Floor Statements

Will the gentlelady yield?

I rise in very strong support of the gentlelady's position on Planned Parenthood and urge a ``no'' vote on this current resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it strikes me, and I have one major question, and that is: Why are we considering H.J. Res. 37 when we are on the verge of shutting down the House of Representatives?

I hope and I think a deal is very close at hand, but Republicans are holding it at the 11th hour over divisive social policy that should not be a part of this debate. Republicans should not hold the government hostage using controversial social policy as ransom. Republicans are especially focusing on divisive changes to women's health policy.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Well, I think the relevance is: Why are we here working on this piece of legislation at this time when we are on the verge of a crisis of shutting down the government?

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Reclaiming my time. I reclaim my time.

This is an important day. And what we are saying on our side is we want to enact a clean continuing resolution at some point today so we can take care of our troops and so we can move forward with the process and protect ourselves. And I hope we can do it in the context of an agreement between the President, between the leader of the other body and the Speaker of the House. If that is done, then this will be a good day. But taking up H.J. Res. 37 to kind of do as a filler, to me, it doesn't make any sense.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, this only affects this bill tonight; isn't this correct?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

And the only amendment to this is the $2 billion in cuts; is that correct?

So this would look a lot like the Dicks amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee for a clean CR?

We could have done it a little earlier, is all I am saying.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I would like to thank the President and the leaders in the House and Senate on both sides for the compromise and for averting a government shutdown.

I think there was a major decision made tonight by both parties and by the administration to keep the government open.

(0010)

That's what the American people sent us here to do. They sent us here to work out compromises, to be able to resolve issues and to move forward, and I think this is an example of that.

Now, this CR will run for 1 week to April 15. It is basically a clean CR in the sense of there is no ideologically driven language. It has $2 billion in it in cuts, but they are in the underlying agreement. And so I think this is acceptable.

My understanding is that there are cuts in discretionary spending and in some of the mandatory accounts. I am pleased that the leaders were able to reach this agreement.

We still have a lot of work to do. I want to say to my chairman that I still look forward to working on the 2012 appropriations bills, and I hope that we can work and have an open process where we can bring these bills to subcommittee, full committee and to the floor with open rules.

I would like to yield to my chairman just to make sure that that is still the path we want to go in this year. We want to avoid what happened in 2006.

Now, I reminded you--sometimes you forget a little bit--that when the Republicans lost in 2006, there were a number of unfinished appropriations bills and we had to do an omnibus in 2007. We did it a little faster, by the way. It didn't take quite as long. But we're glad that this agreement was reached, and I look forward to getting on with the work of the 2012 appropriations items.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Absolutely. And we will work hard to cooperate in order to do that. We will try to keep a reasonable number of amendments on our side. I hope you can do that on your side.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for a vote.

Yesterday, we met in the Rules Committee to discuss this potential CR.

The point I wanted to make was that I felt--and I wish the gentleman from California were here--that a clean CR would be more appropriate at this time, especially if we get an agreement. Because, that way, the President can sign the clean CR, which would keep funding for the troops--I want to point that out as the ranking member on Defense Appropriations--this CR is troubled. I believe, the President will veto it. I also believe it won't be passed in the Senate.

So why are we doing this? Why are we wasting time here when we should be focused on getting a clean CR through, which the President said he would sign, which would allow a little more time for negotiations on this agreement?

Now, we have got to get an agreement. The idea of shutting down the Federal Government in the middle of this economic downturn is just the worst possible idea. Goldman Sachs says you'll lose two-tenths of 1 percent of economic growth. This will mean laying people off. Whether they will get reimbursed or not is a major question for those who are not considered to be vital--and I think all workers are vital, but it's regarding those who are not in essential kinds of jobs.

We talked yesterday to the FAA. They will keep operating. We have troops in the field. As I mentioned before, if we did a clean CR, they would be paid. I think this is a waste of time and that every ounce of effort should be taken in reaching this agreement.

The administration has bent over backwards, and the Senate has bent over backwards to try to reach an agreement on this, but the leadership on the Republican side keeps changing the goalposts. First, it was $33 billion. Now it's $40 billion. They just can't take ``yes'' for an answer.

The most important thing is that this will hurt the economy. Also, it shows a kind of mean-spiritedness here. When you're going after Medicare and Medicaid in the budget resolution and, in this deal, you're going after women and infant care, this is not what we should be doing. We should be helping the poor people, not taking their safety net away.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished former whip, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), who is now the assistant minority leader.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, my good friend from Maryland.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

If the gentleman will yield on that point, if we did that, if we had a clean CR, the President would sign it into law.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), former chairman of Interior, now the ranking Democratic member of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who is the ranking member on the Homeland Security subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), who is a former member of the Appropriations Committee doing great things in his new job.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who can explain why part of this CR is very ideologically driven and extreme.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the most senior woman in the House of Representatives and on the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

I would invite the gentleman to go ahead with a couple of more speakers at this juncture.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would just remind the gentleman that if we had a clean CR, the troops would also be taken care of, and a clean CR would be signed into law by the President of the United States so it would be effective.

What is being proposed today will be vetoed. The President has already sent a statement.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) who is a distinguished member of this institution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I will yield myself 4\3/4\ minutes.

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

I just want to make sure that everyone has heard the Statement of Administration Policy that was issued today:

``The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes. As the President stated on April 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant progress, the administration would support a short-term, clean continuing resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill.

``For the past several weeks, the administration has worked diligently and in good faith to find common ground on the shared goal of cutting spending. After giving the Congress more time by signing short-term extensions into law''--which, by the way, many of us voted for--``the President believes that we need to put politics aside and work out our differences for a bill that covers the rest of the fiscal year. This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and avert a disruptive Federal Government shutdown that would put the Nation's economic recovery in jeopardy. The administration will continue to work with the Congress to arrive at a compromise that will fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year in a way that does not undermine future growth and job creation and that averts a costly government shutdown. It is critical that the Congress send a final bill to the President's desk that provides certainty to our men and women in military uniform, their families, small businesses, homeowners, taxpayers, and all Americans. H.R. 1363 simply delays that critical final outcome.

``If presented with this bill, the President will veto it.''

I think the President is right.

What I suggested yesterday to the Rules Committee and to our chairman was that we go forward with a clean CR, which we have done many times. It would allow the President to sign this and us to finish our work. I would much rather have preferred if the clean CR was at a point when all three--the President, the Speaker, and the Majority Leader--had all agreed and said, ``We're done; we need a little more time to do the paperwork,'' but that is not the situation that we're in.

I also want to reiterate, with a clean CR, the troops will be paid and they will receive their checks as they should. And the defense part of this bill, I have worked on. It's a very good piece of legislation. But when you throw in the District of Columbia abortion issue, it really shows that you're not serious. That's why the American people I think believe that this is ideology and not people working together in a commonsense way to get this thing resolved.

So, again, I worry about what we're doing here in terms of economic policy, that again the magnitude of these cuts are going to have a negative effect on the economy. We need to create more jobs, to lower the deficit, and put people back to work.

I urge that we defeat this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I believe that the Democratic whip may want to propound a question to the chairman, so I am not going to yield back my time until he has an opportunity to do that.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic whip, my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

I just want to summarize again: I'm urging a ``no'' vote on this continuing resolution. We have voted twice, many of us on this side, for reasonable continuing resolutions that have gotten us to this point. This one is unreasonable. The President has made it clear that he will veto this bill.

I believe what the gentleman from Maryland was attempting to do was the smart and pragmatic thing, and that was to go with a clean CR that would have kept the government open, that would have protected the troops, made sure that they got paid, and would have passed the Senate and been adopted by the President and signed into law. But they have chosen to put in a highly controversial rider on abortion in the District of Columbia which is ideological. This is not something that a serious appropriations committee would do in the middle of a government crisis, and I hope the American people will understand that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Quileute Tribe Tsunami Protection Act. This legislation will provide Park Service land to the Quileute Tribe to enable the re-location of many facilities outside the tsunami zone. The tragic events in Japan that we have sadly witnessed over the last week illustrate the need for this legislation.

The threat of tsunamis is a harsh reality that the Quileutes face every day. The Tribe lives on a one-square mile reservation along the Pacific coast of the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State. It is a spectacularly beautiful place. Many of you, or at least your children or grandchildren, recognize the Quileute Tribe from the Twilight series of novels and movies.

But there is nothing romantic about the tsunami threat. Much of the Tribe's infrastructure, including a day care center, the elder center, government offices and Quileute Tribal members', homes are in the direct path of a potential tsunami. In addition, the Tribe faces a nearly annual flood threat from the Quillayute River.

The purpose of this legislation is to help the Quileutes move their people and buildings to safer land. The Olympic National Park would transfer land that is out of the tsunami zone to the Tribe for the development of new infrastructure.

The legislation also settles a long-standing dispute between the Olympic National Park and the Tribe over the northern boundary of the Reservation. The resolution of this dispute benefits the Tribe, the Park Service and the general public. The bill also guarantees access for the public to some of the most beautiful Washington State beaches, and will designate as wilderness thousands of acres currently in the Olympic National Park.

I want to thank the Quileute Tribe, National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis and Olympic National Park Superintendent Karen Gustin for their hard work over many years to resolve this dispute and provide safer land for the Tribe.

I ask my colleagues to consider the present danger to the Quileute Tribe and to support this bill.

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.

Will the gentleman yield to me on that same point?

Being from Washington State, I am as concerned as the gentleman is about the west coast. We have a number of Indian tribes that are right down at the coastal waters, and several of them are trying to move back because of a tsunami. This is a great wake-up call.

One of the things I'm worried about are the satellites. We have new satellites that we're supposed to be procuring. This program is in some trouble, and I'm worried that these cuts are going to affect the ability of NOAA to get these satellites in a proper time. They give us the warning on major weather fronts. This is another important aspect of this. FEMA is another problem.

I just want to rise to congratulate the two gentlemen from Oregon for bringing this to the floor as we watch to see how these tsunamis hit the west coast of the United States. I mean, some of the weather forecasters have said that this could be a very serious problem, but we hope it isn't. I just wanted to associate myself with the remarks that have been made here and stress how important the NOAA budget is and the importance of getting these satellites replaced in a timely way.

We've had a volcano. Mount St. Helens erupted and it was enormous. I had been told again and again when I was chairman of Interior that California has a very complex system of detection. The rest of the country doesn't. Washington and Oregon do not have the same level of early warning equipment. So I think this is another thing that we've got to work on.

Again, these cuts are going to make it more difficult for us to get the equipment that we need to predict and to detect when these things are occurring. I worry about Mt. Rainier. Mt. Rainier could have the lahar, and we've been told by USGS that Washington State could have a 9. This was 8-9, and look at the enormous damage that was done there. I mean, we could have another major event in the future. I hope it doesn't happen, but it does happen every 300 or 400 years.

Mr. Speaker, the CR disproportionately cuts education, especially literacy efforts. David Brooks, not known as a left-wing journalist, writes in the New York Times column today: ``If you look across the country, you see education financing getting sliced often in the most thoughtless and destructive ways. In Washington, the Republicans who designed the cuts for this fiscal year seem to have done no serious policy evaluation.''

Last night, I asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment restoring education cuts. The amendment cut $1 billion from the Census in money that wasn't needed, applying most of that to offset education spending, and the remainder went to further reducing the deficit below the levels in the CR before us. The Rules Committee chose not to make that amendment in order, and therefore I oppose the rule.

But to talk to the gentleman, I spent 8 years on the staff of the other body, and this is my 35th year in the House of Representatives. Nobody ever gets everything they want: This is a process where the House passes a bill, it goes to the Senate, and then we have a conference committee or the Senate sends the bill back to us. Both sides meet and work out their differences. There is give and take, there is compromise, and that is the way this process works.

And I also want to say to the gentleman, and to your side, remember it was the Democratic Congress and the House Senate and Mr. Obama signing the $41 billion cut from the Obama FY11 budget. It was the Democrats that did it. We had one Republican vote. And I just want to remind you, that was done in December in a lame duck session, which turned out to be a very effective lame duck session; and in that bill we made cuts across the board in all these areas.

So I want to make it clear we are also for deficit reduction, but what I am concerned about--and I know the gentleman is very sincere, I can tell that, I know you believe in every word that you are saying-- but the biggest problem with that is what the effect will be on our economy. Mark Zandi of Moody's says, it will cost us 400,000 jobs in 2011, 700,000 jobs in 2012. Goldman Sachs, who I don't normally quote, they say that this could cut 1.5 to 2 percent of gross domestic product. That could mean the loss of 2.4 million jobs over the next 2 years. That's not what you want to do.

You're trying to reduce the deficit, and the way you reduce the deficit is put people back to work. You get them back to work, and they pay their taxes in and the deficit comes down, the unemployment rate comes down. If you do the wrong thing and make draconian cuts at the same time that the States are cutting $125 billion from their budgets, the impact of those two things--$61 billion and the $125 billion--could have a very devastating effect on the economy and hurt a lot of

programs needlessly because it's going to be counterproductive. I just hope that you think about that.

There isn't any economic theory that I've ever heard of called ``cut and grow.''

So, again, it was the Democratic Congress that cut the $41 billion. And every reputable economist says what you did in H.R. 1 is going to have a negative effect on the economy. And so I hope you all think carefully about what you're about to do.

Again, it takes compromise. You've got to work with the other body to come up with a reasonable solution here, or we're going to have problems with a government shutdown. And you can say whatever you want, but we don't need the government shutting down when we're in two wars, a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq, and a global war on terror. We don't need to shut the government down.

Will the gentleman yield?

That was a good process. I appreciate what you all did in having an open rule. I applaud Chairman Rogers and Chairman Dreier. That is the right thing to do. It was appreciated on both sides of the aisle.

I did my best to help.

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

Let me just make a brief comment.

And I do applaud the gentleman from California as chairman of the Rules Committee for giving, for working out that modified open rule.

Just let me, on the point about Mr. Taylor at Stanford, Stanford's a very good school. My son graduated from it, and I'm quite proud of that.

A letter signed by 300 of America's leading economists makes the argument that cutting investments this quickly will undermine growth. Among the original signers from Stanford alone: Kenneth Arrow, Martin Carnoy, Paul David, Mordecai Kurz, Roger Noll, and Gavin Wright.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to say one brief word.

I applaud these modified open rules. And on the regular bills on appropriations, we hope--Mr. Rogers and I have been in contact, we're going to get these bills done in a timely way. And we want open rules, and we want to be able to have these unanimous consent agreements after the bills have been on the floor for a while in order to narrow the amendments and then to get these things done in a timely fashion. And I think that it's going to take the cooperation of all of the Members to be able to do that.

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

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

Madam Speaker, today we will consider a short-term continuing resolution that will allow the essential functions of our government to continue beyond March 4, the date on which the current continuing resolution will expire.

With no final agreement on the spending levels for the current fiscal year, this measure is necessary in order to avoid a government shutdown, something I believe we should all want to do. I think that 2 weeks is not enough time to reach an agreement on H.R. 1 with the other body, and I'm afraid we're going to be back here doing this again.

Now, when the House approved H.R. 1 earlier this month, despite the overwhelming opposition of the Democratic

Caucus, it was clear to me that gaining agreement on a compromised version of a full-year continuing resolution would be very difficult, at least before the expiration of the current CR. We opposed H.R. 1 because we believe it would have the effect of slamming on the fiscal brakes too abruptly, resulting in higher unemployment and threatening our Nation's economic recovery.

There is no dispute that cutting Federal spending too deeply and too quickly before the economy has fully recovered risks slowing growth and losing jobs. Moody's estimates that H.R. 1 would reduce real growth in 2011 by 0.5 percent, meaning 400,000 fewer jobs in 2011 and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012. The Economic Policy Institute projected job losses near 800,000. Goldman Sachs predicts that H.R. 1 would slow economic growth by about 1.5 to 2 percentage points, which translates into the American economy losing up to 2.4 million jobs.

So the recovery of our economy and the reduction of unemployment should be our paramount concern at this time.

I said during the debate on H.R. 1 earlier this month, and I will repeat today, that I believe the approach to deficit reduction that has been adopted by the Republican majority here in the House is far too narrow and too focused on the smallest segment of spending in the budget. It is a risky strategy based on the specious concept of cut and grow, which of course has no basis in sound economic theory.

So where does this leave us? We are now 6 months into the current fiscal year, FY11, and hearings with regard to the fiscal year 2012 budget have begun in both the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

H.R. 1 is clearly not acceptable to the other body, nor would it be acceptable to the President, whose signature is necessary before any funding bill can become law. What the President has already proposed for the coming year--a budget freeze at last year's level--remains, in my judgment, the best and most effective way to reduce the deficit and to support recovery in major sectors of our economy. In fact, we have already adopted a freeze at FY10 levels in the continuing resolution that we are currently operating under.

Democrats approved the CR in December with only one Republican vote, which represents a reduction of $41 billion from the levels sought by the President in his FY 2011 budget request. This is a significant reduction in the deficit, and a significant part of that came from defense. I want to repeat this. The $41 billion cut from the Obama FY11 budget was passed in a CR by the Democratic House and Democratic Senate and signed into law by the Democratic President with only one Republican vote.

We are now on the verge of an expiring CR, and we are considering another version that extends the time to resolve the differences by only 2 weeks.

I take the chairman at his word that neither he nor his leadership is interested in shutting down the operation of the Federal Government by declaring a stalemate in these appropriations deliberations. I will concede that it is disconcerting to me and others on our side to read the Speaker's comments this week that would seem to imply that there is a strategy of passing shorter term appropriation bills, with further and further and further cuts 2 weeks at a time.

We were concerned by his statement that seemed to indicate a plan for a piecemeal approach to future spending cuts. He said, ``If they won't eat the whole loaf at one time, we'll make them eat it one slice at a time.''

I believe we need to set aside these political machinations and get serious about finishing up work on the fiscal year 2011 budget. I will be the first to admit that it is because the Democrats didn't pass our bills last year that we're here working on this. So we have responsibility, too, and that's one of the reasons why we were so eager to engage Chairman Rogers in trying to get this open rule, to work through the amendments, get a unanimous consent agreement--to help move this process forward because I personally feel we have some responsibility here.

And I think it is obvious that we are going to need more than the 2 weeks to get from here to there.

Now, I appreciate the desire of the gentleman from Kentucky to encourage the Members of his caucus to enter into serious negotiations with the other body with the hope of completing work by March 18.

But in a conference--I've been in conferences for 34 years as a Member and 8 years before that as a staffer--nobody gets everything they want. It's a process of compromise. You work out the differences between the two positions.

So I'm proud of the fact that we start with a cut of $41 billion that was enacted by the Democratic Congress in December during a very successful lame duck session.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is also the ranking Democratic member on Health and Human Services.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), one of our distinguished Members.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 1 minute.

You know, as I have said here today, everyone is in favor of doing deficit reduction. We want to do it in a way that won't hurt the economy. What I am concerned about is that if we have this large cut and then the States and local governments cut $125 billion at the same time, we will have about $185 billion of cuts, and that is going to cause a decline in economic growth.

I mean, it is basic economics. The way you get the deficit down is get people back to work, get people jobs, get them back to work. When the economy is as fragile as it is, it's a question of timing.

What the commission members said is don't do it in 2011; do it in 2012 and 2013 and then deal with the entire budget, deal with the entitlements, deal with the taxes, do the whole thing. Do the budget agreement that we all know we have to do, and that's going to take bipartisanship. That's going to take both parties, the President and the Senate and the House.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

We are going to have to get together and work out an agreement and come out together and support it in order to get this through. This is what we did with Bob Dole and Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan.

So, this can be done, but we have to have everything on the table. Again, I worry about the 2 week Continuing Resolution. I think that's a bit ambitious.

Again, I want to point out to my colleagues that it was the Democratic House and Senate and President who passed the bill, the CR that cut $41 billion from Obama's FY 2011 request, $41 billion.

So I want to make sure you all don't forget that. I am going to try to continue to remind you of that fact.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader and former Speaker, the gentlelady from California, Nancy Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip and former majority leader, who will help correct the record.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member and former chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Jim Moran.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Will the gentleman yield?

I was just glad to hear the litany of these things that you voted against. Are you still for those Civil War battlefields?

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

I think this has been a very spirited debate in the best traditions of the House. I want to point out a few facts to again correct the Record.

First of all, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act probably brought down the unemployment rate from 12 or 13 percent to 9.5 percent. We would have a 12.5 percent unemployment rate today if it weren't for the American Recovery Act.

The only deficit that has been cut around here was the $41 billion that was done by the Democrats and enacted in December and passed to March 4.

Now, again, we did not get our work done. Mr. Rogers and I are going to get the work done. But again, gentlemen and ladies, it's the economy. You've got to put people back to work. And if the net impact of what you do, the cuts you make are to throw people out of work, to cause the economy to stumble and stop the recovery and increase unemployment, then the deficit will go up.

The only way you get this better is to drive down unemployment, get people working, get businesses producing, get the revenues coming in. That will do it. But what the best economists in this country say is your medicine is not going to cure the patient. It could well harm the patient and cause things to get worse, not better. So that's why some people believe it's a timing issue.

And yet, again, I want you to know, we will work together in these next 2 weeks. We've got to get this thing resolved.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would just say to the gentleman from New Jersey that I was in almost all of the meetings in our caucus. This bill was read provision by provision, sentence by sentence, and we had the staffers there who wrote these provisions under the direction of our chairman at that time.

This was carefully considered, and any idea from the gentleman from New Jersey that it wasn't is just an outrageous statement on his part, and he ought to be ashamed of himself.

I rise to ask a question of the Chair. Who has the right to close on this amendment?

I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment for the same very reason. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is coming to an end. I agree with the chairman. It makes me cringe that they have spent $3 billion on this, but for an additional $34 million, we can finish the R&D phase of this program. That is what the chairman was talking about. Then we don't have to pay $145 million, as I understand it, in termination costs. I think it is just wise to get the final research done. So I would reluctantly have to oppose this amendment because it would take away our opportunity to get this better agreement that the chairman is talking about.

SLAMRAAM is an AIM-9 missile that is ground-based, and this program is coming to an end. It is being terminated as well, and we support that.

Again, I think we should reject the gentleman's amendment, but the outcome of what he is talking about will be achieved in the very near future.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I am very sorry that the gentlelady cannot offer her well- thought-out amendments on a technicality, but I will yield 3 minutes to her to explain what her amendments would have done if they had been in order.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Many economists today say that if we had not had stimulus, unemployment would be at 13 percent. I hear so often over on the other side that it didn't work.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I hear so much talk on the other side that the stimulus program didn't--reputable economists say the unemployment rate would be at 12.5 to 13 percent if we hadn't had the stimulus package. And again, that's why we're so worried about the magnitude of the cuts here having a countercyclical effect. So I appreciate the gentlewoman's work on this.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 104 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Let me remind my colleagues what the underlying CR does to existing programs even before we consider the additional across-the- board cut offered by Mr. Jordan:

A cut of $107 million from food safety inspections. This amendment by Mr. Jordan would take an additional $5.6 million. The CR also already cuts $400 million to the Food and Drug Administration, and this amendment would take an additional $22 million. Cuts to State law enforcement assistance of $1.3 billion, 35 percent compared to the current rate; the Jordan amendment would cut an additional $68 million. The original version also completely eliminated the Cops Hiring Program, but an amendment passed by the House this week from our side prevailed, reinstating some of that funding.

It cut $661 million below the current rate from the Army Corps of Engineers, leaving hundreds of communities without critical flood control and navigation work. The Jordan amendment would cut an additional $35 million.

The CR also completely eliminates weatherization in State energy programs.

It cuts $648 million from the Nuclear Nonproliferation program, increasing the likelihood of bomb grade material entering the United States. The Jordan amendment would cut an additional $37 million.

The CR cuts safe drinking water and clean water State funds by 56 percent, or $1.7 billion. The Jordan amendment would cut an additional $167.2 million.

The CR cuts the maximum Pell Grant amount by $845. These grants help more than 8 million students afford college. The Jordan amendment exacerbates that reduction by taking an additional $962 million from the program.

The CR cuts Head Start by more than $1.1 billion, which is $500 million below the 2008 level. The Jordan amendment would cut an additional $338 million, meaning that individual students would lose their right to Head Start, that the teachers would be fired, and that people would be unemployed because of this amendment.

Then Transportation and HUD, which already saw a cut of nearly $14 billion, would be cut by an additional $3.7 billion, impacting critical funding for roads and bridges and infrastructure across this country.

This is a meat ax approach on top of a meat ax approach--it's a double meat ax approach. It is an amendment that we should defeat and defeat soundly.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), who has been the chair and ranking member of the House Administration Committee.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished former chairman and ranking member of the THUD Subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a valued member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner), a distinguished member of the committee.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the ranking member on the Labor-HHS subcommittee.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Notre Dame and California (Mr. Lungren), the former Attorney General.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee from California (Mr. Farr).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee, and a member of the Defense Subcommittee, Mr. Kingston of Georgia.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Melbourne, Florida, where my uncle was the former mayor, Mr. Posey.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) who is the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and a valued senior member of the Defense Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, how much time do we have on both sides?

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Idaho, Mike Simpson, who has been the ranking member on Interior and now the chairman of the Interior and Environmental Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished lady from Texas, Kay Granger, who is the chairman of the State, Foreign Ops Appropriations Subcommittee.

I yield to the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, THUD, Mr. Latham from Iowa.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri, the chairman of the Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee.

I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia.

In closing, let me point out that the amendment to impose an across-the-board cut would allow OMB to make the individual funding decisions. We have spent 4 days and nights thoughtfully considering programs and levels. This amendment is not thoughtful and should be defeated.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Today may well be the last day of a very distinguished career of Congresswoman Jane Harman from California. And I want to recognize Jane in the well, and you can say a few words, and then we will have some other people making brief comments.

Jane.

I yield to the Democratic leader.

I now yield to the Democratic Whip, the gentleman from Maryland.

I yield to the gentleman from California, our former chairman of the Appropriations Committee and Defense Subcommittee, Mr. Lewis, our good friend.

I have known Jane for 42 years. She was a staff assistant to Senator Tunney when I was a staff assistant to Senator Magnuson. We have worked together as colleagues ever since. We love Sidney. We are so excited that there still is a Woodrow Wilson Center for you to go to. We appreciate your great service to our country and thank you for everything that you have done.

I yield to my friend from California.

Jane, we wish you well at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Lee Hamilton did a fantastic job. We know you will too.

Amendment No. 336 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object. This is for the Members who want to voluntarily enter into this arrangement.

Is that correct?

I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The Department of Defense was not spared from cuts. The bill already slashes $15 billion from the President's request for FY11. This amendment would take it down another $18 billion, or $33 billion in total. I am concerned that the levels of cuts proposed by the gentleman from California go too far and will adversely affect many defense readiness programs. Just as I have said about cuts in other areas, this is not time to take a hatchet to these programs.

The amendment would cause DOD to terminate contracts, which will, in turn, force companies to lay off employees. Defense spending cannot, of course, be justified simply by jobs; but at the same time, the prospect of adding to our unemployment just as we are emerging from the recession should be a consideration.

In total, the Office of Secretary of Defense has identified 124 major acquisition programs that would be significantly disrupted by approaching the FY10 funding levels. Dropping funding by an additional $18 billion to reach the 3.5 percent reduction would seriously disrupt the readiness and safety of our forces.

This is a very bad amendment; and on a bipartisan basis, we should defeat it.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I understand there is a school of thought that we should just let nature take its way. But on the west coast of Washington State, we have from time to time had to come out and put in replenishment projects to save cities and save housing. We have done this with the Corps of Engineers very effectively using the best science.

In Mississippi, they have a big Army Corps center where they study how to do these things. And, it does cost a little bit of money, but we are saving assets, and billions and billions of dollars.

I just think that this is a very unfortunate amendment, and we should, in a bipartisan basis, defeat it and let the Corps do what it has to do to save cities and coastal areas across America.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I just want to say to the gentleman, the Oregon Public Utility Commission has ruled that, from the standpoint of the rate- paying public, the settlement agreement is preferable to relicensing under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, as the agreement caps ratepayer cost at $200 million; whereas, fish passage costs, because these dams are old, could exceed $500 million, plus an additional $200 million for O&M. The amendment would force these costs on the rate-paying public without the benefit of accurate benefits and costs.

Being from the Northwest, I want you to know that sometimes, and they are just studying this dam removal, but sometimes by taking out dams you can restore the original habitat and help the salmon recovery, as we are doing on the Elwha Dam project up in Washington State.

The reason we did it: Because it was going to cost so much to fix up the dam, that it was actually cheaper to take them out and restore, and this became a major restoration project. So I wouldn't just assume that this is not a positive thing.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

By the local community.

And being from Oregon, you realize that it would do a lot potentially for salmon restoration.

I thank my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from California.

And you would think that the gentleman from California would be interested in letting the local community come to a decision on this rather than imposing it from Washington, D.C., and overturning what this local group of people have been working on for years. I mean, this is really a bit much.

Will the gentleman yield?

That's the point. It would cost more to fix these dams up. That's the problem we faced on the Elwha. Even though the dams were there, the cost was so high to fix them up that it was better to take them out.

Now, this study will just look at this and the local people will wind up getting hurt if you force them to have to do this. So let the local people decide this and let this study go forward. It is a very inexpensive thing, and this community has worked hard and deserves a chance to look at this.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The amendment would prohibit the use of funds to take any action to dis-establish the Joint Forces Command. In FY 2010, Secretary of Defense Gates recommended dis-establishing the Joint Forces Command, and included this as part of his efficiencies initiatives in the fiscal year 2012 budget request.

On January 6, 2011, President Obama issued an official memorandum accepting the recommendations of Secretary Gates and of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, and approved dis-establishment of Joint Forces Command.

The Department of Defense expects to save at least $240 million annually by dis-establishing the command. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff retains responsibility for promoting joint operations and essential functions. The resources needed to perform these functions will be assigned to other organizations in Hampton Roads and the Navy support activity in Norfolk, Virginia. All told, DOD estimates that about 50 percent of the current level of effort will remain in the Norfolk, Virginia area.

We've been through so many rounds of BRAC. I can sympathize with the gentleman from Virginia, and I understand his concerns about this.

But, you know, your side is taking the position that we have to reduce spending on some of the most sensitive programs that we have in our government.

I happen to have chaired the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee just for a brief time but was a member of the committee for 32 years, and I am now the ranking Democratic member. We went through this budget very, very carefully this year, Mr. Young and I did, and we came up with $15 billion of cuts.

We have to give some respect to the Secretary of Defense, who, in fact, was a Republican and serving in this administration. Some of these things I know are painful and it affects your community. I have had that problem over the years myself. But just like the alternate engine, sometimes we have to make these hard decisions.

The Secretary of Defense, I think in this case, deserves the benefit of the doubt. I think the Virginia delegation is totally correct in asking for substantiation for what they are doing and why they are doing it.

But, you know, Joint Forces Command is--I have been there and visited there. The responsibility is to assign forces to various contingencies.

You know, we only have so many forces, so we do look at all the plans there are. There is going to be this fleet or this division or this going here, there and everywhere, depending on what the scenario is. So I think the Chairman, Mike Mullen, and the Joint Chiefs can do that just as well as having a separate command.

And, again, I say we have to make some hard decisions. We are cutting the heart out of the domestic programs of this country and defense has to give something up here. If you look at the various commands, this one makes as much sense. And the Secretary of Defense has made the decision. It is supported by the top members of the joint staff and, for that reason, I regretfully have to object and oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I appreciate the gentleman's point.

As I have been told, there has been an effort to try and keep 50 percent of the people and the activities in your area in Virginia, and that's one of the most important defense areas the country has.

So I think you guys are working hard, and I think that the Department is responding as best they can, but, again, I think we should reject the amendment and let this thing work out as the Department has recommended.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense from spending any funds--any--for official representation due to a lack of auditable financial statements.

Now, I completely agree with the gentleman on the point that we need to get them to do this. I just think this approach is not the way to do it.

If authorizers could set a timeframe in statute--and that's the way to do it--without cutting out these funds when they are entertaining people from other countries around the world. I just think it's one of those things that sounds good, but it's going to have unintended consequences.

Auditable financial statements have long been a goal of the Department of Defense. The committee has long pressed DOD to improve the quality of its financial management, and will continue that effort in the coming year. However, eliminating official representation funds is not connected to that goal. And limiting these funds would have damaging consequences.

The amendment would preclude activities associated with hosting military to military contacts, both domestically and overseas. The activity extends official courtesies to guests of the United States and the Department of Defense, and upholds the prestige and standing of the United States. The amendment would also harm the military services' ability to conduct community relations activities.

The amendment hurts DOD's ability to represent itself to foreign Nations and to the communities in which DOD activities are located. And it does so with very little payback. The bill before the House cuts over $15 billion on a bipartisan basis from the Defense Department budget on careful analysis of DOD programs. The approach in this bill yields both a higher payback and does not have the drawback of unintended consequences.

Therefore, I urge rejection of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to rise in very strong opposition. Being a westerner, I have counties in my district that receive these payments. I think it's justified. I appreciate the fact that the new majority has tried to protect these payments. It's very important in the West.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. Secretary Gates has worked out a reduction in the troop force that will occur later in the FYDP. I think under the circumstances with the troops in Afghanistan, we are bringing in troops out of Iraq. And one of the things that is very important about our European bases is we train with the Europeans. We work with the Europeans. When the flights come out of Iraq or Afghanistan with wounded troops, they come back to Landstuhl in Germany where the troops are taken care of in the hospital. There is a long- term relationship with NATO that is very critically important.

And just to do this off the back of the hand, I understand the gentleman has some other advisers on this amendment; I wouldn't exactly be touting Donald Rumsfeld myself. But anyway, I hope that we can defeat this amendment and let the Secretary of Defense and the joint chiefs make the decision in bringing down our troop forces. And I really do believe Europe is still important to the United States.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I object. I don't think the gentlelady is addressing the point of order. She is reiterating the argument.

Will the gentleman yield? What are the names?

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to finish on this amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Let me ask: Do we know how many amendments are left on your side, Mr. Chairman?

We understand that you have 50 amendments left, 18 of which are subject to a point of order. One of ours is. We have three and we have one colloquy. You asked us for a colloquy; we got you a colloquy, okay?

Now, just in the spirit of cooperation, I hope some of you might think about doing what a lot of our Members have done and decide not to offer your amendments so we can get the hell out of here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Did the gentleman from Arizona say he was going to withdraw his amendment on Marti?

I was just curious to hear that. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

I thank the gentleman from Vermont.

I yield to the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, our good friend, Mr. Young.

I thank the chairman.

I agree that the Yellow Ribbon Program has been a top priority of the subcommittee. We have worked tirelessly to ensure our brave men and women and their families are taken care of when they are serving the Nation. I too will work with the gentleman from Vermont and the gentleman from Florida to ensure the needs of our troops and their families are met.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 495 Offered by Mr. Hall

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First of all, working together on a bipartisan basis for the first time, we cut nearly $15 billion from the Obama budget request in 2011 for defense, and we did it on a very careful basis.

This amendment would add another $56 billion to that cut. It would do damage to all of our acquisition programs. It would threaten the people in Iraq and Afghanistan and our efforts to conduct the global war on terrorism. So, again, I hope that on a very strong bipartisan basis we can reject this amendment.

I rise in strong support of the position of our committee in opposition to this amendment, and I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Moran and Mr. Wolf.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I'm just going to take a minute here.

I want to say to my colleagues here, I completely agree with my friend from Washington State, Mr. Hastings, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, that this violates the law of the land. There is no scientific basis for what is happening here. We have submarines and nuclear power carriers that are offloading waste in Burlington, Washington that go to Idaho that are supposed to go to Yucca Mountain. We made a commitment to the people of Idaho that we would move that waste out of here in the 2025 time frame.

Now this project is being stopped without Congress--I was here when we passed the law, and this is being stopped without Congress changing the law. I think it's a travesty, and we're wasting billions of dollars. We should go ahead and finish this project.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

To make cuts back to the 2006 level for defense, homeland security, and veterans affairs would do

enormous damage to the country. I mean we would be talking about $65, $70 billion in defense, homeland security. And VA would be very substantial as well. I just think of the VA health care benefits that were increased by our Members of Congress working on a bipartisan basis, our former colleague Chet Edwards. We increased health care to take care of the problems associated with the veterans coming back and needing post-traumatic disorder, traumatic brain injury, needing all kinds of help.

We have thousands of veterans today who are homeless. So taking these levels back to 2006, in my judgment, would do devastation to this part of the budget. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve my time.

I would yield to the gentleman just to say we had a different description of your amendment. I regret that there were inaccuracies.

But even for the rest of the government, I think the amendment going back to 2006 is too severe. And as the chairman would say, it is an across-the-board cut, give all the authority to OMB. I am with Hal Rogers, it's not a good idea. Let's defeat the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

You can't object.

I yield the gentleman 45 seconds.

I yield to the distinguished chairman.

We will finish this up in 45 seconds.

I would be delighted to do that.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

That's right. I can regain the time under the five-minute rule.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) had an amendment which she is going to withdraw. I want to enter into a very brief colloquy in which she can explain what her amendment attempted to do, and then we are not going to offer it.

I appreciate the gentlelady for withdrawing her amendment so we may proceed with the next speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 540 Offered by Mr. LaTourette

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it really pains me to not be able to help my friend from Ohio, who is a valued member of the Appropriations Committee, who was an outstanding member of the Interior Subcommittee when I was chairman, and who I enjoy working with very much.

The LaTourette amendment would cut from the FY10 levels: 31 percent from Agriculture; 20 percent from CJS; 11 percent from Energy and Water; 19 percent from Financial Services; 5 percent from Homeland Security; 19 percent from Interior; 17 percent from Labor-HHS; 6 percent from the Legislative Branch; 12 percent from State, Foreign Operations; and 30 percent from Transportation.

Unfortunately, in addition, the amendment fails to incorporate for Afghanistan and Iraq operations provided by section 101(8) of the first continuing resolution. Omitting this provision effectively cuts Department of Defense contingency funding by nearly $30 billion. As a result, the amendment vastly underfunds DOD requirements for fiscal year 2011. It would preclude effective conduct of operations and put deployed troops at risk.

The amendment would also harm job growth.

For example, in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee, the LaTourette amendment would cut nearly 30 percent, or more than $20 billion, from programs and activities under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. This would lead to a part-time air traffic control system by cutting over $2.8 billion from the FAA operations; cause severe reductions in service and work layoffs for Amtrak; and finally, this amendment would provide fewer resources for transportation safety overnight.

The amendment also leads to the loss of 650,000 vouchers for low- income families, and it cuts nearly $500 million from homeless assistance programs. In addition, it would threaten the ongoing recovery of the housing market by grossly underfunding the resource needs of the Federal Housing Administration.

The LaTourette amendment would also affect our domestic security by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to lay off crucial staff we have hired over the past 2 years, which includes Border Patrol agents, CBP officers at the ports of entry, ICE investigators along the Southwest border, and Secret Service agents to respond to the heightened threats against the President.

Finally, like other amendments that have already been rejected by this body, the LaTourette amendment puts OMB in charge, concedes the congressional authority on an across-the-board basis, and also takes out all the money in the CR for anomalies.

I urge all Members to reject the LaTourette amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the entire staff of the House Appropriations Committee for the fantastic work that they have done.

No one better exemplifies those qualities than Mr. John Blazey. One of the best moves we made was to steal him away from the Senate Budget Committee.

Next week, Blazey will end his 20-year career with the committee, where he worked on five different subcommittees, and holds the distinction of having been named the Transportation subcommittee staff director at the youngest age. His knowledge of process and substance is matched only by his style and parties.

Blazey--and his elf costume--will be missed.

I yield to the distinguished chairman of the committee.