Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my friend, Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the misguided underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Enough political posturing. Enough governing by press conference. Enough finger-pointing press releases, Facebook updates, and Tweets.

Democrats have already agreed, reluctantly, to tens of billions of dollars in cuts. Many of these cuts are from programs that are very near and dear to us. We have come more than halfway.

I am pleased that Speaker Boehner agreed to attend a negotiating session with President Obama and Senator Reid last night. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that it shouldn't be this hard to come up with a budget to finish this year. President Obama and Senator Reid are trying to work with Speaker Boehner to come up with a bipartisan agreement that moves this country forward.

But that's what we see coming from the Republican Party in the House. Unfortunately, as of right now, the Republican leadership is continuing with their ``my way or the highway'' obstructionism.

Let's be clear about what's really going on here. Let's at least be straight with the American people. This impasse is not because of disputes between Democrats and Republicans; it's because of an intraparty feud between sensible, pragmatic Republican legislators and angry, take-no-prisoner Republican activists.

Now, I know that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would like to accept the billions and billions of dollars in cuts that the Democrats have offered and declare a victory.

Unfortunately, their Republican Party has been hijacked by people who relish a shutdown of the Federal Government, people who refuse to take ``yes'' for an answer. They are more interested in making a point than in making law. And unless and until the Republican leadership in this House is willing to stand up to that radical element and stop moving the goalposts, we will not be able to move forward.

My friends on the other side of the aisle talk a good game about wanting to come up with a compromise. Unfortunately, this bill before us today does nothing to achieve that goal. In fact, it is a step backwards. This bill, like H.R. 1 before it, isn't going anywhere. The Senate leadership and the White House have already made it very clear that yet another short-term continuing resolution is not acceptable.

Further, this bill continues the misguided priorities that we have seen from the Republican leadership of the House for the last several months. It cuts vital domestic programs that families, communities, and States rely on during these difficult economic times.

Let me just give you a few examples of the cuts to programs that will directly affect the people in Massachusetts that I am honored to represent.

H.R. 1363 would cut the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which helps preserve open space, by another $71.5 million. It cuts $700 million from the Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Funds. I don't know of a community in this country that doesn't have infrastructure needs, and the State revolving fund is one of the few areas where they can get money to help repair sewers and deal with storm water and a bunch of other issues, but they cut it by $700 million more.

Most egregiously of all, it cuts $390 million from the LIHEAP contingency fund. That's fuel assistance for poor people, mostly elderly, who need it as fuel prices continue to rise.

So there it is, Mr. Speaker. There is the clear difference of priorities between the two parties. The Republicans would rather shut down the government than provide heating assistance to some of the most vulnerable people in this country. I should also note that this bill would provide funding for the Department of Defense for the rest of the year, but nothing else.

Every Member of this House believes that making sure our troops get their paychecks is a top priority. The men and women who serve this country in uniform deserve our support.

But, Mr. Speaker, so do the seniors of this country. So do the children of this country. So do the poor and the hungry of this country. So do the people who can't afford hot-shot lobbyists and multimillion dollar ad campaigns. We are supposed to represent them too.

A couple of days ago we saw where the Republican priorities are. They made them crystal clear in their budget proposal. Eliminate Medicare as we know it. Eviscerate Medicaid. Cut funding for education. Cut funding for medical research, health care, environmental protection, and infrastructure in order to make sure that the wealthiest individuals and companies can keep their special interest tax breaks.

Oil companies continue to get their taxpayer subsidies. Why they need them, I don't know, but they continue to get them. And they are protected. Donald Trump continues to get his tax cut under their proposal, but they go after programs that impact working people and people who are the most vulnerable. That may fly on Wall Street, but it sure isn't going to fly on Main Street.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, I say that enough is enough. It is time for serious people to do some serious legislating. The bill before us is a million miles away from that.

I would urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and to reject the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have no disagreement with the gentlelady from North Carolina in terms of trying to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in government. I think we're all for a leaner government. But what we're not for is a meaner government. And that is what the Republican policies are all about--a meaner government.

There's a story that I will submit to the Record here. It's talking about the Republican budget. It says the Budget Office claims the GOP Medicare plan could lead to rationing, making it more difficult for our senior citizens to get health care.

By basically obliterating Medicare, you may save a few bucks in the short term, but you're going to deny them care in the long term. I don't see how that is right.

Secondly, I didn't talk about the past in my opening statement; the gentlelady did. I just want the record to be clear about the past and how we got into this mess.

When Bill Clinton left office, we eliminated the deficit and we were paying down the debt. We had all-time high job growth. George Bush comes to office. His reckless tax cuts are not paid for and hundreds of billions of dollars are added to our debt. A Medicare prescription drug bill was not paid for--wasn't paid for--and was more expensive than the Republicans advertised. Add that on to our debt, plus two wars that weren't paid for.

When the first President George Bush went to war against Saddam Hussein when Iraq invaded Kuwait, he went around and he got member nations in the area to actually pitch in to help pay for the war so that the burden wasn't only on the United States. George Bush II comes into office--two wars, we don't pay for them. There's no tax on anybody. It gets onto our credit card. That is just not right.

Men and women in uniform are sacrificing, their families are sacrificing, and the rest of us have been asked to do nothing. They just put it on the credit card. That is not right.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have a disagreement with the gentlelady not over the issue of whether we need to reduce waste and abuse in government. I have an issue with her over the way they're doing it. They protect tax breaks for big oil companies, tax breaks for Donald Trump and subsidies for corn ethanol, a big waste of money. All that's protected. And the way they balance the budget is not by going after that. They go after programs that help poor people, LIHEAP, WIC--the Women, Infant and Children's program of all things--and Pell Grants. We all know that in order to have a strong economy in the 21st century, we need a well- educated workforce, and they cut Pell Grants. They just slash them. That's where they're cutting, cutting programs that help average people, regular people and people who are vulnerable.

What government should be about is making sure that those people are taken care of and not forgotten. Instead, their budget and their priorities are protecting those who have a lot of wealth who don't need government. And I think what they're doing is misguided.

Let me just read one final thing here. This is a story that just appeared on Politico, breaking news. President Obama is calling House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid back to the White House to negotiate on the budget at 1 p.m. Just before the announcement from the White House, Senator Reid said on the Senate floor that the numbers are basically there, but that the only thing holding up an agreement is ideology. He said he was not nearly as optimistic about reaching a deal as he was last night.

So, in other words, Mr. Speaker, this is no longer about numbers. And I regret that so much has had to be cut in order to satisfy my friends on the other side of the aisle.

But now this is about ideology. They have all these riders on these bills, riders that deal with abortion, National Public Radio, and riders that undercut EPA's ability to ensure there is safe drinking water and clean air. They are insisting on all of these ideological riders to be attached to whatever budget deal before they sign it. It is not about the numbers anymore; it is about a rigid, right-wing ideology.

So enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. I urge my Republican colleagues to go back to the negotiating table and negotiate in good faith, let's get a deal, and let's move on to next year's business.

[From NPR, Apr. 5, 2011]

Budget Office: GOP Medicare Plan Could Lead to Rationing

(By Julie Rovner)

Excerpts:

Buried deep in the analysis of the proposal offered Tuesday

by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the CBO

suggested that moving Medicare beneficiaries from

public to private insurance could actually end up slowing the

introduction of new and potentially life-saving medical

technology . . .

The key problem, according to CBO, is that private

insurance is, well, likely to be more expensive than

insurance that's run by the government, competition

notwithstanding. ``Under the proposal, most elderly people

would pay more for their health care than they would pay

under the current Medicare system,'' the CBO said.

And because those seniors would be paying more, those

private plans would be looking for ways to bring health

spending down . . .

The CBO acknowledges that private health insurance plans

would have cost-reduction tools available that government-run

Medicare does not--things like limiting benefits, changing

co-payment amounts, managing how patients use services, and

controlling which doctors and hospitals are in their

networks.

``(S)uch steps could serve as alternatives to limiting

payments to providers in restraining health care costs and

insurance premiums,'' the report says.

But at the same time, it warns, the higher payments could

affect care. Beneficiaries might be less likely to use ``new,

costly, but possibly beneficial, technologies and

techniques'' than they do under current law.

In other words, exactly the sort of rationing that so

frightened Republicans when they were fighting the health

law--the health law that Ryan's proposal would repeal, by the

way.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just two points. One, on the issue of abortion. The law of the land under the Hyde language is that no Federal funds can be used to finance abortion. Introducing abortion into this budget debate is divisive and doesn't belong there. But it is all about ideology, and I get it. So don't say it is about numbers anymore. It is about this kind of right-wing ideology, going after National Public Radio, trying to undercut the EPA. You know, I get it. There is a time and place to do that; this is not it.

The other thing I would say, when I listen to my colleague from North Carolina, the question I was going to ask, if Republicans are responsible for deficit reduction under Bill Clinton, then who is responsible for the increase in deficit when they were in charge of the Presidency, the House and the Senate, when they had all three branches of government? At some point you have to take some responsibility, and at some point you have to live up to the fact that some of the policies that my colleagues pursued when they were in charge here drove this economy into a ditch and added significantly to our deficit.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

I want to thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for giving us his itinerary for the day. I'm glad he's meeting with the leaders of Mongolia, because this is a budget only the people of Mongolia would love because it is a tough budget on the people of the United States of America.

He talks about their commitment to helping the poor in this country. I don't know how you do that when you cut WIC, when you go after Pell Grants, when you go after LIHEAP.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I will just remind my friend, as I did last night, right now there are 30,000 people in this country that are fasting in protest of the cuts that adversely impact the poor. A former colleague, Tony Hall from Ohio, Jim Wallis from Sojourners, David Beckmann from Bread for the World are highlighting the fact that the cuts in this budget are going to be devastating to the most vulnerable people in this country.

What I said in the Rules Committee last night is that sometimes we forget to understand that there are real people behind these cuts, and people are going to be hurt. And, unfortunately, the people who are sacrificing are the people who can least afford to sacrifice. You're not asking Donald Trump to sacrifice. You're not asking big oil companies to sacrifice or those big agri-businesses that receive corn ethanol subsidies. No. It's all focused on working people and poor people.

I don't know when, in the minds of the Republicans, that average working people and people who are vulnerable became the bad guys. It was reckless Wall Street behavior that created this financial crisis, and they get everything, and everyday people get nothing except the bill. That's wrong.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the Speaker of the House, but I would remind my colleagues that when we talk about national security, it needs to include, as well, the health and well- being of our senior citizens here in the United States. It needs to include the health and well-being of our children here in the United States.

It needs to include our infrastructure, our education, the quality of our environment. All those things are part of our national security. We all support funding our troops. What we don't support are reckless policies that are aimed at undercutting programs like Medicare and putting our senior citizens at a disadvantage where they will pay more and get less.

I mean this is an ideological battle that we are, unfortunately, engaged in where my Republican friends believe that Medicare should be ended as we know it. Medicare as we know it they want to end. It is clear. If anyone doubts that, I will tell my colleagues to read the bill, to read the stuff that is coming out of the Budget Committee. Read the bill. For anybody who doubts that Republicans are targeting Medicare, look at what the Budget Committee is doing. It will be there in black and white when it's published, and it will state unequivocally that Medicare, as we know it, will be ended. Senior citizens, according to the CBO, will pay more and get less. That is not what, I think, the American people want. I will just remind my colleagues of a new poll that came out: 66 percent of seniors reject the plan to end Medicare as we know it.

So, if you interpreted the results of the last election as going after Medicare and seniors' health care, I think you misread the results of the last election. The last election was about jobs. We all need to come together and talk about how we protect jobs and help encourage the creation of more jobs in this country. If you want to end the deficit, put people back to work. Here we are in April, and you have yet to bring one single bill to this floor that deals with jobs, that helps create jobs and that helps protect jobs.

My friends on the other side of the aisle need to kind of reevaluate their priorities here. Let's get back to what the American people want--a strong economy and good jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am not. I have a couple of more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I am the final speaker on our side.

Well, here we go again--another closed rule, but this rule is different from others. It also includes martial law authority. This means that the Republican leadership can bring any spending bill to the floor at any time they want.

So much for ``read the bill.''

This is not how the House Republicans said they were going to run the House. Open rules? Read the bill? Markups? Hearings? Their record, Mr. Speaker, is abysmal, and this bill is a perfect example of how they are doing things they said they wouldn't do--a closed rule with Martial law authority. I can't say I'm surprised. It's their way or the highway.

Yesterday, a group of tea partiers was protesting on the steps of the Capitol. It's a wonderful thing to be able to protest in the open without any threat of government violence or censorship. It's a very American thing to do. Yet, while they're entitled to their opinion, it's important to point out that they were protesting against keeping the government open.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, they want to shut the government down. Just look at the front page of CQ today. It's of a tea party member on the steps of the Capitol with a sign that says, ``Shut 'er down''; and Republicans in the House are doing their bidding.

Enough is enough. It is time to act like adults and negotiate in good faith. It is time to come to a deal that keeps the government open--a deal without partisan, ideological riders that prevent health groups from providing important women's health information and health screenings, riders that prevent the EPA from keeping our air and water safe, riders that prevent independent, nonpartisan news agencies from reporting in places like Afghanistan, Egypt and Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, it's time that the Republican Party does the right thing for its country and not just for the extremist wing of its party.

At the end of this debate, I will oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to provide a clean CR for 1 week. No harmful cuts or ideological riders like those that are included in the Republican bill. The government stays open while President Obama, Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid continue to negotiate. Now that they're at the table, it's time to let them do their jobs and come to a deal without a continual moving of the legislative goalposts that's going on under the Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we will soon be voting on a continuing resolution to continue funding the U.S. Government for 3 weeks. I believe that will reduce spending over that 3-week period by $2 billion a week, which is far less than the debt we are incurring in each of those weeks, but it is significant progress. Add it to the $4 billion we did in the previous 2-week CR.

I will support this continuing resolution. It keeps us on track to achieve a $61-billion reduction in Federal spending this fiscal year, which ends September 30. It is important we take action. It is a matter that is important financially to American business interests and foreign business interests that may be thinking of investing in the United States and people who might buy our huge number of Treasury bills that we sell each week and are purchased by people all over the world. They want to know if we have our house in order, if this is a safe place to invest their money.

We need to do something now. When our majority leader, Senator Reid, proposed not $61 billion but that we reduce spending only $4 billion throughout the rest of this fiscal year, I said then and believe now that is only a product of being in the Washington bubble. We are in denial of the reality of the crisis we face. I do not want to talk down the American economy. I believe the American worker is willing to work, is competitive, but we cannot burden that worker with excessive debt.

How does that happen? I am ranking Republican on the Budget Committee. We have heard testimony from Drs. Rogoff and Reinhart, who have written a book called ``This Time is Different.'' Their study of nations that have gotten into trouble financially and have had debt crises over the last 20 years shows a consistent pattern of problems.

One of the things they concluded is that when a nation's debt reaches 90 percent GDP, the economic growth in that country slows down. The median was 1 percent, but the average was more than 1 percent. Some countries had more than a 1-percent drop in growth. Japan has a higher debt than we do, I think the highest in the world. They have an interesting way they have been able to finance it, but they have had no growth for quite a long time. It is consistent with the Rogoff-Reinhart study.

Does that apply to us? We are about 95 percent now. Our debt is surging. By the end of this fiscal year, the numbers are that our debt will be 100 percent of GDP, well above the figure. One might

ask: What does 1 percent growth mean? If we are looking for growth of 2 or 3 percent, 1 percent is half our growth.

What does it mean in other terms? Experts have said that a 1-percent reduction in growth amounts to 1 million jobs lost.

I believe we are beginning to feel a negative pull on our bounce back from this recession as a result of growing debt right now, not years down the road as some people have been saying and predicting; that we are going to have a debt crisis down the road. I hate to say it.

Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, was appointed by the President to cochair the debt commission with Senator Alan Simpson. They testified before our committee last week, and this is what they said about the nature of the crisis we face. They spent weeks studying the numbers, hearing from experts all over the world, about our debt situation. They reported that we have to take action now.

In a joint statement they presented to the committee, they said this is the most predictable financial crisis this Nation has ever faced. In other words, they said if we do not change course, it will be the most predictable crisis we have faced.

Senator Conrad, our Democratic chairman, who is very concerned about these issues, asked them when. Mr. Bowles, who himself is a successful financial businessman and financier, said about 2 years. Senator Simpson contributed to the discussion and said: I think a year.

I hope we do not have some sort of debt crisis in a year. The fact that has even been discussed should be a cause for alarm. Let me say, in January, Alan Greenspan said we could have a debt crisis in 2 to 3 years. Moody's has discussed downgrading our debt. They have warned they might downgrade our debt in less than 2 years. We need to take action now. That is the deal. That is the matter.

We had some fine new Members elected to the House and the Senate last Fall. The American people believed those they elected would come to Washington and help us get off this course of wild spending. I believe the American people get it. They are not in a bubble. They know we cannot continue this way. They are prepared to take some action, and we need to do it. If we fail to take action that is noticeable and significant, it would send the wrong message around the world. They would say: Even with this election change that occurred in Washington, you are still not changing your course.

I urged the President before the State of the Union Adderss to talk straight to the American people about the threat we face, and he did not do so. The first 37 minutes of his speech was about new investments he called on us to make. Investments, of course, is new spending. He never once took a few moments to explain to us the kinds of things Mr. Erskine Bowles said or Mr. Alan Greenspan said about how we are on an unsustainable course. He never even acknowledged we are on an unsustainable course. He never warned us that we are going to have to tighten our belts, just as Governors are doing, as mayors are doing all over America. When we do not have money, we do not have money. If we do not have money, we have to change course.

I was disappointed, as were some of our Democratic colleagues, that we have not had the kind of national dialog and ask the American people to receive somewhat less from the Federal Government than they have been.

Why do we have to do it? Because we are facing a crisis in good leadership, which means the leader has to tell the people what the threat is, what the danger is, and how we are going to get out of it.

I truly believe one of the highest duties of any Member of Congress or any leader in America is to protect the American people from foreseeable dangers. As Erskine Bowles said, this is the most predictable crisis we have ever faced. It is heading to a bad end-- hopefully, not as soon as they warned us it could happen so we will have time to get off this course. That is important.

The President said in his State of the Union Address that we will be living within our means. He did a radio address after he submitted his budget, and he said: We are going to be living within our means. My budget puts us on a track to prosperity. We are going to continue to invest, and we will be living within our means and paying down the debt.

Mr. Jack Lew, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, says we are going to be living within our means and paying down our debt. Basically, they are saying: Don't worry. You guys are getting all hyped up. We can still invest. We can still spend. Don't worry about it.

What do the facts say? We do not need political talk; we need a fact- based budget. We need fact-based discussions. The facts are we are not going to be paying down our debt in 10 years under the President's budget. We are not going to be living within our means.

What is the situation? His own budget is four volumes. In that plan it calls for spending levels that increase the total gross debt of the United States from $13 trillion to $26 trillion. Under that plan, the lowest single annual deficit that occurs is over $600 billion. The highest deficit President Bush ever had was 450. That was too high. The lowest he is projecting in his own numbers is 600.

Even more troubling, in years 7, 8, 9 and 10 of his budget the deficits are going up. It is almost $900 billion in the 10th year. How could they say that? How could the President look the American people in the eye and say my budget is going to cause us to live within our means? How could Mr. Lew say that?

I examined Mr. Lew in the Budget Committee. I asked Mr. Lew, the lowest deficit you are going to have is $600 billion. How is that living within our means? He said: Well, there is something called a primary deficit. I said: What? He said: The primary deficit. I asked: Well, what is that? He said: Well, you don't count interest.

You don't count interest. When a family living in tight times today is trying to squeeze their budget, do they not count their interest on their credit card or their mortgage payment? How can they say they are balancing the budget, living within our means and not count interest that we pay on the debt? All of the money we borrow we have to pay interest on. We pay interest on $14 trillion. If it doubles to 26, we will pay interest on that. Last year, our interest payment for the United States of America was about $208 billion in interest payments alone.

Under the President's budget, the interest payment in the 10th year is $844 billion, according to his numbers. This is the fastest growing item in the entire budget. They assume an interest rate at 3.5 percent. I don't think and most experts do not believe that is going to remain so low. This is historically very low. Historically, we average about 6 percent on our debt. So if it went from 3 percent to 6 or 7 percent, instead of $840 billion I guess it would be $1.9 trillion in interest payments. And that could happen if we don't get off this unsustainable path we are on.

I am frustrated about this. People say: Well, this CR business is only discretionary spending. It is only a small part of the overall budget. You shouldn't even attempt to fool with it. You are wasting your time. No, no, no. We are going to have to take every part of the budget and see what we can do to contain the growth in spending, or even reduce spending, to eliminate some spending that is totally worthless because we get no real benefit from it. We need to make our government more productive, lean, and efficient. We can do that.

We cannot continue on this course. The House of Representatives has passed a proposal, a continuing resolution, that would reduce spending through the rest of the fiscal year a total of $61 billion. We should accept that. That is not too much. It is probably not enough, but it is enough to count.

For example, it is a $61 billion reduction in baseline U.S. spending. If you reduce the baseline, even if next year you start going up 1 percent, that 1 percent will be on a baseline that is $61 billion lower. We have calculated the numbers, and over 10 years, that $61 billion, plus the interest you don't have to pay, will save the United States Treasury $860 billion. That is a good step. That does make a difference. People who deny it makes a difference are wrong. It is not going to savage

anybody, unless some of these programs aren't working, and then they ought to be zeroed out. So I want to make that point clear.

How much is the discretionary spending--the money we spend here on education, on highways, on things of that nature--defense? Discretionary nondefense is about 12 percent of the budget; 60 percent or so is in Social Security and Medicare, and they are growing at an unsustainable rate. We need to take steps now to save Social Security, to put Social Security on a path so our seniors can rely on it and our young people can have confidence that when they become senior citizens, they can rely on it also. It is not that difficult to do.

This has been talked about by editorial boards around the country, by experts and economists and professors and Congressmen and Senators for years. But the crisis is getting more real and acute now. Yet what did the President do? He said not one word about that in his State of the Union or his budget. His budget doesn't do anything about any of the entitlements. You can't cut discretionary spending and you can't cut entitlement spending. In effect, they are saying nothing is to be challenged. I know that is not a rational approach to the crisis we are in today.

We have to work together. We have Senators together right now-- Democratic and Republican--who are trying to figure out a way to make some alterations in the trajectory of our debt in America and to put us on a sound path. Democrats and Republicans are meeting--Senator Warner, Senator Chambliss, I think Senator Manchin and others are talking. They want to see us do something historic. I think we need to. But on the Budget Committee, Budget Director Lew said the President wasn't for any change. He took the view that Social Security doesn't have a problem; nothing is going to happen until 2037. Well, what happens then? It falls off a cliff, and that is assuming you count this paper that is supposed to be backing it up. But the money has been spent. We need to get Social Security on a sound course, and we can do it.

We have to work on Medicare, which is even more problematic and more dangerous. We need to get it on a sound course. We need to get our heads together on discretionary spending and contain our growth in discretionary spending, all of which is possible to do. All of that is possible to do. We have the opportunity to put our country on a road to prosperity and growth. We will need to do some things such as reforming our tax laws to more fairly raise revenue in a way that allows more growth to occur, because we need to have growth. We have to create jobs. We need to redo our energy policy and produce more American energy and hold the cost of energy down, not drive up the cost of gasoline and electricity on the American people.

Momentum, I think, is on the side of this. When Majority Leader Reid offered his pittance of a reduction--a $4 billion reduction--10 Democratic Senators defected. They didn't vote for it because they didn't think it reduced spending enough. We had three Republicans who didn't support the $61 billion. They thought it ought to go lower than that. So the momentum out there is to go further than we are going.

The American people get it. Our expert testimony from witnesses tells us that. We have seen Bill Gross, of the PIMCO Bond Fund, the largest fund in the world, say they are not buying any more U.S. Treasuries, basically calling on the United States to reduce our debt. He didn't have confidence in it. We need to get busy and do some things. It is going to have to be done in a bipartisan way, there is no doubt about it.

There are two choices, I believe, truly. One is a tougher road, but it is the road to prosperity. It can return us to the kind of leadership role in the world we need to be in. The other road is the road to decline. Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could, Julie Andrews sang. There is no free lunch. Debts have to be paid. Interest has to be paid on debts. This is reality. We don't live in a fantasy world. The time to stand and be counted is now.

This $61 billion reduction in spending through the last 6\1/2\ or so months of this fiscal year is a statement. It is actual, it is real, it will reduce the total indebtedness of the United States by $860 billion over 10 years. We could do more, but Congress being what it is, slowly coming around to the challenge, we are not ready probably to do more. But we need to do $61 billion. We do not need a compromise halfway, some $30 billion reduction in spending. I do believe that would show weakness on our part--a lack of resolve--which would not be a good signal for our fragile economy today.

We need to meet the test, to face the defining challenge of our time, and that is spending. It is the dominant issue facing America today, no doubt about it. It dwarfs every other issue. I wish it weren't so. When I came, in 1997, I guess we were still fighting over spending then, trying to contain spending, but by 1998 and 1999 we were in surplus. We balanced the budget. They started in 1994 and made some tough decisions. It is going to be harder this time. The hole is deeper, the demographics and the systemic threats to our financial order are greater than it was, there is no doubt about it. But we can do it.

I think it is our time to fulfill our duty--our duty to our Nation and to the American people to preserve America's heritage. We are standing at a time in this country where we have to make a choice. Let's make this choice. Let's do this 3-week extension, take it down $6 billion more over that 3 weeks, and then let's come back and do $61 billion and celebrate the first real step in decades to contain growth and spending. Let's promise this is the beginning. Let's promise that we are going to review all our spending, and we are going to do it in an honest, aboveboard way, fact based, not politics, not smoke and mirrors, or fantasy budgets, but real numbers facing real threats.

If we do that, I think the American people will be supportive. They were supportive in the last election. I believe they will be supportive again.

I thank the Chair for his leadership on these issues in the Senate. I think there is growing consensus here that progress must be made.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 206 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1363, which is a bill providing 1 week of continuing appropriations, a full year of funding for the Department of Defense, and cuts $12 billion in wasteful Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that we are at this juncture nearly 7 months into fiscal year 2011, considering the bill that this House will soon consider. We are seeing a stunning lack of leadership on behalf of Washington Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Reid and President Obama, who have refused to do the work that Americans sent them here to do. They have exhibited willful disregard for our troops and their families, who are uncertain about their paychecks with a government shutdown looming.

The bill we will debate and pass funds the Department of Defense for the remainder of the year, while cutting another $12 billion in wasteful Washington spending. Lest we forget, the reason this problem exists at all is because the liberal Democrat elites were so incapable of governing in the last Congress that they couldn't even pass a budget for the first time since modern congressional budgets were first created over 30 years ago.

They didn't do that because of their lack of leadership then and their apparent realization that the American people had tired of big spending, big government policies streaming out of Washington, which is why the Republicans now control the House of Representatives.

Today with real leadership in the House we have real solutions to these real problems. House Republicans have passed H.R. 1, which is a continuing resolution that takes us to the end of the fiscal year.

The Democrat response? In another display of their lack of leadership, Senator Reid sits on his hands while Senator Schumer tinkers in his game of manipulating the liberal political message in a phone call with reporters.

House Republicans then took the lead in crafting two short-term continuing resolutions, H.J. Res. 44 and H.J. Res. 48, providing for an additional 5 weeks of funding authority while cutting $10 billion in wasteful Federal spending along the way.

Realizing that the stubborn liberal elites in the Senate and White House are using the threat of a government shutdown to continue their failed wasteful spending policies, House Republicans last week passed H.R. 1255, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act, which provided for enactment of H.R. 1 in the event that the liberal malaise continues to stymie progress on fiscal 2011 appropriations.

After all of these gestures of good faith made by House Republicans, the time has now come for the hapless liberal Democrat elites in the Senate and the White House to make a decision. It's time to decide between acting responsibly, abandoning favored political alliances, or continuing their failed Big Government policies as a solution to all earthly problems.

These points aside, there is one truth upon which everyone could probably agree: that the new Republican House leadership has changed the discussion in Washington, D.C., and across the country.

Whereas the previous discussion in Washington revolved solely around how much more money we should spend, today the discussion is how much more money we should cut.

Americans can now rest easy knowing that their message was received by responsible adults here in the House, and we will work to reflect their support for a leaner Federal Government focused on finding solutions to problems, rather than political gamesmanship and perpetual misguided adventures in social engineering.

Speaker Boehner has told the President that the House will not be put in a box and forced to choose between two options that are bad for the country, like accepting a bad deal that fails to make real spending cuts or accepting a government shutdown due to Senate inaction, and that is why House Republicans, in lieu of an agreement in which the White House and Senate agree to real spending cuts, are offering this third option: another good-faith gesture that funds our troops through the

end of the fiscal year while cutting an additional $12 billion in wasteful government spending and keeps the government running for another week.

Real leadership is long overdue in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, and it's refreshing to see the new House Republican majority step in and fill the void left by such a devastating lack of leadership that has resulted from liberal Democrat domination of this city for far too long.

Let's start by voting for this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Massachusetts and I are actually, I think, getting fairly fond of each other, spending so much time in the Rules Committee as we do. However, I really have to call into question a couple of comments that he has made.

Is this bill really a step backwards when we're funding our troops for the rest of the year, taking away the uncertainty that they have just in case the government votes to shut down or the Senate doesn't act as it should and allows the government to shut down?

Do we really need to continue all the appropriations for LIHEAP, the funding for helping people pay their heating bills, when we are in April this year? This is money that goes until the end of September. I hardly think that we're going to have people freezing to death in this country between now and September 30.

Do we need to be looking after seniors and children? Obviously, we do. Republicans are not heartless people. But we have to look after them in a responsible way. Cutting spending is the way to be responsible to them.

And, Mr. Speaker, I have to remind my colleague again that we are here to fix a problem that they left for us last year: funding the Federal Government for the rest of this year.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee, one of our colleagues said, Let's stop talking about the past and talk about the future, when we brought this up. Well, Mr. Speaker, Republicans would like nothing more than to do that, but we're doing all that we can to avoid a government shutdown, and that is what this rule and bill are all about this morning.

Republicans understand that unless we change course, higher taxes, inflation, interest rates and unemployment will cripple our economy and rob our children of the opportunity to pursue the American Dream. Let's be clear. We don't have deficits because Americans are taxed too little. We have deficits because Washington spends too much. We've got to stop spending money we don't have. Right now, we're borrowing 43 cents for every dollar that we spend.

I want to talk a little bit about the long-term effects of what we're planning to do in this Congress this spring under Republican majority. The budget

resolution introduced by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and passed out of the Budget Committee last evening will spur job creation, stops spending money we don't have, and lifts the crushing burden of debt. It's a plan that puts the budget on a path to fiscal stability and our country on a path to prosperity by cutting $6 trillion in Federal spending over 10 years and takes government spending below 20 percent of GDP.

Mr. Speaker, historically, our government spending has been between 18 and 20 percent of GDP. Once we go over that, we are endangering our country, and that's where our colleagues across the aisle have been for a long time. The White House predicts that their proposal will reduce the deficit by only $1.1 trillion over the same period of time.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, President Obama's budget would generate more than $9.5 trillion in additional deficits between fiscal years 2012 and 2021. I actually have a visual here, Mr. Speaker, that shows exactly what is going to happen under President Obama's budget.

In contrast, the Republican budget resolution provides us with a path to prosperity by limiting the Federal Government to its core constitutional roles, keeping America's promises to seniors, and unleashing the genius of America's workers, investors and entrepreneurs. The Republican budget has a projected real GDP growth of $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

With this budget resolution, we're taking direct aim at wasteful Washington spending as opposed to the Obama budget that spends more than $46 trillion over the next decade.

Since January of 2009, there has been a 24 percent increase in non- discretionary spending, a number that jumps to 84 percent when stimulus funds are included, Mr. Speaker. Democrats promised if we paid for their stimulus, unemployment would stay below 8 percent. Then it soared to 10 percent. One trillion dollars in debt later, Americans know they didn't get what they paid for.

The 2009 stimulus law has gotten the most attention with considerable focus on the billions of dollars it wasted on dubious government projects as well as the many promises it broke with respect to job creation and economic growth. The Republican budget resolution projects an unemployment rate of 4 percent by 2015, Mr. Speaker.

If we continue on the wrong path that we're on now, Americans will not be able to rely on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in order to plan for retirement if we don't take action. Republicans want to serve as good stewards of the investment of millions of Americans paying into Social Security. Republicans will save $750 billion through Medicaid reform in the form of block grants to States, giving Governors greater and much needed flexibility in their budgets.

As it stands, the share of the budget that goes to these entitlement programs is growing rapidly, and demographics, economics and skewed political incentives are driving Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare into bankruptcy. Alice Rivlin, the former Clinton OMB Director, has called Medicare's current policy ``not sustainable.''

Cutting spending is about ending wasteful spending, making the government leaner and more efficient, showing respect to hardworking taxpayers, and making the tough choices today that save our children and grandchildren from even tougher choices tomorrow. For hardworking Americans, this isn't about politics. It's about their life and putting our economy and our Nation first.

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

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

My colleague from Massachusetts knows that every time he brags about what happened when Bill Clinton left office and we had a surplus, that he is going to get an answer to that because he knows full well that Republicans were in control of the Congress. Republicans came in control of the Congress in 1995, and they controlled the Congress the last 6 years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, and it is Republicans who created the surplus, not Bill Clinton. We have to remind them every time that they are trying to rewrite history.

And then they blame George Bush. It is so convenient to do that. In January of 2007, the month Democrats took control of the Congress again, the CBO projected the Federal Government would run a surplus of $800 billion over 10 years, covering the period 2008-2017. But they took the Congress that January and, guess what, the most recent CBO projections available project the Federal Government to run a deficit of $7.4 trillion over the same period. This is an $8.2 trillion deterioration of the budget outlook during Democrat control of Congress.

You can speak on your time, Mr. McGovern. I will let you do that.

My colleague on the other side of the aisle talks a lot about creating a nanny state, taking care of people from birth until death. That's not what the American people want. We see that over in Europe, and it has failed. What the Federal Government does and what school children should learn, if they learn the Preamble to the Constitution and if they read the Declaration of Independence, is that we are here to secure the blessings of liberty for the people. Creating a nanny state does not secure the blessings of liberty for the people.

He talks about how we are not now talking about numbers, but we are talking about ideology. I am happy to debate ideology with my colleague from Massachusetts any day. The American people do not want taxpayer- funded abortions. That's part of what we are talking about. That's part of our ideology. No, we should not be taking money from hardworking Americans and using that money to fund the killing of unborn babies. That is our ideology. Again, the majority of the American people agree with us, and we are going to stand on that ideology every day.

The American people have, Mr. Speaker, the right to a fact-based conversation on the budget. We demand an end to budget gimmicks and accounting tricks used every year to make budgets look responsible when in fact they add to the debt. That is part of our problem with what President Obama is recommending. He wants us to take mythical numbers that he projects instead of real numbers that we have been using.

Passing a short-term measure is a step in the right direction to cut spending while keeping the government open, but it is far from being enough. Excessive government spending has economic consequences for all Americans: higher cost-of-living, higher interest rates, higher taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, we didn't get into this overnight and we will not get out of it overnight. Investors in small businesses need confidence that Congress will use commonsense American principles to cut spending and ensure a secure economic future.

The Republican budget resolution can create 1 million private sector jobs over the next year. We are not going to create these high-paid government jobs that our colleagues have created. America's solution for job creation won't come by raising taxes to pay for even more wasteful Washington bureaucracy. Democrats tried that approach with the stimulus, and it failed.

Republicans, on the other hand, estimate that with the Path to Prosperity budget resolution introduced this week and passed out of the Budget Committee, wages will go up by $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years, yielding an average increase in income of $1,000 per year for each American family.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do in this House what the American people expect us to do: be reasonable stewards, responsible stewards of their money and adhere to the ideology which has made this the greatest country in the world.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chair of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Speaker Boehner, the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if he is ready to close.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 167 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 167 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 48. Keeping in line with the actions of the minority party and its CRs last year, this rule also provides for 1 hour of debate and a motion to recommit.

We are here again today dealing with the continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 1 sits idly on the Senate side. As you will recall, H.R. 1 has been the singly most debated piece of legislation that we've had in this body this year. In fact, we considered more amendments on that spending bill in February than on all of the previous spending bills in the last two Congresses combined. Yet, even as the House has worked its will, even as, I think, we on both sides of the aisle identify that as one of the finest hours of this body, it sits in the Senate--unused, unexamined, undebated.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of a debate on spending. It's not that we tax too little in this country. It's that we spend too much.

We're operating with $1.4 trillion annual operating deficits, $1.5 trillion, $1.6 trillion, and now they're saying next year it could be $1.7 trillion--spending that we do with money that we don't have.

We need to get to the big picture, Mr. Speaker. We need to have this debate about how do we move beyond what was last year's business and get on to what is this year's business. These thing that we're working on, this three-week CR, Mr. Speaker, is not the real business. The real business is yet to come. I sit on the Budget Committee. If you want to talk about real business, look at the tough decisions that are coming down the pipe from the Budget Committee. Look at what it's going to take to get this budget back in balance. Look at what it's going to take to restore integrity to our fiscal system. Look at what it's going to take to inspire confidence in our foreign creditors. These are the real issues that we have to discuss, but we can't discuss them, Mr. Speaker, because we are still working on last year's business.

Now, I think we're frustrated on both sides of the aisle that we're still working on last year's business, and candidly, it may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, but I don't blame a soul on the other side. The other side of this body has been our partner in moving H.R. 1 to the Senate. They've been our partner in making the tough decisions that had to be had, and we had Republican amendments that succeeded and Republican amendments that failed. We had Democratic amendments that succeeded and Democratic amendments

that failed, and this body worked its will.

But the Senate has yet to take up the legislation, has yet to take up legislation passed in February, has yet to be taken up as we sit here in the middle of March. Now, I don't know how in the world we have negotiations, Mr. Speaker. We have done our work here in the House. I'm proud not only that we did it but I'm proud of the way in which we did it. But now we wait on the Senate to come to the table and lay down its vision for how we fund this government through September of this year.

We continue to wait, and hopefully, these 3 weeks, Mr. Speaker, will provide the time needed for the Senate to gear up and get going, because I will say it over and over and over again today, this is last year's business, and it is distracting us from the important business that needs to happen.

I'll tell you this. This CR for 3 weeks isn't what I would have liked to have seen. What I would like to see is H.R. 1 come back to this floor. What I would like to see is H.R. 1 go to the President's desk. What I would like to see are the tough, tough, tough decisions that we made and the difficult, difficult, difficult decisions that we had on this floor be translated into the law of the land as it sits on the President's desk and receives his signature. But we cannot move to that point until the Senate acts.

So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to support this rule that will bring to the floor a continuing resolution that will give the Senate three more weeks to get its house in order to do the business that the American people sent the Senate here to do, to join us in doing the good work that we have done, and to move a bill to the President's desk so that we can get on to the rest of the business that the country has laid before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that we brought H.R. 1 to the floor under the single most open process this House has seen in 4 years--and I've only been on the job 65 days--the single most open process that this House has seen in 4 years. I'm proud of that. I'm proud of what we did together.

Are there other alternatives out there to H.R. 1? I don't know, Mr. Speaker, because I haven't seen one, haven't seen one come back from the Senate. Is the Senate over there debating things? Absolutely. Are they passing things? No, they're not, and I don't know where we go to move forward with that.

But a gentleman who might, Mr. Speaker, is my good friend, the president of the freshman class from the great State of Georgia.

And I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the gentleman from New Jersey that I just couldn't agree with him more. The House spoke. It wasn't Republicans that spoke. It wasn't Democrats that spoke. The House spoke with H.R. 1. We need to get to the negotiating table.

Now I don't know when the Senate is going to act. I hope the Senate acts today. And I will stay here just as long as it takes to work through those things with the Senate. But we can't do it alone, as much as we'd like to. As much as we'd like to do it alone, we can't, and we are being held at bay by a Senate that refuses to move something forward. I think all of the gentleman's words would be useful to our friends on the Senate side.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously proud to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and a great American patriot, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Steve King.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Reckless and heartless is exactly the debate that we are going to have to have. Is it reckless to pass on $14 trillion in debt to our children with no end in sight? I would say to you that it is. Is it heartless to saddle our children with that burden that is going to drain their economy dry? I would say to you that it is. Is it reckless to treat the world credit markets as if they will forever feed our voracious appetite? And I say to you that it is. We have to take these steps today.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say there are really a number of things that we agree on across this body. The gentleman from Massachusetts has very strong feelings about paying for the bills that we create today. I share his passion, and I look forward to getting into the business of paying for those bills.

What I do know is that we are not paying for the bills today.

What I do know is that when I showed up for Congress on January 3 of this year, that there was no spending plan to get us past March 4. No spending plan.

Just to be clear, I showed up as a brand new Member of Congress in January to learn that getting about the business means putting together a funding bill before March 4 because the previous Congress didn't take care of business.

Now, I know my friend from Massachusetts wasn't in charge of the other side of the aisle last year. He certainly wasn't in charge of the Senate, although we all wish that we could be in charge of the Senate. But the business didn't get done, and that is why we are here today. That is the first reason why we are here today, to take care of business that didn't get done last year.

But the second reason, Mr. Speaker, and the more important reason that we are here today, is because we said when we took over this body on January 5 that we would not go along with business as usual. It would have been a nothing to pass a bill that the President would sign that would say, hey, just keep on funding the government the way you've been funding it. Keep on racking up those trillion-dollar deficits the way you've been racking them up. Don't change a thing. Fiddle while Rome burns.

It would have been easy. Except for my conscience, except for the conscience of the folks who were elected with me in November, except for our principles, it would have been easy.

We chose the road less traveled that said, no, we're not going to put it off. There is always a reason to wait Mr. Speaker. There is always a reason to wait. And we said, no, we are going to begin making the tough decisions today. Today. Now, that today was back in February, and we are still waiting for the Senate to get to the table so that we can have some of those negotiations.

But I will say to my friend from New Jersey, who was so terribly pleased that the riders were not included on this bill: If you think for a minute that I am done fighting for life, you're mistaken. If you think for a minute that I am done working to defund Planned Parenthood and its work that it is doing with Federal dollars, you're mistaken. If you think for a minute that I have given up on ripping every nickel out of the budget that belongs to ObamaCare and the nationalization of our health care system, you are mistaken. And if you think for a minute that I am going to stop trying to repeal every single one of the job- killing, energy price-hiking regulations that the EPA is promulgating across this country chaining our small businesses down, you are mistaken.

That fight might not be today. Today is about cutting $6 billion out of a budget that our children are not going to have to repay. Today is about keeping the government open for 3 more short weeks to give our friends in the Senate a chance to come to the table. But, Mr. Speaker, that day of reckoning is coming. The day of reckoning is coming because these are ideals that deserve the attention of this body. These are decisions that cannot be kicked down the road even further. These are decisions of principle on which compromise is often not an option. Sometimes you just have to take the vote, and somebody's going to win and somebody's going to lose.

I rise in strong support of this rule, and I rise in strong support of the underlying bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.