[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1806-H1810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 48, ADDITIONAL
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS AMENDMENTS, 2011
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 167 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 167
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 48) making further continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the joint
resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chaffetz). The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern). During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 167 provides a closed rule for
consideration of H.J. Res. 48. Keeping in line with the actions of the
minority party and its CRs last year, this rule also provides for 1
hour of debate and a motion to recommit.
We are here again today dealing with the continuing resolution, Mr.
Speaker, because H.R. 1 sits idly on the Senate side. As you will
recall, H.R. 1 has been the singly most debated piece of legislation
that we've had in this body this year. In fact, we considered more
amendments on that spending bill in February than on all of the
previous spending bills in the last two Congresses combined. Yet, even
as the House has worked its will, even as, I think, we on both sides of
the aisle identify that as one of the finest hours of this body, it
sits in the Senate--unused, unexamined, undebated.
Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of a debate on spending. It's not
that we tax too little in this country. It's that we spend too much.
{time} 1220
We're operating with $1.4 trillion annual operating deficits, $1.5
trillion, $1.6 trillion, and now they're saying next year it could be
$1.7 trillion--spending that we do with money that we don't have.
We need to get to the big picture, Mr. Speaker. We need to have this
debate about how do we move beyond what was last year's business and
get on to what is this year's business. These thing that we're working
on, this three-week CR, Mr. Speaker, is not the real business. The real
business is yet to come. I sit on the Budget Committee. If you want to
talk about real business, look at the tough decisions that are coming
down the pipe from the Budget Committee. Look at what it's going to
take to get this budget back in balance. Look at what it's going to
take to restore integrity to our fiscal system. Look at what it's going
to take to inspire confidence in our foreign creditors. These are the
real issues that we have to discuss, but we can't discuss them, Mr.
Speaker, because we are still working on last year's business.
Now, I think we're frustrated on both sides of the aisle that we're
still working on last year's business, and candidly, it may come as a
surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, but I don't blame a soul on the other
side. The other side of this body has been our partner in moving H.R. 1
to the Senate. They've been our partner in making the tough decisions
that had to be had, and we had Republican amendments that succeeded and
Republican amendments that failed. We had Democratic amendments that
succeeded and Democratic amendments
[[Page H1807]]
that failed, and this body worked its will.
But the Senate has yet to take up the legislation, has yet to take up
legislation passed in February, has yet to be taken up as we sit here
in the middle of March. Now, I don't know how in the world we have
negotiations, Mr. Speaker. We have done our work here in the House. I'm
proud not only that we did it but I'm proud of the way in which we did
it. But now we wait on the Senate to come to the table and lay down its
vision for how we fund this government through September of this year.
We continue to wait, and hopefully, these 3 weeks, Mr. Speaker, will
provide the time needed for the Senate to gear up and get going,
because I will say it over and over and over again today, this is last
year's business, and it is distracting us from the important business
that needs to happen.
I'll tell you this. This CR for 3 weeks isn't what I would have liked
to have seen. What I would like to see is H.R. 1 come back to this
floor. What I would like to see is H.R. 1 go to the President's desk.
What I would like to see are the tough, tough, tough decisions that we
made and the difficult, difficult, difficult decisions that we had on
this floor be translated into the law of the land as it sits on the
President's desk and receives his signature. But we cannot move to that
point until the Senate acts.
So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to support this rule that will bring to
the floor a continuing resolution that will give the Senate three more
weeks to get its house in order to do the business that the American
people sent the Senate here to do, to join us in doing the good work
that we have done, and to move a bill to the President's desk so that
we can get on to the rest of the business that the country has laid
before us.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again, considering yet another short-term
continuing resolution. The last CR was for 2 weeks. This is a 3-week
bill. So I guess the good news is that we're heading in the right
direction, but that's about the only good news, Mr. Speaker. This is no
way to run a budget process. It is no way to run a government. It is
like water torture: drip, drip, drip. How are governors and mayors and
city councils supposed to plan if we keep passing these short-term
bills? How are the financial markets supposed to have any certainty if
we're passing bills that go only for 2 weeks or 3 weeks?
We all know what needs to happen. Democrats and Republicans in the
House, the Senate, and the White House need to get together and figure
out a sensible, bipartisan solution to this year's budget. And while it
may, you know, be convenient to blame the Senate, I should remind my
colleagues here that the majority leader in the Senate tried to bring
up a bill, but the Republicans voted to not allow the bill to be
considered. So it's not like there aren't alternatives out there.
The time for rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, is past. The time for press
releases and posturing is over. The time for finger-pointing must end,
because despite what some on the other side of the aisle seem to
believe, a government shutdown is not in our Nation's best interests.
I look at today's Politico, and one of the leading Republican
spokesmen, Representative Steve King, is quoted extensively in an
article saying that defunding is worth a shutdown. I think the last
thing the American people want is for us to shut down the government.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we should also be grateful that the
bill before us today does not include some of the policy changes that
were in H.R. 1, such as blocking money for health care reform and
Planned Parenthood, which they voted to eliminate in H.R. 1. H.R. 1,
Mr. Speaker, took a meat ax to border security, to food safety, low-
income heating assistance, medical research, and I could go on and on
and on. And thankfully, thankfully the Senate rejected that approach
last week.
But make no mistake: H.R. 1 is what my Republican colleagues not only
want but are demanding. Their ideological and rigid loyalty to H.R. 1
is what is holding up these negotiations, and the cuts in H.R. 1, Mr.
Speaker, are not only egregious but they are reckless and they are
damaging. According to former John McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi,
the bill had the potential to lead to 700,000 lost jobs, exactly the
wrong prescription for our recovering economy.
And speaking of jobs, Mr. Speaker, where are the Republican jobs
bills? Where is the legislation to encourage investment in new
technology, in infrastructure, in education, and in medical research?
It's been 11 weeks and we have seen nothing, not a thing from the other
side of the aisle on jobs. Let me remind my colleagues that if you
truly want to achieve deficit reduction focus on job creation. Put
people back to work. We can help grow out of this deficit that we have.
Mr. Speaker, we can and we must do better, and I urge my colleagues
to oppose this closed rule. I remind my colleagues that we have yet to
have a truly open rule in this House. This is a closed rule. Oppose the
closed rule and oppose the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that
we brought H.R. 1 to the floor under the single most open process this
House has seen in 4 years--and I've only been on the job 65 days--the
single most open process that this House has seen in 4 years. I'm proud
of that. I'm proud of what we did together.
Are there other alternatives out there to H.R. 1? I don't know, Mr.
Speaker, because I haven't seen one, haven't seen one come back from
the Senate. Is the Senate over there debating things? Absolutely. Are
they passing things? No, they're not, and I don't know where we go to
move forward with that.
But a gentleman who might, Mr. Speaker, is my good friend, the
president of the freshman class from the great State of Georgia.
And I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin
Scott).
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. To my colleague from Georgia, I want to
thank you for your lead on this and for sharing your time with me.
Mr. Speaker, this past November the American people sent a clear
message that they want and demand that representatives in Washington
get our fiscal house in order. In fact, our very livelihoods as
Americans and that of our future generations depend on it.
Now, Americans understand and we as Republicans understand that we
cannot eliminate this deficit with one piece of legislation, but they
do expect Congress to work continuously to reduce spending, excessive
spending in all areas of the government.
Mr. Speaker, last week, it was announced that February's deficit
reached a record $223 billion. The House's continuing resolution simply
cut $100 billion, approximately 2 weeks' worth of February's deficit,
and yet the Democrats refer to that as reckless cuts, 2 weeks worth of
February's deficits that we attempted to reduce.
Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this continuing
resolution, which will once again reduce the Federal budget deficit,
this time by $6 billion. No, it's not enough, but it is a step in the
right direction.
House Republicans recognize that we need to do more to reduce the
deficit. We also know that the country expects the President and
Senator Reid to accept their responsibility for this fiscal reality
that they have helped create and to work with the House, the House as a
whole, to reduce this deficit.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us are dedicated to eliminating excessive
spending, wherever it may exist. The problem with H.R. 1 and the
Republican approach is that all the tough choices and all the burden
falls on the middle class and on the poor in this country.
The fact is that Donald Trump got his tax cut. We didn't touch that.
Big Oil companies continue to get taxpayer subsidies. They wrote H.R. 1
in such a way so we couldn't get at those subsidies. Big agribusiness
continues to get its subsidies, and I go on and on and on: No-bid
defense contracts in the Defense Department.
{time} 1230
All those special interests were protected. But they cut LIHEAP to
help
[[Page H1808]]
people heat their homes this winter. They go after the National
Institutes of Health. You want to find a way to make Medicare solvent,
find a cure for Alzheimer's disease. You don't find a cure by cutting
moneys to the National Institutes of Health.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what my friend from
Massachusetts said when he was talking about the cuts in H.R. 1 to
research and development. We find in New Jersey, which is the third-
largest State in the country for health care research and development,
that every time the Federal Government spends a dollar, it creates five
or six or seven private sector jobs. See, that's the problem here. The
Republicans are not focusing on the issue, which is job creation. The
problem with their continuing resolution--the long-term one that they
adopted and they say that we should just pass in the Senate and send to
the President--is that it actually destroys jobs. If you listen to the
things that are actually being cut, these are the things that deal with
investments in the future. R&D, research and development,
infrastructure that allows commerce and allows us to fix our roads and
provide for mass transit and fix our ports.
The gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned Peter King from New York,
who actually criticized H.R. 1 because he said that it really hurts
port security. Well, how are we going to trade? How are we going to
export products if we don't deepen our ports, if we don't provide for
safe ports? And the same thing is true with education. H.R. 1 basically
cuts back on education, on Pell Grants for students to go to college.
All the investments that make sense because they actually create jobs
are going to be eliminated with H.R. 1, with this Republican
resolution. I mean, it is extremely shortsighted.
I feel like I was here 2 weeks ago with the same people, my colleague
from Georgia on the Republican side. We just can't continue to go 2
weeks, 3 weeks at a time. You are actually going to go out of session
and have a vacation or a break next week. Well, if you are really
serious about this--because we know that the Senate basically couldn't
get cloture on H.R. 1--why don't you, instead of going home next week,
just spend the time here trying to work out something responsibly with
the Senate so we can keep the government going? I mean, that's what we
need to do. We need a consensus.
You have one point of view on the Republican side. The Democrats have
another point of view. We have a Democratic President. We are never
going to get through this budget year unless we actually sit down and
have some consensus and some compromise. What I hear my colleague from
Georgia saying is, Take it or leave it. We voted on H.R. 1. That's our
Republican bill. It has all of the cuts. The Democrats don't like it
because we believe strongly it is going to kill jobs. But you say, Take
it or leave it. It can't operate that way. I don't believe that our
constituents in November expected us to just come down here and say,
Take it or leave it. They want us to go to work. They don't want us to
take next week off. They want us to create jobs.
And right now, the uncertainty with these 2- or 3-week short-term
spending bills is creating a lot of havoc. I think eventually it's
going to create havoc on the financial markets. It is already creating
havoc within the Federal agencies because they don't know whether they
are going to be operating from one week to the next. It's not good for
the country. It's not good for the economy. You may disagree, but we
need to work together.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the
gentleman from New Jersey that I just couldn't agree with him more. The
House spoke. It wasn't Republicans that spoke. It wasn't Democrats that
spoke. The House spoke with H.R. 1. We need to get to the negotiating
table.
Now I don't know when the Senate is going to act. I hope the Senate
acts today. And I will stay here just as long as it takes to work
through those things with the Senate. But we can't do it alone, as much
as we'd like to. As much as we'd like to do it alone, we can't, and we
are being held at bay by a Senate that refuses to move something
forward. I think all of the gentleman's words would be useful to our
friends on the Senate side.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously proud to yield 2 minutes to
my good friend and a great American patriot, the gentleman from Iowa,
Mr. Steve King.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I tend to agree
with all the Republicans from Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, I am here on the floor to speak to this issue of what
frames this rule and the continuing resolution that flows behind it,
Mr. Speaker. And I would remind the American people, I am here to talk
about ObamaCare, about cutting off the funding to ObamaCare, and
keeping our pledge. We have 87 new freshmen Republicans here in the
House of Representatives. I believe all of them ran on the repeal of
ObamaCare. I know all of them voted to repeal ObamaCare. And I know
this House has the authority to cut off the funding to ObamaCare.
We passed H.R. 2, the repeal. Every Senate Republican voted to repeal
ObamaCare, and H.R. 1 was the will of the House. We stood here, and we
debated over 90 hours. And the components of that that affect the
policy of this country within the rule of H.R. 1 are not part of the
negotiations of this CR, not the 2-week CR that passed that we are
operating on now, and not the 3-week CR that is the subject of this
rule that we are debating here, Mr. Speaker. So I lament that we don't
have the will of the House reflected in this CR, and it is trying the
patience of at least the Republicans in this House.
A growing number have said that they are not willing to vote for
another temporary spending measure in order to bridge it over until we
get some kind of resolution. But the House can draw the line. There is
not a dime that can be spent by this Federal government without the
approval of the House. And my position that was reflected by the
gentleman from Massachusetts is this: I'm willing to face the President
because if we're not willing to face the President, he will get exactly
everything he is willing to fight for. That means we have to confront
the idea of the President eventually shutting the government down or
giving him what he wants. It is more important that we stand on the
Constitution and fiscal responsibility than it is to hand over to the
President of the United States, who has the audacity to send us a
budget with a $1.65 trillion deficit, and that level of
irresponsibility, to just capitulate his demands. We must shut off the
funding to ObamaCare, and I am ready to do that. I will vote ``no'' on
the bill but not the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Well, there you have it. That is the difference between
Democrats and Republicans in terms of how we approach this issue. They
want to shut the government down. You know, what happens to Social
Security checks and veterans' benefits and National Parks, and I could
go on and on and on? There are consequences to being so rigid and being
so ideological.
I am going to say to my colleague from Georgia, he said H.R. 1 was
not the will of Republicans; the House spoke. The House didn't speak.
Three Democrats voted for H.R. 1. We have 192 Democrats in the House.
It was not the House speaking. It was what Republicans wanted. So H.R.
1 is wholly owned by my friends on the Republican side. And I again
will say that that bill represents some of the most reckless and
heartless cuts that I have seen since I have come to Congress.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Reckless and heartless is exactly the debate that we are going to
have to have. Is it reckless to pass on $14 trillion in debt to our
children with no end in sight? I would say to you that it is. Is it
heartless to saddle our children with that burden that is going to
drain their economy dry? I would say to you that it is. Is it reckless
to treat the world credit markets as if they will forever feed our
voracious appetite? And I say to you that it is. We have to take these
steps today.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and
colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Nugent).
[[Page H1809]]
Mr. NUGENT. I appreciate my good friend from Georgia yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 167 and the
underlying resolution, House Joint Resolution 48. This resolution
provides us with a rule so that we can consider a bill that continues
to fund the Federal Government for the next 3 weeks. I want to thank
the Appropriations Committee for the hard work they have done and their
ability to compromise. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
can follow their example.
{time} 1240
Although I support this continuing resolution, and I hope my
colleagues will support it as well, I don't want to keep coming back to
this issue every 2 or 3 weeks. Funding the government a few weeks at a
time is unacceptable.
Although my fellow freshmen and I have been here for over 2 months
now, we're still cleaning up the mess that was left behind by the
previous Congress. As I see it, they've kept kicking the can down the
road, refusing to make hard decisions as relates to spending. Now it's
up to us to say enough's enough, Mr. Speaker, with the out-of-control
spending.
The House has been at the table for 2 months. We're offering
solutions. The Senate and President have been sitting on the sidelines
offering none.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What is reckless and heartless about H.R. 1 is that it attempts to
balance the budget on the most vulnerable in our country, making deep
cuts in the low income energy fuel assistance program to help keep
people warm in the wintertime; cutting WIC, the Women, Infants and
Children program to help keep pregnant women healthy so they can
deliver healthy babies which, by the way, in the long run saves us
money.
What is heartless and reckless are the cuts in nutrition programs and
the National Institutes of Health, medical research, trying to find
cures to diabetes and Alzheimer's and cancer.
And what's protected are taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. What's
protected is Donald Trump's tax cut. What's protected are our subsidies
to big agri-businesses. And what's not even talked about is the fact
that we are fighting two wars and we're not paying for it. Everybody
wants to go to war in this Chamber, but no one wants to pay for it. It
is wrong and unconscionable, and that is adding considerably to our
deficit.
And what's also adding to our deficit are tax cuts that are not paid
for. So what's heartless about H.R. 1 is that it goes after the people
who need government the most, and it leaves people who don't need any
government or taxpayer subsidies alone.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, there are 15 million unemployed Americans
as we meet this afternoon, and this is the 11th consecutive week that
the majority has not brought to the floor a bill for us to work
together to create an environment where small businesses and
entrepreneurs could create jobs for our country.
Now, I do agree with the proposition that one of the ways that we
could have jobs created by small businesses and entrepreneurs is to
improve the country's fiscal standing and give us low long-term
interest rates in the long run; and reducing our deficit is a key part
of doing that. So I think the issue is not if we reduce spending; it's
how we reduce spending.
And I do think we should stop sending money to the Brazilian Cotton
Institute. I think we shouldn't spend $1.5 billion for the Police
Department in Baghdad when American cities are laying police officers
off around our country.
And I certainly don't think we should be giving $40 billion in
subsidies to the oil companies that made $77 billion in profit last
year and are raising gasoline to four or five bucks at the pump. I
think those are areas we ought to agree on and get this budget done.
But 11 consecutive weeks without a bill that helps small businesses
and entrepreneurs create jobs is 11 weeks too many.
I do, however, Mr. Speaker want to compliment the majority on a good
decision I think they've made in this bill. There's an argument in this
country about whether to repeal the health care bill or not. We think
that would be a surrender to the insurance industry and hurt the
American people, and we're against that repeal.
And there's an argument in this country about whether Planned
Parenthood should continue to get funding for women's health services.
Most of us think it should, and many on the other side think it should
not.
These are legitimate debates. They are not debates that should result
in a shutdown of the Federal Government, however. The right thing to do
is to agree on the budget and then agree to disagree on repealing the
health care bill and funding for Planned Parenthood later down the
road.
And I would commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and
the chairman of the Rules Committee for putting on the floor this
afternoon an extension that does not defund the health care bill, that
leaves it in place, and an extension that does not defund Planned
Parenthood, that leaves the funding for that in place.
I think that's the result that we should have in the long run. I
think the budget that we adopt between now and September 30 should
continue to fund the health care bill, as this bill does, and should
continue to fund Planned Parenthood, as this bill does.
But I commend the majority for its decision to leave those issues out
of this bill so that these issues are not wrapped up in this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman.
Look, there is a significant national debate about whether insurance
companies should be able to deny someone health coverage because they
have leukemia or diabetes. We think they shouldn't be able to do that
because of preexisting conditions. Others disagree with us.
We think that if a young woman needs counseling and services on her
gynecological health, that there should be a Planned Parenthood clinic
available to her. Others disagree with that, and we respect that
debate.
But to tie up the operation of the Marine Corps and the FBI and the
other aspects of this government over those social policy disputes is a
big mistake. It's a mistake the majority has avoided in this resolution
that's before us today, and I think that's a wise choice. I hope that
the majority continues to avoid that choice.
Let's agree on a budget that creates the conditions to help small
businesses and entrepreneurs put America back to work, and let's leave
the political debates out.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, these little short-term
continuing resolutions are no way to run our government. And beyond the
social debates that we're having here on a variety of issues, the fact
of the matter is that this 2-week, 3-week continuing resolution puts an
incredible burden on our local communities and our States and on our
Federal agencies. They can't proceed with initiatives that they thought
they had the money for. They're not sure whether next week we might cut
an entire program or the following week we might cut it or sometime
down the road. So there's uncertainty, and that uncertainty is having
an adverse impact on our economy, and it's having an adverse impact on
economic development all across this country. And so we need to get
serious about negotiating a compromise with the Senate and with the
White House and get this year's business done.
And, again, the United States Senate has put a number of offers on
the table. The one that majority leader Reid put on the table the
Republicans wouldn't let come to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, one of my chief concerns about H.R. 1, which is,
basically, the Republican continuing resolution, is that it has created
a climate in Washington that makes it unfashionable to worry about the
poor and the most vulnerable. Turning our
[[Page H1810]]
backs on the most vulnerable in our country doesn't make them go away.
There is a cost, and all of us pay that cost.
We need to get serious about job creation, putting people back to
work. That's the way you reduce the deficit. That's how we grow out of
this economic crisis that we're in.
And yet, here we are in March and nobody's talking about jobs. I
mean, we've talked about everything else; but the Republicans have
refused to talk about jobs or bring a jobs bill to the floor.
And I would suggest to my Republican friends, rather than this
ideological rigidity, this allegiance to this bill, H.R. 1, which is
filled with reckless and heartless cuts, I would suggest to my
colleagues that they understand that to get a deal here it requires
some compromise. And I think I would urge them to get about that
business.
I would also echo what Mr. Pallone said earlier. We're going on
vacation next week. Rather than a vacation, maybe we should finish the
work of this year. Rather than having Members go back and go on CODELS
overseas or go on vacations, let's finish the business of this year.
Let's provide some certainty to our mayors and to our city managers, to
our city councils and our boards of selectmen all across this country.
Let us provide some certainty that some funding that they're depending
on will be there.
{time} 1250
Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question, I would urge them to vote ``no'' on
this closed rule, and I would also urge them to vote ``no'' on the
underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say there are really a number of things that we agree on across this
body. The gentleman from Massachusetts has very strong feelings about
paying for the bills that we create today. I share his passion, and I
look forward to getting into the business of paying for those bills.
What I do know is that we are not paying for the bills today.
What I do know is that when I showed up for Congress on January 3 of
this year, that there was no spending plan to get us past March 4. No
spending plan.
Just to be clear, I showed up as a brand new Member of Congress in
January to learn that getting about the business means putting together
a funding bill before March 4 because the previous Congress didn't take
care of business.
Now, I know my friend from Massachusetts wasn't in charge of the
other side of the aisle last year. He certainly wasn't in charge of the
Senate, although we all wish that we could be in charge of the Senate.
But the business didn't get done, and that is why we are here today.
That is the first reason why we are here today, to take care of
business that didn't get done last year.
But the second reason, Mr. Speaker, and the more important reason
that we are here today, is because we said when we took over this body
on January 5 that we would not go along with business as usual. It
would have been a nothing to pass a bill that the President would sign
that would say, hey, just keep on funding the government the way you've
been funding it. Keep on racking up those trillion-dollar deficits the
way you've been racking them up. Don't change a thing. Fiddle while
Rome burns.
It would have been easy. Except for my conscience, except for the
conscience of the folks who were elected with me in November, except
for our principles, it would have been easy.
We chose the road less traveled that said, no, we're not going to put
it off. There is always a reason to wait Mr. Speaker. There is always a
reason to wait. And we said, no, we are going to begin making the tough
decisions today. Today. Now, that today was back in February, and we
are still waiting for the Senate to get to the table so that we can
have some of those negotiations.
But I will say to my friend from New Jersey, who was so terribly
pleased that the riders were not included on this bill: If you think
for a minute that I am done fighting for life, you're mistaken. If you
think for a minute that I am done working to defund Planned Parenthood
and its work that it is doing with Federal dollars, you're mistaken. If
you think for a minute that I have given up on ripping every nickel out
of the budget that belongs to ObamaCare and the nationalization of our
health care system, you are mistaken. And if you think for a minute
that I am going to stop trying to repeal every single one of the job-
killing, energy price-hiking regulations that the EPA is promulgating
across this country chaining our small businesses down, you are
mistaken.
That fight might not be today. Today is about cutting $6 billion out
of a budget that our children are not going to have to repay. Today is
about keeping the government open for 3 more short weeks to give our
friends in the Senate a chance to come to the table. But, Mr. Speaker,
that day of reckoning is coming. The day of reckoning is coming because
these are ideals that deserve the attention of this body. These are
decisions that cannot be kicked down the road even further. These are
decisions of principle on which compromise is often not an option.
Sometimes you just have to take the vote, and somebody's going to win
and somebody's going to lose.
I rise in strong support of this rule, and I rise in strong support
of the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
____________________