[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2616-H2624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1473, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 
     FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011; PROVIDING FOR 
  CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 35, CORRECTING THE ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 
 1473; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 36, CORRECTING 
                      THE ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 1473

  Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 112-60 part 2) on the resolution (H. Res. 218) 
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1473) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments 
and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2011, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 35) directing the Clerk of the 
House of Representatives to make a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 
1473; and providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 36) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to 
make a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1473, which was referred to 
the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 218 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 218

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1473) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other 
     departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 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.
       Sec. 2. (a) If H.R. 1473 is passed by the House, it shall 
     be in order to consider separately in the House the 
     concurrent resolutions specified in subsection (b). All 
     points of order against consideration of each concurrent 
     resolution are waived. Each concurrent resolution shall be 
     considered read. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on each concurrent resolution to final adoption 
     without intervening motion except 20

[[Page H2617]]

     minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations.
       (b) The concurrent resolutions specified in subsection (a) 
     are as follows:
       (1) the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 35) directing 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
     correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1473; and
       (2) the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 36) directing 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
     correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1473.
       Sec. 3. If the House receives a message from the Senate 
     transmitting its passage of H.R. 1473 without amendment, then 
     the Clerk shall not certify an enrollment of the bill until 
     notified by the Speaker or by message from the Senate that 
     the Senate has taken the question on adoption of each 
     concurrent resolution specified in section 2 that was adopted 
     by the House.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order against 
consideration of H. Res. 218.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I object to consideration of this rule 
because the rule in its final language says that the Clerk shall hold 
the enrollment of this bill until the Senate considers bills to defund 
health care reform and considers a bill to defund Planned Parenthood.
  As such, it violates the rules of the House which require that 
anything passed by this House be filed forthwith. And with your 
permission, I will read that section:
  ``The Clerk shall examine all bills, amendments, and joint 
resolutions after passage by the House and, in cooperation with the 
Senate, examine all bills and joint resolutions that have passed both 
Houses to see that they are correctly enrolled and forthwith present 
those bills and joint resolutions that originated in the House to the 
President in person after their signature by the Speaker and the 
President of the Senate, and report to the House the fact and date of 
their presentment.''
  In fact, what this rule does is it says that after this is passed, it 
shall not be sent to the Senate, shall not be sent to the President 
until the other body, the Senate, takes an action, considers these two 
things which already have been considered here.

                              {time}  1230

  This is clearly a violation of the rules and a very dangerous 
violation of the Constitution as well, because we believe in this House 
that our actions, once taken, trigger an action in the other body or by 
the President.
  If we are to say that bills, when passed by this body, are held in 
spaces at the desk by an officer of this institution, a non-elected 
officer of this institution, we are, in fact, violating this rule.
  It is very important, Madam Speaker, that you rule that this rule 
needs to be sent back and cleansed of that language, or else we are, in 
effect, saying the passage of an act here shall be contingent upon the 
consideration of something in the Senate. That is a dangerous 
precedent, violates the laws, and violates the Constitution of the 
United States.
  I ask for your ruling.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to address the 
point of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Enrollment is the process by which a proposed act of Congress is 
printed on parchment for presentment to the President. A House-
originated measure is enrolled by the Clerk of the House. A Senate-
originated measure is enrolled by the Secretary of the Senate.
  After the two Houses have agreed to a unitary text for a measure, 
they still may agree to alter that text before presentment. The usual 
vehicle for this is a concurrent resolution. Such a concurrent 
resolution typically directs the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of 
the Senate to make specified changes in the text previously cleared for 
enrollment. Such a concurrent resolution might even be proposed in 
anticipation of the actions of the two Houses to clear the presumptive 
text for enrollment.
  It is not unusual for the Clerk to take notice of the pendency of 
such a concurrent resolution and to seek guidance from the Speaker on 
the prospect that the concurrent resolution might be adopted by the two 
Houses. The Speaker, likewise, might assess the likelihood of adoption 
of such a concurrent resolution before seeing that the enrollment is 
signed by the presiding officer of each House or presented to the 
President. The two Houses might even adopt a concurrent resolution 
asking the President to return an enrollment so that they might change 
it.
  Just as section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974--as a 
matter of rulemaking--contemplates the possibility of holding an 
enrollment for a time, so also might a proposed special order of 
business enable such an interim hold of an enrollment.
  The point of order is overruled.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman shall state it.
  Mr. WEINER. Am I to understand this rule correctly that under the 
rule we are about to consider, if the House of Representatives approves 
the continuing resolution, that bill, despite the fact that the 
government is going to cease operating unless it passes, could 
theoretically sit at the desk, never to be sent to the President, never 
to be sent to the Senate ad infinitum if the Senate fails to take a 
specific action?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has inquired about a matter 
that may be debated by the Members during consideration of the pending 
resolution, rather than being addressed from the Chair.
  The gentleman from California is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this measure, all time yielded will be for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative 
days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the matter before 
us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration 
of three measures: H.R. 1473, H. Con. Res. 35 and H. Con. Res. 36. H.R. 
1473 funds the government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. H. 
Con. Res. 35 and 36 are enrollment correction measures that end Federal 
funding for the President's health care plan and Planned Parenthood. As 
these measures represent a final agreement on this fiscal year's 
funding, on par with a conference report, this rule provides simple up-
or-down votes on all three of these items.
  Furthermore, this rule directs the Clerk of the House to refrain from 
finalizing the enrollment of H.R. 1473 until the Senate has acted on 
all three measures to ensure that the enrollment corrections 
resolutions get full consideration. H.R. 1473 will be debatable for 1 
hour. H. Con. Res. 35 and 36 will be debatable for 20 minutes each.
  Madam Speaker, it has been a long, difficult, ugly, messy process; 
but we have finally achieved an important victory for the American 
people.
  Today's underlying continuing resolution is a step toward, a step 
toward the fulfillment of a fundamental promise that was made to the 
taxpayers. We will halt the practice of reckless and unchecked growth 
in Federal spending; and critically important, Madam Speaker, we will 
reverse the course that we have been on. This final continuing 
resolution for fiscal year 2011 imposes the single largest cut in non-
defense spending in our Nation's history. It also implements a number 
of reforms that will ensure greater accountability in how tax dollars 
are spent.
  Madam Speaker, this is not the end of our work to restore discipline 
and accountability of the Federal budget, far from it. After fighting 
so hard to get to this point, it's important to point out that the 
truly difficult work still lies ahead for us.
  This resolution is also not the perfect measure we were all working 
for. Many of us fought hard to have even greater cuts and more 
significant reforms.
  But today's action is so critical because it is the turning point; it 
is the

[[Page H2618]]

turning point, Madam Speaker. It is that profoundly important first 
step. The American people have said enough is enough, and this Congress 
is finally responding.
  We are ending an era that has seen growth in non-defense 
discretionary spending over the past few years of 82 percent. Under 
Speaker Pelosi, Madam Speaker, we have had an increase in non-defense 
discretionary spending of 82 percent. We are making serious, meaningful 
cuts in the size and the scope of government.
  But as I said, these are only just the beginning. When we conclude 
this debate, we will turn directly to the fiscal 2012 budget. Our very 
thoughtful Budget Committee chairman, Mr. Ryan, has put forth a bold 
budget plan that seeks to tackle the fundamental reforms that are 
absolutely essential to the future viability of our economy.
  If the process we have just come through has been difficult, the task 
that lies ahead is Herculean. A $1.6 trillion deficit poses an almost 
unfathomable challenge. It demands a tremendous level of seriousness 
and resolve that each and every one of us must rise to.
  The consequences of failing to do so would be both disastrous and 
predictable. We have already gotten a strong dose of the economic 
challenges that would ensue. For months and months on end, we have 
dealt with a moribund economy and a very painful lack of job 
opportunities. The stifling nature of the national debt, the tax and 
regulatory uncertainty, the policies that favor government intervention 
over entrepreneurial empowerment, all of these have contributed to our 
economic challenges.
  It is increasingly apparent that the recent positive movement on job 
creation has been fueled by our effort to rein in wasteful government 
spending and restore the certainty that businesses need to make new 
investments.
  As we continue our efforts to impose fiscal discipline, I hope and 
believe we will continue to see positive news on the jobs front. But 
these economic challenges are far from over for most hardworking 
Americans.
  We know what difficult times we and the American people are facing. 
We know very well how painful these challenges have been, but they pale 
in comparison to the crisis that will come if we do not have the 
courage to fundamentally transform the way this government spends 
money.
  We need look no further than the euro zone to see what's in store 
without a dramatic change in course. We have seen Western European 
economies come to the brink of collapse, crippled under the weight of 
their sovereign debt and nearly dragged some of the world's largest, 
most stable economies along with them.
  The coming budget debate will be a seminal moment in which we must 
reject this failed, economic model. Today, with this historic spending 
cut, we are paving the way to do just that. Madam Speaker, this is not 
the end of our work; but it is, as I said, just the beginning.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
resolutions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, for all the talk of Republicans' commitment to cutting 
spending, there are several odd things about this bill before us that 
would lead one to believe that it's more of a partisan political 
exercise than a serious attempt to get the Nation's fiscal house in 
order, which we need and deserve as Americans.
  Under this bill, critical services that many Americans rely on to 
educate our children, to keep our streets safe, to improve public 
health, to keep our water and air clean would face tens of billions of 
dollars worth of real and difficult cuts. Times are tough. We know we 
have to cut spending. Okay. So why does this bill then provide the 
Pentagon with an additional $5 billion above the previous request at a 
time when the civilian and uniformed military, including thoughtful 
policymakers from both parties, believe that we need to reduce spending 
across the board?
  Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen stated that our national debt is 
our biggest national security threat. He also noted that the past 
decade's doubling of the budget of the Department of Defense has led to 
undisciplined spending and waste within the department. Secretary Gates 
concurs, stating that we can't hold ourselves exempt from the belt-
tightening. Yet, despite members of the military and civilians involved 
with defense saying that they, too, can't be spared, not only have they 
been spared by the Republican majority, but their budget has been 
increased by $5 billion.
  The recent bipartisan Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, often 
called the ``Simpson-Bowles commission,'' called for substantial 
defense reductions over the next 10 years. They recommended cuts that 
would have led to $60 billion in savings and security spending in the 
first year and would have kept our Nation safe. In fact, if we were to 
implement the commission's recommendations around security spending, we 
would save $100 billion in 2015 alone.
  But Republicans didn't go after their favorite areas of Big 
Government spending. Instead, they went after our efforts to strengthen 
our schools, to keep our air and water clean and to keep our streets 
safe; and the rest of their so-called ``spending cuts'' don't seem to 
be saving much at all. In fact, yesterday, we had an interesting 
discussion in the Rules Committee about whether this bill really even 
saves close to the $38 billion claimed. Apparently, most of the savings 
are from allocations of money that wouldn't be spent anyway.
  An Associated Press story yesterday called this bill ``budget 
tricks,'' saying that $23 billion of the $38 billion aren't even real 
savings, that they're counting savings from unspent census money. This 
is from the AP: leftover Federal construction funding; $2.5 billion 
from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can't even be 
spent because of restrictions that have already been set by other 
legislation. Today's Wall Street Journal calls the Republican spending 
bill ``spending cut hokum.'' Now, the ``spending cut hokum'' bill 
identifies that there was $18 billion in real cuts and $20 billion in 
fake accounting tricks that are not real cuts.
  Yesterday in Rules, I actually had the opportunity to ask the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee if he could explain that 
discrepancy between the claimed cuts and the real cuts which those who 
have dived in have identified, and he demurred on that account. So, in 
the end, what have the Republicans accomplished?
  I'd like to talk about this graphically and sort of show the American 
people what we're talking about here:
  Now, with these charts, I use the Wall Street Journal's figures, 
which credit the Republicans for more cuts than does the Associated 
Press, but out of caution, I want to trust the Journal in this case as 
a well-researched source and use their figures even though they have 
less than the AP. The Wall Street Journal still says that the majority 
of the Republican cuts are, in fact, hokum cuts. So here is what we're 
talking about, Madam Speaker:
  This is the deficit. This is the CBO's, the Congressional Budget 
Office, estimate of the deficit. It is $1.399 trillion. This is what 
we're talking about here. This is the continuing resolution savings. 
That's it; not one penny more. Let me sort of take an example of an 
American family. We'll have to take a few zeros off of this for most 
Americans to even understand these figures.
  Let's say the deficit is $139,000 and not $1.399 trillion. I was a 
small business man before I came to Congress; so I understand how to 
balance a budget. I know most American families are trying to balance 
their family paychecks, to stay in their homes, to make their mortgage 
payments. It's $139,000 you lose in a year. That's tough. You have to 
take out a second mortgage and max out your credit cards, and you try 
to cover that $139,000, okay? Then you know you've got to make some 
serious changes. What are you going to do? You hem and you haw for a 
couple of months; you argue with your creditors; you threaten to shut 
down your business. On the eve of shutting down your business, because 
you can't afford another loss of $139,000, what do you do? You figure 
out how to lose $137,000 the next year. Do you know what? That $137,000

[[Page H2619]]

is going to put that American family out of business just as surely as 
that $139,000, but that is the Republican approach to this bill.
  Now let me talk about some of the alternatives we have before us.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. I would be happy to discuss this on the gentleman's own 
time. I want to go through this excellent chart. If the gentleman wants 
to come over, he can look at what we have here and what the Democrats 
have presented.
  If we were serious about deficit reduction, Republicans could have 
supported several amendments offered by Democrats and voted on in the 
House when we debated H.R. 1. The Democratic amendments alone would 
have cut spending by nearly $129 billion, more than three times the 
amount that's even claimed in this bill.
  Here are some examples: Congressman Stark and Congresswoman Lee 
offered one amendment that would have reduced defense spending to its 
level 3 years ago--we were already in two wars at that time as well--
saving $36 billion in the first year alone, and that would have left 
intact the defense budget of $688 billion, more than enough to meet the 
security needs of our Nation. Congressman Nadler offered an amendment 
that would have finally ended our support for the war in Afghanistan, 
saving $90 billion. Congresswoman Woolsey offered an amendment that 
would have saved $415 million by ending the V-22 Osprey program.
  In fact, just yesterday in Rules, I also proposed an amendment that 
would have reduced our troop presence in Europe, which would have saved 
$415 million. Our European allies, Madam Speaker, are some of the 
richest countries in the world. It's time they paid their fair way. 
What is the strategic rationale for an ongoing presence in Germany? The 
Nazis are gone. The Soviets are gone. Even former Secretary of Defense 
Rumsfeld has questioned the ongoing presence of our troops in Europe. I 
also proposed an amendment eliminating the drug czar. The drug czar's 
office spends $21 million a year; yet drug use has gone up since its 
inception.
  Madam Speaker, we are never going to balance the entire budget just 
by reducing the funds Congress spends each year as part of the 
appropriations process--clearly, we all can agree we need to look at 
revenues and entitlements--and you're not going to make even the 
slightest dent in the deficit if you exempt defense spending from any 
cuts.
  In this continuing resolution before us, Republicans have exempted 
more than half of the domestic discretionary spending from any cuts, 
and it becomes very clear that the Republican plan isn't so much about 
serious deficit reduction than it is about protecting their favorite 
Big Government spending while simultaneously slashing away at their 
favorite targets, like education, the environment and the safety net.
  Here is what we could potentially accomplish if we work together: 
This shows the Republican cuts in this CR. We even add in, for the sake 
of argument, the hokum cuts. We put them in here too--it's the Wall 
Street Journal's term, not mine--and we include the proposed Democratic 
amendments. I think this is something that we could be proud of. Do you 
know what, Madam Speaker? I think more Democrats would support a 
program that didn't only cut the program which so many on my side of 
the aisle feel strongly about but that also makes some of the difficult 
decisions with where the real money is with regard to defense and 
security spending.
  Yes. Just like that American family that we raised, digging its way 
out of a $127,000-a-year loss, we need to make a real impact on 
reducing the Federal budget deficit. This will take action across the 
aisle to make sure that we can leave our country in a better situation 
and that we can help the next generation fight its way out from the 
burden of debt that we risk placing upon them if we continue the big 
spending policies of the Republican Party.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, April 13, 2011]

                           Spending Cut Hokum

       A mini-revolt is brewing among Republican backbenchers on 
     Capitol Hill now that the specific spending cuts in Friday's 
     budget deal are being revealed. After separating out the 
     accounting gimmicks and one-year savings, the actual cuts 
     look to be closer to $20 billion than to the $38 billion that 
     both sides advertised. This is not going to help Speaker John 
     Boehner's credibility with the tea party.
       Even $20 billion is worthwhile, and the genuine reductions 
     include cuts in high-speed rail, Pell grants, highway 
     projects, renewable energy programs, housing subsidies, low-
     income home energy assistance, agriculture programs, 
     contributions to the United Nations, and many more. There is 
     also an immediate across the board 0.2% reduction in all 
     nondefense accounts.
       But the continuing resolution also saves money on paper 
     through phantom cuts. The whopper is declaring $6.2 billion 
     in savings by not spending money left from the 2010 Census. 
     Congress also cuts $4.9 billion from the Justice Department's 
     Crime Victims Fund, but much of that money was tucked away in 
     a reserve fund that wouldn't have been spent this year in any 
     event.
       The budgeteers claim $630 million in cuts from what are 
     called ``orphan earmarks,'' or construction that never 
     started, and $2 billion more for transportation projects, 
     some of which were likely to be canceled. The Associated 
     Press reports that $350 million in savings comes from a 2009 
     program to pay dairy farmers to compensate for low milk 
     prices. Milk prices are high this year, so some of that money 
     also would never have been spent.
       An estimated $17 billion comes from one-time savings in 
     mandatory programs. The cuts are real, but the funding gets 
     restored by law the next year, which means Republicans will 
     have to refight the same battles. States lose some $3.5 
     billion in bonus money to enroll more kids in the Children's 
     Health Insurance Program, but many states failed to qualify 
     for that extra funding. These cuts don't reduce the spending 
     baseline, so there are no compound savings over time.
       None of this is enough to defeat the budget at this point, 
     but it is infuriating given the GOP leadership's flogging of 
     that $38 billion top-line figure. On Sunday we heard the 
     leadership might lose 30 backbenchers on the budget vote, but 
     yesterday we were hearing it may be closer to 50 or 60. This 
     will only heighten skepticism over the next budget showdown, 
     and Mr. Boehner will have to drive a harder bargain. Above 
     all, the hokum belies the House GOP's promise to usher in a 
     new era of lawmaking candor and transparency.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my friend from Boulder, 
my Rules Committee colleague, for his very thoughtful remarks, and I 
would like to respond with a few important points.
  First, I was struck by the fact that he went through the litany of 
amendments that were debated on H.R. 1, underscoring again that we 
have, for the first time in decades, seen a free and flowing debate and 
an opportunity for votes to take place here in this institution. It 
hadn't happened before on a continuing resolution as we saw it in our 
consideration of H.R. 1.

                              {time}  1250

  I also want to say that while my friend continued to point the finger 
of blame somehow characterizing this as a Republican plan, I'd like to 
remind him, Madam Speaker, that this happens to be the result of a 
negotiation that has taken place with three Democrats--the President of 
the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the 
majority leader of the United States Senate--and one Republican, the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives. By a 3-1 margin in the 
negotiation process, the Republicans were outnumbered. And so I think 
that it's a mischaracterization to describe this as somehow a 
Republican plan that is before us.
  Now to the issue that was raised about a cut being a cut, Douglas 
Holtz-Eakin, the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, 
made it clear, and he called it that--a cut is a cut. I know this 
attempt is being made to somehow characterize the fact that dollars 
have not been spent so that means you're not actually cutting them. 
Well, last night in the Rules Committee, the very distinguished ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend Mr. 
Dicks, pointed out something that everyone in this institution should 
know, and that is the process of reprogramming takes place within 
government agencies. We know full well that the movement of money, 
since money is fungible, that takes place within these different 
agencies, is standard operating procedure. So, Madam Speaker, to claim 
somehow that if dollars haven't actually been spent that they're not 
being cut is just plain wrong.

[[Page H2620]]

  Now, Madam Speaker, while I talked about the negotiating process that 
ended up with the President of the United States, the Vice President of 
the United States, the majority leader of the United States Senate and 
the Speaker of the House, leading up to that, we had our very, very 
diligent and hardworking new chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, my friend, Mr. Rogers, who has stepped up to the plate 
and taken on the responsibility, in fact, some call it tongue in cheek, 
but he has been very serious about being the ``enforcer'' of ensuring 
that we cut spending, and he has actually renamed his Appropriations 
Committee the ``Disappropriations Committee'' by virtue of the fact, 
Madam Speaker, of the recognition that if we don't get our fiscal house 
in order, we are going to be in deep, deep trouble.
  So, Madam Speaker, I want to say that, again, he was one of the 
negotiators leading up to the final process here.
  I would like to now yield such time as he may consume to my very good 
friend, the chair of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Rules Committee for the time here. And I thank him for the diligent 
work that he continues to do as chair of the Rules Committee, the sort 
of traffic cop for the bills that reach this floor.
  I want to expand a bit, Madam Speaker, on a point that Chairman 
Dreier alluded to earlier, and that is the historic nature of the bill 
that we will be considering on the floor. As the chairman pointed out, 
under Speaker Pelosi, discretionary spending in those 2 years increased 
by 82 percent--a record. With this bill, we not only are arresting that 
growth, but we are receding actual discretionary spending by a record 
amount, nearly $40 billion in actual cuts in spending. That has not 
ever been accomplished by this body in its history, in the history of 
the country. The cuts in this bill exceed anything ever passed by the 
House. It's the largest cut ever--by four times. The largest previous 
single cut was in 1995, when we cut around $9 billion. With this bill, 
you cut almost $40 billion.
  Now I don't understand sometimes my friends on the other side of the 
aisle when they criticize this bill. It's being supported by your 
President. He says, pass the bill. It's what we agreed upon. It's being 
supported by Senator Reid, the leader on the Senate side. It's being 
supported by the Speaker of the House. And it's being supported by an 
overwhelming number of Members on this side of the aisle, and I predict 
a great number of Democrats likewise support the bill.
  Now on the Defense portion of this bill, let me briefly refer to it. 
The provisions in this bill about the Defense budget are much like they 
were when all parties last December on both sides of the aisle in this 
body and on both sides of the aisle in the Senate body agreed to the 
expenditures for the Department of Defense. We simply lifted those 
agreed-upon provisions for the Defense Department and dropped them into 
this bill.
  There are two people in this body that know more about Defense 
spending than any of the rest of us, and that's the chairman of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on Appropriations, Bill Young of 
Florida, and my good friend, Norman Dicks, the ranking member of that 
subcommittee and the ranking member on the full Appropriations 
Committee. He worked long and hard with Bill Young for these 
provisions. And I salute him for it. It's good work. It does the right 
things. It cuts back on the President's request for Defense. It does 
increase in real dollars, about $5 billion, over the current spending 
rate. But we're in three wars. And there's no reason at all for us to 
shirk from the responsibility to provide adequate funding for our 
troops in combat. And that's the reason why, one of the big reasons why 
we support this bill, why the President supports the bill, and why 
Senator Reid and the Senate supports the bill.
  And so let's focus on actual cuts in spending. We all profess that we 
want to cut back on the deficit for the year and for the ensuing years. 
The deficit this year, $1.4 trillion in just 1 year, the largest in 
history, adding to a debt that exceeds all of our fears of some $14.2 
or $14.3 trillion. We all say, let's cut back on spending. Here is your 
chance. Here is your opportunity.
  If you profess to be a fiscally responsible Member of this House, you 
have a chance, yea, an obligation, to vote for this bill and support 
it. It's historic. We've never been here before. We've reached a 
pinnacle and a great opportunity for us to show to the rest of the 
country that we're serious about controlling the free-spending nature 
of this body. This is your chance. Don't miss it.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute to respond.
  The gentleman from Kentucky called this an historic bill. I think 
much more of this kind of history, and we risk making our country's 
solvency history by drowning ourselves in a burden of debt. Again, 
effectively, for a family business that lost $139,000, losing $137,000 
might be nice, but it puts you out of business just the same. I 
continue to express our wish that we included some of the Democratic 
cuts in this that added up to four times the amount of the proposed 
Republican cuts in this bill.
  As the Bard put it, the cutting in this bill is a lot of sound and 
fury, signifying nothing.
  With that, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of 
the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I want to talk about a different historic perspective. 
This bill is different, all right, and I want to try to explain that to 
you. But first, I want to say we weren't elected, any of us, to 
Congress to prove that we can barely keep the government open and 
alive. That was never why we were sent here. We're here to make America 
stronger. And looking at this bill, we are utterly failing in achieving 
that goal.
  In addition to the unnecessary and politically driven cuts in the 
legislation, the process that brought the bill to the floor is a 
mockery of regular order. Never before, again, let me say it, in the 
history of our Nation has this rule--what we're doing here today are 
three bills under one rule. You think we're going to vote for one, that 
would be the budget for the remainder of the year, but there are two 
other bills here to be voted on that I think you might be surprised at. 
It certainly took us by surprise. One of them completely defunds 
Planned Parenthood, having nothing in the world to do about cutting the 
deficit.

                              {time}  1300

  The second one takes away the health care bill. A matter of that 
importance is added as a correction onto this bill. What they said they 
would like us to do is to correct legislation that has not even been 
passed. That takes a lot of imagination.
  But what is more serious, and I believe that is what they have done 
here, they have added an unprecedented provision that raises serious 
constitutional questions. Under this rule, and pay attention here, 
except I don't want children to believe it. This is not the way we do 
things. After the House and Senate have passed this bill and it comes 
back over, the House will hold it and will not send it to the 
President. They will hold it themselves, letting the government shut 
down again until the Senate votes to defund Planned Parenthood and to 
kill America's health care.
  Now, that is very similar to what we did here a few weeks ago, a 
couple of weeks ago. It may have been last week for all I can remember, 
we have been working so hard. But what we did was probably one of the 
silliest things done in any legislative process in the world. They 
really passed a bill on this floor that said: we have already passed a 
bill and sent it to you, Senate. The Senate took the bill up, and it 
failed. So then the House response to that failure was: if we don't 
hear from you by date certain, then we're going to just say that the 
House bill is the law of the land.
  Now, all of you who have been to school know that what we do to pass 
a bill is the House passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill. If 
necessary, a conference committee reconciles the two bills, makes them 
the same, and it requires the President of the United States' signature 
to make it a bill. But not in this House. You can believe 10

[[Page H2621]]

impossible things before breakfast here easily because we're called 
upon to do that every day.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to engage in a discussion with my distinguished ranking 
member, if she would like, on the issue that she just discussed.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Just one point. I think what the gentlelady said is that 
the Senate will have to vote on it, not that they have to pass it, just 
to be clear.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, there were several things that were 
said that I would like to address.
  First, I would like to say that the gentlewoman began by saying that 
never before in our Nation's history have we had measures brought 
forward in this manner. Madam Speaker, that is just plain wrong. Time 
and time again under both political parties, we have seen the Rules 
Committee report out measures that do in fact cover multiple issues. So 
this is not unprecedented, as the gentlewoman has just said.
  Second, I think it is very important for us to clarify the fact that 
what we are voting on is an agreement that is supported by the 
President of the United States and the majority leader of the United 
States Senate. Part of that agreement is that the Senate will not vote 
to defund Planned Parenthood or vote to actually bring an end to 
funding for the health care bill, but it will consider these measures. 
And I think it is important, Madam Speaker, to make it clear, the only 
thing we are doing in this rule is ensuring that that agreement is 
enforced.
  So, Madam Speaker, I think that it is clear that many of our friends 
on the other side of the aisle are not happy with the fact that their 
President and the Senate majority leader have negotiated this 
agreement. Again, I don't like the agreement just like they don't like 
the agreement. I don't like it because I don't believe that it goes far 
enough, but it is very important for us to realize that this is simply 
a first step. It is a bold first step.
  As the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has just said, Madam 
Speaker, it is a step which in fact is the largest, four times the 
largest, cut we have ever had in the past. It is a cut of $40 billion. 
By virtue of that agreement, we are making that first step. But if you 
extend this out, it will have cuts that total $315 billion. And as I 
said, we are just beginning the debate this week with this very, very 
important budget that will be considered in the Rules Committee today 
and tomorrow and Friday on the House floor.
  I also have to say that one of the reasons we are having this debate 
on the rule today and voting on Thursday on the actual continuing 
resolution is because we put into place a very important change in the 
rules at the beginning of this Congress which states that unreported 
measures must in fact comply with the 3-day layover requirement that 
exists for reported measures. We are subscribing to that and enforcing 
that.
  As we know, this measure was filed at 2 a.m. yesterday morning here 
in the House; and because of that filing, to ensure that it was put 
online, as the chairman of Appropriations Committee said, so that the 
full membership, the American people, the media have an opportunity to 
see this measure, we have done that. That is the reason we are going to 
be holding this vote on Thursday, and that is the reason we are able to 
have the kind of free-flowing debate that we will have.
  Madam Speaker, this is an agreement that no one, no one is happy 
with; but it is an agreement that we have come to in dealing with the 
two political parties, and I am going to urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, this continuing resolution is a first step, 
all right. It is a first step towards bankruptcy with token cuts.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to 
the underlying bill.
  I want to reinforce the comments of the gentlelady from New York when 
she said that the issue of defunding Planned Parenthood or what your 
opinion is about the Affordable Care Act really has no place in this 
debate. It shouldn't be tied to anything. The fact of the matter is the 
Republicans are intentionally injecting these very kinds of polarizing 
issues, and let me say to all of my friends on the Democratic side, 
that's the reason you should vote against this rule.
  I'm pleased that the Republican leadership of the House decided it 
was not in anyone's interest to shut down the government. I am also 
pleased that the leadership ignored the chants of ``shut it down'' 
coming from the most extreme elements of their party. But I am not 
pleased, Madam Speaker, with this so-called compromise.
  This bill cuts the wrong things too deeply and ignores some of the 
things that could stand to be cut. The cuts target the poor and the 
middle class, the very people who can least afford it as we struggle to 
recover from the Great Recession. Meanwhile, the very wealthy and the 
special interests get away scot-free. Student aid programs get cut. 
Children's health care would be cut. Transportation funding to repair 
our roads and our bridges would be cut. Environmental protection would 
be cut. The COPS program, which helps local communities stay safe, 
would be cut. Investments in science and technology research would be 
cut.
  But the Department of Defense, well, they got a $5 billion increase. 
Oil companies keep their sweet tax loopholes. And big agriculture keeps 
their subsidies. That's not fair, Madam Speaker, and that's not right.
  I am all for a leaner government; but I'm not for a meaner 
government. I'm for balancing the budget; but I'm not for balancing the 
budget solely on the backs of the poor and the middle class. If you 
want to get to a balanced budget, there needs to be some fairness in 
this process. And if you think that this bill is troublesome, just wait 
because later this week we will be debating the Republican budget 
proposal for 2012, a budget that would represent the largest 
redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich in American 
history. It is a budget plan that ends Medicare as we know it. It is a 
budget plan that tells our seniors we want you to pay more, and you 
will get less.
  Well, there are some things worth fighting for, Madam Speaker, and 
the protection of Medicare is one of them. So I look forward to that 
fight.
  But in the meantime, I urge my colleagues to reject this yet again 
another closed rule, and I urge them to reject the underlying bill. We 
can do better than this.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say first to my 
friend from Boulder that the notion of arguing that a $40 billion cut 
is going to take us down the road to bankruptcy is absolutely 
preposterous.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Boulder.
  Mr. POLIS. Again, the cut is actually somewhere in the $15 billion to 
$20 billion range, according to both The Wall Street Journal and the 
AP.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I will repeat 
this again so that he might be able to understand it. A $40 billion 
cut, or a $15 billion cut, cannot be characterized as taking us down 
the road toward bankruptcy. We all want to cut more in spending. I 
mean, it's very clear.
  Now my friend from Worcester has just made this argument about the 
priorities that we have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional minute, and I do so to say 
that I think it's important for us to look at the preamble of the 
United States Constitution whenever we're debating defense 
appropriations bills or the defense authorization bill. I'm so happy 
that my friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking 
member of the full committee and the defense appropriations 
subcommittee, is here. I always argue that the five most important 
words in the middle of the preamble of the United States Constitution 
are ``provide for the common defense.''

[[Page H2622]]

  Now, with all due respect to the priorities that we have, ensuring 
that we do care for those who are truly in need, all of these things 
can be done at other levels of government. Only the Federal Government 
can deal with our Nation's security. As Chairman Rogers pointed out, we 
are now, by virtue of a decision that the President of the United 
States has made, in the midst of three wars. I want to bring about 
spending cuts, and I believe that Governor Haley Barbour was absolutely 
right when he said: Anyone who says that you can't cut defense spending 
has never been to the Pentagon. We want to encourage defense sharing, 
and, in fact, we are focused on ensuring that we do get the best bang 
for our buck.
  So, Madam Speaker, recognizing the priority that the Federal 
Government has for national security and recognizing that we're trying 
to bring about responsible cuts, I think this agreement is the right 
thing for us.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I appreciate the gentleman from California's willingness 
to look at defense spending. I know the gentleman from Kentucky 
mentioned we're in three wars. Perhaps part of the answer is to be in 
two wars or one war or, God forbid, perhaps we can be at peace again in 
our lifetime.
  Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding to me 
and for his work on this bill.
  Madam Speaker, the District of Columbia has no vote on the rule or 
the bill under consideration. Yet the only controversial attachments in 
this bill involve only the District of Columbia.
  The bill is remarkably clean. Only four out of 50 or so attachments 
survived: one on gray wolves, one on Guantanamo prisoners, and, yes, 
there is the District of Columbia. These two, the only controversial 
amendments, violate the District's most basic right to self-government. 
One has to do with private school vouchers--only for the District of 
Columbia. A bill we didn't ask for, a bill we weren't consulted about, 
and a bill we don't want.
  The Rules Committee refused to recognize my amendment, which would 
redirect the private school voucher money to the D.C. public schools 
and to our own public charter schools--40 percent of our children go to 
this alternative and our charter schools have long waiting lists--to 
our choice, not the Republicans' choice. My second amendment would 
strike a second rider that keeps the District from spending our own 
local taxpayer-raised funds on reproductive choice for our low-income 
women. Local money, local choice.
  The majority proposed to close down the District government last week 
rather than pass my amendment to allow D.C. to spend its own local 
funds. Now the majority wants a closed rule for a bill with attachments 
that profoundly affect only the District of Columbia.
  I will have no vote on this floor on the Rule or on any part of this 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. NORTON. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  The majority will allow a vote of every other Member on what affects 
only my district. No wonder the D.C. mayor, the council and residents 
have taken to civil disobedience.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my friend how many 
speakers he has remaining and also how much time remains on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. We have three speakers. We are possibly expecting a 
fourth.
  Mr. DREIER. Then I will reserve the balance of my time, Madam 
Speaker.
  Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of the commonsense 
compromise that says to the operating departments of our government, 
``See if you can get by on 95 percent of the money you had last year.'' 
I think that makes good sense, and I commend Chairman Rogers and Mr. 
Dicks for making sure that Pell Grants, title I, special education are 
fully funded and protected and, frankly, salute both sides for leaving 
aside extraneous matters like not funding Planned Parenthood and not 
funding the health care bill. I think this is a worthy compromise. I'm 
glad to support it.
  I do want to note my grave concern with the rule and the rather 
ambiguous position we find ourselves in with respect to the actions of 
the Senate. About 10 days ago, the majority attempted to pass a bill 
where the Senate would never have to act. Now they want to say, even if 
the House and the Senate have both acted, apparently the bill doesn't 
become law. Maybe we should have put a few more education funds in for 
constitutional studies here because I think this is very unwise and, 
frankly, ambiguous. So I'm going to oppose the rule on the grounds that 
this very novel idea of giving the Clerk of the House the instructions 
not to enroll a bill that's been passed by both House and Senate I 
think is very troubling.
  Having said that, I think that the underlying bill merits the support 
of both Republicans and Democrats and I will be voting ``yes.''
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. As one who voted for cutting some of President Obama's 
spending requests last year and who has already voted three times this 
year to cut spending from the budget, I believe we do need to ferret 
out every bit of unnecessary spending, to demand greater efficiency and 
to seek common ground on securing our long-term financial future by 
addressing our national debt. But this resolution is only a belated 
companion to the deal that tied a Christmas bow around another tax cut 
for the wealthiest few in December. It represents another unbalanced 
approach to achieving balance in our budget. There is no shared 
sacrifice here.
  And like that December deal, this concession literally sets up 
tomorrow's demand for adoption of the House Republican budget--a 
pathway to less economic, educational, and health care security.
  Instead of asking for a dime from ExxonMobil or other polluters, this 
deal makes severe cuts in the budget to assure us clean air and clean 
water. Instead of asking for a dollar from General Electric or another 
of these giant corporations that won't pay their fair share of taxes, 
this places the burden on hundreds of thousands of young Americans who 
are trying to seek a future job in the United States.
  Almost one-fourth of the budget is eliminated for YouthBuild, a 
program that provides vital education and employment skills to young 
people. In Austin, I have seen up close the difference that our local 
YouthWorks makes in trails constructed, in homes weatherized, in the 
vital employment and training skills provided. With every energy 
efficient home for which a foundation is laid, a foundation is also 
laid for the future of some enterprising young Texans. Additionally, 
about another 100,000 young people at universities like Texas State 
will lose the counseling, academic instruction, tutoring and 
encouragement from TRIO that helps them achieve academic success.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. That's not balanced. Fair and balanced? Yes, I know it's 
a distorted slogan, but I think it could have real meaning for our 
budget. But this budget is balanced on our young people and our future. 
We need a budget that's fair. This is not it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  America is in a very dangerous place on this budget, and it's not an

[[Page H2623]]

unsolvable problem. We can get from where we are to where we need to 
be--and that is fiscal balance--if we put everything on the table and 
have a balanced approach. If, instead, we limit our consideration to 
essentially 12 percent of the budget, the so-called ``domestic 
discretionary''--things like low-income heating assistance, the Small 
Business Administration, scholarships for our kids wanting to go to 
college, scientific research--if we limit our attention to that 12 
percent of the budget, even if we cut that entire 12 percent we would 
have trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. It won't 
work. There is a design defect here.
  We have aggravated it with the deal that was made to extend the tax 
cuts at the high end when we were here in our special session after the 
last election, that $750 billion that we have to borrow in order to pay 
for those tax cuts for the top 2 percent.
  We have to put everything on the table. It has to include the 
Pentagon, it has to include revenues, it has to include eliminating 
wasteful and unproductive, non-job-generating tax expenditures to 
mature and profitable industries like the oil industry. It has to 
include eliminating the ethanol subsidy, something that was promoted by 
the Member from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan). We put everything on the 
table. We can get from where we are to where we need to be.
  One thing we also cannot do is start playing budgetary hostage 
taking. There is looming ahead of us the question of whether we will 
raise the debt ceiling or use that as a leverage point, as some are 
suggesting. This is not a leverage point; it's a moral obligation.
  America was in fiscal balance in the 8 years of the Clinton 
administration. When he handed the keys over to the new President, Mr. 
Bush, there was a projected $5.7 trillion deficit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I again want to bring it back to the 
hypothetical American family, small business we're talking about, 
because the $1.399 trillion figure is boggling to most people. So lop 
off the zeros there and say, hey, I have a small business, I'm an 
American family, I will lose $139,000 next year. Let me tell you, is 
losing $137,000 the next year a step towards solvency or a step towards 
bankruptcy? I would submit, Madam Chair, ask any small business man in 
America or small business woman, losing $137,000 instead of $139,000 is 
a step towards bankruptcy.
  Just like that family, we in the United States Congress, we in this 
country need to come together and make hard choices about where to find 
additional income, where to cut expenditures, how to get this budget 
out of red and into the black. That's the difference between where the 
Democrats stand and the proposal of our friends on the other side. And 
another difference: A Democratic President has actually balanced the 
budget. That's a claim that the other side can't make for more than a 
generation.
  It is clear that the Republicans are not serious about the deficit. 
If they were, this would be a different bill. Again, this is what we're 
talking about: Taking our Nation another step down the road towards 
fiscal insolvency and leaving a legacy of debt for the next generation.
  Rather than holding the line on spending, the majority is feeding the 
beast. And yet, what do the Republicans cut rather than rooting out 
waste at the Pentagon? They cut $1.6 billion from the EPA's effort to 
protect public health and keep our air and water safe; $950 million 
from Community Development Block Grants to strengthen neighborhoods and 
create jobs; $815 million from FEMA grants that help communities 
prepare for disasters; $10 million to keep our food safe.
  When you look at the winners and losers in this budget, it becomes 
clear what the majority party does and does not value. And they clearly 
do not mind leaving the next generation a legacy of deficits and debt.
  What we're doing in this continuing resolution is increasing the 
favorite government spending of the majority party, running up the 
deficit, continuing big tax cuts for special interests while slashing 
the effort to educate our children, ensure access to health care, keep 
our air and water clean--oh, and while they're at it, taking away a 
woman's right to choose.
  This is where we could be by working together, Democrats and 
Republicans. This process, this rule and this bill, are not examples of 
working together to solve our budget crisis.
  We can do better, we must do better. To save America from bankruptcy, 
we must do better than sound and fury signifying nothing. We need to 
work together to make the cuts we need to make, to increase the 
revenues we need to increase, and to examine our entitlement programs 
to put our Nation on proper fiscal footing for the next generation and 
remove the mounting burden of debt that faces the next generation of 
Americans.
  I don't see how anyone can argue that somehow reducing--again, at the 
family level, a $139,000 loss to a $137,000 loss, while it might be a 
fine thing to do, leaves that family in every bit as dangerous and 
precarious a fiscal situation as they were before--ask any small 
business man or small business woman in this country. And after passing 
this continuing resolution and keeping our government in business 
another year, we're just punting further down the field about making 
the cuts we all know we need to make to balance the budget, return to a 
surplus, and help remove the next generation of Americans from the 
legacy of debt that is threatening to crush them.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, according to the schedule, in about 9 minutes, the 
President of the United States, at George Washington University, is 
scheduled to give a very important address in which he is going to talk 
about fiscal responsibility--the need to bring about spending cuts and 
all--and how to get our economy growing.
  I want to congratulate the President. I want to congratulate the 
President for coming to this position. It obviously is much different 
than what we've gone through so far. As I said earlier, we've had an 82 
percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending. The President 
proposed a budget that has deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion and 
would exacerbate the debt. He came out a few weeks ago and proposed a 
freeze in spending. We know that if we had not done what we are about 
to vote on here with this rule making in order a vote that will take 
place tomorrow, we would see an increase of $78.5 billion more in 
spending if we had not taken the action that this House, in a 
bipartisan way, is about to take.
  But the reason I want to congratulate the President is that I have 
just taken a look at the early reports of what he is about to say in 
this speech, and he does call for us to look at the issue of 
entitlements--he specifically says Social Security, not Medicare or 
Medicaid, but he talks about Social Security. But I believe that is, 
again, a first step towards what I believe is absolutely essential, and 
that is, for us, in a bipartisan way, to tackle the issue of 
entitlement spending. As Mr. Dicks said in the Rules Committee 
yesterday, that's two-thirds of the spending. We know that entitlement 
spending is something that needs to be addressed, and there is 
bipartisan recognition that we need to get our fiscal house in order.
  Madam Speaker, what we have before us is a measure that I don't like. 
I don't like it. I don't believe that it does enough to reduce the size 
and scope and reach of government. I believe that we need to do more. 
But we have to remember that we've got to take that first step.
  Last November 2, the American people sent a very loud and powerful 
message to Washington, D.C. There are 96 newly elected Members of this 
House, nine of them happen to be Democrats, 87 of them are Republican. 
Now Madam Speaker, I think it's important for us to recognize that 
that's a pretty powerful message. They were saying, End the nonsense, 
bring an end to this dramatic expansion of government, and that's 
exactly what we're doing with this first step.
  Margaret Thatcher, the great former Prime Minister of Great Britain, 
famously said, First you have to win the argument, then you win the 
vote. I believe that we've won the argument, Madam Speaker, because the 
message has come through.

[[Page H2624]]

                              {time}  1330

  The message has come through that we are, in fact, going to have to 
get our fiscal house in order if we're going to ensure the strength and 
the preeminence of the greatest Nation the world has ever known.
  So, Madam Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to support this 
rule, and tomorrow we will have a vote on the continuing resolution 
itself. Then we will begin tomorrow, after we've had that vote, to 
debate the budget, which is going to be far reaching, it's going to be 
difficult, but it is clearly the right thing for us to do.
  And I will say again, Madam Speaker, that I do hope that on these 
issues we will be able to continue to work together in a bipartisan way 
to solve our Nation's problems.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam 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.

                          ____________________