Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 38) to reduce spending through a transition to non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 43 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Worcester (Mr. McGovern). All time yielded will be for debate purposes only.

Pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, runaway Federal spending is one of the most significant issues that this Congress is facing. Our national debt has implications for nearly every major challenge that we must confront. It's tied to our economic recovery, it's tied to our national security, it's tied to our ability to deliver on our constitutional mandate for transparent, limited and responsive government.

The time to exercise our power of the purse with discipline and restraint is long overdue. Let me say that again: the time for us to exercise our power-of-the-purse restraint is long, long overdue. We must return to pre-bailout, pre-binge spending levels for funding the Federal Government.

We know that a great deal of hard work and tough decisions lie ahead for every single Member of this institution. We know that a great deal of hard work is there; and we're going to face some very difficult, tough, tough decisions. They are going to be difficult decisions; but, Mr. Speaker, they are decisions that we're going to have to make.

First and foremost, we must get our economy growing and our workforce expanding again. Strong growth and job creation will increase tax revenues and provide greater resources that are needed; but, Mr. Speaker, that's only half of the equation. Economic growth is critically important. We need to do it so that we can enhance the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury to deal with those essential items that are there, but it is half the equation.

We can't get back onto firm ground with sound fiscal standing unless we have a leaner Federal budget. Some of this can be accomplished by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Everybody is always in favor of eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. And what is the best way to do that? Robust oversight. Robust oversight will allow us to streamline Federal spending and make better use of taxpayer dollars, but we have to acknowledge up front that hard work and painful cuts lie ahead. We all know that this is not going to be an easy task, but it is absolutely essential.

Just as families and small businesses across this country have been forced to cut back during these difficult economic times, we here in this institution are going to have to do the same. That's the message that we got last November that brought people like my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Scott, who is sitting next to me on the floor here, that's the message that has been carried here.

Some Federal programs, Mr. Speaker, are wasteful and duplicative and deserve to be cut. There will be others that have merit, but which we simply cannot afford at the current levels. We have to be honest about that. We have to engage in a responsible debate about what our priorities must be.

What we cannot do is allow this debate to degenerate into false accusations about the other side's intentions. And I'm going to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. We cannot let the kind of free-flowing, rigorous debate that we need to have degenerate into these accusations that we so often seem to hear around here.

There is no one in this body who wants to gut funding for key essential programs, like veterans' programs, or like education, child nutrition. No one wants to gut these programs. So I think it's important for us to state that. And there is no evidence that any proposal out there would undermine things like support for our Nation's veterans.

We are all entering into this debate with good faith, good intentions, and a commitment to responsibly address the need to implement fiscal discipline. We will have to make hard choices, but that process will not be served by unfair or disingenuous accusations.

We also recognize that this will be a lengthy process. We are just beginning what is going to be a 2-year process focused on this.

Today's underlying resolution, the measure that we're going to be considering through this rule and then on the floor tomorrow, is merely the first step in this ongoing effort to bring our Federal budget back into the black. Our committees will have to conduct extensive oversight, as I mentioned earlier, of Federal programs. We will have to dispense with fiscal year 2011 spending, which the last Congress failed to do, before we can even begin to deal with the coming fiscal year.

The underlying resolution that we have before us today lays down a marker for reducing spending and puts the House on record for its commitment to tackle this issue in a serious way. The hard work will follow.

As this process proceeds, rank and file Members of both political parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, will have the opportunity to participate in our effort to address these very tough decisions.

Through constructive debate, we can finally begin to impose real accountability and discipline in our Federal budget. In concert with pro-growth policies--and I said to me the most essential thing is implementing pro-growth economic policies--but going hand-in-hand with these pro-growth policies, Mr. Speaker, this effort will put us back onto the path of economic recovery and job creation.

Today's rule sets the stage for the start of that effort. I'm going to urge my colleagues to support this rule and demonstrate their resolve to tackle runaway Federal spending in a serious way.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this rule that we are considering.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to one of our new Members whom I mentioned in my opening remarks, the gentleman from North Charleston, South Carolina, my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Speaker, Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to ask my friend what was the vote in the House on that budget that my friend was just talking about?

It was deemed. There was never a vote in this institution on it, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Let me say that I think that one of the things that we have to recognize here--and I am happy to engage in rigorous debate, and I'm happy that we have not at this point had any of our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the prospect of starving children, throwing people out of schools, depriving veterans of access to the things that they need. So I express my appreciation to my colleagues, because when we were up in the Rules Committee, that was the tenor of the discussion that took place upstairs.

One thing that I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that, in 1974, the Congress put into place legislation known as the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act. I happen to believe that that needs to be overhauled, because Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act has been a failure, an abject failure. And I've been working with my friend from Maryland, the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, and Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee, as well as the chair and ranking member, Messrs. Conrad and Sessions, in the Senate on the notion of our working together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to bring about an overhaul of the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act.

Now, one of the reasons that I believe it is essential is that last year was the first time ever that we have not seen a budget passed. It's the first time since implementation of the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act. And, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the crocodile tears that are being shed so often on this House floor, I think it's important to note that that is why we are in the position where we are today. We wouldn't be here had we had a budget passed.

Now, many people talk about this calendar year, but we are 5 months-- we are 5 months--into the fiscal year, and that is the reason that we are in a position where we're having to make the kinds of tough decisions that we are.

My friend from North Charleston, my very, very thoughtful colleague is a new member of the Rules Committee, has been raising with me some very simple and commonsense questions about the process that we have been going through. One of the things that he just said in a meeting that we just participated in was that we need to recognize that we, at this moment, are beginning the process, we are beginning the process of cutting spending. This is going to be a 2-year struggle. So this is not going to be the end of our effort to try and rein in wasteful Federal spending.

I know my friend had some thoughts on that, and I would be happy to yield to him if he would like to either pose a question or offer any comments that relate to either the health care bill and the vote that we just had or any other issue.

I yield to my friend from South Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, I thank my friend for giving me the opportunity to repeat what I just said so that we can underscore it.

Never before have we failed to have a budget. And yet, for the first time in 36 years, that happened.

That's why I believe that we have a chance to work, Democrats and Republicans together, with our colleagues in the other body to bring about real reform of the Budget Act itself.

I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, let me say that my friend is absolutely right.

Throughout the debate that took place last week, we heard that, in fact, repealing the $2.7 trillion health care bill would end up costing $230 billion based on the numbers provided to us by the Congressional Budget Office's estimates. We kept hearing that, and in one of the exchanges we had with Mr. Pence, only in Washington, D.C. can bringing about the elimination of a $2.7 trillion expenditure actually cost money.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that the thing that we need to point to is not only the smoke and mirrors that went into the recommendations that were provided, whether it is dealing with the CLASS Act, which the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has described as a Ponzi scheme--he used that term to describe it, whether it's that--or, to me, the most important thing to point to is the fact that in that measure there is a three-quarter of a trillion--Mr. Speaker, that's three- quarter of a trillion--dollar tax increase that is being posed along with the mandate.

So my friend from North Charleston is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, when he points to the fact that we were, in fact, saving dollars with the action that we took last week, and we are very committed to ensuring that people have access to quality, affordable health insurance by allowing for the purchase of insurance across States lines, pooling to deal with preexisting conditions, associated health plans so that small businesses can get lower rates, the idea of meaningful lawsuit abuse reform, which the President of the United States talked about last year in his State of the Union message.

I mean, these are the kinds of things that we believe can immediately drive the cost of health insurance and health care down itself and at the same time we can disengage the Federal Government's dramatic involvement in this.

So my friend from North Charleston is absolutely right and I appreciate his, as a small businessman, coming to this body, bringing the common sense that he is sharing with us.

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 such time as I might consume to say to my friend that again this is just the first step in a long process which will allow the kind of free-flowing debate that we are talking about. Now my friend will recall that never before have we gone through the appropriations process the way we did the last 2 years, that being, when my friend and I arrived here in 1981, and when it came to the issue of spending, Members had the opportunity to stand up on the House floor and offer an amendment to the appropriations bill.

And I will tell you that it's our intention to once again have that kind of debate that we had all the way up until the last 2 years. So I can assure my friend that our goal of having a freer flowing debate is important.

The second point I would like to make, and then I will yield to my friend, is that while my friend has continually said that we didn't make amendments in order to this measure, there were no amendments submitted to the Rules Committee that would have given us the opportunity to do that.

We did make an amendment in order that modifies this, that came from Mr. Scott in the Rules Committee, that actually said that we should get to '08 levels or less, and it is true. My friend from Worcester did ask to make in order an amendment by Mr. Van Hollen, but, as I said, there were no amendments that had been actually submitted to the Rules Committee.

So that vote was taken by the Rules Committee. That decision was made.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that amendments submitted to the Rules Committee we do not actually have. I mean my friend knows very well that when it comes to the Rules Committee, when we are getting ready to report out a rule, there are amendments that are submitted. There was one amendment that was proposed by Mr. McGovern. The Rules Committee chose not to make that amendment in order.

There was an amendment that did, in fact, bring us to lower spending----

If I might complete my statement. I think I control the time here.

It is very important to note that we did have an amendment that was considered in the Rules Committee by Mr. Scott which actually brought us to lower levels. It said 2008 levels or less.

I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, may I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time to say the following--and I will yield to my friend again. I want to clarify what it was that I said.

Amendments are submitted up to the Rules Committee. There were no amendments that actually had been submitted to the Rules Committee, and that's the point that I wanted to make.

There is another issue that we need to point to also, and that is there is going to be something that was often denied, I would say to my friend, and that is a motion to recommit with instructions is going to be included in this measure so that, in fact, the minority will have a bite at the apple that was more often than not denied in the past. And so that is a step in the direction towards a more open process.

And again, as I said, this is the beginning. This is the beginning of a process that will allow for consideration of a budget resolution and an appropriations process which will give Members, Democrats and Republicans alike, an opportunity to participate.

With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from San Diego----

Of course. I have yielded three times to my friend, and I know that Mr. McGovern has lots of time.

The gentleman from San Diego has asked to be recognized. I have had an exchange with him. And now I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from San Diego (Mr. Bilbray), and then if Mr. McGovern chooses to yield time to my friend, I am happy to engage in a discussion with him again.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend 1 additional minute.

Of course I will. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield my friend 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say what it is that I said. What I said is there were no amendments submitted to the Rules Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Obviously, and it has been indicated early on, we are not going to see across-the-board spending cuts. The goal, I would say to my friend, is to get to '08 levels, and I believe that we can preserve the FBI.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a minute and-a-half to respond to my friend with a couple of comments.

First, this is about job creation and economic growth. Today we live with an economy where there is a tremendous degree of uncertainty, and we know right now that there are job creators, investors, who have resources on the sidelines. I don't believe that there is anything that we could do--well, there are a number of things that we could do that may be as important, I mean, reducing the tax burden on job creators, opening up new markets around the world. But one of the things that I think is critically important for us to do is to begin getting our fiscal house in order so that that will provide an incentive for job creation and economic growth.

The next point I would like to make is that while I congratulated my friends, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Van Hollen, for not engaging in the sky- is-falling threats about what might happen down the road, or actually determining what would happen, I have to say that I was a little concerned and I have come to the conclusion that if one can't prioritize, Mr. Speaker, they resort to demonizing.

The fact of the matter is that we are beginning a process that will see us for the first time in 2 years have a free-flowing debate on appropriations. When my friend mentioned both the National Institutes of Health and the FBI, I believe those are important priorities that Democrats and Republicans alike want to fund.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

My friend has concluded that somehow he knows exactly what will be cut based on this resolution. My friend has concluded that he knows exactly what level is going to be cut when it comes to the National Institutes of Health and the FBI. There are, as we move ahead with this appropriations level debate, debate that is going to be coming in the next several months, we obviously will be in a position where we will be able to, Democrats and Republicans alike, establish our priorities.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me say that obviously it does not have to be done within the National Institutes of Health, the notion of saying that it has to be cut there. We have seen a doubling in the level of funding under President Bush for the National Institutes of Health, Mr. Speaker, and I think that there are areas where we can bring about cuts.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

We can do that without in any way jeopardizing the important priorities that we have.

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

I thank my friend for yielding.

What I would say is that this is the beginning of a process which will allow us, with a free-flowing debate on appropriations, to do just that. The country survived at 2008 levels.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me just say that this resolution did not emerge from the Budget Committee. This is a resolution of the House Rules Committee. We are the committee of jurisdiction for H. Res. 38.

I yield myself 1 minute to say to my friend that it is very interesting to have this debate, and I am happy to be standing on this side, saying that we got the message of last November 2, and I know the 87 new Members on our side who have come to this institution have made it very clear: The goal of moving in a direction of bringing about spending cuts is critically important.

Now, my good friend has just become the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and I know that it is a new assignment for my friend, but I'd like to take just a moment to explain what the budget process consists of.

We are going to see your committee proceed with establishing the broad 302(a) allocations, and that big number will be determined. In this institution, Democrats and Republicans alike--and, again, we haven't seen it in the last 2 years, unfortunately, because we shut down the appropriations process; but we are this year going to allow Members the opportunity, allow Members under a privileged resolution on the appropriations bills, to actually participate in establishing those priorities. That is going to be a joint effort.

I yield myself 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

Our priority is to get the economy back on track and create jobs. We know very well that getting our fiscal house in order is going to be essential if we are going to have the job creation that both Democrats and Republicans want.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman's dramatically raising the level of a simple two-paragraph House resolution that is the first step in a process that will allow the Budget Committee to do its work, to allow the appropriators and, through the appropriators, the full House--Democrats and Republicans alike--to establish those priorities.

I will yield in just a second.

So I would say to my friend that we do very much want, Mr. Speaker, to have a chance for this institution--and I hope Democrats will join in support of H. Res. 38 when it's voted on tomorrow--to go on record, demonstrating the institution's commitment to having heard the message from the American people.

Out of respect for my friend, I yield myself 15 seconds and I am happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I will say, Mr. Speaker, that across- the-

board cuts is not something that is being considered here. We are pursuing 2008 levels, and I believe that that's what this resolution says. We hope very much that we can get to lower levels of spending, and I suspect that some Members on the other side of the aisle will want to join us in working together in that effort so we can get our fiscal house in order.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will say to my friend that that is the definition of ``security spending'': defense, homeland security, VA, and military construction.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend that I very much appreciate his recognizing the commitment that I have had to security through foreign assistance programs and to make it very clear that, again, we are just beginning a process today. We are beginning a process today that will allow this House to work its will. It is obvious that going to 2008 levels is not going to gut all of the very important national security aspects that we have of foreign assistance programs. My friend knows very well, Mr. Speaker, that it is essential that we get our fiscal house in order, and this is the first step on a road towards doing just that.

With that, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this institution, Democrat and Republican alike, knows full well that the American people are hurting. We have an unemployment rate that is at 9.4 percent. We have, in my State of California, a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. I see my friend Mr. Lewis here on the floor. In the Inland Empire of California, the unemployment rate is 15\1/2\ percent. People are out there making very, very tough decisions, and the economic uncertainty that exists today is playing a big role in diminishing the kind of investments that we need to create jobs.

This resolution is a very simple one. It says that we shouldn't spend money we don't have. We shouldn't spend money we don't have. That's what we're saying as we begin this process. Those are the decisions that families are making all across this country. They're not spending money they don't have. In fact, we've seen, because of this economic downturn, lots of families today saving more than they have

in the past because they don't want to get themselves into this position that the Federal Government is.

We're going to have to make some tough choices around here. It's not going to be easy. No one is saying that it's going to be easy. But this resolution that we're going to debate tomorrow, H. Res. 38, simply says that we are going to go to 2008 levels or less, because frankly 2008 levels, as far as I'm concerned, were too high. I believe that we need to cut back even more.

Now we continue to hear this argument that we are going to decimate research into very important diseases out there. We began the debate, as I said in the opening, not going there, but we did go there. And, as I said, if you can't prioritize, you end up demonizing and creating this great deal of fear that is out there. Or the FBI is going to close down if we go to `08 spending levels. Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously that is not the case. This institution is not about to undermine the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But we do know that with adequate oversight-- which is our constitutional responsibility--and focusing, yes, on those three things that Democrats and Republicans alike say--waste, fraud and abuse--we will be able to rein in this behemoth.

Again, it's going to be tough, but this resolution is just the first step in a 2-year process to get our economy growing, create jobs, and to rein in the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government so that we can encourage individual initiative and responsibility.

So Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule. And tomorrow, when we bring the resolution, H. Res. 38, to the floor, I urge their support of this measure. I hope very much that we will have Democrats joining with Republicans for this very commonsense approach to do exactly what these 87 new Members on our side of the aisle--and I suspect even some of the nine new Members on the Democratic side of the aisle--have come here to do, and that is to rein in this wasteful government spending that we have seen.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I oppose this resolution. I oppose it because I think its provisions with respect to our own economic recovery and the production of jobs is offset tremendously by its passage.

But I want to focus my time on the limited question but the very important question of what is in and what is not in security funding, because security funding, as has been pointed out, is exempted from the requirements to go back to fiscal year 2008 functions or less.

The chairman of the Rules Committee, when asked at the Rules Committee whether foreign assistance, diplomacy, and development were part of security--was that part of the exemption?--he said no.

My definition--me, David Dreier, chairman of the Rules Committee, out of which this resolution comes--is as we have outlined in here: This is discretionary spending--that is non-security spending--other than defense, military construction, VA, and homeland security.

I assume the gentleman's interpretation is one he still holds to less than a week later.

I am happy to yield.

Thank you.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman for reaffirming that position. Now let's take a look at what that means.

That means not exempt from these drastic cuts are: weapons in training to build the capacity of key partners in the fight against terror in Yemen, in Pakistan, in the Philippines. That's all part of our security assistance package, part of our international affairs budget; financing for the purchase of U.S. military equipment to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge; defense items and services that enable other countries to cooperate with us on counterterrorism.

In Afghanistan, they're cuts that would mean an end to the civilian surge. It would force the military to perform civilian jobs. The reductions would harm four Provincial Reconstruction Teams and forward operating bases, security forces and police training, explosive ordnance disposal, counternarcotics and poppy eradication programs.

In Iraq, the state programs that would be harmed by virtue of the gentleman's definition of ``non-security funds'' that have to be dramatically cut back are: training for Iraqi police and security forces to take over when the U.S. troops depart; funding for our Special Inspectors General in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that programs are designed to achieve maximum impact and are properly managed and implemented.

Everything the gentleman has stood for in his years in Congress is going to be undermined by virtue of what he is proposing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, which provides for consideration of a resolution to reduce what is being called ``non- security'' spending to 2008 levels.

That resolution, H. Res. 38, sends a very damaging message that the Congress will not stand up to protect those programs that are absolutely essential to jobs and the economy. It also rejects a key principle that military leaders and Presidents of both parties have clearly recognized: Foreign assistance and diplomacy are essential to United States national security.

That principle has been honored on a bipartisan basis ever since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. On that terrible morning, Americans woke to the realization that while the Cold War was over, their safety and security could be threatened by much less sophisticated means. The ideologies and the weapons of terror could not be thwarted by military power alone.

In 2004 the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act by a vote of 336-75. It was supported by all the Members who are now in positions of leadership in this body. The Speaker, the Majority Leader and the Budget Committee Chairman all voted for it.

The bill, now Public Law 108-458, states: ``Long-term success in the war on terrorism demands the use of all elements of national power, including diplomacy, military action, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense.''

It continues: ``To win the war on terrorism, the United States must assign to economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that is assigned to military capabilities.''

In fact, the portion of the bill that makes these findings is known as the ``9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004.'' It states: ``The legislative and executive branches of the Government of the United States must commit to robust, long-term investments in all of the tools necessary for the foreign policy of the United States to successfully accomplish the goals of the United States.''

All of the tools necessary--that includes diplomacy and foreign assistance, which would be slashed under this resolution. The 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004 goes on to say that these investments ``will require increased funding to United States foreign affairs programs.''

In May of this year, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to then-Speaker Pelosi regarding proposed cuts to the international affairs budget. The opening paragraph stated: ``We are living in times that require an integrated national security program with budgets that fund the full spectrum of national security efforts, including vitally important pre-conflict and post-conflict civilian stabilization programs.''

He was reinforcing a message that had also been communicated, on several occasions, by Secretary Gates, when he wrote: ``The diplomatic and developmental capabilities of the United States have a direct bearing on our ability to shape threats and reduce the need for military action. It is my firm belief that diplomatic programs as part of a coordinated strategy will save money by reducing the likelihood of active military conflict involving U.S. forces.

Admiral Mullen penned a personal note at the end, which read: ``The more significant the cuts, the longer military operations will take, and the more and more lives are at risk!''

President Bush, when sending up his wartime supplemental request in FY 2006, integrated diplomatic and military spending. He asked Congress to provide ``the Resources to Win the War on Terror.''

The message from our military leadership, this Congress, and even former President Bush is clear: U.S. civilian agencies must be fully resourced to prosecute the fight against terror effectively. A cut to the 150 budget harms U.S. national security and puts American lives at risk.

And yet, the Chairman of the Rules Committee explained, during consideration of this resolution, that ``security spending'' does not include diplomacy and development. He said, ``No, my definition, my definition is, as we have outlined in here, this is discretionary spending other than defense, military construction, V.A. and homeland security.'' The resolution itself does not define what is security or non-security, but the authors say they do not consider diplomacy and development part of our national security budget.

Before voting on this resolution, I would urge my colleagues to think about what the practical implications would be of major cuts in the international affairs budget.

In 2008, the vast majority of U.S. assistance to Iraq was provided by the military. This year, at long last, we are withdrawing the remainder of our troops, and handing over the job to civilians. If we cut our diplomatic and development budget for Iraq, then all the investments we've made, and all the American lives that have been lost, will be in vain.

The civilian presence costs only a tiny fraction of what we were spending on the military. But this resolution would make that civilian presence impossible. The proposed cuts will mean snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Returning to the past would also mean violating our Memorandum of Understanding with Israel, under which we pledge to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge against

those who seek its destruction. Do my colleagues suggest we renege on our commitment to Israel?

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we cannot defeat violent extremism by military power alone. As Secretary Gates recently said, ``without development we will not be able to be successful in either Iraq or Afghanistan.'' Our military strategy in Afghanistan is often described as ``clear, hold, and build.'' How can we succeed if there is no one to do the holding and the building?

Foreign assistance programs protect us even outside the areas of active combat or potential conflict. Our efforts to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases, counter the flow of illegal narcotics, prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reduce human misery and halt environmental destruction, all help to protect the safety and security of American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, we can't afford to go back to the isolationist, unilateralist policies of the past. Cutting spending to 2008 levels takes us back to a period when America's standing in the world was at an all-time low.

Whether it's finding new markets for U.S. goods and services, addressing climate change, sharing the burden of peacekeeping, enforcing sanctions against Iran, or improving travel and communications, we need to build strong international relationships.

We all remember the period when the United States tried to go it alone, unwilling to cooperate with other countries and demonstrate global leadership.

We've finally begun to turn that all around. Let's not go back to the bad old days when the U.S. turned away from the rest of the world, and lost so much of its influence and respect.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the very difficult budget and economic situation that confronts us. There is no doubt that well-crafted reforms will help us to use our foreign assistance dollars more effectively and efficiently, and ensure that aid reaches those who need it. That is why I am continuing my efforts to develop legislation to modernize our foreign assistance policies and programs.

But what we need to do, as one conservative blogger has suggested, is to ``mend it, not end it.'' Comparatively speaking, diplomacy and development don't cost much, and save us money over the long run.

International affairs funding helps promote U.S. exports and saves U.S. jobs. Our economy can't grow without creating and expanding new markets abroad. Our diplomats help to identify export opportunities, help American companies navigate foreign political systems, and level the playing field for American products around the globe.

We should also keep in mind that international affairs accounts for just one percent of the budget. Even if we eliminated such spending entirely, it wouldn't balance the budget and it wouldn't make a dent in our national debt. But it would devastate our economy and our national security.

As Secretary Gates said last fall, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.''

In places like Haiti and Sudan, we provide assistance not only for purely humanitarian reasons, but also because a failure to do so could lead to chaos and bloodshed that would be far more costly in the long run.

Going back to 2008 levels of global AIDS funding would mean ending antiretroviral treatment for people who are currently receiving it. It would mean abandoning pregnant women who run a high risk of transmitting HIV to their newborns. It would mean fewer orphans and vulnerable children will get care and support, and fewer people in poor countries will get HIV counseling and testing.

President Bush made clear not only the need to not cut funding, but to make greater investments in these programs when he wrote, just a few months ago, ``there are millions on treatment who cannot be abandoned. And the progress in many African nations depends on the realistic hope of new patients gaining access to treatment. . . . On AIDS, to stand still is to lose ground.''

Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the most obvious and damaging implications of reducing the international affairs budget to 2008 levels. This resolution would set the stage for reckless cuts that endanger our national security, abandon our national interests and throw Americans out of work, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, which provides for consideration of a resolution to reduce what is being called ``non-security'' spending to 2008 levels.

That resolution, H. Res. 38, sends a very damaging message that the Congress will not stand up to protect those programs that are absolutely essential to jobs and the economy. It also rejects a key principle that military leaders and Presidents of both parties have clearly recognized: Foreign assistance and diplomacy are essential to United States national security.

That principle has been honored on a bipartisan basis ever since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. On that terrible morning, Americans woke to the realization that while the Cold War was over, their safety and security could be threatened by much less sophisticated means. The ideologies and the weapons of terror could not be thwarted by military power alone.

In 2004 the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act by a vote of 336-75. It was supported by all the Members who are now in positions of leadership in this body. The Speaker, the Majority Leader and the Budget Committee Chairman all voted for it.

The bill, now Public Law 108-458, states: ``Long-term success in the war on terrorism demands the use of all elements of national power, including diplomacy, military action, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense.''

It continues: ``To win the war on terrorism, the United States must assign to economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that is assigned to military capabilities.''

In fact, the portion of the bill that makes these findings is known as the ``9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004.'' It states: ``The legislative and executive branches of the Government of the United States must commit to robust, long-term investments in all of the tools necessary for the foreign policy of the United States to successfully accomplish the goals of the United States.''

All of the tools necessary--that includes diplomacy and foreign assistance, which would be slashed under this resolution. The 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004 goes on to say that these investments ``will require increased funding to United States foreign affairs programs.''

In May of this year, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to then-Speaker Pelosi regarding proposed cuts to the international affairs budget. The opening paragraph stated: ``We are living in times that require an integrated national security program with budgets that fund the full spectrum of national security efforts, including vitally important pre-conflict and post-conflict civilian stabilization programs.''

He was reinforcing a message that had also been communicated, on several occasions, by Secretary Gates, when he wrote: ``The diplomatic and developmental capabilities of the United States have a direct bearing on our ability to shape threats and reduce the need for military action. It is my firm belief that diplomatic programs as part of a coordinated strategy will save money by reducing the likelihood of active military conflict involving U.S. forces.

Admiral Mullen penned a personal note at the end, which read: ``The more significant the cuts, the longer military operations will take, and the more and more lives are at risk!''

President Bush, when sending up his wartime supplemental request in FY 2006, integrated diplomatic and military spending. He asked Congress to provide ``the Resources to Win the War on Terror.''

The message from our military leadership, this Congress, and even former President Bush is clear: U.S. civilian agencies must be fully resourced to prosecute the fight against terror effectively. A cut to the 150 budget harms U.S. national security and puts American lives at risk.

And yet, the Chairman of the Rules Committee explained, during consideration of this resolution, that ``security spending'' does not include diplomacy and development. He said, ``No, my definition, my definition is, as we have outlined in here, this is discretionary spending other than defense, military construction, V.A. and homeland security.'' The resolution itself does not define what is security or non-security, but the authors say they do not consider diplomacy and development part of our national security budget.

Before voting on this resolution, I would urge my colleagues to think about what the practical implications would be of major cuts in the international affairs budget.

In 2008, the vast majority of U.S. assistance to Iraq was provided by the military. This year, at long last, we are withdrawing the remainder of our troops, and handing over the job to civilians. If we cut our diplomatic and development budget for Iraq, then all the investments we've made, and all the American lives that have been lost, will be in vain.

The civilian presence costs only a tiny fraction of what we were spending on the military. But this resolution would make that civilian presence impossible. The proposed cuts will mean snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Returning to the past would also mean violating our Memorandum of Understanding with Israel, under which we pledge to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge against those who seek its destruction. Do my colleagues suggest we renege on our commitment to Israel?

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we cannot defeat violent extremism by military power alone. As Secretary Gates recently said, ``without development we will not be able to be successful in either Iraq or Afghanistan.'' Our military strategy in Afghanistan is often described as ``clear, hold, and build.'' How can we succeed if there is no one to do the holding and the building?

Foreign assistance programs protect us even outside the areas of active combat or potential conflict. Our efforts to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases, counter the flow of illegal narcotics, prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reduce human misery and halt environmental destruction, all help to protect the safety and security of American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, we can't afford to go back to the isolationist, unilateralist policies of the past. Cutting spending to 2008 levels takes us back to a period when America's standing in the world was at an all-time low.

Whether it's finding new markets for U.S. goods and services, addressing climate change, sharing the burden of peacekeeping, enforcing sanctions against Iran, or improving travel and communications, we need to build strong international relationships.

We all remember the period when the United States tried to go it alone, unwilling to cooperate with other countries and demonstrate global leadership.

We've finally begun to turn that all around. Let's not go back to the bad old days when the U.S. turned away from the rest of the world, and lost so much of its influence and respect.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the very difficult budget and economic situation that confronts us. There is no doubt that well-crafted reforms will help us to use our foreign assistance dollars more effectively and efficiently, and ensure that aid reaches those who need it. That is why I am continuing my efforts to develop legislation to modernize our foreign assistance policies and programs.

But what we need to do, as one conservative blogger has suggested, is to ``mend it, not end it.'' Comparatively speaking, diplomacy and development don't cost much, and save us money over the long run.

International affairs funding helps promote U.S. exports and saves U.S. jobs. Our economy can't grow without creating and expanding new markets abroad. Our diplomats help to identify export opportunities, help American companies navigate foreign political systems, and level the playing field for American products around the globe.

We should also keep in mind that international affairs accounts for just one percent of the budget. Even if we eliminated such spending entirely, it wouldn't balance the budget and it wouldn't make a dent in our national debt. But it would devastate our economy and our national security.

As Secretary Gates said last fall, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.''

In places like Haiti and Sudan, we provide assistance not only for purely humanitarian reasons, but also because a failure to do so could lead to chaos and bloodshed that would be far more costly in the long run.

Going back to 2008 levels of global AIDS funding would mean ending antiretroviral treatment for people who are currently receiving it. It would mean abandoning pregnant women who run a high risk of transmitting HIV to their newborns. It would mean fewer orphans and vulnerable children will get care and support, and fewer people in poor countries will get HIV counseling and testing.

President Bush made clear not only the need to not cut funding, but to make greater investments in these programs when he wrote, just a few months ago, ``there are millions on treatment who cannot be abandoned. And the progress in many African nations depends on the realistic hope of new patients gaining access to treatment. . . . On AIDS, to stand still is to lose ground.''

Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the most obvious and damaging implications of reducing the international affairs budget to 2008 levels. This resolution would set the stage for reckless cuts that endanger our national security, abandon our national interests and throw Americans out of work, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule. So much for an open process, and so much for a free flow of ideas. I also rise in strong opposition to the underlying resolution.

Once again, the Republican majority is choosing to ignore the single most important issue facing the American people: jobs. My Republican friends have instead brought forth a resolution, H. Res. 38, that they tout as some sort of spending reduction measure. In fact, the resolution doesn't cut a single dollar--not one dime--from the Federal budget.

If this were a good-faith effort, there would be some numbers in this resolution. Instead, the resolution says that we should ``assume non- security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less'' without defining ``non-security'' spending or specifying exactly what those levels might be. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget resolution without any numbers, which is why it is so meaningless.

We are told that the numbers are on their way, that the Congressional Budget Office will tell us on Wednesday of this week what the impact of this resolution would be if it were actually put into place. So why are we here

today debating this issue? Why can't we wait until Wednesday when we have the numbers? The answer is as plain as the calendar on the wall: it's politics, pure and simple.

The Republican leadership has scheduled a vote on the resolution tomorrow just before President Obama addresses the Nation in his State of the Union Address. That way, they'll have a fresh set of talking points for their response to the President. They'll be able to say, ``Look how serious we are about cutting government funding,'' when, of course, they haven't cut anything.

Another problem with the resolution is that it reinforces the terrible precedent that the Republican majority established in their rules package at the beginning of this Congress. Under those rules, a single Member of Congress, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has the authority to determine spending levels for the government for the rest of the year.

Now, like all of my colleagues, I have a great deal of respect for the current chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan. But I strongly disagree with the notion that he and only he should determine something as fundamental as the budget of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, we have to vote in this House to change the name of a post office. But we can't have a vote on how much we should spend on education, on food safety, on infrastructure, on environmental cleanup, or on medical research? That's a far cry from the openness and transparency that my Republican friends promised.

Last week in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to this resolution that would have allowed the other 435 Members of the House the opportunity to vote on this critical issue. But my Republican colleagues defeated my amendment on a party-line vote.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution walls off defense spending from the budget axe. We hear all the time from my friends on the other side of the aisle that everything should be on the table. Why then would they take hundreds of billions of dollars of potential savings off the table right out of the gate? Even Speaker Boehner on a recent interview said, ``I believe there's room to find savings in the Department of Defense.'' Well, if that's true--and it most certainly is--then why does this resolution treat defense spending as sacred and untouchable?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Federal budget, the Republican majority is not off to a good start. Their rules package paved the way for them to add nearly $5 trillion to the deficit. Last week, they voted to repeal the health care law and add another $230 billion to the deficit. And now they are rushing a 1-page bill without a single number and without any specifics about how and where they want to cut.

What we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, is not real. There are no tough choices being made today. This is show business, and quite frankly, it diminishes the legislative process. The American people deserve much, much better. I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule, and I urge them to reject the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the presence of my new colleague who is on the Rules Committee and simply say that, if this were a serious effort, there would be numbers in this bill. There are none. This is about issuing a press release after the State of the Union so that Republicans can have a talking point to go home with. This is not a serious effort. And if it were, there would be real numbers in there. If we were interested in rigorous debate, this would be an open rule.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

I am glad my friends on the other side of the aisle are happy that they voted to repeal the affordable health care bill, but I will tell that you there are real people in this country who are benefiting from the real protections in the bill who are quite anxious about the fact that there are people who want to remove the protection, for example, that prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. There are parents who can keep their kids on their insurance until they are 26 who are not too happy about that repeal. There are senior citizens who are benefiting from the closing of the doughnut hole who are actually feeling some benefits from this health care bill. They're not too happy that the Republicans want to repeal all of that. And on top of that, the CBO said it adds considerably to our deficit.

At this point I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, although it has really nothing to do with the bill we're talking about here today. And our concern about this budget bill before us is that there's no number in it, and it essentially is a press release, I guess, to be able to talk about tomorrow after the State of the Union.

I also want to clarify what happened in the Rules Committee. I did offer an amendment that was rejected on party line that said that Members of Congress ought to have the ability to vote on this magic number that the chairman of the Budget Committee will come up with. That was rejected.

There was also an amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida which would have allowed Mr. Van Hollen, who is our ranking member on the Budget Committee, a substitute. That was rejected. And there was also an amendment for an open rule so that we could have a free and open debate, and that was rejected. So there were amendments that were offered, and they were rejected.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for a point of clarification.

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

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

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out one of the reasons why these questions are coming up is because when this resolution was brought before the Rules Committee, the chairman of the Budget Committee didn't show nor did the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And there are no numbers in this bill. So we are very, very concerned about what numbers might exist out there. I think people in this House, Democrats and Republicans, ought to know what the real numbers are.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I appreciate the gentleman for making that point of clarification. However, what we are talking about is setting the spending levels for this House which directly impacts the chairman of the Budget Committee and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. So if there are questions about how deep these cuts are going to be and where they are going to come from, it is because we have no clarity.

At this point I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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

I would remind my colleagues, when they read the resolution, it is 2008 levels or less, so it muddles the number even more.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that this is not the way we should deal with the budget. And transparency, I will tell my Republican friends, means knowing what the budget number is. I don't know why that's such a radical idea. And accountability means that everybody in this House should be able to vote yes or no on whatever that number is. It shouldn't be up to one person to unilaterally determine that number. This budget process that the Republicans have put together politicizes unnecessarily a budget process and sets, I think, a lousy precedent.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will modify this rule to provide that immediately after the House passes this rule it will take up an amendment to exempt cuts in funding for the FBI's counterterrorism program. My Republican colleagues said they won't cut programs that protect our Nation's security, but the resolution itself doesn't even bother to define ``non-security spending.'' And the definition I have heard from the other side of the aisle would not include the FBI's counterterrorism program.

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

Mr. Speaker, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will allow the House to consider an amendment exempting cuts in funding to the FBI's counterterrorism program, an amendment that will ensure we do not sacrifice our Nation's security in this post-9/11 world.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can ensure that we continue to protect this Nation from terrorism.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.