[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 9 (Monday, January 24, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H403-H414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 38, REDUCING NON-
SECURITY SPENDING TO FISCAL YEAR 2008 LEVELS OR LESS
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 43 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 43
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 38) to reduce
spending through a transition to non-security spending at
fiscal year 2008 levels. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed
in the resolution shall be considered as adopted. The
resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution, as amended, to final adoption without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the customary 30 minutes
to my good friend from Worcester (Mr. McGovern). All time yielded will
be for debate purposes only.
Pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, runaway Federal spending is one of the most
significant issues that this Congress is facing. Our national debt has
implications for nearly every major challenge that we must confront.
It's tied to our economic recovery, it's tied to our national security,
it's tied to our ability to deliver on our constitutional mandate for
transparent, limited and responsive government.
The time to exercise our power of the purse with discipline and
restraint is long overdue. Let me say that again: the time for us to
exercise our power-of-the-purse restraint is long, long overdue. We
must return to pre-bailout, pre-binge spending levels for funding the
Federal Government.
We know that a great deal of hard work and tough decisions lie ahead
for every single Member of this institution. We know that a great deal
of hard work is there; and we're going to face some very difficult,
tough, tough decisions. They are going to be difficult decisions; but,
Mr. Speaker, they are decisions that we're going to have to make.
First and foremost, we must get our economy growing and our workforce
expanding again. Strong growth and job creation will increase tax
revenues and provide greater resources that are needed; but, Mr.
Speaker, that's only half of the equation. Economic growth is
critically important. We need to do it so that we can enhance the flow
of revenues to the Federal Treasury to deal with those essential items
that are there, but it is half the equation.
We can't get back onto firm ground with sound fiscal standing unless
we have a leaner Federal budget. Some of this can be accomplished by
eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Everybody is always in favor of
eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. And what is the best way to do
that? Robust oversight. Robust oversight will allow us to streamline
Federal spending and make better use of taxpayer dollars, but we have
to acknowledge up front that hard work and painful cuts lie ahead. We
all know that this is not going to be an easy task, but it is
absolutely essential.
Just as families and small businesses across this country have been
forced to cut back during these difficult economic times, we here in
this institution are going to have to do the same. That's the message
that we got last November that brought people like my Rules Committee
colleague, Mr. Scott, who is sitting next to me on the floor here,
that's the message that has been carried here.
Some Federal programs, Mr. Speaker, are wasteful and duplicative and
deserve to be cut. There will be others that have merit, but which we
simply cannot afford at the current levels. We have to be honest about
that. We have to engage in a responsible debate about what our
priorities must be.
{time} 1720
What we cannot do is allow this debate to degenerate into false
accusations about the other side's intentions. And I'm going to repeat
that, Mr. Speaker. We cannot let the kind of free-flowing, rigorous
debate that we need to have degenerate into these accusations that we
so often seem to hear around here.
There is no one in this body who wants to gut funding for key
essential programs, like veterans' programs, or like education, child
nutrition. No one wants to gut these programs. So I think it's
important for us to state that. And there is no evidence that any
proposal out there would undermine things like support for our Nation's
veterans.
We are all entering into this debate with good faith, good
intentions, and a commitment to responsibly address the need to
implement fiscal discipline. We will have to make hard choices, but
that process will not be served by unfair or disingenuous accusations.
We also recognize that this will be a lengthy process. We are just
beginning what is going to be a 2-year process focused on this.
Today's underlying resolution, the measure that we're going to be
considering through this rule and then on the floor tomorrow, is merely
the first step in this ongoing effort to bring our Federal budget back
into the black. Our committees will have to conduct extensive
oversight, as I mentioned earlier, of Federal programs. We will have to
dispense with fiscal year 2011 spending, which the last Congress failed
to do, before we can even begin to deal with the coming fiscal year.
The underlying resolution that we have before us today lays down a
marker for reducing spending and puts the House on record for its
commitment to tackle this issue in a serious way. The hard work will
follow.
As this process proceeds, rank and file Members of both political
parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, will have the opportunity to
participate in our effort to address these very tough decisions.
Through constructive debate, we can finally begin to impose real
accountability and discipline in our Federal budget. In concert with
pro-growth policies--and I said to me the most essential thing is
implementing pro-growth economic policies--but going hand-in-hand with
these pro-growth policies, Mr. Speaker, this effort will put us back
onto the path of economic recovery and job creation.
Today's rule sets the stage for the start of that effort. I'm going
to urge my colleagues to support this rule and demonstrate their
resolve to tackle runaway Federal spending in a serious way.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules
Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule. So much
for an open process, and so much for a free flow of ideas. I also rise
in strong opposition to the underlying resolution.
Once again, the Republican majority is choosing to ignore the single
most important issue facing the American people: jobs. My Republican
friends have instead brought forth a resolution, H. Res. 38, that they
tout as some sort of spending reduction measure. In fact, the
resolution doesn't cut a single dollar--not one dime--from the Federal
budget.
If this were a good-faith effort, there would be some numbers in this
resolution. Instead, the resolution says that we should ``assume non-
security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less'' without defining
``non-security'' spending or specifying exactly what those levels might
be. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget resolution without
any numbers, which is why it is so meaningless.
We are told that the numbers are on their way, that the Congressional
Budget Office will tell us on Wednesday of this week what the impact of
this resolution would be if it were actually put into place. So why are
we here
[[Page H404]]
today debating this issue? Why can't we wait until Wednesday when we
have the numbers? The answer is as plain as the calendar on the wall:
it's politics, pure and simple.
The Republican leadership has scheduled a vote on the resolution
tomorrow just before President Obama addresses the Nation in his State
of the Union Address. That way, they'll have a fresh set of talking
points for their response to the President. They'll be able to say,
``Look how serious we are about cutting government funding,'' when, of
course, they haven't cut anything.
Another problem with the resolution is that it reinforces the
terrible precedent that the Republican majority established in their
rules package at the beginning of this Congress. Under those rules, a
single Member of Congress, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has
the authority to determine spending levels for the government for the
rest of the year.
Now, like all of my colleagues, I have a great deal of respect for
the current chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan. But I strongly
disagree with the notion that he and only he should determine something
as fundamental as the budget of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, we have to vote in this House to change the name of a
post office. But we can't have a vote on how much we should spend on
education, on food safety, on infrastructure, on environmental cleanup,
or on medical research? That's a far cry from the openness and
transparency that my Republican friends promised.
Last week in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to this
resolution that would have allowed the other 435 Members of the House
the opportunity to vote on this critical issue. But my Republican
colleagues defeated my amendment on a party-line vote.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution walls off defense spending
from the budget axe. We hear all the time from my friends on the other
side of the aisle that everything should be on the table. Why then
would they take hundreds of billions of dollars of potential savings
off the table right out of the gate? Even Speaker Boehner on a recent
interview said, ``I believe there's room to find savings in the
Department of Defense.'' Well, if that's true--and it most certainly
is--then why does this resolution treat defense spending as sacred and
untouchable?
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Federal budget, the Republican
majority is not off to a good start. Their rules package paved the way
for them to add nearly $5 trillion to the deficit. Last week, they
voted to repeal the health care law and add another $230 billion to the
deficit. And now they are rushing a 1-page bill without a single number
and without any specifics about how and where they want to cut.
What we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, is not real. There are no tough
choices being made today. This is show business, and quite frankly, it
diminishes the legislative process. The American people deserve much,
much better. I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule, and I
urge them to reject the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
this rule that we are considering.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2
minutes to one of our new Members whom I mentioned in my opening
remarks, the gentleman from North Charleston, South Carolina, my Rules
Committee colleague, Mr. Scott.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, as a business owner who's only been in Congress for 19
days, I know as a small business owner that if we want more jobs in our
economy, we must be serious about spending cuts.
Deficit spending in Washington is burdening future generations.
Unborn Americans will have to pay for the benefits that we ascribe to
ourselves. During the previous 2 years, Congress has added nearly $3.3
trillion to the national debt. Is it any wonder then that during the
same time period our unemployment rate has skyrocketed from 7.8 percent
to 9.4 percent? It's not.
As a small business owner, when I don't have to pay higher taxes, I'm
able to hire more people. When I don't have to pay higher taxes, I'm
able to invest in more equipment and more services.
{time} 1730
Every dollar taken from me by the government means that I have to go
out and earn $2 more just to break even. That's why I offered the
amendment in the Rules Committee for spending even less, even less than
the 2008 levels. 2008 levels are just a start. And we need to go much
deeper than that. I support this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the presence of my new
colleague who is on the Rules Committee and simply say that, if this
were a serious effort, there would be numbers in this bill. There are
none. This is about issuing a press release after the State of the
Union so that Republicans can have a talking point to go home with.
This is not a serious effort. And if it were, there would be real
numbers in there. If we were interested in rigorous debate, this would
be an open rule.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen),
the ranking member on the Budget Committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
Here we go again. As my colleague said, if this were a serious
proposal on the budget, you would have a budget number in this
document. There is no number in this document.
Look, on opening day our Republican colleagues passed a measure that
immediately gutted the pay-as-you-go rule that we have in this body and
did an end run around the pay-as-you-go law. A few days later, we
figured out why they did that, because they added $230 billion to the
deficit over 10 years and $1.4 trillion over 20 years. Those aren't my
numbers, those are the numbers of the independent, nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office with respect to the impact of their effort
to repeal health care reform instead of doing what we should be doing,
which is focusing on jobs.
That measure on opening day also did another thing. It gave the
chairman of the Budget Committee unprecedented power to unilaterally
pick the budget ceilings, the spending ceilings for this entire
Congress. No input from anybody else, no debate, no vote. So all of us
thought when this new measure was coming up maybe now we're going to
have some accountability. Maybe this body will have an opportunity to
vote on the very important spending ceilings for the United States
Congress and for the government. But lo and behold hold, when you look
at the resolution, there's no number. Where's the beef?
And I have to say to my colleagues that, if you want transparency,
why are you hiding the ball? Is the number going to be 100 billion? Is
it going to be 80 billion? Is it going to be 60 billion? We hear all
different numbers in the press out there, and they haven't put it in
the measure. Instead, they've said once again, we're going to allow the
chairman of the Budget Committee to decide.
Now, I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee,
but none of us should be contracting out our votes and our
responsibilities to another Member of Congress. We shouldn't ever do
that. Certainly we shouldn't be doing that on something as important as
setting the overall budget and spending ceilings for the United States
Government. That's irresponsible. And yet that's what this rule will
ask every Member to do--contract out his or her vote to one person.
So why are we doing this? Why are we bringing a budget resolution to
the floor with no number? As my colleague said, timing is everything
here. This is an opportunity to have a press release tomorrow, the day
the President's going to deliver the State of the Union address, to
create the illusion that they're making progress on the budget number,
without a number.
Now, we heard from our colleagues on the Republican side, Well, you
know what? We have to wait for the Congressional Budget Office to tell
us what their projections are so we can figure out the magnitude of the
reductions.
[[Page H405]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We asked them, Why don't we have the number? They
said, Well, we've got to wait for CBO.
We are pleased to hear the newfound respect for the CBO numbers, but
here's my point. That's going to happen within 24 hours of tomorrow.
Twenty-four hours. We could have a budget resolution with the beef,
with the number, so everyone could decide what the ceilings are going
to be. No, we've got to do it tomorrow. Why? State of the Union
address. Great press release.
Now, I've heard my colleagues say they've got to do this because
there was nothing in place in the House from a budget perspective.
Well, in fact, the House last year passed a budget enforcement act.
I've got it right here. It's got a number in it. It's got a number in
it like these budget documents have.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I would like to ask my friend what was the vote in the
House on that budget that my friend was just talking about?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I don't remember the exact vote, but it passed, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. DREIER. It was deemed. There was never a vote in this institution
on it, Mr. Speaker.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There was a vote on a resolution in the House.
If you want to talk about deeming----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Listen, what we are doing today is the ultimate example of deeming.
We are passing a resolution that deems, in advance, the passage of a
number that we don't even know, and it's going to be decided by one
person. We are deeming that individual all the authority. And the shame
of it is that that's a process that I think we all recognize is flawed.
And yet this is deeming on steroids.
So I would suggest that we come up with a real number, put some beef
on this, have a real argument, and let every Member vote and take
responsibility.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say that I think that one of the things that we have to
recognize here--and I am happy to engage in rigorous debate, and I'm
happy that we have not at this point had any of our friends on the
other side of the aisle talk about the prospect of starving children,
throwing people out of schools, depriving veterans of access to the
things that they need. So I express my appreciation to my colleagues,
because when we were up in the Rules Committee, that was the tenor of
the discussion that took place upstairs.
One thing that I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that, in 1974, the
Congress put into place legislation known as the 1974 Budget and
Impoundment Act. I happen to believe that that needs to be overhauled,
because Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that the 1974 Budget
and Impoundment Act has been a failure, an abject failure. And I've
been working with my friend from Maryland, the distinguished ranking
member of the Budget Committee, and Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the
Budget Committee, as well as the chair and ranking member, Messrs.
Conrad and Sessions, in the Senate on the notion of our working
together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to bring about an overhaul of
the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act.
Now, one of the reasons that I believe it is essential is that last
year was the first time ever that we have not seen a budget passed.
It's the first time since implementation of the 1974 Budget and
Impoundment Act. And, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the
crocodile tears that are being shed so often on this House floor, I
think it's important to note that that is why we are in the position
where we are today. We wouldn't be here had we had a budget passed.
Now, many people talk about this calendar year, but we are 5 months--
we are 5 months--into the fiscal year, and that is the reason that we
are in a position where we're having to make the kinds of tough
decisions that we are.
My friend from North Charleston, my very, very thoughtful colleague
is a new member of the Rules Committee, has been raising with me some
very simple and commonsense questions about the process that we have
been going through. One of the things that he just said in a meeting
that we just participated in was that we need to recognize that we, at
this moment, are beginning the process, we are beginning the process of
cutting spending. This is going to be a 2-year struggle. So this is not
going to be the end of our effort to try and rein in wasteful Federal
spending.
I know my friend had some thoughts on that, and I would be happy to
yield to him if he would like to either pose a question or offer any
comments that relate to either the health care bill and the vote that
we just had or any other issue.
I yield to my friend from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Question for you: Is it the first time since 1974 that the House has
operated without a budget?
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I thank my friend for giving me the
opportunity to repeat what I just said so that we can underscore it.
Never before have we failed to have a budget. And yet, for the first
time in 36 years, that happened.
{time} 1740
That's why I believe that we have a chance to work, Democrats and
Republicans together, with our colleagues in the other body to bring
about real reform of the Budget Act itself.
I am happy to further yield to my friend.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When you think about the repeal of the national health care bill, is
that not a savings of $2.7 trillion, at least the elimination of a $2.7
trillion hole or an abyss on an entitlement program? Does it not reduce
the debt by $700 billion? Are these not real numbers? And if we really
wanted a number, if we were looking for the number, would they not have
passed a budget last year?
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, let me say that my friend is
absolutely right.
Throughout the debate that took place last week, we heard that, in
fact, repealing the $2.7 trillion health care bill would end up costing
$230 billion based on the numbers provided to us by the Congressional
Budget Office's estimates. We kept hearing that, and in one of the
exchanges we had with Mr. Pence, only in Washington, D.C. can bringing
about the elimination of a $2.7 trillion expenditure actually cost
money.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that the thing that we need to point to is
not only the smoke and mirrors that went into the recommendations that
were provided, whether it is dealing with the CLASS Act, which the
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has described as a Ponzi
scheme--he used that term to describe it, whether it's that--or, to me,
the most important thing to point to is the fact that in that measure
there is a three-quarter of a trillion--Mr. Speaker, that's three-
quarter of a trillion--dollar tax increase that is being posed along
with the mandate.
So my friend from North Charleston is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker,
when he points to the fact that we were, in fact, saving dollars with
the action that we took last week, and we are very committed to
ensuring that people have access to quality, affordable health
insurance by allowing for the purchase of insurance across States
lines, pooling to deal with preexisting conditions, associated health
plans so that small businesses can get lower rates, the idea of
meaningful lawsuit abuse reform, which the President of the United
States talked about last year in his State of the Union message.
I mean, these are the kinds of things that we believe can immediately
drive the cost of health insurance and health care down itself and at
the same time we can disengage the Federal Government's dramatic
involvement in this.
[[Page H406]]
So my friend from North Charleston is absolutely right and I
appreciate his, as a small businessman, coming to this body, bringing
the common sense that he is sharing with us.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am glad my friends on the other side of the aisle are happy that
they voted to repeal the affordable health care bill, but I will tell
that you there are real people in this country who are benefiting from
the real protections in the bill who are quite anxious about the fact
that there are people who want to remove the protection, for example,
that prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against people
with preexisting conditions. There are parents who can keep their kids
on their insurance until they are 26 who are not too happy about that
repeal. There are senior citizens who are benefiting from the closing
of the doughnut hole who are actually feeling some benefits from this
health care bill. They're not too happy that the Republicans want to
repeal all of that. And on top of that, the CBO said it adds
considerably to our deficit.
At this point I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that my colleague from
California brings up the health reform. We were using CBO numbers,
actual numbers that were provided by the CBO to say that we have a $230
billion reduction in the deficit in the first 10 years and a trillion
dollars beyond that. We're giving them actual numbers from the CBO to
talk about deficit reduction.
But I don't see any numbers on this budget resolution that's on this
floor today and tomorrow. I call it the ``budget-less'' resolution,
because it contains no numbers, no specifics, and worst of all, no
ideas for job creation or economic recovery, and it doesn't even
include a serious plan to reduce the deficit.
This is not the way to manage the budget. It's worse than arbitrary.
It's like budgeting with blindfolds on. It gives no thought, no
reasons, no real discussion on how the cuts would be made and what the
ramifications would be. Worst of all, the Republican resolution
continues to ignore job creation and economic recovery. It doesn't even
contain a real plan to reduce the deficit.
We gave you numbers with the health care reform that would actually
reduce the deficit. This is a numberless budget, nothing at all.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was unclear in my own mind
which was worse, the terrible procedural abuse of this resolution or
the serious substantive flaw, but I then realize they come together
because it is procedurally outrageous so as to protect a substantive
grave error.
First of all, it is a major piece of legislation, and it's not
amendable, just like the health care bill. You may remember, Mr.
Speaker, what people on the Republican side said about open rules. It
will be a fond memory but apparently not a reality.
We have a very important piece of legislation subject to no
amendment. I chaired a committee for 4 years and never would I have
brought a bill to the floor with such an impact and had no amendments
in order whatsoever. But I understand why they don't want an amendment,
because it would reveal the grave flaw. This says reduce non-security
spending to the level of 2008. In other words, exempt about half of
discretionary spending. All security, I assume they mean military
spending.
Now we have a war and we have to defend the people who we put out
there. I have to say those who talk about shutting the government
down--I don't know what they are going to tell the people in
Afghanistan who are out there being shot at--but we have got tens of
billions that we are spending subsidizing our wealthy allies in Europe
and Asia.
The argument that you exempt military spending from budgetary
discipline is one of the reasons we are in the terrible hole we are in.
Now it is clearly indefensible to argue that you would exempt military
spending from budget discipline. So how do you defend it? You defend it
by not allowing an amendment that would bring it forward.
Why, Mr. Speaker, are we not able to say, well, not just non-security
and maybe non-security shouldn't go down to the level of 2008, but it
ought to go down somewhat or ought to be limited somewhat. This is part
of a philosophy that puts pressure on all of the domestic spending,
everything that affects the quality of life in America.
Now by ``security,'' by the way, I mean police officers in the
streets of the cities I represent and firefighters and bridges that
won't collapse. But that's not security as it's defined by the
Republicans. That's the kind of spending that will be severely cut.
Instead, we have a total exemption for the Pentagon. We have Mr.
Gates, a Bush appointee, kept on wisely by Mr. Obama, saying it's time
to start to reduce the military. The Republicans have attacked him for
that.
So let's be very clear. There cannot be a sensible, comprehensive,
balanced approach to deficit reduction when you follow this philosophy,
not only totally exempt the military, but don't even allow an amendment
that would make it something that you could talk about.
The notion that you give all this power to one person is also very
interesting. I guess what we are learning is, then, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has been somewhat more courageous than some others
in what he has talked about. I disagree with him.
So apparently what we are learning today is that the Republican Party
has the courage of Paul Ryan's convictions. I wish they had the courage
to let us debate whether or not military spending should be included.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume
to say to my friend that again this is just the first step in a long
process which will allow the kind of free-flowing debate that we are
talking about. Now my friend will recall that never before have we gone
through the appropriations process the way we did the last 2 years,
that being, when my friend and I arrived here in 1981, and when it came
to the issue of spending, Members had the opportunity to stand up on
the House floor and offer an amendment to the appropriations bill.
And I will tell you that it's our intention to once again have that
kind of debate that we had all the way up until the last 2 years. So I
can assure my friend that our goal of having a freer flowing debate is
important.
The second point I would like to make, and then I will yield to my
friend, is that while my friend has continually said that we didn't
make amendments in order to this measure, there were no amendments
submitted to the Rules Committee that would have given us the
opportunity to do that.
We did make an amendment in order that modifies this, that came from
Mr. Scott in the Rules Committee, that actually said that we should get
to '08 levels or less, and it is true. My friend from Worcester did ask
to make in order an amendment by Mr. Van Hollen, but, as I said, there
were no amendments that had been actually submitted to the Rules
Committee.
{time} 1750
So that vote was taken by the Rules Committee. That decision was
made.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I'm a little puzzled. You said no
amendments were submitted, but Mr. McGovern did ask for one on behalf
of Mr. Van Hollen. Why did that not qualify?
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that
amendments submitted to the Rules Committee we do not actually have. I
mean my friend knows very well that when it comes to the Rules
Committee, when we are getting ready to report out a rule, there are
amendments that are submitted. There was one amendment that was
proposed by Mr. McGovern. The Rules Committee chose not to make that
amendment in order.
There was an amendment that did, in fact, bring us to lower
spending----
[[Page H407]]
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. DREIER. If I might complete my statement. I think I control the
time here.
It is very important to note that we did have an amendment that was
considered in the Rules Committee by Mr. Scott which actually brought
us to lower levels. It said 2008 levels or less.
I am happy to further yield to my friend.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First of all, I think the Record will
show the gentleman has just amended his statement about amendments
because he said no amendments were offered, then he later said--and I
would ask people to look at the Record tomorrow. He then said, Oh, an
amendment was offered. His first statement was no amendments were
offered----
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time to
say the following--and I will yield to my friend again. I want to
clarify what it was that I said.
Amendments are submitted up to the Rules Committee. There were no
amendments that actually had been submitted to the Rules Committee, and
that's the point that I wanted to make.
There is another issue that we need to point to also, and that is
there is going to be something that was often denied, I would say to my
friend, and that is a motion to recommit with instructions is going to
be included in this measure so that, in fact, the minority will have a
bite at the apple that was more often than not denied in the past. And
so that is a step in the direction towards a more open process.
And again, as I said, this is the beginning. This is the beginning of
a process that will allow for consideration of a budget resolution and
an appropriations process which will give Members, Democrats and
Republicans alike, an opportunity to participate.
With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from San
Diego----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. DREIER. Of course. I have yielded three times to my friend, and I
know that Mr. McGovern has lots of time.
The gentleman from San Diego has asked to be recognized. I have had
an exchange with him. And now I would like to yield 2 minutes to my
friend from San Diego (Mr. Bilbray), and then if Mr. McGovern chooses
to yield time to my friend, I am happy to engage in a discussion with
him again.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, let me say as somebody who had the
privilege for 18 years to be in local government, I think those of us
in the Federal Government have to understand that there are
jurisdictions and priorities that we need to set.
Some people believe that it is as much a responsibility of the
Federal Government to hire police officers as it is to maintain a
military. I'm sorry. The constitutional line for those of us who are
mayors and county chairmen recognized that we need the Federal
Government to concentrate on our responsibilities--defending our
borders, defending our national security. Those of us that served at
local government would be able to address their issues much more
appropriately and have a lot less burden.
But I really want to speak about the opportunities we have to work in
a bipartisan effort. When we talk about budget reduction, rather than
denying Americans the right to live in the United States unless they
buy certain insurance, why aren't we talking about doing cost
reductions like California has done, not exactly a right-wing
legislature?
MICRA there has had such an impact on the cost of insurance on
physicians that an OB/GYN in Los Angeles pays 30 to 40 percent less for
insurance than the same doctor in New York. Now, you can't tell me the
cost of living is that much different, except for the fact that
Sacramento has recognized that tort reform and limitations of trial
lawyers' impact on health care is an essential one. If the legislature
of California can agree to maintain that, why can't we work together to
address those issues?
If we're talking about wanting to reduce costs, why didn't the health
bill allow Americans, rather than taking away the rights to live in the
country, the freedom to buy across State lines? That is well within our
jurisdiction as a Federal body.
Why didn't we give freedom the answer to be able to reduce costs
rather than talking about taking away the rights of Americans to live
here? That is a real scary concept that we can't join on tort reform--
and let's face it, the liability issue is sort of an interesting one.
The Federal Government and States can actually address issues that say
that somebody who is----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend 1 additional
minute.
Mr. BILBRAY. Let me point this out. I know this because I was at the
county running a health care system and supervising the health care
system for over 3 million people.
The Federal Government has special protection for physicians if
they're in community clinics that we do not give to other physicians.
The Federal Government accepts the situations where somebody on
Medicaid has more right to sue their physician than the men and women
in uniform in this country. And I challenge you to tell me how it's
justifiable that, if somebody doesn't pay for their medical costs in
the military, they don't get to sue their doctor, but somebody who is
on welfare and public assistance, they get to sue them. Can we talk
about bringing those issues together and addressing the ability for a
lawyer to get into an operating room is not as important as the right
or the need of physicians to be able to do their job that is so
essential?
And I want to close with this. We have not been talking about health
care in the last year. We've been talking about health insurance. And
the crisis that's coming down this pike is that in 10 years you may be
able to call the health insurance people, but you won't be able to find
a doctor unless you call 1-800 and get it over the phone.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments,
although it has really nothing to do with the bill we're talking about
here today. And our concern about this budget bill before us is that
there's no number in it, and it essentially is a press release, I
guess, to be able to talk about tomorrow after the State of the Union.
I also want to clarify what happened in the Rules Committee. I did
offer an amendment that was rejected on party line that said that
Members of Congress ought to have the ability to vote on this magic
number that the chairman of the Budget Committee will come up with.
That was rejected.
There was also an amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida which
would have allowed Mr. Van Hollen, who is our ranking member on the
Budget Committee, a substitute. That was rejected. And there was also
an amendment for an open rule so that we could have a free and open
debate, and that was rejected. So there were amendments that were
offered, and they were rejected.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for
a point of clarification.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, I want to address this notion that
police officers in our local streets pale in significance to the
military. We have troops in Western Europe where our Western European
allies are cutting their military budgets. And yes, I do think that
funding police officers and firefighters in our cities is more
important than allowing Germany and England and our European allies to
reduce their military budgets because we subsidize them.
Secondly, I will say to the gentleman from California that I am
somewhat disappointed. He did say there were no amendments offered. We
have now just heard three were offered. If he meant that there were
none on paper previously submitted, maybe he should have said that,
because it would have been of real great relevance. The fact is
amendments were offered, and they were rejected.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. The gentleman wouldn't yield to me at
the end when he----
Mr. DREIER. Of course I will. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield my
friend 30 seconds.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Regular order.
The gentleman from California wasn't happy with what he said. He
didn't want to continue the debate; so I won't continue it either.
[[Page H408]]
I would just urge people to read the Record tomorrow. Read his
statement that no amendments were offered and read what the gentleman
from Massachusetts said and see where the truth lies.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say what it is
that I said. What I said is there were no amendments submitted to the
Rules Committee.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as we meet this afternoon, there are 15 million
Americans without a job. And this debate represents yet another wasted
opportunity for us to come together and address the real number one
issue of the country, which is putting people back to work.
The debate also represents a curious lack of clarity as to what
exactly the majority is proposing. And there are words in this
resolution, but there aren't numbers. So I did some research of my own
about numbers. Let's take FBI agents, for example. Now, the resolution
says that security spending is exempted, but it doesn't define security
spending. When we passed the budget for FBI agents here, that budget is
under the Commerce, Justice, Science budget, so I don't know whether
this is within security spending or not.
But here is what I do know. Here is what I do know. In the present
fiscal year, if we maintain the budget that we've been living under
since October 1, we are on track to spend $7.6 billion on FBI agents.
If we do what the resolution says, which is to go back to what was
spent in 2008, we would spend 22 percent less than that, or $6.5
billion.
{time} 1800
If you look at the average salary of an FBI agent, that would mean we
would have to make do with 1,720 fewer FBI agents than we do today.
Now, I would be happy to yield to the sponsor of the resolution for
him to tell me whether or not that is true. If this passes, are we
going to have that level of reduction in FBI agents?
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Obviously, and it has been indicated early on, we are not going to
see across-the-board spending cuts. The goal, I would say to my friend,
is to get to '08 levels, and I believe that we can preserve the FBI.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the chairman has said we won't have
across-the-board cuts. That, of course, means that we will have to find
larger cuts than 22 percent in other areas of the Justice Department
budget. The court system? Enforcement of the immigration laws? The
other things that the Justice Department does? The resolution says
nothing about what those would be, so I think we can be critical on
another area.
For the budget year that we are in, we are spending about $5.8
billion a year on cancer research at the National Institutes of Health.
If we do what the resolution says, we will cut by 22 percent and spend
$4.6 billion on cancer research. The average cancer research grant is
about $350,000. That means that we would have 3,628 fewer cancer
research grants. If we are not going to have an across-the-board cut, I
would again say: Where else in the National Institutes of Health will
we cut? Research for Alzheimer's? Research for diabetes? Research for
other areas? The resolution says nothing.
And here is what a prominent American has to say about resolutions
like this:
``You can't fix the deficit or the national debt by killing NPR or
the National Endowment for the Humanities or the Arts. Nice political
chatter, but that doesn't do it. And I'm very put off when people just
say let's go back and freeze to the level 2 years ago. Don't tell me
you're going to freeze to a level. That usually is a very inefficient
way of doing it. Tell me what you're going to cut, and nobody up
there,'' meaning Capitol Hill, ``yet is being very, very candid about
what they are going to cut to fix this problem.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. ANDREWS. The author of that quote is not a Democratic Member of
the House. It is not a White House spokesman. The author of that quote
is retired Secretary of State Colin Powell who said yesterday: ``Tell
me what you're going to cut.''
The minority doesn't want to grapple with that problem, which is why
there are no amendments made in order, no numbers in the bill, and no
reason to vote for this amendment.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a minute and-a-half to
respond to my friend with a couple of comments.
First, this is about job creation and economic growth. Today we live
with an economy where there is a tremendous degree of uncertainty, and
we know right now that there are job creators, investors, who have
resources on the sidelines. I don't believe that there is anything that
we could do--well, there are a number of things that we could do that
may be as important, I mean, reducing the tax burden on job creators,
opening up new markets around the world. But one of the things that I
think is critically important for us to do is to begin getting our
fiscal house in order so that that will provide an incentive for job
creation and economic growth.
The next point I would like to make is that while I congratulated my
friends, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Van Hollen, for not engaging in the sky-
is-falling threats about what might happen down the road, or actually
determining what would happen, I have to say that I was a little
concerned and I have come to the conclusion that if one can't
prioritize, Mr. Speaker, they resort to demonizing.
The fact of the matter is that we are beginning a process that will
see us for the first time in 2 years have a free-flowing debate on
appropriations. When my friend mentioned both the National Institutes
of Health and the FBI, I believe those are important priorities that
Democrats and Republicans alike want to fund.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
My friend has concluded that somehow he knows exactly what will be
cut based on this resolution. My friend has concluded that he knows
exactly what level is going to be cut when it comes to the National
Institutes of Health and the FBI. There are, as we move ahead with this
appropriations level debate, debate that is going to be coming in the
next several months, we obviously will be in a position where we will
be able to, Democrats and Republicans alike, establish our priorities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. First of all, I am most assuredly not demonizing the
gentleman. I think the gentleman speaks with great sincerity.
What I am saying is that the gentleman said I know exactly what is
going to be cut. No one knows exactly what is going to be cut.
Can you tell us, Mr. Chairman, where in the NIH budget you are going
to make up the difference for not cutting cancer research by 22
percent?
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me say that
obviously it does not have to be done within the National Institutes of
Health, the notion of saying that it has to be cut there. We have seen
a doubling in the level of funding under President Bush for the
National Institutes of Health, Mr. Speaker, and I think that there are
areas where we can bring about cuts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
We can do that without in any way jeopardizing the important
priorities that we have.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman, and he is correct that in the NIH
[[Page H409]]
budget it could come from Labor or Health and Human Services. And I
would ask him: In that bill, where will you make up for not cutting the
cancer research by 22 percent?
I would be happy to yield.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
What I would say is that this is the beginning of a process which
will allow us, with a free-flowing debate on appropriations, to do just
that. The country survived at 2008 levels.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, this is what General Powell was
talking about: tell us where to cut, and we get verbiage, but no real
answer.
Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 6 minutes,
and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 9\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out one of the
reasons why these questions are coming up is because when this
resolution was brought before the Rules Committee, the chairman of the
Budget Committee didn't show nor did the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee. And there are no numbers in this bill. So we are very, very
concerned about what numbers might exist out there. I think people in
this House, Democrats and Republicans, ought to know what the real
numbers are.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Let me just say that this resolution did not emerge from the Budget
Committee. This is a resolution of the House Rules Committee. We are
the committee of jurisdiction for H. Res. 38.
Mr. McGOVERN. I appreciate the gentleman for making that point of
clarification. However, what we are talking about is setting the
spending levels for this House which directly impacts the chairman of
the Budget Committee and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
So if there are questions about how deep these cuts are going to be and
where they are going to come from, it is because we have no clarity.
At this point I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, as those of us on this side of the aisle have said, we
need to focus our efforts on job creation and getting the economy
going. I know that the chairman said that is what this bill is all
about, but let's look at what the Bipartisan Commission on Deficit and
Debt Reduction said. They said two things: one, absolutely we need to
put our country on a sustainable path toward deficit reduction, and we
should work together to get that done.
But they also said another thing. They said draconian cuts right now
would, in fact, reverse the economic progress that we are making, and
that it would threaten the fragile economic recovery and it would hurt
job creation in this country, which is one reason we would like to know
what the number is, and I would yield immediately if you can tell me
whether it is going to be $100 billion this year, $80 billion, $60
billion, whatever it will be, because there is no number. And if you've
got it, it should have been in here.
Let me get to the other issue the gentleman raised. We have pointed
out that if you do the $100 billion cut, which is what you all talked
about in the fall, right now in the immediate moment, it results in
approximately 20 percent across-the-board cuts. Now, all of you say,
whenever we raise specifics like cutting research for treatment and
cures at NIH, no, no, no, we're not going to cut that. Then we say,
okay, you're going to cut the FBI budget because that is not a part of
the protected budget. No, no, no, you say, we're not going to cut that.
You keep moving stuff off the table.
You know what that does to the rest of the budget? It means it goes
from a 20 percent cut to 30 percent to 40. Who knows what it is.
But the point we are making is you haven't given us the starting
point number; so you don't have a clue, and of course we don't either.
But you don't have a clue because you haven't come up with a number.
And we know there has been a lot of discussion on your side of the
aisle--it's no secret--about what that number will be, you amended this
rules provision, but if you've got the number, put it in here now, and
if you're going to get it the day after tomorrow, on Wednesday, wait 24
hours, and let this body vote on it.
{time} 1810
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 1 minute to say to my friend that it is
very interesting to have this debate, and I am happy to be standing on
this side, saying that we got the message of last November 2, and I
know the 87 new Members on our side who have come to this institution
have made it very clear: The goal of moving in a direction of bringing
about spending cuts is critically important.
Now, my good friend has just become the ranking member of the
Committee on the Budget, and I know that it is a new assignment for my
friend, but I'd like to take just a moment to explain what the budget
process consists of.
We are going to see your committee proceed with establishing the
broad 302(a) allocations, and that big number will be determined. In
this institution, Democrats and Republicans alike--and, again, we
haven't seen it in the last 2 years, unfortunately, because we shut
down the appropriations process; but we are this year going to allow
Members the opportunity, allow Members under a privileged resolution on
the appropriations bills, to actually participate in establishing those
priorities. That is going to be a joint effort.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
Our priority is to get the economy back on track and create jobs. We
know very well that getting our fiscal house in order is going to be
essential if we are going to have the job creation that both Democrats
and Republicans want.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his
very useful guidance, but let me just tell you this: The fact of the
matter is, in the spring, we will begin the budget process in the
Budget Committee. We are now dealing with fiscal year 2011.
As the chairman knows, there was a budget resolution in effect at the
end of the last Congress that had a number in it. You chose not to
extend it. Now, for the first time ever, you have asked this House--
every Member--to surrender his or her responsibility on the number to
one person. That is budget malpractice, and it also cedes our
responsibility as Members on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman's dramatically raising
the level of a simple two-paragraph House resolution that is the first
step in a process that will allow the Budget Committee to do its work,
to allow the appropriators and, through the appropriators, the full
House--Democrats and Republicans alike--to establish those priorities.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I will yield in just a second.
So I would say to my friend that we do very much want, Mr. Speaker,
to have a chance for this institution--and I hope Democrats will join
in support of H. Res. 38 when it's voted on tomorrow--to go on record,
demonstrating the institution's commitment to having heard the message
from the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Out of respect for my friend, I yield myself 15 seconds
and I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My question, Mr. Chairman, is simple: Do you think it
makes a difference to the process whether the number that ends up being
here is $120 billion, which may mean a 30 percent across-the-board cut,
or do you think it matters that it's $100 billion or $80 billion?
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I will say, Mr. Speaker, that across-
the-
[[Page H410]]
board cuts is not something that is being considered here. We are
pursuing 2008 levels, and I believe that that's what this resolution
says. We hope very much that we can get to lower levels of spending,
and I suspect that some Members on the other side of the aisle will
want to join us in working together in that effort so we can get our
fiscal house in order.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I would remind my colleagues, when they read the
resolution, it is 2008 levels or less, so it muddles the number even
more.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
I oppose this resolution. I oppose it because I think its provisions
with respect to our own economic recovery and the production of jobs is
offset tremendously by its passage.
But I want to focus my time on the limited question but the very
important question of what is in and what is not in security funding,
because security funding, as has been pointed out, is exempted from the
requirements to go back to fiscal year 2008 functions or less.
The chairman of the Rules Committee, when asked at the Rules
Committee whether foreign assistance, diplomacy, and development were
part of security--was that part of the exemption?--he said no.
My definition--me, David Dreier, chairman of the Rules Committee, out
of which this resolution comes--is as we have outlined in here: This is
discretionary spending--that is non-security spending--other than
defense, military construction, VA, and homeland security.
I assume the gentleman's interpretation is one he still holds to less
than a week later.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DREIER. I will say to my friend that that is the definition of
``security spending'': defense, homeland security, VA, and military
construction.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you.
Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman for reaffirming that
position. Now let's take a look at what that means.
That means not exempt from these drastic cuts are: weapons in
training to build the capacity of key partners in the fight against
terror in Yemen, in Pakistan, in the Philippines. That's all part of
our security assistance package, part of our international affairs
budget; financing for the purchase of U.S. military equipment to ensure
Israel's qualitative military edge; defense items and services that
enable other countries to cooperate with us on counterterrorism.
In Afghanistan, they're cuts that would mean an end to the civilian
surge. It would force the military to perform civilian jobs. The
reductions would harm four Provincial Reconstruction Teams and forward
operating bases, security forces and police training, explosive
ordnance disposal, counternarcotics and poppy eradication programs.
In Iraq, the state programs that would be harmed by virtue of the
gentleman's definition of ``non-security funds'' that have to be
dramatically cut back are: training for Iraqi police and security
forces to take over when the U.S. troops depart; funding for our
Special Inspectors General in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that
programs are designed to achieve maximum impact and are properly
managed and implemented.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.
Mr. BERMAN. Everything the gentleman has stood for in his years in
Congress is going to be undermined by virtue of what he is proposing.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, which provides for
consideration of a resolution to reduce what is being called ``non-
security'' spending to 2008 levels.
That resolution, H. Res. 38, sends a very damaging message that the
Congress will not stand up to protect those programs that are
absolutely essential to jobs and the economy. It also rejects a key
principle that military leaders and Presidents of both parties have
clearly recognized: Foreign assistance and diplomacy are essential to
United States national security.
That principle has been honored on a bipartisan basis ever since the
tragic events of September 11, 2001. On that terrible morning,
Americans woke to the realization that while the Cold War was over,
their safety and security could be threatened by much less
sophisticated means. The ideologies and the weapons of terror could not
be thwarted by military power alone.
In 2004 the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act by a vote of 336-75. It was
supported by all the Members who are now in positions of leadership in
this body. The Speaker, the Majority Leader and the Budget Committee
Chairman all voted for it.
The bill, now Public Law 108-458, states: ``Long-term success in the
war on terrorism demands the use of all elements of national power,
including diplomacy, military action, intelligence, covert action, law
enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and
homeland defense.''
It continues: ``To win the war on terrorism, the United States must
assign to economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic
priority that is assigned to military capabilities.''
In fact, the portion of the bill that makes these findings is known
as the ``9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004.'' It states: ``The
legislative and executive branches of the Government of the United
States must commit to robust, long-term investments in all of the tools
necessary for the foreign policy of the United States to successfully
accomplish the goals of the United States.''
All of the tools necessary--that includes diplomacy and foreign
assistance, which would be slashed under this resolution. The 9/11
Commission Implementation Act of 2004 goes on to say that these
investments ``will require increased funding to United States foreign
affairs programs.''
In May of this year, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, wrote to then-Speaker Pelosi regarding proposed cuts to the
international affairs budget. The opening paragraph stated: ``We are
living in times that require an integrated national security program
with budgets that fund the full spectrum of national security efforts,
including vitally important pre-conflict and post-conflict civilian
stabilization programs.''
He was reinforcing a message that had also been communicated, on
several occasions, by Secretary Gates, when he wrote: ``The diplomatic
and developmental capabilities of the United States have a direct
bearing on our ability to shape threats and reduce the need for
military action. It is my firm belief that diplomatic programs as part
of a coordinated strategy will save money by reducing the likelihood of
active military conflict involving U.S. forces.
Admiral Mullen penned a personal note at the end, which read: ``The
more significant the cuts, the longer military operations will take,
and the more and more lives are at risk!''
President Bush, when sending up his wartime supplemental request in
FY 2006, integrated diplomatic and military spending. He asked Congress
to provide ``the Resources to Win the War on Terror.''
The message from our military leadership, this Congress, and even
former President Bush is clear: U.S. civilian agencies must be fully
resourced to prosecute the fight against terror effectively. A cut to
the 150 budget harms U.S. national security and puts American lives at
risk.
And yet, the Chairman of the Rules Committee explained, during
consideration of this resolution, that ``security spending'' does not
include diplomacy and development. He said, ``No, my definition, my
definition is, as we have outlined in here, this is discretionary
spending other than defense, military construction, V.A. and homeland
security.'' The resolution itself does not define what is security or
non-security, but the authors say they do not consider diplomacy and
development part of our national security budget.
Before voting on this resolution, I would urge my colleagues to think
about what the practical implications would be of major cuts in the
international affairs budget.
In 2008, the vast majority of U.S. assistance to Iraq was provided by
the military. This year, at long last, we are withdrawing the remainder
of our troops, and handing over the job to civilians. If we cut our
diplomatic and development budget for Iraq, then all the investments
we've made, and all the American lives that have been lost, will be in
vain.
The civilian presence costs only a tiny fraction of what we were
spending on the military. But this resolution would make that civilian
presence impossible. The proposed cuts will mean snatching defeat from
the jaws of victory.
Returning to the past would also mean violating our Memorandum of
Understanding with Israel, under which we pledge to help Israel
maintain its qualitative military edge against
[[Page H411]]
those who seek its destruction. Do my colleagues suggest we renege on
our commitment to Israel?
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we cannot defeat violent extremism by
military power alone. As Secretary Gates recently said, ``without
development we will not be able to be successful in either Iraq or
Afghanistan.'' Our military strategy in Afghanistan is often described
as ``clear, hold, and build.'' How can we succeed if there is no one to
do the holding and the building?
Foreign assistance programs protect us even outside the areas of
active combat or potential conflict. Our efforts to stop the spread of
HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases, counter the flow of illegal
narcotics, prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reduce
human misery and halt environmental destruction, all help to protect
the safety and security of American citizens.
Mr. Speaker, we can't afford to go back to the isolationist,
unilateralist policies of the past. Cutting spending to 2008 levels
takes us back to a period when America's standing in the world was at
an all-time low.
Whether it's finding new markets for U.S. goods and services,
addressing climate change, sharing the burden of peacekeeping,
enforcing sanctions against Iran, or improving travel and
communications, we need to build strong international relationships.
We all remember the period when the United States tried to go it
alone, unwilling to cooperate with other countries and demonstrate
global leadership.
We've finally begun to turn that all around. Let's not go back to the
bad old days when the U.S. turned away from the rest of the world, and
lost so much of its influence and respect.
Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the very difficult budget and economic
situation that confronts us. There is no doubt that well-crafted
reforms will help us to use our foreign assistance dollars more
effectively and efficiently, and ensure that aid reaches those who need
it. That is why I am continuing my efforts to develop legislation to
modernize our foreign assistance policies and programs.
But what we need to do, as one conservative blogger has suggested, is
to ``mend it, not end it.'' Comparatively speaking, diplomacy and
development don't cost much, and save us money over the long run.
International affairs funding helps promote U.S. exports and saves
U.S. jobs. Our economy can't grow without creating and expanding new
markets abroad. Our diplomats help to identify export opportunities,
help American companies navigate foreign political systems, and level
the playing field for American products around the globe.
We should also keep in mind that international affairs accounts for
just one percent of the budget. Even if we eliminated such spending
entirely, it wouldn't balance the budget and it wouldn't make a dent in
our national debt. But it would devastate our economy and our national
security.
As Secretary Gates said last fall, ``Development is a lot cheaper
than sending soldiers.''
In places like Haiti and Sudan, we provide assistance not only for
purely humanitarian reasons, but also because a failure to do so could
lead to chaos and bloodshed that would be far more costly in the long
run.
Going back to 2008 levels of global AIDS funding would mean ending
antiretroviral treatment for people who are currently receiving it. It
would mean abandoning pregnant women who run a high risk of
transmitting HIV to their newborns. It would mean fewer orphans and
vulnerable children will get care and support, and fewer people in poor
countries will get HIV counseling and testing.
President Bush made clear not only the need to not cut funding, but
to make greater investments in these programs when he wrote, just a few
months ago, ``there are millions on treatment who cannot be abandoned.
And the progress in many African nations depends on the realistic hope
of new patients gaining access to treatment. . . . On AIDS, to stand
still is to lose ground.''
Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the most obvious and damaging
implications of reducing the international affairs budget to 2008
levels. This resolution would set the stage for reckless cuts that
endanger our national security, abandon our national interests and
throw Americans out of work, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members will suspend.
Members should bear in mind that the Official Reporters of Debate
cannot be expected to transcribe two Members simultaneously.
Members should not participate in debate by interjection and should
not expect to have the reporter transcribe remarks that are uttered
when not properly under recognition.
The Chair must ask Members to bear in mind the principle that proper
courtesy in the process of yielding and reclaiming time in debate--and
especially in asking another to yield--helps to foster the spirit of
mutual comity that elevates our deliberations above mere argument.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my
friend that I very much appreciate his recognizing the commitment that
I have had to security through foreign assistance programs and to make
it very clear that, again, we are just beginning a process today. We
are beginning a process today that will allow this House to work its
will. It is obvious that going to 2008 levels is not going to gut all
of the very important national security aspects that we have of foreign
assistance programs. My friend knows very well, Mr. Speaker, that it is
essential that we get our fiscal house in order, and this is the first
step on a road towards doing just that.
With that, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
{time} 1820
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3
minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that this is not the way we
should deal with the budget. And transparency, I will tell my
Republican friends, means knowing what the budget number is. I don't
know why that's such a radical idea. And accountability means that
everybody in this House should be able to vote yes or no on whatever
that number is. It shouldn't be up to one person to unilaterally
determine that number. This budget process that the Republicans have
put together politicizes unnecessarily a budget process and sets, I
think, a lousy precedent.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will modify
this rule to provide that immediately after the House passes this rule
it will take up an amendment to exempt cuts in funding for the FBI's
counterterrorism program. My Republican colleagues said they won't cut
programs that protect our Nation's security, but the resolution itself
doesn't even bother to define ``non-security spending.'' And the
definition I have heard from the other side of the aisle would not
include the FBI's counterterrorism program.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials in the Record immediately prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a ``no'' vote on the previous question
will allow the House to consider an amendment exempting cuts in funding
to the FBI's counterterrorism program, an amendment that will ensure we
do not sacrifice our Nation's security in this post-9/11 world.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no''
on the previous question so that we can ensure that we continue to
protect this Nation from terrorism.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, every Member of this institution, Democrat and
Republican alike, knows full well that the American people are hurting.
We have an unemployment rate that is at 9.4 percent. We have, in my
State of California, a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. I see my
friend Mr. Lewis here on the floor. In the Inland Empire of California,
the unemployment rate is 15\1/2\ percent. People are out there making
very, very tough decisions, and the economic uncertainty that exists
today is playing a big role in diminishing the kind of investments that
we need to create jobs.
This resolution is a very simple one. It says that we shouldn't spend
money we don't have. We shouldn't spend money we don't have. That's
what we're saying as we begin this process. Those are the decisions
that families are making all across this country. They're not spending
money they don't have. In fact, we've seen, because of this economic
downturn, lots of families today saving more than they have
[[Page H412]]
in the past because they don't want to get themselves into this
position that the Federal Government is.
We're going to have to make some tough choices around here. It's not
going to be easy. No one is saying that it's going to be easy. But this
resolution that we're going to debate tomorrow, H. Res. 38, simply says
that we are going to go to 2008 levels or less, because frankly 2008
levels, as far as I'm concerned, were too high. I believe that we need
to cut back even more.
Now we continue to hear this argument that we are going to decimate
research into very important diseases out there. We began the debate,
as I said in the opening, not going there, but we did go there. And, as
I said, if you can't prioritize, you end up demonizing and creating
this great deal of fear that is out there. Or the FBI is going to close
down if we go to `08 spending levels. Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously that
is not the case. This institution is not about to undermine the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. But we do know that with adequate oversight--
which is our constitutional responsibility--and focusing, yes, on those
three things that Democrats and Republicans alike say--waste, fraud and
abuse--we will be able to rein in this behemoth.
Again, it's going to be tough, but this resolution is just the first
step in a 2-year process to get our economy growing, create jobs, and
to rein in the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government so
that we can encourage individual initiative and responsibility.
So Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule. And
tomorrow, when we bring the resolution, H. Res. 38, to the floor, I
urge their support of this measure. I hope very much that we will have
Democrats joining with Republicans for this very commonsense approach
to do exactly what these 87 new Members on our side of the aisle--and I
suspect even some of the nine new Members on the Democratic side of the
aisle--have come here to do, and that is to rein in this wasteful
government spending that we have seen.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to H. Res. 43, ``A rule providing for consideration of the
Republican Budget-less Resolution.''
Through the American Recovery Act of 2009 (stimulus bill), Congress
threw out a massive lifeline to save Americans who were on the verge of
losing their jobs and to create jobs for those who were unemployed. We
have received numerous reports from our constituents and the
Administration of the positive impact the stimulus funding is having on
our economy. Yet, we know there is still more work to do. This bill
will undermine and erode the many scarifies Americans have made to
adjust to the downturn in the economy. This bill is turning America
backwards in the wrong direction.
The new proposal of the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) to cut
and then freeze non-defense discretionary spending at 2008 levels from
2012 through 2021 would mean cuts of more than 40 percent in education,
environmental protection, law enforcement, medical research, food
safety, and many other key services.
For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA)
funding at the FY2008 enacted level instead of the FY2010 enacted level
would result in a decrease $2.83 billion--$7.46 billion enacted for
FY2008 vs. $10.29 billion enacted for FY2010. The majority of this
decrease below the FY2010 appropriations would be the result of a $2.04
billion decrease within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
account, and a $665.8 million decrease within the Environmental
Programs and Management (EPM) account.
The decrease within the STAG account would be attributed primarily to
funding for capitalization grants for the Clean Water and the Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs), although numerous other grants also
are funded within this account. The SRF funding specifically supports
local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, such as
construction of and modifications to municipal sewage treatment plants
and drinking water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, respectively.
Furthermore, the EPM account funds a broad range of activities
involved in EPA's development of pollution control regulations and
standards, and enforcement of these requirements across multiple
environmental media, such as air quality and water quality.
This proposal would represent the deepest annual cut in funding for
these programs in recent U.S. history. It would remove substantial
purchasing power from a weak economy, thereby costing hundreds of
thousands of jobs and raising risks of a double-dip recession.
If imposed across the board, such a cut would mean 42 percent less
for healthcare for veterans; 42 percent less for K-12 education; 42
percent less for protecting the environment; 42 percent less for the
FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, and border security; 42 percent
less for the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention; 42 percent less for food safety and inspection;
and so on.
Specifically, in my Congressional District, the 18th Congressional
District of Houston, Texas, two active Light Rail construction projects
are underway. These projects exemplify urban mobility, jobs, economic
prosperity, energy independence and sustainable growth for the city of
Houston. The projects are commonly referred to as the North Corridor
Line and the Southeast Corridor Line. It is critical that these
projects continue so that the construction can proceed and the benefits
of the new service can be available to the traveling public as soon as
possible. In the FY2011 appropriations legislation that passed the
House of Representatives, we were able to secure $150 million for
Houston METRO. However, we were unable to preserve this funding in the
legislation that passed the Senate, which resulted in the Continuing
Resolution passed by Congress at the end of last year not including
this funding or any other funding for specific New Starts projects for
Houston METRO. I want to ensure that my constituents are in a position
to feed their families, to secure employment and further his or her
education by preserving this important funding.
I represent an international energy hub and global business city.
Twenty-six companies on the 2010 Fortune 500 list maintain their
headquarters in Houston and many more have administrative operations
located in Houston. More than 3,000 firms conduct international
business in over 200 countries, making Houston a truly global city.
Houston is also a burgeoning leader in the information technology,
nanotechnology, aerospace, and health care industries.
To adopt this resolution would be crippling my District and
eliminating the guarantee through these projects of thousands of jobs
for Houstonians. It is factual that Houston's expertise in global
business and energy will provide the southwest region with an economic
boost that will ensure the United States remains an international
economic leader.
Consequently, the House majority, of course, could decide to meet its
overall target for non-defense discretionary spending while protecting
one or more of the programs and services listed above. But, a cut of
less than 42 percent in, say, education or environmental protection
would necessitate even more draconian cuts in, say, food safety and
border security.
Our Border States are frustrated and in need of targeted assistance.
Over the last year, I attended a number of different hearings, meetings
with local and state officials, and press conferences on immigration,
combating the drug trade, and improving the border, and in almost all
instances, I have heard the same comment: Border States are frustrated.
The deeply misguided Arizona Law, (SB 1070) for example, is an
expression of that frustration. Unless we want to see more of a
backlash, we in the federal government must do more to help our Border
States, which are vital to securing our nation and upholding our
immigration laws, and helping local and state officials secure our
Border States.
The United States continues to fight the battle against the powerful
drug trafficking organizations that have plagued our sister cities just
across the border with violence. We have been fortunate thus far that
for the most part the violence has not spilled over into the United
States, but we cannot depend on being insulated forever. Instability
abroad, especially on the border, is a danger to stability at home, and
we have a vested interest in helping our neighbors to the southwest
combat the criminal organizations that have threatened the safety of
their citizens and brought drugs into our country.
First of all, we need to provide more ``boots on the ground'' to help
secure our borders. While deterrence through additional personnel is
essential to improving security, several members of the law enforcement
community have also stressed the importance of providing more resources
for investigators and detectives, who can help to ferret out and
dismantle the criminal activities taking place on our borders.
Moreover, while federal agencies have improved their coordination
with the Border States, communication within local and state
authorities continues to be problematic. Communication in disperse
rural areas presents a particular challenge. At a hearing on the Merida
Initiative, I heard the moving testimony of a rancher from rural
Arizona, Mr. Bill McDonald. He pointed out how a lack of resources and
a rapid turnover rate make communication extremely important, but
extremely
[[Page H413]]
lacking. These rural areas, and the people who live there, are in many
cases the most vulnerable to human traffickers and drug traffickers.
There is a desperate need for Border States to receive the necessary
support to effectively secure our borders from threats and ensure a
safe and stable environment for our border residents. More robust, well
funded, and well resourced law enforcement systems are exactly what our
Border States and residents demand.
It is quite disappointing that we cannot accurately evaluate this
resolution because it does not really provide a clear breakdown of the
$100 billion in cuts it claims for the 2012 budget. The first $80
billion in savings would be to ``Replace the spending levels in the
continuing resolution (CR) with non-defense, non-homeland security,
non-veterans spending at FY 2008 levels.'' That, obviously, is
incredibly vague.
This legislation would end federal subsidies for Amtrak, which
basically means the end of train travel in the United States. This
resolution would end federal involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
which would, as Ezra Klein says, likely plunge the mortgage
securitization market into chaos and send housing prices skidding
again. It would repeal the federal support for state Medicaid budgets
that has plugged the gap for many states with budgets hit hard by the
recession, meaning many poor people would likely lose their access to
medical care.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to H. Res
43.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, which
provides for consideration of a resolution to reduce what is being
called ``non-security'' spending to 2008 levels.
That resolution, H. Res. 38, sends a very damaging message that the
Congress will not stand up to protect those programs that are
absolutely essential to jobs and the economy. It also rejects a key
principle that military leaders and Presidents of both parties have
clearly recognized: Foreign assistance and diplomacy are essential to
United States national security.
That principle has been honored on a bipartisan basis ever since the
tragic events of September 11, 2001. On that terrible morning,
Americans woke to the realization that while the Cold War was over,
their safety and security could be threatened by much less
sophisticated means. The ideologies and the weapons of terror could not
be thwarted by military power alone.
In 2004 the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act by a vote of 336-75. It was
supported by all the Members who are now in positions of leadership in
this body. The Speaker, the Majority Leader and the Budget Committee
Chairman all voted for it.
The bill, now Public Law 108-458, states: ``Long-term success in the
war on terrorism demands the use of all elements of national power,
including diplomacy, military action, intelligence, covert action, law
enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and
homeland defense.''
It continues: ``To win the war on terrorism, the United States must
assign to economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic
priority that is assigned to military capabilities.''
In fact, the portion of the bill that makes these findings is known
as the ``9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004.'' It states: ``The
legislative and executive branches of the Government of the United
States must commit to robust, long-term investments in all of the tools
necessary for the foreign policy of the United States to successfully
accomplish the goals of the United States.''
All of the tools necessary--that includes diplomacy and foreign
assistance, which would be slashed under this resolution. The 9/11
Commission Implementation Act of 2004 goes on to say that these
investments ``will require increased funding to United States foreign
affairs programs.''
In May of this year, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, wrote to then-Speaker Pelosi regarding proposed cuts to the
international affairs budget. The opening paragraph stated: ``We are
living in times that require an integrated national security program
with budgets that fund the full spectrum of national security efforts,
including vitally important pre-conflict and post-conflict civilian
stabilization programs.''
He was reinforcing a message that had also been communicated, on
several occasions, by Secretary Gates, when he wrote: ``The diplomatic
and developmental capabilities of the United States have a direct
bearing on our ability to shape threats and reduce the need for
military action. It is my firm belief that diplomatic programs as part
of a coordinated strategy will save money by reducing the likelihood of
active military conflict involving U.S. forces.
Admiral Mullen penned a personal note at the end, which read: ``The
more significant the cuts, the longer military operations will take,
and the more and more lives are at risk!''
President Bush, when sending up his wartime supplemental request in
FY 2006, integrated diplomatic and military spending. He asked Congress
to provide ``the Resources to Win the War on Terror.''
The message from our military leadership, this Congress, and even
former President Bush is clear: U.S. civilian agencies must be fully
resourced to prosecute the fight against terror effectively. A cut to
the 150 budget harms U.S. national security and puts American lives at
risk.
And yet, the Chairman of the Rules Committee explained, during
consideration of this resolution, that ``security spending'' does not
include diplomacy and development. He said, ``No, my definition, my
definition is, as we have outlined in here, this is discretionary
spending other than defense, military construction, V.A. and homeland
security.'' The resolution itself does not define what is security or
non-security, but the authors say they do not consider diplomacy and
development part of our national security budget.
Before voting on this resolution, I would urge my colleagues to think
about what the practical implications would be of major cuts in the
international affairs budget.
In 2008, the vast majority of U.S. assistance to Iraq was provided by
the military. This year, at long last, we are withdrawing the remainder
of our troops, and handing over the job to civilians. If we cut our
diplomatic and development budget for Iraq, then all the investments
we've made, and all the American lives that have been lost, will be in
vain.
The civilian presence costs only a tiny fraction of what we were
spending on the military. But this resolution would make that civilian
presence impossible. The proposed cuts will mean snatching defeat from
the jaws of victory.
Returning to the past would also mean violating our Memorandum of
Understanding with Israel, under which we pledge to help Israel
maintain its qualitative military edge against those who seek its
destruction. Do my colleagues suggest we renege on our commitment to
Israel?
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we cannot defeat violent extremism by
military power alone. As Secretary Gates recently said, ``without
development we will not be able to be successful in either Iraq or
Afghanistan.'' Our military strategy in Afghanistan is often described
as ``clear, hold, and build.'' How can we succeed if there is no one to
do the holding and the building?
Foreign assistance programs protect us even outside the areas of
active combat or potential conflict. Our efforts to stop the spread of
HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases, counter the flow of illegal
narcotics, prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reduce
human misery and halt environmental destruction, all help to protect
the safety and security of American citizens.
Mr. Speaker, we can't afford to go back to the isolationist,
unilateralist policies of the past. Cutting spending to 2008 levels
takes us back to a period when America's standing in the world was at
an all-time low.
Whether it's finding new markets for U.S. goods and services,
addressing climate change, sharing the burden of peacekeeping,
enforcing sanctions against Iran, or improving travel and
communications, we need to build strong international relationships.
We all remember the period when the United States tried to go it
alone, unwilling to cooperate with other countries and demonstrate
global leadership.
We've finally begun to turn that all around. Let's not go back to the
bad old days when the U.S. turned away from the rest of the world, and
lost so much of its influence and respect.
Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the very difficult budget and economic
situation that confronts us. There is no doubt that well-crafted
reforms will help us to use our foreign assistance dollars more
effectively and efficiently, and ensure that aid reaches those who need
it. That is why I am continuing my efforts to develop legislation to
modernize our foreign assistance policies and programs.
But what we need to do, as one conservative blogger has suggested, is
to ``mend it, not end it.'' Comparatively speaking, diplomacy and
development don't cost much, and save us money over the long run.
International affairs funding helps promote U.S. exports and saves
U.S. jobs. Our economy can't grow without creating and expanding new
markets abroad. Our diplomats help to identify export opportunities,
help American companies navigate foreign political systems, and level
the playing field for American products around the globe.
We should also keep in mind that international affairs accounts for
just one percent of the budget. Even if we eliminated such spending
entirely, it wouldn't balance the budget and it wouldn't make a dent in
our national debt. But it would devastate our economy and our national
security.
[[Page H414]]
As Secretary Gates said last fall, ``Development is a lot cheaper
than sending soldiers.''
In places like Haiti and Sudan, we provide assistance not only for
purely humanitarian reasons, but also because a failure to do so could
lead to chaos and bloodshed that would be far more costly in the long
run.
Going back to 2008 levels of global AIDS funding would mean ending
antiretroviral treatment for people who are currently receiving it. It
would mean abandoning pregnant women who run a high risk of
transmitting HIV to their newborns. It would mean fewer orphans and
vulnerable children will get care and support, and fewer people in poor
countries will get HIV counseling and testing.
President Bush made clear not only the need to not cut funding, but
to make greater investments in these programs when he wrote, just a few
months ago, ``there are millions on treatment who cannot be abandoned.
And the progress in many African nations depends on the realistic hope
of new patients gaining access to treatment. . . . On AIDS, to stand
still is to lose ground.''
Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the most obvious and damaging
implications of reducing the international affairs budget to 2008
levels. This resolution would set the stage for reckless cuts that
endanger our national security, abandon our national interests and
throw Americans out of work, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the debate on the reduction of
non-defense and security spending, a visit to recent history reveals a
telling connection between our soaring debt and the two wars our
country is waging.
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation estimates that the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the average American family of
four almost $13,000 last year. We know from our constituents when we
return to our districts that the average American family of four cannot
afford that. They cannot afford to pay for wars that undermine our
national and moral security. Many families can barely afford to stay in
their homes.
Nobel Prize winning economist and author of The Three Trillion Dollar
War, Joseph Stiglitz, says that there is ``no question that the Iraq
war added substantially to the federal debt. This was the first time in
American history that the government cut taxes as it went to war. The
result: a war completely funded by borrowing. The global financial
crisis, he says, was due at least in part to the war.
If this sounds familiar, it is because we are pursuing the same
policies today. The ramifications of our spending on the Iraq War--
soaring oil prices, federal debt and a global economic crisis--were
during a time when the resources dedicated to Iraq were much greater
than those being dedicated to Afghanistan. The commitment of an
additional 30,000 troops and a continually slipping withdrawal date
commits us to an endless war and an endless stream of borrowed money.
It commits us to seemingly endless economic insecurity.
Moving past the costs of waging war, there are the costs of providing
returning veterans with the care they need. When these costs are
factored in, the costs of health care and benefits for veterans
significantly increases the $3 trillion price tag to nearly $5
trillion.
It is time to question the way we enhance our national security and
our economic security. It will be a grave mistake to miss this
opportunity.
The facts tell us that the policies we have been pursuing in recent
years have led us further from the very goals we claim to be working
toward. The facts tell us that it is fiscally irresponsible to continue
defense spending at current rates.
By ignoring this responsibility--by pretending that it doesn't
exist--we fail to heed the lessons from our economic decline. The costs
of maintaining the status quo are great. The moral and human costs are
even greater.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Strike the last sentence and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
``The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution, as amended, and any amendment thereto to
final adoption without intervening motion or demand for
division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules or their respective
designees; (2) an amendment if offered by Representative
McGovern of Massachusetts or a designee to ensure that FBI
Counterterrorism funding is considered security spending,
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order, shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.''
(The information contained herein was provided by
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________