Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 122 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the ranking member from New York, pending which time I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a mouthful as the Clerk was reading through this resolution, and it was an exciting mouthful. I'm not sure that folks actually were able to get from just the prose the excitement that is in this rule today.

What this rule provides for is two very important things. I'm going to take them in order of my personal passion, but they're both equally important. Number one, this rule provides that every single Member of this House--not just Republicans, not just Democrats, not just folks who are favored, not any particular category--but every single Member of this House who represents a constituency back home had an opportunity to submit their own budget for the United States of America.

So often, the problem in this town is not enough good ideas, Mr. Speaker.

We don't have that problem today because every Member of the House that chose to submit a budget is going to have their budget considered and debated on the floor of this House if we pass this rule today.

Now, that is only five budgets, Mr. Speaker, five plus the Budget Committee's mark, because it's not easy to put together a budget. A lot of folks talk a good game about what they would do if they were king for a day; but when you try to craft your own budget, you've got to put, literally, money where your mouth and ideas are.

In this rule, we make in order a Congressional Black Caucus substitute budget, a Progressive Caucus substitute budget, and a substitute budget by the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). We make in order a budget introduced by Mr. Mulvaney from South Carolina that tries to capture the essence of what the Senate is working on right now, and we make in order a budget produced by the Republican Study Committee. All of those exist as an alternative to the budget that was produced by the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of sitting on the Budget Committee. What you see here in my hand is the Budget Committee report. We produced this on March 15. It's bound and it's published. They did a very nice job. It's been proofread, and the minority has had a chance to add their views. That was March 15 that we produced this budget.

But as we sit here today with March quickly leaving us, what we do not have yet is a budget from the United States President. I only point that out, Mr. Speaker, to say I understand that it's hard to produce a budget. I know because I produced one in this cycle. I had the great pleasure of working with a team that produced the Republican Study Committee budget and produced the House budget. So in a time period where the President has failed to follow the legally required mandate of introducing a budget by the first week of February, I've had the great pleasure of producing two budgets.

My friends on the Progressive Caucus have produced a budget. My friends on the Congressional Black Caucus have produced a budget. My friend, Mr. Van Hollen, has produced a budget. And I think it is fair when we ask in this debate why we have been denied a chance to look at the President's budget. We didn't see it in February. We didn't see it in March. Word has it now we might see it in April.

It's hard work to produce a budget, but it's important work. In fact, it's legally required work. I take great pride not just that the House will meet its statutory deadline, but that we're meeting it in this very open and honest forum as this rule proposes.

But the second thing this rule does, Mr. Speaker, is it provides for consideration of the committee funding resolution. This Congress doesn't have a penny to spend except for pennies that we take from the American taxpayer. That's the only place any revenue comes into this United States Government. Part of that revenue goes to fund this very institution.

Thrift begins at home, Mr. Speaker. Before you and I arrived in this body, Mr. Speaker, the committee process here in this House was authorized to spend $300 million a year. Now, the committees do amazing work. It's important work to produce reports like this Budget Committee report, and they do the oversight on the executive branch. I don't for a minute suggest that the work that the committee structure does isn't critical to the functioning of our Republic. But every single account in the United States Government has to be looked at, examined, critiqued, and reformed if we are to get our fiscal books back in order.

The very first committee funding resolution you and I had a chance to vote on, Mr. Speaker, we reduced that committee funding from $300 million back in the 111th Congress down to around $260 in the 112th.

Here we come down again to $240 million in this resolution. In the 26 now short months that you and I have served in Congress, Mr. Speaker, this body has examined its own books and reduced its spending by 20 percent on committees. That is not an easy task. That's not a task that came lightly. That's a task that has taken tremendous effort by both the majority and the minority.

But my question is, Mr. Speaker, if we can do it, as the American people expect us to do, what could the executive branch do? If we in the people's House can take 20 percent out because our constituents have demanded that we view every single dollar with an eye toward thrift, what could the executive branch do if only they would partner with us as we begin the leadership right here in this body?

None of the easy decisions are left, Mr. Speaker. The only decisions left to be decided in this budget, to be decided in this rule, are the hard decisions. We have provided in this rule the opportunity to consider every alternative that Members have proposed to decide these solutions, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to refer the gentlelady to the House Budget Committee report.

If she were to read just the first few pages, she would see that spending increases under this budget by $500 billion in the next 5 years and by $1.5 trillion over the next 10. I promised myself I would count how many times we heard the words ``extreme cuts'' applied to what is a half-trillion dollars in new and additional spending, but I confess I've lost track already today.

With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes, Mr. Speaker, to the chairman of the Rules Committee, a man who crafted this rule that has allowed all ideas on the budget to be considered today. He would be the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. If I can just ask my colleague from California before she leaves, and I have the great pleasure of serving with her on the Budget Committee, and I would certainly disagree with most of her characterizations about the work product there, and look forward to dispelling those tomorrow, but today with this rule, I heard you encourage our colleagues to reject this rule. This is, of course, a rule that has made every single idea of every single Member who had a budget plan in order. Does that not satisfy the gentlelady's need for a full and open debate on our budget priorities?

I'm happy to yield to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, I would not ignore those at all. I believe we have made priorities of those in this budget. I look forward to debating that tomorrow.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), another one of my colleagues on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to speak to accusations of forces of darkness. I've found in my time that light is one of those great illuminators. How convenient in that route.

And I would just refer folks to the budget that's posted online. It's budget.house.gov.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the budget report is there that goes through line item by line item by line item and increases spending, not by the 5 percent that current law would do it, that current law that is sending our children and our grandchildren to bankruptcy, but increases spending by 3.5 percent instead. And within that, the gentlelady from Ohio, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely right. We've got to make priority choices about where it is we want our dollars to go.

But I would say to the gentlelady--and I know her heart is pure as she talks about the investment and where she wants to make it in this country--tell me what it is that you and I are willing to pay for today, and let's make that investment.

You know, I think about Hurricane Sandy, for example, all those families in need that we wanted to help; and, you know, we didn't raise a single penny here to do it. We asked our children and our grandchildren to pay for every nickel.

I don't need encouragement to visit those food banks. I've been there already, and I know exactly what the gentlelady's talking about.

I'd be happy to yield to the gentlewoman.

Reclaiming my time, indeed I have. I've seen our neighbors there filling those needs as well.

Again, it is so frustrating to me, Mr. Speaker, in this body, we do not argue about who are the poorest and the neediest among us. We know with certainty who those folks are. What we argue about is whether it's your and my obligation to feed and clothe those folks, or whether we should pass that obligation along to our children and our grandchildren.

And I say, Mr. Speaker, it is immoral. It is immoral for us to ask our children and our grandchildren to pay bills for charity that you and I are not willing to do ourselves today.

I'm so pleased that this rule has made every idea available on the floor of the House for a vote today, but we must choose to do it ourselves. The time for passing the bill to our children and grandchildren is long gone.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds just to say to the gentlelady, my sister and brother-in-law and two beautiful nieces live in Athens, Ohio, one of the poorest regions in southern Ohio. I know exactly what the gentlelady is saying.

We do have to make these choices, and I commend our friends in the Congressional Black Caucus budget and the Progressive budget for laying out their guidelines for raising taxes by $4 and $6 trillion, respectively, to try to pay for some of those priorities; but even in those budgets, they still never balance.

I'm saying that you and I today, from the great wealth that is in this country today, have a chance to either pay for things that we think are important or borrow money from our children and our grandchildren to pay for things that we think are important. You and I are closer to death than we are to birth. These bills are going to be paid by our children and our grandchildren. And today, for example, the President's budget, we've never seen a budget that projected paying back even a penny over the next 75-year window.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

I would welcome the opportunity to work closer across the aisle than we are here today to address those needs that we all agree on. I would say to the gentlelady, our disagreement is not on whether or not those needs exist; it's whether or not you and I are obligated, morally, spiritually, as a function of our community, to serve those needs or whether we can pass that bill on to others.

I know the gentlelady has a strong passion for doing that. I hope she would join with me so that we can do it together, not ask someone else to do it.

I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to a new member of the Rules Committee, but a senior member and leader of this House, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

I will say to the gentlelady I do not have further requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentlelady for being with me on the floor today.

I'll say that we sometimes have some controversy in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. There's a lot of responsibility that lies in the Rules Committee. With 435 folks here in this Chamber, and we all would like to have our say--and we'd all like to have our say probably more than once--the Rules Committee is tasked with managing that debate.

I'll tell you, I think the rule we passed last night is the best rule we've done all year along. Now, my colleague from New York may think I'm damming it with faint praise. But I would say that having this open debate that we will have tomorrow on budgets is about the best we can do in this institution, Mr. Speaker. To allow every single idea, every single individual from the most junior Member who was just elected 2 months ago to the most senior Member who has been here 40 years, if you have a budget idea, you get to have it heard on the floor of the House. In this case, Mr. Speaker, that's going to be six budgets we're going to look at tomorrow.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe having an open process is important. We made in order the Progressive Caucus budget. That Progressive Caucus budget raises taxes by $5.7 trillion--unashamed, unabashed. Tough economy; let's raise taxes by $5.7 trillion, and let's increase spending even more than we are today. I'm glad that that budget is going to be here on the floor.

The Congressional Black Caucus raises taxes $4.2 trillion. Mr. Van Hollen's substitute raises taxes $1.2 trillion.

As you saw from the chart that the chairman of the Rules Committee had on the floor of the House earlier, Mr. Speaker, we don't have a tax problem in this country, we have a spending problem in this country. If we took everything from everybody, we still wouldn't have enough money to pay for all of the promises that previous Congresses and previous Presidents have made. What that translates into is fear.

We can do better for the American people than election after election to scare them with the looming bankruptcy of programs that they depend on. Yet we know the Social Security Disability Insurance program-- already out of money, Mr. Speaker. The Medicare program--which my mom and dad depend on--going out of business in 2023. The Social Security retirement program, Mr. Speaker, not enough money to fund future promises. We have a chance to either ignore those promises or embrace those challenges.

I will tell you we do not have a crisis in this country; we have an opportunity in this country to do the things that we have long known we needed to do.

In 1983, Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats came together, extended the life of the Social Security program and provided certainty and security to another generation of America's seniors. We have an opportunity tomorrow to do the same thing for the Medicare program, or to kick the can down the road and ensure uncertainty, crisis, and fear in yet another generation of Americans who depend upon these programs.

I urge all my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to support this rule that will allow every single idea to be considered tomorrow. And when you come to the floor tomorrow, choose that budget that makes the tough decisions.

It takes no courage at all to let someone else pay the bills, Mr. Speaker. It takes no courage at all to let the next generation sort out the problems. The courage is coming together today to say, even though the weight is going to fall on our shoulders to solve the problem, we owe it to the next generation. We owe them nothing less.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule. I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 122, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of House Resolution 115, which is providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives for the 113th Congress and which authorizes committee budgets for the 113th Congress.

Earlier this month, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on House Administration held two very lengthy and very informative days of hearings with our chairmen and with our ranking members from all of the 19 House committees. Each of them testified about their respective budgets, the commitment to uphold the longstanding two-thirds, one- third allocation between majority and minority offices; and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, they talked about doing more with less, which is a topic that we are all very, very familiar with.

This funding process and these discussions significantly impact the legislative process as these committees are where, of course, the legislation that comprise much of our work begins, where our vital oversight functions occur, which is why throughout this process we adhered, Mr. Speaker, to two very important principles. First of all, we said we need to live within our means, and then prioritizing the finite resources that we have provided to us

in the Congress by hardworking American taxpayers.

As we all know, sequestration went into effect on March 1, 2013, and Congress must live with further cuts, just as every other agency of government must live with similar cuts. As a result of the sequester, the total committee authorization level must be reduced by approximately 11 percent, in the 11 percentile range. And that means if we authorize above that amount, then we will have to take the money from somewhere else.

When ensuring that committees have adequate resources, obviously, we have to consider their legislative objectives; we have to consider their anticipated workload and authorize the finite resources available in a way that best suits the needs of the House of Representatives as a whole.

Although the sequestration is not certainly the ideal way to cut spending, cuts are imperative. They must happen. Our government is too big, too involved, and too costly. As those who are charged with the care of taxpayers' dollars, we need to lead by example, and we must control our spending. We must live within our own means.

Now, this may be a far more strict budget than many had hoped or anticipated, but like so many Americans, we are coping with our circumstances, and we are making cuts to our budgets in a way that any American business or American family would have to, as every local unit of government, every State around the country has had to do. Certainly during these very trying economic times, we also have to make value judgments and budget accordingly.

To match the available post-sequestration funding level, the total authorization amount for House committees must be reduced, as I say, by about 11 percent from the 2012 level; and, therefore, with very few exceptions, each committee authorization has been reduced, again, within that 11 percent range or certainly within a percentage point or so of the 11 percent.

Based on the anticipated workload for the 113th Congress, the Budget Committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Select Committee on Intelligence have been given very much smaller reductions, a very slight reduction from the 11 percent. But every committee certainly will be faced with important oversight responsibilities for 2013. However, given that getting our economy moving again and defending this Nation are the foremost priorities that we face, the dire need for tax and entitlement reform to help grow our economy, to create good-paying private sector jobs and the increasing cyberthreats to our digital infrastructure, it was determined by our committee that these three committees certainly are the tip of the spear in doing some of the most important work for the American people.

We must remain, as well, committed to leading by example in cutting government waste, rooting out inefficiencies, and conducting essential and efficient oversight of our vast administrative agencies.

House Resolution 115, Mr. Speaker, we believe fulfills that mission. I would also point out that this House resolution not only reduces committee expenditures, but it also authorizes total committee funding for the 113th Congress at a level which is lower than 2005. I think that bears repeating--a level lower than 2005. By comparison, overall nondefense discretionary spending by the executive branch has actually increased 16.7 percent since 2008--quite a big difference there.

As I said before, as chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I certainly understand the challenges of stretching committee resources, and I have a very deep appreciation for every committee's ability to absorb these cuts and their commitment to functioning at a high level, even with the reduced resources that they have, and that is due certainly in no small measure to the outstanding leadership that we have with each committee chairman and each ranking member on all of our committees, really, all committed to delivering a very high level of service to the American people.

Some of my colleagues, I know, have voiced their opposition to this measure calling for a freeze in committee spending. They say that freezing spending for committees at 2012 levels is a more balanced approach. But since sequestration, we just don't have the money to cover a freeze. We do not have the money.

So I would simply state that spending beyond our means, in my opinion, is not a balanced approach. In fact, I would say it's a bit irresponsible. As I said before, every American family, every small business, every State and local unit of government must live within their means, and so must the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, again, this resolution has required us to make some very difficult but very necessary decisions. And I want to personally thank, and certainly all of our committee members thank, each chairman and each ranking member who testified before our committee, and our committee staffs as well, who are often unrecognized for the vital work that they do.

I would urge, Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 115, living within our means and prioritizing our finite resources like the rest of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure at this time to yield as much time as he may consume to an outstanding member of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

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

The fact of the matter is that this is all the money that we have to spend.

Believe me, I am sympathetic to the arguments that it would be nice if our committees didn't have to make any cuts. Again, if we don't make some cuts because of the sequestration, this money has to come from somewhere else. I guess we're sort of looking for other ideas of offsets for those who are saying that we should not pass this resolution.

What kinds of things would they offset?

We've certainly watched the White House close tours to groups because they said the sequester impacted the Secret Service's ability to protect the President when the American people came into the White House. I don't know if they're suggesting we should close the Capitol Building or what have you. I don't think that kind of suggestion would go very far.

But, again, where do you offset if you're not going to cut any spending here?

I will also say this: I come from southeast Michigan, which arguably was ground zero during the most painful economic transition, certainly in my lifetime, that happened in our Nation here recently, and we're trying to get ourselves out of that. We were number one in all of the categories you didn't want to be number one in. If I'd have told our local county or our local units of government that they'd have to cut 11 percent, they would say thank you, because they've cut anywhere from 30 to 40 percent. There were just incredible amounts of cuts that happened. Furloughs have happened with employees. That has been going on for years, actually. That's my neighborhood.

When we think about the amount of borrowing that we're doing as a Nation--as everybody knows, we are now to the point of $16 trillion in national debt with no end in sight, and we've been running deficits for, certainly, the last 5 years of well over $1 trillion and, in many cases, $1.5 trillion annually, and we're borrowing 42 cents on every dollar that we spend--if we do not have the political will to make any kind of cuts ourselves to where we can't even cut our own committee budgets here in the House while these kinds of cuts are being absorbed by other areas, I just think that this resolution will be a very vivid demonstration of the differences of what we think ``leading by example'' actually means.

I will tell you as well, as a grandmother, I do not want to look at my two little grandchildren and say, Hey, do you mind paying the bill, because I don't have the political will. I just can't do it. Too hard for me. I don't want to break a sweat here. Would you mind paying?

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I just cannot get to that place. I think this resolution is very, very important. I recognize the painful cuts that are happening. It's not easy. That's why the American people sent us here--to have the political will and to make the hard decisions. I would hope that my colleagues would support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minority whip's comments. I have great regard for him as well. I thought it was interesting, Mr. Speaker, listening to him talk about the President's sequester as an irrational kind of a thing. Of course, it was the President's idea. I don't dispute that it is not the best way to cut spending. Many may say it's an irrational approach. Again, the President's sequester, the President's idea.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for pointing out the sequencing of the sequester, the President's sequester, the President's idea of the sequester, and I appreciate that. I still say with the President's sequester that what's going to happen with this vote is a very vivid demonstration, again, of who is actually committed to doing more with less. My colleague, the gentleman, the minority whip, also has given us sort of a historical lesson of various things in his observation of the way things had gone earlier on, and I would point something out as well since we are talking about committee budget cuts.

In 2007 when the other party, the Democrats, took control of this House, they immediately increased the amount of spending on committees by 8.9 percent, almost 9 percent; immediate increase. Then in 2009 as they kept control of the Congress, again they increased committee spending, that time by 8.9 percent. Now keep in mind, this was at a time--which I had mentioned previously, being from southeast Michigan-- everybody else, it seemed like, certainly every State government, every local unit of government, every school district, many, many businesses, certainly American families, were making cuts. That was not happening here with committee spending.

In 2010, this House shifted control. The Republicans took control. And what did we do with committee spending as a way to show that we wanted to do more with less, that we understood that we needed to get a handle on this out-of-control Federal spending, we actually cut committee budgets by 9.5 percent for the 112th Congress, and as we are debating now, another 11 percent cut that we're looking at.

This is at the same time that the House, under Republican control, has also cut what we call our Members' representational allowances, our MRAs, which has been very painful for all of us as well. We cut 5 percent, then in the 6 percentile. Now just a couple of weeks ago, effective immediately with the sequester, another in the 8 percentile cuts for all of us. All of us are doing more with less. And believe me, I understand there's no sympathy for Members of Congress, but I certainly point that out.

At the same time if you look at non-defense discretionary for the executive branch, almost a 17 percent increase during that same time. So I just think when we look at this resolution, we see how important it is. Again, I am not minimizing how painful it will be for the committees, but it's really the new reality, I think, and it's important for those of us here in the people's House to do the people's work with the amount of money that we have available, and to do it to the very best of our ability. And I know certainly Republicans and Democrats are committed to doing that.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure, at this time, to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

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

First of all, I certainly want to thank Mr. Vargas for controlling his time. Mr. Speaker, he did a very good job. We certainly welcome him to the committee and look forward to working with him, as we also thank the ranking member, Mr. Brady, for his extraordinary work on behalf of the committee, and we look forward to continuing to work with him.

Obviously, we have a bit of a disagreement, Mr. Speaker, on the committee budget cuts here; but I certainly would also applaud the work of all of our chairmen of our committees, as well as all of the ranking members, who very diligently went through their budgets trying to make the appropriate cuts and will continue to do that now, when this resolution is certainly passed, as we go forward, I think, for all of us, really, trying to create a fiscally responsible level of funding here and, again, something that allocates resources in the very best way that we can, that allows this House to complete its work on behalf of the American people.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would say, I believe that we are leading by example with this resolution today, and we need to show that the important work of government can certainly be done, and we can do it well with less. Doing more with less, that's a very well-used term, but it is certainly appropriate for this, during times of tight budgets.

So I would urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Through numerous budget resolutions and campaign pledges and appearances on Sunday talk shows, the majority has made clear that their vision for America is a vision that says the Nation can no longer care for our seniors, that we must halt vital scientific research and that we should let our bridges and schools crumble because we can't afford to invest in the future.

In short, I believe that it is an extreme and cynical version for America and one that I strongly reject.

For more than a decade, the needs of our country were neglected while the majority led two unfunded wars and gave unaffordable tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, and we now have the cost for the last war in Iraq of $3 trillion borrowed. In all the discussions on the deficit and what bad shape we are in, nobody ever talks about that war and how that has kept us from rebuilding the infrastructure in the United States that cries out for it.

These two decisions unraveled the balanced budget achieved by President Clinton and exploded our Nation's debt. Now after a decade of reckless financial management, the majority is proposing another budget that is as unserious as it is extreme.

Take, for example, the field of scientific research. More than 50 percent of our economic growth since World War II can be attributed to the development and adoption of new technologies, yet the budget proposes drastic cuts to research at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, among others.

As any scientist will tell you--and I am one--you cannot turn research on and off like a faucet. Across the Federal Government, researchers are on the brink of discoveries that could cure diseases or open entire new fields of commerce. But under the majority's budget, that valuable research will be ended and these important discoveries will probably not be made in the United States.

The majority wants to impose such cuts on top of cuts contained in the sequester, even though the effects of the sequester are just beginning to be felt. For example, in the coming weeks, airport control towers will begin to close, affecting flight schedules and stranding travelers. Many of these towers are located in the rural parts of our country where there are no other alternatives for long-distance travel.

In addition, border patrol agents will be furloughed, which not only affects security but the success of our economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, more than $1.3 billion a day in trade crosses the U.S.-Canada border. This trade is dependent upon the effective operation of our border security agents. The effects of the sequester are already impacting trade by causing backups at the border and leaving goods and supplies stranded en route to their destination.

Furthermore, it is often forgotten that 5 years after I-35 collapsed above the Mississippi River, we have still failed to repair our crumbling infrastructure.

Earlier today, the American Society of Civil Engineers released a 2013 report card for America's infrastructure. They found that one in eight bridges in my home State of New York is structurally deficient and one in nine

bridges across the United States is the same. A very prominent engineer stated just this past week that there are bridges in major cities in areas of the United States which he would not cross for fear of falling into the water. At the same time, more and more engineers and transportation experts are warning that our bridges will soon be too unsafe to cross unless we act.

These bridges aren't alone. Everything from schools to airports to train stations and highways are literally crumbling before our eyes.

Water systems in many of the major cities in parts of the United States are almost a century old and almost unusable.

Think, Mr. Speaker, for a moment, think of the jobs that would be created, as badly as we need them to put people back to work, if we could not decide to starve again our country's needs and instead start to rebuild the needs and put people back to work.

I think it's inexcusable that instead of responding to the crisis that we have, the majority spent the last 2 years lurching from crisis to crisis and repeatedly introducing legislation such as today's budget legislation that guts investment in the Nation's infrastructure instead of putting us back to work rebuilding the country.

A telling illustration of the failed approach is that they have included the repeal of the Affordable Care Act as the central tenet of their budget proposal. During the 112th Congress, the majority held more than 30 votes in the last 2 years just to repeal the Affordable Care Act, eating up valuable time and costing taxpayers millions of dollars in the process. Despite this expensive folly, the majority wants to do it again. In order to balance the budget, the majority believes we should repeal the lifesaving law and once again legalize health insurance discrimination based upon preexisting conditions, force young adults off their parents' health insurance and open the doughnut hole for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. Speaker, before we were able to pass the health care bill, eight States and the District of Columbia in the United States considered domestic violence to be a preexisting condition and insurance companies were not required to cover victims. Are we going to go back to that if this repeal is achieved?

The majority also wants to cut financial assistance to students in need. The budget cuts Pell Grant assistance by $83 billion over the next 10 years and allows the interest rates on need-based student loans to double. In a time when we are falling so far behind all other industrial countries in the number of persons who go to college, the United States that used to be first now is about 12th.

By all objective measures, drastic and extreme cuts such as these can be seen as unnecessary cruelty not needed to balance the budget. Indeed, just this past weekend both Speaker Boehner and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said on Sunday television shows that this Nation does not face a debt crisis. When asked about it yesterday, Chairman Ryan indicated that, yes, he had said that.

So despite saying that to everybody, scaring America half to death, keeping businesses from being able to plan the future, they continue to promote a dystopian vision of the future in order to convince Americans that we have to adopt their extreme policies today. It is under this guise that the majority proposes their most extreme transformation of America's social safety net in today's budget.

Once again this year, the majority proposes to end Medicare as we know it and turn the promise of guaranteed health care into a voucher program. Unlike Medicare, the majority voucher program would not guarantee seniors access to the health care they need. I think we thoroughly discussed that last year when it failed and certainly during the last election when it failed. This would drive senior citizens into the market with a defined income that they could use to buy their own insurance if they were physically or mentally able to do so.

This is the same failed proposal, and it has been opposed by Americans, as I said, at the ballot box. But we continue today to defy the wishes of the American people with a quest to end Medicare as we know it, and it should be a telling reminder of where priorities lie.

These extreme cuts stand in sharp contrast to the tax reform contained within their budget. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in order to enact the majority's tax reform and to not increase the deficit, middle class families would have to pay $3,000 more a year and the wealthiest Americans receive a $245,000 tax break.

Once again, the majority has shown they would rather take away vital programs from our Nation's most vulnerable than raise a single dollar in taxes on America's wealthiest citizens.

Mr. Speaker, such a budget is neither original nor serious, nor is it acceptable to the American people. We've been down this road before, and it is discouraging and dangerous that the majority insists that we go down it yet once again. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the majority's budget proposal and today's rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee on the budget, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman another minute.

I'm pleased to yield another minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May I inquire from my colleague if he has further requests.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, my Democrat colleagues and I have spoken at length today about the dangerous shortcomings of the budget proposal of Mr. Ryan. Fortunately, Representative Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, has an alternative proposal that significantly reduces the Nation's deficit while creating jobs and protecting programs like Medicaid and Medicare. And unlike the majority's proposal, Mr. Van Hollen's budget repeals the sequester, which is estimated to cost the Nation 750,000 jobs this year.

Mr. Van Hollen has repeatedly tried to avert the sequester. He has come to the Rules Committee numerous times with proposals to replace the sequester with responsible budget cuts and has been repeatedly denied the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the House floor.

By voting for Mr. Van Hollen's budget, every Member of this Chamber can vote to do away with the sequester. On behalf of the thousands of Americans who are facing pay cuts, furloughs, and job losses, I urge my colleagues to repeal the sequester today and vote to balance the budget in a responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, while the majority would like you to believe that a looming debt crisis is imminent, it is simply not true. Even this last weekend, both Speaker Boehner and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said on television there is no immediate budget crisis facing our Nation. Please think of that, my colleagues, as you vote.

In acknowledging this reality, it is important to realize that it is possible to make investments in our economy today, create jobs, repeal the sequester, and still reduce our deficit in a responsible and balanced way.

In closing, I urge my colleagues not to be scared by the rhetoric that sometimes we hear. Instead, I urge my colleagues to support one of the multiple

budget proposals that reduce our deficit responsibly while creating jobs today and protecting the important programs like Medicaid and Medicare for generations to come.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 115 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 115 represents the next step in a slow march towards making House committees incapable of conducting the oversight with which they are charged and further limiting the power of this equal branch of government.

Mr. Speaker, with these cuts, we are not talking about the loss of new equipment, the next computer, or printer. No. With these cuts, we are talking about gutting our capacity to do the jobs we were sent here to do by the American people. The work product of our committees is only as good as the talented men and women that we are able to employ. And they are very able.

The House is lucky to have such a well-seasoned and skilled group of individuals carrying out the people's business. In fact, this is one of the things we always agree on--the quality of the people that work in these committees. It is at the highest level. But for how long?

If this resolution passes, there will be a 21.3 percent reduction in funding for committees since the 111th Congress. More appalling is the 26 percent cut the Judiciary Committee will sustain during the same time, particularly as they move forward to address comprehensive immigration reform that we all seem to agree on now and the initiatives to reduce gun violence.

As the chairman of the Rules Committee stated last week when he testified before our committee, ``We do not have something we can cut or manage on a moving forward basis. We have by and large taken ourselves down to the bare bones.'' Now we're down to the bare bones. Repeatedly, we heard from committee chairs that the only thing they have left to cut are personnel expenses.

The Veterans' Affairs chairman stated, ``We have no choice but to find these savings in our personnel budget.''

And the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs said:

We want to make certain that those individuals who will

make a sacrifice and come up here and work for a reduced wage

will stay with us. There is a question of how long, deeply,

we can cut.

Of course there is a question, and I think the question is before us.

The chairs and ranking members of the House have been responsible stewards--we have heard that already--and they have been. And they have achieved incredible savings. But this resolution's lack of funding also hurts our ability to find governmentwide cost savings.

In fact, it does just the opposite. The committees conduct oversight over billions and billions of dollars of Federal spending and have found savings within their respective agencies. However, without high quality people that have the institutional knowledge and expertise, they will sacrifice the ability to perform strong, responsible oversight.

The chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee illustrated this best when testifying about the savings his auditors were able to provide the government. He stated:

Cutting back for us is, in fact, an opportunity to lose the

very auditors that will

guarantee you multiple savings. We would like to work with

the committee to allow us and other committees to find

similar savings. But we must ask that you not allow the audit

committee to be reduced when, in fact, we can return you more

than 1,000 times our budget.

One thousand times. In Mark, it is only 100 times. Fourfold in other parts of the Bible. Here is 1,000 times.

Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of the aisle have embraced the idea of doing more with less. We have all grappled with the idea of not filling empty positions, denying requests for travel and forgoing necessary technology upgrades in our offices. But there is a point where additional cuts undermine our ability to do our jobs effectively.

Based upon the testimony that we have received during our committee funding hearings, I believe that there is a bipartisan agreement that this funding resolution could represent that breaking point. In the end, the American people will be the ultimate victims.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the Democratic whip and the former ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

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

First of all, I'd like to thank the chairwoman from the committee. She was very gracious during the committee hearing, and I learned quite a bit from her. I want to thank her for that.

And I, in particular, want to thank the ranking member. The ranking member gave me the opportunity to speak here. That normally doesn't happen to freshmen, and I really appreciate that. He has a reputation of being very gracious and kind, and I appreciate it. It was certainly demonstrated here today.

I do have to respond, however. There was the issue of immorality that was brought up before, and as a former Jesuit, I'm very comfortable with that type of language. And I believe it was said that leaving bills for other generations, future generations, was the most

immoral thing we can do. I certainly would challenge that premise. I think there's a lot more immoral things that we can do. However, when you do take a look at the issue of immorality and saying that we're going to leave this huge deficit, this huge debt to future generations, I think that that is immoral.

However, it's interesting, the argument on the other side is just simply the argument of cuts and not revenue. So, for example, corporate jets, there are loopholes for them now. We could close them. It wouldn't hurt the millionaires and the billionaires to pay taxes on them. It wouldn't hurt them one bit. And that, of course, would cut--it would cut the debt, the deficit that we leave to these future generations, reducing the immorality. We could have the wealthy, instead of paying 12, 13 percent on average, pay what middle class people pay. That certainly would cut the debt and deficit significantly, reducing, once again, the immorality.

But it's interesting, talking about immorality. The Bible certainly speaks to that. In Amos, the prophet Amos, if you look it up, you'll see that Amos speaks about the anawim, and the anawim are God's little ones. The little ones, then, were the orphans and the widows. Because of the condition that they were in, it was very difficult for them to survive. And we then, or at that time, the Israelites, were going to be judged on how they treated the anawim.

That carries forward into the New Testament. If you look in Matthew, Matthew 25, they say: How are we going to be judged? How are we going to be judged?

Jesus makes it easy. He says: whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you did to me. Then he goes through a litany of things. He says: when I was hungry, you gave me to eat; when I was thirsty, you gave me to drink; when I was a stranger--interestingly, when I was a stranger, we're certainly having that conversation with immigrants today--when I was a stranger, you welcomed me; when I was ill, you cured me. Interestingly, too, when I was a prisoner, you came and visited me. It didn't say if you were innocent, by the way. It didn't say that. It said: when I was a prisoner, you came and you visited me. That's how we're going to be judged.

And these budgets, these budgets should go towards those values. That's what's moral, taking care of those that are thirsty and hungry, those that are strangers. And these committees work hard to make sure that happens, and they do a very good job. In fact, no one's argued that they don't; just the opposite. What we have heard from the committee chairs is: don't cut us because we can do even a better job. And not only that, you're loading the work on us.

So I would conclude, and again thank the ranking member and certainly thank the chair for the opportunity. And I would urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution. I appreciate the opportunity, again.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I heard the gentlelady from Michigan's comments. I have three grandchildren of my own and two great grandchildren. The gentlelady said we don't want to turn to them and say, We don't want to pay our bills. You pay them.

That's what we did in '01 and '03. We cut revenues. We cut revenues deeply. We didn't cut spending--we increased spending--on the theory that the people who were going to get the benefit were voting and that the people who were going to get paid and who were going to have to pay the bill weren't voting. It worked to some degree; but we didn't pay, as the gentlelady suggested we ought to, our bills. As the gentlelady probably knows, we had a provision in place which said we ought to pay as we go. If we buy a war, we ought to pay for it. If we buy a tax cut, we ought to pay for it. If we buy a prescription drug, we ought to pay for it and not ask my children or my grandchildren or your children or your grandchildren to pay for it. I agree with the lady, but that's what we've done.

Now we are about the process of undermining the people's government by slashing its funding so it cannot provide the services that the people want and need and vote for, and now we will slash the ability of this House to do what the people expect us to do. I'm sorry the former Secretary of State left the Chamber. He's the Secretary of State. He says we ought to lead by example. By golly, I'll tell you: the people in my constituency, they hope we're not the example of how to work. They hope we're not the example of the dysfunction that they ought to follow, that we're not the example of ``do it my way or no way,'' which is what we've been doing.

The people of the United States of America send us here, and they want us to make sure that we adopt policies that will help them and their families, that will create jobs and grow our economy. That's what they want. What the people of the United States also want is to make sure we can conduct the oversight of their government. That's our responsibility. The previous gentleman said, Well, the executive ought to lead, and then we wouldn't need to do oversight. I didn't get that, frankly, at all. The executive is a separate and equal branch of government, but we are the first branch of government. We are article I. We are the people's House. We represent the people, and they expect us to make sure their government is operating properly. To the extent that year after year we reduce our ability to conduct the oversight necessary to ensure that the people's government is operating consistent with law and on behalf of the people of the United States-- to the extent that we undermine that ability--we undermine free government, a free people, a free country.

We undermine the ability of this government to make sure that the executive is doing the right thing. And to the extent that the population of this country keeps growing, as it does every year, it needs us to be on the job. And what we're saying, of course, is: Well, we have a sequester. Sequester starts with ``S''; it stands for stupid. It is an irrational policy that we've adopted. And we've adopted it. It just didn't happen. It didn't come out of the air. It didn't fall from the trees. We adopted sequester. It's an irrational, ineffective, inefficient, negative policy that we've not only allowed to go into place, but in the budget we passed, we adopted it one more time, not by mistake but by policy. It was a bad policy. I didn't vote for it. It's irrational.

I tell people around the country, you know, it's like the family has a budget. You have a food budget and you have a movie budget. Somebody loses their job and so your income goes down. So what you do is you sit around the table and say: We'll cut food by 10 percent and movies by 10 percent. What rational human being would do that? Nobody. They'd say we're not going to go to the movies this month so we can put food on the table and make sure that our family is well fed.

But that's not what we're doing. The sequester that we're now pursuing, somewhat mindlessly, in my opinion, with respect to our ability to do the job that the people expect us to do, is to cut food by 10 percent and movies by 10 percent.

My friends, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I want the American people to know we've cut committee funding for 2 years in a row because we understand that we're asking everybody to notch in their belt by one or two notches, and we ought to do the same. And we have. But if you undermine the people's ability to do their job, you're going to be in trouble.

Woodrow Wilson once wrote: ``Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition.''

That's what we are here, we're on public exhibition. The TV is on, people are watching us, and people are seeing us.

But what Woodrow Wilson also said was: ``Whilst Congress in committee rooms is Congress at work.''

That's where we really do our work. We vote on it here, but committees are critically important creatures of oversight and of action.

I think the gentlelady is a good Member of this House, and she's been given a tough responsibility. She laments the fact that we have no money. We have no money because we said we didn't need it; we have no money because we can operate government without it.

Mr. Speaker, I hear your gavel, and I will close, but I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. Let's make sure that the Congress of the United States can do the job that the people expect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this committee funding bill, which would hurt the ability of Congress to do its work effectively.

This bill would cut the funding for House Committees by an additional 11% in order to meet the irrational demands of sequestration--on top of huge cuts imposed last Congress.

Committees have lost around a quarter of their funding in the past few years, and this has meant fewer staff positions and the possibility of furloughs.

Most, I think, do not realize just how important committees are to the work we perform on the American people's behalf.

Woodrow Wilson once wrote:

Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition,

whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress at work.

Eroding the ability of committees to do their work seriously limits the ability of Congress to engage in the people's work.

The Speaker and majority leader have said many times that this House ought to follow regular order.

To do so, we must have strong and fully functioning committees.

I urge my colleagues in both parties to oppose this bill.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Just so we're pretty accurate, as the gentlelady knows, your side offered a bill which was called Cut, Cap, and Balance. The alternative in Cut, Cap, and Balance was sequester. I didn't vote for that. I'm not sure how the gentlelady voted on it. It passed this House overwhelmingly with Republican support and with opposition on our side before Jack Lew suggested to Harry Reid that that might be one way to get off the lack of action in making sure that America paid its bills. The only reason I interrupt the gentlelady is because I think it is important to understand that your Cut, Cap, and Balance, passed before that suggestion was made, included sequester as the fallback if we didn't reach the numbers. If it's the President's, it's the President's via Cut, Cap, and Balance which your side of the aisle passed and sent to the Senate as presumably good policy.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. She was very kind to do that.