[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 627-638]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   REDUCING NON-SECURITY SPENDING TO FISCAL YEAR 2008 LEVELS OR LESS

  Mr. DREIER. Pursuant to House Resolution 43, I call up the resolution 
(H. Res. 38) to reduce spending through a transition to non-security 
spending at fiscal year 2008 levels, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 43, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Rules printed in the resolution is adopted and the resolution, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:

                               H. Res. 38

       Resolved, That, pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of House 
     Resolution 5, the Chair of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     include in the Congressional Record an allocation 
     contemplated by section 302(a) for the Committee on 
     Appropriations for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 that 
     assumes non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or 
     less.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the resolution that is 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  One of the indelible and enduring images of 2010 was that of violent 
protesters on the streets of Athens following the proposal of the 
government to impose austerity measures. We all remember very vividly 
that scene.
  Having come to the brink of collapse and nearly dragging the entire 
euro zone with it, the Greek government had no choice but to scale back 
its profligate ways. Thousands of public employees took to the streets 
in anger.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I contrast that with the image of tens of 
thousands of peaceful demonstrators across America coming out to 
express their frustration with excessive government spending. Rather 
than demanding more Federal largesse, these taxed-enough-already 
demonstrators actually came together to petition their government for 
greater restraint and discipline. This might actually have been a first 
in human history.
  It was a powerful illustration of the unique nature of American 
values. But it was also a testament to just how badly fiscal discipline 
is needed. This issue is no longer just the purview of budget wonks and 
economists.
  The looming crisis of our national debt is a challenge that working 
Americans recognize very clearly. While the magnitude of a $14 trillion 
debt is simply too massive to truly comprehend, those with a modicum of 
common sense can appreciate the crushing weight that will fall on 
future generations. If we do not immediately change course, the damage 
could quickly become irreversible.
  Today's resolution is a clear signal that we are making that change 
in course. House Resolution 38 is the first step, Madam Speaker, in 
what will be a long and admittedly difficult process over the next 2 
years as we pursue the goal of living within our means. This resolution 
lays down a marker to return to pre-bailout, pre-binge-spending, pre-
stimulus levels. This resolution provides the framework under which we 
will finally dispense with the fiscal year 2011 budget which the 
previous Congress, unfortunately, failed to do.
  Nearly halfway through the fiscal year--we are nearly halfway through 
the fiscal year--now the imperative is to responsibly finish the work 
that is really very, very urgent for us to approach and deal with at 
this moment.
  Once we move beyond this task, we will immediately pivot to fiscal 
year 2012. We will craft a budget, we will consider alternatives, with 
a full debate, and then this House will pass a budget.
  We will then proceed with consideration of appropriations bills. We 
will return to the traditional, open process that always governed our 
appropriations bills prior to the last couple of years. This will 
ensure full accountability and true collaboration and restore the 
deliberative traditions and customs of this body.
  There will be very tough choices ahead. Very tough choices need to be 
made. There is no doubt that we will engage in heated debate, and I 
suspect we will in just a few minutes right here. But we simply cannot 
afford to put off the hard work any longer. Madam Speaker, today we 
take the first step. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in very, very strong opposition to this 
resolution. As I said yesterday during the debate on the rule, there 
are numerous, serious problems with this resolution.
  First, it's meaningless rhetoric. My friends on the other side of the 
aisle like to talk a lot about cutting government spending, but the 
resolution before us doesn't cut a single dollar from the Federal 
budget; not a single cent.
  The Republican Study Committee recently proposed $2.5 trillion in 
budget cuts and their chairman, Mr. Jordan from Ohio, said the 
following when he introduced this plan:
  ``One hundred billion dollars is the number the American people heard 
last fall. It seems to me we should be able to find $100 billion.''
  Yet even after pledging a $100 billion cut in funding, the 
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee couldn't come up with a 
number when we asked yesterday, and instead produced what is most 
likely the first budget resolution in history that doesn't contain any 
budget numbers.
  That might be because the Republican majority can't seem to figure 
out what the numbers should be. We have

[[Page 628]]

heard all kinds of numbers. We have heard $30 billion, $50 billion, 
$100 billion and beyond.
  But I suspect, Madam Speaker, that's because the Republican majority 
is discovering that it's a lot harder to walk the walk than it is to 
talk the talk, and it is a lot easier to say things in a campaign than 
it is to do things in a legislative body. They are realizing that when 
you start trying to make those kinds of cuts, you start seriously 
affecting the American economy and the American people.
  We are told that the Congressional Budget Office will produce some 
numbers tomorrow. I wonder why we couldn't wait until tomorrow to 
debate this resolution, but the answer is obvious. The President of the 
United States will be here this evening for the State of the Union 
address, and the Republican majority needs a new set of talking points.
  It's that kind of politics--where message is more important than 
substance--that makes the American people cynical about Washington.

                              {time}  1250

  Second, the resolution continues the dangerous precedent of giving 
one individual, the chairman of the Budget Committee--rather than the 
full membership of this House--the ability to set spending levels for 
the Federal Government. And third, the resolution's vague and 
unjustified wording that only targets ``non-security'' spending, even 
though everyone from Secretary Gates to Speaker Boehner has recognized 
that waste exists in the Department of Defense and in the Department of 
Homeland Security and other security-related agencies. It says a great 
deal about the priorities of a new Republican majority that they will 
treat wasteful contracts and redundant weapons systems as sacred, but 
would put Pell Grants, medical research, food safety, FBI, ATF and DEA 
agents, and other vital programs on the chopping block.
  Of course, when we Democrats have the audacity to talk about the need 
to protect those important programs, our Republican friends grow 
indignant and head to the fainting couch. ``Oh, no,'' they say, ``we 
would never cut those things.'' But Madam Speaker, the numbers just 
don't add up. When you start saying that popular program after popular 
program will be protected, you realize that it would take massive cuts 
in other parts of the budget.
  When we talk about exempting only security programs, it means that 
other programs will need to be cut by 30 percent below current levels. 
That means the Department of Justice has to cut 4,000 FBI agents, 800 
ATF agents, 1,500 DEA agents, and 900 U.S. Marshals. Federal prisons 
have to cut 5,700 correctional officers, and the Federal Government 
will lose the capacity to detain 26,000 people because of their 
immigration status.
  Of course, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said 
we're not going to cut the FBI, as he said yesterday, so I can only 
assume that means more ATF agents, DEA agents, and U.S. Marshals will 
be fired by the Republicans. I can only assume that this means more 
than 26,000 people in this country illegally won't be in Federal 
custody. That's the Republican agenda?
  Madam Speaker, I think former Secretary of State Colin Powell said it 
best this weekend: ``I'm very put off when people just say, let's go 
back and freeze to the level 2 years ago. Don't tell me you're going to 
freeze to a level. That usually is a very inefficient way of doing it. 
Tell me what you're going to cut.''
  As I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided resolution, I ask my 
Republican colleagues, what's the number? And what are you going to 
cut?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my 
good friend, again, that this is the beginning of a process. We have 
been saddled with a situation where for the first time since the 
implementation of the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act, we have no 
budget. And so what is it we've been left to do? Nearly halfway through 
the fiscal year, we are faced with this challenge. We now are in a 
position where we are going to begin going through regular order to 
ensure that we have a budget, which we didn't do last year, and have an 
open, free-flowing debate on the amendments through the appropriations 
process. And I will say to my friend, the defense issues are going to 
be a high priority when it comes to oversight and scrutiny.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my very 
good friend and colleague, the distinguished chair of the Committee on 
the Budget from whom we are going to be hearing later this evening, the 
gentleman from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I'm enjoying sort of the hyperbolic rhetoric we are 
hearing here today about one person, one committee, one man dictating 
in all these things, as if it's an unprecedented action. Well, this 
move is not unprecedented. The reason this is necessary is 
unprecedented. It is unprecedented since the 1974 Budget Act passed 
that Congress didn't bother to pass or even propose a budget.
  Madam Speaker, the reason we are here today is because the last 
majority last year didn't even bother trying. That means we have no 
budget in place. And with no budget in place, there's no Budget Act to 
enforce. That means government is going and spending unchecked. No 
limits. No policemen on the beat. Nothing.
  Why are we giving this kind of power to the chairman of the Budget 
Committee to put these numbers in? Because we don't get the numbers 
from the Congressional Budget Office until tomorrow. And we've said all 
along what we aim to do: bring discretionary levels down to pre-
bailout, pre-stimulus levels. And then for all the authorizing 
committees, it has put the CBO baseline in place. The CBO baseline 
doesn't exist right now. It comes tomorrow. So what we are simply 
trying to do, Madam Speaker, is get some sense of limits back on 
spending, is to get some sense of a budget process back in place. We 
don't think we should have a system, a spending process, without 
restraints, without limits, without any prioritization. That is exactly 
why we are doing this.
  Business as usual has to come to an end, Madam Speaker, and we've got 
to put limits on spending. And that is why we have a Budget Act, to 
police the spending process to make sure that it conforms. But there is 
no Budget Act, there is no number to police, because they didn't do a 
budget last year. That is exactly and precisely why this measure is 
necessary.
  So all the rhetoric aside, the days are over of unlimited spending 
and of no prioritization. And the days of getting spending under 
control are just beginning. This is a first step in a long process. 
This is a minimal, small down payment on a necessary process to go 
forward so that we can leave our kids with a better generation, so we 
can get this debt under control, so the spending spigot can close, and 
so we can do right by our constituents and treat their dollars wisely.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm glad the chairman of the Budget Committee finally joined this 
debate. And I would say two things. One is that last year we passed the 
Budget Enforcement Act with real numbers in it, and we voted on it, and 
it was significantly less than the numbers that the President had 
proposed, number one. Number two, one of the things that we proposed in 
the Rules Committee was an amendment to allow Members of the House, on 
both sides of the aisle, to be able to vote on the number. And that was 
rejected on party line as somehow a radical idea. And then the chairman 
of the Rules Committee talks about this free-flowing debate we are 
having. We are having this debate today under a closed rule, and so 
there's no opportunity for amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I would like to point to our colleagues, Madam Speaker, H. Res. 38. 
It is literally a one-sentence measure, a

[[Page 629]]

one-sentence measure which says that our goal is to get to 2008 levels 
of spending or less.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman, and I reclaim my time. I 
appreciate the brevity of the bill, but that doesn't mean the bill 
doesn't have a very negative impact. And when we tried yesterday to 
protect the FBI and enforcement agents from cuts, that was voted down. 
So we are very concerned because we don't know what the number is. And 
I think people in this Congress on both sides of the aisle, the 
American people, ought to know what we're talking about. Is it $100 
billion? Or is it more? Where is it? And where are those cuts going to 
come from when you keep on exempting programs?
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
  Here we are a day later. Yesterday we asked our colleagues, what's 
the number going to be? What's going to be the spending ceiling for 
this Congress and for the United States Government? They didn't have it 
yesterday, and we don't yet have it today. It's a budget resolution 
without a budget number.
  Now we've heard a lot of talk about what happened last year. What 
this budget resolution relates to is 2011. In fact, this body voted 
last year on a Budget Enforcement Act. I have it right here in my hand. 
And it set budget ceilings. It had a real number. Some people voted for 
it, some people voted against it, but this body did what it always does 
when it makes decisions of this magnitude. We took accountability for 
it.
  Now you have a resolution that violates the pledge of transparency 
because it doesn't have a single number in it, and it violates the 
pledge of accountability because you're asking every other Member of 
this body to contract out his or her vote to one person. Now I have 
great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee. And I, too, 
congratulate him on being selected to give the response to the State of 
the Union address.
  This isn't about a particular individual. It's about all of us taking 
responsibility for a major decision. And what this resolution does is 
contracts out that responsibility. It doesn't have a number. We don't 
know if it's going to be $100 billion. We don't know if it's going to 
be $80 billion. We don't know if it's going to be $40 billion. We don't 
know if it's going to be the number that the Republican Study Committee 
wants, which the majority leader said good things about. We don't know.
  What we do know is this, that the bipartisan deficit and debt 
reduction commission told us two things: Number one, we need to act now 
to put this country on a fiscally sustainable path, and we should do 
that by working together. They also said another thing, that deep 
immediate cuts beyond what had been put in place and recommended by the 
fiscal commission would hurt the economy when it's in a very fragile 
state and risk throwing more Americans out of work. That would be a 
terrible mistake.
  And yet our colleagues want us to make a decision to vote on this 
without telling us what the number is. So when we asked what the number 
was, they said, we're waiting for the Congressional Budget Office. When 
will the Congressional Budget Office have its numbers? Tomorrow, 24 
hours from now. Then we can do the right thing, we can see what the 
cuts will be, and we can make a decision as a body taking 
responsibility for this decision.
  Why is it we are not waiting 24 hours? Well it's pretty obvious. A 
little later today, the President of the United States will be here to 
deliver the State of the Union address, and instead of being serious 
about this number, they want to deliver a press release. That is what 
this is about without a number. Otherwise we would wait 24 hours and 
our friends could tell us what that number would be.

                              {time}  1300

  You are asking this body to buy a pig in a poke. And the reason it is 
so serious is that numbers have consequences.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And my friend from Massachusetts talked about this 
earlier, whether it is $100 billion or $80 billion or $20 billion, 
those numbers all have consequences because on the other side of the 
aisle when we say, well, are you going to be cutting research to find 
cures and treatments for cancer or diabetes, no, we're not going to cut 
that. Are you going to cut the FBI agents involved in antiterrorism 
efforts? No, we would never want to cut that. What are you going to 
cut?
  And the magnitude of those cuts and the negative impact on jobs and 
the economy will be determined by what, by the number in this bill, a 
number that we don't get to vote on that you are giving the chairman of 
the Budget Committee sole authority to pick out of a hat.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my 
friend by saying a couple of things.
  Unfortunately, we have begun by degenerating the debate to the sky-
is-falling mentality again, that we're going to be cutting NIH funding; 
we're going to be gutting FBI agents. We are beginning the process of 
getting our fiscal house in order.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note that while both of my 
friends have used the term ``press release,'' H. Res. 38 is going to be 
a statement from the United States House of Representatives that we are 
today, before the President, at 9 this evening, stands here in this 
Chamber and delivers his State of the Union message, that we are 
committing ourselves to reduce the level of spending.
  At this point I yield 4 minutes to my very good friend and classmate, 
the distinguished new chair on the Appropriations Committee, the 
gentleman from Somerset, Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
your great service to our country over the time we have served together 
here. We are classmates from 1980. We were part of the Reagan crop.
  Madam Speaker, this is the first step in the effort to reduce 
discretionary spending to fiscal 2008 levels or below and show the 
American people that we are serious about reducing the out-of-control 
government spending that is hampering our economic growth.
  Now, the gentleman on the other side of the aisle complains that he 
does not see a number. Well, he had a chance last year, along with his 
colleagues in the majority then at that time, to pass a budget 
resolution with specific numbers in it, and refused. And they refused 
until they lost control of the House. The number will be coming in due 
course of time.
  The message from the American people was crystal clear in the last 
election: they want government to spend less, stop undue interference 
in American lives and businesses, and take action to create jobs and 
get our economy moving once again.
  To do this, we must dramatically cut the massive spending that has 
dominated discretionary budgets in past years. In order to put our 
economy on the fast track to recovery, we have to shorten the reach of 
Uncle Sam, cut up his credit cards, and allow Americans' businesses the 
opportunity to grow, employ people, and make the economy grow.
  Starting with the continuing resolution, the CR, my committee will 
begin to make the largest series of spending cuts in history, Madam 
Speaker. Members and staff are working diligently on this as we speak, 
going line by line to find specific areas and programs to cut. We hope 
and expect this legislation will soon be brought to the floor in a 
fair, open and transparent manner, giving all Members from both sides 
of the aisle an opportunity for amendments.
  Let there be no mistake: the cuts that are coming will not be easy to 
make. They will not represent low-hanging fruit. These cuts will go 
deep and wide and will hit virtually every agency and every 
congressional district in the country, including my own. Every dollar 
that we cut will have a constituency, an industry, an association, and 
individual citizens who will

[[Page 630]]

disagree. And every dollar that we don't cut will also be put into 
question.
  But the fact remains that we are in a national fiscal crisis. We must 
get our budgets--both discretionary and mandatory--under control. To 
this end, my committee will put forward appropriations bills this year 
that will fulfill our pledge to cut spending to the pre-stimulus, pre-
bailout levels of 2008. And this will be the beginning--not the end--of 
the effort.
  I have issued instructions to all 12 of our subcommittees to conduct 
strenuous oversight, including investigations and hundreds of hearings 
to weed out duplicative, wasteful and unnecessary spending, and 
prioritize Federal programs so we can make the most out of every 
precious tax dollar.
  Madam Speaker, it is clear that cutting spending will require 
toughness and resolve. This will not be easy, it will not be quick, and 
it won't be without pain, but the success of our economy and our future 
prosperity depend on it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, and I appreciate the fact that we are 
going to have to make tough choices; but he as well failed to tell us 
what the number is or what those tough choices are going to be. Are we 
going to cut medical research, Pell Grants, food safety, small business 
loans, job training programs, LIHEAP, summer food programs for the 
hungry? What are we going to cut?
  I think that Members on both sides of the aisle deserve to know what 
the number is so we can figure out what the pain is going to be. For 
the life of me, I can't understand, and I don't think the American 
people can understand, why Members of this House will not be given an 
opportunity to vote on that number. We ought to have that right.
  I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, we just heard from the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee that there was no ceiling for 2011 in place. I 
am going to make a copy and ask the pages to distribute this. This is 
the Budget Enforcement Act for last year, for fiscal year 2011, and 
there you have the budget ceilings, whereas what you are proposing is a 
piece of paper that doesn't set the budget ceilings and doesn't contain 
any of the numbers in it.
  I would just ask the chairman of the Rules Committee this: During the 
hearing, you said we're going to wait for CBO; CBO's numbers are coming 
tomorrow. Tomorrow are you going to have a number for us?
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. For an answer to that question, I would be happy to 
yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield to me to respond?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 10 seconds.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and let me just say that 
clearly the budget that we have right now expired at the end of the 
Congress. We know that very well. And we look forward to numbers which 
will be coming out from both your new committee, the Budget Committee, 
and the Appropriations Committee as well.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Twenty-four hours, Mr. Chairman. Will you have a 
number tomorrow?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, with that I am very happy to yield 1 
minute to my good friend from the Harrison Township of Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this past election was certainly a historic pivot for 
our Nation. The American people demanded that both the President of the 
United States, as well as the Congress, chart a new course because they 
understand that the growth of Federal spending that we have seen for 
the last several years is completely unsustainable. They understand 
that this crushing burden of debt that we are selfishly placing on our 
children and our grandchildren is limiting their opportunities. And 
they also understand very clearly that this irresponsible, out-of-
control Federal spending is limiting our ability for job creation and 
economic growth.
  Today, this resolution clearly speaks to the House Republicans' 
Pledge to America by demonstrating our commitment to reduce spending to 
pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, to a level of spending of 2008.
  Many would say, Madam Speaker, that this doesn't even go far enough, 
and that debate will continue this year as we debate the CR, the budget 
resolution, and the vote for raising the debt ceiling. Today, Madam 
Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
resolution and let the American people know that we heard them loud and 
clear in November.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I think what the American people are 
interested in is serious legislating and serious discussion on how to 
get this budget under control and not political posturing.
  At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  All those who care for and think about the 15 million unemployed 
people in this country, on both sides of the aisle, want the Congress 
to work together to help small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs 
for Americans, but the new majority, right out of the gate, has ignored 
that obligation.
  The first week, they ignored the deficit and passed a set of rules 
that says they can pretend it doesn't exist when they want to do 
something. Then they increased the deficit by repealing the health care 
bill. The Congressional Budget Office says that adds $230 billion to 
the deficit over 10 years and more than $1 trillion over 20 years. This 
week, they are hiding the deficit. They brought to the floor a bill 
that wants the American people to guess what the numbers will be under 
which we will live in the future.
  This is not the way to create jobs, either generally or specifically. 
Here is one fact the Members ought to take into consideration. Last 
year, the departments that would be subject to up to a 25 percent 
spending cut under this bill made a million contracts with small 
businesses that gave $60 billion worth of work to caterers, 
electricians, other small businesses.
  What will happen to the jobs created by those small businesses if 
this 25 percent cut goes through?
  Now, I say a ``25 percent cut'' advisedly, because I do think we want 
to take one more attempt at finding out, and I would yield to the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, will the spending bill that eventually 
gets here cut by 25 percent to 2006 levels or by 22 percent to 2008 
levels? I would yield to anyone on the other side who could answer that 
question for us.
  What will the number be in the bill that eventually gets here?
  Mr. DREIER. I'm sorry. I was talking to my new colleague, Mr. 
Mulvaney, here. If the gentleman was yielding to me, I apologize, but 
he will have to repeat the question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. ANDREWS. The question that I asked was:
  Will the bill that eventually gets here that has numbers in it have a 
25 percent cut by going back to 2006 or a 22 percent cut by going back 
to 2008?
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, I am happy to answer my 
friend by saying that the House will work its will. It is one of the 
things that Speaker Boehner has made very clear.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I would ask what the bill that the 
leadership brings to the floor will ask for. Will it be a 25 percent 
cut that goes back to 2006 or a 22 percent cut that goes back to 2008?
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 631]]


  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me say, Madam Speaker, that Speaker Boehner, who is the leader of 
this House, of both Democrats and Republicans alike, and who is 
obviously the leader of Republicans, said this morning in a meeting, as 
he has said repeatedly, the House is going to work its will. We are 
going to do something that hasn't been done, especially in the 
appropriations process in the last 2 years. We are going to have a 
debate that will allow a majority of this institution to determine what 
those numbers are.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, that sounds awfully familiar. We 
were promised an open process, but it was a closed process on health 
care. We were promised an open process, but it was a closed process on 
this bill. That sounds to me like a promise we have heard before that 
really hasn't been honored thus far in this Congress.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my 
friend, as we talk about an open process, my Rules Committee colleagues 
know that just a few minutes ago, for the first time in 4 long years, 
the Rules Committee reported out a modified open rule that will allow a 
free-flowing debate tomorrow right here on this House floor.
  I should say, Madam Speaker, that H. Res. 38 is literally one 
sentence, which says that this institution is committed to getting our 
level of spending to 2008 levels or less--or less, Madam Speaker--and I 
think it's important for us to note that.
  We have the chairman of the Budget Committee, as I started to say in 
response to my friend, we have the Appropriations Committee chairman, 
and we are determined to begin a process.
  With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my great new friend from 
Indian Land, South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in favor of the resolution.
  I am just happy to be able to have this debate this year. I can tell 
you, Madam Speaker, that we were campaigning last year during 2010. As 
freshmen, we never expected to have the ability to come into this 
Chamber this year and talk about the FY 2011 spending. We thought that 
that would be done long before we had gotten here, and I thank my 
colleagues from across the way for failing to pass a budget last year 
so that we have the opportunity to have this debate with this new 
Congress.
  For me--and I know, Madam Speaker, for many of my colleagues--the key 
language in this resolution is 2008 levels or less. It's that ``or 
less'' that, I think, has a lot of the attention of the freshmen.
  In a world where discretionary spending is up 88 percent in the last 
2 years, in a world where we have borrowed $3 trillion in just the last 
2 years, in a world, Madam Speaker, where we borrowed more money in one 
day--we borrowed more money on June 30, 2010, than we borrowed in all 
of 2006--in that world, those two words ``or less'' are what speak to 
me and so many Members of the freshman class.
  I thank the Rules Committee, and especially the chairman, for making 
sure that language is in there, and I am looking forward to exploring 
that when this bill comes to the floor.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the previous speaker.
  I would just simply ask: What is the problem with telling us what the 
number is and what you're going to cut?
  The number is important because that does determine what you are 
going to cut. It determines what the allocations are going to be to the 
various appropriations committees, and they have real consequences. The 
notion that we are doing something bold here by coming up with this 
arbitrary statement that it's 2008 or less levels we're going to go to 
without any detail, without any numbers, without anything of anything, 
is political posturing at its worst.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided and 
misdirected and destructive resolution.
  The American people have charged us with creating jobs and 
strengthening our economy. My colleagues in the majority appear more 
focused on getting in a good sound bite before tonight's State of the 
Union.
  Procedurally, this resolution empowers a single person to decree the 
entire Nation's budget for the rest of the year--no hearings, no 
markups, no vote. And this plan is nothing more than a gimmick that 
will destroy jobs.
  For example, reverting to 2008 budget levels will cut more than $17 
million from the National Health Service Corp. This program trains and 
employs health care providers, all while caring for millions of 
Americans. Moreover, it will cut both nurse faculty loan programs and 
nurse training programs by nearly 70 percent. These cuts will decimate 
our health care workforce now and long into the future.
  Madam Speaker, in 2008, over 27,000 qualified applicants to our 
Nation's nursing schools were turned away because we didn't have enough 
faculty to train them. Countless others couldn't even afford to go. 
This budgetless resolution will do nothing more than exacerbate a real 
growing problem.
  Members from both sides of the aisle know that we desperately need to 
increase our health care workforce, not cut it. Instead of cutting 
jobs, we should be creating them, so I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this budgetless resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my 
very good friend from Santa Barbara that creating jobs and getting our 
economy back on track is exactly what this resolution is all about.
  We all know that, on the sidelines all across this country and around 
the world, there is capital, there are resources that are waiting to be 
invested. And once we get our fiscal house in order, the signal that 
that sends to job creators out there is a very important one.
  With that, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend 
from Richmond, Virginia, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Cantor.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of 
the Rules Committee.
  Madam Speaker, November 2 marked the culmination of a long, arduous 
and ultimately clarifying debate over the kind of role government 
should play in the economy. By overwhelming margins, voters rejected an 
approach that spends money we don't have and concentrates too much 
control and power in Washington.
  Instead, they voted for a better way.
  Republicans are determined to deliver results by instilling a culture 
of opportunity, responsibility, and success. Our majority is dedicated 
to cut and grow: cut spending and job-destroying regulations, grow 
private sector jobs and the economy.

                              {time}  1320

  Today, we have the opportunity to take a significant step towards 
repairing America's deteriorating fiscal condition. This resolution 
directs the Budget Committee chairman to set spending levels so we 
return non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels or below.
  If you think the government didn't spend enough money in 2008, then 
oppose this resolution; go on record for more spending, more borrowing, 
and more debt. But, Madam Speaker, if you believe we are spending too 
much money, then I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It 
represents a clean break with the past and an end to the unchecked 
growth of Federal spending and government, and it is worthy of our 
support.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I'm still waiting to hear the number and 
how much we're going to cut. I am waiting to see this transparency and 
accountability.

[[Page 632]]

  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. While the Democratic Caucus in the House remains committed 
to fiscal responsibility, we have two major concerns at this point that 
should be stated as we consider this resolution at the outset of the 
112th Congress.
  First, we must recognize that the highest priority at this point is 
to get our economy moving again, supporting initiatives that help 
create jobs and that continue to bring us out of the recession. Our 
economy is still fragile, and although unemployment is heading 
downward, it remains too high. In this regard, I believe we must be 
concerned about a precipitous and substantial drop in spending if it is 
going to result in increasing unemployment and increasing the deficit. 
It is going to have exactly the opposite effect of what is intended on 
the Republican side. It would truly be counterproductive if we added to 
the ranks of the unemployed workers in America, reducing revenues 
coming into the Treasury and requiring additional expenditures for 
unemployment insurance and welfare.
  And second, the resolution we are considering today specifically 
exempts defense--the largest element of our Federal budget--from any 
reductions. Even though I have always supported a strong national 
defense, I cannot imagine why we would hold the Pentagon harmless in 
the attempt to achieve greater fiscal accountability. Even the 
Republican majority leader this week agreed that defense spending 
should be on the table, and Secretary Gates himself has proposed a 
series of reasonable reductions that could be accomplished in his 
department's budget.
  In the FY 2011 bill the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which I 
chaired with Mr. Young of Florida, adopted last July, included a 
reduction of $7 billion from the Obama budget request, and the Senate 
Appropriations Committee had a similar number. I think we can even do 
more than that. I was glad to see that Mr. Boehner, Mr. Cantor, and 
others have all said that defense should be part of the solution. I 
think we can cut up to $13 billion out of the defense budget without 
doing any damage to national security.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my 
very good friend from Seattle that I am in complete agreement with the 
notion of ensuring that we focus time, energy, and effort on paring 
back waste, fraud, and abuse, especially within the Pentagon. We all 
know that it's there. And I'm glad that my friend from Worcester raised 
that issue in his opening remarks. He somehow was arguing that we have 
left it as sacrosanct. We don't.
  The focus today is obviously on non-security discretionary spending, 
and that's exactly what we are trying to do with this first try.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield my friend 15 seconds, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. DICKS. I would just say we ought to do it now; it will make it 
easier. This gives us a bargaining chip with the President and with the 
Senate. We can make some reductions in defense.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, I would say to 
my friend, he knows very well that we have gone without a budget so 
far. We are going to go through the standard budget process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds to say that I 
would like to see complete reform of the 1974 Budget Act. I want a 
joint, bicameral, bipartisan committee to do just that. But then, with 
the structure we have today, we are going to proceed with the 
appropriations process so we will be able to do exactly what my friend 
said.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the bill makes defense spending 
sacrosanct and says nothing about going after fraud and waste in 
defense contracts.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today to oppose the budgetless resolution. It ignores job 
creation, has no numbers, no specifics, and it gives no serious plan to 
reduce the deficit.
  The Republicans say they want to decrease the deficit and that they 
will try to cut non-defense discretionary spending back to 2008 levels. 
They say this will save $100 billion in discretionary spending.
  I am giving them a chance to put their money where their mouths are. 
Today, I introduced H.R. 413, legislation that would reduce defense 
spending to 2008 levels. We can't be serious about getting our house in 
order if we are exempting 60 percent of discretionary spending from 
cuts. My legislation will save $182 billion over the next 5 years. 
That's $182 billion from a sector riddled with extra planes and engines 
the Pentagon doesn't even want. We spend more than any other country. 
The next closest is China; we spend seven times what they do. How about 
just cutting back to maybe only spending five or six times as much as 
China does.
  I urge support of H.R. 413.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today as someone 
willing to work towards reforms that will create jobs, strengthen our 
middle class, and pay down our debt. I am in favor of comprehensive tax 
reform with lower rates. I'm in favor of removing regulations that hurt 
competitiveness. I'm ready to make the hard cuts we need to pay down 
our deficit. I think we can all agree on those principles. We might 
have to change some of the policies, but we agree on the principles. 
But what we have here today contains no policies, no ideas, and very 
few principles.
  This is a budgetless resolution. It calls for a reduction in spending 
to pre-2008 levels but provides no specifics. What family in America 
would sit down at the kitchen table and set up a budget without a 
bottom line?
  We could be here discussing Mr. Ryan's idea to replace Medicaid with 
vouchers. We could be here discussing the plan to cut public education 
spending 50 percent and to eliminate Amtrak and public broadcasting. 
Let's discuss those things. Or we could be debating the plan Majority 
Leader Cantor hailed, which would result in the absence of 4,000 FBI 
agents and 1,500 DEA agents. We may disagree with those policies, but I 
am here to work to solve problems. And to say we will drop spending 
levels up to 30 percent but provide no specifics is being less than 
genuine.
  Colin Powell recently said this: ``I am very put off when people just 
say let's go back and freeze to the level 2 years ago. Tell me what 
you're going to cut, and nobody up there yet is being very, very candid 
about what they are going to cut to fix the problem.''
  The public has been very clear; job creation should be our top 
priority. So far we have abandoned the principles of pay-as-you-go and 
added $230 billion to the deficit by repealing--you voted for it--
health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
  Before us is yet another piece of legislation being used as a 
political gimmick instead of an honest conversation to seek out 
compromise with the purpose of aiding the economy. As a new member of 
the Budget Committee, I am willing and eager to work hard to find 
comprehensive, bipartisan solutions to strengthening our economy. 
Please let me know when you're ready to sit down and talk and work.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend how many speakers 
he has remaining?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Hoyer and then myself at this moment.
  Mr. DREIER. I am going to sit on the edge of my seat in anticipation 
of Mr.

[[Page 633]]

Hoyer's very thoughtful remarks that I look forward to, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland, the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. HOYER. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Dreier has put additional pressure on me with his thoughtful 
remarks.
  Let me say that there is nobody on this floor who doesn't believe 
that the deficit is a very, very substantial problem that confronts us; 
and I would hope that there is nobody on the floor who believes that 
it's going to be accomplished in a simple fashion to bring this deficit 
under control. But I fear that there is too much simplistic--not 
simple--simplistic rhetoric with reference to this deficit.
  After borrowing trillions of dollars to finance tax cuts, a new 
entitlement, and two wars, our friends on the Republican side tell us 
they are now taking the deficit seriously. All of you have heard my 
comments about how under the Clinton administration the budget was 
balanced and how under the Reagan and Bush I and Bush II 
administrations it was not.
  If our Republican friends mean it, if they were interested in the 
deficit as anything other than a political issue, if they actually use 
their House majority to back up their words with action, then no one, 
in my opinion, would be happier than me and our party, the Democratic 
Party.
  Our deficit I think all of us should agree is too big for partisan 
politics. It cripples our children's opportunities. It makes it harder 
for them to pay for college education, buy a home, start a business, or 
plan a future.
  I want my Republican friends to take the deficit seriously. I want my 
Democratic friends to take the budget deficit seriously--to join 
President Obama in making the hard choices it will take to get out of 
debt.
  But, frankly, so far the opportunity to finally back up their words 
of fiscal discipline have been a record of disappointment.
  A rules package, and I tell my friend, the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, the rules package provides for $5 trillion in additional 
deficit spending over the next 10 years--$5 trillion; a vote to repeal 
health care reform is another $230 billion of deficit; a pledge to cut 
spending by a hundred billion, which it has taken them less than a 
month to break; and, today, a one-page resolution with no numbers and 
no specifics.
  I think this resolution is unprecedented, certainly in the 30 years 
that I've been here, which gives to one person out of the 435 the 
opportunity and the authority to set a number that we will consider in 
this House. I don't think that's precedented. I don't think it's 
democratic. It's not transparent. And it's not an open process.
  Colin Powell has already been quoted, but we're still waiting for the 
answer of what is going to be cut. At a time when getting out of debt, 
growing the economy, and creating jobs are our country's defining 
bipartisan challenges, we need hard choices--not more political 
theater.
  Now, we passed a budget enforcement resolution which was criticized 
by the other side because we didn't pass a full budget. I think that's, 
perhaps, correct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding the additional 1 
minute.
  We were criticized; but in that budget enforcement resolution, we had 
a number, and when you voted on the rule, you knew the number you were 
voting on as a House of Representatives. Here you have no idea what 
you're voting on. You could be voting for 2008 numbers or anything less 
than that under this resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? And I will yield my friend 
additional time.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me just say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, that this is the beginning 
of a process. This is a one-sentence resolution that will allow this 
House to go on record making a strong commitment to reducing the level 
of spending. And my friend was absolutely right in his opening remarks 
when he said that everyone wants us to reduce the deficit. And he's 
right.
  This may be unprecedented, but we're in unprecedented times.
  I would yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his generosity.
  But let me say to the gentleman, it may be unprecedented times; but 
it does not warrant this unprecedented abdication of democracy in this 
House in setting what is probably the most critical question that 
confronts government: How much are you going to pay for it? I think we 
all agree on that. That's what is at issue here.
  And this resolution does not allow Members of Congress to engage on 
that. It simply gives to one person the ability to set that number. 
It's not only unprecedented; it, in my opinion, is undemocratic--with a 
small ``d.'' It does not provide the transparency and the openness of 
which the gentleman has correctly spoken and I hope we pursue.
  And I hope that we oppose this resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  I consider the gentleman from California a colleague that I've known 
for a good while, and I know that there are certainly good intentions; 
but I always believe that when you're elected to this powerful body 
that represents over 300 million Americans, as the census has given us 
new numbers of how many Americans we have the privilege of 
representing, you do have to speak about the future.
  When you begin to talk about generic numbers going back to 2008 
levels, you are speaking generally without substance because it is our 
commitment to be able to move America forward. And I hope the President 
will stay in the blue column because you can see the red column in the 
past administration: there was no job creation.
  So when you talk about reducing the deficit, it must be with a plan; 
it must be with substance. Because you can repeal with no substance.
  And I would just raise the question: Do we want a Nation that does 
not invest in education? Do we want a Nation that does not help our 
businesses invest to create jobs? And do we want a Nation that says 
that security, the FBI, the DEA--someone called in today and talked 
about how important it was to ensure that we had the right kind of law 
enforcement. Or do we want to tell those who are on Social Security who 
have worked, literally worked, or are disabled, that there are no more 
dollars for them because we have just without any guidance gone back to 
2008 levels?
  I would just ask that we move this country forward, Mr. Speaker, and 
I ask that we invest in America.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem with this resolution, as has been stated 
over and over and over again, is that it is a press release. It 
contains no number. People on the other side talk about tough choices. 
It doesn't talk about any of the tough choices. It exempts defense 
spending from any cuts, so fraudulent defense contracts are somehow 
okay, that it's better than waste and abuse in domestic spending 
programs. Everything should be on the table when we're talking about 
getting this budget deficit under control.
  The reason why the number is so important is because that number 
determines how much we're going to allocate to the various 
appropriations committees; and that in turn determines really the 
severity of a lot of the cuts that are going to have to be made: cuts 
in medical research--research to try to find a cure to cancer; cuts in 
programs to help feed hungry children; cuts in

[[Page 634]]

programs to provide emergency fuel assistance to low-income people 
during the winter months; cuts in small business loans that can help 
small businesses get the capital they need to grow and create jobs.
  We should be talking about jobs in the opening of the session. 
Instead, what we have talked about are the old ideological battles of 
the past. Last week we repealed the entire health care bill. This week, 
we're passing a budget resolution that has no number in it. I mean, 
this is a first. This is unprecedented. And I think the American people 
who are watching are wondering why in the world can't you tell us what 
the number is; why in the world can't you give us a sense of what 
you're going to cut.

                              {time}  1340

  Why in the world can't you even vote on it? There are 435 Members of 
this House. Only one Member is going to be able to determine what that 
budget number is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in political theater today. We know the 
CBO will come out with numbers tomorrow, but the Republicans feel it's 
important to do this today because somehow they think the press will 
pay attention to this and they'll be able to have a countermessage to 
the President's State of the Union address. They are blowing a major 
opportunity.
  There is bipartisan concern about the budget. There is a bipartisan 
consensus that we need to find cuts. And rather than working in a 
bipartisan way, we have a bill that comes to the floor under a closed 
rule. We are told that the chairman of the Budget Committee can 
unilaterally come up with a number; the rest of us are irrelevant to 
this process. That's not the way it's supposed to be. And I think that 
the Republican majority owes it not only to the Members of this 
Congress, but they owe it to the American people to tell us what the 
number is and where they're going to cut, how deeply they're going to 
cut, who's going to be impacted. Because I will tell you this: Who's 
going to be impacted are real people, and they're going to feel the 
real pain of some of these cuts.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
misguided resolution, this press release.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have bipartisan consensus around here. We need to get 
our economy back on track, and we need to do everything that we can to 
cut Federal spending. The distinguished minority whip just said as 
much. So there is a consensus, and I think that's wonderful.
  In a few hours, 9 o'clock this evening, Democrats are going to be 
sitting with Republicans; Republicans are going to be sitting with 
Democrats. It's going to be unprecedented. And I will say that Mr. 
Hoyer referred to this simple one-sentence resolution as unprecedented. 
And I believe that it probably is unprecedented.
  What it says--I mean, I have almost memorized the one sentence, Mr. 
Speaker. It says that we need to make sure that the Budget Committee 
and the Appropriations Committee work to get us to 2008 spending levels 
or less. I personally believe that we should be substantially below 
2008 levels. I believe that we need to take that kind of action.
  And it's true, before the President stands right over my shoulder at 
9 o'clock this evening and delivers his State of the Union message, we 
want this institution to have a chance to go on record saying that we 
are committed to doing everything that we can to get the spending 
levels to 2008 or less.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we are in the position we are, and that itself is 
unprecedented, and that's why unprecedented action is necessary.
  Now, I began my remarks by talking about the fact that probably one 
of the most enduring and powerful memories of 2010 was what took place 
in Athens, Greece. We saw the riots take place in the streets from 
public service employees in the wake of the government facing the 
responsibility of imposing austerity standards on the people of Greece. 
And what happened? We saw this huge outcry come because they were 
arguing that they couldn't, in fact, bring about cuts in spending.
  I juxtapose that to what we saw in the last year here. We saw tens of 
thousands of Americans taking to the streets carrying this message: 
Taxed Enough Already. They came together to petition their government 
to bring about spending reductions. Not complaining that the government 
was making cuts; complaining that the government wasn't making enough 
cuts. And that's exactly what we're doing.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this may be the first time in 
human history that we have witnessed what it was that we saw take place 
last year and led to the outcome in the November 2 election. We know 
that the greatest change in three-quarters of a century took place in 
this institution. Sixty-three members of the Democratic Party were 
defeated. We now have 87 new Republicans and nine new Democrats who 
have joined with us, and they have carried this message to us that we 
need to rein in spending.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to note that our real goal 
is above that. It is job creation and economic growth, getting our 
economy back on track so that people out there who are trying to get 
onto the first rung of the economic ladder are able do just that. We 
have a painfully high unemployment rate, and people across this country 
are hurting.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, what steps can we take to create jobs? I personally 
believe that we need to--and I look forward to having the President 
talk about this tonight--open up new markets around the world so that 
union and nonunion workers in the United States of America can have the 
opportunity to sell goods and provide services into countries like 
Colombia and Panama and South Korea, where these pending agreements 
exist.
  I believe that since Japan has brought about a reduction in its top 
corporate rate, the rate of those job creators, we can reduce the top 
corporate rate--it's the highest rate of any country in the world now--
from 35 to 25 percent. I understand the President may be proposing that 
this evening. That will go a long way towards creating jobs.
  But, Mr. Speaker, what we're doing with H. Res. 38 is we are getting 
ourselves on a path towards fiscal responsibility, and I believe that 
that is one of the most important things that we can do as we seek this 
shared goal of job creation and economic growth. So if we can let this 
institution go on record in support of getting to 2008 levels or less, 
I am convinced that that will be a strong step towards our goal, our 
shared goal of creating jobs and establishing economic growth.
  This is the beginning of a process, Mr. Speaker, the beginning of a 
process; again, a one-sentence resolution that this House will be 
voting on in just a few minutes. But the process, itself, is one that 
is broken. It's broken because, for the first time since the 1974 
Budget Act was put into place, we've not had a budget. We've not had a 
budget. We're almost 5 months into the new fiscal year, and we are in 
the process of cleaning up the mess that was handed to us.
  So how is it we plan to do it? Well, Speaker Boehner has made it very 
clear. And that is that we need to make sure that we have an open, 
free-flowing debate as we proceed with a budget. And I'm convinced that 
our Rules Committee will make alternatives in order when we proceed 
with the work that the Budget Committee will have done. And I'm 
convinced that we will get back to the kind of regular order that I 
think today Democrats and Republicans alike would want to see, and that 
is a chance for Democrats and Republicans to stand up and offer 
amendments to the appropriations bills.

[[Page 635]]

  So, Mr. Speaker, I will say again that it's a simple one-sentence 
resolution. Are we going to let this institution get onto a path 
towards reducing the size, scope, reach, and control of the Federal 
Government or are we not? And so, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this very, very important resolution.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I was pleased to cast 
a vote that would reduce the legislative appropriation as a symbol that 
no part of the budget should be off limits as we attempt to deal with 
the issues of government efficiency and deficit reduction. The 
resolution before Congress today directs the Budget Committee Chairman 
to reduce non-security spending to FY 2008 levels or less for the 
remainder of FY 2011. I would hope that having demonstrated that even 
the legislature itself is not exempt, that the Republican leadership 
would reconsider its decision to declare off limits the major areas of 
government spending, particularly the Department of Defense.
  If we are truly to improve our fiscal condition, no part of the 
budget should be off limits. The Pentagon cannot be left out. We can no 
longer separate national security from fiscal responsibility. Speaker 
Boehner has himself said that there is room to find savings in the 
defense budget.
  Even without including the costs for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, U.S. defense spending is the highest it has been at any 
time since the end of World War II. It is greater than at the peak of 
the Cold War. Yet we continue to spend billions to protect West Germany 
from the Soviet Union even though both ceased to exist decades ago.
  Our defense budget accounts for half of global military spending and 
consumes more than 50 cents of every dollar of federal government 
discretionary spending. Even under the laudable plan announced by 
Secretary Gates to cut the Pentagon's budget by $78 billion, defense 
spending will continue to increase in the near term.
  There are many thoughtful ways to rein in defense spending. More than 
$350 billion has been spent by the U.S. in Afghanistan since 2001, a 
monthly bill for our taxpayers exceeding $8 billion. The U.S. military 
is the single largest consumer of energy in the world, using as much 
power in one year as the entire country of Nigeria, and spending $17 
billion each year on petrol and another $23 billion annually on 
refueling our bases and units in Afghanistan. Integrating renewable and 
energy efficient practices into our armed services have already saved 
lives and money. Finally, we should eliminate unnecessary weapons 
programs, such as the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Despite the 
Marine Corps commandant calling the program unworkable and 
unaffordable, some lawmakers continue to insist on funding it.
  While today's resolution fails to address this problem, it is my hope 
that we'll be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to ``right-size'' 
all areas of government spending, including the Pentagon.
  Unfortunately, the proposal put forth by the Republican Study 
Committee earlier this week has lessened the chance of finding a 
bipartisan solution. Their proposal would result in cuts of more than 
40 percent in education, environmental protection, law enforcement, 
medical research, food safety, and many other key services. In 
practical terms, this would include the elimination of nearly 3,000 
food safety inspectors--endangering our food supply, dramatic increases 
in wait times at Social Security centers by slashing that agencies 
budget, and dumping 389,000 children from Head Start--destroying 
opportunities for those children while weakening America's 
competitiveness.
  The Republican Study Committee's proposal would also destroy 
thousands of jobs renewing and rebuilding America's eroding 
infrastructure. For instance, cutting $2 billion from the New Starts 
program would destroy nearly 46,000 jobs and cutting Amtrak funding by 
$1.6 billion would destroy 36,000. Eliminating these programs makes it 
harder for those Americans with work to get to work or to find new 
work.
  There are many more examples just like these that hit every community 
in our country. While we strive to better match our revenues with the 
cost of services to our constituents, it is important not to destroy 
the very programs that make our country strong and economically 
competitive and on which our citizens depend.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken loud and 
clear--they want Congress to stop the out-of-control spending that is 
bankrupting our Nation.
  During the campaign last year, Republicans called for reducing non-
security, discretionary spending in Fiscal Year 2011 by $100 billion as 
a down payment toward the cuts needed to get America's finances back on 
track.
  Now that the campaign is over, and the American people have given us 
one more chance to make things right, they want to see us do what we 
said we would do.
  H. Res. 38 is a good first step--and I'm going to support it--but it 
does not get us the full $100 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to keep the $100 billion promise we made to the 
American people!
  I filed an amendment last night that would keep the $100 billion 
promise. We would be debating that amendment right now, had this 
resolution come to the floor under an open rule.
  The good news is . . . and I applaud our leadership for taking this 
position . . . sometime over the next few weeks, we will have another 
chance to keep this promise as we debate the continuing resolution 
under an open rule.
  Though some say keeping the $100 billion promise would be too 
difficult, the folks I get the privilege to represent back home say 
``This is the least we can do!''
  They understand that $100 billion is only about one-thirteenth of the 
deficit. They understand that cutting $100 billion only gets us one-
thirteenth of the way to a balanced budget.
  Rebuilding the trust of the people means keeping our word. We need to 
keep our promise.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 
38, which imposes dramatic cuts to our budget without any regard to its 
effects on our Nation's economic recovery or Rhode Island families 
struggling to stay afloat.
  Our Nation faces a serious budget deficit, but we also face a jobs 
deficit and a fragile economic recovery. Rhode Island currently has the 
fifth highest unemployment rate in the country at 11.5 percent. The 
Republican proposal to cut non-security programs by 21 percent goes too 
far too fast, resulting in additional potential job losses and 
reductions to critical services that could threaten our economic 
recovery and countless families who are barely getting by as it is. It 
makes drastic cuts to our school systems and student aid for college, 
slashes housing assistance in the wake of record foreclosures, and 
reduces lending support for small businesses.
  This proposal also contradicts the recommendations of the Bipartisan 
Fiscal Commission, of which some of our Republican leaders were 
participants. In its final report released on December 1, 2010--less 
than eight weeks ago--the commission stated in its second guiding 
principle that ``budget cuts should start gradually so they don't 
interfere with the ongoing economic recovery. Growth is essential to 
restoring fiscal strength.'' The Commission then stated in its first 
recommendation that we should not return to pre-recession 2008 levels 
until 2013. This proposal contained a lot of controversial ideas to be 
sure, but the general consensus regardless of party affiliation 
highlighted the need for caution in crafting an effective deficit 
reduction plan.
  Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to get our fiscal 
house in order, but we must do it thoughtfully and responsibly. This 
proposal rushes to judgment before the process has even begun. I urge 
my colleagues to reject this resolution and begin a serious discussion 
of deficit reduction that will address our fiscal challenges without 
imperiling our economic recovery.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 38, a vague 
and reckless ``budget-less'' budget resolution. H. Res. 38 claims to 
reduce non-security spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less, but 
this one-page bill has not one final budget number, nor does it 
actually make any specific cuts. Instead, this resolution grants all 
authority to the Chair of the House Committee on the Budget to set the 
budget allocations for the Committee on Appropriations. This entitles 
the Chairman to merely have the allocations printed in the 
Congressional Record. So much for an open and transparent process. So 
much for allowing the Committees of jurisdiction to do their work. Mr. 
Speaker, we declared our independence from Great Britain precisely 
because we didn't want a king and here we are making one out of the 
Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.
  By allowing only one hour of debate on the resolution and no 
amendments, Republican leadership seeks to bypass the deliberation and 
debate by Members of Congress. Republican leadership also struck down a 
motion that would have required a vote by the full House before any 
allocation could become effective, once again limiting input by the 
Members of this body. It is clear that the Grand Old Party remains 
committed to deciding our Nation's budgetary policies in smoke-filled 
backrooms.

[[Page 636]]

  It is clear that the one-page resolution brought to the floor today 
is not a serious plan to reduce the deficit. Indeed, the new Republican 
plan offers the same empty rhetoric as the last: all smoke and mirrors. 
It is fiscally irresponsible, both procedurally and substantively, and 
it puts too much power in the hands of one individual--the Chairman of 
the Budget Committee.
  Furthermore, the arbitrary decision to reduce spending to non-
security--a clear definition of which we have yet to see--funding 
levels in fiscal year 2008 jeopardizes the progress our country has 
made in recovering from the economic downturn. My colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are not governing for fiscal year 2008, we are 
governing for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. Rather than driving 
our economic progress forward, the Republican leadership has chosen to 
throw the car into reverse, threatening to destroy the recovery this 
economy has made.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they can't provide 
specifics, as they are awaiting information from the Congressional 
Budget Office. The same Congressional Budget Office they recently 
accused of cooking the books. I am glad Republicans now see the value 
of the non-partisan organization. It is my understanding that CBO will 
come out with baseline numbers within the next week. Would it not be a 
better course of action to wait for those numbers and show us all 
exactly which programs are to be cut--to lay the specifics on the 
table? Or is today's resolution modeled after the Republican repeal 
bill--meant for political showmanship only?
  I am ready to work in a bipartisan way to reduce deficits, as well as 
promote economic growth and protect the strength of American middle-
class families. During this current economic downturn, we must not 
jeopardize our Nation's ability to create jobs. Unfortunately, the GOP 
has made it clear they are not interested in taking real action for the 
American people. Republicans have already voted in their rules package, 
paving the way to add nearly $5 trillion to the deficit, and have voted 
to increase the deficit by $230 billion by repealing the health care 
law. I will NOT stand idly by and let the GOP advance its record of 
doubling the national debt and shirking away from fiscal 
responsibility. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 
38, an irresponsible piece of legislation that asks the members of the 
House to abdicate their responsibility to vote on a budget for the 
federal government. This resolution opens the door to massive funding 
cuts to programs that are critical to our fragile economic recovery.
  Mr. Speaker, with H. Res. 38 the Republicans have offered what they 
call a ``Budget Resolution''--but what should be called a ``Budgetless 
Resolution'' because it contains no numbers, no specifics and, worst of 
all, no ideas for job creation or economic recovery.
  Instead, it takes the unprecedented step of giving unilateral 
authority to the Budget Committee chairman to set spending limits for 
the federal government. With all due respect to Chairman Ryan, no 
members of Congress should ever contract out their vote to another 
member--especially not on something as fundamentally important as 
setting funding levels for the federal government.
  H. Res. 38, the Budgetless Resolution, is a one-page document that 
makes the vague and simplistic goal of reducing federal spending to 
2008 levels or less. Democrats are serious about deficit reduction. But 
we also must make sure that we continue on the path to economic 
recovery.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same 
time. If we are going to work on deficit reduction--as we should--we 
should go through the budget surgically, examining where federal 
investments are working and where they are not.
  The Republican plan is the exact opposite approach--it is deficit 
reduction while blindfolded. The across the board Republican budget 
cuts would seriously hurt the people in my district by gashing funding 
for critical programs.
  We are not talking about ``duplicative'' or ``wasteful'' spending. We 
are talking about Title I education funding that gives poor students 
after-school support that helps them reach their full potential; GOP 
cuts would leave over 332,000 students in California without extra 
academic support.
  We are talking about Title II education funds that keep class sizes 
small and classrooms more focused; GOP cuts would lay off over 1,000 
teachers in California, resulting in dramatically larger class sizes 
for students in my district.
  And this is just one example of the effect that Republican budget 
cuts would have in one state and in one area. Imagine how devastating 
the cumulative effect of Republicans' blind, across the board cuts. We 
are not talking about stripping funding for ``bridges to nowhere''--we 
are talking about real people; real lives; real families.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are going to cut spending, let's not do so 
blindly. Let's have a bipartisan conversation about what our spending 
priorities are and where we can afford to trim the budget. I am certain 
that we can come to some agreement if we at least allow a conversation 
to be had. Deficit reduction is one of Democrats' top priorities. But 
we owe it to the American people to do so responsibly.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H. Res. 38.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the 
irresponsible budget resolution under consideration by the House.
  My priorities in the new Congress remain supporting middle class 
families and helping to foster job creation. These goals should be how 
we in Congress measure every action we take. Unfortunately the budget 
resolution before us today fails to meet these goals and is little more 
than a not-so-shrewd act of political theater staged hours before the 
President delivers the State of the Union in this chamber.
  The resolution, which authorizes the Budget Committee chairman to cut 
non-security federal spending to 2008 levels, is an insincere attempt 
at fiscal responsibility. Getting our nation's fiscal house in order is 
a task I and many of my colleagues take seriously. However, rather than 
setting a concrete plan for how Congress should spend taxpayer dollars, 
this resolution contains no hard numbers. Moreover, this resolution 
would take the unprecedented and undemocratic step of empowering one 
Member of Congress with the ability to identify which programs to cut 
and by how much.
  One example of how this resolution will hurt middle-class Americans 
is by cutting the Pell Grant program. Pell Grants help working-class 
Americans afford a college education. Since 2008, Congress increased 
wisely the Pell Grant to $5,550. Should this ill-conceived resolution 
pass, Pell Grants could be cut by nearly 25 percent.
  For America's economy to remain competitive in the coming years, 
Congress must make wise investments of taxpayer dollars. Pell Grants 
are just one of many of these wise investments. Allowing one Member of 
Congress to cut capriciously from federal programs while claiming to be 
fiscally responsible is anything but.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 43, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution, as amended.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Indeed, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bishop of New York moves to recommit the resolution H. 
     Res. 38 to the Committee on Rules with instructions to report 
     the same to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 2, line 1, insert ``(1)'' after ``that''.
       Page 2, line 2, insert the following before the period: ``, 
     and (2) no spending for any contract entered into by the 
     United States Government with a company that has been 
     determined by the Secretary of Labor to have offshored or 
     outsourced American jobs overseas''.

                              {time}  1350

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and the 
motion to suspend the rules with regard to House Resolution 49.

[[Page 637]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184, 
nays 242, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 19]

                               YEAS--184

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--242

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Sherman
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Emerson
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Payne
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen

                              {time}  1413

  Messrs. GOSAR, HIMES, and SCHOCK changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Messrs. FARR, ALTMIRE, BRALEY of Iowa, LANGEVIN, and 
LEWIS of Georgia changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. ROKITA. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 19, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). The question is on the 
resolution.
  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. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 256, 
nays 165, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 20]

                               YEAS--256

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster

[[Page 638]]


     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--165

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Braley (IA)
     Emerson
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Kaptur
     Neal
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Schakowsky
     Waters

                              {time}  1422

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A resolution reducing non-
security spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 20, had 
I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I regret missing a floor vote on 
Tuesday, January 25, 2011. Had I registered my vote, I would have voted 
``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 20, on agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 
38--To reduce spending through a transition to non-security spending at 
fiscal year 2008 levels.

                          ____________________