tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 1, 2011 1:00pm-5:00pm EST
and i think -- my fear is we are going to be kicking the can down the road every two weeks, every two weeks facing another possible government shutdown. as the gentleman from colorado said, that creates economic uncertainty. it's not good for the economy. i just wanted to comment on the gentleman from georgia, i was glad i finally heard him use the word jobs. and talk about jobs. because that's the problem here. this h.r. 1, that he talks about, we know is going to destroy jobs. various accounts, 700,000, 800,000 jobs. . not just because the government isn't paying for the jobs but beant it doesn't invest in the future. if you liven to what president obama said in his state of the union address, he said, the government has a rule. the gentleman from georgia says the government should get out of the way. i don't agree with that. we need to make wise investments in our future, in our education program, which this cuts, in our research and development for the
future, in infrastructure so that we can have roads and highways and mass transit so that commerce can continue and we can grow the economy. that's what's wrong with h.r. 1 and this larger bill that the republicans have put forward. and of course the senate can't take up the bill the way it is. because they nope it will destroy jobs and cripple the economy. so what i ask is to my republican colleagues, go out there, sit down with the senate democrats, sit down with the house democrats, don't just say, take it or leave this bill that we know has such draconian cuts and doesn't do anything to invest in america's future. we can't continue down this road. we've got to work together. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. to associate myself with the gentleman from new jersey's comments. we absolutely have to work together and it's a great source of pride for me that i've only been on the job 60 days and we've already seen more working together than this house has
allowed in the past four years combined. understand that. understand that as we're working on this appropriations bill. as we're working through this appropriations process. that two weeks ago you saw more openness and working together in this chamber, right here, right here in the people's house, more working together than you had seen in the previous four years combined. can we do more? i say to the gentleman from new jersey, i think we can. and i look forward to being a partner in making that happen. but to say that what is sitting on the desk in the senate is the product of take it or leave it legislating could not be further from the truth. it's the furthest from take it or leave it legislating, that the house has seen in four years. arguably it's the furthest thing from take it or leave it legislation that the house has seen on continuing appropriations bills in modern time. and so when we talk about where
we are and where we're going, we have to ask that question of, why are we characterizing this as a process that's broken? why are we characterizing h.r. 1 as something that doesn't work? why isn't h.r. 1 the very best, the very best given the makeup of this house, given our collective intellect and wisdom, why isn't h.r. 19 very best that we could do? because when the process is open and everyone gets to participate it ought to bring out our very best. i'll say to the gentleman from new jersey, he has some of the lowest gas prices until the country. and i enjoy traveling through his great state every time i go through, not only do i get full service gasoline, i get it from the best prices in the country. gas prices are up 25 cents a gallon where i come from. 25 cents a gallon in the past 10 days. we have economic crises in this country, we have economic
challenges in this country, but spending more government resources is not the answer. we have about a $15 trillion economy, even with a $3.5 trillion federal budget, the federal player is small, small. 8.5 cents of every dollar in education in georgia comes from federal government. the rest comes from exactly where you'd expect it to come from. local communities and state governments. we have to get the government out of the way and if you're worried about uncertainty as i am, if you share our concern about uncertainty, then let's pass h.r. 1. let's be done, let's be done with this two weeks, four weeks, six weeks, 12 weeks, let's get it through the end of the year, let's finish the job that we should have gotten done last year, let's put it behind us and start that new, open process again. and it's one that i look forward to joining my colleagues in. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i yield myself 30 seconds briefly to respond. h.r. 1 cannot be looked as an a serious budget document. now, it's not about the cuts, $61 billion, $70 billion, we can come to a number that we can agree and by the way you can't come to a serious number without making sure that defense is also on the table. but what we have with h.r. 1 is a bill that loads up every piece of the far right social agenda in one bill. from restricting a woman's right to choose to preventing government from protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink. so if we want to have a discussion about a serious budget document and serious cuts, that's one thing. if we want to have a far right, that's another. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from washington, the ranking member of the appropriations committee, mr. dicks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: mr. speaker, the c.r. 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 c.r. 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 eight years on the staff of the other body and this is my
35th year in the house of representatives, ok? nobody ever gets everything they want. there is a process where we have the house passes the bill, goes to the senate and then we have a conference committee or the senate sends the bill back to us. and both sides meet and work out their differences. there's give and take, there's 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 f.y. 2011 budget. it was the democrats that did it. we had one republican vote, walter jones. 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, you know, i want to make it clear, we are also for deficit reduction, but what i am worried about, and i know the gentleman's very sincere, i can tell that, i know you believe in every word that you're saying, but the biggest problem with this is of what the effect will be on our economy. moody's says it will cost us $4 -- 400,000 jobs and 700,000 jobs in 2011. goldman sachs, who i don't normally quote, they say that this could cut 1.5% to 2% out of gross domestic product. that could mean the loss of 2.4 million jobs over the next two 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. is there any theory, economic theory that i've ever heard of called cut and grow? i mean, you know, even supply side economics would maybe be embraced there. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. dicks: 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. and, again, it takes compromise. you got to work with the other body to come up with a reasonable solution here or we're going to have problems with the government shutdown and , you know, you can say whatever you want, we don't need the government shutting down when we're in two wars. war in afghanistan and a war in iraq. and the global war on terror. we don't need to shut the government down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds only to say, that's why we're here today, as the gentleman knows so, that there is no government shutdown. and i could not be more proud that we're here taking that responsibility exactly as seriously as it is. and it's very difficult to have a conversation about jobs when we have carbon rigs coming down
the pipe that will destroy jobs, we have financial regulations that will destroy jobs and we have health care regs coming down the pipe that will destroy jobs. my folks are saying, enough. and with that i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from california, the chairman of the rules committee, the gentleman that i give credit to giving us the most open process on a continuing resolution that we've seen in modern times. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? i appreciate what you all did in having an open rule. i applaud chairman rogers and chairman dreier. that is the right thing to do. it was appreciated on both sides of the aisle. mr. woodall: and it was done without your support. mr. dicks: i did my best to support -- help. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. for how much time? mr. woodall: as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, let me just say, i was going to begin
by saying that both my colleagues, mr. rogers and mr. dicks, did an absolutely phenomenal job at taking on the responsibility that was thrust on them when we have an open amendment process. the people who go through the greatest challenge are those who have to defend the bill and be here for hours and hours and hours. as we all know, we had 162 amendments considered on the house floor during those days that led up to -- before adjournment, week before last. and we worked into the morning on every occasion. that means after midnight, and i guess we adjourned at 2:00 or 3:00 on some of those days. i was sound asleep then, i have to admit. but you guys were working very, very hard, mr. speaker, and i want to thank them. and i was pleased that those in the minority did recognize that doing what we did was unprecedented.
never before has a continuing resolution been considered under the process that we've had. at best it's been a structured rule, which is what we had two decades ago, and both political parties had had usually a closed rule for the consideration of continuing resolutions up to that point. and so i do believe that we have come together with, as mr. woodall has said, a package that included amendments from both sides of the aisle as we proceed with this. now, i was tickled also to hear my friend talk about the fact that $41 billion in cuts were made under democratic leadership. the fact that both sides of the aisle are now talking about and bragging about ways to cut spending is i think a very encouraging sign. because that is the message, that's the message that mr. woodall was just offering, the constant expansion of government is in fact counterproductive in our quest to create jobs and get the economy moving.
now, we had this exchange last night in the rules committee, yesterday afternoon in the rules committee, mr. speaker, in which we were talking about mark and the goldman sachs projections as far as bringing about spending reductions and i brought to the floor one of the most brilliant economists i know, john taylor, who is at the hoover institution , stanford university, former undersecretary of the treasury for international affairs, a very good personal friend of mine, his son used to work in our office, he's proud to serve in the united states marine corps and i've got to say, mr. speaker, that john taylor in responding to the quote made it very clear that the notion, the notion of not bringing about spending reductions would in fact exacerbate the economic challenges that we have and the bottom line is, the best way for us to get our economy growing is to ensure that people can keep more of their hard-earned money and to restrict the kind of
control that the federal government has continued to thrust on individuals. i'd be happy to yield to my friend if he'd like to share one of those -- mr. dicks: let me make a brief comment. and i do applaud the gentleman from california as chairman of the rules committee for give -- working out that open -- 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, roger noel and gaven -- gavin wright. dreier mr. speaker, if i could -- mr. dreier: mr. speaker, if i could reclaim my time, what we've shown is that the economists say on one hand, on
the other hand. the fact is, not every economist agrees on this notion, but a statement has been made and in fact my friend made it upstairs and that is, he said, when he was quoting mark, that everyone basically, every economist came to this conclusion and my point in actually referencing professor taylor is that there is disagreement on it. i happen to come down on the side, personally, of mr. taylor. i think it's important for us just because we want to all encourage individual initiative and responsibility to do everything that we can to reduce the size and scope and reach of government and that's what the goal of h.r. 1 is, so that we can get the economy growing. and i believe that more incentives by reducing that tax and regulatory burden will create jobs because we do share that goal. i'm convinced that everyone wants to do that. but this notion that, i mean, i've heard commentators saying that somehow that republicans in
saying that we might see a reduction in the number of federal government jobs that we're not for job creation. we want people to have good, long-term jobs in the private sector and that's our goal here this room is a standard rule. we wanted to have this, not a closed rule but a modified closed rule. i know my friend that his amendment that he testified in behalf of in the rules committee wasn't made in order but we did say from the beginning, to minority leader pelosi, when she introduced her substitute proposal that we would have made that in order and would have made it a modified closed rule we offered. we did do that. we are where we are, keeping -- ensuring with don't go through a government shutdown that chairman rogers, mr. dicks, and rank and file members alike want to avoid. that's why we've got this
two-week package before us. i hope the senate will act and then do what we want to make sure happens, have a negotiated agreement that will get to where we need to be. so i thank my friend for his management of this rule just as he managed the last open rule. before i yield back -- mr. dicks: i want to say one brief word. i applaud the modified open rules and on the regular bills on appropriations. we hope, mr. rogers and i have been in contact and we're going to try to get these bills done in a timely way, we want open rules an 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 amendments and get these things done in a timely fashion. i think it's going to take the cooperation of all the members to be able to do that. mr. dreier: i will say the gentleman is absolutely right, mr. speaker. we want to have something that we haven't had in the last couple of years, that is, an open amendment proprocess when it comes to regular
appropriations bills. mr. ronellers and i have been discussing that at length and will continue to. i believe that the best way to deal with this is not leadership but for the floor managers to come together and work out an agreement on that. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. dicks: that's what happened this time. on i think the most difficult appropriations bill that's been considered. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i join the gentleman from washington in praising the gentleman from california, the chair of the rules committee, with regard to the modified open process that this body was able to undertake but with regard to this particular bill before us, what the gentleman from california said is that the democrats would be allowed to offer an amendment that would spend more but not allowed to offer a substitute amendment that would spend less. the democrats don't have a desire to offer a substitute amendment to that spends more. we do have a desire to offer a substitute theament does less, the rule doesn't allow for
that. with that, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: ladies and gentlemen of the house, let's take the next two weeks and try to do the right thing for the american people. i believe the right thing for the american people is to come up with a budget plan that sensibly reduces spending but does not put american jobs at risk. what do i mean by this? give you an example. i think a policy that says that oil companies which made $77 billion in profit last year alone can drill on federally owned property that's offshore and not pay anything in royalties to the american taxpayer is wasteful and we should stop it. i think provisions that say
that there are tax loopholes for companies that outsource jobs out of our country are wasteful. we should stop them. let's get rid of those things from our budget. but let's not follow the reckless plan of the majority that says in education, let's cut funding for 10,000 reading tutors and math coaches. in education, let's cut funding for 7,000 teachers of autistic children. children with a learning disability. in border security, let's cut funding that's used to pay the people who board ships and inspect containers that come into this crypt to make sure they don't have dirty bombs in them. in public safety, let's not cut funding that will lay off police officers and firefighters in towns around our country. in health care, let's not count
-- cancel hundreds if not thousands of research grants where our best researchers are working on cures for cancer or dementia or diabetes. these are reckless cuts. the problem with the republican plan is not just that it disrupts the united states government. the problem with the plan is that it disrupts the united states economy. this is why the leading economist for john mccain's presidential campaign of two years ago says this plan, the republicans are offering, will cost 700,000 jobs. that's why the largest investment bank in the country in a nonpolitical way says that this republican plan will cut in half the economic growth the country is counting on for this year. let's not disrupt jobs in this country. let's cut wasteful spending.
let's go after corporate welfare, not special education. let's go after oil company giveaways, not head start. let's get back to the business of debating job creation in the private sector in our country, not defunding planned parenthood. there are 15 million unemployed americans as we meet here in amp. let us resolve in the next two weeks to put their interests first to sensibly reduce spending where we can to invest in education and health care where we must and get on with the people's business. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from fwea. >> i yield myself 10 seconds to invite my colleague to join me to vote on this, this will eliminate every single piece of
corporate welfare loophole so on and so on because none of them need a nickel of it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman resebs his time. mr. polis: i yield 20 seconds for a response. mr. -- >> what is the payroll tax. mr. woodall: 20%. mr. polis: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> cap you imagine one of the -- ms. richardson: can you
messenger doing this, this is not very respopsable. why i'm opposed to this, this c.r. would slash $340 million for construction jobs, for projects of the army corps. now i just heard the previous speaker talk about private jobs. are we prepared to say that this government, we don't think there should be any federal government jobs? are you to tell me for my district where i have two ports, the largest ports in the tpwharkse don't need to do drenl, we can have ships run afoul? how are we going to grow our economy? i support cuts. but they need to make sense. a few others that concern me, a slash of $20 million to the department of homeland security. haven't we learned anything from hurricane katrina or 9/11 that we would suggest a cut, $103 million of fema sate state and local programs to provide frants to avoid disasters and
how we prepare for them. $129 million from higher education. i ask what is this 14 days about. we talked about that we're prepared, severn going to come here and make these cuts. let's have a sil discussion and let's build on last week but let's not do it on the backs of the american people. there is waste that can be addressed and i look forward to supporting those initiatives but this 14-day pause button is the wrong way and i'm opposed to it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. yps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this rule. and to this bill. this c.r. is further proof that the majority does not care
about the unemployment crisis. this really is a question of our morality as a nation. are we going to eat a loaf of bread that is spotted with the mold of conservatism and so-called fiscal responsibility , or are we going to bring to our children a loaf of bread that is healthy, whole wheat, and good for america? this bill represents a loaf of bread, and i might point out, the speaker yesterday or a few days ago said something about well, if they don't want to eat the whole loaf of bread at one time, then i'm going to make them eat it one slice at a time, well every slice is
speckled with mold of this old fashioned, old way of thinking, they got us into this problem that we're in now. what we have done is given the keys to the car that they drove into the ditch back to them and now we are forced to eat bread in that car, molded bread in that car that is going nowhere but down. mark zandy said, 700,000 jobs would be lost if we do it the way that these republicans who cannot drive, if we allow them to do that. simply looking ahead for my children and grandchildren and great grandchildren, i cannot in good faith go along with this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia.
mr. woodall: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire if there are further speakers? mr. woodall: i'm the time speaker. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. we all share the goal of reducing the deficit but we need to look at defense as one of the line items. i'm a member of the spending cuts and deficits working group and i've worked with my colleagues to identify $7 billion in savings, if republicans are committed to deficit reduction, why as they cut programs like start and liheap, do they spare defense? the priorities and levels proposed for 2010 no longer apply. our current military expenditures support bloated troop levels across europe that quite frankly, mr. speaker are
from a by gone every rasm -- from a bygone era. who are we fighting? the nazis? the soviets? the french? it's time for us to rethink our defense spending. it's clear that the current strategy is one we cannot afford. the expenditures in afghanistan are $100 billion. it's been estimated that there's only at most 100 al qaeda operatives in afghanistan. that's a spending level of $1 billion per al qaeda operative in afghanistan, most of al qaeda's operations have moved across the boarder to pakistan and they've gained a foothold in yemen. meanwhile, we're bogged down in a costry i -- costly war with no clear end game. let's get serious about balancing the budget. let's find savings in every agency, including the department of defense. until we get serious about controlling defense spending, the largest component of the discretionary budget, we will never achieve our goal rofse deucing the deficit.
this c.r. claims to only cut earmarks but we're playing the shell game. this continuing resolution states that earmarks have no legal affect which means that agencies have not been funding these programs. it means that the department of homeland security, for example, will have $264 million less to prepare and respond to threats and disasters and protect our ports. two weeks ago, mr. speaker, members from both sides of the aisle proposed amendments to an enact even more cuts. my friend from new york, mr. nadler, proposed cutting funding to afghanistan so that we could have a responsible withdrawal, saving $90 billion. my friend from arizona, mr. flake, proposed a very reasonable cut to the department of defense's operation and maintenance budget so we could get rid of funding for unneeded boards and commissions. i've also heard from many of my republican friends that we want to go back to 2008 levels. well, my colleague from california, mr. stark and ms. lee, proposed to do that with the defense budget. let's get real on deficit reduction and lead the way with
real cuts that actually balance the budget. the president is proposing real change for public education through funds investing in the innovation and early learning challenge fund, and we see none of these solutions under the proposed c.r. as we look to agree on the budget for the rest of the fiscal year, it's critical that we have meaningful resources for our public school, particularly at a time when they are under increasing budget pressure from districts and state cutbacks. education of our children in our youngest years is a research proven return on investment. we have no second or third chance with kids. they're only young once. by ending literacy support for our children and restricting proven school improvements in repeated short-term c.r.'s, we run the risk of opening the door to a spending agenda that eliminates jobs. mr. speaker, it's critical that we give the markets and businesses the predictability that they need with regard to the ongoing operations of government.
a two-week continuing resolution simply fails to do that. we will be back before this body again to do it again regardless of the outcome today, but i hope, mr. speaker, that we can work across the aisle to put together a real long-term solution to keep the federal government open. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: 3 3/4 minutes. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, we're here today for one reason and one reason only. and that's to provide ample time for the senate to consider h.r. 1. to keep the doors of the federal government open, to keep important services being dispensed, to keep the government of america on track. for two more weeks, while the senate takes time, i will associate myself with the gentleman from washington when he says, we can't always get what we want. i sadly haven't gotten what i wanted so far and i'm prepared to give less of what i want going forward. but i don't know how we're going to get to what any of us want if
folks don't even start considering the bill. this was our very best shot. it was our very best work product for the --, whether you lve love it, whether you hate it, it was the most openly produced work product in continuing resolutions history. and there it sits. and there it sits. almost 10 days now, with no advancement whatsoever. mr. speaker, i hope these two weeks are enough. i recognize the caution that my friend from colorado suggests, that we may be back here one more time doing this again. i hope this is the last time that we'll be here. but i know this, i know we can't continue to mortgage or children's future while we wait. i know we can't fiddle while rome burns and so we have passed, we have presented this continuing resolution with cuts there to prevent our children's future from continuing to be mortgaged. as i spoke with school groups across the district last week, and i share my friend from
colorado's passion for education, i asked them to turn on c-span this week, because i said, it doesn't mat who are stands up, whether they stand up on the left or the right, whether they speak from the well or the leadership table, they'll tell you the reason they're there today is four. is for you, the children, it's for your future that they are there on the floor of that house. i believe that. i believe in everyone's heart they're here to make sure that tomorrow's generation does better than today's generation and i would say, mr. speaker, that if there are school children out there watching today, perhaps they'll pick up the phone and give us a call and let us know which one of us are on the right track because it's all about them that we do what we do. with, that mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays.
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are reested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
in the preponderance of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes bylectronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the nationalaptioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of reprentatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the
44 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 44, joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 115, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members and staff are advised to take their conversations offer the floor. the house will be in order. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i rise today in support of h.j.res. 44, fiscal 2011 further continuing
appropriations resolution. this temporary c.r. is an extra special effort by the majority republicans to avoid a government shut down that could otherwise occur on march 4 when the current funding resolution expires. this temporary c.r. contains funding to allow all government agencies and programs to continue at the current rate of spending for the next two weeks until march 18, 2011. while reducing spending by $4 billion through several spending cuts and program terminations. these cuts reflect this republican majority's continued commitment to significantly reduce spending, rein in the nation's exploding deficits and debt, and to help our economy continue on the road to recovery.
madam speaker, a government shut down would halt critical and necessary services and programs that americans across the country rely on. and it's not what our constituents expect or demand. i would have greatly referred that the senate act on the hard-fought and thoughtfully crafted funding legislation that the house passed -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members and staff are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, the house is not in order.
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members and staff are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i would have greatly preferred that the senate act on the hard-fought and thoughtfully crafted funding legislation that the house passed almost two weeks ago which saves the taxpayers $100 billion compared to the president's request, but it's clear the senate needs more time. so this short-term c.r. will provide an additional two weeks while cutting spending to show our continued resolve to get our nation's fiscal house in order. the bill before us terminates eight programs for a savings of about $1.24 billion. these eight programs were all targeted for elimination in the president's budget request.
and have also been part of proposed cuts in the past in the house and the senate by members of both parties. these eight programs include election assistance grants, the broadband direct loan subsidy, the smithsonian institution legacy fund, the striving readers program, the leap program, even start, smaller learning communities. and a one-time highway funding addition. in addition, the bill also eliminates more than $2.7 billion in funding previously reserved for earmarks, eliminations that the house, senate, and the white house have all called for this year. the earmark funding cuts in this legislation come from energy and water, homeland security, labor, health, and human services, legislative branch, and
transportation housing and urban development program accounts. this legislation will represent the second of many appropriations bills this year that will significantly reduce spending, continuing a pattern of cuts that will help put our nation's budget back in balance and stop the dangerous spiral of unsustainable deficits and debt. it is my hope that this c.r. can be passed quickly and that the president will sign it before the march 4 deadline. this legislation should garner broad support today give the short time frame for action and give the fact that these spending cuts have received previous bipartisan support by members of the house and senate, as well as the white house. madam speaker, we are now five months into the current fiscal year, and it's critically important that we complete this budget process so that we can
turn our attention quickly to passing funding bills for fiscal year 2012. it's high time we start looking forward instead of constantly looking back to clean up past mistakes and inaction. we must move forward quickly in regular order, passing bills on time, in an open and transparent fashion, to avoid these budget uncertainties in the future. madam speaker, this is one more step that we have to take to get our fiscal house in order. while this isn't a perfect or easy process, it is essential that we pass this bill, avoid a government shut down, and continue work on long-term solution to complete this long overdue funding process. our constituents expect and deserve no less. i reserve the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself as much time as i consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: thank you. . mr. dicks: 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 two weeks is not enough time to reach an agreement on h.r. 1 with the other body and i am i trade we're going to be back here
doing this again. now when the house aproved h.r. 1 earlier this month, despite the overwhelming opposition of the democratic caucus, it was clear to me that gaining agreement on a full-year continuing resolution would be difficult, at least before the expiration of the current c.r. we imposed h.r. 1 because we believed 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.5%, meaning fewer job nbc 2011 and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 20 123678 the
economic policy institute projected job losses theer 800,000. goldman sachs predicts that h.r. 1 would slow economic growth by act between 1.5% and 2.5% which translates to the american economy losing up to 2.4 million jobs. the so the recory of our economy should be of 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 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 what -- where does this leave us? we are now six months into the current fiscal year, f.y. 2011.
and hearings with regard to thephysial year 2012 budget have begun in the budget committee an 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 proposed for the coming year a budget freeze at lastier'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. and in fact, we have already adopted a freeze at f.y. 2010 levels in the continuing resolution we are currently operating under. democrats approved the c.r. in december with only one republican vote which represents a reducks, i want you all to listen to this, of $41 billion from the level sought by the president in his f.y. 2011 budget request, 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 f.y. 2011 budget was passed in a c.r. 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 c.r. and we are considering another version that extends the time to recover the differences by only two weeks. i take the chairman at his word that neither he nor the leadership is interested in shutting down the operation of the federal government by declaring a statement in these appropriations deliberations. i will concede that it's disconcerting to me and others on the other side to read the speaker's comments that would seem to imply that there's a strategy of passing shorter term appropriations bills further and further and further
cuts. two 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, and i quote, if they won't eat the whole loaf at one time, we'll make the -- 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 squad mitt that it's because we didn't pass, 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 tiing to get this open rule, work through the amendment, get a continuing resolution, i mean a unanimous consent agreement and help move
this process. i personally feel we have some responsibility here. and i think it is obviously that we are going to need more than, as i said, i'll say this -- i said it when i started, i'll say it again, the two weeks to get from here to there. i appreciate the desire of the gentleman to encourage his caucus to enter into serious gerkses -- negotiations with the other body to complete work by march 18. but in a conference, i've been in conferences for 34 years and eight years before that as a staffer, nobody gets everything they want. it's a process of compromise. you work out the differents between the two positions. but i will -- i'm proud of the fact that we start with a cut of $41 billion that was enacted by the democratic congress in december. a very successful lame duck session. i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves.
the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: the gentleman mentioned the economists and their opinion of h.r. 1 the budget cutting bill we passed a couple of weeks ago. the best source that i think of right off is ben bernanke, chairman of the federal reserve. who has said h.r. 1 would have no negligible -- harmful impact on the economy. if the chairman of the federal reserve says that, i tend to believe im -- him. i yield three minutes to the chairman of the energy and water subcommittee, mr. frelinghuysen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: thank you, madam chairwoman. i rise in support of this resolution, it's rm an a thoughtful path to avoid a government shutdown.
the american people have made two things perfectly clear. first they want their government to stay up and running and second, they want us to cut spending. we need to do both. i would have greatly preferred the senate act on h.r. 1, the seven-month continuing resolution that we debated for over 90 hours. that included indeed the largest spend regular ducks in the history of any congress. 0 days ago this committee in the house took the president's budget and cut it by over $100 billion. terminating dozens of government programs in the process. and in a city where president reagan once said, and i quote a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life that we'll ever see on this life, end quote, that's quite an accomplishment. mr. speaker, the resolution we have before us today is a simple stopgap measure to provide more time for negotiations to develop a funding bill for the rest of the current fiscal year. it's temporary and must pass to
keep the government open beyond friday. this bill contains $4 billion in savings, including just under $1 billion from programs under the jurisdiction of my committee, energy and water development. these savings are found purely from eliminating earmarks inserted by congress in the fiscal year 2010 bill. as with other spend regular ducks in this bill, the committee is taking great pains to include only savings that both parties in both chambers support. both the house and senate have sworn off earmarks for fiscal year 2011 so these reduckses should not be controversial. my colleagues, we must move this resolution. we need it to provide time to continue negotiations to complete the important work that should have been done by the last congress. which passed no appropriations bills. mr. speaker, i repeat, the american people have made it clear, they want their government to stay open for business and they want us to
cut spending. let's do it, let's move ahead this resolution needs to be passed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro, who is also the ranking democratic member on health and human services. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. the lauro: -- ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman and i rise in opposition to this 14-day continuing resolution. the house majority is threatening to close down the government. this is brinkmanship. their desire to engage in brinkmanship damage ours economy and creates uncertainty for businesses and families. make no mistake, the proposed budget cuts will cost jobs.
700,000 jobs by the end of 2012, according to economist mark zandi who was chief economist for senator john mccain in his presidential bid. let me be clear. i am very supportive of the removal of earmarks in this resolution. they should be cut. we understand the need for deficit reduction. the question is, where do we start? our first priority should be to go after waste and special interests -- special interest spending. $40 billion to the oil industry which we are providing today, $40 billion. what about the almost $8 billion to multinational corporations who take their jobs overseas.
and yes, what about the $8 billion in agricultural subsidies. it is too bad that cutting these special interests subsidies is not the priority of the majority's resolution. instead this budget makes deep and reckless cuts in the areas that most impact middle class and working families of the $4 billion in immediate cuts put forward by this 14-day resolution, $1 ppt 4 billion comes out of education, health and human services and out of training programs. and yes, almost $ billion a quarter of the cut, comes out of education. education should be one of the last places we look to cut the budget, not the first. yes, these cuts could be achieved by eliminating four
programs proposed for terminationly the president as well as eliminating funding associated with the earmarks last year. but these are not the president's proposal. while he would cut some education programs he would reinvest those savings in other education programs considered more effective. this resolution just wipes out the funding. this resolution severely cuts efforts to reduce illiteracy which is a serious national problem for economic as well as human reason. the largest program targeted, striving readers represents a consolidation and reorganization of reading programs launched in 2010. why would the republican majority think it is responsible to strip away funding to improve literacy in this country before it even has a chance to work? i'm particularly concerned and
disappointed by the elimb nailings of even start. even start is about breaking the cycle of poverty and illiteracy by improving educational opportunities for families. i do not agree with the president's assessment that it should be terminated and i do not support its elimination in this resolution. this is an effective and critical program that should be allowed to continue. i'm not the only one kerned -- concerned by the consequences of this reckless budget. 300 leading economists have signed a letter to the president noting how these spending cuts will diminish our economic competitiveness. depoldman sachs reported that the republican budget will slash economic growth by 2% of economic -- of our economic growth. that would spend send the unemployment numbers back over 10%. americans want us to craft a budget for the remainder of the year that creates jobs, reduces
the deaf constituent, and strengthens the economy. do we start with slashing special interests and waste like the $40 billion that we are providing in subsidies to the oil companies the last time any of us looked, they were doing pretty well. they don't need any subsidies. or do we cut the things that help the middle class, which help our businesses and working families with children and with seniors? this resolution increases unemployment, it will hurt our economic recovery and i urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. . the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman who is the chairman of the agriculture subcommittee on appropriations,
the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the chairman for the time. madam speaker, i want to make three very important points right off the bat. number one, our debt is almost at 95% of the g.d.p. it's the highest debt we have ever had in history. last year alone the deficit was $1.5 trillion. we are borrowing 40 cents for every $1 that we spend. now, if you and i were doing that in our host hold, or business was doing it, or anybody else, you would say ok, we've got to change our spending habits. but somehow there are those in congress who think that we can continue to defy the laws of gravity. we have got to get our house in order. number two, why are we here? we are here because the democrats last year did not pass a budget, did not pass appropriation bills, and did not complete their work on fiscal
year 2011. that's what we are doing. we are trying to clean up the mess that was left to us. and in doing that we are mindful of our financial situation in trying to reduce some of the spending. number three, let me say this, this bill was passed with an open rule. indeed, i believe we had 127 votes on different amendments. democrats and republicans offered a myriad of amendments. now, for those who are complaining on the floor today that they don't like these cuts, why didn't they offer their amendment on the floor a couple weeks ago? that would have been the way to do that. now the chairman and the speaker have committed to have open rules throughout this process this year so there will be a lot of opportunities to go after some of these programs. and some of the one that is are mentioned i think i will support those cuts. but i just want to emphasize that everyone has had a bite at
this apple. finally, let me say this, madam speaker, the zahndy report comes from an economist, a political economist, we might say, who was the same person who told us the stimulus bill would work, the stimulus bill would keep us from going to 8% unemployment. we reached 10%. i don't think we need to listen to any more of his advice. mr. rogers: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. kingston: i thank the chairman. i just want to say i don't think that mr. zahndy has any more credibility. we have already spent $800 billion on his advice that the stimulus program would work. mr. rogers: is the gentleman aware, the ben bernanke, the chairman of the federal reserve, that h.r. 1 would have no harmful effect on the economy? mr. kingston: i have heard that. i understand there are 150 other economists who signed a letter to that effect led by a john taylor an economist as well. mr. rogers: and cutting spending and reducing the deficit will give confidence to the business
community to hire people and put people to work? mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee, one of our distinguished members. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. let me thank the ranking member of the appropriations committee. let me thank the chairperson, sometimes have a slip of tongue, mr. dicks, and call you chairman, but i thank you very much for this opportunity. i want to just try to give a procedural class here today. the procedural class is that this document is a placeholder. i would hesitate to call it a fake document, but that is what it is. as i left my constituency, the last words i heard is, don't you-all shut down the government.
i am glad that mr. dicks worked hard to submit his amendment in the rules committee. it's unfortunate that the wise men and women didn't have a majority. republicans would not yield to a thoughtful amendment by mr. dicks. but this is a two-week document. we know how old and what many of us have seen a two-week old baby. that's what this is. a two-week document so we can do the right thing. it needs to be very clear that before we left in the 110th congress, democrats had already cut $41 billion. many of us say we didn't have a budget. we had a budget, but we had no compromise, no reconciliation, no fairness, no concern about the american people. now we spent three months, march 1, doing nothing, and not one bill creates a job. goldman sachs, i know that there's a critique on goldman sachs, but you can't discount
the objective assessment of them saying that in the c.r. that was passed a week ago 700,000 to 800,000 jobs would be lost. mark zahndy was the economist and advisor to john mccain. i'm not sure what politics he has, but he is not in a political office today. and he provides us with an independent assessment that the c.r. that we voted on, which the senate would not agree to, would cost us 800,000 jobs. this document will go nowhere. unfortunately the $4 billion that is cut out of here and a litany of other unfortunate cuts is only temporary. i want to live to fight another day. we all want to be able to respond to the needs of this country and deficit reduction and a fair budget. but we could have had a clean c.r., and we would have reasonably sat down and made
right decisions. most economists have said that cutting the government in the middle of a budget year is an infection. the fiscal bipartisan commission said project to 2012 and 2013. don't cut 2011. it's important for the american people to know this is the midst of your budget year. so pell grants for students who are in college right now who have already gotten an apartment rendered to them -- -- an amount rendered to them -- some students who are now midyear operating on maybe $1,000 grant for pell grant to finish out in may, what we are doing is cutting them in the midst. that's what was voted on a week ago. what we are doing now is to recognize that people who govern are responsible for making sure that the doors of government stay open. i care about homeland security as a member of the homeland security committee. i care about the d.e.a. task
force citing drug cartels, care about children getting education, health care, the environment. let me just say this, we are doing this because we believe in the american people. but don't you for a moment think that this document is worth anything. we got to get to business and fight for the american people and preserve education. that's what democrats stand for. that's what we'll fight for. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for three minutes. mr. aderholt: thank you, madam chair. madam speaker, thank you, mr. chair, for yielding this time to me. it has been pointed out two weeks ago this chamber voted emphatically to cut spending and to right size our government. this c.r. that's before us today is a necessary stopgap that will keep the government operating
until we can finalize an agreement on those spending cuts contained in h.r. 1. the homeland security sections of the c.r. before us today strikes the right balance between funding party programs that are essential to our nation's security and at the same time keeping our discretionary spending in check. this c.r. cuts over $264 million in earmarks from the department of homeland security's budget while at the same time sustaining the current staffing levels of our frontline operating agencies like border patrol, c.d.p., i.c.e., and the coast guard, prove that we can cut spending and fund these functions of government that are truly vital. as i said two weeks ago on this floor, the department of homeland security is not immune from fiscal discipline and no program or agency is beyond the belt tightening that our government so desperately needs. by implementing these cuts we
are not choosing between homeland security and fiscal responsibility, both are serious national security concerns and issues, and must be dealt with immediately. and through a series of choices, this c.r. achieves both. madam speaker, this c.r. is a reasonable first step in addressing our government's fiscal crisis. there is absolutely no reason why the president or our colleagues in the senate cannot support these overdue spending cuts. the american people are demanding no less. i thank the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee for yielding this time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: 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. and what i'm concerned about is
that if we -- if we have this large cut and then the states and local governments cut $125 billion, at the same time, we'll have about $185 billion in cuts, that is going to cause a decline in economic growth. basic economics. the way you get the deficit down is get people back to work. get people jobs. get them back to work. so you want -- 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 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. that's going to take bipartisanship. that's going to take both of us, the president and senate and house -- i yield myself one additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i'm 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 ronl reagan. -- ronald reagan. we can do this but we have to have everything on the table. again i worry about this two weeks to get this done. 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 c.r., that cut $41 billion from obama's f.y. 2011 request. $41 billion. so i want to make sure you all don't forget that. the other side doesn't forget that. i'm going to try to continue to remind you of that fact. we have been -- pay me now or pay me later. we paid in december and now you guys have to work this thing
out. we want to help you a little bit on how to do it. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the chairman of the labor-hhs subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from montana, mr. rehberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana is recognized for three minutes. mr. rehberg: thank you, chairman rogers. madam chair, i rise to express my deep frustration with this extension. here we go again. debating another continuing resolution. i'm starting to feel like bill murray in "groundhog day" in that movie the main character wakes up every morning to relive the same day again and again. he never moves forward because he's stuck on groundhog day. last year the republicans in the house put the country on notice that we would try to reduce spending by $100 billion this year. the senate knew. and the american people knew and they gave us a substantial majority in the house. we worked responsibly and openly on a continuing resolution to meet that goal. after considering scores of amendments and engaging in long
days of thoughtful debate, we succeeded. in response, the senate majority leader summarily dismissed and recessed the senate. despite giving us an unprecedent three years of $1 trillion deficit, the majority leader dismised our efforts to reduce spending less than 2% from the total fiscal 2011 budget. in the interest of continuing our work on behalf of the american taxpayer and finding some common ground, republicans are offering this two-week extension. another continuing resolution made necessary only because the democrat leadership refused to adopt a budget last year. it's like groundhog day all over again. during this short extngs we propose to save $4 billion. too much for senator reid. he suggests a freed on spending for 30 days while he contemplates our proposal. the national debt will increase another $136 billion during that time. this is part of a big stall. keep stalling. keep implementing unaffordable health care entitlement
programs. keep threatening. keep spending. all the while ignoring the will of the people. but the growing $14.5 trillion national debt is dragging our country into economic ruin and a looming health care law with $2.5 trillion in new spending when fully implemented is about to bury us. make no mistake, i'm not happy that funding for the implementation of health care law continues in this continuing resolution. at some point soon before it's too late the majority leader and the democrat colleagues need to meaningfully address our spending problem. unfortunately all indications are our good faith effort to find common ground with this two-week extension will not bring the senate to the table to negotiate. the president and senate majority hold the balance of power in washington, d.c., but they stand against the majority of americans. i'll support this measure but i have been pushed to my limit. groundhog day may have been an entertaining movie, but it shouldn't be the basis for a system of government.
it's time for the senate to get to work. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 13 minutes remain, the gentleman from kentucky has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i thank my fend for yielding. i hope we're beginning to urner in in the next two weeks a season of compromise on this very important question before the country and i hope, and i'm confident, that chairman rogers and mr. dicks are capable of striking a very sound compromise for the people of our country. here's where we are. when the fiscal year began on october 1, there were a series of resolutions that said let's
live under the budget that spent what last year spent. we lived under that budget until this time. that budget saves $41 billion below what the administration asked for last february. the majority, about 10 days ago, passed a bill that said it wants to spend $100 billion less than what was proposed by the administration last february. now, logical people would say we're very well on the way to a sensible compromise. we're on track to save $41 billion below what was requested. the majority wishes to spend $100 billion less than that. i'm certain that talented legislators like the chairman, like mr. dicks, left to their own devices and leadership, can find a way to have us strike a middle ground for the rest of the fiscal year. i'm hoping that this is the last one of these temporary extensions we have so that those who rely upon the continuing fuppeding of
government departments, vendors, employees, and institutions, will be able to do so. i think it's fertile for a good compromise and i hope the house reaches it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. austria. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. austria: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in support of this short-term continuing resolution which must be passed this week to avoid a shutdown of many important programs and services. our first priority today is job growth. that's why we're putting into place policies that will stop the runaway spending here in washington and help bring more certainty to our financial and bismarcks to grow our economy and create long-term, sustainable jobs. last week, i had the opportunity to visit the largest single site employer in the state of ohio,
wright-patterson air force base. i was told if the government shuts down, thousands of people may be asked not to come to work. and if we don't pass the short-term c.r. this is one place that would suffer from a shutdown which is responsible for numerous national defense programs that depend on continued funding. without funding, programs like this across the country will not get off the ground in a timely manner, may incur programmatic delays and costs, jeopardize the national defense programs they support and put thousands of jobs, including small businesses, on the line. we must d the responsible thing an pass the short-term resolution which will buy us time to find a long-termres. lugs to our budget crisis. madam speaker, people across america and especially in ohio have spoken very clearly that washington needs to cut spending. nobody said these cuts would be easy but they're absolutely essential to help put our country back on a fiscally sustainable path that will
create jobs an strengthen our economy for future yen rations. with the leadership of chairman rogers, this house has already passed a c.r. to help protect national defense but in addition to that, they made more than $100 billion in cuts. when we pass the short-term c.r., we'll pass another $4 billion in cuts. it's time for the nat to do their job and pass the c.r. and i urge my colleague to join me in supporting this short-term c.r., ensure we are listening to the american people by passing a c.r. that includes substantial cuts and will put us on a fiscally sustainable path forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of miz time -- his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute -- i yield one minute to the distinguished democratic leader and former speaker, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leader is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, ma'am. i thank the gentleman for yielding.
i thank him for yielding time and for presenting the dicks substitute, which was not allowed to come to the floor but nonetheless i salute him for his leadership in that regardful madam speaker, members of congress -- in that regard. madam speaker, members of congress agree on two things, we must move the process forward so the government does not shut down and we must reduce the deficit. as we do that, we must create jobs and help the middle class. that's where we may have some separation. we have, as distinguished ranking member mr. dicks said earlier, in december of 2010, congressional democrats and the president of the united states cut spending by $41 billion. $41 billion. on that day in december, only one republican voted for those
cuts. only one. february, two months later, republicans pass the spending bill that does not create jobs but in fact has been said to de-so-700,000 jobs. that's approximately 100,000 jobs a week since we passed our cut bill. february, 2011, republicans pass a spending will that reduces u.s. economic growth by 1 ppt 5% to 2%. now some have questioned, is it ealy as much as 700,000 jobs? is it really as much as $-- as 1.5% to 2%, but no one questions whether there will be job los or whether there will be slowing down of our economic growth among serious economists. we are going in the wrong direction.
how fast may be the question. but we are going in the wrong direction. that is why it's very important for us to proceed with great care and caution here because again, we have the opportunity to create jobs, to strengthen the middle class, and to do so in a way that is fiscally sound. when i hear our colleagues talk about the deficit and the immorality of a big deficit and i completely agree, we owe it to our children and our grandchildren not to leave them a debt. but all this talk about deficit is -- when we as democrats took the lead on for decades. do you remember, because many of you were here at the time, that when president clinton became president, he inherited an enormous debt he instituted pay as you go, he had an economic agreement passed in
the congress and the deficit began to reduce, $5.6 trillion in surplus. another president bush took office, pay as you go went out the window. and again the turnaround into growing deficits. so for all of this talk about the immorality of deficits, where were you when those deficits were instituted in the late 1980's? some of you were here. in the 2000's, many of you were here. again we have to take our country on a path of deficit reduction. many of you were here when the tax cuts for the high end were implemented, creating no jobs except increasing our deficit, sending the bill to our children, and the credit to the chinese government. how about when we did the
prescription drug bill, giving away the store to the pharmaceutical industry and the price tag to our children by increasing the deficit. how about two wars, unpaid for wars? god knows we will do anything to protect and defend our people, and i would hope that everybody subscribes to that. why would we have tax cuts for people at the highest end, why wouldn't they pay their fair share of protecting the american people and american interests and their interests wherever they may exist in the world? and so we had in the eight years of president bush's administration, a complete reversal, an $11 trillion swing, a $5.6 trillion in surplus to nearly $5 trillion in debt. and now people are saying, the national debt, it's an immorality to have these
deficits. we agree. that's why once again we must take our country down a path of deficit reduction. but -- but to do so in a way that is job creating and strengthening of the middle class. december, 2010, democrats cut $41 billion in spending, only one republican voted for that february, 2011, republicans pass a spending bill that could destroy 700,000 jobs and reduce , slow down, our g.d.p., our gross domestic product, by 1.5% to 2%. if you want to say it's going to beless than that, it's going to slow down less than that, it's still going in the wrong direction. mr. dicks, i commented on his proposal because in the bill that we had before -- that we have before us, we have a situation where the republicans
have stripped the bill of important initiatives for the education of our children. in fact, president obama made some of those cuts too. but he didn't do it in a way that hurt the children. what we -- what we debate today hurt ours future by taking money from those facing challenges without redirecting critical resources to meet the needs of our children. what mr. dicks proposed would have reversed that. he would have taken those programs away in a budget that would have redirected funds to other initiatives addressing these needs. if we do not, as a congress, understand that education is essential, is key to all of our success, key to all of our
success, then frankly, the american people are way ahead of us on that. that's why when we debated the bill before the break to see a quarter of a million children thrown off of head start and many teachers fired alongside that. that's not -- is that a smart cut? sure, we have to tighten our belts. but let's do it again in a very smart way. i just want to know where everybody was in the days when this deficit grew? in the eight years of the bush administration? that's why we are in the situation we are today. that's why we must again make some very difficult decisions. so what is before us today is a short-term, let's just keep the government open two weeks, so we use that time to do the right thing.
to use that time to have a reality check, a reality check on how we got these deficits in the first place and how tax cuts at the highest end that do not create jobs but increase the deficit are not the appropriate path to deficit reduction. how cutting education and therefore the innovation that goes wit and the strength of our children and our economy is afingted is not the way to do it. many people here have met much experience on the way to do it and they sit on both sides of the aisle. let's get through this today, recognizing the challenge that we have, understanding that this bill before us is not a good one, but it's not final. and recognizing that when we come together, we meet the three criteria, does it create jobs, does it strengthen the
middle class, does it reduce the deficit? because all of those who say that it's immoral for us to grow the deficit and pass those bills on to our children and grandchildren are right. i just don't want them to ignore the fact that we got here a certain way and please do not ask us to go down that path again. with the attitude that it is a morality for us to do the same fate again, ignoring again the tremendous, tremendous suffering of the american people and their need for jobs, ignoring thes a separation of our children and their need for education by making the cuts that are in heed -- that are in here. this is as serious a debate we can have in the congress of the united states. because it affects our children and their future. because the deficits have gotten
so far out of hand. i'm very proud of the fact that 30 years ago, well, 1982, well, 29 years ago, when democrats gathered in philadelphia for midterm conference, pay-as-you-go was placed on the agenda, passed as a resolution, became part of the democratic platform. fiscal responsibility is a part of who we are. our blue dog coalition -- is that you, mr. lewis? our blue dog coalition has had this as their mantra, pay-as-you-go, -- pay as you go, do not add to the deficit. if we all share that view we should all be able to come together, because the numbers will add up or they will not add up. and the bill for sure will be sent to our children and our grandchildrenment some of you
have children, some of you have children and grandchildren. would you ever dream of sending them a bill for a personal expense? if you were to leave them anything? would you leave them a bill? we cannot leave the children of america with any bills for any fiscal deficit either. it wouldn't be the right thing to do. but in order for us to do the right thing, it is time for a serious reality check. and that's the opportunity mr. dicks was giving us today, the rules committee rejected that, i hope that in the weeks ahead, depending on what happens here today, let's move on with it so we can spend whatever time it takes to do it right, nothing less is at stake than the economic security of our country , the well-being of our children , the well-being of our children and the confidence that the american people have in what we are sent here to do for them.
with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leads back the balance of her time. the gentleman from kentucky. >> madam speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> to point out to the body that over the last two years, the congress went on a spending spree and increased spending by 84%. mr. rogers: in just two years. you ran the deficit up, the annual deficit, now two in a row, trillion-dollar-plus deficits a year, record breaking, we've never had that before, you've ran the debt up to now we're bouncing against the ceiling and the congress will be called upon to increase the debt ceiling. there were no appropriations bills passed last year at all, thus that's why we're here today.
so let's talk about the spending spree that we're trying to slow down and stop, madam speaker. with this bill. i yield back that time and yield two minutes, three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, a member of our committee, mr. graves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. graves: thank you, madam speaker. and i appreciate the chairman for clarifying some things that we just heard because i was at a loss, thinking i was going to need much more than three minutes to, you know, rewrite some of what we just heard there and correct the historical account of the last several years. we heard the la. ing and wailing today from -- lamenting and wailing today of the other side of the aisle and it's amazing to hear about why are we here, why are we in this position today? we're hearing government shutdown from the democrats, you're not hearing that from the republicans, you're hearing we need to reduce spending and cut the size of government. you hear, we're at the brink, we're about to shut down government and we have to
wonder, why are we here? the chairman brought it up so eloquently there a minute ago. when they were in the leadership last year, and it wasn't that long ago, one year ago, they had the opportunity, they had the opportunity to pass their own budget, they didn't do it. so instead they passed a c.r., c.r. went for about four or five weeks, wasn't enough. let's do another one, because, again, they could not pass a budget. passed another c.r. for two more weeks. again, that wasn't quite enough. so let's go three days, because we don't know how to pass a budget nor have an appropriations meeting. and then yet again, let's pass another one for just over two months. that is why we are here today, that is why the republicans are stepping up and leading, that is why the republicans passed a c.r. a few weeks ago cutting $100 billion. but yet again the democrats, they do not want to step up and lead at this time in our nation. so here we are again, the chairman of appropriations and
the republicans have stepped up and said, it's time to lead. so $2 billion a week in cuts, yes, that's what we're proposing, should it be more? sure, it should be more. to those who said we were cutting the wrong programs, i assure you, you'll have the chance doubt those programs because we will be cutting more. so this measure hopefully will pass both chambers, will avert the government shutdown and the question is then, what happens next? the american people want to know that. i want the american people no know this, that there are more -- to know this, that there are more spending cuts on the way. some of my colleagues on the other side, they'll say, you know, we don't need to cut spending, we've heard that, we heard that they want to freeze spending instead. which is akin to tying a brick to the accelerator this vehicle that's going off the cliff. it's status quo is what we're hearing from the other side. we heard a minute ago from the leader of the democrats, former speaker, and her quote was, they took the lead in deficits, oh,
is she so right. in fact, they have led three straight years of deficit spending, consecutive years, trillion-dollar deficits, and now $14 trillion debt. what leadership that is. the status quo is unacceptable, the american people deserve so much more. so, today let's stop that threat of the government shoutdown and let's -- shutdown and let's save the taxpayers $4 billion, let's come back and save them billions upon billions more. but let's get ready because deeper spending cuts are necessary and as we saw from that government accounting report, duplicative programs exist. madam speaker, it's time to eliminate some of those programs, continue eliminating portions of this government and get this fiscal house back on track. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip and former majority leader,
who will help correct the record. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i've now heard, watched on television now, i've been on the floor with two members from georgia, both of whom are brand new to this body, who are talking about history. i want to tell my friend from georgia a little bit of history. i've ben here 30 years. i've -- i've been here 30 years. i've served some 20 of those years under republican presidents. every one of them has run a deficit of $100 billion or more. in fact, during that cumulative period of 30 years, notwithstanding the obama administration, i'll discuss that in a second, mr. reagan, mr. bush i and mr. bush ii ran deficits of over $6 trillion that they signed the bills to spend. over $6 trillion. bill clinton was president for eight years, the last four years we didn't raise the debt at all,
unlike every one of the republican administrations where we raised it on a regular basis. not at all during the last administration. the last four years of mr. clinton's. and he ran the only president in your lifetime, and mine and i'm older han -- than you are, a $69.2 billion surplus. look it up, no argument, but let me say something. irrespective of who's responsible, we are responsible for fixing it. republicans and democrats, the american people know that we have a crisis confronting us. they know there is no option other than to deal with this realistically. i would call everybody in this body, republican, democrat, liberal, conservatives, attention to an article that was written by david brooks today in "the new york times." read it. read it.
we all ought to read this, take it to heart. i call it to my conference's attention or caucus' attention this morning. our deep debt is a serious danger to our economy. to our future and our children's opportunities. the american people want us to bring the debt down, they said so very loudly. and i doubt there's a member who disagrees. democrats believe that spending cuts are part of the solution, let there be no mistake. we need to cut spending. but we also believe that those cuts must be smart and targeted, not pegged to an arbitrary number. one of your staffers, when you put the pledge to america, came forth with a figure, $100 billion. that's a nice, round figure. $100 billion sounds good. good p.r., good spin, $100 billion. read david brooks, no ta
analysis was given to that figure, no figures were held on that figure. nobody could testify on the cuts that were proposed to reach that figure. we have to cut the spending, we can do without some spending. not the vital investments, however, that are helping to grow our economy, helping our private sector innovate and creating the jobs of the future. during the clinton administration i will tell my young friend from georgia, 22 million new jobs. during the bush administration we lost eight million jobs. 30 million job turnaround. that's why there was so much spending on which mr. rogers spoke. $700 billion of that was asked for by the bush presidency, secretary paulson and mr. bernanke. so that we didn't fall into a depression for the first time since herbert hoover. this president has been trying to bring us out and frankly is succeeding. unfortunately the republicans
passed a spending bill full of short-sighted and indiscriminant cuts. do we need cuts, yes. do we need short-sighted and indiscriminant cuts, no. just over a week ago you would cut billions in energy and medical research, kick 200,000 children out of head start, make college more expensive and stop 21st century infrastructure projects in 40 states. that's what mr. zandi was talking about, that's what goldman sachs is talking about. cuts like these could cripple america's competitiveness and job growth. according to moody's analytics' chief economist mark zandi, republican cuts would cost america a total of 700,000 jobs. the economic policy institute puts it at 800,000. rather than such job destroying policies, both of us, both parties need to come together and reason together. frankly the american public
doesn't care who works with whom, they just want it to work. this is no way to fund the largest enterprise in the world on 14 day cycles. the gentleman criticized us for doing it. we should have been criticized, but let me tell my friend when he didn't mention, one of the reasons we did it, can i have an additional minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. hoyer: we could not get 60 votes in the united states senate. in order to move a bill forward. keeping our government running is vital to our economy. none of us should want to shut down the government. it is also vital to the millions who rely on government every day , the sooner we can agree on a long-term package of smart cuts, not reckless, arbitrary job-destroying cut, the sooner we can stop funding the government in disruptive two-week incements.
the gentleman was correct, we ought not to do that. we need to pass a seven-month funding so the government and all who rely on the government, who work for the government, who have contracts with the government, can rely on some certainty. you've talked a lot about certainty on your side of the aisle. you're absolutely right. we need certainty. the business community needs certainty. individuals need certainty. and the government needs certainty. rather than passing two-week continuing resolutions, i urge republicans and democrats to work together on a long-term solution in this case, long-term is seven months. to reduce spending, to help balance our budget and to try to bring rashality to this process -- rationality to this process. we cannot, my friends on the republican side of the aisle and the democratic side of the aisle, continue to look at 15% of the budget and expect us to get to where we need to be from
where we now are. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from washington has four minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to a brand new member of the committee, the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yoder: thank you, madam speaker. we can debate who is at fault but i think we have an agreement. with record deficits and debt, coupled with 20 months straight unemployment, of 9% unemployment, it is time for us to get serious about the crushing affect of our runaway debt that is having on our economy. as speaker boehner has said, just like a bankrupt business can't create jobs, a bankrupt country can't create jobs. . it's not democrats
or republicans but families and individuals and business owners, they are the casualties of this government spending spree and we are at a crossroads. reasonable spending reductions or head towards crushing deficits. the tax increases that will be needed to alleviate would wipe out individuals and family businesses. current income tax rates would need to double across the board to close the deficits of this administration. you can't create jobs under these devastating taxes. we must reduce spending. we have a choice as the american people. we can choose prosperity, lower taxes and reduced debt or go the other direction and choose record-breaking deficits. we have a choice to make today and it's my hope that members will choose to keep government open and make modest reductions and we will pass this necessary
resolution to begin the pathway towards the necessary prosperity in this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hurt: last november, the people i represent, virginia's fifth district sent a message that america must make a bold departure and put a stop to the out of control spending. no longer can we continue on the path of unchecked reckless spending that has crippled our economy and left us with $14 trillion in debt, 1.6 trillion in deficit spending and high unemployment rate. last year, the 111th congress completely failed in its fundamental responsibility to
adopt a budget for the american people. remarkably they punted that responsibility and have kept the federal government operating over the last five months by adopting continuing resolutions. fortunately, the new 112th congress has accepted this responsibility to clean up the mess. republicans and democrats worked late into the week to get a proposal to the senate that recognizes the critical need to adopt the budget while cutting $100 billion in spending. after five months of failed leadership by senate democrats, we now find they need more time. this is truly unbelievable. over the past week, back at home in the fifth district, i was reminded again and again by my constituents that now is time for leadership, not for excuses. while the house takes up another resolution today that will continue to temporarily fund the government while keeping our commitment to the people to cut
an additional $4 billion in spending, it is critical that the sthat join us to produce a responsible funding resolution that makes the cuts necessary to get our fiscal house in order. for the sake of the next generation of americans, we must act and must act now to secure our future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, the ranking member of the interior and envirmente appropriations committee, jim moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: so many of our brand new colleagues seem to have run on the thesis that government can't be the solution to the problems but it's the problem, that it can'ted be counted upon to help people and can't be counted to invest on america's
long-term interests. seems as though now they have been elected, they are doing everything to prove themselves to be right. this is no way to run a government, a two-week c.r.? we don't have any great problem with the components of this c.r., except for the fact that it's two weeks. it should be a seven-month c.r. and we should tackle the appropriation bills themselves. if it is a seven-month c.r., it shouldn't be a dump truck of legislation that includes in it virtually every controversial issue that this congress has dealt with over the last 20, 30 years. my good friend from kentucky, the chairman of the committee, will recall that quaint phrase that we would employ in committee, that this amendment is not in order because it
constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill. well, we legislated everything. this bill has more poison pills in it than rasputen's medicine cabinet. everything is thrown in here and thrown in the middle of the night. bills we had considered carefully in committee and were debated carefully and then resolved. and yet, sometimes a 10-minute debate, those bills were dispensed with. that's not the way an appropriations bill should be brought to the floor. it ought to be a clean continuing resolution if we are going to do a c.r. can i have another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. moran: the fact is we know
we can do this. we can get a good appropriation bill. we can make surgical cuts and we can agree on those surgical cuts. but let's not try to put together a dump truck that includes in it every possible controversial issue that we know we can't resolve. that's not in the long-term best interests of the american people. and it ought to be an embarrassment to our appropriations process. i would hope we would vote against this continuing resolution simply because it's only a two-week c.r. we can do better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i wish they had done better last year and passed one appropriations bill. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.j.res. 44 and may include material on the same.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the chairman of the milcon and v.a. subcommittee, mr. culberson, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is yielded three minutes. mr. culberson: i yield one minute to my friend from georgia. >> i have to comment back on the distinguished whip's comments a minute ago. he pointed out his knowledge of history and his years of experience here and he's right about a few things. he talked about the years of bill clinton and spending cuts and deficit reduction and debt reduction. mr. graves: he is absolutely right. the republicans took the majority in 1995 and were a part of that process in leading through the legislative process, not through the executive process. and he talked about george bush and eight million job losses. if you look back at the rest of the story, that started back in
2006, 2007 and 2008 and if we think about who was in charge at the time, yes, it was the distinguished whip who was the leader at the time and former speaker and they were right and right about history, but weren't telling the whole story. the republicans were leading during those difficult times and providing the spending cuts when necessary. the gentleman a minute ago said government is not the solution. you are absolutely right. and finish that quote from ronald reagan, more so is the problem. mr. culberson: i think it's important to remember that people of america spoke decisively in the november election. it was as clear a referendum on the direction that president obama and speaker pelosi are taking the nation as we could have. and the nation spoke decisively rejected the agenda that speaker pelosi and president obama were promoting, the spending that
chairman rogers spoke about was out of control over the last several years. i know in the time i served under president bush, i voted against $2.6 trillion of new spending under president bush. and in the last two years under president obama and speaker pelosi, my staff calculates i voted against $7.6 trillion in spending under president obama. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. culberson: the spending under president bush was higher than it should have been but it has gone vertical under president obama. the country rejected the direction that president obama was taking the nation. the country elected this new majority to put the nation back on track towards a balanced budget and that's what this appropriations bill does. in this period we are doing our best on every opportunity and every occasion, chairman rogers and all of us are working to cut spending and get the federal government out of our pockets, off our backs and out of our
lives. and i'm happy to the distinguished the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i would was just glad to hear the things you voted against. are you still for those civil war battlefields? mr. culberson: there is a core function that the government has to do. and national defense we exempted and we protected the pentagon and national security. we protected the investments in medical and scientific research and law enforcement. and you will find on every bill that we present, we are going to work to cut spending in every possible way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i am the only remaining speaker. are you the only remaining speaker. you have the right to finish. the speaker pro tempore: yes. the majority has the right to close. mr. dicks: 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% to 9.5%. we would have a 12.5% unemployment rate if it wasn't for that act. the only deficit 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 ladies and gentlemen, it's the economy. you 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
and get people working and businesses producing and 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 is a timing issue. and yet, again, i want you to know, we'll work together in this next two weeks. we have to get this thing resolved. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has three minutes remaining. mr. rogers: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: jarkt. mr. rogers: let's be clear. this is a short-term, two-week c.r. it cuts $4 billion, a little over $4 billion in spending that
both parties have agreed to, both bodies, house and senate have agreed to in the past and goode to by the white house. so what are we talking about here? this is a two-week extension. it's about as clean as you can make it. and oh, by the way, speaking about that bill we passed two weeks ago, h.r. 1 that cuts $61 billion off of current spending, ben bernanke, chairman of the federal reserve, says as late as today, that that bill will have no harmful effect on the economy. i don't know fa there's a bigger and better source on the economy than the chairman of the federal reserve and he says, no problem. now what the democrats want to do, madam speaker, this is pretty simple. they want to freeze spending. they want to freeze spending at
the biggest bloated level we've ever had. they increased spending 84% over the last two years and now they want to freeze and don't go no higher. well, it's bloated. we want to take it back down to where it's reasonable, where we can live with it. and so, we don't want another $1.7 trillion a year deficit like they have had the last year and before that, something approaching that. and so i ask members to vote for this short-term c.r., give us time to work with the other body on h.r. 1 to find out what their position is, which we have no idea at this moment. they haven't acted. and so to avert a close-down of the government, which is what we're after here, we want to give the senate time to look at h.r. 1 and tell us what their position is so we can have a
conversation about it. and frankly, two weeks is plenty of time. plenty of time in the house. i know the senate works a bit more slowly. but two weeks should be plenty. so, madam speaker, i urge members to vote for this reasonable, fair budget-cutting extension of the time to shut down the government. vote yes and keep the government operating. yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. the joint resolution is considered read and the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ace have it. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
from massachusetts rise? >> madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution. >> i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifieses. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. kaeding of massachusetts moved to recommit the joint resolution, house joint resolution 44, to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith, with the following amendments, page 18, line 21, strike the quotation marks and final period. page 18, after line 21, insert the following, section 227, for the period beginning on the date of the enactment of the further continuing appropriations amendments 2011 and ending on the date specified in section 1063 of this act, no major integrated oil company as to find in section 167-h-5-b of the internal revenue code of 1986 shall be eligible for any tax benefit or relief under the following provisions of such
code. to the extent attributable to such period. one, section 43, two, section 451, three, section 469 with respect to working interests in oil and gas property, four, section 613 and 613-a with respect to percentage to depletion for oil and gas. five, section 199 with respect to income derived from the production of oil and gas. for purposes of this section, the amount of any tax benefit or relief or any taxable year shall be treated as attributable to the period described in the proceeding sentence and the same ratio that the portion of such period which is part of such taxable year bears to the entire taxable year. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion.
mr. keating: thank you, madam speaker. and i rise to offer this motion to recommit which i believe will greatly improve our fiscal health and ensure that we're responsible to all taxpayer dollars and the taxpayers of this great nation. we all agree, all of us, republicans and democrats alike, that cuts in wasteful spending are vital to our country's future. the decision that stands before us is whether we should adopt reckless cuts to some of our most important programs or not. education cuts, cuts to college scholarships, reading teachers, head start, and as a d.a. for the last decade, i know the effects of cuts to police officer and firefighters and i know what they mean to our public safety. reckless cuts, cuts to border protection, cuts to cybersecurity research so that we can better protect ourselves in our infrastructure. cuts in cancer research and
other life-saving ventures of the national institute of health. it's worth repeating that moody's chief economic expert, mark zandi, the former advisor to the mccain for president campaign, just this week estimated that the reckless republican cuts will cost our country 700,000 jobs. investment groups estimate that the reckless cuts will cut the economy by a growth this year of almost one-half. our alternative, our alternative is an alternative of sensible spending cuts. in this motion we're offering such essential spending cuts. let's stop sending taxpayers' money to the most profitable companies in the world. the time is now to stop subsidizing the largest oil companies. i think it shocks every american taxpayer to know that they're
required to fork over over $40 billion in subsidies over the next decade to the most economically profitable of companies. especially as oil soars to $100 per barely. my constituents -- per barrel. my constituents are paying almost $3.50 per gallon and they've had enough. even ex-shell c.e.o. says, enough is enough. he said, and quote, with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary. so let's put a stop to this welfare program for big oil right now. cuts to police, cuts to fire, cuts to cancer research, cuts to border security, cuts to reading teachers, or oil subsidies to
the most profitable of companies? i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to recommit and i return the balance of my time and i yield a that back. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion to recommit. if i understand the gentleman's motion -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: if i understand the gentleman's motion correctly it would for a two-week period attempt to change the tax code to single out resource companies and increase their cost of doing business. this misguided policy can only lead to higher energy prices, continued reliance on foreign oil and economic hardship that hampers job creation.
at a time when gasoline is currently approaching $4 a gallon around the country and when our resources are being threatened by the instability in the middle east, we should be encouraging domestic energy production, not cutting it down. we're talking about a two-week continuing resolution to keep the government running past friday, reduce spending and avoid a government shutdown. this is neither the time nor the place to interject an unrelated job-crushing, controversial writer to the c.r. that will absolutely hinder its chance of passing in the senate before this friday when the currency expires -- current c.r. expires. i urge defeat of this ill-advised motion and i want to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from yithe, mr. -- idaho, mr. simpson, chairman of the interior subcommittee appropriations. mr. simpson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. if this wasn't such a serious subject we're discussing here,
the federal budget and how we're going to fund it for the next two weeks, it would almost be funny. almost every member of the democratic party that has stood up and talked about this c.r. has said something like this, even the sponsor of this motion said something along these lines, democrats know we have to reduce spending, democrats want to reduce spending, yet the very first time they have a chance to vote to reduce spending, reductions that the administration agrees with in its 2012 budget and eliminating earmarks, the democrats vote no? it's strange but true. in fact, instead of cutting spending, they propose to increase revenue. or increase taxes. in this fragile economy, with energy prices rising, we should be encouraging more energy and gas development and production in the united states, we need more supply, not less supply, this would reduce the supply. oil prices are rising again and with the wave of unrest in the middle east and north africa, there are fears that we could
soon see a return to $4 or $5 gas in the united states this summer. the moratorium put in place following the deep water horizon accident was lifted last fall by the administration but the administration has issued just one deep water permit in the gulf and that was issued just yesterday. the federal judge called this de facto deep water drilling moratorium unreasonable, unacceptable and unjustifiable. the public will have no patience for more delays, more excuses and higher taxes if gas prices continue to rise. especially when we have untapped resources here in the united states not being utilized. we need to be encouraging more production in this country, not discouraging production in this country. oil and gas from federal lands both onshore and offshore provide an important energy source and domestic jobs -- and billions of dollars in revenue to the united states. this is a job-killing proposal. this is an issue that needs to be addressed carefully and in great detail. i rush to impose -- a rush to
impose new taxes and fees is hasty and unwise. we ought to let the committees of jurisdiction discuss these issues. i strongly encourage my colleagues to vote against this ill-conceived motion to recommit and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from kentucky yield back? mr. rogers: i'm prepared to yield back if the gentleman does. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keating: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking
this vote by the yeas and nays challenge, an e -- a threat to every federal program that currently exists. i invite each of my colleagues to vote for and support this amendment and to support senate joint resolution 5, a constitutional amendment that i have proposedhat would put congress in this type of straitjacket. here's in essence when s. j.r.5 says, if adopted by both houses and approved by the states, three-fourths of them as required by article 5 of the constitution, it would tell congress that it may not spend more than it receives in a given year, that it may not spend more than 18% of g.d.p. in a year. that it may not raise taxes. and that it may not raise the national debt ceiling without a two-thirds supermajority vote in both houses of congress. that's the kind of permanent, binding constitutional measure
that i think we need in order to protect the government programs that we value so highly and upon which 300 million americans have come to depend in one way or other. i urge each of my colleagues to support this amendment and to support senate joint resolution 5. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll.
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas ar 1, the nays are 249. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the joint resolution is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky, a recorded vote is requested. those faring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 335ing -- and the nays are 91. the jointres. rution is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved.
to take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order p. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the gentleman will suspend while the house comes to order. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. the penn state dance marathon dance is a year long function to raise awareness of pediatric cancer. it's the largest philanthropy in the world with 300 dancers and more than 15,000 volunteers involved in the annual event. since 1997 the event has raised more than $78 million for the four diamond funds of penn state, hershey and diamond hospital. today it took place february 17-19. penn state-york broke its record. the largest amount it's ever raised and made it to the top 10 fundraisers among penn state campuses. it's helped to many families. this support for pediatric research has enabled survival rates to increase to 90%. i want to congratulate the penn state university i.f.c., the
panoramic dance marathon on its success for the support of the four diamonds fund and the record breaking total for this year's event. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: yesterday i came to the floor of the house and i think i was generally pleading with my colleagues and responding to the tragedy of an incident that occurred last thursday where a person that was supposed to be attending to seven babies under 3 years old now has been found allegedly to have left to go grocery shopping to come back to a greece -- grease fire in the kitchen and to find that four
babies, 3 and under, were killed, two are now in the burn unit. these are possibly babies supported by federal funding for childcare. licensed by the state of texas, someone 22 years old. all we can do is provide funding for desperate parents. can we at least expect the criteria to be reasonable? now we have the district attorney's office indicating that they can't find the suspect. that they have fled because they waited three days to find any charges against someone who was responsible for four dead baby ps 4 -- babies. we understand they've asked the u.s. marshal and don't know whether they've asked the state department to help. it's a crying shame and i'm getting to the bottom of it. dead babies deserve justice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one
minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, it's been five months since david hartley was brutally murdered by pirates on falcon lake. his body remains missing and those responsible for the border murder remain at large. shamefully the only american peace officer apparently still working on this case is sheriff ziggy gonzalez of zapata crowd and has identified four shooters as zeta cartel members. at least there's somebody on the case. the local sheriffs cannot do the job they're supposed to do of protecting their counties while doing the federal government's job of protecting the border as well. 65 americans were murdered in mexico last year and not one case has been solved. unfortunately, some of the mexican border law enforcement personnel are in cahoots with the drug cartels. that relationship breeds incompetence and corruption. until the f.b.i., the state department and homeland security get fully engaged in the murder of americans in
mexico, it will be the responsible of local sheriffs to keep the peace on the border. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> revise and address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, last week i had a chance to gain feedback from my neighbors in pennsylvania's 11th congressional district, and what i heard should concern us all. from my home to house town hall forum to the numerous meetings i held all over the district, my constituents are deeply concerned with the state of our economy and its effect on our communities. just one week after i submitted an amendment to restore $42 million to the community development fund, i had a championships to get a firsthand look at some of the food banks and after school
programs that benefit from this critical resource. i also had the opportunity to hear from many who share my apprehension about spending reductions to the low income housing energy assistance program, liheap. i learned 3,036 requests for liheap grants were received from wilkes bury and hazelton in the past two months alone. i thank all of those who made the effort to share their thoughts and concerns with me and i look forward to receiving more feedback in the future. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. kingston: to i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kingston: imagine in your own household for every dollar you spent 40 cents was borrowed. obviously you would sit down
with your family at the kitchen table and say ok, every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed, we're going to have to change our purchasing habit. that's what american families do, that's what farmers do, what small businesses do each and every day, and yet for some reason the u.s. congress thinks it can defy gravity and not worry about this deficit. which now is $1.5 trillion. the debt is nearly 90% of the g.d.p. and we owe hutch of the money to china. we've got to make decisions. we've got to come together as democrats and republicans and do what american families, farmers and small businesses do every day, every year. we need to reduce spending and turn this ship around. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i send to the desk two privileged reports for the
committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the clerk will report the title of resolution. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 128, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 662 to provide an extension of federal aid highway, highway safety motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funding out of the highway trust fund pending enactment of a multiyear law re-authorization, such programs. pursuant to house resolution 129, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4, to repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for payments at $600 or more to corporations and for other purposes.
the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. marchant of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, is recognized as 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank you and i thank speaker boehner and my leadership for giving me an opportunity and my colleagues during this next
hour to talk about something that is yes, indeed, still fresh on everybody's mind and that of course is the passage on march 23, 2010, almost a year ago now, of something that some might affectionately refer to as obamacare. officially we would say patient protection and affordable care act. some people struggle with the acronym of ppacare. but whatever you call it, this health care reform act that was passed last year is somethinged american people have been and continue to be opposed to. the preponderance of the american people. we are taking this opportunity, mr. speaker, as the designee of the majority during this hour
to talk a little bit more specifically about why we feel the way we feel, why the american people, why our constituents keep telling us, even a year later after president obama signed the patient protection and affordable care act, i think the bill number was 3590 into law. why they're still worried about it, opposed to it, and that's what we're going to be spending our time here in the next hour is discussing that issue. . we have a number of members of the doctor's caucus. we have a lot of health care providers, not all m.d.'s, a lot of m.d.'s, but we have some dentists a clinical ph.d. psychologist and now with our
new freshman class, we have three registered nurses on our side of the aisle, mr. speaker. so the republican g.o.p. doctor's caucus is growing. growing almost double in the 112th congress as compared to the 111th. many of my colleagues in the doctor's -- doctors' caucus will be part of this discussion. i would like to point out to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle a couple of slides before yielding time to the other members of the doctors' caucus. this first slide that i'm pointing out to you, g.o.p. doctors caucus, obamacare hurts states and patients. i know that a lot of the cushion today will be about the strain that certain provisions of this bill place on our 50
states. not just my home state of georgia, i do want to talk about that in the strain that my governor and the members of the georgia general assembly are experiencing trying to balance a budget when they have all this added requirement under the sections pertaining to medicaid. so that's what i mean when i say in this slide that the g.o.p. doctors caucus feel that obamacare hurts states and potentially hurts patients. i'd ask my colleagues to also, again on both sides of the aisle, because i -- our purpose here is to inform, not to be overly critical but i think it's very important that we state the facts as we see them, as we know them, in this slide a little further to my left, obamacare, and it says, if you can't see it, you can have whatever you like, as long as the boss approves it.
the boss, if you remember from that pretty popular tv series the dukes of hazzard, that would be -- series "the dukes of hazzard," that would be boss hogg. if you're wondering who i'm preferencing as the boss, i'm referencing the federal government, not any individual but the federal government. and it was said many times in the markup of this bill, in the leadup to this bill, which as i said we call obamacare, you can have whatever you like, as long as the boss approves it. and just in this year alone, the boss, the boss, in this instance happens to be the secretary sebelius and the department of hell and human services has had to grant -- of health and human services had
has to -- has had to grant 732 waivers to make sure this pledge of if you like what you have, you can keep it. without the waivers, you couldn't. 733 of them. this is what we're going to talk about tonight. i thank my colleagues for bling on the floor and joining with me. at this point, one of the members of the g.o.p. doctors caucus, in his second term, a grastro interologist of a number of years -- gastro interologist of a number -- gastroenterologist of a number years of practice. >> right now, states are having these huge budget crises, we see in --
mr. cassidy: we see in wisconsin, there's a protest. in some state there is may be as much as a a $10 billion deficit. in my state of louisiana, there's a $1 billion to $2 billion budget deficit. if you think about this a little bit deeply, you understand that this can be related to health care. specifically medicaid. medicaid for those watching who are unfamiliar with it, is a combined program in which the state puts up some money and the federal government puts up some money and with this, it is used to care for the elderly, for pregnant women, for children, typically people of low income. it turns out it is this program which is bankrupting the states. if you're paying this amount for health care and this amount for roads and this amount for education, as the amount for health care increases, you either raise taxes or you decrease spending on the other areas. as it turns out, this has had tremendous impact.
that'd governor of massachusetts came and spoke to one of our committees regarding the impact of their health care program, which is very similar to the bill just passed last congress in massachusetts. i was struck how, what a nice view he gave of it. if you heard governor patrick speak, i didn't have a chance to ask him questions, but if you heard him speak, there was no problems with it whatsoever. as i logged on and read "the boston globe" i learned different things. first, i learned that massachusetts, which has already implemented a program like this, the amount of money spent on health care has gone from 21% of the state's budget in the year 2000, to 37% now. from 21% to 37% is the am the state of massachusetts is now spending on health care. you can only imagine the crowd out effect that has on spending for other issues. the governor again as we he went on and praised the program
said that there's been no problems paying for it. according to the paper, there's about a $1.5 billion to $2 billion shortfall in the massachusetts budget. in massachusetts, the governor of massachusetts has said that the medicaid spending is unsustainable. that's different. so this is, if you will, the beta version of the affordable care act, or as i call it, the unaffordable care kt, this is the beta version but gives us an idea of what the future is going to be like. in order to deal with these costs, it says that most recently, dental benefits have been slashed, that's the quote, slashed for hundreds of thousands of massachusetts medicaid patients and they have lost access to their dentist. now by the way, the goals of health care reform are to provide affordable quality health care that is accessible to all.
if you don't afford it, if you can't afford it, you eventually lose access. i think what we found in massachusetts is that the inability to afford is of course decreasing access. and it's not just the fact that these folks lost access to their den test. last year, folks who were recent imgrants to the united states, who have been enrolled in medicaid in massachusetts with -- were disenrolled. if you will this massachusetts medicaid program that has grown from 21% of the massachusetts budget to 37% and still growing, now the cost is being controlled by denying access. now we also mention the third goal of medicaid, excuse me, of health care reform which is quality care. there's actually now concerns about the quality of health care afobbeded by medicaid. if you will, if you will, there's a study recrenly reported in the archives of
surgery in which someone look at the outcomes of patients covered by medicaid, medicare, on private insurance and uninsured. they is said of all four group the cost and length of stay associated with medicaid was longer than the rest. also, mortality rates, that's a way to say how many people die, mortality rates associated with uninsured, medicare, private insurance, medicaid, was highest with medicaid. if you have medicaid, you have a higher death rate from your hospitalization than private insurance, if you have medicare or if you're uninsured. it's counterintuitive that being on medicaid is worse than being uninsured in terms of outcome. clearly this is an issue that needs to be study further but it calls inta question the premise of using medicaid as the basis for health care reform. just to make the point, ush the
affordable care act, or the unaffordable care act, many people are insured, 20 million americans are put on medicaid as a way for them to be now insured. yet if we see it's bankrupting states, it's clearly not affordable, if we see because it's not affordable states are denying access to care, as is the case in massachusetts, and the care that is provided is of problematic quality, we can say to ourselves that this is not the basis for reform, it's like the antithesis of reform. i'll yield back to dr. gingrey, just pointing out that this not only involves health care but involves our ability of a state to afford other things like education and to use that state government, federal fovet program as a basis for reform does not serve patients, does in the serve the state. i yield back. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman from louisiana, mr. speaker.
at this time, i want to yield a little bit of time to our colleague, freshman member, new member of the doctors caucus, registered nurse from the great state of north carolina, renee ellmers, representative ellmers has worked in a medical practice with her husband, who is an m.d. and we look forward to her comments and at this time, i yield as much time as she may use to renee ellmers. mrs. ellmers: thank you. i want to thank you, mr. chairman, i'd like to just contribute a little bit more on the overall burden that obamacare places on our states in covering patients on medicaid. as we've seen, this has grown, especially with the recession, and the undue cost to our states' budgets to provide medicaid at no cost sharing from the patients. i think this is a key issue. it's basically free health care
for those individuals at taxpayer expense. and it's just a huge strain on our state's budgets as my colleague has pointed out. one of the key factors and very important certainly very important in health care are the preventive mandates, certainly preventived me cain is -- medicine is a way that we can all heal, we can all be looking for these issues that can down the road prevent excessive costs, but such things as no co-pays or deductibles for colonoscopies, mammograms, such things like this, there again, an undue cost tour states at tack payer expense. it's too much of a burden. you know, i want to help everyone. i think that everyone should be able to have health care and if you, as we know if you pull up to an emergency room in any hospital across the country,
you will receive health care. so the misnomer that there are those individuals who are not receiving health care is really an untrue statement. now, of course, you're going to receive a bill for that care. and i think that just as if you go to the grocery store and you have your cart full of groceries when you check out, you have to pay for it. it's the same thing with health care. shk a business. and someone has to pay for it. when we continuously pass this cost on to our taxpayers and of course our state budget, it is just unbelievably difficult and of course that is what obamacare does, it increases the number of patients on medicaid and it is just an unsustainable cost. mr. gingrey: if the gentlelady will let yes reclaim think time for a second, colleagues, look at this first slide again, the heading, who is the boss, we've
already talked about boss hogg, and i said at theout set, the federal government is the boss. there are one, two, three, four, five bullet points you should that -- under that and this is what really representative ellmers is referring to in regard to the federal government putting all of these mandates on to the state budgets. 159 new boards, agencies and commissions created by obamacare to support the boss. the government. 159 new boards. 16,000 new i.r.s. agents help the boss, the government, enforce the new law. that's a report from the house ways and means committee. the secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, thunder law this 2,400 page monstrosity is given
broad, broad new pows to run obamacare, rule make -- new powers to run obamacare, rule making, regulatory authority. then of course the new director of c.m.s., the committee on medicare and medicaid services dr. donald behrwick, brillwrant man, harvard-trained drrks m.d., written several books. unfortunately, in those books, mr. speaker, he talks about rationing care. it's not -- this is a paraphrase of a quote, it's not if we ration, it's how we ration. . again, these are things we have great fear of. the c.b.o., nonpartisan, says it will cost between $5 billion and $10 billion just to hire all these new employees needing to help the boss, the
government, run obamacare. i yield back to the gentlewoman. mrs. ellmers: i'd like to expand on some of the points you're making there. we're basically talking about the same issues and we can see what an increase cost this is going to be and how incredibly difficult it would be to put this in place. and, you know, this isn't yet another situation where the good intentions and well-meaning intentions that are put forward to help the situation are just truly not the answer. you know, basically how do we increase the access to health care coverage? medicaid is not the route to take. it just -- there again, passes too much cost on to our states, and it is not -- it is an imperfect situation. and i'll expand a little bit on the congressional budget office numbers. very conservative estimates indicate federal spending for medicaid is expected to reach
$427 billion by 2019. and the congressional budget office notes that the program will consume more than 4% of g.d.p. by 2050. you know, one of the unintended consequences to this, you know, we were talking about some of these bad situations, poor outcomes, one of the things that we're seeing right now, unfortunately, in health care as we move into this transition into obamacare are the decrease in medicaid reimbursements to physicians. they're not very good to begin with, and i would say that that's probably going to decrease to doctors and hospitals as we decrease the reimbursement to hospitals especially. this will basically -- we were talking about the possibility of rationing of care and knowing that this is down the
line and the quotes, of course, that we see from centers of medicare and medicaid. but basically what we're seeing here is that physicians will be forced to have to stop taking medicaid patients. as we all know, physician offices are businesses. they're small business owners. they have staff that they have to pay. they have payroll they have to meet. and unfortunately, when faced with a situation like this, we're already seeing it with medicare as well, physicians having to dial back on the number of medicare and medicaid patients that they're seeing, this ultimately will not help the situation and get that health care for the american public that we're looking for. if this is the answer, well, let's just say it's not the answer. we're creating another problem with this solution. and once again, how will we
deal with that down the road with these incredibly large numbers of costs that we're passing on to our taxpayers? mr. gingrey: reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, again, i thank the gentlewoman from north carolina and hope she'll stay with us during the remaining portion of the hour, and we'd like to yield additional time to her later in the hour. at this time i would like to yield to another freshman member, another physician member, mr. speaker, and also i'm proud that he is a member now of the house g.o.p. doctors caucus and i will yield time now to my good friend from indiana, dr. larry bucshon. mr. bucshon: mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about how obamacare will hurt my state and ultimately hurt my patients. i'd like to start with an example of the medicaid
program. as a cardiothoracic surgeon in evansville, indiana, i see a lot of patients from neighboring states because we're right on the corner next to illinois and kentucky. many of these patients are medicaid patients and without treatment face grave results. however, every year the illinois medicaid program runs out of money in september, october. they don't have enough money to fund the entire year. what does that mean? that means that without denying any patients' care that they need and deserve, my practice was forced to delay billing to the medicaid system of illinois , and then once the new fiscal year came into play, about 50% of those claims were subsequently denied by illinois medicaid, so those patients that came over for our services, they don't have quality health insurance, mr. speaker. some physicians in my community
don't even bother to bill the medicaid program in some states at all. this is an example of the broken medicaid system, a system that has many issues focusing on the access to quality health care, and was said earlier, you see the outcome difference between medicaid and private insurance patients because we have an access and quality problem with these patients. a system that obamacare will break even more by adding millions of americans to the state's medicaid rolls. it's estimated that this may cost the state of indiana as much as $3.6 billion. to cover these folks. from indiana we have an innovative and effective solution and that's called the healthy indiana plan. beginning in january of 2008, uninsured hoosiers between the ages of 19-64 started enrolling
in this plan, a consumer driven health care plan. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter the healthy indiana plan fact sheet into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bucshon: thank you. the healthy indiana plan operates on an 1115 demonstration waiver from c.m.s., the center for medicaid and medicare services. due to the program's success, the state of illinois would like to use the healthy indiana plan as a coverage vehicle for the newly eligible population under obamacare. this has been requested by my state of health and human services but to this point we've not heard a response whether this will be possible. and i'm hoping we get a response in the positive direction because this is a great program. the plan is for citizens that earn less than 2% of the federal poverty level and works on a sliding scale for individual contributions based on the ability to pay, that
cannot exceed more than 5% of his or her gross family income. each participant is enrolled in a health savings account valued at about $1,100 and will not make co-pays except for nonemergency use of the emergency room, and believe it or not, this program reimburses providers out of a medicare, not a medicaid level. this gives citizens a financial incentive to adopt healthy lifestyles and personal responsibility to make their own health care decisions. healthy indiana plan is an innovative, market-based consumer-driven health care plan that is working. in a recent survey, 94% of healthy indiana plan participants are satisfied with the program and 99% indicated they would reenroll. there's data in the fact sheet i've included in the congressional record showing the success of this plan, both for patients and both for the
state. of indiana. it's a commonsense, market-based solution to a broken medicaid system that obamacare does nothing to fix but only further burdens my state and all states and will ultimately continue to hurt patients' access to quality health care in america. so i would urge everyone to review what the state of indiana has done with its healthy indiana plan and with that, dr. beginning re, i yield back my time. thank you. mr. gingrey: representative, bucshon, thank you for yielding back and thank you for staying with us. i think, mr. speaker, the good doctor is pointing out some things that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the american people need to understand , this plan that was just described to us by representative bucshon, the healthy indiana plan, it's so
typical of what the states are capable of doing, mr. speaker, if they're allowed to do that. but we have great concerns, and i say "we" i'm talking about the governors of all 50 states, be they republican or democrat, and the territories, to be told by the boss again that no, you can't be an incubation center, you cannot be innovative in regard to developing a health care plan for those who can't afford to purchase health insurance on their own, and they qualify for safety net programs like the federal, state shared program medicaid, and the states, indiana, my own state of georgia, governor
herbert testified before the energy and commerce committee today in regard to what he's doing in utah. in fact, they had already set up exchanges at the state level five or six years ago, long before this patient protection affordable care act was even on the drawing board. but when you have things in the bill, when the boss writes a section of the bill that says states, it doesn't matter that you have to balance your budget, we don't at the federal level, but we're going to dictate to you that you're going to have to start covering medicaid constituentscy up toe -- constituency up to 1 8% of the federal boston level, this is the new law of obamacare, and you have no choice.
we're going to give you a little breathing room and we're going to say it's not going to start for a couple of years, indeed, january of 2014, you've got to expand your medicaid rolls from the typical state covers 100% of the federal poverty level. this goes up to 138% of the federal poverty level. and the boss says we'll pay all of it with federal dollars for the first couple of years, but we're going to phase that out and then oh, yes, guess what happens? the boss adds eventually at the end of the day, $60 billion to state medicaid costs. and also, there's a section in the bill, mr. speaker, that tells the states, and it's called maintenance of effort. you can't change one thing that you currently do in your medicaid program to prepare
yourself for this tsunami. if you're covering today 185% of the federal poverty level, you can't all of a sudden say, well, gosh, you know, we're going to have to lower that to 150% and put some oats away and get ready for that real rainy day in 2014. we heard from another governor today in that hearing, there were three, governor duvall patrick of massachusetts was one and governor haley barbour of mississippi and mr. speaker was the other. governor bashor was saying a couple -- governor barbour instituted a program in the state of mississippi that would make sure people on the medicaid program were eligible, they deserve to be there. they weren't eating somebody else's lunch, as the expression would go, they weren't illegal
immigrants, their income wasn't too high to make them eligible for this safety net program. and of course, mr. speaker, as we all know, thank goodness, income from year to year can get better. we're still waiting for that to happen. i think obamacare and some of this other policies that we're seeing over the last four years is preventing that from happening. but -- so governor barbour would make people come and face to face verify that they were still eligible from year to year. as i understand it, this rule, this maintenance of effort would prohibit -- he's already done it in mississippi, but any other state as an example, to make sure your rolls were clean and you were covering the people that were eligible and that really needed that care. so this is the kind of thing that we're dealing with and why we're talking about this we're talking about this tonight and why we'r