Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1473.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 218 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this measure, all time yielded will be for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the matter before us.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of three measures: H.R. 1473, H. Con. Res. 35 and H. Con. Res. 36. H.R. 1473 funds the government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. H. Con. Res. 35 and 36 are enrollment correction measures that end Federal funding for the President's health care plan and Planned Parenthood. As these measures represent a final agreement on this fiscal year's funding, on par with a conference report, this rule provides simple up- or-down votes on all three of these items.

Furthermore, this rule directs the Clerk of the House to refrain from finalizing the enrollment of H.R. 1473 until the Senate has acted on all three measures to ensure that the enrollment corrections resolutions get full consideration. H.R. 1473 will be debatable for 1 hour. H. Con. Res. 35 and 36 will be debatable for 20 minutes each.

Madam Speaker, it has been a long, difficult, ugly, messy process; but we have finally achieved an important victory for the American people.

Today's underlying continuing resolution is a step toward, a step toward the fulfillment of a fundamental promise that was made to the taxpayers. We will halt the practice of reckless and unchecked growth in Federal spending; and critically important, Madam Speaker, we will reverse the course that we have been on. This final continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011 imposes the single largest cut in non- defense spending in our Nation's history. It also implements a number of reforms that will ensure greater accountability in how tax dollars are spent.

Madam Speaker, this is not the end of our work to restore discipline and accountability of the Federal budget, far from it. After fighting so hard to get to this point, it's important to point out that the truly difficult work still lies ahead for us.

This resolution is also not the perfect measure we were all working for. Many of us fought hard to have even greater cuts and more significant reforms.

But today's action is so critical because it is the turning point; it is the

turning point, Madam Speaker. It is that profoundly important first step. The American people have said enough is enough, and this Congress is finally responding.

We are ending an era that has seen growth in non-defense discretionary spending over the past few years of 82 percent. Under Speaker Pelosi, Madam Speaker, we have had an increase in non-defense discretionary spending of 82 percent. We are making serious, meaningful cuts in the size and the scope of government.

But as I said, these are only just the beginning. When we conclude this debate, we will turn directly to the fiscal 2012 budget. Our very thoughtful Budget Committee chairman, Mr. Ryan, has put forth a bold budget plan that seeks to tackle the fundamental reforms that are absolutely essential to the future viability of our economy.

If the process we have just come through has been difficult, the task that lies ahead is Herculean. A $1.6 trillion deficit poses an almost unfathomable challenge. It demands a tremendous level of seriousness and resolve that each and every one of us must rise to.

The consequences of failing to do so would be both disastrous and predictable. We have already gotten a strong dose of the economic challenges that would ensue. For months and months on end, we have dealt with a moribund economy and a very painful lack of job opportunities. The stifling nature of the national debt, the tax and regulatory uncertainty, the policies that favor government intervention over entrepreneurial empowerment, all of these have contributed to our economic challenges.

It is increasingly apparent that the recent positive movement on job creation has been fueled by our effort to rein in wasteful government spending and restore the certainty that businesses need to make new investments.

As we continue our efforts to impose fiscal discipline, I hope and believe we will continue to see positive news on the jobs front. But these economic challenges are far from over for most hardworking Americans.

We know what difficult times we and the American people are facing. We know very well how painful these challenges have been, but they pale in comparison to the crisis that will come if we do not have the courage to fundamentally transform the way this government spends money.

We need look no further than the euro zone to see what's in store without a dramatic change in course. We have seen Western European economies come to the brink of collapse, crippled under the weight of their sovereign debt and nearly dragged some of the world's largest, most stable economies along with them.

The coming budget debate will be a seminal moment in which we must reject this failed, economic model. Today, with this historic spending cut, we are paving the way to do just that. Madam Speaker, this is not the end of our work; but it is, as I said, just the beginning.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying resolutions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my friend from Boulder, my Rules Committee colleague, for his very thoughtful remarks, and I would like to respond with a few important points.

First, I was struck by the fact that he went through the litany of amendments that were debated on H.R. 1, underscoring again that we have, for the first time in decades, seen a free and flowing debate and an opportunity for votes to take place here in this institution. It hadn't happened before on a continuing resolution as we saw it in our consideration of H.R. 1.

I also want to say that while my friend continued to point the finger of blame somehow characterizing this as a Republican plan, I'd like to remind him, Madam Speaker, that this happens to be the result of a negotiation that has taken place with three Democrats--the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the majority leader of the United States Senate--and one Republican, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. By a 3-1 margin in the negotiation process, the Republicans were outnumbered. And so I think that it's a mischaracterization to describe this as somehow a Republican plan that is before us.

Now to the issue that was raised about a cut being a cut, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, made it clear, and he called it that--a cut is a cut. I know this attempt is being made to somehow characterize the fact that dollars have not been spent so that means you're not actually cutting them. Well, last night in the Rules Committee, the very distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend Mr. Dicks, pointed out something that everyone in this institution should know, and that is the process of reprogramming takes place within government agencies. We know full well that the movement of money, since money is fungible, that takes place within these different agencies, is standard operating procedure. So, Madam Speaker, to claim somehow that if dollars haven't actually been spent that they're not being cut is just plain wrong.

Now, Madam Speaker, while I talked about the negotiating process that ended up with the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the majority leader of the United States Senate and the Speaker of the House, leading up to that, we had our very, very diligent and hardworking new chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend, Mr. Rogers, who has stepped up to the plate and taken on the responsibility, in fact, some call it tongue in cheek, but he has been very serious about being the ``enforcer'' of ensuring that we cut spending, and he has actually renamed his Appropriations Committee the ``Disappropriations Committee'' by virtue of the fact, Madam Speaker, of the recognition that if we don't get our fiscal house in order, we are going to be in deep, deep trouble.

So, Madam Speaker, I want to say that, again, he was one of the negotiators leading up to the final process here.

I would like to now yield such time as he may consume to my very good friend, the chair of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

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

I would like to engage in a discussion with my distinguished ranking member, if she would like, on the issue that she just discussed.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Reclaiming my time, there were several things that were said that I would like to address.

First, I would like to say that the gentlewoman began by saying that never before in our Nation's history have we had measures brought forward in this manner. Madam Speaker, that is just plain wrong. Time and time again under both political parties, we have seen the Rules Committee report out measures that do in fact cover multiple issues. So this is not unprecedented, as the gentlewoman has just said.

Second, I think it is very important for us to clarify the fact that what we are voting on is an agreement that is supported by the President of the United States and the majority leader of the United States Senate. Part of that agreement is that the Senate will not vote to defund Planned Parenthood or vote to actually bring an end to funding for the health care bill, but it will consider these measures. And I think it is important, Madam Speaker, to make it clear, the only thing we are doing in this rule is ensuring that that agreement is enforced.

So, Madam Speaker, I think that it is clear that many of our friends on the other side of the aisle are not happy with the fact that their President and the Senate majority leader have negotiated this agreement. Again, I don't like the agreement just like they don't like the agreement. I don't like it because I don't believe that it goes far enough, but it is very important for us to realize that this is simply a first step. It is a bold first step.

As the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has just said, Madam Speaker, it is a step which in fact is the largest, four times the largest, cut we have ever had in the past. It is a cut of $40 billion. By virtue of that agreement, we are making that first step. But if you extend this out, it will have cuts that total $315 billion. And as I said, we are just beginning the debate this week with this very, very important budget that will be considered in the Rules Committee today and tomorrow and Friday on the House floor.

I also have to say that one of the reasons we are having this debate on the rule today and voting on Thursday on the actual continuing resolution is because we put into place a very important change in the rules at the beginning of this Congress which states that unreported measures must in fact comply with the 3-day layover requirement that exists for reported measures. We are subscribing to that and enforcing that.

As we know, this measure was filed at 2 a.m. yesterday morning here in the House; and because of that filing, to ensure that it was put online, as the chairman of Appropriations Committee said, so that the full membership, the American people, the media have an opportunity to see this measure, we have done that. That is the reason we are going to be holding this vote on Thursday, and that is the reason we are able to have the kind of free-flowing debate that we will have.

Madam Speaker, this is an agreement that no one, no one is happy with; but it is an agreement that we have come to in dealing with the two political parties, and I am going to urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say first to my friend from Boulder that the notion of arguing that a $40 billion cut is going to take us down the road to bankruptcy is absolutely preposterous.

I yield to the gentleman from Boulder.

Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I will repeat this again so that he might be able to understand it. A $40 billion cut, or a $15 billion cut, cannot be characterized as taking us down the road toward bankruptcy. We all want to cut more in spending. I mean, it's very clear.

Now my friend from Worcester has just made this argument about the priorities that we have.

I yield myself an additional minute, and I do so to say that I think it's important for us to look at the preamble of the United States Constitution whenever we're debating defense appropriations bills or the defense authorization bill. I'm so happy that my friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee and the defense appropriations subcommittee, is here. I always argue that the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the United States Constitution are ``provide for the common defense.''

Now, with all due respect to the priorities that we have, ensuring that we do care for those who are truly in need, all of these things can be done at other levels of government. Only the Federal Government can deal with our Nation's security. As Chairman Rogers pointed out, we are now, by virtue of a decision that the President of the United States has made, in the midst of three wars. I want to bring about spending cuts, and I believe that Governor Haley Barbour was absolutely right when he said: Anyone who says that you can't cut defense spending has never been to the Pentagon. We want to encourage defense sharing, and, in fact, we are focused on ensuring that we do get the best bang for our buck.

So, Madam Speaker, recognizing the priority that the Federal Government has for national security and recognizing that we're trying to bring about responsible cuts, I think this agreement is the right thing for us.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining and also how much time remains on each side.

Then I will reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, according to the schedule, in about 9 minutes, the President of the United States, at George Washington University, is scheduled to give a very important address in which he is going to talk about fiscal responsibility--the need to bring about spending cuts and all--and how to get our economy growing.

I want to congratulate the President. I want to congratulate the President for coming to this position. It obviously is much different than what we've gone through so far. As I said earlier, we've had an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending. The President proposed a budget that has deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion and would exacerbate the debt. He came out a few weeks ago and proposed a freeze in spending. We know that if we had not done what we are about to vote on here with this rule making in order a vote that will take place tomorrow, we would see an increase of $78.5 billion more in spending if we had not taken the action that this House, in a bipartisan way, is about to take.

But the reason I want to congratulate the President is that I have just taken a look at the early reports of what he is about to say in this speech, and he does call for us to look at the issue of entitlements--he specifically says Social Security, not Medicare or Medicaid, but he talks about Social Security. But I believe that is, again, a first step towards what I believe is absolutely essential, and that is, for us, in a bipartisan way, to tackle the issue of entitlement spending. As Mr. Dicks said in the Rules Committee yesterday, that's two-thirds of the spending. We know that entitlement spending is something that needs to be addressed, and there is bipartisan recognition that we need to get our fiscal house in order.

Madam Speaker, what we have before us is a measure that I don't like. I don't like it. I don't believe that it does enough to reduce the size and scope and reach of government. I believe that we need to do more. But we have to remember that we've got to take that first step.

Last November 2, the American people sent a very loud and powerful message to Washington, D.C. There are 96 newly elected Members of this House, nine of them happen to be Democrats, 87 of them are Republican. Now Madam Speaker, I think it's important for us to recognize that that's a pretty powerful message. They were saying, End the nonsense, bring an end to this dramatic expansion of government, and that's exactly what we're doing with this first step.

Margaret Thatcher, the great former Prime Minister of Great Britain, famously said, First you have to win the argument, then you win the vote. I believe that we've won the argument, Madam Speaker, because the message has come through.

The message has come through that we are, in fact, going to have to get our fiscal house in order if we're going to ensure the strength and the preeminence of the greatest Nation the world has ever known.

So, Madam Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to support this rule, and tomorrow we will have a vote on the continuing resolution itself. Then we will begin tomorrow, after we've had that vote, to debate the budget, which is going to be far reaching, it's going to be difficult, but it is clearly the right thing for us to do.

And I will say again, Madam Speaker, that I do hope that on these issues we will be able to continue to work together in a bipartisan way to solve our Nation's problems.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, for all the talk of Republicans' commitment to cutting spending, there are several odd things about this bill before us that would lead one to believe that it's more of a partisan political exercise than a serious attempt to get the Nation's fiscal house in order, which we need and deserve as Americans.

Under this bill, critical services that many Americans rely on to educate our children, to keep our streets safe, to improve public health, to keep our water and air clean would face tens of billions of dollars worth of real and difficult cuts. Times are tough. We know we have to cut spending. Okay. So why does this bill then provide the Pentagon with an additional $5 billion above the previous request at a time when the civilian and uniformed military, including thoughtful policymakers from both parties, believe that we need to reduce spending across the board?

Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen stated that our national debt is our biggest national security threat. He also noted that the past decade's doubling of the budget of the Department of Defense has led to undisciplined spending and waste within the department. Secretary Gates concurs, stating that we can't hold ourselves exempt from the belt- tightening. Yet, despite members of the military and civilians involved with defense saying that they, too, can't be spared, not only have they been spared by the Republican majority, but their budget has been increased by $5 billion.

The recent bipartisan Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, often called the ``Simpson-Bowles commission,'' called for substantial defense reductions over the next 10 years. They recommended cuts that would have led to $60 billion in savings and security spending in the first year and would have kept our Nation safe. In fact, if we were to implement the commission's recommendations around security spending, we would save $100 billion in 2015 alone.

But Republicans didn't go after their favorite areas of Big Government spending. Instead, they went after our efforts to strengthen our schools, to keep our air and water clean and to keep our streets safe; and the rest of their so-called ``spending cuts'' don't seem to be saving much at all. In fact, yesterday, we had an interesting discussion in the Rules Committee about whether this bill really even saves close to the $38 billion claimed. Apparently, most of the savings are from allocations of money that wouldn't be spent anyway.

An Associated Press story yesterday called this bill ``budget tricks,'' saying that $23 billion of the $38 billion aren't even real savings, that they're counting savings from unspent census money. This is from the AP: leftover Federal construction funding; $2.5 billion from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can't even be spent because of restrictions that have already been set by other legislation. Today's Wall Street Journal calls the Republican spending bill ``spending cut hokum.'' Now, the ``spending cut hokum'' bill identifies that there was $18 billion in real cuts and $20 billion in fake accounting tricks that are not real cuts.

Yesterday in Rules, I actually had the opportunity to ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee if he could explain that discrepancy between the claimed cuts and the real cuts which those who have dived in have identified, and he demurred on that account. So, in the end, what have the Republicans accomplished?

I'd like to talk about this graphically and sort of show the American people what we're talking about here:

Now, with these charts, I use the Wall Street Journal's figures, which credit the Republicans for more cuts than does the Associated Press, but out of caution, I want to trust the Journal in this case as a well-researched source and use their figures even though they have less than the AP. The Wall Street Journal still says that the majority of the Republican cuts are, in fact, hokum cuts. So here is what we're talking about, Madam Speaker:

This is the deficit. This is the CBO's, the Congressional Budget Office, estimate of the deficit. It is $1.399 trillion. This is what we're talking about here. This is the continuing resolution savings. That's it; not one penny more. Let me sort of take an example of an American family. We'll have to take a few zeros off of this for most Americans to even understand these figures.

Let's say the deficit is $139,000 and not $1.399 trillion. I was a small business man before I came to Congress; so I understand how to balance a budget. I know most American families are trying to balance their family paychecks, to stay in their homes, to make their mortgage payments. It's $139,000 you lose in a year. That's tough. You have to take out a second mortgage and max out your credit cards, and you try to cover that $139,000, okay? Then you know you've got to make some serious changes. What are you going to do? You hem and you haw for a couple of months; you argue with your creditors; you threaten to shut down your business. On the eve of shutting down your business, because you can't afford another loss of $139,000, what do you do? You figure out how to lose $137,000 the next year. Do you know what? That $137,000

is going to put that American family out of business just as surely as that $139,000, but that is the Republican approach to this bill.

Now let me talk about some of the alternatives we have before us.

I would be happy to discuss this on the gentleman's own time. I want to go through this excellent chart. If the gentleman wants to come over, he can look at what we have here and what the Democrats have presented.

If we were serious about deficit reduction, Republicans could have supported several amendments offered by Democrats and voted on in the House when we debated H.R. 1. The Democratic amendments alone would have cut spending by nearly $129 billion, more than three times the amount that's even claimed in this bill.

Here are some examples: Congressman Stark and Congresswoman Lee offered one amendment that would have reduced defense spending to its level 3 years ago--we were already in two wars at that time as well-- saving $36 billion in the first year alone, and that would have left intact the defense budget of $688 billion, more than enough to meet the security needs of our Nation. Congressman Nadler offered an amendment that would have finally ended our support for the war in Afghanistan, saving $90 billion. Congresswoman Woolsey offered an amendment that would have saved $415 million by ending the V-22 Osprey program.

In fact, just yesterday in Rules, I also proposed an amendment that would have reduced our troop presence in Europe, which would have saved $415 million. Our European allies, Madam Speaker, are some of the richest countries in the world. It's time they paid their fair way. What is the strategic rationale for an ongoing presence in Germany? The Nazis are gone. The Soviets are gone. Even former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has questioned the ongoing presence of our troops in Europe. I also proposed an amendment eliminating the drug czar. The drug czar's office spends $21 million a year; yet drug use has gone up since its inception.

Madam Speaker, we are never going to balance the entire budget just by reducing the funds Congress spends each year as part of the appropriations process--clearly, we all can agree we need to look at revenues and entitlements--and you're not going to make even the slightest dent in the deficit if you exempt defense spending from any cuts.

In this continuing resolution before us, Republicans have exempted more than half of the domestic discretionary spending from any cuts, and it becomes very clear that the Republican plan isn't so much about serious deficit reduction than it is about protecting their favorite Big Government spending while simultaneously slashing away at their favorite targets, like education, the environment and the safety net.

Here is what we could potentially accomplish if we work together: This shows the Republican cuts in this CR. We even add in, for the sake of argument, the hokum cuts. We put them in here too--it's the Wall Street Journal's term, not mine--and we include the proposed Democratic amendments. I think this is something that we could be proud of. Do you know what, Madam Speaker? I think more Democrats would support a program that didn't only cut the program which so many on my side of the aisle feel strongly about but that also makes some of the difficult decisions with where the real money is with regard to defense and security spending.

Yes. Just like that American family that we raised, digging its way out of a $127,000-a-year loss, we need to make a real impact on reducing the Federal budget deficit. This will take action across the aisle to make sure that we can leave our country in a better situation and that we can help the next generation fight its way out from the burden of debt that we risk placing upon them if we continue the big spending policies of the Republican Party.

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

Spending Cut Hokum

A mini-revolt is brewing among Republican backbenchers on

Capitol Hill now that the specific spending cuts in Friday's

budget deal are being revealed. After separating out the

accounting gimmicks and one-year savings, the actual cuts

look to be closer to $20 billion than to the $38 billion that

both sides advertised. This is not going to help Speaker John

Boehner's credibility with the tea party.

Even $20 billion is worthwhile, and the genuine reductions

include cuts in high-speed rail, Pell grants, highway

projects, renewable energy programs, housing subsidies, low-

income home energy assistance, agriculture programs,

contributions to the United Nations, and many more. There is

also an immediate across the board 0.2% reduction in all

nondefense accounts.

But the continuing resolution also saves money on paper

through phantom cuts. The whopper is declaring $6.2 billion

in savings by not spending money left from the 2010 Census.

Congress also cuts $4.9 billion from the Justice Department's

Crime Victims Fund, but much of that money was tucked away in

a reserve fund that wouldn't have been spent this year in any

event.

The budgeteers claim $630 million in cuts from what are

called ``orphan earmarks,'' or construction that never

started, and $2 billion more for transportation projects,

some of which were likely to be canceled. The Associated

Press reports that $350 million in savings comes from a 2009

program to pay dairy farmers to compensate for low milk

prices. Milk prices are high this year, so some of that money

also would never have been spent.

An estimated $17 billion comes from one-time savings in

mandatory programs. The cuts are real, but the funding gets

restored by law the next year, which means Republicans will

have to refight the same battles. States lose some $3.5

billion in bonus money to enroll more kids in the Children's

Health Insurance Program, but many states failed to qualify

for that extra funding. These cuts don't reduce the spending

baseline, so there are no compound savings over time.

None of this is enough to defeat the budget at this point,

but it is infuriating given the GOP leadership's flogging of

that $38 billion top-line figure. On Sunday we heard the

leadership might lose 30 backbenchers on the budget vote, but

yesterday we were hearing it may be closer to 50 or 60. This

will only heighten skepticism over the next budget showdown,

and Mr. Boehner will have to drive a harder bargain. Above

all, the hokum belies the House GOP's promise to usher in a

new era of lawmaking candor and transparency.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute to respond.

The gentleman from Kentucky called this an historic bill. I think much more of this kind of history, and we risk making our country's solvency history by drowning ourselves in a burden of debt. Again, effectively, for a family business that lost $139,000, losing $137,000 might be nice, but it puts you out of business just the same. I continue to express our wish that we included some of the Democratic cuts in this that added up to four times the amount of the proposed Republican cuts in this bill.

As the Bard put it, the cutting in this bill is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

With that, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Will the gentleman yield?

Just one point. I think what the gentlelady said is that the Senate will have to vote on it, not that they have to pass it, just to be clear.

Madam Speaker, this continuing resolution is a first step, all right. It is a first step towards bankruptcy with token cuts.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Again, the cut is actually somewhere in the $15 billion to $20 billion range, according to both The Wall Street Journal and the

I appreciate the gentleman from California's willingness to look at defense spending. I know the gentleman from Kentucky mentioned we're in three wars. Perhaps part of the answer is to be in two wars or one war or, God forbid, perhaps we can be at peace again in our lifetime.

Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

We have three speakers. We are possibly expecting a fourth.

It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I again want to bring it back to the hypothetical American family, small business we're talking about, because the $1.399 trillion figure is boggling to most people. So lop off the zeros there and say, hey, I have a small business, I'm an American family, I will lose $139,000 next year. Let me tell you, is losing $137,000 the next year a step towards solvency or a step towards bankruptcy? I would submit, Madam Chair, ask any small business man in America or small business woman, losing $137,000 instead of $139,000 is a step towards bankruptcy.

Just like that family, we in the United States Congress, we in this country need to come together and make hard choices about where to find additional income, where to cut expenditures, how to get this budget out of red and into the black. That's the difference between where the Democrats stand and the proposal of our friends on the other side. And another difference: A Democratic President has actually balanced the budget. That's a claim that the other side can't make for more than a generation.

It is clear that the Republicans are not serious about the deficit. If they were, this would be a different bill. Again, this is what we're talking about: Taking our Nation another step down the road towards fiscal insolvency and leaving a legacy of debt for the next generation.

Rather than holding the line on spending, the majority is feeding the beast. And yet, what do the Republicans cut rather than rooting out waste at the Pentagon? They cut $1.6 billion from the EPA's effort to protect public health and keep our air and water safe; $950 million from Community Development Block Grants to strengthen neighborhoods and create jobs; $815 million from FEMA grants that help communities prepare for disasters; $10 million to keep our food safe.

When you look at the winners and losers in this budget, it becomes clear what the majority party does and does not value. And they clearly do not mind leaving the next generation a legacy of deficits and debt.

What we're doing in this continuing resolution is increasing the favorite government spending of the majority party, running up the deficit, continuing big tax cuts for special interests while slashing the effort to educate our children, ensure access to health care, keep our air and water clean--oh, and while they're at it, taking away a woman's right to choose.

This is where we could be by working together, Democrats and Republicans. This process, this rule and this bill, are not examples of working together to solve our budget crisis.

We can do better, we must do better. To save America from bankruptcy, we must do better than sound and fury signifying nothing. We need to work together to make the cuts we need to make, to increase the revenues we need to increase, and to examine our entitlement programs to put our Nation on proper fiscal footing for the next generation and remove the mounting burden of debt that faces the next generation of Americans.

I don't see how anyone can argue that somehow reducing--again, at the family level, a $139,000 loss to a $137,000 loss, while it might be a fine thing to do, leaves that family in every bit as dangerous and precarious a fiscal situation as they were before--ask any small business man or small business woman in this country. And after passing this continuing resolution and keeping our government in business another year, we're just punting further down the field about making the cuts we all know we need to make to balance the budget, return to a surplus, and help remove the next generation of Americans from the legacy of debt that is threatening to crush them.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to this measure. I do so with a keen awareness that it reflects a bipartisan agreement reached to avert a government shutdown, and I commend the President and congressional leadership for negotiating a deal that avoided the most extreme aspects of H.R. 1, the Republican continuing resolution passed by the House in February. I also commend Chairman Rogers and the Appropriations Committee majority staff for soliciting input from the minority as they finalized the details of this proposal.

But ultimately, I must judge this bill on its merits and not by the process that produced it. And I cannot in good conscience support a measure that will threaten our fragile economic recovery and undermine key investments in our future, while doing little to address our long- term fiscal challenges and requiring little in the way of shared sacrifice. It is simply not enough to observe that this bill could have been much worse.

As the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I have concerns about the cuts the bill would impose on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but this is not the primary reason for my opposition. This area of the budget was spared the sort of drastic reductions the bill makes to investments in infrastructure, innovation and the health and well-being of the American people. I commend our Subcommittee Chairman, Robert Aderholt, for protecting the core operational functions of the Department--from Customs and Border Protection personnel to transportation security investments to the Coast Guard.

Chairman Aderholt was not operating without constraints, of course. Overall funding for DHS will drop by two percent from last year's funding level, and the majority's decision to increase the Disaster Relief Fund by $1 billion to cover a shortfall that has traditionally been met through emergency supplemental appropriations only exacerbates this reduced allocation. Unfortunately, state and local first responder grants received the brunt of this blow, taking a 25 percent reduction overall. Not only does this adversely impact the efforts of communities across the country to keep their people safe by preparing for natural disasters and terrorist attacks, but it does so at a time when state and local budgets are already contracting, making federal assistance all the more vital.

The bill also reverses course on a decision to fund the processing of asylum seekers and refugees out of general funds, rather than asking other immigrant petitioners to pay fees to fund a service they don't receive. A reduced allocation for the National Protection and Programs Directorate is likely to delay the critical effort to secure government cyberspace, and a cut to the flood hazard mapping program will make it difficult for FEMA to meet its legal obligation to update our nation's flood maps every five years.

The bill does avoid significant cuts to most of the core DHS components, including the Coast Guard, TSA, ICE, Secret Service, and Customs and Border Protection. Importantly, the bill maintains level funding for firefighter equipment and staffing grants, which are critical to mitigate the impacts of widespread local budget cuts to public safety personnel. And because of the dire fiscal straits that local fire chiefs are facing, the bill maintains flexibility Congress has given FEMA in recent years to waive certain restrictions on SAFER grants that are difficult for most fire departments to achieve right now.

Specifically, the bill waives the requirement that SAFER grants be used to increase the number of firefighters on staff, thus allowing these grants to be used to rehire laid off firefighters and to retain firefighters who face the prospect of being laid off. In discussions over these provisions, negotiators realized that allowing these grants to be used for retention was clearly one of the most important measures that should be maintained for fiscal year 2011 SAFER grants. Second, the bill waives local cost-share requirements, which vary from 10 percent of a firefighter's salary in the first year to 70 percent in the fourth year of the personnel grant. Third, the bill waives a provision in the SAFER authorizing statute prohibiting the grants from being used to supplant state or local funds. While I believe a more comprehensive set of waivers would have served the program well, in the judgment of the bill's negotiators, provisions allowing for the rehiring and retention of firefighters, the waiver of cost-share requirements, and the supplanting of local funds simply had to be maintained for the current fiscal year.

Unfortunately, these homeland security provisions offer little consolation when we turn to other areas of the bill. The strength and security of our country are about much more than how much we spend on weapons systems or how thoroughly we police the border. They are about the investments we make in our people--in our nation's ability to recover from the current economic downturn, compete in the global economy, and build a future of greater prosperity for our children and grandchildren. The bill before us risks pulling the rug out from under the current recovery and compromising our future competitiveness.

To be sure, it could have been worse. Some of the most reckless cuts included in H.R. 1--such as a 17 percent cut to Pell Grants, a $1.6 billion cut to NIH, and an $800 million cut to the National Science Foundation--have been avoided, while the measure contains modest increases for programs such as Head Start and homeless assistance grants. Most of the extreme, ideologically driven policy riders being pushed by my Republican colleagues have been dropped.

But the bill still cuts nutrition assistance to Women, Infants and Children (WIC) by over $500 million, Community Health Centers by $600 million, and public housing programs by $700 million--leading to more hungry children, reduced access to health care, and fewer families with a roof over their heads at a time when many are still struggling to make ends meet. It cuts Career Education programs, Dislocated Worker Assistance programs, and a range of highway and infrastructure projects -- making it harder for out-of-work Americans to find jobs at a time when our economic recovery is still fragile. And it includes drastic cuts to high-speed rail ($2.9 billion), the EPA ($1.6 billion), energy efficiency and renewable energy research ($438 million), and other key investments in our long-term economic competitiveness. The federal budget is a statement of our priorities and values. These cuts will slow economic growth, as economists across the spectrum have warned, and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. They will inflict pain on the most vulnerable and restrict opportunities for the middle class.

Make no mistake: in order to preserve our economy competitiveness in the future, we must also put our country back on a path toward fiscal balance. As a veteran of the balanced budget agreements of the 1990s, I take a backseat to no one in my conviction that we must rein in our current deficits and put our long-term obligations on a more sustainable trajectory. And while some may claim that this bill is a necessary first step on this path, this view ignores the fact that by threatening the recovery, this bill could perversely exacerbate our fiscal troubles, all the while failing to address the real budget crisis--the massive imbalance in projected revenues and government obligations in the long-term.

Addressing this much more vexing challenge will require making targeted reductions in spending, but it should phase these adjustments in at a pace that does not jeopardize the fragile economic recovery. I have supported a series of measures in recent months that included real cuts to programs I care about. I helped draft an omnibus bill last fall that would have cut over $20 billion below the President's request, and when that wasn't enough to satisfy my Republican colleagues, I helped draft a yearlong Continuing Resolution (CR) that would have cut nearly $40 billion below the request (and $10 billion below last year's enacted level). Senate Republicans blocked both measures, choosing instead to threaten a March government shutdown. In recent weeks I supported three short-term continuing resolutions to give leaders time to negotiate our way out of this mess. These bills cut another $12 billion off of last year's level.

But we will never balance the budget through cuts to domestic discretionary spending alone. What is needed is a comprehensive approach that includes reforms to entitlements and revenue, as well as targeted spending cuts--the kind of serious approach outlined by President Obama yesterday--instead of focusing myopically on just 12 percent of the budget, as the bill before us does. Twelve percent of the budget--programs that invest in our people and our future--is not 100 percent of the problem. A real budget solution requires shared sacrifice from all Americans, instead of seeking to balance the budget on the backs of lower- and middle-income Americans while cutting taxes for the wealthy.

And so I cannot in good conscience support a measure that would threaten our economic recovery and undermine our long-term competitiveness while doing next to nothing to address our long-term fiscal challenges. This bill may have been a necessary step to avert the irresponsible shutdown of the government, but that does not make it a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 218, I call up the bill (H.R. 1473) making appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1473, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to bring to the floor today H.R. 1473, the full year spending agreement for fiscal year 2011.

This final CR makes nearly $40 billion of real spending cuts compared to fiscal year 2010 levels while funding the government's critical services and programs and supporting our Nation's troops for the rest of this fiscal year.

After weeks of hard fought negotiations, all sides were able to come together in this final agreement to find common ground and take steps to help balance our budget.

This legislation is a bold move for Congress, one that points us in the right direction on Federal spending. Never before has any Congress made dramatic cuts such as these that are in this final bill.

The near $40 billion reduction in non-defense spending is tens of billions of dollars larger than any other cut in history and is the result of this new Republican majority's commitment to bring about real change in the way Washington spends the people's money.

My committee went line-by-line through agency budgets to execute the agreement reached by our Speaker crafting deep but responsible reductions in virtually all areas of government. Our bill targets wasteful and duplicative spending, makes strides to rein in out-of- control Federal bureaucracies, and will help bring our Nation one step closer to eliminating our job-crushing level of debt.

This led to the following cuts from the President's budget request: Agriculture accounts were reduced by 14 percent; Commerce, Justice, and Science reduced by 12 percent; Energy and Water reduced by 10 percent; Financial Services, General Government,

13 percent; Interior and Environment by 9 percent; Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, 8 percent; Legislative Branch, 11 percent cut; State and Foreign Operations, 15 percent cut; and Transportation and HUD, 19 percent cut.

The Department of Defense is funded at $513 billion, which is a $5 billion increase over fiscal year 2010 to provide the necessary resources for our troops and the success of our Nation's military actions.

In this bill, Madam Speaker, we've defunded Obama administration czars--we said, ``Nyet''--ended unsuccessful education programs, advanced efforts to repeal ObamaCare, and reduced Congress's own budget. We've also put into place mandatory audits for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, banned taxpayer funding of abortion in Washington, D.C., and continued the global fight against terrorism.

In addition, with this legislation we have ended the stimulus spending spree and have taken the next step to cutting trillions of dollars in the years to come. We stood by our commitment to eliminate earmarks, terminated unnecessary and ineffective programs, and made real spending cuts that will help right our fiscal ship. And we will continue to hold the government to a standard of responsible, sustainable spending in the future.

Our goal is and has been to keep precious taxpayer dollars where they are needed most--in the hands of our small businesses and individuals so they can create jobs and grow our economy. I hope, Madam Speaker, that my colleagues will take the opportunity to support this historic bill and finally close the book on the fiscal year 2011 budget.

For those who have been saying in their career here in this body, ``I came here to cut spending and to bring down the size of the government,'' I say to them here's your chance. If you believe in cutting spending, you can vote for $40 billion of it today, the largest any Member of Congress has ever been able to vote for.

This is historic, a historic reduction in Federal spending after a 2- year spending spree that increased discretionary spending by 82 percent. This bill will reverse that rise and will start us back down toward responsible spending in the government.

Madam Speaker, before I close, I would like to take a moment and thank these hardworking individuals who have been toiling behind the scenes now on this bill for the last several months, with little fanfare, and they get no credit in public, that made this legislation possible. Our legislative counsels deserve our appreciation.

I want to say thanks to Ira Forstater, Tom Cassidy, Ryan Greenlaw, and their group of appropriations coordinators. I would like also to thank Janet Airis and the staff at the CBO. I also want to thank the floor staff, the parliamentarians, the Capitol Police, and all those support staff who have put in the extra hours to keep this institution running at its very best.

Finally, I want to offer a special thanks to the Appropriations Committee's fine staff on both sides of this aisle, those in our full committee, the subcommittee clerks, the subcommittee staffs in both majority and minority. They have been given impossible task after impossible task, facing untenable deadlines, gone for days and weeks working around the clock, and yet have miraculously produced all that we have asked of them and more.

I want to especially say a real thanks to the clerk of the committee, Bill Inglee; the deputy clerk, Will Smith; and all of the other staff that's worked on the majority side. And Mr. Dicks and his wonderful staff have been just magnanimous in their support and hard work. I want to say thank you to them as well.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Well, they have hardly slept in 3 months. And they worked around the clock, on weekends, at 4 o'clock in the morning you would find them still there. It's an amazing performance that they have contributed to this great body.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio, who toiled long and hard to bring us the largest spending cut in the history of the country, Speaker John Boehner.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Frank Wolf, who is chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations subcommittee.

I yield 2 minutes, Madam Speaker, to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), chairwoman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Appropriations.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction and VA Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

I yield 1 minute to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a new Member of this body, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

And I join you in that commitment. That's what we're planning to do. I just want this bill over with.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following.

Pursuant to section 8120 of Division A of H.R. 1473 as

passed the House on April 14, 2011, Chairman Rogers submits

the following explanatory statement:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1473, the FY2011 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act.

American families in each and every one of our congressional districts are relying on Congress and the White House to avoid a government shutdown and agree on a budget that funds the government for the rest of the fiscal year. While this bill is far better than H.R. 1, the Republican's FY2011 continuing resolution that passed the House earlier this year, I am voting against H.R. 1473 because far too many people will be adversely impacted by the cuts it will make.

Compared with the draconian cuts proposed under H.R. 1, H.R. 1473 provides additional funding for many programs that people in Hawaii and across this country rely on for support--including Head Start, community services, and public broadcasting. H.R. 1473 also invests in our economic future by supporting Race to the Top and funding key science and energy R&D programs.

This legislation is also a better bill than H.R. 1 because it doesn't include legislative riders that defund the Affordable Care Act or prohibit funding to Planned Parenthood. I fundamentally disagree with these riders on a substantive and procedural basis. Members of Congress should have the opportunity to debate and vote on these issues separately and deliberately on their own merit rather than have them be rammed through an appropriations measure.

But H.R. 1473 falls short in many respects. Many families in Hawaii and across the country are barely scraping by and will get little help from this legislation.

What is most alarming about this compromise bill is that it asks working- and middle-class Americans to bear the brunt of the budget cuts without asking the wealthiest Americans to do the same. Where is the shared sacrifice? Where is the aloha?

This continuing resolution takes a meat axe approach by slashing funding for so many programs that I can't even name all of them here. Cuts to community health centers? Check. Cuts to workforce training programs? Check. Cuts to law enforcement grant programs? Check. What about programs for low-income college students? Those programs are cut, too.

The bill also cuts Community Development Block Grant funding by $950 million from the enacted FY2010 level despite wide bipartisan support from counties in Hawaii and across the country. CDBG supports economic development, job creation, and facility needs for the most disadvantaged. The CDBG program has given thousands of Americans a much needed hand up when times were tough--a hand they wouldn't have received without sufficient levels of funding.

In fact, just a few weeks ago, representatives from Hawaii's counties were in town. Their message was simple: preserve CDBG funding.

Not only that, but they were also keen on preserving federal programs that are helping them to upgrade their emergency communications systems to comply with federal law. Instead, this bill terminates the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grants program and cuts $45 million from the Emergency Operations Center Grants program, both run by FEMA. Not only are we reducing resources our communities need, but we are making them less able to comply with the requirements that we at the federal level are forcing them to meet.

In addition to cutting funds that our communities depend on to help people, it also cuts funding for programs that help to keep our communities healthy and safe.

For example, we're reducing allocations for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by almost $1 billion. These are two of the most important federal sources of funding for improving our wastewater and drinking water infrastructure. This cut reduces Hawaii's Clean Water State Revolving Fund by $4.4 million. Access to clean water should be one of our highest priorities, as it is one of the most basic needs of all of our people. Yet, we are making cuts to these programs, which provide federal funds that ensure clean, safe water for our communities.

Of course, these are two major federal programs. This legislation is even crueler when it comes to smaller federal programs--like the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program run by the Department of Agriculture, which is zeroed out in this bill. This program is one of the only federal programs available for flood prevention and watershed development programs in America's rural communities. Even though it is a relatively small program, it has a big impact in communities that receive funding--like those on the islands of Maui and Hawaii.

My colleagues may be aware that Hawaii recently received a Presidential Disaster Declaration to assist with rebuilding the communities that sustained damage in the recent tsunami. Certainly, providing assistance to communities affected by disasters should be a national priority. Unfortunately, this bill cuts Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant funding by 50 percent. Thanks to the Declaration we recently received, Hawaii's counties are eligible to apply for this funding, which can be used to help prevent damage in the event of the next natural disaster. This is the kind of forward-thinking investment in preparedness we should be prioritizing. Instead, we are cutting funding in half.

I am concerned about the economic impact that this bill will have on Hawaii and our nation. I am concerned about what it says about our priorities as a people. At the same time, I understand the pressures that President Obama and our Senate colleagues were under. America's families already have enough to worry about--they shouldn't have to be concerned that their government is going to shut down.

However, the negotiations over this important decision were hijacked--as this House has been--by an extreme, ideological minority. This faction has adopted an irresponsible ``my way or the highway'' negotiating position. They believe that because they have the majority in this chamber, that they can drown out the voices of those of us who want to work to ensure that our government works for our constituents and reflects the priorities of our communities.

I support the President and know that this is a deal he didn't want to have to make. As a member of the House, I want him to know that these extremists do not represent the full will of the American people--so I feel that it is my duty to vote against this deal.

I will continue to oppose legislation that weakens our economy when it is already fragile, increases the burden on our families when they are struggling, and fails to adequately invest in our nation's future success.

Our priority needs to be jobs. H.R. 1473 doesn't create jobs or help the middle class, which is why I must vote against this bill.