Defense and Deficit Reduction Act

Pursuant to House Resolution 43, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 38) to reduce spending through a transition to non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

One of the indelible and enduring images of 2010 was that of violent protesters on the streets of Athens following the proposal of the government to impose austerity measures. We all remember very vividly that scene.

Having come to the brink of collapse and nearly dragging the entire euro zone with it, the Greek government had no choice but to scale back its profligate ways. Thousands of public employees took to the streets in anger.

Now, Madam Speaker, I contrast that with the image of tens of thousands of peaceful demonstrators across America coming out to express their frustration with excessive government spending. Rather than demanding more Federal largesse, these taxed-enough-already demonstrators actually came together to petition their government for greater restraint and discipline. This might actually have been a first in human history.

It was a powerful illustration of the unique nature of American values. But it was also a testament to just how badly fiscal discipline is needed. This issue is no longer just the purview of budget wonks and economists.

The looming crisis of our national debt is a challenge that working Americans recognize very clearly. While the magnitude of a $14 trillion debt is simply too massive to truly comprehend, those with a modicum of common sense can appreciate the crushing weight that will fall on future generations. If we do not immediately change course, the damage could quickly become irreversible.

Today's resolution is a clear signal that we are making that change in course. House Resolution 38 is the first step, Madam Speaker, in what will be a long and admittedly difficult process over the next 2 years as we pursue the goal of living within our means. This resolution lays down a marker to return to pre-bailout, pre-binge-spending, pre- stimulus levels. This resolution provides the framework under which we will finally dispense with the fiscal year 2011 budget which the previous Congress, unfortunately, failed to do.

Nearly halfway through the fiscal year--we are nearly halfway through the fiscal year--now the imperative is to responsibly finish the work that is really very, very urgent for us to approach and deal with at this moment.

Once we move beyond this task, we will immediately pivot to fiscal year 2012. We will craft a budget, we will consider alternatives, with a full debate, and then this House will pass a budget.

We will then proceed with consideration of appropriations bills. We will return to the traditional, open process that always governed our appropriations bills prior to the last couple of years. This will ensure full accountability and true collaboration and restore the deliberative traditions and customs of this body.

There will be very tough choices ahead. Very tough choices need to be made. There is no doubt that we will engage in heated debate, and I suspect we will in just a few minutes right here. But we simply cannot afford to put off the hard work any longer. Madam Speaker, today we take the first step. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my good friend, again, that this is the beginning of a process. We have been saddled with a situation where for the first time since the implementation of the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act, we have no budget. And so what is it we've been left to do? Nearly halfway through the fiscal year, we are faced with this challenge. We now are in a position where we are going to begin going through regular order to ensure that we have a budget, which we didn't do last year, and have an open, free-flowing debate on the amendments through the appropriations process. And I will say to my friend, the defense issues are going to be a high priority when it comes to oversight and scrutiny.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend and colleague, the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Budget from whom we are going to be hearing later this evening, the gentleman from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

I would like to point to our colleagues, Madam Speaker, H. Res. 38. It is literally a one-sentence measure, a one-sentence measure which says that our goal is to get to 2008 levels of spending or less.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend by saying a couple of things.

Unfortunately, we have begun by degenerating the debate to the sky- is-falling mentality again, that we're going to be cutting NIH funding; we're going to be gutting FBI agents. We are beginning the process of getting our fiscal house in order.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note that while both of my friends have used the term ``press release,'' H. Res. 38 is going to be a statement from the United States House of Representatives that we are today, before the President, at 9 this evening, stands here in this Chamber and delivers his State of the Union message, that we are committing ourselves to reduce the level of spending.

At this point I yield 4 minutes to my very good friend and classmate, the distinguished new chair on the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Somerset, Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Would the gentleman yield to me to respond?

I thank my friend for yielding, and let me just say that clearly the budget that we have right now expired at the end of the Congress. We know that very well. And we look forward to numbers which will be coming out from both your new committee, the Budget Committee, and the Appropriations Committee as well.

Madam Speaker, with that I am very happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from the Harrison Township of Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

I'm sorry. I was talking to my new colleague, Mr. Mulvaney, here. If the gentleman was yielding to me, I apologize, but he will have to repeat the question.

If the gentleman would yield, I am happy to answer my friend by saying that the House will work its will. It is one of the things that Speaker Boehner has made very clear.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me say, Madam Speaker, that Speaker Boehner, who is the leader of this House, of both Democrats and Republicans alike, and who is obviously the leader of Republicans, said this morning in a meeting, as he has said repeatedly, the House is going to work its will. We are going to do something that hasn't been done, especially in the appropriations process in the last 2 years. We are going to have a debate that will allow a majority of this institution to determine what those numbers are.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend, as we talk about an open process, my Rules Committee colleagues know that just a few minutes ago, for the first time in 4 long years, the Rules Committee reported out a modified open rule that will allow a free-flowing debate tomorrow right here on this House floor.

I should say, Madam Speaker, that H. Res. 38 is literally one sentence, which says that this institution is committed to getting our level of spending to 2008 levels or less--or less, Madam Speaker--and I think it's important for us to note that.

We have the chairman of the Budget Committee, as I started to say in response to my friend, we have the Appropriations Committee chairman, and we are determined to begin a process.

With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my great new friend from Indian Hills, South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my very good friend from Santa Barbara that creating jobs and getting our economy back on track is exactly what this resolution is all about.

We all know that, on the sidelines all across this country and around the world, there is capital, there are resources that are waiting to be invested. And once we get our fiscal house in order, the signal that that sends to job creators out there is a very important one.

With that, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Richmond, Virginia, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my very good friend from Seattle that I am in complete agreement with the notion of ensuring that we focus time, energy, and effort on paring back waste, fraud, and abuse, especially within the Pentagon. We all know that it's there. And I'm glad that my friend from Worcester raised that issue in his opening remarks. He somehow was arguing that we have left it as sacrosanct. We don't.

The focus today is obviously on non-security discretionary spending, and that's exactly what we are trying to do with this first try.

I am happy to yield my friend 15 seconds, Madam Speaker.

If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend, he knows very well that we have gone without a budget so far. We are going to go through the standard budget process.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds to say that I would like to see complete reform of the 1974 Budget Act. I want a joint, bicameral, bipartisan committee to do just that. But then, with the structure we have today, we are going to proceed with the appropriations process so we will be able to do exactly what my friend said.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining?

I am going to sit on the edge of my seat in anticipation of Mr. Hoyer's very thoughtful remarks that I look forward to, Mr. Speaker.

Will the gentleman yield? And I will yield my friend additional time.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me just say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, that this is the beginning of a process. This is a one-sentence resolution that will allow this House to go on record making a strong commitment to reducing the level of spending. And my friend was absolutely right in his opening remarks when he said that everyone wants us to reduce the deficit. And he's right.

This may be unprecedented, but we're in unprecedented times.

I would yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have bipartisan consensus around here. We need to get our

economy back on track, and we need to do everything that we can to cut Federal spending. The distinguished minority whip just said as much. So there is a consensus, and I think that's wonderful.

In a few hours, 9 o'clock this evening, Democrats are going to be sitting with Republicans; Republicans are going to be sitting with Democrats. It's going to be unprecedented. And I will say that Mr. Hoyer referred to this simple one-sentence resolution as unprecedented. And I believe that it probably is unprecedented.

What it says--I mean, I have almost memorized the one sentence, Mr. Speaker. It says that we need to make sure that the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee work to get us to 2008 spending levels or less. I personally believe that we should be substantially below 2008 levels. I believe that we need to take that kind of action.

And it's true, before the President stands right over my shoulder at 9 o'clock this evening and delivers his State of the Union message, we want this institution to have a chance to go on record saying that we are committed to doing everything that we can to get the spending levels to 2008 or less.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are in the position we are, and that itself is unprecedented, and that's why unprecedented action is necessary.

Now, I began my remarks by talking about the fact that probably one of the most enduring and powerful memories of 2010 was what took place in Athens, Greece. We saw the riots take place in the streets from public service employees in the wake of the government facing the responsibility of imposing austerity standards on the people of Greece. And what happened? We saw this huge outcry come because they were arguing that they couldn't, in fact, bring about cuts in spending.

I juxtapose that to what we saw in the last year here. We saw tens of thousands of Americans taking to the streets carrying this message: Taxed Enough Already. They came together to petition their government to bring about spending reductions. Not complaining that the government was making cuts; complaining that the government wasn't making enough cuts. And that's exactly what we're doing.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this may be the first time in human history that we have witnessed what it was that we saw take place last year and led to the outcome in the November 2 election. We know that the greatest change in three-quarters of a century took place in this institution. Sixty-three members of the Democratic Party were defeated. We now have 87 new Republicans and nine new Democrats who have joined with us, and they have carried this message to us that we need to rein in spending.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to note that our real goal is above that. It is job creation and economic growth, getting our economy back on track so that people out there who are trying to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder are able do just that. We have a painfully high unemployment rate, and people across this country are hurting.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what steps can we take to create jobs? I personally believe that we need to--and I look forward to having the President talk about this tonight--open up new markets around the world so that union and nonunion workers in the United States of America can have the opportunity to sell goods and provide services into countries like Colombia and Panama and South Korea, where these pending agreements exist.

I believe that since Japan has brought about a reduction in its top corporate rate, the rate of those job creators, we can reduce the top corporate rate--it's the highest rate of any country in the world now-- from 35 to 25 percent. I understand the President may be proposing that this evening. That will go a long way towards creating jobs.

But, Mr. Speaker, what we're doing with H. Res. 38 is we are getting ourselves on a path towards fiscal responsibility, and I believe that that is one of the most important things that we can do as we seek this shared goal of job creation and economic growth. So if we can let this institution go on record in support of getting to 2008 levels or less, I am convinced that that will be a strong step towards our goal, our shared goal of creating jobs and establishing economic growth.

This is the beginning of a process, Mr. Speaker, the beginning of a process; again, a one-sentence resolution that this House will be voting on in just a few minutes. But the process, itself, is one that is broken. It's broken because, for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act was put into place, we've not had a budget. We've not had a budget. We're almost 5 months into the new fiscal year, and we are in the process of cleaning up the mess that was handed to us.

So how is it we plan to do it? Well, Speaker Boehner has made it very clear. And that is that we need to make sure that we have an open, free-flowing debate as we proceed with a budget. And I'm convinced that our Rules Committee will make alternatives in order when we proceed with the work that the Budget Committee will have done. And I'm convinced that we will get back to the kind of regular order that I think today Democrats and Republicans alike would want to see, and that is a chance for Democrats and Republicans to stand up and offer amendments to the appropriations bills.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will say again that it's a simple one-sentence resolution. Are we going to let this institution get onto a path towards reducing the size, scope, reach, and control of the Federal Government or are we not? And so, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very, very important resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in very, very strong opposition to this resolution. As I said yesterday during the debate on the rule, there are numerous, serious problems with this resolution.

First, it's meaningless rhetoric. My friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk a lot about cutting government spending, but the resolution before us doesn't cut a single dollar from the Federal budget; not a single cent.

The Republican Study Committee recently proposed $2.5 trillion in budget cuts and their chairman, Mr. Jordan from Ohio, said the following when he introduced this plan:

``One hundred billion dollars is the number the American people heard last fall. It seems to me we should be able to find $100 billion.''

Yet even after pledging a $100 billion cut in funding, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee couldn't come up with a number when we asked yesterday, and instead produced what is most likely the first budget resolution in history that doesn't contain any budget numbers.

That might be because the Republican majority can't seem to figure out what the numbers should be. We have heard all kinds of numbers. We have heard $30 billion, $50 billion, $100 billion and beyond.

But I suspect, Madam Speaker, that's because the Republican majority is discovering that it's a lot harder to walk the walk than it is to talk the talk, and it is a lot easier to say things in a campaign than it is to do things in a legislative body. They are realizing that when you start trying to make those kinds of cuts, you start seriously affecting the American economy and the American people.

We are told that the Congressional Budget Office will produce some numbers tomorrow. I wonder why we couldn't wait until tomorrow to debate this resolution, but the answer is obvious. The President of the United States will be here this evening for the State of the Union address, and the Republican majority needs a new set of talking points.

It's that kind of politics--where message is more important than substance--that makes the American people cynical about Washington.

Second, the resolution continues the dangerous precedent of giving one individual, the chairman of the Budget Committee--rather than the full membership of this House--the ability to set spending levels for the Federal Government. And third, the resolution's vague and unjustified wording that only targets ``non-security'' spending, even though everyone from Secretary Gates to Speaker Boehner has recognized that waste exists in the Department of Defense and in the Department of Homeland Security and other security-related agencies. It says a great deal about the priorities of a new Republican majority that they will treat wasteful contracts and redundant weapons systems as sacred, but would put Pell Grants, medical research, food safety, FBI, ATF and DEA agents, and other vital programs on the chopping block.

Of course, when we Democrats have the audacity to talk about the need to protect those important programs, our Republican friends grow indignant and head to the fainting couch. ``Oh, no,'' they say, ``we would never cut those things.'' But Madam Speaker, the numbers just don't add up. When you start saying that popular program after popular program will be protected, you realize that it would take massive cuts in other parts of the budget.

When we talk about exempting only security programs, it means that other programs will need to be cut by 30 percent below current levels. That means the Department of Justice has to cut 4,000 FBI agents, 800 ATF agents, 1,500 DEA agents, and 900 U.S. Marshals. Federal prisons have to cut 5,700 correctional officers, and the Federal Government will lose the capacity to detain 26,000 people because of their immigration status.

Of course, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said we're not going to cut the FBI, as he said yesterday, so I can only assume that means more ATF agents, DEA agents, and U.S. Marshals will be fired by the Republicans. I can only assume that this means more than 26,000 people in this country illegally won't be in Federal custody. That's the Republican agenda?

Madam Speaker, I think former Secretary of State Colin Powell said it best this weekend: ``I'm very put off when people just say, let's go back and freeze to the level 2 years ago. Don't tell me you're going to freeze to a level. That usually is a very inefficient way of doing it. Tell me what you're going to cut.''

As I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided resolution, I ask my Republican colleagues, what's the number? And what are you going to cut?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm glad the chairman of the Budget Committee finally joined this debate. And I would say two things. One is that last year we passed the Budget Enforcement Act with real numbers in it, and we voted on it, and it was significantly less than the numbers that the President had proposed, number one. Number two, one of the things that we proposed in the Rules Committee was an amendment to allow Members of the House, on both sides of the aisle, to be able to vote on the number. And that was rejected on party line as somehow a radical idea. And then the chairman of the Rules Committee talks about this free-flowing debate we are having. We are having this debate today under a closed rule, and so there's no opportunity for amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman, and I reclaim my time. I appreciate the brevity of the bill, but that doesn't mean the bill doesn't have a very negative impact. And when we tried yesterday to protect the FBI and enforcement agents from cuts, that was voted down. So we are very concerned because we don't know what the number is. And I think people in this Congress on both sides of the aisle, the American people, ought to know what we're talking about. Is it $100 billion? Or is it more? Where is it? And where are those cuts going to come from when you keep on exempting programs?

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I appreciate the fact that we are going to have to make tough choices; but he as well failed to tell us what the number is or what those tough choices are going to be. Are we going to cut medical research, Pell Grants, food safety, small business loans, job training programs, LIHEAP, summer food programs for the hungry? What are we going to cut?

I think that Members on both sides of the aisle deserve to know what the

number is so we can figure out what the pain is going to be. For the life of me, I can't understand, and I don't think the American people can understand, why Members of this House will not be given an opportunity to vote on that number. We ought to have that right.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield 10 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I think what the American people are interested in is serious legislating and serious discussion on how to get this budget under control and not political posturing.

At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the previous speaker.

I would just simply ask: What is the problem with telling us what the number is and what you're going to cut?

The number is important because that does determine what you are going to cut. It determines what the allocations are going to be to the various appropriations committees, and they have real consequences. The notion that we are doing something bold here by coming up with this arbitrary, you know, statement that it's 2008 or less levels we're going to go to without any detail, without any numbers, without anything of anything, is political posturing at its worse.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I'm still waiting to hear the number and how much we're going to cut. I am waiting to see this transparency and accountability.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Madam Speaker, the bill makes defense spending sacrosanct and says nothing about going after fraud and waste in defense contracts.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. Hoyer and then myself at this moment.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this resolution, as has been stated over and over and over again, is that it is a press release. It contains no number. People on the other side talk about tough choices. It doesn't talk about any of the tough choices. It exempts defense spending from any cuts, so fraudulent defense contracts are somehow okay, that it's better than waste and abuse in domestic spending programs. Everything should be on the table when we're talking about getting this budget deficit under control.

The reason why the number is so important is because that number determines how much we're going to allocate to the various appropriations committees; and that in turn determines really the severity of a lot of the cuts that are going to have to be made: cuts in medical research--research to try to find a cure to cancer; cuts in programs to help feed hungry children; cuts in programs to provide emergency fuel assistance to low-income people during the winter months; cuts in small business loans that can help small businesses get the capital they need to grow and create jobs.

We should be talking about jobs in the opening of the session. Instead, what we have talked about are the old ideological battles of the past. Last week we repealed the entire health care bill. This week, we're passing a budget resolution that has no number in it. I mean, this is a first. This is unprecedented. And I think the American people who are watching are wondering why in the world can't you tell us what the number is; why in the world can't you give us a sense of what you're going to cut.

Why in the world can't you even vote on it? There are 435 Members of this House. Only one Member is going to be able to determine what that budget number is.

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in political theater today. We know the CBO will come out with numbers tomorrow, but the Republicans feel it's important to do this today because somehow they think the press will pay attention to this and they'll be able to have a countermessage to the President's State of the Union address. They are blowing a major opportunity.

There is bipartisan concern about the budget. There is a bipartisan consensus that we need to find cuts. And rather than working in a bipartisan way, we have a bill that comes to the floor under a closed rule. We are told that the chairman of the Budget Committee can unilaterally come up with a number; the rest of us are irrelevant to this process. That's not the way it's supposed to be. And I think that the Republican majority owes it not only to the Members of this Congress, but they owe it to the American people to tell us what the number is and where they're going to cut, how deeply they're going to cut, who's going to be impacted. Because I will tell you this: Who's going to be impacted are real people, and they're going to feel the real pain of some of these cuts.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided resolution, this press release.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague.

Here we are a day later. Yesterday we asked our colleagues, what's the number going to be? What's going to be the spending ceiling for this Congress and for the United States Government? They didn't have it yesterday, and we don't yet have it today. It's a budget resolution without a budget number.

Now we've heard a lot of talk about what happened last year. What this budget resolution relates to is 2011. In fact, this body voted last year on a Budget Enforcement Act. I have it right here in my hand. And it set budget ceilings. It had a real number. Some people voted for it, some people voted against it, but this body did what it always does when it makes decisions of this magnitude. We took accountability for it.

Now you have a resolution that violates the pledge of transparency because it doesn't have a single number in it, and it violates the pledge of accountability because you're asking every other Member of this body to contract out his or her vote to one person. Now I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee. And I, too, congratulate him on being selected to give the response to the State of the Union address.

This isn't about a particular individual. It's about all of us taking responsibility for a major decision. And what this resolution does is contracts out that responsibility. It doesn't have a number. We don't know if it's going to be $100 billion. We don't know if it's going to be $80 billion. We don't know if it's going to be $40 billion. We don't know if it's going to be the number that the Republican Study Committee wants, which the majority leader said good things about. We don't know.

What we do know is this, that the bipartisan deficit and debt reduction commission told us two things: Number one, we need to act now to put this country on a fiscally sustainable path, and we should do that by working together. They also said another thing, that deep immediate cuts beyond what had been put in place and recommended by the fiscal commission would hurt the economy when it's in a very fragile state and risk throwing more Americans out of work. That would be a terrible mistake.

And yet our colleagues want us to make a decision to vote on this without telling us what the number is. So when we asked what the number was, they said, we're waiting for the Congressional Budget Office. When will the Congressional Budget Office have its numbers? Tomorrow, 24 hours from now. Then we can do the right thing, we can see what the cuts will be, and we can make a decision as a body taking responsibility for this decision.

Why is it we are not waiting 24 hours? Well it's pretty obvious. A little later today, the President of the United States will be here to deliver the State of the Union address, and instead of being serious about this number, they want to deliver a press release. That is what this is about without a number. Otherwise we would wait 24 hours and our friends could tell us what that number would be.

You are asking this body to buy a pig in a poke. And the reason it is so serious is that numbers have consequences.

And my friend from Massachusetts talked about this earlier, whether it is $100 billion or $80 billion or $20 billion, those numbers all have consequences because on the other side of the aisle when we say, well, are you going to be cutting research to find cures and treatments for cancer or diabetes, no, we're not going to cut that. Are you going to cut the FBI agents involved in antiterrorism efforts? No, we would never want to cut that. What are you going to cut?

And the magnitude of those cuts and the negative impact on jobs and the economy will be determined by what, by the number in this bill, a number that we don't get to vote on that you are giving the chairman of the Budget Committee sole authority to pick out of a hat.

Madam Speaker, we just heard from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that there was no ceiling for 2011 in place. I am going to make a copy and ask the pages to distribute this. This is the Budget Enforcement Act for last year, for fiscal year 2011, and there you have the budget ceilings, whereas what you are proposing is a piece of paper that doesn't set the budget ceilings and doesn't contain any of the numbers in it.

I would just ask the chairman of the Rules Committee this: During the hearing, you said we're going to wait for CBO; CBO's numbers are coming tomorrow. Tomorrow are you going to have a number for us?

For an answer to that question, I would be happy to yield.

My time has expired.

Twenty-four hours, Mr. Chairman. Will you have a number tomorrow?

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Dreier has put additional pressure on me with his thoughtful remarks.

Let me say that there is nobody on this floor who doesn't believe that the deficit is a very, very substantial problem that confronts us; and I would hope that there is nobody on the floor who believes that it's going to be accomplished in a simple fashion to bring this deficit under control. But I fear that there is too much simplistic--not simple--simplistic rhetoric with reference to this deficit.

After borrowing trillions of dollars to finance tax cuts, a new entitlement, and two wars, our friends on the Republican side tell us they are now taking the deficit seriously. All of you have heard my comments about how under the Clinton administration the budget was balanced and how under the Reagan and Bush I and Bush II administrations it was not.

If our Republican friends mean it, if they were interested in the deficit as anything other than a political issue, if they actually use their House majority to back up their words with action, then no one, in my opinion, would be happier than me and our party, the Democratic Party.

Our deficit I think all of us should agree is too big for partisan politics. It cripples our children's opportunities. It makes it harder for them to pay for college education, buy a home, start a business, or plan a future.

I want my Republican friends to take the deficit seriously. I want my Democratic friends to take the budget deficit seriously--to join President Obama in making the hard choices it will take to get out of debt.

But, frankly, so far the opportunity to finally back up their words of fiscal discipline have been a record of disappointment.

A rules package, and I tell my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the rules package provides for $5 trillion in additional deficit spending over the next 10 years--$5 trillion; a vote to repeal health care reform is another $230 billion of deficit; a pledge to cut

spending by a hundred billion, which it has taken them less than a month to break; and, today, a one-page resolution with no numbers and no specifics.

I think this resolution is unprecedented, certainly in the 30 years that I've been here, which gives to one person out of the 435 the opportunity and the authority to set a number that we will consider in this House. I don't think that's precedented. I don't think it's democratic. It's not transparent. And it's not an open process.

Colin Powell has already been quoted, but we're still waiting for the answer of what is going to be cut. At a time when getting out of debt, growing the economy, and creating jobs are our country's defining bipartisan challenges, we need hard choices--not more political theater.

Now, we passed a budget enforcement resolution which was criticized by the other side because we didn't pass a full budget. I think that's, perhaps, correct.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the additional 1 minute.

We were criticized; but in that budget enforcement resolution, we had a number, and when you voted on the rule, you knew the number you were voting on as a House of Representatives. Here you have no idea what you're voting on. You could be voting for 2008 numbers or anything less than that under this resolution.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman for his generosity.

But let me say to the gentleman, it may be unprecedented times; but it does not warrant this unprecedented abdication of democracy in this House in setting what is probably the most critical question that confronts government: How much are you going to pay for it? I think we all agree on that. That's what is at issue here.

And this resolution does not allow Members of Congress to engage on that. It simply gives to one person the ability to set that number. It's not only unprecedented; it, in my opinion, is undemocratic--with a small ``d.'' It does not provide the transparency and the openness of which the gentleman has correctly spoken and I hope we pursue.

And I hope that we oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I was pleased to cast a vote that would reduce the legislative appropriation as a symbol that no part of the budget should be off limits as we attempt to deal with the issues of government efficiency and deficit reduction. The resolution before Congress today directs the Budget Committee Chairman to reduce non-security spending to FY 2008 levels or less for the remainder of FY 2011. I would hope that having demonstrated that even the legislature itself is not exempt, that the Republican leadership would reconsider its decision to declare off limits the major areas of government spending, particularly the Department of Defense.

If we are truly to improve our fiscal condition, no part of the budget should be off limits. The Pentagon cannot be left out. We can no longer separate national security from fiscal responsibility. Speaker Boehner has himself said that there is room to find savings in the defense budget.

Even without including the costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. defense spending is the highest it has been at any time since the end of World War II. It is greater than at the peak of the Cold War. Yet we continue to spend billions to protect West Germany from the Soviet Union even though both ceased to exist decades ago.

Our defense budget accounts for half of global military spending and consumes more than 50 cents of every dollar of federal government discretionary spending. Even under the laudable plan announced by Secretary Gates to cut the Pentagon's budget by $78 billion, defense spending will continue to increase in the near term.

There are many thoughtful ways to rein in defense spending. More than $350 billion has been spent by the U.S. in Afghanistan since 2001, a monthly bill for our taxpayers exceeding $8 billion. The U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world, using as much power in one year as the entire country of Nigeria, and spending $17 billion each year on petrol and another $23 billion annually on refueling our bases and units in Afghanistan. Integrating renewable and energy efficient practices into our armed services have already saved lives and money. Finally, we should eliminate unnecessary weapons programs, such as the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Despite the Marine Corps commandant calling the program unworkable and unaffordable, some lawmakers continue to insist on funding it.

While today's resolution fails to address this problem, it is my hope that we'll be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to ``right-size'' all areas of government spending, including the Pentagon.

Unfortunately, the proposal put forth by the Republican Study Committee earlier this week has lessened the chance of finding a bipartisan solution. Their proposal would result in cuts of more than 40 percent in education, environmental protection, law enforcement, medical research, food safety, and many other key services. In practical terms, this would include the elimination of nearly 3,000 food safety inspectors--endangering our food supply, dramatic increases in wait times at Social Security centers by slashing that agencies budget,

and dumping 389,000 children from Head Start--destroying opportunities for those children while weakening America's competitiveness.

The Republican Study Committee's proposal would also destroy thousands of jobs renewing and rebuilding America's eroding infrastructure. For instance, cutting $2 billion from the New Starts program would destroy nearly 46,000 jobs and cutting Amtrak funding by $1.6 billion would destroy 36,000. Eliminating these programs makes it harder for those Americans with work to get to work or to find new work.

There are many more examples just like these that hit every community in our country. While we strive to better match our revenues with the cost of services to our constituents, it is important not to destroy the very programs that make our country strong and economically competitive and on which our citizens depend.