[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.

                          ____________________