H.Res. 218

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 219 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1217, which repeals the Prevention and Public Health Fund and rescinds any unobligated funds.

Republicans are on the floor today to fulfill part of our Pledge to America that we would cut spending and we would repeal the Democrats' health care bill passed a year ago. On January 19, this House passed H.R. 2 to repeal ObamaCare completely. The ruling liberal Democrats in the Senate, however, have so far refused to consider H.R. 2, but House Republicans remain undeterred. We will repeal ObamaCare piece by piece if that is what it takes.

Because the liberal elites knew their government takeover of health care was unpopular and would likely have consequences at the ballot box, they included $105 billion in mandatory taxpayer spending in the law itself to protect their favorite programs.

Let me take a moment to explain the difference between ``discretionary'' and ``mandatory'' government spending

First, it's important to remember that the Federal Government does not have any money of its own, as it has only what it takes in taxes from hardworking Americans or money that it borrows from foreign creditors and our future generations. We are currently borrowing 43 cents of every dollar that the Federal Government spends.

Discretionary spending is appropriated by Congress annually and therefore subject to congressional oversight and review. Discretionary spending allows Congress to be wise stewards of the taxpayers' money by not funding ineffective or duplicative programs. However, what is called mandatory spending funds programs for people who meet certain criteria and occurs irrespective of congressional appropriations and must be spent whether we have the money or not.

The most recognized mandatory spending programs are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which operate on autopilot and have not been subject to congressional oversight from year-to-year as funds automatically stream from the Treasury to anyone who qualifies, that is, meets the criteria for a particular benefit.

The bill before us today, H.R. 1217, would repeal a portion of mandatory ObamaCare spending and eliminate a slush fund established for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. This slush fund, known as the Prevention and Public Health Fund, will automatically receive $1 billion when fiscal year 2012 begins in October of this year with automatic increases every year until it reaches $2 billion annually in fiscal year 2015.

However, there's a very important distinction between this funding and that for Medicare and Social Security in that this funding does not state eligibility criteria.

The liberal elites in Washington think they know how to spend the taxpayers' money better than individual taxpayers and gives Secretary Sebelius $2 billion a year until Congress acts to repeal her authority to spend without accountability.

Republicans are rejecting this slush fund by considering this bill which would repeal the fund and take back any money that has not already been spent this year. The slush fund is not subject to the annual appropriations process and therefore would not be subject to yearly congressional oversight.

The money will be made available to the Secretary regardless of how she chooses to spend it and whether or not the programs being funded are actually effective.

Again, this is not like Medicare and Social Security. There are no criteria for the spending of this money.

It's important to point out that this bill does not cut any specific program, because the slush fund is used by the Secretary to increase spending above congressionally appropriated levels for whatever program the Secretary chooses.

My colleagues across the aisle will argue that this money is being used to train primary care physicians, to prevent obesity, and to encourage healthy lifestyles. What they won't tell you is that they have absolutely no idea how the money is being used, because they abdicated the authority of Congress to an unelected bureaucrat.

The simple truth is that the money is just as likely to be spent on elective abortion as it is for any other purpose.

In the Democrats' dissenting views from the House Energy and Commerce Committee report, they say without mandatory spending for this slush fund, the programs will not be adequately funded. Well, Madam Speaker, that's what the whole process for appropriations is all about. If the programs need more money, it's up to them to come and justify that.

However, they sang a different tune when liberal House Democrats rammed through a government takeover of health care in November of 2009. They created this slush fund but made it subject to the regular appropriations process. That meant it was subject to yearly congressional oversight and direction for how the money would be spent.

But when the ruling liberal Democrats in the Senate sent over their version of the health care bill, which became law, the slush fund had been made mandatory. The liberal elites claim they put in a safeguard because part of the section creating this slush fund states that Congress has the authority to direct how this funding is spent. Well, as any high school junior civics student could tell you, Congress always has the authority to direct, redirect, repeal, or increase funding. Congress can always pass a new law to change the direction of any funding stream. That's our job as legislators. The need to state explicitly that we have the authority to direct spending in a slush fund is pointless.

The simple truth is that we have a spending crisis in this town in large part due to mandatory spending that operates on autopilot. Instead of working to address our unsustainable spending habits, the ruling Democrats refused even to offer a budget resolution last year or pass a single appropriations bill. The liberal elites failed to lead despite having unchecked control of all levers of power in Washington.

I brought a chart with me today to help illustrate the fact that mandatory spending is out of control in Washington. Madam Speaker, let me show you that because of mandatory spending being on autopilot, by the year 2050 the mandatory spending will absorb all revenue coming into the Federal Government, all tax revenue coming into the Federal Government. That simply is unsustainable. We cannot operate our country when we let three programs take up all of the money that comes into the Federal Government. Something has to be done. And yet the Democrats want to add another program to this, which would speed up this process. We don't need that.

As Washington liberals ignored the growing autopilot spending crisis, adding more unaccountable mandatory spending in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, House Republicans are now working hard to protect the future for our children and grandchildren by restoring congressional oversight of spending.

Now, I am sure many Americans are wondering how a slush fund with a clever title would be spent and why it must be put on autopilot. Let me give you an example. Pitt County, in my home State of North Carolina, received funding from this fund to fix prices at convenience stores so that healthy foods would be less expensive and, therefore, supposedly more attractive to the consumer. In addition, the Pitt County Health Department now plans to use some of this money to put up signs indicating the location of public parks, bike lanes, and alternate transportation.

Although I am certainly not opposed to parks or healthy eating habits, it seems quite clear that the Founders of this country did not intend the Federal Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, DC, to use taxpayer money to subsidize granola bars or purchase signs for bike lanes or parks.

The Federal Government has no business paying for local and community initiatives such as these, especially when we are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends to pay for it. The new House Republican majority is ready to lead this country out of our debt crisis. And it starts with voting for this rule and the underlying bill, which will save taxpayers $16 billion.

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

I would just like to point out one small thing to my colleague from Florida. Yes, I do begin wondering every day wondering how I can make life better for other people. But I want to say that there is no accountability whatsoever in this provision of the bill, and we want accountability for every penny of money that we are spending on behalf of the American taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to save taxpayers money by cutting wasteful government spending. The program that we are cutting out we cannot be sure does anything for preventative health care. It has designated that, but there is no idea as to where the money is going to be spent. Republicans certainly want to see Americans do a better job of preventing disease and of making their

health care better, but what we fear is that this money may be used for elective abortions, so we are also here today to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

This slush fund directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to invest in prevention and primary care by funding programs and initiatives under the Public Health Services Act. Title X of the Public Health Services Act provides funding for the abortion industry, including organizations like Planned Parenthood, which is the largest abortion provider in the country.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle and the liberals in Washington have really outdone themselves to ensure their favorite constituencies are provided for in their new health care law. This slush fund is yet another Democrat trick to use taxpayer money to subsidize elective abortion. Despite what they may have you believe, supporters of taxpayer-funded elective abortion cannot honestly claim this money cannot be used for elective abortion under Title X. The liberal Democrat elites relinquished all authority over this slush fund to Secretary Sebelius. For far too long, abortion providers have used Title X money to subsidize their operating costs, thereby subsidizing elective abortion.

We've heard a lot of misinformation being circulated in Washington this week about Planned Parenthood, the largest elective abortion provider in the country. As I pointed out in the Rules Committee last night, one of my colleagues across the aisle said that Republicans were ``here to kill women'' and compared us to Nazis.

Liberal Democrats maintain that women will lose access to preventative care if the government stops funding for the abortion industry. What they are not telling you is that Planned Parenthood has almost $1 billion in net assets and reported $737 million in revenues for its most recent filing year. Any big abortion organization making $737 million a year should be able to function without taxpayer subsidies, Mr. Speaker. This is not about women's health or access to preventative care. Through Federal and State Medicaid programs, low- income women have access to family planning and preventative health services at hospitals, doctors' offices and community health centers nationwide.

Another claim Planned Parenthood makes is that 97 percent of the 3 million patients they served in fiscal 2008 received preventative care services and that only 3 percent received abortions. These supporters of taxpayer-funded abortion ought to check their math. According to their own facts sheet for March 2011, Planned Parenthood clinics performed 332,278 abortions in fiscal year 2008. If they saw 3 million patients and performed 332,278 abortions, that means at least 11 percent of the services provided were abortions.

If they cannot be trusted regarding this simple math, what else are they hiding from the American people, Mr. Speaker?

Another astounding statistic I would like to share is that 97.6 percent of pregnant women who received services at Planned Parenthood clinics received abortions. Only 2.4 percent of pregnant women received only prenatal or adoption referral services at Planned Parenthood.

Elective abortion is not health care, Mr. Speaker. This is not about preventative health care or about improving access to primary care. This is about subsidizing the big abortion industry. If this slush fund remains unchecked, the Secretary could fund whatever program she chooses to the tune of up to $2 billion a year. That kind of money can purchase a lot of elective abortions, which strikes at the consciences of so many tax-paying Americans.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I have to respond somewhat to my colleague from Florida on some of the points that he made.

He said that it is the law of the land that no Federal Government money

can be used to fund abortions. I know my colleague from Florida has been here a lot longer than I have been, and I know that he understands the difference between discretionary spending and mandatory spending, and I know that he knows that the Hyde amendment is only on appropriations bills. And as I explained earlier, Mr. Speaker, the appropriations bills are what we call discretionary spending, and that what the Democrats did in the health care bill was to put this $2 billion in that bill and call it mandatory spending, which is not subject to the annual appropriations process and therefore does not have the restriction of the Hyde amendment to apply to it.

So I would like to ask my colleague from Florida if he can guarantee on his own word to the American people today that nothing from this $2 billion that is put in for mandatory spending--it's on automatic pilot--would ever be spent for abortions.

Would the gentleman answer that question?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Can the gentleman guarantee that?

I would like to reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.

The gentleman has just made my point. He cannot guarantee that this money will not be used for abortions, and neither can anyone else. And that is the point that we are making, Mr. Speaker. There is no accountability for this $2 billion. It is a slush fund for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And it is wrong, Mr. Speaker, for us to take the hard-earned money of American taxpayers and give it to the Secretary with no accountability and with the distinct possibility that the money could be used to fund abortions.

The liberals ruling Washington the past 4 years have failed to address out-of-control mandatory or discretionary spending. In fact, under their control, discretionary spending has increased 84 percent in just 2 years.

As I mentioned earlier, discretionary spending is the money Congress decides annually to spend on programs with inherent congressional oversight. Mandatory, or autopilot, spending is the money that is automatically pulled from the Treasury without regular congressional oversight. I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, when that decision was made for Congress to abrogate its responsibility, but it's a weasel way out. We should be looking at every dollar every year, because that's our responsibility.

Our debt and the liberals' insatiable appetite for perpetual government spending increases are sending America into a tailspin. In response to the complete lack of leadership and fiscal responsibility, House Republicans have been very aggressive in reducing wasteful government overspending, which is the real source of breathtaking budget deficits and private sector unemployment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a chart that comes, I believe, from the Joint Committee on Economics, and it shows what happens when you increase government spending and when you decrease government spending when you're talking about private sector job creation. Every dollar the government takes from the private sector is one less dollar to be spent for private sector innovation and job growth. The government can create only government jobs.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, to the 13.5 million Americans counted in the official unemployment rate, more than 900,000 Americans have stopped looking for a job because they think no jobs exist for them. I want to point out here that, again, when we saw increased government spending, you see a decrease in private sector jobs. When you see decreased government spending, you see an increase in private sector jobs. That's what the Republicans want to do. Americans want jobs. They want to work. We need to cut government spending and allow the private sector to grow.

More than 45 percent of Americans seeking work have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks. Real problems demand real solutions, Mr. Speaker. The track record in the House in 3 short months demonstrates that the new House Republican majority has heard the American people and is acting to provide the relief and solutions they deserve. Less government spending is crucial to encouraging private sector job creation and reducing unemployment. And where better to cut possible government spending than where money could be used for abortions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out again that Republicans would like to see more preventive care. However, the example that my colleague from California used says nothing about this bill because there is nothing in here to guarantee that this money will go to preventive care, absolutely nothing. There is no accountability in this legislation.

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

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

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

I would just like to say in response to my colleague from Florida that I think this rule and the underlying bill have a lot more to do with elective abortions than they do with government contracting.

Mr. Speaker, we have discussed at great length today why Secretary Sebelius does not need a slush fund set on autopilot. The American people expect their elected representatives to be wise guardians of their hard-earned dollars. They vehemently objected to the ruling Democrat agenda of Federal overreach into their daily lives and sent a clear message to Washington last November: Government must be responsible and accountable.

All across America, American families are tightening their belts, cutting their budgets and living within their means. It's time Washington did the same.

For these reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill so we can restore congressional spending oversight and save the taxpayers $16 billion over the next 10 years.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 219 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1354) to amend titles 10 and 41, United States Code, to allow

contracting officers to consider information regarding

domestic employment before awarding a Federal contract, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

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

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

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Boulder.

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spending Cut Hokum

A mini-revolt is brewing among Republican backbenchers on

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

budget deal are being revealed. After separating out the

accounting gimmicks and one-year savings, the actual cuts

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

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

Boehner's credibility with the tea party.

Even $20 billion is worthwhile, and the genuine reductions

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

projects, renewable energy programs, housing subsidies, low-

income home energy assistance, agriculture programs,

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

also an immediate across the board 0.2% reduction in all

nondefense accounts.

But the continuing resolution also saves money on paper

through phantom cuts. The whopper is declaring $6.2 billion

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

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

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

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

event.

The budgeteers claim $630 million in cuts from what are

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

started, and $2 billion more for transportation projects,

some of which were likely to be canceled. The Associated

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

program to pay dairy farmers to compensate for low milk

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

also would never have been spent.

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

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

restored by law the next year, which means Republicans will

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

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

Health Insurance Program, but many states failed to qualify

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

baseline, so there are no compound savings over time.

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

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

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

leadership might lose 30 backbenchers on the budget vote, but

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

will only heighten skepticism over the next budget showdown,

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

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

new era of lawmaking candor and transparency.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute to respond.

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Obviously, this measure amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and seeks to repeal those provisions that establish and appropriate funds to the Prevention and Public Health Fund. It also rescinds any unobligated balance appropriated to the fund.

As I listened to my friend from North Carolina, two things jumped out at me immediately. One is her usage and the ruling Republican majority House Members' usage of the term for the Affordable Health Care Act as ObamaCare. I said earlier in the Rules Committee I guess I could call it HastingsCare, because I supported--as did many Members of this Congress who are still here and some who are not, on both sides of the aisle--health care provisions for America long before any of us knew Barack Obama's name.

When it's used the way that it is, it's in some manner attempting to be demeaning of the President. He does not bear the sole responsibility for the Affordable Health Care Act. I would assume some of that responsibility. And what I would say is he and many others in this body did not go far enough in that we did not establish universal health care for all Americans in this country.

The other thing that jumps out on this particular matter, calling it a slush fund and then allowing that it is going to be in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat. It puts us in a strange position in the House of Representatives when my colleagues with the ruling majority of the House of Representatives have sought and been successful in eliminating the opportunities for Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to seek to have appropriations earmarked for respective undertakings in their congressional districts. Rather, they would eliminate those earmarks and--guess what?--put it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.

So I find it inconsistent to make the argument on one hand, and then on the other hand say, Oh, it's okay for the unelected bureaucrats to have some opportunities to spend our money. Quite frankly, I take umbrage with that. I think I can do a better job defining a need for a treatment plant in Belle Glade than can an unelected bureaucrat.

The burden of chronic diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and stroke, present a significant public health challenge to all of our communities and our Nation as a whole. In my home State of Florida, over 10 million cases of seven chronic diseases--cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, mental disorders, and pulmonary conditions--were reported early on in this decade at the cost of about $17.6 billion in treatment, and resulting in $68.7 billion in lost productivity and economic cost.

Simply put, we have a sick care system, not a health care system. Tens of millions of Americans are suffering from health conditions that could possibly be preventible. This is further exacerbated by the continuing rise of health care costs. Despite the fact that chronic diseases are responsible for seven out of 10 deaths among Americans each year and that they account for 75 percent of our Nation's health care spending, less than 3 percent of our health care spending goes to preventive health care services and health promotion.

As you know, the Affordable Care Act, or the HastingsCare Act, or the Hastings and ObamaCare Act, or the Hastings and Obama and DemocratCare Act created the Prevention and Public Health Fund in order to assist State and community efforts in preventing illness and promoting health. The Prevention and Public Health Fund represents an unprecedented investment of $15 billion over 10 years to help prevent disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they become severe. It aims to transform the focus of our system of care from primarily treating illness to maintaining long-term wellness by leveraging the power of preventive medicine.

Through the Community Transformation Grants program, for example, the fund empowers State and local governments and partners to implement community prevention interventions that help reduce chronic disease and health care disparities.

In fact, the fund is already being used in all 50 of our States and the District of Columbia to prevent smoking, increase physical activity, reduce alcohol and drug abuse, increase immunizations, train the Nation's public health

workforce, prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, and help control the obesity epidemic in our country.

In addition, the Prevention and Public Health Fund provides funding for States to help develop a health insurance exchange by 2014. Footnote there: We should have had a public option, where consumers will have access to a new market of more affordable, quality health coverage, as well as funding for up to 400 school-based centers in order to provide a safety net and improved access to care for children.

Since the enactment of the HastingsCare, ObamaCare, DemocraticCare, RepublicansDon'tCare measure last year, the Department of Health and Human Services has awarded approximately $21.98 million in grants to organizations in Florida alone through the Prevention and Public Health Fund to help improve wellness and prevention efforts, including more than $9.3 million for community and clinical prevention, more than $3.1 million for public health infrastructure, and more than $9.4 million for primary care training.

If we are to reduce health care costs, we must improve the health of all Americans. Investing in proven preventive measures can significantly reduce the risk of developing these diseases, improving people's lives and saving money.

According to a report from Trust For America's Health entitled ``Prevention for a Healthier America,'' investing just $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs that increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking and other tobacco use could save our Nation more than $16 billion annually within 5 years.

This is equivalent to and potentially greater than the amount as estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office by which H.R. 1217 reduces direct spending over a 10-year period. Furthermore, a public opinion survey by Trust for America and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that 71 percent of Americans favor an increased investment in disease prevention.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund is supported also by nearly 600 national organizations, including the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, Families USA, and the AIDS Institute.

H.R. 1217, on the other hand, is nothing more than an attack on affordable health insurance, primary care and safety net care for children. This bill is yet another feeble attempt by the ruling majority Republicans to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately destroy the HastingsCare, ObamaCare, DemocraticCare, RepublicansDon'tCare bill one piece at a time, including those programs that have already been funded and are helping millions of middle class, elderly, and working poor Americans and their families as we speak.

The misinformation that pervades the health care debate in this country never ceases to amaze me at all.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, the ruling Republican majority, would have the American people believe that the Prevention and Public Health Fund is a slush fund for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to spend money freely without congressional oversight. This is simply not true. A specific funding amount is allocated for prevention efforts through the fund each year during the fiscal year period: $500 million in 2010; $750 million in 2011; $1 billion in fiscal year 2012 and so on up to $2 billion beginning in 2015.

This gives the Secretary, whomever she or he may be, under Republicans or Democrats, the flexibility and health care providers the funding certainty that they need to implement prevention and public health interventions that help Americans make healthier decisions for themselves and their families. The Prevention and Public Health Fund is the first and only Federal program with dedicated ongoing resources specifically designed to improve the public. It represents our commitment to preventing illness and investing in our Nation's long- term physical and fiscal health.

Let me say this, Madam Speaker: Every day that I awaken, I start my day by trying to figure what can I do to follow the scriptural mandate to help the least of us. I am curious whether my friends in the ruling majority have the same feeling.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, that's just about the most convoluted, backward argument that I can imagine that I've heard in the 19 years that I've been here in the United States Congress.

There is not one dime in the Prevention and Public Health Fund that can or will be used for abortions. The law in this land, enunciated by a legend and an icon, among the other things that Henry Hyde was, is that Federal funds cannot be used for that purpose, and to carry us into that neverland that the previous speaker just spoke of is astoundingly wrong.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Of course I will. Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Please, let's have a clear understanding that no dollars from this fund are going to be used for abortions.

I don't have any opportunity to guarantee whether or not I'm going to be alive in the next 30 seconds, let alone tell you what may happen. But if you ask my belief, and yours was your belief that it may be used is what you said, my dear friend, all I'm saying is it is not going to be. And the law enunciated through Henry Hyde, and almost verbatim has been included in the Affordable Care Act, precludes the use of money for abortions.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from California (Ms. Matsui), a former member of the Rules Committee that we miss.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), my classmate and my good friend.

I yield an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, please inform both sides the remaining amount of time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 1354, the American Jobs Matter Act of 2011.

To address that, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, no prevention and public health funds are or can be used to pay for abortions, and this bill has absolutely nothing to do with that. What it will stop, this bill as offered by the ruling Republican House, is immunization for kids and seniors, programs to stop childhood obesity and to prevent heart disease and diabetes. That's what they are stopping. Please don't be misled. No dollars from this fund will be used for abortion.

If we as legislators are to be about the business of helping Americans live healthy, productive lives, we must change our fundamental approach to health care by investing in illness prevention, not just treatment.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund is the key to a coordinated, comprehensive, sustainable and accountable approach to improving our Nation's health outcomes. I would also add that at a time when Americans are looking to Congress for leadership, the Republican ruling majority in the House are continuing their assault on comprehensive health care reform that expands coverage to 32 million people instead of focusing on job creation.

It's time to stop playing games with the health of the American people and get down to business. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can debate and pass a jobs bill without any further delay. I also urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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