[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.
____________________