Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

The House will consider at least two bills under suspension of the rules on Monday, which will be announced by the close of business today. On Tuesday, we expect to consider a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government for another 3 weeks. On Wednesday, the House will consider one or possibly two more bills from the Financial Services Committee addressing mandatory spending: H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Modification Program Termination Act; and H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act. Finally, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the House will consider a concurrent resolution sponsored by Mr. Kucinich related to the War Powers Resolution.

As the gentleman knows, our majority is committed to the process of providing a 3-day notice for all Members, as well as their constituents, to see what we will be voting on. The Appropriations Committee is busy preparing the text of that, and it will be presented online this afternoon. The details will be in that online version this afternoon.

Yes. I would say to the gentleman that is correct.

Well, I would say to the gentleman, we certainly look forward to the Senate acting expeditiously and acting quickly on the House's 3-week extension. Assuming that goes as well, the gentleman is correct in assuming that we will not be in session next Friday.

I would agree with the gentleman that, yes, as he and I have discussed, we intend for the 3-week extension to maintain the current formula upon which we are operating today, and that is a reduction of spending of $2 billion per week. I expect the Appropriations Committee, again, to introduce a 3-week, short-term extension cutting $2 billion per week later this afternoon, consistent with the House position as spelled out in H.R. 1.

I thank the gentleman.

First of all I want to respond to the first part of the gentleman's discussions regarding Mr. Zandi and the other individuals he spoke to regarding the predictions of doom because of our position on H.R. 1.

I would say to the gentleman, and as he knows, there are as many economists, certainly several hundred, who signed a letter indicating that the cuts were not something that would produce the results that Mr. Zandi and others have predicted.

In fact, it's Mr. Zandi's math that was applicable to the stimulus bill that I think most Americans do know now failed in the promises made that we would see unemployment not rise above 8 percent.

Again, the gentleman and I have had a discussion before that if the answer was just spend more government taxpayer dollars to create jobs, why don't we just go spend it all and then everybody will be employed again. Well, we know that's not true and that doesn't work.

We also know that Chairman Bernanke did not agree with the predictions of the kinds of cuts that Mr. Zandi and others have predicted, according to his testimony. Certainly we believe, very strongly, that if you cut government spending, we create an environment for private sector jobs.

And to the gentleman's direct question about when we can proceed with a longer term solution so that we do not have to continue operating in stopgap ways, I would say to the gentleman, as he knows, it's not just the House, it's trying to work with the Senate as well as the White House.

The Senate did act this week, and we now know that the Senate rejects our $60 billion, approximately $60 billion cut off of 2010 levels, and it also rejected the proposed $10 billion worth of cuts by Leader Reid. In fact, there were more votes in favor of the $60 billion H.R. 1 level than there were for the $10 billion level off of current spending.

The problem is the White House has not indicated where it wants to go. And as we both have discussed before, as I have told the gentleman, I just don't see where the leadership is on the part of the White House.

It is obviously up to the White House to come to the table as well, as the President has got to sign the bill. We agree it is much better for us to be operating with some certainty and not have to be operating off of stopgap measures every several weeks. But we don't want to shut government down, we want to cut spending.

If this is how we are able to do it, we are going to deliver on that promise to cut spending. But I do share with the gentleman the frustration that we don't see any type of coalescence around a notion that we should have some type of longer term agreement on this fiscal year.

I say to the gentleman again, it is the House that has taken the position that we want to see cuts of approximately $60 billion off of current 2010 levels. The Senate said it wanted to cut $10 billion off of 2010 levels.

There is a $50 billion difference here. What we believe is we need to do everything we can to try to figure out how to do more with less in Washington.

The American public sent us to Washington to spend their money the way they would. I think most people also, certainly our conference, believe you cut government spending, you create private sector jobs. That's what we are about. We are waiting to see what position the White House will take so that we can move forward and begin the job that we are supposed to be about right now, which is the next fiscal year.

As the gentleman knows, we are here because, unfortunately, the last Congress did not pass a budget, did not pass appropriations bills. We are trying to clean up that mess.

So we are waiting to see what the White House's position is so we can begin to see how we can maximize efficiencies in government, cut spending,

so that we can see more private sector jobs.

First of all, the problem is that the $10 billion off of current spending, that that is the largest cut that has ever been proposed since the gentleman has been in Congress, that's the problem. That's the problem.

I'm told the gentleman has a lot of those.

Yes.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly the problem still. Because, as the gentleman alludes, we have over a trillion and a half dollar deficit this year alone. I understand the gentleman's point about there being just a smaller piece of the budget from which these cuts are being taken. But the bottom line is, that's the problem. We've got to work harder to cut more so that private sector jobs can be created.

I would say to the gentleman two things: One, I look forward to his support, then, of the budget that we bring forward, because we are, as the gentleman knows, going to be dealing with how to reform the entitlement programs, which are the significant driver of deficits into the future as he knows. So I do look forward to that. We will be dealing with that within a month's time. I look forward to that debate.

But I would lastly say, Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman know what kind of cuts the Senate can support at the 60-vote level? Because I don't. So I don't see a counteroffer there. I don't see a position that the Senate or the gentleman's side of the aisle has taken. I don't see the President having come down at a level that is acceptable at all because he hasn't come down to a level.

This is the problem, Mr. Speaker. We have made our position known. The House wants to cut 60 some billion dollars off of the 2010 levels or $100 billion off of the 2011 proposals. We don't want the status quo. We want to continue to cut spending. We can't come to any agreement when the other side doesn't come forward with any offer, and that's why we have been forced into this situation where we are once again proposing a stopgap measure so that we can see the government operate, so it doesn't shut down, in the name of trying to do more with less.

I thank the gentleman again.

Not to belabor the point, but I did say, Mr. Speaker, that there were not 60 votes in the Senate for the offer he speaks of. In fact, there were more votes for the $60 billion off of the current funding levels that is our plan. So there is really no offer on the table that is valid because it can't pass the Senate.

What is the Democratic Senate's offer on the table? The gentleman rightfully says it is up to us in Congress. The people elect us to try and come together and agree upon a spending plan. What is the offer? There is no offer that could pass in the Senate. We passed the House version. We know where the House stands. So I'm just having difficulty in understanding where the offer is.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has made his points. He is frustrated because he sees there is no movement because the Senate has been unable to get an offer on the table that can garner 60 votes. So the gentleman wants us to negotiate with ourselves. No. We want to cut spending and keep the government open. That's why we're in the position we are, to do another stopgap measure so that we can hopefully iron out some differences, cooperate in trying to keep the government open, and cut spending so that people in the private sector get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, last November, Americans sent a clear message of defiance to the status quo. They saw that government was spending taxpayer money recklessly and making it harder for our job creators to put Americans back to work--and they voted for something better.

House Republicans have responded by doing everything in our power to foster an environment where businesses can expand, investors can invest, and hard work can be rewarded. That means cutting excessive spending and burdensome regulations and growing private-sector jobs and the economy.

Today we are cleaning up the mess resulting from oppressive new 1099 requirements.

Tucked into Obamacare and a so-called small business bill last year, these regulations threaten to wreak havoc upon small businesses. They have become a symbol of the unanticipated pitfalls of big government and partisan legislative procedure.

In this challenging climate, businesses should be able to focus on staying profitable and looking for opportunities to grow. Instead they are being asked to divert precious time and resources to satisfy yet another layer of red tape from Washington.

By repealing these ill-conceived requirements, we take a big step toward putting America back on a growth footing. We reaffirm that this Congress will no longer finance the expansion of government on the backs of our small businesses, America's economic engine.

The United States is the creative capital of the world. We have the most innovative entrepreneurs and the most determined and resilient workforce.

Our businesses and our people have proven that they can out-innovate and out-compete any country in the world. But they can't do it if Washington keeps making it harder for them. And they can't do it if they are plagued by fears of excessive regulation, higher taxes and inflation.

Our job as legislators is to create opportunity--to restore the principle that everyone in America has a fair shot.

That's why it is imperative that we cut needless regulation and bring spending down to sustainable levels. And that's why it is incumbent upon us to support this legislation to make sure small businesses aren't bogged down in needless paperwork so that they can grow and create jobs. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4.

I thank the Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the House will meet at 2 p.m. for morning hour and 4 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business, and recess immediately. The House will reconvene at approximately 11 a.m. for the purpose of receiving, in a joint meeting with the Senate, the Honorable Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia. On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with last votes expected by 3 p.m.

The House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules on Tuesday and possibly Wednesday, which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. The House will also consider two bills that were marked up by the Financial Services Committee today: H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act, and H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act. These bills will eliminate two ineffective mandatory programs that, without congressional action, will continue spending on autopilot.

The House has already had a robust debate on the discretionary side of Federal spending, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to do so, but it's time we turn our attention also to the mandatory side of government spending. I expect further debate on mandatory spending throughout the month of March.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And to the gentleman's specific question about next week, I would respond to the gentleman that we are working with the Rules Committee and its chairman, Chairman Dreier, to be able to announce an open process for the consideration of next week's bills.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman also indicated in his remarks the preprinting requirement in the CR of H.R. 1 provided for it to be a modified rule. And it is in that spirit that I think the Speaker initially began this session, that we are committed to an open process, to have the ventilation of ideas, to have the participation of as many Members as possible in debate of measures coming to the floor. We continue to want to go in that direction, as we have thus far.

I thank the gentleman for raising the point that did come up during the debate of H.R. 1. I would say back to the gentleman that it is probably a very good discussion to take place within the context of the Rules Committee. And we look forward to having that discussion with the gentleman as well.

I thank the gentleman. And as the gentleman has already pointed out, the House, Mr. Speaker, has produced its position in H.R. 1. The difficulty is the Senate has failed to produce a Senate position. So there really is very little foundation upon which to engage in any discussion as to how we are going to get through the remainder of the fiscal year. I know that the minority leader was recently today out saying that the position on the part, I guess, of the Senate, and perhaps your caucus, is that there is a desire to bring about $41 billion of cuts.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, $40 billion is not a cut. That's the status quo. And that's been our position all along, is we want to make sure we change the status quo, that we actually do what most Americans are having to do, which is tighten the belt and to cut spending in order to get this economy going.

So I am saying to the gentleman we would encourage the Senate and Leader Reid to act so that we can move forward. And until then, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Maryland that I would expect the House to continue its process of cutting $2 billion per week until we can see where the gentleman's caucus and then the Democratic leader in the Senate is.

I would say to the gentleman that the Pledge to America said that we were desirous of reducing discretionary spending, non- security spending, to '08 levels.

I would say back to the gentleman, as he knows, the figure of $100 billion was taken from the difference between the President's FY11 request and the '08 levels, which is how that figure has become.

So I would say to the gentleman, if he is trying to make the point about 100 versus 61, the gentleman is accurate when he says that the $100 billion of cuts off the 2011 request by the President is the same as $61 billion of cuts against the current level of spending at FY10 levels.

So if I could make the gentleman's point for him, which is exactly why I say that insistence upon $41 billion or $40 billion in cuts is nothing but defense of the status quo. That's what I would say to the gentleman. That's unacceptable to our side. It's unacceptable to the American people.

I would respond to the gentleman that we have already discussed the math here. The problem is the American people are waiting for us to act. If the gentleman knows the position of Senator Reid and where he would like to go, other than maintain the status quo, then that's what we are looking for. The House has made its position known.

Its position, again, is $100 billion off the 2011 request or $61 billion off the

2010 levels of current spending. We have maintained that position all along, Mr. Speaker, that freezing spending at today's level is unacceptable. It will bankrupt us if we continue to spend at these levels. We have got to begin to show some fiscal restraint so we can get people back to work in this country.

I am delighted to hear the gentleman say we need to cut more, and I am hopeful that we can continue to see progress on that front. But thus far, the gentleman's colleagues and all of our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, Senator Reid, has not indicated where his position is. That's what we need to know to move forward.

I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman know of any position having been taken, any vote that has been taken in the Senate to indicate where they are and whether they have come off their position of defending the status quo?

Again, I would say to the gentleman, his leader, the minority leader, earlier today was in the press indicating that that is her position. She wants to defend the status quo, $41 billion in cuts. There is not a cut on the current level of spending.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have had similar conversations over the last couple of years. I really think it is best for all of us to see how we are going forward, not looking back. I know the gentleman would make the suggestion we could learn from past history. I am all about that.

But what I could say, Mr. Speaker, is we need a position by the other side in order to go forward so we can actually do what the American people want, which is to cut spending from current levels.

I would say to the gentleman, first of all, as to his suggestion about our adding to uncertainty and perhaps facilitating a government shutdown, we have said all along we do not want to shut down the government. We want to cut spending. And as I've said before to the gentleman, it is our intention to continue to go forward reducing spending at the rate of $2 billion a week until we can see some signal from the Senate that they're serious about wanting to cut spending.

As for the gentleman's inquiry about hearings on specific cuts, as to a potential bill that will govern the route forward for the rest of the fiscal year, I would bring the gentleman's attention to ongoing hearings now as we proceed throughout this fiscal year about the 2012 budget and spending that we should be about anyway.

And let us not forget the reason why we find ourselves where we are is because the majority from the 111th Congress did not finish the business of this fiscal year, which, again, is why we find ourselves in the position of these expiring short-term CRs.

We are dedicated to the notion of open process, as the gentleman knows, and I know he shares that goal as well, and we will continue to operate in that manner.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I would say I am always mindful of opinion makers, commentators, and economists and their view as to what's going on here in Washington. But I would say to the gentleman, I think we've been down the road that the gentleman suggests is preferable before. We, on this floor, passed a nearly $800

billion stimulus bill, at least on the gentleman's side passed it, and we saw the effects of spending that kind of money did not produce the kind of job creation that was desired or was promised. And if I recall, some of the economists that the gentleman refers to probably were ones that supported the notion that the stimulus bill would make sure that unemployment didn't exceed 8 percent if we went ahead and spent that money. I think we've tried that before.

The gentleman also knows that we are borrowing nearly 40 cents out of every dollar we are spending. That is unsustainable. And so if the gentleman's focus is to spend more money from Washington to create jobs, then essentially we are creating jobs and paying people we can't afford to pay.

So what the position is from our side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, is we want to be honest with the people. We want to look for long-term solutions that get this economy going again.

We all know that most jobs are created in the private sector. We all know that most jobs come from the entrepreneurial aspirations of the people of this country. It is they who continue to point to Washington as the problem. It is they who say that government's explosive growth, government's continued and increasing appetite for capital is making it so we can't see investment occur here in this country. And if you want to fix the economy, deal with the deficit. That's what we're trying to do, Mr. Speaker.

I would just say to the gentleman--and thank you for the courtesy of yielding--that is exactly why we are turning to mandatory spending next week. As the gentleman knows, we'll be fast on the discussion of the budget as well. As the gentleman knows and can expect that our budget will approach the issue of entitlements, and we feel it very necessary for us to begin that discussion. And, frankly, we're dismayed by the fact that the White House did not include any mention or discussion or did not deal with entitlements in its budget proposal.

So we hope, and I know the gentleman is earnest in his desire to want to try and deal with the deficit both on the discretionary and the mandatory side. I look forward to working with him toward that end.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. tomorrow; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday, March 8, 2011, when it shall convene at 2 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 4 p.m. for legislative business; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 9.

Madam Chairman, I will be brief.

First of all, I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks and their incredible staff for the leadership and amazing endurance that they have displayed through this process.

Madam Chairman, they, along with the staff of the Parliamentarian's Office, the Clerk's office, the Congressional Budget Office, the Sergeant at Arms Office, many of the leadership offices, Members' offices, and of course the Capitol Police, have been working around the clock, literally, in order for us to facilitate this debate. So I thank all of the staff.

Madam Chairman, we've had an extraordinary debate, and I want to thank the Members for their patience, their enthusiasm, and their participation in this remarkable development of events in this debate.

{time}

I would say to Members that all of us want to finish and complete this bill today.

Madam Chairman, I would say, as Members know, we are operating under a unanimous consent agreement; and under that agreement, we still have 18 hours of debate and 103 amendments to go. Now, while none of us want to restrict anyone's ability to speak their piece and voice their opinions, certainly a lot has been said throughout the last 80-some hours of discussion on this bill, so I would ask Members to be mindful of the prudence of being concise and expeditious in their remarks. If we proceed in that vein, Madam Chairman, perhaps we could finish at a reasonable hour this evening.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Maryland, as he and I have discussed throughout the day, we have asked Members to continue to be judicious in their remarks if we want to get out of here at a reasonable hour, that we have been at this for at least 90 hours, and we continue to debate these amendments. We will anticipate votes again within 2 hours, and we will continue the votes throughout the evening.

I would say to the gentleman, again, it depends on how Members feel, on the other side of the aisle as well as ours, as to how expeditious they want their remarks to be. We've been at this, again, for 90 hours. We intend to have votes again probably within a couple of hours after midnight, and we will proceed along those lines.

I would say to the gentleman, the gentleman understands and knows that we have throughout the day offered to reduce debate time; and the gentleman also knows that the majority of the amendments on his side have been debated. If the gentleman is prepared at this point to accept our offer to reduce the amount of time from 10 minutes per amendment down to 6 or 5, I think we could get that done as well.

If the gentleman would yield.

Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts may have somewhat of a short memory given that, in December, we had a vote on a CR for 1 hour under a closed rule. So, with that, just a little reminder.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Members we have got one more amendment in this series of votes, after which we are looking at a debate time of about 1 hour. So I would advise the Members that it would probably be best to stay close to the Chamber, because we would expect the final series of votes on this bill and for the day to be within 1 hour.

Amendment No. 164 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, Planned Parenthood receives a third of its $1.1 billion budget from taxpayer dollars. The opposition to this amendment continues to say that this is not about Federal funding of abortion, which the Hyde amendment prohibits. We all know, however, that money is fungible. Taxpayer dollars are going to keep the lights on and the doors open and to pay for things which frees up money for abortions. Recently, Planned Parenthood has been caught red-handed in several different clinics, including one in my hometown of Richmond, aiding and abetting sex trafficking and prostitution of minors.

Now the other side continues to say that Planned Parenthood has a right to operate. They don't have a right to do that. You cannot argue that an organization that engages in patterns of conduct such as those revealed in the videos seen in clinics such as that in my hometown, you cannot argue that an organization like that cares about the rights of women and girls it purports to serve.

So, Mr. Chairman, I ask you: Why on Earth are we giving $363 million in taxpayer funds every year to Planned Parenthood? It is time to say no more. The time has come to respect the wishes of a vast majority of Americans who adamantly oppose giving taxpayer dollars for abortion. That is why I support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and that is why I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

No votes are expected in the House on Friday.

The House will consider two bills next week. On Monday, the House will consider H.R. 514, a bill to extend for the short term three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005.

As the gentleman knows, we passed a rule for its consideration yesterday. The balance of the week will be spent on H.R. 1, a bill to fund the government through the remainder of the fiscal year. And I yield back.

I will say to the gentleman from Maryland that he is correct. We expect to abide by the calendar and the provisions set for it therein, intending to depart here by 3 p.m. on Thursday of next week.

I would say to the gentleman, 302(a) always was intended to be spending brought down to 2008 levels or less. And that is the intention of the bill that will come to the floor next week, H.R. 1, that we will abide by our commitment to reduce discretionary nonsecurity spending by $100 billion for the remainder of the fiscal year.

I would say to the gentleman, it is very straightforward. The next action of the committee will be to file the bill. The bill will be put online this evening for the public to see, for Members to review, so that we abide by the rules of this House which require for a 3-day layover prior to taking up a bill for debate on the floor of the House.

The gentleman is correct.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished life and achievements of the Honorable Leroy R. Hassell, Sr., former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, who passed away this week at the very young age of 55. While he left us in the prime of his life, his compassion and commitment to justice will leave a lasting impression on the judicial system and the world beyond the bench.

A Norfolk native, he grew up in Broad Creek and attended Norview High School. He graduated from the University of Virginia and earned his law degree from Harvard Law School. He then returned to Richmond where he quickly rose through the ranks to become partner at McGuire Woods, one of Virginia's largest law firms.

After graduating from William and Mary Law School and passing the Virginia bar, I remember when Governor Gerald Baliles nominated him to the Virginia Supreme Court in 1989. At the age of 34, Justice Hassell became the second African American justice on the court after John Charles Thomas. In 2002, his colleagues elected him to serve as Chief Justice, making him Virginia's first African American Chief Justice. Remarkably, he was the first leader of the high court chosen by his peers rather than through seniority. At the time, he was also the youngest serving member of the court.

Chief Justice Hassell always had a great love of law. He was a man of faith and deep personal convictions. He cared deeply about the people of the Commonwealth and was passionate about helping others. He was a tireless advocate for the poor and the mentally ill and fought hard to make the courts more accessible and more equitable.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in remembering Justice Hassell, a lifelong public servant and powerful voice for all Virginians.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, over the past 2 years, the legislative schedule of this House was dominated by spending money, not cutting spending. But after the people voiced their displeasure in November, the discussion in this town is now focused on rolling back the unchecked growth of government and Federal expenditures.

Our majority is dedicated to cut and grow: cutting spending and job- destroying regulations; growing private sector jobs and the economy.

Yesterday, we directed the Budget Committee chairman to set spending levels so we return non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels or below.

Today, the American public, through the YouCut program, has put on the chopping block an example of unnecessary government waste. Specifically, this bill would eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, an outdated mechanism that provides Federal tax dollars to candidates in Presidential primaries in the form of matching funds and general elections and subsidies for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

Eliminating this program would save taxpayers $617 million over 10 years and would require candidates and political parties to rely on private contributions rather than tax dollars.

In times when government has no choice but to do more with less, voting to end the Presidential Election Campaign Fund should be a no- brainer. I

urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure.

I thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, November 2 marked the culmination of a long, arduous and ultimately clarifying debate over the kind of role government should play in the economy. By overwhelming margins, voters rejected an approach that spends money we don't have and concentrates too much control and power in Washington.

Instead, they voted for a better way.

Republicans are determined to deliver results by instilling a culture of opportunity, responsibility, and success. Our majority is dedicated to cut and grow: cut spending and job-destroying regulations, grow private sector jobs and the economy.

Today, we have the opportunity to take a significant step towards repairing America's deteriorating fiscal condition. This resolution directs the Budget Committee chairman to set spending levels so we return non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels or below.

If you think the government didn't spend enough money in 2008, then oppose this resolution; go on record for more spending, more borrowing, and more debt. But, Madam Speaker, if you believe we are spending too much money, then I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It represents a clean break with the past and an end to the unchecked growth of Federal spending and government, and it is worthy of our support.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 21 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 26, 2010, at 10 a.m.