Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House is considering the fifth continuing resolution for FY 2011 to keep the Federal Government running. Here we are, in the middle of March, considering yet another short-term bill that is supposed to buy us time to negotiate funding for the remainder of the fiscal year, and I hope that proves to be true. We need to bring this to a conclusion.

The extension reduces spending in FY 2011 by $45 billion below the President's request. It adds another $6 billion in ``common ground'' spending reductions. In total, the measure cuts $51 billion below the President's request.

The idea behind the 3-week extension is to provide an opportunity for the House, Senate, and White House to settle all outstanding issues on fiscal year 2011 appropriations. I remain hopeful that negotiations will succeed and we will be able to give our agencies some amount of certainty for what little remains of fiscal year 2011.

Today, in The New York Times, there was a long article showing what kind of disruption occurs in Federal agencies, including Defense and Social Security and others, Head Start for example, because we haven't gotten these bills enacted, but I must remind my colleagues that if this CR is extended for the remainder of the year, we would be cutting spending at historic levels, $51 billion below the President's request. I am worried that cutting deeper will threaten a fragile economic recovery. Most economists see cuts in H.R. 1 as a drag on economic growth leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, as Fed Chairman Bernanke projects. Moody's Mark Zandi estimates 400,000 jobs lost for the remainder of this year and 700,000 more next year if H.R. 1 is enacted. Goldman Sachs think it would be as high as 2.4 million jobs lost. In yesterday's ABC News-Washington Post poll, the American people believe that the Republican proposed cuts in H.R. 1 will hurt the economic recovery.

I am relieved that Chairman Rogers crafted a bill that relies on previously identified reductions, a significant portion of which were old earmarks. And while I know my colleagues will not agree with, and may not be able to support, some of the specific program cuts included in this package, I appreciate that there was a genuine attempt to engage the Senate and White House before they were chosen.

Most importantly, I am tremendously relieved the chairman has stayed away from controversial riders in this stopgap measure. He knows, as I do, that these riders would almost guarantee a veto by the administration, which would almost guarantee a government shutdown. An appropriations bill is not the place to decide enormously complex and controversial policy issues.

I am not pleased to be here today with yet another short-term bill. I sincerely hope that we will use this 3-week period of time judiciously so the next time we consider a bill for fiscal year 2011 it will be the last and for the remaining 6 months of this year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Barbara Lee, a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is the ranking member on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and is also the former chairman of that committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Will the gentleman yield?

There is an article today in the Washington Post how House GOP spending cuts would add up to more spending later. This is what we worry about here.

I yield an additional minute.

And one of the things that I'm most concerned about is the women and infant care program, WIC, which provides nutrition to an expectant mother, who's probably on Medicaid, and help her and the baby to be born in a more healthy way. And we find out that the hospitals in this country provide $26 billion of health care for these same babies who are born premature. So it's pay me now or pay me later. And in this case, it would be a lot more.

The IRS is another example. NOAA weather satellites is another example. In the middle of this tsunami and earthquake, we need to be doing more in these areas. And the American people understand this. They want us to make reasonable judgments. And I hope we can make reasonable judgments.

I happen to be the ranking on Defense. We can cut some money out of defense. We cut $15 billion. We can do a little bit more in that area. But I think we've got to be careful. And when this final package comes together, we've got to talk out the ones that would be revenue raisers.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I want to correct the record. I was referring to H.R. 1, not to the

I yield to the gentleman.

There are some things that I think NOAA thinks would have an effect on their weather forecasting.

Okay. Well, we'll check that out.

I yield 2 minutes to the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell the chairman and myself what our time remaining is?

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Hawaii, Mazie Hirono, who is going to correct the record on the NOAA issue.

I yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

In going back and looking, NOAA operations, research, and facilities in H.R. 1 is cut by $454.3 million. And one of the officials there said what would happen in the continuing resolution, there will be a dismantling of our Nation's early warning system, Dan Sobien, president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, said in a telephone interview. It will result in a roughly 30 percent cut in the budget of the National Weather Service. Sobien said the current plan called for the Weather Service to close individual offices for about a month at a time on a rolling basis.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, who is a very senior member of the Appropriations Committee and, I think, the longest serving woman in the House of Representatives.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to congratulate and thank two long-time committee staff members who both are leaving us this month after many years of service.

Beverly Pheto spent 10 years on the committee, serving as clerk on both the Transportation Subcommittee and the Homeland Security Subcommittee before becoming the first woman staff director of the full committee under former Chairman David Obey. Bev was the top Democratic staff person during 9/11, the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security, and during Hurricane Katrina. And in the last Congress, as majority clerk, Beverly helped craft the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--the Recovery Act that saved tens of thousands of American jobs and kept this country from slipping into another Great Depression.

We thank Bev for agreeing to stay on with us and help with the committee's transition and congratulate her on her many years of service, both in the executive branch as well as for us. She will be missed, but we wish her well in her new endeavors.

I also want to extend my deep appreciation to Chris Topik, who has served on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee since 1995, most recently as the minority clerk. Chris began his career with the U.S. Forest Service before coming to the committee as a detailee. During his time on the Interior Subcommittee, Chris found himself in the middle of some of the most contentious environmental policy disputes but always remained the consummate professional. While I chaired the Interior Subcommittee, I relied heavily on his solid judgment and wise counsel. I wish Chris the very best as he leaves the committee and thank him again for his service.

I yield to the distinguished chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished leader of the Democratic Party in the House, Nancy Pelosi of California.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to review the bidding here. We are down to the end of this debate on this continuing resolution, and I hope--and as I know Chairman Rogers hopes--that this will be the last continuing resolution and that working together we can come together on a solution to the FY11 budget.

Now, I've heard repeatedly, repeatedly, and I've even mentioned this in my last statement, and the next thing I knew it was on Cantor's Web site, but back in 2007, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky will remember that when we took over power and won the election in 2006, most of the nine, I think, or 10 of the appropriations bills were not enacted, and the Democrats had to pass a bill in February enacting all of these things. So maybe we learned that lesson from you-all over there, and I hope you will remember it because you seem to act like this has never happened before. Well, that's number one.

Number two, the American people in a Washington Post-ABC poll yesterday over the weekend said that they are

worried that the cuts in H.R. 1 will hurt the economy. It was narrow. It was 45-41, but 71 percent of the people said the problem was that your side isn't engaging and that they blame the Republicans for not getting this deal.

Now, why would they think that? I think the reason for it is when the first Rogers amendment proposal came out, that was kind of a reasonable approach, but that was rejected; and then they doubled the amount of these cuts, and the cuts became very severe and very questionable.

There was a story in The Washington Post today that lays out if you cut food inspectors, you're going to pay for it; if you cut WIC funding, you're going to pay for it, billions, in these children.

So I just point these things out. Cutting Head Start, this was perceived by the American people as too extreme, and that is why the Senate rejected H.R. 1, the President rejected H.R. 1. We need to have reasonable people sit down and work out a compromise and not let the government be shut down.

I believe that this should be the last CR and that we all should agree here today that this is going to be the last CR and that we are committed to getting this resolved. And that's what the American people also said in this ABC-Washington Post poll, not that I follow the polls much; but they also said they wanted us to come to an agreement.

So, again, I pledge to our chairman that we're not going to let this happen again; that this year we will pass all 12 appropriation bills by August, and we've done that before; and that we will end this process that started back in 2007 and which got continued in 2011. It is not the way to do the government's business. So let's make a pledge today that after this CR, we're going to work together to solve this problem and move on to FY12.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 48) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 48, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to support H.J. Res. 48, the fiscal year 2011 further continuing appropriations resolution. This temporary CR will allow us to avoid a government shutdown that could otherwise occur on March 18, while cutting spending by $6 billion to control our Nation's staggering deficits and to facilitate the continued recovery of our Nation's economy.

We've made it clear that a government shutdown is not an option, period. We will not allow this to happen on our watch.

This bill funds the government for an additional 3 weeks, until April 8, maintaining the critical support the government provides to the American people and allowing for the necessary time to complete negotiations on a final long-term agreement for the remainder of this year.

While funding the essential government agencies and programs, this CR makes $6 billion in spending cuts, trimming $2 billion for every week, to continue our efforts to rein in spending and put a dent in our massive and unsustainable deficit. Together with the $4 billion that we cut 2 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, along with the $6 billion we cut in this bill, we will have cut $10 billion from current year spending. That makes it the largest rescission in American history, and so it is working.

H.J. Res. 48 reduces or terminates a total of 25 programs for a savings of $3.5 billion. These cuts include funding rescissions, reductions, and program terminations. It also eliminates earmark accounts within the Agriculture; Commerce, Justice and Science; Financial Services; General Government; and Interior subcommittee jurisdictions, saving the American taxpayers $2.6 billion in earmark spending, which the President and both Houses of Congress have agreed they do not support.

These cuts are the tough, but necessary, legwork required to help balance our budgets and halt the dangerous downward spiral of skyrocketing deficits. While short-term funding measures such as this are not the preferable way to fund the government, at this point, it's vital.

The budget for fiscal 2011, which was punted to us by the previous Congress, is long, long overdue. I agree with many of my colleagues that we must get down to business and come to a final agreement as quickly as possible. Our economy must not be threatened by perpetual government shutdowns, which create uncertainty and a loss of confidence for job creators across the country.

This continuing resolution provides us with an appropriate length of time for negotiations, makes good on our promise to the American people to cut spending, provides certainty and stability, and allows essential Federal programs to continue while these negotiations ensue.

I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this continuing resolution can be passed swiftly so we can turn our attention to the realities of our debt and deficit crisis and begin to put the Nation on the right path for the next fiscal year, 2012.

Our constituents have asked us to whip our spending into shape, to provide solutions that help our economy grow, and to help our citizens get jobs. This CR addresses their expectations responsibly over the short term and is just one of the set of bills that we intend to produce over the next year that will continue to put the Nation's budget back into balance and help our economy continue on the road to recovery.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a new member of our committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the chairman of the Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.

I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman from Virginia says that the public deserves that we pass appropriations bills, and I could not agree with him more. His majority last year failed to enact a single bill out of the 12 that we were supposed to pass. That's why we're here. We're trying to clean up the mess that the gentleman from Virginia's party left us when we took office in January.

Yes, it's a terrible way to do business. And this should be the last CR extension that we pass before we have an agreement with the other body and the White House on the rest of this year. However, Mr. Speaker, again, the gentleman's party in the Senate refuses to pass a bill and lay something on the table. We are going to the conference table to negotiate, and we're sitting there by ourselves. The other body will not come forward with a proposition. Until that time, I don't know what we do.

I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Will the gentleman yield?

You know, it was stated a moment ago by a gentleman on the other side that this CR cuts NOAA and the tsunami prediction monies. That is not so. The only thing in this bill that cuts money from NOAA are the earmarks, and, yes, we cut the earmarks, but they had nothing to do with tsunami warning.

H.R. 1 doesn't cut tsunami warning monies nor weather service monies.

Well, NOAA's wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Would the gentleman talk to his colleagues over in the other body and tell them to pass something we can begin to negotiate on?

Of which I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriation, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Let me join, on behalf of us on this side, in thanking those two wonderful individuals for their dedicated public service. They have worked hard on behalf of the public, and they deserve our utmost thanks, which I offer at this time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on our side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new member of our committee, a hardworking member, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to a hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, this provision doesn't do anything. Nothing in the CR would cut Social Security or Medicare benefits, nor would it privatize Social Security. We are totally committed in this bill to saving Social Security.

Let me be honest. This is a procedural motion that is simply a fog screen, trying to hide us from our real task at hand, but I don't think we'll be fooled at that. The debate should not be about procedure or fog screens or things unrelated to the bill. It should be about doing our job.

We are here this afternoon to provide the necessary resources to keep the government's doors open while we lock in important budget savings totaling $6 billion. That is $2 billion in spending reductions, or savings, to the taxpayer, $2 billion a week, the path this body has set with the passage of H.R. 1 a couple of weeks ago.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that, with the passage of this CR today, we will have cut over $10 billion in the span of 2 weeks. That sets a record. That has never been done before in this body. The closest was 1995 at $9 billion. This is more than double the $4.7 billion that Senator Reid and the Senate Democrats proposed in their CR last week to fund the government for the remaining 6 months. We do in 2 weeks what they would take 6 months to do.

The American people sent us here with a clear message last November. They want us to end the partisan bickering and get our work done. Instead of picking political fights, they want us united in cutting the budget. This motion moves us further away from that goal. It would send us backwards, not forwards. It's a smokescreen, a procedural motion.

Let's get on with it. Vote ``no,'' and then vote ``yes'' on final.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his hard work to help keep the government open.

While many of us will not agree on the legislation before us today, we know it is necessary for us to proceed. So I don't rise to support or oppose the legislation but, instead, to comment on the situation that we are in.

Again, today, we are in a situation. We are debating a short-term bill to keep the government open on a week-by-week basis. This is not any way to run a government or a business. It certainly is not the way, as the military leadership has told us, to protect the national security of our country--on a week-to-week basis.

Democrats will work with Republicans on legislation that will create jobs, that will strengthen the middle class, and that will reduce the deficit. On all three of these scores, this Republican spending bill fails.

Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility as a top priority of this Congress. We won't go into the history right now, but it's well known that President Clinton took us out of a period of deficit--his last five budgets being in surplus, or in balance. President Bush turned that around immediately when he became President, and now we have to dig ourselves out of the deficit that he has taken us into. Last December, Democrats passed a $41 billion cut in the President's budget. We did so with only one Republican vote, $41 billion. Democrats are in the lead on fiscal soundness.

On the subject of jobs, we are in the 11th week of the Republican majority in the Congress, and we have not seen one bill that will create jobs. In fact, the only bill coming from the Republicans, the only legislation that has come to the floor to create jobs, would be the Democratic initiatives.

One is Build America Bonds: to build the infrastructure of America to keep ahead of the game in terms of innovation. Build America Bonds. Republicans overwhelmingly rejected that. The other bill was a bill to keep our jobs from going overseas by rewarding businesses that sent jobs overseas. Democrats said ``no'' to that idea. Republicans said ``no'' to our legislation. Zero jobs bills in 11 weeks.

It is quite different from the record of President Obama, who came into office 2 years ago with a Democratic Congress. President Obama was a job creator from day one, one week and one day after the President's inaugural address, calling for swift bold action now to create jobs. The House of Representatives passed the recovery bill, which was then passed by the Senate and signed into law in a matter of weeks. That legislation created or saved 3.6 million jobs. This is important in terms of the deficit because it produced jobs. It produced revenue into the Treasury that helped reduce the deficit.

Tax cuts for the wealthy, which has been the job creator that the Republicans put forth in the Bush administration and have put forth since, do not create jobs but increase the deficit.

So we are at the place, again, of 11 weeks. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Republican spending bill would cost not a trivial amount of jobs; Mark Zandi, the Republican economist, said the Republican spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs. Goldman Sachs said the Republican spending bill would reduce U.S. economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percent; 320 economists sent a letter, calling Republican cuts a threat to our economy's long-term economic competitiveness and to the strength of our current economic recovery.

They all agree, to one extent or another, that the Republican agenda is taking us in the wrong direction, and that agenda is manifested in the continuing resolution, H.R. 1, and in the budget approach that they are taking. In fact, in addition to not creating jobs, the Republican initiative is making matters worse.

Many of us have come to the floor to talk about budgets year in and year out. We all say that our national budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to our country should be reflected in the allocation of our resources. We want to have that debate on values rather than just on cuts.

Again, we all agree we have to get rid of waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, obsolescence, and the rest. The GAO has given us a blueprint for that, and we subscribe to that. We all agree that we must reduce the deficit, and the fiscal commission has given us a road map for that. We can agree or disagree with some of it; but the fact is it gives us a blueprint for how to go forward, and we should take heed of that. That blueprint says that we should not be making cuts right now that will be harmful to our recovery. Yet that's exactly what the Republican initiatives do.

So as to this statement of value, when we have this debate, it's not a debate about are we going to cut 6 million or 3 million seniors off of Meals on Wheels. It's about who we are as a country, how do we protect the American people both in our national security and our neighborhoods. It's how we educate our children to make them happy and also how to keep us competitive as innovators internationally. It's how we maintain a healthy America. It's not just about their health care but about their good health: the air they breathe, the water they drink, the safety of the food they eat.

It is about the creation of jobs. I believe we have an obligation as a government to be job creators. Jobs give people the means to find their own happiness and also to bring revenue into the Treasury, if we're just speaking pragmatically and not in terms of values.

I don't believe it's just about the dollars. It's because of the values that we have to have this debate. Unfortunately, the bills that we are being presented with, like H.R. 1, are like a balloon. You squeeze it here and it pops out there. It doesn't change anything for the better. In fact, as has been indicated, it makes matters worse.

So as we consider our budgetary decisions as a discussion, as a statement of our national values, we have to remember that the greatness of our country depends on the strengthening of our middle class. We have to do that by creating jobs, and we certainly must reduce the deficit.

Now we are waiting at the negotiating table for the Republicans to show that they are willing to work together--we cut $41 billion with one Republican vote--and that they are willing to work together to reach an agreement that is a statement of our values. I think we can do that. Many of us have worked together on the Appropriations Committee over the years.

I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in our efforts to create jobs, to strengthen the middle class, and to reduce the deficit--and to do so in the interest of the American people.

That's why I think, on this vote today, people will vote however they view their own statements about it. The big vote that is coming up is the vote on the continuing resolution, on the long-term basis to keep the government open and functioning for people--again, in a way that is a statement of values for our great country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to take a stand, a stand that may not be popular with the Leadership of the House of Representatives, but a stand I must take because I believe we cannot kick the can down the road for even another 3 weeks. The American people recognize that we must no longer take these small calculated measures. Today I will vote against another short-term Continuing Resolution.

In the shortest month of the year, February, the Federal Government had the largest deficit of $223 billion in our nation's entire history. The American people know that we are in a fiscal crisis and have sent me to address out-of-control spending.

The majority in the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1 which reduced spending by $61 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year. Even though H.R. 1 only cut spending by approximately 1.5 percent of the entire requested budget for fiscal year 2011, H.R. 1 reversed the trend of the Democrat Majority which increased overall discretionary funding by 24% over the last 2 years. The United States Senate rejected this amount as too much. They believe that, after President Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress presented trillion dollar deficit budgets, a freeze is the only viable approach.

I am not a supporter of big government. However, the Federal Government does perform certain important functions. Many essential Federal agencies cannot move forward with planning and using resources if every several weeks they are faced with the threat that they will need to close their doors until we resolve this impasse. Could any business in America function this way? Can a family household function this way?

Madam Speaker, President Obama and the United States Congresses of the past have created the Nanny States of America. Vast segments of the American people are now dependent on our Federal Government and not dependent on their own ability, skills and entrepreneurial spirit to succeed in this Nation.

We are in this position today because the Democrats in the last Congress failed to pass a budget. Further, the President appoints Vice President Biden as the Administration point person on the negotiations while he flies off to Europe. The Democrats failed to show leadership last year and the President is showing a lack of leadership today. I will show what I consider appropriate leadership now and vote against this Continuing Resolution.

Madam Speaker, the American people are watching us closely. Today, with information so readily available on the Internet they know the truth of our desperate economic situation. The days of Washington, D.C. double-talk no longer works.

The American people know that the Federal Government is collecting $2.2 trillion and spending $3.7 trillion this year. The American people know forty cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends is borrowed, much of it from China. The American people also know our nation is piling up new debt at the rate of $4 billion a day. So, what does $6 billion of spending cuts really buy the American people?

Further, the General Accountability Office released a 345-page report detailing the redundancies of Federal programs and the $100 to $200 billion of savings that could be achieved if these programs were consolidated or eliminated.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to argue that these cuts in spending will weaken an already slow economy and contribute to an increase in the loss of jobs. I believe this is a disingenuous argument. The truth is, the spending over the last 2 years has not reduced the loss of jobs, but instead has contributed to the largest debt in American history which will be passed on to my children and my grandchildren.

In Wisconsin, we have seen what the unionized entitlement class can do and the pressure they can place on their elected officials. Wisconsin State Legislators running to a neighboring state to hide from making a hard vote and protestors storming the Wisconsin State Capitol are not in concert with the principles of a representative democracy.

Madam Speaker, Madison, Wisconsin is only 700 miles from the United States Capitol.

The Founders of our nation wrote in the Declaration of Independence ``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' The ``Pursuit'' of Happiness, not the Federal Government's ``Guarantee'' of Happiness!

Finally, Madam Speaker, we can continue to rehash the past of how we have gotten into this situation, but I would rather focus on the future. The future is now and the place is here for us to get our Nation back on track. I support the cuts in the Continuing Resolution. I support the elimination of these projects.

However, my ``No'' vote should not be construed as my willingness for a ``government shutdown.'' My ``No'' vote is based on a simple principle that we need to complete the Federal budget for 2011. It is time to have this debate on Federal spending and get our nation back on track by cutting spending for the long term economic restoration of our Republic.

Alexander the Great once stated, ``Fortune favors the bold.'' The American people are looking for principled and bold leadership. I understand ``political maneuvering'' but the time has come to engage in the battle for the fiscal responsible future of America. I take my position on the frontlines.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I am.

Madam Speaker, as I listen to the debate on the current CR and where this debate has been taking us throughout this year, I have some reasons for alarm. I think the best way to start it off is to at least start to let you know a little bit about myself.

For most of my life, I have worked in the private sector. I have worked all my life and paid into Social Security. And the folks that I live with and live around and the people of my district have come to rely on Social Security, as it provides for, actually, generations at this point.

As I have been sitting here listening to this current CR, which I am opposed to, you know, all 435 of us are sent here to lead. Unfortunately, what we have heard time and time again is finger- pointing as, ``It's your fault,'' ``It's our fault,'' ``It's their fault,'' instead of us sitting down, talking to one another and figuring out where we can compromise and how we can come to a final solution to what our problems are. And it's really very disheartening.

I can understand that the folks who watch this at home are trying to figure out, well, whose side are we on? Are we on their side? Or are we on our particular party's side or on our particular stance's side? And I think it's very unfortunate because, at the end of the day, we all have very strong opinions on what the best way forward is in this country. Unfortunately, it's about compromise. Because even though we all have strong opinions, we all have differing opinions; and if we don't work it out, we are not going to get anywhere.

As I stand in opposition to this CR, it is something that is disheartening.

Now, I am on the Armed Services Committee and have been hearing from industry time and time again at how difficult it is for them in the long term. So as we talk about cutting, we are going to cut $2 billion a week for these next 3 weeks. Well, by doing these short-term CRs, we are actually costing our country money. And no one talks about that, of what the impact is going to be from this temporary solution. The Republicans have talked about, well, the Democrats didn't complete their work last year. That's true. But now the Republicans are in charge. You are in charge. You were given a charge to lead this country. And here we are going around again doing a 2-week, a 3-week. This isn't leading. This is playing games, and it's time to stand up and do the right thing for this country.

But my MTR, motion to recommit, involves Social Security, because the debate that has been happening has been trying to frame Social Security as a problem and the reason for the deficits that this country is experiencing. I brought a chart with me, and I want to read to you the net increase in assets in the Social Security Trust Fund for the last 6 years.

In 2005, the Social Security Trust Fund increased $172 billion. In 2006, it increased by $189.5 billion. These are increases. This means that the money that comes in to Social Security via your taxes and interest is more than what is going out, being paid in benefits. So when people start talking about, well, Social Security is causing our deficit problem and we have to address entitlement programs, they're not giving you the whole picture. They are trying to tell you that down the road we may have an issue. Well, no.

In 2007, the Social Security Trust Fund increased $190.4 billion. In 2008, it increased $180 billion. In 2009, it increased $122 billion. So the trust fund is going up. And it actually has $2.6 trillion in it right now. So the people that are receiving Social Security now shouldn't be worried about what it's doing to the deficit, because that increase in the trust fund is actually money that's coming in to the government in excess of what Social Security is spending.

But I brought up a chart here because I want to show people that when you start talking about Social Security--now, if you look at the 12th District of Pennsylvania, I have an elderly population. I am one of the districts that has a lot of senior citizens in it. A lot of people are on Social Security. And if you look at this chart, 77 percent of people say, Leave Social Security alone. Don't touch the retirement age. Don't touch the benefits. They say,

Come to a solution. Figure out a way to move forward.

And there are compromises that can be had to help solve the Social Security issue because we do have an issue long term. Baby boomers are retiring. Less people are paying in. So there are some issues that we have to address. But don't be buying into this crisis legislation that, if we don't do something immediately, Social Security is going to be in trouble. You are hearing all kinds of scenarios.

I urge support of this amendment. It does not recommit the bill. It is an amendment and will just be added to the bill.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.