

This is not a good deal. This is not a good deal. And, quite frankly, we should be here today trying to find an alternative.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

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

Just so there is no confusion, I think it's important that I point out to my colleagues that we have had three rounds of cuts to one round of revenue increases. The cuts have overwhelmed the revenue increases. So the notion that somehow we've engaged in a balanced process I don't think is the case. And the notion that somehow closing these tax loopholes and corporate tax loopholes that even Mitt Romney and George Bush at one time supported in order that we don't cut medical research, research aimed at trying to find cures to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and diabetes--if we found cures for those diseases, not only would we prevent a lot of human suffering, we'd save a lot of money.

But we're cutting medical research and we're pushing farther off the date that we're going to find breakthroughs in order to protect taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that are making zillions of dollars? They really need a handout from the United States taxpayer? And you're cutting medical research, you're cutting Head Start, you're cutting programs that help people get an education, that protect our communities, our law enforcement officials, environmental protection. We're cutting all those things mindlessly in order to protect these corporate tax loopholes.

This is crazy. I really believe that outside of this little bubble here in Washington there is a bipartisan consensus that what we're doing here is crazy. This doesn't make any sense. This does not make any sense. Mindless, senseless, across-the-board cuts.

No urgency. We're going to go home today. There's a little snow on the ground. National Airport is closed. We can't really go anywhere until it reopens. We ought to stay here and figure out an alternative to sequestration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, last night, the FAA announced that 173 air traffic control towers will be closed by April 7. So I would say to my colleague, tell the communities whose economies will be devastated by the fact that they will no longer have air service that this is not a cut. I mean, they will be losing an essential service that is vital for businesses to thrive all across this country. That is a cut.

At this point, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman whether he has any additional requests for speakers?

We are prepared to close as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, that the time to act has long since passed. We are now in sequester.

Budgets across the board and in a mindless and senseless way are being slashed. Air traffic control towers are being shut down. That will result in an adverse impact on local economies. We will lose jobs. You've heard over and over that we're told that we should expect a job loss of 750,000 people.

What do they do? They lose their job, and they go on unemployment. Where is the future? Where is the savings that my friends are talking about when you throw people out of work?

My friends talk about tough choices. Well, we ought to assume tough choices. You're going to have health clinics that are going to be reduced in their funding. You're going to have transportation projects reduced in their funding. You're going to have cuts in WIC; you're going to have cuts in Head Start; you're going to have cuts in programs that benefit the most vulnerable people in our communities.

None of us in this Chamber has to absorb a tough choice. It's the people we represent. It's the people in this country who are getting shafted as a result of this sequestration.

The time to act has long since passed. Mr. Van Hollen has time and time and time again--not once, not twice, not three times, but four times tried to bring an alternative to the House floor. All he's asked for is that we have an up-or-down vote on his proposal, and four times he has been rejected. By contrast, this year, my friends have brought up not a single alternative to avoid sequestration.

All we're asking for is a little democracy here on the floor of the House of Representatives, a chance for us to debate and have an up-or- down vote not on a procedural motion, but on the actual legislation, up or down. We've been denied that.

My friends, if they have an alternative they want to bring, fine. Bring that up there too. We'll have two votes, and we can debate our priorities so the American people know where we stand.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on Mr. Van Hollen's bill to replace the sequester and on Mr. Connolly's bill to freeze pay for Members of Congress for the next 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I just want to again say to my friends that it is important for them to appreciate the devastation of these cuts.

Head Start: the CR will allow sequestration to cut $400 million, resulting in a potential loss of 70,000 Head Start slots for comprehensive early learning and development services.

Job training programs: the CR will allow sequester to cut $282 million, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unemployed adults, dislocated workers, veterans, young adults and students losing access to employment services.

Title I grants, education of the disadvantaged: the CR will allow sequestration to cut $730 million, which is the equivalent of cutting the extra instructional services for more than 2,500 schools serving more than 1 million disadvantaged children who are struggling academically.

Special education grants: the CR will allow sequestration to cut more than $580 million, which is the rough equivalent of shifting the cost of educating nearly 300,000 students with special needs to State and local education agencies. This also may result in more than 700,000 layoffs of teachers, aides and other staff serving students with disabilities.

Child care: the CR will allow sequestration to cut $115 million, which would cause, roughly, 30,000 children to lose access to child care, further exacerbating the fact that only one in six children eligible for Federal child care assistance receives it.

Cancer screenings: the CR will allow sequestration to cut funding for cancer screenings, resulting in 25,000 fewer breast and cervical cancer screenings for low-income women.

I can go on and on and on, but here is the choice: the choice is either this process, which my Republican colleagues have embraced, or the one that Mr. Van Hollen has outlined--one that would say we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable, on the backs of the needy, on the backs of the middle class but that--do you know what?--we're going to get rid of some of these corporate loopholes that my friends on the other side used to be in favor of closing. We're not going to continue to have taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies. We're going to have some balance in our approach to dealing with our deficit. The problem with the approach my friends have outlined--the problem with the sequestration--is that it is

not balanced. It is wrong-headed; it is mindless; it is senseless; and it is cruel.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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 the consideration of H.R. 933 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 99, I call up the bill (H.R. 933) making appropriations for the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I rise to present H.R. 933, the Department of Defense and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations, and Full-Year Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2013.

Our Nation faces a three-pronged threat to its finances as we deal with sequestration, the debt ceiling, and, most immediately, a looming government shutdown.

This bill takes the risk of a government shutdown off the table, funding the government for the remainder of the fiscal year while helping maintain our national security and providing our troops and veterans with consistent, adequate funding.

First and foremost, this bill contains fiscal year 2013 appropriations bills for the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. These bills were crafted by Chairman Bill Young, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and very handily done.

These bills passed the House with broad bipartisan support last year. They have been negotiated on a bipartisan basis by the House and the Senate, and agreed to by the Senate Committee. They do not add a cent to the overall top line of the CR.

I want to take a minute here to thank Bill Young and his subcommittee, who did such a tremendous job of balancing the interests of the country but with the overriding concern for the security of the country as they drafted--and passed on a bipartisan basis--the Defense appropriations bill.

Last week, I had the opportunity to ask the Joint Chiefs of our military if they supported this CR package, and the answer was an absolute, wholehearted ``yes.'' In fact, each one of them was asked if it was critical, and each one of the Joint Chiefs said this was critical to the defense of the country.

This legislation addresses severe funding constraints that would put our national security in dire straits. Military hospitals would not be built, veterans would not be cared for adequately, and our readiness would be seriously jeopardized. With sequestration now in effect, this bill allows the Pentagon some leeway to do its best with what it has.

The bill provides $518 billion, the same top line level as last year. Within this top line, accounts have to be re-prioritized to ensure adequate investment in critical programs, such as operation and maintenance, while finding savings in lower priority areas.

The legislation right-sizes spending that would otherwise have been wasted. For instance, we eliminate funding for unneeded spare parts and save funding from outdated programs and projects related to operations in Iraq no longer needed.

In addition, the bill provides $71.9 billion in discretionary funding for military construction and veterans affairs to ensure that our veterans get the care they have earned and that the quality of life in our military is continued. This includes an increase of about $2.5 billion in veterans funding, offset by savings in military construction.

The remainder of the bill, Mr. Speaker, funds the rest of the Federal Government until the end of the fiscal year on September 30. Nearly all funding will remain consistent with current levels, except for the very few exceptions that are needed to prevent catastrophic changes to government programs or to ensure good government. These include provisions allowing critical law enforcement entities to maintain current staffing levels, additional funding for embassy security and critical weather satellite launches, and an extension of the current pay freeze for Federal employees--including Members of Congress.

We've also required every single Federal agency to provide spending plans to Congress to ensure transparency and strong oversight of taxpayer dollars.

Nearly all of the funding in this bill is subject to the President's sequestration, bringing the grand total for discretionary spending to around $984 billion. The bill is designed to help with the damage caused by continually putting off the regular annual appropriations bills, but it does not solve the many serious problems caused by these automatic spending cuts in sequestration.

A full-year continuing resolution is not the way this Congress should be appropriating taxpayer dollars. Each year, we should assess the needs and excesses of our government and make decisions accordingly in the regular appropriations process. We must return to regular order, pass individual spending bills on time, and fulfill our constitutional duty to fund government programs wisely and effectively. To do all of this, we have to have a partner in the Senate, and we've not had that now for these several years. Our hope springs eternal that the Senate will help us get back to regular order.

In light of the circumstances we face, we must make a good-faith effort to provide limited but fair and adequate funding for vital government programs and services through the end of the fiscal year. It is up to Congress to make these decisions to set the course for our financial future.

We must act now to make the most of this difficult situation, and that starts with avoiding a government shutdown on March 27 and providing for our national defense and veterans.

This CR package is the right thing to do, the right time to do it, and it is the fair thing.

And so I urge, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues to show our Nation that we can get our work done by supporting this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished and hardworking chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield now 3 minutes to the vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and would confirm that the gentleman is correct. The prohibition in the NDAA is law, and nothing in this bill or report overrides or changes that fact. The language in our report was conferenced last year when the outcome of MEADS

in the NDAA was not known. Chairman Young works closely with the Armed Services Committee, and it is not our intention to change or override any provision of that bill. The prohibition in the bill is the law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for the purpose of a colloquy.

The gentleman is correct. OMB did submit a list of proposed anomalies on February 18.

OMB did not propose any change to the provisions in current law regarding 6-day mail delivery.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the distinguished vice chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

While we're waiting for the Senate to send us a bill relieving us of sequestration, while we're waiting for the President to send us something to relieve us of sequestration, we have no choice but to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government operating.

Sequestration I hope we can deal with in the future, but now we're dealing with whether or not to shut the government down. Is that not correct?

I thank the gentleman.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Would the gentlelady be so kind as to talk to the majority leader in the Senate about sending us over a bill to relieve us of sequestration? And, two, would the gentlelady talk to her President to see if he would do that? We're ready to act.

If the gentlelady will yield, last year we voted twice in this body to replace sequestration, and it died because the Senate wouldn't take it up.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how many speakers remain on the gentlelady's side. I have one remaining speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and would ask Mr. Visclosky if he might rejoin us at the microphone.

On the point the gentleman just broached and, that is, the passage of bills, one of the most frustrating things of my life is that we cannot get the Senate to pass any appropriations bills.

As the gentleman knows--because he helped pass the Defense bill for this year and all years--we passed, through the House committee, all 12 bills. We sent them to the Senate, and all we got back was a resounding snore. They didn't do anything. When the Senate doesn't appropriate, in spite of the fact that we've passed all of our bills over here, we have to pass a continuing resolution. That is where we are. I lament that, as does the gentleman. And I know that he joins me in wanting us to pass, through regular order, each individual bill, bring it to the floor, let the Members have their say and vote on amendments and the like.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a hardworking Member, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), who chairs the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is all about whether or not we shut down the government. This is a bill to keep the government operating while we debate, then, how we deal with sequestration.

This is not a sequestration bill. This is a bill to continue funding the government for the balance of the fiscal year and to help the military cope with the restrictions so that our Nation is adequately defended by our men and women in uniform.

I urge the adoption of the continuing resolution. Let's keep the government going.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the budgetary problems we face are unprecedented, and the American public demands that we address them. This continuing resolution is the first step in that process.

The measure before us does four important things: one, it takes threat of a government shutdown off the table; two, it fulfills the agreements made in the Budget Control Act; three, it protects our troops in harm's way; and, four, it binds up our veterans' wounds.

This is not the time, Mr. Speaker, to argue about sequestration. Today is the day to keep the government running and show the people back home we've not lost the ability to govern.

The House has passed two separate responsible sequestration replacement bills only to have both of them languish in the other body without action. We're still waiting, Mr. Speaker.

The President must come to the table with a real proposal to solve the sequestration crisis instead of sending us the same old talking points and doing campaign trips around the country.

The public is tired of government putting politics ahead of people. Now is the time to take a shutdown off the table. Now is the time to give our troops and our veterans the resources they need, deserve, and have earned. Now is the time, Mr. Speaker, to govern.

Vote ``no'' on this motion, and vote ``yes'' to keep the government operating.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Before us is a defense bill and a Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill adjusting the FY 2012 funding levels to meet FY 2013 needs.

It is unacceptable that Federal agencies and departments covered by the 10 remaining bills would be forced to operate under full-year continuing resolutions based on planned spending levels enacted 15 to 18 months ago. Congress' failure to do our jobs and pass responsible annual spending bills limits our ability to respond to changing circumstances, implement other laws enacted by Congress, and eliminate funding that is no longer necessary.

Specifically, this bill will delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act scheduled to begin enrolling participants in October. Without IT infrastructure to process enrollments and payments, verify eligibility, and establish call centers, health insurance for millions of Americans would be further delayed. Last year's levels will hamper enforcement of Dodd-Frank protections against improper practices in the financial sector.

The bill underfunds Head Start, child care, essential for many working parents who would otherwise have to quit their jobs.

The bill fails to strike outdated language allowing HUD to use public housing agency reserves to fund operations or provide a requested increase to make up for the shortfall resulting in the lowest per-unit operating subsidy since 2007, despite rising housing costs.

The bill we consider today even denies increases for health care fraud and abuse control and Social Security disability reviews and SSI eligibility determinations, both of which return more money to the Treasury than they cost.

And the continuing resolution excludes loan guarantees for Jordan, necessary to help an important ally stabilize its economy.

The effects, my colleagues, of these outdated plans and spending levels in the continuing resolution are compounded by Congress' failure to replace sequestration with a balanced, responsible, long-term debt reduction plan. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that sequestration would cut economic growth in 2013 by a third. That's jobs. That's people's lives.

Last year, our fragile economy struggled to create a total of 2.2 million jobs. CBO says sequestration will wipe out, get rid of, 750,000 jobs, more than a third of all the jobs created last year.

Now, I want to make it very clear, my colleagues, this bill reaffirms sequestration. The terrible impact of those indiscriminate cuts will begin to take effect. This summer, we can expect significant flight delays and long lines at airports due to furloughs of air traffic controllers and a hiring freeze and reduced hours for transportation security officers.

Yesterday, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, heard testimony from the directors of the National Institutes of Health and CDC on the detrimental effects these irresponsible cuts will have, including declining medical research, fewer child vaccinations, and reduced protections against epidemics. Just try and explain that to dear friends and neighbors who have children with autism, seniors who are dealing with Alzheimer's, friends who have heart cardiology issues. Just try and explain what the National Institute cuts in research will do. In addition to the impact in the research on these illnesses, these are real people who are going to be laid off and impede our future research.

All Americans rely on timely and accurate weather warnings and forecasts from the National Weather Service. Reduced resources will compromise critical satellites, radar, computer analysis, and modeling.

Now, I am pleased that two bills, the defense bill and the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill, are the FY 2013 bills that were agreed on by the House and the Senate. But, my colleagues, let's not forget that sequestration will still strike our national defense.

Even if this bill is enacted, another $46 billion will be subtracted from defense spending. Most of the civilian workforce will face significant furloughs, readiness will still face cuts, and defense health care will need to make some very tough choices with scarce resources.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill because it fails to take responsible steps to support the middle class in really tough economic times or responsibly address the long-term fiscal health of our Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKeon, I just want to emphasize again that General Odierno in the recent appropriations hearing on the Defense bill testified that sequester would be a disaster for the military. And it's unfortunate that we are not ridding ourselves of the prospect of the disaster that the sequester bill will result in.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

At this time, I'm delighted to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished leader from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

I would just like to quickly remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the Defense bill will be subject to the $46 billion as a result of sequestration, which General Odierno said will hollow out the force.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the

gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. David Price, a distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Labor, Health, Human Services, Education Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee of Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the distinguished ranking member of the MILCON Subcommittee of Appropriations.

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

Before I yield to my next speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Frelinghuysen for addressing sequestration and the devastating testimony of all those representing our distinguished Armed Forces. But I would also like to clarify again that this continuing resolution reaffirms sequestration. It does nothing in language or deed to make any efforts to cancel sequestration. We on this side of the aisle would be very pleased to continue to work with you in regular order to go through every bill, casting away waste, fraud and abuse, but to do away with sequestration. And I know my distinguished chair and I could work it out so that we could not have sequestration.

This bill, section 3002, reaffirms sequestration.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to work with you, but I have read this continuing resolution very carefully and section 3002 reaffirms sequestration. Let's work together. We can be the leaders. Let's send over a bill that does away with sequestration, which my good friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen, says--and I was at that defense hearing, too--would hollow out our forces. Let's do that. Let's do that today. Why don't you submit an amendment? Let's get rid of sequestration.

I would be delighted, Mr. Speaker, to yield 1 minute to our distinguished leader, who has provided important leadership on the issue of cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse in our budget, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, we have three remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Leg Branch Subcommittee of Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

I am delighted to yield the balance of my time to a distinguished Member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.

Let me thank our ranking member for yielding and for her tremendous leadership.

First of all, let me just make this point. This bill--actually, this CR--reaffirms sequestration, and it really could have been canceled. I have to tell you, also, that at a time when the Pentagon has enjoyed a decade of unchecked defense spending, this bill gives the Pentagon new flexibility to cushion the effects of sequestration. Again, it reaffirms sequestration.

At the same time, the bill ignores the impacts of these devastating cuts on the American public. These sequestration cuts would not only hurt low-income families first and hurt them the most, but also communities of color and the millions of Americans who still are struggling to find a job.

The sequester will impact my congressional district, my home State of California, and every single household in America. It also underfunds the vital programs that protect public health and safety, promote and develop our workforce, and educate the next generation.

While all of us believe that it's important to keep the government functioning, governing by a continuing resolution is really no way to run the Federal Government. We need to rein in Federal spending and spend our security dollars wisely on proven programs that meet today's national security needs, but we also must begin some nation building here at home. The American people deserve better than that. Not only is this resolution a fiscal disaster, it is morally wrong.

[From the New York Times, March 5, 2013]

California, on Brink of Recovery, Braces for Setback on Federal Aid

(By Norimitsu Onishi)

San Francisco.--After years of ballooning budget deficits,

California finally seemed on firmer footing. Unemployment

remained high, but revenues and housing prices were up.

Taxpayers even voted themselves a tax increase to bring

deficits down.

And then came the automatic federal budget cuts known as

sequestration.

As the $85 billion in spending cuts slowly roll out

nationwide, California officials are girding themselves for a

blow not only to the state's large military industry but also

to its nascent economic recovery. Still, experts say, it will

most likely slow down, though not derail, the state's

economic growth.

The cuts, which began to take effect on Friday and will

accelerate as time passes, will amount to a loss of an

estimated $9 billion for California this year. The military

industry will incur the biggest reduction, $3.2 billion, but

education, social programs and other areas that were hit

particularly hard by California's budget turmoil in recent

years will also face cuts.

State officials await word from Washington on exactly how

the cuts will be put in place in the weeks and months ahead,

hoping that the long-term ripple effects on California's

consumers and businesses will become clearer.

``It's very frustrating for a state like California, where

we've had housing-market and job-market gains beginning to

solidify here,'' said Jason Sisney, the director of state

finance at the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst's

Office. ``And just as that's happening, we have the federal

government taking actions that could impede that recovery.''

Despite the size of military and federal programs in

California, the state's $2 trillion economy is larger and

more diverse than the economies of other states, and less

dependent on federal workers.

``California will be an average state,'' said Stephen Levy,

the director of the Center for Continuing Study of the

California Economy. ``We won't be hit less, and we won't be

hit more.''

Jerry Nickelsburg, an economics professor and expert on the

California economy at the Anderson School of Management at

the University of California, Los Angeles, said: ``But is it

sufficient to choke off the recovery in California? I think

the answer is no. Will it slow the growth of the California

economy? The answer is yes.''

Because the automatic budget cuts had been set up to force

Democrats and Republicans to negotiate over cuts and

spending--and not to be actually put in place--California

officials, like their counterparts in other state capitals,

have received only general guidance so far from the Office of

Management and Budget on how to carry out the cuts. But in

the coming weeks, federal agencies are expected to provide

details on their respective spending cuts.

``As we learn more the specifics on how they're going to do

that, then we will have a better sense of how it will impact

the state,'' said H. D. Palmer, a deputy director at the

California Department of Finance.

State officials could have to adjust for the cuts in the

state budget revision scheduled for May. In January, Gov.

Jerry Brown announced the first balanced budget in years,

thanks largely to a temporary tax surcharge that voters

approved in November.

The budget cuts are expected to be felt strongly in the San

Diego area, where the military industry plays a significant

role in the economy. According to the White House,

California's 64,000 civilian military workers will be

furloughed starting next month, most likely by losing a day

of work a week over several months. The White House estimates

that the furloughs will total a $400 million reduction in

gross pay this year.

Military contractors in the area are also bracing for cuts.

Marion C. Blakey, the president of the Aerospace Industries

Association, a trade group based in Arlington, Va., said

larger contractors could absorb the loss of an anticipated

order. But smaller members, she said, could be forced to lay

off highly paid engineers, and in that way dampen the

regional economy.

``These are companies that often do not have the resilience

and flexibility to take this kind of body blow,'' Ms. Blakey

said, adding that these were typically highly specialized

companies incapable of quickly shifting their businesses.

``As an industry, we are very concerned about the third and

fourth tier in the supply chain, and California has a lot of

those kinds of companies.''

Gregory Bloom, a member of the trade group's executive

board and the president of Seal Science, a 120-employee

aerospace company in Irvine, Calif., said his business had

already suffered from the cuts. Because of the uncertainty

surrounding federal financing of military-related programs,

his company had lost two top engineers and was unable to fill

four existing engineering positions, he said.

``In my entire career, I've never been in a situation where

I can't at least put some probability on what's going to

happen,'' Mr. Bloom said, adding that he had delayed

expanding capacity at a plant as a result. ``There's

absolutely no way to plan.''

The cuts could hurt California's schools and colleges,

whose budgets have been slashed in recent years. The

University of California system is expected to face at least

a 5 percent cut in the $3.5 billion it receives annually in

federal research money. Cuts in federal student aid programs

will affect the next academic year.

``As a family starts to plan for what's going to happen

next year--how much money do I need to send my son or

daughter to school?--these are unknowns right now until we

get more information from the federal government,'' said Gary

Falle, the University of California's associate vice

president for federal government relations.

According to the White House, California will also lose $88

million in federal money for primary and secondary education

this year. Though Washington accounts for less than 11

percent of the state's budget for schools, that share has

taken on increasing weight in recent years because of state

cuts, said Erika Webb-Hughes, an official at the California

Department of Education's government affairs division.

The cuts are likely to affect disadvantaged students the

most, including those with disabilities, Ms. Webb-Hughes

said. The uncertainty of the magnitude of the cuts will also

make it difficult for school districts to plan for next year

because, by state law, they must notify staff members of

their future employment status by March 15.

``People will be sending out pink slips,'' Ms. Webb-Hughes

said. ``Even if at the end of the year there is a miraculous

agreement in the Congress that averts a majority of this

issue, the damage is already done.''